This question was asked back in the 15th-16th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas (man who originally conceived the idea of the Matrix [yes the movie] ) said it best: "I think there for I am."
Did you mean to say "René Descartes"? And did you mean to say "the 17th Century"?
As for the sun it is impossible to know how it perceives its own reality (if at all)
Can we know that other people are conscious, or are David Chalmers' philosophical zombies a possibility? Are you just saying the sun is a great big glowing philosophical zombie? Or is there anything to distinguish the question of the sun from that of other people? Can we assign degrees of confidence to the propositions, perhaps -- say the sun is more likely or less likely to be conscious than a person is? Might it be relevant that the sun behaves differently than a person?
Yes that is the guy I meant lol. And also according to string theory there is an infinite amount of universes with an infinite number of possibilities of those universe end. So technically in this universe for all you know there could be a sentient sun, that when it gets old enough will sprout arms and legs and go on a galactic rampage. Key part is you never know, no human has the ability to prove it. Which is why it is important to maintain Socratic wisdom, and until you know for sure that it is 100% possible (or not) it is dare I say foolish to think otherwise. Also idk if any of this makes sense right now...but im going with it
Stellar logic. All decks that will ever be tier 1 or 2 have already been discovered. Might as well lock up the forum here and stop brewing everyone. Format solved.
I originally made this thread because I have had trouble articulating an idea I've had for a while now. Despite the time I have spent thinking about it, I'm not sure I will be able to articulate it any better. But, let me try.
If we accept (as I do) the physicalist definition of the universe, then my thoughts and feelings are simply electrochemical impulses in my nerves. "Pain" is simply a word I use to describe one particular kind of electrochemical impulse, as is "satisfaction" or "consciousness." There is nothing particularly remarkable about these impulse, but the sensations they cause we assume to be rather unique. We find it difficult to explain them and rely solely on the assumption that my experience of pain is probably similar to yours. Thus, I assume when I say "pain" or "satisfaction," you know what I mean because you've had the same electrochemical impulses.
Maybe because of this assumption, as we go further and further away from our own biological system, we become more and more incredulous if something else experiences sensations that could fall into the same categories we use to label our sensations. Not too long ago, you had Caucasians claiming African's could not experience pain. The debate still rages about how much "consciousness" animals have, if fish or insects experience "pain." Yet, what we are talking about are electrochemical impulses, and electrochemical impulses about electrochemical impulses.
So, I got to wondering what my computer "felt" as I typed on it. Certainly, its wires and circuits are dissimilar to my nerves, but they also share similarities. If I am to believe I am simply an complicated biological computer, as physicalism tells me I am, yet I 'experience' 'emotions,' then how can I discount other physical objects -like a computer or star- from also 'experiencing' 'emotions?'
IDK, nor do I really know where I am going with these musings. I was hoping someone might be able to help me out.
But, few come to this part of the forum, and this is in the middle of a thread... so.... yeah...
And also according to string theory there is an infinite amount of universes with an infinite number of possibilities of those universe end. So technically in this universe for all you know there could be a sentient sun, that when it gets old enough will sprout arms and legs and go on a galactic rampage.
String theory doesn't actually have much to say about multiverses. That's a separate theory. And you have to be careful when talking about "infinite possibilities". Just because there is an infinity doesn't mean absolutely anything can happen. Consider the natural numbers. There is an infinite number of them. What's more, you can be certain they will never repeat -- every natural number is completely unique. However, you can be equally certain that, no matter how high you count, you will never come across the number "MÖTÖRHEAD". Because that's not a number, it's a rock band. The natural numbers, you see, follow some very specific rules which determine what can and cannot occur within them. And if something is outside the bounds of those rules, it is impossible, even though there are infinitely many natural numbers. An infinite multiverse is the same way. No matter how far we travel in the multiverse, we will never find, for instance, a square circle on a Euclidean plane. So it is still useful to ask whether or not something is possible.
Also, the multiverse theory may well be wrong. You're complaining about things not being proven, but this theory definitely hasn't been proven.
Key part is you never know, no human has the ability to prove it. Which is why it is important to maintain Socratic wisdom, and until you know for sure that it is 100% possible (or not) it is dare I say foolish to think otherwise.
