What is the worst idea in philosophy?

[Z]

[mode=iacchus]When you turn off your computer, where does your desktop go? Surely it doesn't just cease - when you turn it on, it comes back! When your computer dies, your desktop must go somewhere, right??[/mode]

'Personality' is nothing but the output of a program within the human mind, Iacchus. When the hardware dies, the software dies.

 

[Throg]

That still doesn't tell us about the life which was experienced, because John's not there to tell us about it.
Of what dimension does the experience of John reside then? The closest we could come to that would be to ask where John goes when he sleeps or, let's say he's in a coma? He's obviously not available to us at that time. In fact he must be in a similar state represented by death. So, where has John gone? Well, come to find out John is alive and well and fully participating in this other reality known as the dream state ... a reality which (without a doubt), is wholly experiential unto itself. Doesn't that sound just the least bit strange? By the way, where do computers go when they "sleep?"

The life was experienced by the organism to to which the name John was attached and which showed a cluster of behaviours which was abstracted as personality by observers (including the organism himself).

Does this tell you that John is nothing more than just his body? No, in fact it doesn't.

Does this tell you that John is nothing more than just his body? No, in fact it doesn't.

Are you asking if the fact that John's corpse doesn't tell me about his experiences while he was alive tells me that he was something more than a body? Well, John the person was never a dead body prior to being being dead. Living John was in fact a live body which produced a cluster of behaviours so I ascribed personality to him. Dead John does not exhibit behaviours (tropisms but not behaviours) so I do not ascribe personality to him nor do I ask him about his experiences. Fortunately, I did so before he was alive and one of his behaviours was to describe experiences that the organism John had. So ... yes, in fact it does. I think.

Of what dimension does the experience of John reside then?

I'm not clear on the question. Are you talking about psychological dimensions, geometrical dimensions or alternate dimensions (how many are ther now under M-Theory?) Whichever you mean, I would answer that essentially John's experiences reside in no dimension now that he is dead. Theoretically, I suppose it might be possible at some point in the future to construct a device to extract the record of his experiences such as it is encoded in his neocortex (as long as we got there before there had been too much post-mortem degradation) but these would not be John's experiences they would merely be a record of his experiences.

The closest we could come to that would be to ask where John goes when he sleeps or, let's say he's in a coma?

There is no reason I know of to equate either of these states with death. Physiologically they are quite different. Perhaps most crucially to the question there is brain activity in both states. The only similarities I can see are decreased movement and the fact that John goes nowhere in either these states or when he dies.

He's obviously not available to us at that time. In fact he must be in a similar state represented by death

Even if we ignore the phsyical evidence, I see no reason whatsoever to suppose he must be in a similar state to a state of death? What reason do you have to suppose that he must be in a similar state, other than the fact he won't move or talk to you?

So, where has John gone? Well, come to find out John is alive and well and fully participating in this other reality known as the dream state

How do we come to find this out?

... a reality which (without a doubt), is wholly experiential unto itself

Maybe it's without a doubt in your mind but you have yet to give me any reason to even give the possibility serious consideration. In fact, I think it is fair to say that this revelation came completely out of the blue. Or another dimension. Can you explain to my why the existence of this reality and the experiental nature of that dimension is beyond doubt?

Doesn't that sound just the least bit strange?

Yes it does and it seems unsupported, at least in this post. Can you support these rather extraordinary view of sleep, coma and death?

By the way, where do computers go when they "sleep?"

Computers don't sleep in anything other than a metaphorical sense and they don't go anywhere when they do that. Except metaphorically, perhaps.

 

[Throg]

Back to the OP, I think the worst idea in theology is the idea of blasphemy. That an all-powerful being could be hurt by someone's words is silly and contradictory

Unless it's a very insecure all-powerful being I suppose. Does all-powerful necessarily imply psychologically healthy?

--which is perhaps the idea, a good contradiction in your basic premise can allow you to construct a logical basis for any proposition you choose.

Or, at least, you get your believers so used to accepting illogical positions that they can't tell the difference. It's room 101, isn't it but instead of starving rats you have the threat of damnation?

 

[Iacchus]

[mode=iacchus]When you turn off your computer, where does your desktop go? Surely it doesn't just cease - when you turn it on, it comes back! When your computer dies, your desktop must go somewhere, right??[/mode]

Which desktop? The desktop your computer rests on or, the desktop within the computer?

'Personality' is nothing but the output of a program within the human mind, Iacchus. When the hardware dies, the software dies.

Are you suggesting a computer is capable of experiencing itself? From the standpoint of "knowing" that it knows? Or, should we just relegate it to the status of automaton?

 

[Iacchus]

The life was experienced by the organism to to which the name John was attached and which showed a cluster of behaviours which was abstracted as personality by observers (including the organism himself).

