Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Lagayascienza]

However, we have no reason at all to take seriously unverifiable and unreasonable notions such as that the universe is all mind-stuff or that we are brains-in-vats or that elves might be real. These notions are all dead ends that cannot lean to any improvement of our understanding of reality.

Some people think that they are being very clever in pointing out that we cannot disproves notions such as elves exist, or we could be brains-in-vats etc. But this is not clever. It's just playing silly games.

Yes, "dead ends" is exactly the issue.

The important characteristic of the brain-in-vat concept is that it is constructed to be immune to evidence. Any conceivable real experience could be simulated, making the idea undisprovable.

Elves - conceived as beings who have a magical ability to conceal their existence from us - have this same characteristic.

And this same characteristic is found in the evolution-sceptic's notion that God made the universe X seconds ago complete with memories/photographs/fossils/records of a past that never was.

Belief in or enthusiasm for any such concept is indeed silly.

But what is not silly is using these examples to understand the concept of the philosophical dead end. That there are such useless logically-undisprovable concepts tells us something about the insufficiency of logic in the pursuit of wisdom.

Pretty much everyone here understands the concept of the philosophical dead end. It’s centuries old already. But some (not you) who believe they have a serious case of the smarts, like to harp on about it and pretend that they are enlightening us with a philosophical breakthrough.

Was it Stalin who said "truth is whatever serves the interests of the Party" ? I want to disagree with that somewhat sinister sentiment, and I hope you do too. But what it amounts to is a reduction of truth to usefulness (for a particular purpose).

Indeed, I do disagree with the monster, Stalin. Things can be true without being useful for any particular purpose or in any obvious utilitarian sense.

So I suggest that the distinction between elves being untrue and elves being useless is one that is worth maintaining.

I suppose if one likes fairy tales then the concept of elves might be worth maintaining. But if we are interested in furthering our knowledge of what is true, or likely to be true, the concept of elves if of no help.

As is the distinction between a concept of elves that is falsifiable (by their failure to appear in the old stone circle at the full moon, or some other verifiable characteristic) and a concept that is unfalsifiable.

The distinction between the concepts “falsifiable” and “unfalsifiable” is worth making because if something is unfalsifiable it cannot lead to knowledge. The most important feature of scientific theories is that they are falsifiable – they can be tested. When they fail to stand up to testing, they are modified or discarded (the geocentric view of the universe for example). But for as long as they stand up to testing, they are accepted as pointing to truths about the universe. Evolution by natural selection, plate tectonics, relativity, the standard model of physics – these have all stood up to rigorous testing and are as true as anything can be for us. They will be further refined but are highly unlikely to be overturned. On the other hand, concepts like elves, and theories rooted in Idealism, are unfalsifiable and cannot lead to knowledge. They are philosophical dead ends and those who maintain them give metaphysics, and philosophy generally, a bad name. Science does not bother with such notions. And rightly so.

I almost wrote unfalsifiable-by-design. But that's not quite fair.

In pre-scientific cultures many things are attributed to different types of "spirits" - noncorporeal beings. (Because the intent of a mind is one type of explanation). It seems not unreasonable to suppose that a range of ideas about spirits were once held. And the verifiable forms of these ideas have been discarded due to absence of expected evidence. Leaving only the forms for which the expected evidence is zero. With no design required.

True. They are just hollowed out forms.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong here. That's because there is a ZERO chance that we are brains in vats having reality fed to us by beings of godlike powers. I no more need to know everything to know this than I need to know everything about the human body to claim that we cannot fly (without using devices).

Sorry, but we cannot continue this conversation. I am talking metaphysics; you are talking physics. We are 'located' in quite different contexts, which is making what we say mutually unintelligible.

Yes, I could move into the arena of physics, but there my thoughts make no sense. I am talking about stuff that, quite literally, lies *outside* the "reality" that you describe. You are unwilling to accept this, or to deal with it. I see no point (no gain) in continuing this unsuccessful exchange. I wish it was otherwise.

[Sy Borg]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong here. That's because there is a ZERO chance that we are brains in vats having reality fed to us by beings of godlike powers. I no more need to know everything to know this than I need to know everything about the human body to claim that we cannot fly (without using devices).

Sorry, but we cannot continue this conversation. I am talking metaphysics; you are talking physics. We are 'located' in quite different contexts, which is making what we say mutually unintelligible.