If it is foolish to think otherwise, then all scientists -- indeed, all human beings -- are fools. Science doesn't deal in 100% proofs. Ever. The car that you drive, the vaccine that keeps you healthy, the computer that you're reading these words on right now, all of them were only made possible through the use of empirical reasoning: reasoning that weighs observational evidence to deem hypotheses more or less likely to be true. In order to be a functional human, you need to be able to look at a sandwich on a plate and say, "Well, this might have been poisoned by space gnomes while I wasn't looking; I can't be absolutely sure it wasn't. But I'm confident enough it wasn't that I'm going to eat it."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And also according to string theory there is an infinite amount of universes with an infinite number of possibilities of those universe end. So technically in this universe for all you know there could be a sentient sun, that when it gets old enough will sprout arms and legs and go on a galactic rampage.
String theory doesn't actually have much to say about multiverses. That's a separate theory. And you have to be careful when talking about "infinite possibilities". Just because there is an infinity doesn't mean absolutely anything can happen. Consider the natural numbers. There is an infinite number of them. What's more, you can be certain they will never repeat -- every natural number is completely unique. However, you can be equally certain that, no matter how high you count, you will never come across the number "MÖTÖRHEAD". Because that's not a number, it's a rock band. The natural numbers, you see, follow some very specific rules which determine what can and cannot occur within them. And if something is outside the bounds of those rules, it is impossible, even though there are infinitely many natural numbers. An infinite multiverse is the same way. No matter how far we travel in the multiverse, we will never find, for instance, a square circle on a Euclidean plane. So it is still useful to ask whether or not something is possible.
Also, the multiverse theory may well be wrong. You're complaining about things not being proven, but this theory definitely hasn't been proven.
Key part is you never know, no human has the ability to prove it. Which is why it is important to maintain Socratic wisdom, and until you know for sure that it is 100% possible (or not) it is dare I say foolish to think otherwise.
If it is foolish to think otherwise, then all scientists -- indeed, all human beings -- are fools. Science doesn't deal in 100% proofs. Ever. The car that you drive, the vaccine that keeps you healthy, the computer that you're reading these words on right now, all of them were only made possible through the use of empirical reasoning: reasoning that weighs observational evidence to deem hypotheses more or less likely to be true. In order to be a functional human, you need to be able to look at a sandwich on a plate and say, "Well, this might have been poisoned by space gnomes while I wasn't looking; I can't be absolutely sure it wasn't. But I'm confident enough it wasn't that I'm going to eat it."
String theory is of course a theory and should be treated as such, but no different than the idea of creationism or big bang theory (although at least string theory wasn't proven wrong like big bang has been believed to have) Also your issue with the "square circle" argument is that you are thinking in terms of linear physics and believing that all natural laws hold true across the universe. Human perception is limited to the third dimension (LxWxH) however to a being of a different dimensional plane (4th, 5th, etc.) a square circle could be an actual geometric shape, as their perspective allows them to access a different dimensional perception than we would ever be capable of. To put it in an actual example for us mere 3rd dimensional beings, imagine a flatlander (2 dimensional being) seeing a sphere. To them they would still see a circle (incapable of perceiving depth) but to us we would see the sphere as a whole. Now in that scenario is anyone really wrong? What he does see is the circle, but we merely see the whole picture (or do we )
Also as for your infinity argument, "motorhead" could very well become a unit of number measurements. Remember "numbers" are merely a man created system used to keep track of numerous objects or ideas. For all you know the unit of measurements after google could end up being named motorhead. Would that make sense not really, but the whole thing is it is legit impossible to tell because infinity refers to an idea humans have no conception of.
Also String Theory absolutely has references to multiverses. Watch any 3 minute Michio Kaku video on youtube or another physicist and you will get that really quick.
Stellar logic. All decks that will ever be tier 1 or 2 have already been discovered. Might as well lock up the forum here and stop brewing everyone. Format solved.
(although at least string theory wasn't proven wrong like big bang has been believed to have)
Um... no, I'm pretty sure it hasn't. String theory is on much more tenuous footing in physics than big bang theory. (Unless you're referring to the show The Big Bang Theory, which, yes, is very very wrong.)
