What is the point of free will?

[Pallas_Athene]

Interesting! But I have the doubt if this freedom as you have defined it above is the same freedom we were talking about before.

I think it is. When two events are independent then neither one can influence the other. If you have two rolling dice and roll them, the result on one has no effect on the result on the other one… in other words they are independent. It is the same phenomenon when we say that the choice is not dependent on anything else.

Let me take the example of the tie: Given the three options that you mentioned, I think we could talk about the probability of each one of them, and each probability would have a value greater than 0. Then, choosing between your blue tie, or the red one, or nothing, would not be an example of a free process anymore -if we subject ourselves to your definition above.

That is not the same. The choice itself is not contingent.

So, when you say that “deterministic / stochastic relationships depend on the laws of physics” it is an statement which for the moment I cannot process in my mind. Please, provide an example of a physical law which regulates a deterministic / stochastic relationship, and show me how such relationship is constant.

That is not what I said. The laws of physics are constant. Each law describes either a deterministic relation or a stochastic one. Gravity is deterministic law. You let go of a pebble, and it will always drop “down”, never “up”. Radioactive decay is a stochastic one, there is no way to predict which atom will split in a specific time interval.

Could we go back to the topic of the thread?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think it is. When two events are independent then neither one can influence the other. If you have two rolling dice and roll them, the result on one has no effect on the result on the other one… in other words they are independent. It is the same phenomenon when we say that the choice is not dependent on anything else.

That is not the same. The choice itself is not contingent.

That is not what I said. The laws of physics are constant. Each law describes either a deterministic relation or a stochastic one. Gravity is deterministic law. You let go of a pebble, and it will always drop “down”, never “up”. Radioactive decay is a stochastic one, there is no way to predict which atom will split in a specific time interval.

Could we go back to the topic of the thread?

“You, Catholic guys, tell me what is the point of free will?”. I have had this question resonating in my mind since I wrote my first post in this thread. I interpreted your question in this sense: “is there, within the Catholic doctrine, a consistent logical system of arguments which includes among its premises, intermediate conclusions or final conclusions, the statement ‘Man is free’?”.

And I don’t know such logical system yet, Greek guy. Just like you and anyone else, all I have in my mind is a set of statements which I have received (directly or indirectly) along my life, and which I continuously try to convert into a logical system. The statement “I am free” is included in that set. I have also received since my childhood the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who commands me to love even my enemies, as He has loved me. This commandment strengthens my wish to help more and hurt less (because I also, like you, have that wish).

So, having your question in my mind, I wondered if you -who seems to know a lot and has a good heart- could help me clarify some of those statements -those which might be common between an Atheist like you and a Christian like me- and make some progress. Who knows?, this discussion might be of some help to both you and me.

If you agree we can continue with our good discussion; if you don’t, that will be fine to me… But if you do, here are my observations to your post:

Look how, even though the dice are not contingent in relation to each other, we use probability to deal with that game. When you compare it to our making choices I understand that you are putting both things in the same basket. So, there would be only deterministic and stochastic processes in our system (free processes not being but mere stochastic processes). Isn’t there any difference between rolling the dices and making choices?

I don’t pretend that you said “deterministic / stochastic relationships depend on the laws of physics” in the same sense in which I understood the sentence. It is clear to me that I am interpreting you, and that understanding you as you understand yourself is a process (by the way, is this process deterministic, stochastic, free, or another kind?) that takes time and effort. I am listening to you.

The equation which describes radioactive decay resembles an equation of state. We define certain macroscopic variables and establish relationships between them. Then we can predict how those defined macroscopic variables will evolve with time. But we don’t know yet if it will be possible for us in the future to “see”, somehow, an individual particle of a radioactive material and -looking at its evolving circumstances- predict the moment in which it will split. We are able to observe pebbles and see what happens when we let them go. That, and a great intellectual effort, has made us able to define appropriate variables and establish equations to predict what will happen with the pebble, if nothing else intervenes (has the pebble’s behavior always been the same and will it always be the same? We are not absolutely certain, but it is probable…, only probable). In the same way, if we become able to observe atomic particles, what can prevent us from establishing relationships between certain defined variables that enable us to predict their evolution?