Yes, I could move into the arena of physics, but there my thoughts make no sense. I am talking about stuff that, quite literally, lies *outside* the "reality" that you describe. You are unwilling to accept this, or to deal with it. I see no point (no gain) in continuing this unsuccessful exchange. I wish it was otherwise.

Metaphysics unrelated to physics aka reality is called "fiction". Philosophy is not as stringent as science is (or was, before politics and corporate interests polluted it) but the discipline of remaining tethered to actual reality still applies.

[Lagayascienza]

Metaphysics unrelated to physics is unhinged from reality. Metaphysics does not need to be so unhinged. We can be good old fashioned materialists and still do metaphysics. To haughtily accuse someone of talking physics and and not metaphysics, as though metaphysics were some sort of special, higher order pastime that does not dirty its hands with physical reality, is a conceit that few take seriously.

[Halc]

We can be good old fashioned materialists and still do metaphysics.

Calling yourself a materialist IS doing metaphysics.

I agree that BiV is a metaphysical possibility, and something similar like a Boltzmann brain is physically possible (and even likely under certain physical theories).
The purpose of pondering a BiV is to illustrate the whole point of idealism. There is nothing physically impossible about it since if it were true, one has zero evidence of how any physics works, or how it cannot work.


The below was a reply to me.

Solipsism is not merely distasteful it's impossible because in a relative world each mind relates to an environment that is not itself and which includes other minds.

Your argument to show solipsism to be impossible begs a non-idealistic view.

[Pattern-chaser]

Metaphysics unrelated to physics aka reality is called "fiction". Philosophy is not as stringent as science is (or was, before politics and corporate interests polluted it) but the discipline of remaining tethered to actual reality still applies.

So, although you have judged my description "WYSIWAI" trivial, or crazy, it turns out it is what you believe. And it would seem that you believe it to be Absolute (or Objective) Truth, based on your reference to "actual reality". You also seem to equate "physics" with "reality", and "metaphysics" with "fiction". But to pursue this theme would veer too far away from the topic here. Perhaps I'll start a new topic...

[Sy Borg]

Metaphysics unrelated to physics aka reality is called "fiction". Philosophy is not as stringent as science is (or was, before politics and corporate interests polluted it) but the discipline of remaining tethered to actual reality still applies.

So, although you have judged my description "WYSIWAI" trivial, or crazy, it turns out it is what you believe. And it would seem that you believe it to be Absolute (or Objective) Truth, based on your reference to "actual reality". You also seem to equate "physics" with "reality", and "metaphysics" with "fiction". 🤔 But to pursue this theme would veer too far away from the topic here. Perhaps I'll start a new topic...

It's not a matter of belief. It's not disregarding the bleeding obvious so as to look for more "clever" models of reality.

Not sure where "Absolute (or Objective) Truth" comes from. I distinctly pointed out that it's not objective, that reality depends on your nervous system. The world that ants live in is very different to ours, with a different relationship to light, chemistry, vibrations and gravity. However, the stuff they are detecting is the same stuff, only observed in a different way. Refer to the tale of the six blind men and the elephant.

[Lagayascienza]

We can be good old fashioned materialists and still do metaphysics.

Calling yourself a materialist IS doing metaphysics.

Exactly.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's not a matter of belief. It's not disregarding the bleeding obvious so as to look for more "clever" models of reality.

I don't think it helps simply to dismiss or ridicule those things you don't believe in.

There is no such thing, from a philosopher's perspective, as "the bleeding obvious". Just as there are no such things as 'self-evident' truths. If something is true, or false, there are reasons why this should be so. Good reasons, also called "justifications". I.e those reasons are good enough to justify the claim to truth, or falsehood.

[Edited to add: There are some truths that we might describe as "self-evident". But what we mean when we say that, is that the justifications for that truth are well-known, well-understood, and (most important of all) conclusive. So it isn't really the truth that is self-evident, but that its justifications are evident, and therefore the 'truth' is considered true.]

If we need to make assumptions, then the clear and honest way to approach the matter is surely to declare our unfounded assumptions as axioms, so that we all know where we stand? And so we might say "This," (whatever "this" is), "is an unfounded assertion, but we believe it to be true anyway, so we declare it to be an axiom, something we assert, and choose to believe, without justification."


