i eat therefore i am but seriously, i believe the dude that said that if you think that means you exist. seems logical.
I believe that any system which can accurately simulate a sentient being IS sentient. E.g. if a computer program can act exactly like a human being, that computer program is conscious and has the illusion of a first-person perspective on reality. So, even if you're just a figment of my imagination, you're a sentient, thinking figment. Of course, to be sure that you are a sentient thinking figment, I'd have to interact with you directly and be sure that you were able to really act like a sentient being.
But, you'd be determining what first-person sentience is by first distinguishing the part of yourself that makes you sentient in the first-person in the first place.
No, all that a person (#1) would have found by interacting with another sentient being (#2) is this: Person 1 has had, at very minimum, the illusion of interacting with person 2. Perhaps person 1 truly did interact with person 2, and person 2 had "real" reactions, but that can never be proved. Person 1 can only ever know that he, himself, felt to have interacted with person 2. It is quite POSSIBLE that person 2 is purely a figment of person 1's imagination. Nothing can ever PROVE otherwise.....regardless of kicking people in the nuts, or eating. Nothing can ever PROVE you to be truly existent as a human on earth, or as anything more than a figment of my imagination. EDIT: In that statement, you assume that the other being is replicating a sentient being. Change your outlook....perhaps you are producing the image of it as a sentient being. There is no proof one way or another. And about the computer, acting a part does not constitute being the part. A computer that acts as though it has a conscious is not necessarily conscious. There is a line between programmed and self created. Until that computer reacts to stimuli in a fashion beyond what it was immediately programmed to do, it is not human-like. EDIT: PS. "But, you'd be determining what first-person sentience is by first distinguishing the part of yourself that makes you sentient in the first-person in the first place." Suck that diction.
I acknowledge that it's impossible to know whether person 2 has a real existence. What I'm saying is that I believe even if person 2 is imaginary, person 2 still is sentient and has subjective experience. Even if I'm producing the image of it as a sentient being, that means there is a computation going on in my head which is capable of simulating a sentient being. So there's a consciousness there. It's certainly not MY consciousness, though it might be linked to my true mental nature somehow. It's still a sentient being. What I said was I believe that if a computer can simulate a human, it is sentient. The computer IS human-like, because I've assumed that it is. I've assumed that it can accurately simulate a human being in all respects. In the case of consciousness, I do believe that acting the part constitutes being the part. For example, one might simulate a virtual human brain using an electrochemical physics simulator on a computer. That computer program carries out exactly the same computations as a human brain. It is conscious. I don't even believe it's necessary to carry out the exact same computations, though. I'm a functionalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)). If the computer can act like a sentient being, it's sentient. Similarly, if the figment of my imagination can act sentient, it is.
naw man. a computer is only a free as what you have programmed for it. so no. damn dude, if you really ever study philosophy, i hope you dont ever voice that opinion, for your sake.
I assume you think your brain has some special ability to act indeterminately? What about my electrochemical brain simulating computer? Do you deny that it's possible to simulate a human brain with a computer program? Sure, the computer would have to be more powerful than any computer we can currently dream of, but it's logically possible, isn't it? Your brain is only as free as what it's programmed for. It's made of molecules. Each and every one of these molecules obeys the laws of physics. The electrical impulses running through your neurons obey the laws of electrodynamics. What part of your brain do you suppose has the magic ability to defy the laws of physics? I really am studying philosophy. Did you click on the wikipedia link I posted? Functionalism is a position held by many well-respected philosophers of mind. Many have voiced that opinion, and are currently doing quite well in the philosophy world.
no. thats like talking about traveling at the speed of light. its "logically" possible, but pointless to debate since it doesnt exist as of now. kierkegaard is also very well respected. doesnt mean his ideas are valid. almost as hardcore as having 38 online friends. how many friends do you have in real life bkadoctaj?
I can't believe that no one has said, "Cogito ergo sum." I think, therefore I am. How can you not be real, how can you not exist if you are conscious? How can you think and not be extant?
No, faster than light travel is logically impossible according to relativity. I've asked you twice now, what is it about your brain that you think is special and somehow different from a computer? You have a soul? Quantum tubes in your neurons? What? The brain is nothing more than a wet parallel computer running a serial virtual machine. You seemed to suggest ("for your sake") that if I voiced that opinion I would be laughed out of philosophy. But indeed, whether or not you believe it's valid, functionalism is a popular philosophical theory. Even the people that disagree with it at least present arguments against it, which shows that they don't think it's just a crazy crackpot theory. You, on the other hand, just imply that it's a crazy idea without providing any argument other than that you're right by fiat. You're the one that would be laughed out of philosophy.
i never said faster than the speed of light. if you truly believe that a machine can be conscious, then there is no point arguing anymore is there? its like me saying, there is a jesus, and you saying, there isnt. we're not gonna come to an agreement. maybe.