In other words, when we separate deterministic processes from stochastic processes, are we describing an ontological difference or this separation describes our current epistemic state?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

“You, Catholic guys, tell me what is the point of free will?”. I have had this question resonating in my mind since I wrote my first post in this thread. I interpreted your question in this sense: “is there, within the Catholic doctrine, a consistent logical system of arguments which includes among its premises, intermediate conclusions or final conclusions, the statement ‘Man is free’?”.

If so, then I make a mistake in presenting my problem. My problem is the discrepancy or outright contradiction between “God’s assumed loving and caring nature” and the amount of freedom which we (allegedly) received from God. I look at God as a designer and creator or constructor, who has an aim in mind and wishes to put that aim into practice.

The contradiction I am talking about is that excessive “freedom” can destroy the work of the constructor. And a rational constructor, who CARES about his work and has the power to preserve his work - would never allow that work to be destroyed.

So, having your question in my mind, I wondered if you -who seems to know a lot and has a good heart- could help me clarify some of those statements -those which might be common between an Atheist like you and a Christian like me- and make some progress. Who knows?, this discussion might be of some help to both you and me.

If you agree we can continue with our good discussion; if you don’t, that will be fine to me… But if you do, here are my observations to your post:

Certainly. But I think we are not on the same field just yet. The libertarian free will has three “legs”:

1. someone who has an aim (or goal) in mind he wishes to achieve.
2. there are at least two ways he can act to achieve that goal.
3. he is the one, who makes the choice, it is not imposed on him either by the circumstances or an outside agent.

The physical examples were just illustrations. We can never be “free” from ourselves, from our upbringing. What is the method to come to a decision is something we don’t know. Mostly because the process happens in the subconscious. How does our subconscious (which is part of what and who we ARE) get to a decision is beyond our knowledge.

But it is not important. As long as I am the decision maker, as long as there is a goal to achieve and as long there are two different ways to achieve that goal, we have libertarian free will.

The question is still the amount of freedom we “enjoy”?!?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

If so, then I make a mistake in presenting my problem. My problem is the discrepancy or outright contradiction between “God’s assumed loving and caring nature” and the amount of freedom which we (allegedly) received from God. I look at God as a designer and creator or constructor, who has an aim in mind and wishes to put that aim into practice.

The contradiction I am talking about is that excessive “freedom” can destroy the work of the constructor. And a rational constructor, who CARES about his work and has the power to preserve his work - would never allow that work to be destroyed.

Well, the statements “God is love” and “God is provident” are integral part of our Catholic doctrine. So, I think that your question can be stated as I put it: “Is there, within the Catholic doctrine, a consistent logical system of arguments which includes among its premises, intermediate conclusions or final conclusions, the statement ‘Man is free’?”. Probably I would have to stress the word “consistent” to make you feel that it fits your purpose, but I didn’t deem it necessary, because the word is there anyway.

Certainly. But I think we are not on the same field just yet. The libertarian free will has three “legs”:

1. someone who has an aim (or goal) in mind he wishes to achieve.
2. there are at least two ways he can act to achieve that goal.
3. he is the one, who makes the choice, it is not imposed on him either by the circumstances or an outside agent.

The physical examples were just illustrations. We can never be “free” from ourselves, from our upbringing. What is the method to come to a decision is something we don’t know. Mostly because the process happens in the subconscious. How does our subconscious (which is part of what and who we ARE) get to a decision is beyond our knowledge.

But it is not important. As long as I am the decision maker, as long as there is a goal to achieve and as long there are two different ways to achieve that goal, we have libertarian free will.

The question is still the amount of freedom we “enjoy”?!?

I think that those examples were good for our reflection. We need to clarify how we should use words, otherwise very likely our discussion would not take us to a conclusion; and those examples were good as a starting point. What you are proposing now belongs to a much higher level of considerations. But if you prefer, let’s try…

You know, I wonder if we hurt each other because we have too much freedom or because we don’t have enough. You say that the process happens in the subconscious, but you also have said that we can develop new algorithms. I tend to think that our freedom is better manifested when we develop new algorithms than when we just react to circumstances according to an existing set of them. Of course, decisions are possible for an algorithmic behavior, but couldn’t we say that those decisions are quasi-mechanical as long as the algorithm is set?