And, in the end, it all comes down to "a matter of belief", for any idea that cannot be wholly and conclusively proven. And that applies to pretty much all ideas, I think. For proof, actual proof, is much rarer than our use of the word (in everyday conversation, at least) would imply. Hyperbole, nothing more.

[Sy Borg]

It's not a matter of belief. It's not disregarding the bleeding obvious so as to look for more "clever" models of reality.

I don't think it helps simply to dismiss or ridicule those things you don't believe in.

There is no such thing, from a philosopher's perspective, as "the bleeding obvious". Just as there are no such things as 'self-evident' truths. If something is true, or false, there are reasons why this should be so. Good reasons, also called "justifications". I.e those reasons are good enough to justify the claim to truth, or falsehood.

[Edited to add: There are some truths that we might describe as "self-evident". But what we mean when we say that, is that the justifications for that truth are well-known, well-understood, and (most important of all) conclusive. So it isn't really the truth that is self-evident, but that its justifications are evident, and therefore the 'truth' is considered true.]

If we need to make assumptions, then the clear and honest way to approach the matter is surely to declare our unfounded assumptions as axioms, so that we all know where we stand? And so we might say "This," (whatever "this" is), "is an unfounded assertion, but we believe it to be true anyway, so we declare it to be an axiom, something we assert, and choose to believe, without justification."


And, in the end, it all comes down to "a matter of belief", for any idea that cannot be wholly and conclusively proven. And that applies to pretty much all ideas, I think. For proof, actual proof, is much rarer than our use of the word (in everyday conversation, at least) would imply. Hyperbole, nothing more.

Never mind the emotional appeal about "ridicule". I do not respond to attempts to make me feel guilty for supposed transgressions. I simply rebutted the BIV thought experiment as invalid.

It's not a matter of belief, but logic. Putting aside the impossibility of working brains without a body to tend, my objection to the BIV is the same as my objection to creationism - it's an added layer of complexity that is not needed and explains nothing. If we are in a simulation, who is to say that God aka the Divine Programmer is not simulated?

Maybe we are the trillionth layer of simulation, a simulation within a simulation within a simulation within a simulation almost ad infinitum? Does that seem ridiculous to you?

[Halc]

There is no such thing, from a philosopher's perspective, as "the bleeding obvious".

Exactly so. I've been doing this long enough to realize that almost everything that is intuitively obvious is probably wrong. The intuitions are put there because of their pragmatic usefulness, not because of their truth. Start with that, and so many things suddenly make more sense, if not actually making sense.

Cogito ergo sum is an example of this. Sounds good, but commits several fallacies.

I do not respond to attempts to make me feel guilty for supposed transgressions. I simply rebutted the BIV thought experiment as invalid.

You seem to not understand the purpose of the BiV thought experiement. It is not an actual metaphysical proposal attempting to explain your reality, but rather a counterargument that demonstrates that empirical evidence cannot be considered proof of anything.

If we are in a simulation, who is to say that God aka the Divine Programmer is not simulated?

So Bostrom argues, but a simulated brain is quite different than a BiV. In the BiV scenario, there's no evidence or requirement that the experiencer is a squishy brain at all. In the simulation argument as put forth by Bostrom, it is very much a human (not just a brain) being simulated.

Maybe we are the trillionth layer of simulation, a simulation within a simulation within a simulation within a simulation almost ad infinitum? Does that seem ridiculous to you?

Only because Bostrom fudges his mathematics when it suits his conclusions. He doesn't posit trillions of layers deep. Only enough layers that it becomes more probable than not, and yes, it takes some serious bending of the numbers to posit that.

[Sy Borg]

I do not respond to attempts to make me feel guilty for supposed transgressions. I simply rebutted the BIV thought experiment as invalid.

You seem to not understand the purpose of the BiV thought experiement. It is not an actual metaphysical proposal attempting to explain your reality, but rather a counterargument that demonstrates that empirical evidence cannot be considered proof of anything.

It’s posited as being a possibility. I’m saying it isn’t, for the reasons I’ve been through earlier. Sure, everything is relative. But it’s real, obviously real.

Empirical evidence is proof of certain relativities. Absolutes/absolute truths are not needed, in context.

Maybe we are the trillionth layer of simulation, a simulation within a simulation within a simulation within a simulation almost ad infinitum? Does that seem ridiculous to you?

Only because Bostrom fudges his mathematics when it suits his conclusions. He doesn't posit trillions of layers deep. Only enough layers that it becomes more probable than not, and yes, it takes some serious bending of the numbers to posit that.