Descartes' favored proposition ("cogito ergo sum" had to be discarded due to methodological reasons) was "Ego sum, ego existo; certum est."—"I am, I exist; this is certain". Descartes' says "...this proposition 'I am, I exist', is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind". I believe this is true. If a thinking being considers the truth of the statement "I am", that statement is true. Perhaps you can argue about whether you actually can ask yourself "Am I?", but if you can ask that question, it is always true. [edit]: Ah, yes, you're right, you didn't. But light-speed travel is also logically impossible. Since I've asked you three times and you've refused to even attempt an answer, I'll assume you have absolutely no idea what it is that makes your brain special, and therefore agree with you: no point in arguing anymore. I usually enjoy arguments more when the opponent actually has a position to argue about.
uh, no its not. you obviously stopped reading descartes too early. you know what they say about assuming... if thats what you actually believe, im just saving my effort in trying to debate with you.
Descartes' entire program is built upon the foundation of this single proposition. He clearly states that this proposition is always true whenever I put it forth in my mind. What exactly are you referring to that I missed in Descartes? I don't understand why we can't argue about this. Lots of philosophers are arguing about it right now. You could try the chinese room against me. Or, heck, we could dredge up some zombies. It's not at all like "there is a jesus"-"no there isn't". Though if you just don't feel like arguing about it, that's cool.
maybe we should start over, hi, im scoob, and im an arrogant asshole. dont take anything i say personally. and the only flaw in believing that you exist simply because you are conscious, is that yes, we can know we are conscious, but we must not place too much stock into that, because there is no way to prove that we are conscious or that we exist. if may use descartes even more: (ive used this model in the philosophy forum once before) honestly, there is no such thing as "evidence". in such a debate, we must uphold the truth rule, which states that you must withhold your ascent to any opinion of which are you are not completely certain. any information we gain through experience can not be trusted enough to ever be "proof". there are five reasons why we can not trust anything gained through experience. 1. the deceptions of the senses. point 1. i know that my sense have deceived me before. point 2. i ought not to completely trust that which has deceived me. __________________________________________________ ________ conclusion: i ought not to trust completely trust extrinsic information given to me through the senses. 2. insanity. point 1. some people have minds that are damaged in such a way that they are led to believe false claims of themselves. point 2. i can not prove that i am not insane __________________________________________________ _________ conclusion: i ought not to trust what my senses tell me about myself. 3. dreaming. point 1. i often have dreaming experiences that seem fantastical and "unreal". point 2. there is no way to distinguish between dreaming and waking life. point 3. i do not place trust in my dreams. __________________________________________________ _________ conclusion: i can not trust information given to me during waking life. 4. omnipotent god. point 1. god has the power to make me such that i go wrong everytime i do something i think is right, without me being able to tell. point 2. god does allow me to be deceived sometimes. point 3. i ought not to trust those that deceive me. __________________________________________________ __________ conclusion: i can not rule out that i have a defective nature such that im always wrong even when i think im right. 5. evil genius. point 1. if an evil genius was employing all his cunning in order to deceive me, i would not be able to tell. point 2. if i can not know whether an evil genius is deceiving me, then i can not rule it out. __________________________________________________ __________ conclusion: i can not trust what i sense or reason. well there you go. basically, no one can prove anything. so we shouldnt place to much stock in our consciousness.
That was a great summary of Descartes' skepticism! But, right after he does that, he demonstrates the truth rule for the very first time by saying "I am, I exist; this is certain." Descartes absolutely believes this is true without any doubt whatsoever. To him, the knowledge "I am" is not gained by experience, but is simply true by the very fact that it has been proposed. And, also, he goes on to prove God exists and since God isn't a deceiver we can generally trust our senses in most cases. But that part of his argument is bullshit... [edit]: btw, it's cool, I'm an arrogant asshole too
I never stated that I am not real....I stated that you are not real. Even if "I think, therefore I am" is true...then "You think, therefore you are".....it ain't provable that you DO think, so.... "Maybe you think, therefore maybe you are"....which begs; "Maybe you don't think, therefore maybe you aren't"...which then leads to the POSSIBILITY of "You don't think, therefore you aren't"....that is possible....you aren't "I think, therefore I am" leads the possibility of "You don't think, therefore you aren't".