On the other hand, developing a new algorithm requires the amplification of your vital context. Such amplification frequently involves a change in the meaning that your circumstances have for you, and it also might imply a drastic modification of who you are. The development of new behavioral algorithms is usually a process through which you become more and more integrated into your culture; but sometimes it goes beyond your culture. In those cases, the process is -to a certain degree- a kind of detachment that makes you see your own culture with different eyes, and have a new relation with it.

If we are to call “free” to these three behaviors, I think we should distinguish at least three levels of freedom, the last one belonging to a higher level, and the first one to a very basic level.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Well, the statements “God is love” and “God is provident” are integral part of our Catholic doctrine.

That is fine, but beside the point of this thread. The question is still: "how can God’s alleged love be reconciled with allowing the freedom of some humans to perform atrocities. Please analyze the current example of the suicide bombings in Paris and tell me how does God’s alleged “love” manifest itself in letting a few fanatics to perform their acts?

You know, I wonder if we hurt each other because we have too much freedom or because we don’t have enough. You say that the process happens in the subconscious, but you also have said that we can develop new algorithms.

It all depends on what you mean by the word: “algorithms”.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

That is fine, but beside the point of this thread. The question is still: "how can God’s alleged love be reconciled with allowing the freedom of some humans to perform atrocities. Please analyze the current example of the suicide bombings in Paris and tell me how does God’s alleged “love” manifest itself in letting a few fanatics to perform their acts?

I understand your question, and I do not have an answer.

I use to talk to my children about respect and justice, and whenever I learn about atrocities like these, I stress the importance of those virtues. We have a long way in front of us to become a peaceful worldwide society.

Being you an Atheist, how do you feel about these kinds of terrible acts? What do you think about the way other persons use their freedom, especially when they disagree with you?

It all depends on what you mean by the word: “algorithms”.

I am using this word as when you said “…For example I have a good algorithm to help a homeless: ‘reach for my pocketbook and give him some money’.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I understand your question, and I do not have an answer.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your honest answer. It is refreshing to see an example of intellectual honesty.

I use to talk to my children about respect and justice, and whenever I learn about atrocities like these, I stress the importance of those virtues. We have a long way in front of us to become a peaceful worldwide society.

Yes, indeed. I am very sad that during those millennia we did not learn to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner. I look upon the bonobos as ethically superior to humans. When they are frustrated or angry they do not fight each other… they practice “love, not war”. In other words they engage in sex, not in fights. Most admirable - in my opinion.

Being you an Atheist, how do you feel about these kinds of terrible acts? What do you think about the way other persons use their freedom, especially when they disagree with you?

I am almost 100% certain that my reaction is exactly the same as yours. Frustration, sadness and lack of comprehension. If I would have the ability of strip them of their freedom to perform such acts, I would do it immediately.

Now, if their freedom does not manifest itself in malevolent actions, I have no problem with it. Example: I think that the white supremacists are a despicable crowd, but as long as their views do not manifest themselves in acts against others, I have no quarrels with them. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” which is incorrectly attributed to Voltaire.

I am using this word as when you said “…For example I have a good algorithm to help a homeless: ‘reach for my pocketbook and give him some money’.”

Thank you. The desire to help is constant. The ability to help is changing, hopefully evolving. The algorithm is dependent on the circumstances, even though the “objective function” remains the same. But there is a difference between performing a successful surgery and rescuing some miners who are trapped underground. they need a different algorithm.

To be precise: I think that the decision making to help resides in the subconscious, while the decision of HOW to help is in the conscious.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am almost 100% certain that my reaction is exactly the same as yours. Frustration, sadness and lack of comprehension. If I would have the ability of strip them of their freedom to perform such acts, I would do it immediately.

Certainly! I would try to inhibit them right away.