Also your issue with the "square circle" argument is that you are thinking in terms of linear physics and believing that all natural laws hold true across the universe. Human perception is limited to the third dimension (LxWxH) however to a being of a different dimensional plane (4th, 5th, etc.) a square circle could be an actual geometric shape, as their perspective allows them to access a different dimensional perception than we would ever be capable of. To put it in an actual example for us mere 3rd dimensional beings, imagine a flatlander (2 dimensional being) seeing a sphere. To them they would still see a circle (incapable of perceiving depth) but to us we would see the sphere as a whole. Now in that scenario is anyone really wrong? What he does see is the circle, but we merely see the whole picture (or do we )
Yes, I read Edwin A. Abbott in high school too. But none of what you wrote makes a square circle on a Euclidean plane any more possible. I'm not just saying that because I'm "thinking in terms of linear physics"; I actually do know what I'm talking about here. For what it's worth, higher-dimensional spaces are hardly off-limits to us. We can't draw 4-dimensional shapes, but we can define and explore them mathematically. They are actually very well understood. But this is beside the point, because Euclidean planes, squares, and circles are two-dimensional. In a space of any dimensionality two or greater, if you construct a Euclidean plane, and you draw a circle on that plane, then that circle will never be a square. I am not invoking any physical laws whatsoever; it follows from the basic definitions of the terms "Euclidean plane", "circle", and "square". What I said was not meant to be a multidimensional mathematical mystery. It was a simple contradiction in terms, like "married bachelor" or "wholly black and wholly white".
Also as for your infinity argument, "motorhead" could very well become a unit of number measurements. Remember "numbers" are merely a man created system used to keep track of numerous objects or ideas. For all you know the unit of measurements after google could end up being named motorhead. Would that make sense not really, but the whole thing is it is legit impossible to tell because infinity refers to an idea humans have no conception of.
I thought it was perfectly clear that I was referring to the rock band, on account of I actually wrote, "that's not a number, it's a rock band". You will never find a number that is this rock band. Giving a number the same name as a rock band does not make the number the rock band, any more than naming your dog "Sasquatch" puts to rest all cryptozoological skepticism, or naming your car "Enterprise" lets you travel through space. Playing with names is important in literature and comedy, but in science and philosophy we are trying to learn about reality, which means paying attention to the real things that the names refer to.
Also String Theory absolutely has references to multiverses. Watch any 3 minute Michio Kaku video on youtube or another physicist and you will get that really quick.
Really? That's where you're getting this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I wonder on a daily basis that we may very well have multiple consciousnesses, that may be highly similar to ourselves, or which may serve other functions. When we see a person, we see a single body, so we merely assume it is a single consciousness. But if there were multiple lives dwelling each of us, then how would we know. Maybe each of our consciousnesses is oblivious to the existence of the others, and they all make the same assumption we do. that every other person they look at is a single person.
However we pretty much know that animals have consciousness just as we assume humans have consciousness, and therefore why I think it is wrong to exploit animals and cause them unnecessary harm. That is why I no longer buy any products made using (or made out of) animals.
Speaking of the sun, one really weird theory I had is that the sun is a computer, and the cause of all life on Earth. That our creation is the result of random data contained in sunlight which coincidentally contains a command sequence for all life to develop and evolve.
edit: Vsauce made a video about this, titled "What is Consciousness?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ
In short, science has no way to prove that consciousness exists. They also invoke the idea of a "philosophical zombie", meaning a hypothetical person who doesn't have a consciousness but is in every other way exactly like any other human being. Basically, a living robot.
If this challenge is meant in the strictest sense, you can't *prove* this negative. Nor can I prove there is NOT an invisible teapot orbiting a star on the other side of the universe. It's just highly reasonable to think this isn't the case.
In the sense as to why it's reasonable to believe the sun isn't conscious and we are... I'll just go with the first definition of consciousness that I pulled off google.
Consciousness: The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
The fact that I'm able to type an answer to this post proves that I am aware of and responsive to my surroundings. I was aware of this post and responded to it. Boom. Consciousness.
As for the sun, all things that we know to be conscious have also had brains. We also know that with enough brain damage, conscious things lose consciousness. Therefore it's pretty reasonable to believe that a working brain is required for consciousness. Based on our understanding of what stars are and how stars form, it's reasonable to believe that it doesn't have a brain. Without a brain, it's reasonable to believe that it is not conscious.
Consciousness: The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
I know I said this a long time ago when this thread first started, but since it's still going: Another reason the sun isn't conscious by this definition is that it is very hard for an object to be responsive to its surroundings when it obliterates everything in its surroundings. Nothing in our neck of the universe can physically impinge on the sun in a meaningful way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Very true. That's why I approached it from the other angle.