Yes, but what I would like to know is where did this energy pattern or field go, that animated every nerve and fiber of John's body? Why should it be any different than the energy pattern or field that cohabits your TV screen?

Are you asking if the fact that John's corpse doesn't tell me about his experiences while he was alive tells me that he was something more than a body? Well, John the person was never a dead body prior to being being dead. Living John was in fact a live body which produced a cluster of behaviours so I ascribed personality to him. Dead John does not exhibit behaviours (tropisms but not behaviours) so I do not ascribe personality to him nor do I ask him about his experiences. Fortunately, I did so before he was alive and one of his behaviours was to describe experiences that the organism John had. So ... yes, in fact it does. I think.

So, wouldn't you ascribe the experience of John to another dimension then? Because it's obviously not of the body, because it -- hmm ... it? whatever happened to John? -- is sitting there right in front of you, dead.

... but these would not be John's experiences they would merely be a record of his experiences.

Aha!

There is no reason I know of to equate either of these states with death. Physiologically they are quite different. Perhaps most crucially to the question there is brain activity in both states. The only similarities I can see are decreased movement and the fact that John goes nowhere in either these states or when he dies.

So, if the brain activity stops, how do we know that John is not still dreaming? Isn't this in fact the point when near death experiences occur in the operating room?

Even if we ignore the phsyical evidence, I see no reason whatsoever to suppose he must be in a similar state to a state of death? What reason do you have to suppose that he must be in a similar state, other than the fact he won't move or talk to you?

Ignore the phsyical evidence? What do you mean? John, the life which we're accustomed to speaking of in the body is not there.

How do we come to find this out?

Well, people who have had near death experiences are pretty conclusive about what they have to say about it.

Maybe it's without a doubt in your mind but you have yet to give me any reason to even give the possibility serious consideration. In fact, I think it is fair to say that this revelation came completely out of the blue. Or another dimension. Can you explain to my why the existence of this reality and the experiental nature of that dimension is beyond doubt?

Yet there are those who claim the reality that we experience currently is not real. So, nothing is without doubt.

Yes it does and it seems unsupported, at least in this post. Can you support these rather extraordinary view of sleep, coma and death?

Other than from the standpoint of my experience? No, not at this point. While the thing is, you cannot disprove what I've said either, because there's nothing illogical about what I've said. Hard to believe? Obviously. Illogical? No.

Computers don't sleep in anything other than a metaphorical sense and they don't go anywhere when they do that. Except metaphorically, perhaps.

Computers don't have an internal reality (with respect to themselves) and dream in other words. Correct?

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, but what I would like to know is where did this energy pattern or field go, that animated every nerve and fiber of John's body? Why should it be any different than the energy pattern or field that cohabits your TV screen?

What energy pattern? Read the biology book. Why should it be different? Hmm....maybe because the materials and structure of a television set is vastly different from the materials and structure of a body? Because the energy of metabolism is different from alternating current? I am sure you can come up with some other reasons as well, if you stop to think about it for just a minute or two.

So, wouldn't you ascribe the experience of John to another dimension then? Because it's obviously not of the body, because it -- hmm ... it? whatever happened to John? -- is sitting there right in front of you, dead.

Umm....no. It was the action, the behavior, of his body. What part of that are you having problems with? When he stops behaving, his behavior stops. It does not "depart to another dimension".

Aha!

A strange "aha" there, as what he said does not support your animistic dualism whatsoever.

So, if the brain activity stops, how do we know that John is not still dreaming? Isn't this in fact the point when near death experiences occur in the operating room?

A) we know the patterns of brain activity associated with dreaming; although it is literally impossible to know for certain that the corpse is not dreaming, there is no evidence whatsoever that it is, and no reason to make that assumption. B) current research on NDE cannot establish whether the experiences which are reported happen before, during, or after the "Near Death" happened.

Ignore the phsyical evidence? What do you mean? John, the life which we're accustomed to speaking of in the body is not there.

LOL Iacchus, the physical evidence that sleep is different from death. Please pay attention to context. We can start with, oh... breathing? Heartbeat? Brain activity? You are ignoring quite a bit in your rush to equate sleep and death. Remember, Hamlet was only musing when he said "to die, to sleep; to sleep, perchance to dream".

Well, people who have had near death experiences are pretty conclusive about what they have to say about it.

Are they? I am sure some are. Some eyewitnesses are, too, and will swear they saw something that did not happen. Anecdotes are lousy evidence, Iacchus; anecdotes from a person under such stress to the body are very suspect.

Yet there are those who claim the reality that we experience currently is not real. So, nothing is without doubt.

But there are things without evidence, and things with evidence. You may be correct that nothing is without doubt (although, in fairness, it was you who claimed to be without doubt, and Throg is asking you why you believe such things), but pointing out that person X doubts reality does nothing to add certainty to your own claim. So, nice dodge, but it does nothing to answer Trog's question. Let me repeat it: Can you explain to my why the existence of this reality and the experiental nature of that dimension is beyond doubt?