Thank you. The desire to help is constant. The ability to help is changing, hopefully evolving. The algorithm is dependent on the circumstances, even though the “objective function” remains the same. But there is a difference between performing a successful surgery and rescuing some miners who are trapped underground. they need a different algorithm.

To be precise: I think that the decision making to help resides in the subconscious, while the decision of HOW to help is in the conscious.

This reminds me of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics. When you say this, are you talking about your own unconscious permanent decision, or about a “decision” which is unconscious in many, or about a “decision” which is unconscious in everybody?

If the decision to help resides in the subconscious, how do you know it is subconscious, and how do you know it is constant?

 

[Peter_Plato]

This reminds me of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics. When you say this, are you talking about your own unconscious permanent decision, or about a “decision” which is unconscious in many, or about a “decision” which is unconscious in everybody?

If the decision to help resides in the subconscious, how do you know it is subconscious, and how do you know it is constant?

Here is the indelible problem with PA’s epistemology. Such things cannot be known with any degree of certainty, according to PA, since there is no “alternate epistemological method” which permits this. The “scientific method” only applies to “objective, external reality” and definitely not to these kinds of “subjective assessments.”

You are more than welcome to present an alternate epistemological method. Actually, that is what I have been asking for many decades now (on several boards), and never received an answer.

By the way, the scientific method is NOT universally applicable. It only applies to the objective, external reality. It is not applicable in the abstract sciences, and it is not applicable for the subjective assessments of the external reality. (“Beauty” is in the eyes of the beholder.)

…

All you have to do is show that it works. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. What could be a simpler epistemological method?

Yet, PA is “almost 100% percent certain” that your subjective AND unconscious reaction will be the same as his in spite of the fact that “subjective assessments” even of “external reality” are, for him, only “in the eyes of the beholder.” Doubly so, one would think, with regard to subjective assessments of the subjective or internal “reality” of others.

(He must be scurrilously hiding an alternate epistemological method in his back pocket.)

Funny, how he can extrapolate from what he can “know” subjectively ONLY about himself to making universal claims about the “subconscious” lives of human beings in general and yours, specifically, with “almost 100% certainty.”

So the question to be asked is: "By what alternate epistemological method (AEM) is he able to make that claim, since the only EM available to him, by his own argument is the “scientific method,” and that “only applies to the objective, external reality?”

You see, PA permits to himself these kinds of epistemological liberties that he has – on several boards and for many decades – scrupulously denied to others. It wouldn’t be so bad if he showed a modicum of consistency applying this kind of rigor both to himself and to others, but, alas, :nope:

I suppose the point to be taken away from this is that when PA says: “You are more than welcome to present an alternate epistemological method. Actually, that is what I have been asking for many decades now (on several boards), and never received an answer,” what he means is that the burden is on YOU to provide that “alternate method” for anything YOU might have so say, but that burden does not fall on him and he can make any claims he wishes at his discretion because for many decades now (on several boards) YOU have never provided “an answer” as to why he should believe anything YOU say while being completely at liberty to believe anything he wants without any epistemological method whatsoever confounding his views on any matter. It is all very convenient, you see – for him. :takeoff:

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Along the history of philosophy many have tried to develop an infallible method to know the truth by themselves, using their senses and their reason. Naturally, once you believe you know something, you want to communicate it to others. And you also have the natural belief that when you have communicated it to them, everybody will agree with you, because you believe (though you innocently believe that you have no beliefs) they will see it, like you, with the eyes of their face and the eyes of their reason. But it is just an illusion; no more than an illusion. Once you try to convince your neighbor, you are in trouble, unless she is in love with you, or admires you, or is very much afraid of you.

Of the so many pieces of information that we use in our daily lives, which ones do we know to their last foundation? If you try seriously to purify your mind from all those pieces about which you are not absolutely certain, you will end up with this: “Cogito, ergo sum”… And even this simple statement will find a lot of adversaries.

