Philosophy versus Science, the ultimate experiment.

[MrSnugglesworth]

I think Philosophy IS science. Because I'm lazy and don't want to think about that.

 

[Aries_Split]

That's not really proving that free will doesn't exist. We aren't ourselves, we are what we've become. Some things are obviously not like this, some things we are born with. But my point is that there is no you. Because of this, your actions aren't necessarily your actions but you still chose to make them...

Do we now? How can we tell? On that note, if we are content with our delusion of free will, does it matter anyway?

If free will is an illusion then debating whether or not we have it is rather pointless, no?

 

[quiet_samurai]

A chair will never be as complete or as perfect as the idea of one. So which is the TRUE chair?

 

[quiet_samurai]

A chair will never be as complete or as perfect as the idea of one. So which is the TRUE chair?

This is technically incorrect. A chair is a manufactured item, the idea is created based on the first manufactured item, therefore, there IS a perfect chair. The idea simply changes. Does this mean we cannot make a perfect and complete chair? No.

Sorry, but this sort of argument from lack of imagination is ridiculous. Stop trying to sound deep and meaningful when you aren't making a really strong argument.

Wow.. first of all that statement is deeper then you realize and is not supposed to be taken at direct face value. And you can substitute the word chair with almost anything else. Also I didn't make this statement up, it is actually a quote from....hold on.... Oh Socrates!! Philosophy is meant to be thought of beyond they literal and be taken abstractly, which your comment shows that not everyone is capable of doing. Arguing from the point of reality and fact to prove an abstract thought is not possible.

Also don't fucking attempt to assume that I lack an imagination, and don't make an assumption that I am trying to sound deep and meaningful because you know nothing about me asshole.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

I don't know if this experiment has been done, most likely not since there is an infinite amount sources of error to take in consideration, but if it's possible what answers wouldn't it give us?

So here is the experiment:
First you have to state a fact, (unless you count skynet from the terminator franchise) no company or scientists has ever made an AI with ability to create it's own patterns or change them by themself and therefore:

If a robot is given a task it will solve the problem the same way everytime assuming it "forgets" it has done it before. Another identical robot will also do it the exact same way.

But people and animals solves problem differently! Why? Genes and Surroundings is what forms us, so if you eliminate does differences would we act like robots?

Here is the experiment, you breed two rats with the exact(!!) same DNA. You put them in two seperate identical boxes in the exact same way. The boxes should have identical pressure, temperature etc...
You should feed them the same food at the same time, interfere with them at the same time and... well you get the point.

Now science would say that the rats would act exactly the same. The exact same movement pattern at the exact same time. But perhaps there are other forces controlling us that would prevent this from working.

I know the experiment is almost impossible to make but what's your opinions? Could this answer our questions about higher forces controlling us?

The problem is, we HAVE created AI's that can do all of that effectively. I myself have create a CS bot that is more than capable of changing itself. It is self mutating and self modulating. This has been done for DECADES.

More than that, determinism is most likely true on a large scale, but science is NOT contingent on it! Science does NOT say that the rats act exactly the same. In fact, it says that with LARGE probability they would act DIFFERENTLY, due to emergent behavior, and due to flaws on the quantum level. This is because all of the proteins act through Brownian motion, which is essentially random at the quantum level. This causes neurons to form differently in very small ways, which propagate all the way up. Now, the rats may act SIMILAR, but identically? The chances, even if everything is kept EXACTLY IDENTICAL, are so infinitesimal to be zero.

This argument between science and philosophy is a straw man; robots that don't learn from their actions aren't robots, they are automatons. The field of machine learning is a mature and productive field, that you owe such things as effective traffic control and dish washers using fuzzy logic to. The reason animals solve things differently is the same reason robots do; they learn, grow, and adapt. In a nutshell, they have MEMORY. To deny that robots do these things is to deny that a robot such as a roomba will learn a room it has never been in before via trial and error!

More than any of that, how does this speak of higher level forces AT ALL? Just because two identical units do identical things speaks absolutely nothing of a higher level force. It would be explained entirely naturalistically. Even if they did DIFFERENT THINGS, inducing a random element to the world does NOT mean there is a need for the super natural, or anything higher ordered.

I simply do not see how you could possibly come to this conclusion logically, given the successes of church turing thesis, quantum mechanics, and chaotic/emergent theory.

/thread. I was going to type this up but you beat me too it.

 

[quiet_samurai]

A chair will never be as complete or as perfect as the idea of one. So which is the TRUE chair?

This is technically incorrect. A chair is a manufactured item, the idea is created based on the first manufactured item, therefore, there IS a perfect chair. The idea simply changes. Does this mean we cannot make a perfect and complete chair? No.

Sorry, but this sort of argument from lack of imagination is ridiculous. Stop trying to sound deep and meaningful when you aren't making a really strong argument.