Other than from the standpoint of my experience? No, not at this point. While the thing is, you cannot disprove what I've said either, because there's nothing illogical about what I've said. Hard to believe? Obviously. Illogical? No.

Ok, so you admit you have no evidence. Wonderful. There is no need, then, to disprove you. The burden of proof is squarely on your claim. And I would not worry about logic if I were you--it is not your strong suit. I'd worry about the discrepancies between your ideas and the observed evidence. You have a lot of stuff to explain which is already well-explained by a simpler model than yours.

Computers don't have an internal reality (with respect to themselves) and dream in other words. Correct?

I always wondered about this "internal reality" stuff--I mean, you clearly believe you have an "internal reality", and yet there is very little you say that is not in contradiction to known phenomena. So...to what extent is your internal reality a reality at all? It is your belief, certainly, but "reality"?

 

[Throg]

Yes, but what I would like to know is where did this energy pattern or field go, that animated every nerve and fiber of John's body?

There is no energy pattern or field that animated every nerve and fiber of John's body. There were various various forms of energy in his body while he was alive. Thermal energy was constantly lost from his body throughout his life in accordance with thermodynamics and continued to be lost from his body after he died until, his metabolism no longer functioning, his corpse reached a point where the heat gradient between the body and it's surrounding was zero. Any residual electrical energy within his body, including his brain and the rest of his nervous system would have dissipated, become incorporated with any ionised particles roaming his corpse to achieve a more stable state, or gone to ground. Any chemical energy, including that stored in the synapses of his brain and thus most directly responsible for those behaviours identified with his personality when he was alive, would be released more slowly as John's corpse decomposed. Ultimately, all the energy of which John was composed, including the matter of which his body was composed would eventually radiate out into the great wide Universe until it's inevitable heat death predicted in thermodynamics. The Universe, when it died, would go nowhere.

Why should it be any different than the energy pattern or field that cohabits your TV screen?

Because John was not a TV screen when he was alive. John's corpse was not a TV screen when he was dead.

So, wouldn't you ascribe the experience of John to another dimension then?

No. Can't see any reason why I would. If you can see a reason I would genuinely love to hear it.

Because it's obviously not of the body, because it -- hmm ... it? whatever happened to John? -- is sitting there right in front of you, dead

I think we've already established what happened to John.

So, if the brain activity stops, how do we know that John is not still dreaming?

Because there is clearly measurable brain activity during dreaming. It is in fact pretty well correlated with Rapid-Eye-Movement so you don't even need an EEG machine to know it's happening. I've seen corpses and I've seen sleeping people and they are really different.

Isn't this in fact the point when near death experiences occur in the operating room?

So far as I am aware, there have been no studies to show at exactly what point near death experiences occur in the operating room. I doubt there ever will be since operations are heavily invested in keeping people alive and experimenting on people who are in danger of dying is unlikely to be approved by any ethics committee.

I am sure you are aware that it is possible to produce experiences with the same phenomelogical characteristics of near death experiences by direct stimulation of the brain. Technically these are not near death experiences since no ethics committee is going to let you endanger a subject's life. You may also be aware that the human brain is terribly poor at recording exactly when an experience occurred so there is no way to know if a patient who "died" on the operating table had his experience as he died or at some other time during the operation with the experience becoming associated with the traumatic event in his memory.

Ignore the phsyical evidence? What do you mean? John, the life which we're accustomed to speaking of in the body is not there

The physical evidence that shows that sleep, coma and death are three completely different states.

Well, people who have had near death experiences are pretty conclusive about what they have to say about it

That's true only to the extent that they conclude that they had an experience. The descriptions of near death experiences I have seen have been vague and variable and they are of course self-reports of subjective experience during a traumatic event.

Yet there are those who claim the reality that we experience currently is not real. So, nothing is without doubt

Quite right - though I direct contradiction of what you originally said - but many things are beyond reasonable doubt. The claim that the reality we experience is one of them. You have still provided me with no reason to even take your alternate reality model seriously though you have explicitly abandoned the claim that it is beyond doubt which is progress.

Other than from the standpoint of my experience? No, not at this point. While the thing is, you cannot disprove what I've said either, because there's nothing illogical about what I've said. Hard to believe? Obviously. Illogical? No

It is illogical. What you posit is logically possible but it is illogical to take such an unlikely and unsupported model to represent reality. I can invent an infinute number of logically possible worlds if I am not constrained by evidence but it would be illogical to hold that any of them were real.

Computers don't have an internal reality (with respect to themselves) and dream in other words. Correct?

Not just that, they show none of the physiological corollories of sleep. They don't even have physiologies. At a stretch we could say that a computer in "sleep mode" reduces it's energy consumption, that's about the only parallel to sleep as it occurs in animals that I can think of.