Of course you can close your eyes and dream that you are the strong man, the clever individual, who needs nothing from anybody else, because whatever you know you have learnt through the application of your own senses and reasoning from a set of first principles, with extreme care and rigor, like no one else. No authorities over you, no mysteries, no faith… Good dreams!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Some guys tend to believe that the so called “scientific method” is the way in which you can find all the truth that you need to live a life as a human being. That method should include detailed descriptions about how you have to use each one of your senses, your imagination, your memory, your reason…, to discover the truth. It must also include the complete set of all the principles, axioms, definitions and rules of inference that “the most respected people” among us have accepted for you to be able to demonstrate whatever is needed for your life (whatever!). If there is something you can’t demonstrate based on the use of this method, some of these “most respected people” (or some others who are not so respected as them) have decided that you don’t need such knowledge. You must trust them, but you should never think that by doing this you are accepting something by authority or by some kind of faith. These guys are able to offer you enough proofs of their power: they can predict eclipses; they have sent spaceships to the outer space, they have created artificial intelligence, etcetera… Certainly they make mistakes sometimes, but who doesn’t? Besides, you can go to the university to study a career in sciences and after some years you yourself will become one of those guys who have a direct knowledge of everything which is really needed in life. There are millions of those guys in the world already! Everybody knows that today! Don’t you? Maybe you are one of them, but you haven’t realized it.

So, do you want to establish if there is freedom in the world, and good, and evil, and how much there is of each one of them, or solve other questions like these? Try the “scientific method”! What are you waiting for?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There are millions of those guys in the world already!

Funny thing, I never met anyone with that kind of attitude.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Funny thing, I never met anyone with that kind of attitude.

Yes, Pallas, it is very funny; very, very funny.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It is known that Aristotle opened his Metaphysics with this words: “All men by nature desire to know.” But it can be said that such desire has many levels of intensity. Accordingly, Aristotle describes five degrees of knowledge; sensitive knowledge being the first level and prime philosophy (or the knowledge of the first principles) being the highest degree. I think Aristotle was just describing in an orderly fashion what he was observing around him.

In the Nicomachean ethics Aristotle talks again about knowledge, this time in relation to ethics. It seems that some people wanted to reach in this discipline the same level of certainty that they used to reach in geometry. Aristotle recommended to abandon that approach, and lower the expectations. For Ethics, he says, the facts are the principles. If he was right, then we would have to observe the facts and based on them try to build, as far as we can, a coherent system of statements, looking simultaneously for what is common among facts and for what is bette to a community. No demonstrations would be possible here.

The aristotelian position would imply that though there is rationality in our world, it (the world) is not absolutely rational. Causality is not universal. There are accidental events. The coincidence of causal chains has not necessarily a cause, and the result of this coincidence is sometimes positive for us, sometimes negative. This view corresponds to our belief in the existence of stochastic processes. But we have invented Probability, and with this we have been able to discover certain level of rationality even in stochastic processes, provided those processes involve great quantities. But it is not an absolute rationality. There, as Aristotle said, the facts are the principles.

So, logic wouldn’t have to do with Ethics. Of course, it is not that Ethics must be an irrational discipline, but that it can only be an approximation to what is best for us, not a demonstration. When someone asks, for example, “what does logic have to say about evil?”, the aristotelian answer (and, in this case, mine as well) would be: “nothing!”. “How do you explain logically that the innocent is usually a victim of the evil doers?”: there is no logical explanation for that! “How do you explain logically that a tsunami killed thousands of people, children included?”: there is absolutely no logical way to explain it! Nobody will ever demonstrate that innocents must suffer due to natural catastrophes, illnesses, injustices or whatever.

Are we able to offer such demonstration once we have received the Gospel? Not at all! The Christian revelation does not make things to become evident to us! It is not a super theory which promises to explain everything!.. It is so strange to me how some people seem to believe that armed with the CCC, the Holy Bible and the Summa Theologica, they will be able to respond to any question. So strange indeed… We are not called to receive a full explanation of all possible enigmas; we are called to love each other, and work together, even with strong doubts in our heads.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Yes, Pallas, it is very funny; very, very funny.

Actually, it is not. Maybe a few idiots think that the “observe-hypothesize-test-verify” method is the ultimate panacea for ALL the questions of the world, but such people cannot be taken seriously. At the bare minimum, the questions of mathematics (and all the axiomatic sciences) are exempt from this approach.