It makes more sense that we are not a simulation, that we are IT. I say this with a tinge of regret haha

[Belinda]

Metaphysics unrelated to physics aka reality is called "fiction". Philosophy is not as stringent as science is (or was, before politics and corporate interests polluted it) but the discipline of remaining tethered to actual reality still applies.

So, although you have judged my description "WYSIWAI" trivial, or crazy, it turns out it is what you believe. And it would seem that you believe it to be Absolute (or Objective) Truth, based on your reference to "actual reality". You also seem to equate "physics" with "reality", and "metaphysics" with "fiction". But to pursue this theme would veer too far away from the topic here. Perhaps I'll start a new topic...

It's not a matter of belief. It's not disregarding the bleeding obvious so as to look for more "clever" models of reality.

Not sure where "Absolute (or Objective) Truth" comes from. I distinctly pointed out that it's not objective, that reality depends on your nervous system. The world that ants live in is very different to ours, with a different relationship to light, chemistry, vibrations and gravity. However, the stuff they are detecting is the same stuff, only observed in a different way. Refer to the tale of the six blind men and the elephant.

That is all true. But also true is that ants, and each of the six blind men, and every other individual is busy creating a world ;if there were no creators of worlds then worlds would not exist.
You and I don't believe a supernatural Creator exists. But we must believe that what men, ants and each other living thing does is create.

[Sculptor1]

Metaphysics unrelated to physics aka reality is called "fiction". Philosophy is not as stringent as science is (or was, before politics and corporate interests polluted it) but the discipline of remaining tethered to actual reality still applies.

So, although you have judged my description "WYSIWAI" trivial, or crazy, it turns out it is what you believe. And it would seem that you believe it to be Absolute (or Objective) Truth, based on your reference to "actual reality". You also seem to equate "physics" with "reality", and "metaphysics" with "fiction". But to pursue this theme would veer too far away from the topic here. Perhaps I'll start a new topic...

It's not a matter of belief. It's not disregarding the bleeding obvious so as to look for more "clever" models of reality.

Not sure where "Absolute (or Objective) Truth" comes from. I distinctly pointed out that it's not objective, that reality depends on your nervous system. The world that ants live in is very different to ours, with a different relationship to light, chemistry, vibrations and gravity. However, the stuff they are detecting is the same stuff, only observed in a different way. Refer to the tale of the six blind men and the elephant.

That is all true. But also true is that ants, and each of the six blind men, and every other individual is busy creating a world ;if there were no creators of worlds then worlds would not exist.
You and I don't believe a supernatural Creator exists. But we must believe that what men, ants and each other living thing does is create.

Yes. Worlds are ideas. And yes none exist without the consciousness of subjects to create them. This inevitably means that the world you live in and the world that I live in are necessarily not the same world.
Attempting an objective approach with a shared notion of materialist ideas, we are able to make agreements upon the exogenous worlds that help build our endogenously constucted realities.
We soon realise that what we make endogenously is guided by endogenous realities, and that most often agreements are made when we emphasise the materiality of the worlds we share.
It is also a common observation that those that chose to ignore the exogenous factors tend to be the most disagreeable people. Whilst they may gain succour from others who similarly rely too heavily on the same myths and same misconception , they are nonetheless the least able to establish the truth amongst those that do not share their delusions.
It is an observation, also that those willing and happy to physically demonstrate through evidence that their materially based view of "the" world can be shared and agreed upon by others tend to favour materialism as a better choice of appraoch than idealism..

TO summarise. All materialist povs of the world are essentaily ideal. The maxium error amongst those that ignore evidence can be found in the worlds conceived by those who easily reject evidence.

But underlying all this is that materialist, and physicalist demonstrations are ar heart idealist, since we simply cannot escape the conception of our world.
The argument is not Materialism Vs Idealism, but the judicious use of the ideals and relevances of materialist constructions of reality.

[Lagayascienza]

It is true that "ants, and each of the six blind men, and every other individual is busy creating a world". That is what organisms with neural networks do. But that is not to say that there was not a universe before organisms with neural networks evolved. We know that the earth existed before abiogenesis occurred. It is only very late in the history of the universe that neural networks evolved. Before that, the universe cycled on quite happily without us creating our mental worlds and worrying about what it all means. We are too biocentric. The universe does not need us to exist.