On the other hand, neural nets trained to perform pattern recognition have been constructed which when isolated from external input produce sequences of patterns including recognisable images which resemble dreaming to an extent. Make of that what you will.

 

[Throg]

Remember, Hamlet was only musing when he said "to die, to sleep; to sleep, perchance to dream".
[/B]

I think we could forgive Hamlet if he had been a dualist given that he was a, what, 12th Century Danish prince written by a 16th Century English playwrite and haunted by the ghost of his murdered father. Plus the poor bastard had to speak in iambic pentameter. Oh, yeah and he was mad, that's always a good get-out clause.

I seem to have duplicated a lot of what you said in my reply to Iacchus, by the way. You can have props when they make the movie.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't know about dangerous ideas, but here are ideas that make no sense to me:

• ontology, in general
• libertarian free will
• epiphenomenalism

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

I think we could forgive Hamlet if he had been a dualist given that he was a, what, 12th Century Danish prince written by a 16th Century English playwrite and haunted by the ghost of his murdered father. Plus the poor bastard had to speak in iambic pentameter. Oh, yeah and he was mad, that's always a good get-out clause.

Aw, come on...he was but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, he knew a hawk from a handsaw. Or, I hope, a person from a television set.

I seem to have duplicated a lot of what you said in my reply to Iacchus, by the way. You can have props when they make the movie.

It is for the best that you did. He won't pay any attention to mine--or at least won't understand it. Here's hoping he understands yours...

 

[Kiless]

Re: Re: What is the worst idea in philosophy?

In fairness to old Freddy, the ubermensch business was grossly misinterpreted. "Beyond good and evil" doesn't mean acting anyhow is justified, it means that one has evolved beyond those concepts. His philosophy wasn't written for easy reading, and his style, while brilliant, managed to be unfortunately obscure and sometimes mystical.

It didn't help that his Nazi sister did some selective editing of his works in order to promote her favored views, after Freddy became an imbecile and couldn't stop her.

The Nazis did like Zarathustra, the more poetic of his works, while most of them remained blissfully ignorant of his denunciations of nationalism, Germans, and particularly German nationalism. Likewise they would have appreciated his early work praising Wagner, and ignored his later attacks on Wagner, after their falling out.

I was going to chime in with this - thanks TragicMonkey! Nietzsche would have been horrified by the interpretation of his works.

 

[Kiless]

Aw, come on...he was but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, he knew a hawk from a handsaw. Or, I hope, a person from a television set.

Hamlet knew exactly what he was doing. His only problem was procrastination.

Speaking of which, this floor needs vaccuming....

I vote Paley's Argument from Design. From no particular standpoint, apart from that it is c*ap.

 

[hammegk]

DeCartes and solipsism.

Cartesian dualism is probably what you had in mind ...

If so, that's also my choice, (Hi Throg!).

 

[clarsct]

Blasphemy is pretty good, but why not go for the full Heinlein quote and include indecent exposure?

I notice no votes for homeopathy...or is that a philosophy?

lacchus, bud, a beginning text on logic would be a wonderful read for you. Prove your premises, don't expect others to disprove them.

Besides, it should be obvious what happened to John. He died.

 

[hammegk]

ontology, in general

Dangerous, certainly. One choice led to Marxian dielectic materialism. And let's not forget Nietzeism (not the man himself, but some of his adherents).

Ah, the joys of a society in the throes of a material ontology.

 

[Iacchus]

lacchus, bud, a beginning text on logic would be a wonderful read for you. Prove your premises, don't expect others to disprove them.

Besides, it should be obvious what happened to John. He died.

As I suggested elsewhere or, was that in the other thread, when you attempt to speak of things which emanate from a different realm, logic or, the lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. I can't prove to you that it exists, because it does not originate from this world. I have given you the most logical account for it as I know how. Sorry, if it's not good enough.

 

[Throg]

Aw, come on...he was but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, he knew a hawk from a handsaw.

That's the best counter-argument by Shakespeare quotatation I have ever seen. If I had a cap, I should doff it.

 

[Throg]

Hamlet knew exactly what he was doing. His only problem was procrastination.
/B]

Ah, the age-old debate. Given the very little that I can see he could hope to achieve by his pretence to madness I think we have to allow that he was at least, extremely irrational.

 

[Kiless]

Ah, the age-old debate. Given the very little that I can see he could hope to achieve by his pretence to madness I think we have to allow that he was at least, extremely irrational.

[strine accent] "Irrational enough to let a hot chick like that Ophelia babe cark it." [/strine accent]

 

[Throg]

[strine accent] "Irrational enough to let a hot chick like that Ophelia babe cark it." [/strine accent]

Those, "who can be the maddest" competitions never end well.