Wow.. first of all that statement is deeper then you realize and is not supposed to be taken at direct face value. And you can substitute the word chair with almost anything else. Also I didn't make this statement up, it is actually a quote from....hold on.... Oh Socrates!! Philosophy is meant to be thought of beyond they literal and be taken abstractly, which your comment shows that not everyone is capable of doing. Arguing from the point of reality and fact to prove an abstract thought is not possible.

Also don't fucking attempt to assume that I lack an imagination, and don't make an assumption that I am trying to sound deep and meaningful because you know nothing about me asshole.

Oh yes, Socrates. He lived around the time of Aristotle, right? Guy who couldn't come up with F = MA, such a hard concept as "the harder you shove it, the more it moves, and if you don't shove it, it doesn't move". What did he come up with again? Ah yes! Natural positions; smoke rises because it is "naturally" attuned to being in the sky, and all motion is unnatural. Didn't even realize the basic function of friction. Yes, it sure shows the strength of your position, doesn't it, that modern philosophies and math/science have essentially debunked most of Socrates theories.

Excluding the Socratic method of course. What was it again? "The Socratic method, the best way to teach everything, except how to juggle chainsaws".

More over, I am arguing from the point of MATHEMATICS and IDENTITY THEORY, concepts which are rigorously proven to be true, and which are transuniversal, IE, abstract. Philosophy based on logic and reason is tantamount to mathematical proofs; without this RIGOROUS logic (not simply logic, you see), it is simple speculation.

After that, the statement isn't "deep" or "meaningful". It is mathematically and logically wrong. The fact you POSE it as deep and meaningful and "forcing you to think about it" wouldn't work in the academic arena, and shows how my criticism of you is not unfounded! It is fine to post something that needs explanation and thinking....but only if you actually explain it. Otherwise, we must accept it at face value.

Finally, I meant no slight when I said argument from lack of imagination. This apparently seems to not get through to people; argument from lack of imagination is a logical fallacy which manifests in many arguments. It does not imply YOU have a lack of an imagination, merely that your ARGUMENT does.

As for the argument "you know nothing about me asshole", this is ALSO a logical fallacy. Allow me to paraphrase that bronze age philosopher right back at you: "intentions are meaningless; actions are all we have to judge by". Your actions indicated you were going one way, and therefore, your intentions are of no consequence. It is not an assumption; it is self evident from what you have said, to varying degrees.

Have a very. Safe. Day.

Ok, I'm sorry for calling you an asshole. I type how I talk and don't even realize it especially when I'm in the zone or going on a rant.

Anyhow, that whole chair statement has several meanings. The most popular is that no matter how hard we try or pursue something the end product will never be as perfect as the image of it we hold in our minds. And that the only place humans can ever attain any resemblance of perfection is in our heads. But it also fules the thought that because of this very thing human beings as a whole will never stop trying to improve or keep striving to make that one thing perfect. You can go even deeper and say that our entire drive to become great and accomplished is because of our very own feeling of inadequecy and the fact we are never good enough.

And there is nothing wrong with being forced to think about something, I figured the people on this thread were intelligent enough to either get it, try and think about it, or not care. See it's not an academic arena, it's just a stupid internet forum, and I treat all internet forums the same way I do the weather. I either enjoy it or I ignore it. Hating on it and trying to prove something to it is pointless.

And I never said anything about the Socratic method, I just quoted the man who came up with it. And no, Aristotle was not in Socrates's day, it was Plato, who then in turn was the teacher of Aristotle. And Aristotle is also said to be one of the western worlds first critical thinkers on science and mathematics and strayed from the thinking in earlier days and dealt with fact instead of abstract thought to apply to the world. Socrates and Aristotle shouldn't be compared because they lectured and taught two completely different things and didn't even live in the same time period.

You have a safe day too.

 

[monalith]

if god is all powerful can god create a rock even he can't lift?

 

[monalith]

if god is all powerful can god create a rock even he can't lift?

No, because god isn't all powerful. Set theory dictates he cannot be.

fine then if god came before the universe then what created god.

 

[monalith]

if god is all powerful can god create a rock even he can't lift?

No, because god isn't all powerful. Set theory dictates he cannot be.

fine then if god came before the universe then what created god.

God doesn't exist, so nothing created god.
Well, man created god I suppose, to comfort him through the night.
Worked pretty good, till science came around.

i was trying to annoy any physcotic christians that where on the forum. but your still right

 

[Labyrinth]

If free will is an illusion then debating whether or not we have it is rather pointless, no?

Ahh, but because we don't have free will, we can't decide whether we do argue it or not. The choice is pre-programmed.

A chair will never be as complete or as perfect as the idea of one. So which is the TRUE chair?

Ohh! I see it now! It's Plato's Cave!

 

[bjj hero]

If free will is an illusion then debating whether or not we have it is rather pointless, no?

Ahh, but because we don't have free will, we can't decide whether we do argue it or not. The choice is pre-programmed.

A chair will never be as complete or as perfect as the idea of one. So which is the TRUE chair?

Ohh! I see it now! It's Plato's Cave!

Please tell me humanity's advanced far enough to quote people who were born after the bronze age...