And then there are the subjective assessments of the objective reality. Is this weight “heavy” or “light”? Is this music pleasant or harsh? Is this painting a “masterpiece” or not? Is she a beautiful woman? None of these questions fall under the so-called “scientific method”. Only the questions pertaining to the objective aspects of the ontologically existing objective reality can be answered by the scientific method.

Just think about it. You have an assessment about a certain aspect of reality. How can you know if that assessment is correct or not? If the property can be measured, then you measure it, and then compare the result to your assessment. If they are the same, you have a correct assessment. If it cannot be measured, then your assessment is subjective, and as such it does not matter.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Actually, it is not. Maybe a few idiots think that the “observe-hypothesize-test-verify” method is the ultimate panacea for ALL the questions of the world, but such people cannot be taken seriously. At the bare minimum, the questions of mathematics (and all the axiomatic sciences) are exempt from this approach.

And then there are the subjective assessments of the objective reality. Is this weight “heavy” or “light”? Is this music pleasant or harsh? Is this painting a “masterpiece” or not? Is she a beautiful woman? None of these questions fall under the so-called “scientific method”. Only the questions pertaining to the objective aspects of the ontologically existing objective reality can be answered by the scientific method.

Just think about it. You have an assessment about a certain aspect of reality. How can you know if that assessment is correct or not? If the property can be measured, then you measure it, and then compare the result to your assessment. If they are the same, you have a correct assessment. If it cannot be measured, then your assessment is subjective, and as such it does not matter.

To put a simple example, I have an assessment about the height of a tower. I think it is 20 meters high. Then, I bring a certified measuring tape and make someone superimpose it over the tower’s wall. I compare both and see that the tower is as high as 21 meters. Then I correct my assessment.

What was I doing? I was just comparing two of my subjective impressions, but one of them was associated to a convention. Where is here the ontologically objective reality? Is it the convention? Is it each one of my impressions? Is it their conjunction into a complex unified subjective impression? Is it the relation that I establish between my two subjective impressions by means of the convention?

If no measurement is possible, it might be because there is no conventional reference to do the comparison. But then, how does the convention generate an ontologically existing objective reality?

On the other hand, if my neighbor tells me that something bothers him a lot, I wouldn’t tell him that if his subjective feeling or assessment cannot be measured it doesn’t matter. It would matter to me. But I think you meant something else, and I didn’t get it. Please clarify.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

So, what is real?

Are we going to say, like Plato, that there is reality and imitation -or participation- of reality?

Or are we going to say that whatever that can be compared to a conventional reference is real, and that whatever that cannot be compared (for any reason) is non-real?

I will not ask about the validity of such distinction, but about its purpose. What would be its objective? And then, I would ask about the rules to separate the real from the non-real. To put some other examples:

Quite a lot of people use the word “temperature” to refer to certain sensations. Besides this common use, some people use it in a “technical” or “scientific” sense: it is related to the expansion or contraction that a liquid substance suffers when put in contact with a given body. That liquid substance is called thermometric fluid, and it is said that it is used to measure the temperature of the given body. What do we do for the measurement?: We put in contact (we say “in thermal contact”) the thermometric fluid and the body, and see the change in the volume of the thermometric fluid using a conventional scale (in view of my third example, I want to stress the fact that different thermometric fluids suffer different levels of contraction or expansion when in contact with the same body). Is “temperature” something real or ideal? Or is it real precisely because it is ideal? How can it be said that “temperature” in its scientific sense is ontologically real, but not in the common sense?

Another example: we have no sensation concerning “magnetic fields”. However, we observe the behaviors of certain bodies (magnets) when we put them close to each other. We have developed a terminology to talk about such behaviors (“magnetic field” being part of that terminology), and techniques to perform measurements which allow us to quantify them. So, we perceive certain behaviors an call them “effects”, and define the associated “causes” by means of mathematical equations. Again: Is “magnetic field” (for example) something real or ideal? Or is it real precisely because it is an ideal “object” with no direct influence on us?

My third example: does anybody ignore the meaning of the word “sadness”? Such or such situation makes me sad. I think everybody knows what I mean, and not a few people will empathize with me. Among other things, my level of activity is reduced. However, there is no reference which can be used to quantify my sadness. Perhaps we can even say that it is not quantifiable. Further, just like happens with different thermometric fluids, different persons will report to experience different degrees of sadness when exposed to the same situation (and probably it will be observed that their level of activity varies differently). Is it enough to say that sadness is non-real? If so, what great advantage do we get from that?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, what is real?

Ah, the problem of the “brain in the vat”, or the “Matrix”. The problem cannot be solved. Or put another way, the problem is irrelevant. If we are all living in the Matrix, and all our sensations are directly wired into our brain-clot or the specific collection of electronic circuits which makes US what we are, then that THAT is reality. To ask: whether it is the “real” reality, or an “artificial reality” cannot be answered. We cannot get out from our environment, from our universe.

Reality is what our senses and their extensions perceive. Suppose that there will be a new extension of our senses, which will “register” ghosts. Obviously this new “gadget” will have to register the same result whenever it confronts a ghost, otherwise it would only be a “measurement” error, or a “bug”. And if the measurement is consistent, then we “expand” our knowledge of reality, and it will include the “ghosts”.

The very same thing happened when we discovered the X-rays. New equipment, new results, “new” reality.

There is the question of “actual reality” or just an “imitation” or “emulation” of reality? This is another irrelevant question. If we would be able to make a super-copy-machine, which would copy the Mona Lisa on the atomic level to create a perfect copy, then the question: “but which one is the original”? would be a superfluous, irrelevant question.

It is true that the “original” was touched by the hand of Da Vinci, and the copy was not, but if there is no way to tell which is which, then the question is nonsense. It is on par with the question: “which is tastier, the color of middle-C or the smoothness of a yard”? If there is no way to measure it - not just now with our current technology, but in principle - then there is no difference. This is the difference between philosophers and realists. There are philosophers who try to justify their existence by creating bogus questions and attempt to convince people that the questions are real. And then comes the street urchin and “dares” to say: “the emperor has no clothes”… and then the philosophers pretend that they never heard a thing.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ah, the problem of the “brain in the vat”, or the “Matrix”. The problem cannot be solved. Or put another way, the problem is irrelevant. If we are all living in the Matrix, and all our sensations are directly wired into our brain-clot or the specific collection of electronic circuits which makes US what we are, then that THAT is reality. To ask: whether it is the “real” reality, or an “artificial reality” cannot be answered. We cannot get out from our environment, from our universe.

Reality is what our senses and their extensions perceive. Suppose that there will be a new extension of our senses, which will “register” ghosts. Obviously this new “gadget” will have to register the same result whenever it confronts a ghost, otherwise it would only be a “measurement” error, or a “bug”. And if the measurement is consistent, then we “expand” our knowledge of reality, and it will include the “ghosts”.

The very same thing happened when we discovered the X-rays. New equipment, new results, “new” reality.

There is the question of “actual reality” or just an “imitation” or “emulation” of reality? This is another irrelevant question. If we would be able to make a super-copy-machine, which would copy the Mona Lisa on the atomic level to create a perfect copy, then the question: “but which one is the original”? would be a superfluous, irrelevant question.

It is true that the “original” was touched by the hand of Da Vinci, and the copy was not, but if there is no way to tell which is which, then the question is nonsense. It is on par with the question: “which is tastier, the color of middle-C or the smoothness of a yard”? If there is no way to measure it - not just now with our current technology, but in principle - then there is no difference. This is the difference between philosophers and realists.

I have watched “Matrix”, but I wasn’t thinking on it. I was thinking on Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus; Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Compte, Bergson, Husserl…

So, no, you are not addressing my observations.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I have watched “Matrix”, but I wasn’t thinking on it. I was thinking on Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus; Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Compte, Bergson, Husserl…

So, no, you are not addressing my observations.

Sorry, but the question of “what is reality” is perfectly addressed by the “Matrix” or the “brain in the vat”, which is the same thing.