Also, to some of the other OP things...
1) We know what satisfaction is the same way we know what a tree is. We listen to see how the word is used and then figure out the definition. Or just look it up. It just so happens the word satisfaction describes a feeling. That's how when know what satisfaction feels like. It's just a term for a common feeling.
2) It's highly reasonable to believe that your computer doesn't feel anything when you type, much less satisfaction, because it doesn't have a nervous system or a brain in which chemical reactions can be produced.
Yes that is the guy I meant lol. And also according to string theory there is an infinite amount of universes with an infinite number of possibilities of those universe end. So technically in this universe for all you know there could be a sentient sun, that when it gets old enough will sprout arms and legs and go on a galactic rampage. Key part is you never know, no human has the ability to prove it. Which is why it is important to maintain Socratic wisdom, and until you know for sure that it is 100% possible (or not) it is dare I say foolish to think otherwise. Also idk if any of this makes sense right now...but im going with it
If we accept (as I do) the physicalist definition of the universe, then my thoughts and feelings are simply electrochemical impulses in my nerves. "Pain" is simply a word I use to describe one particular kind of electrochemical impulse, as is "satisfaction" or "consciousness." There is nothing particularly remarkable about these impulse, but the sensations they cause we assume to be rather unique. We find it difficult to explain them and rely solely on the assumption that my experience of pain is probably similar to yours. Thus, I assume when I say "pain" or "satisfaction," you know what I mean because you've had the same electrochemical impulses.
Maybe because of this assumption, as we go further and further away from our own biological system, we become more and more incredulous if something else experiences sensations that could fall into the same categories we use to label our sensations. Not too long ago, you had Caucasians claiming African's could not experience pain. The debate still rages about how much "consciousness" animals have, if fish or insects experience "pain." Yet, what we are talking about are electrochemical impulses, and electrochemical impulses about electrochemical impulses.
So, I got to wondering what my computer "felt" as I typed on it. Certainly, its wires and circuits are dissimilar to my nerves, but they also share similarities. If I am to believe I am simply an complicated biological computer, as physicalism tells me I am, yet I 'experience' 'emotions,' then how can I discount other physical objects -like a computer or star- from also 'experiencing' 'emotions?'
IDK, nor do I really know where I am going with these musings. I was hoping someone might be able to help me out.
But, few come to this part of the forum, and this is in the middle of a thread... so.... yeah...
Also, the multiverse theory may well be wrong. You're complaining about things not being proven, but this theory definitely hasn't been proven.
If it is foolish to think otherwise, then all scientists -- indeed, all human beings -- are fools. Science doesn't deal in 100% proofs. Ever. The car that you drive, the vaccine that keeps you healthy, the computer that you're reading these words on right now, all of them were only made possible through the use of empirical reasoning: reasoning that weighs observational evidence to deem hypotheses more or less likely to be true. In order to be a functional human, you need to be able to look at a sandwich on a plate and say, "Well, this might have been poisoned by space gnomes while I wasn't looking; I can't be absolutely sure it wasn't. But I'm confident enough it wasn't that I'm going to eat it."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
String theory is of course a theory and should be treated as such, but no different than the idea of creationism or big bang theory (although at least string theory wasn't proven wrong like big bang has been believed to have) Also your issue with the "square circle" argument is that you are thinking in terms of linear physics and believing that all natural laws hold true across the universe. Human perception is limited to the third dimension (LxWxH) however to a being of a different dimensional plane (4th, 5th, etc.) a square circle could be an actual geometric shape, as their perspective allows them to access a different dimensional perception than we would ever be capable of. To put it in an actual example for us mere 3rd dimensional beings, imagine a flatlander (2 dimensional being) seeing a sphere. To them they would still see a circle (incapable of perceiving depth) but to us we would see the sphere as a whole. Now in that scenario is anyone really wrong? What he does see is the circle, but we merely see the whole picture (or do we )
Also as for your infinity argument, "motorhead" could very well become a unit of number measurements. Remember "numbers" are merely a man created system used to keep track of numerous objects or ideas. For all you know the unit of measurements after google could end up being named motorhead. Would that make sense not really, but the whole thing is it is legit impossible to tell because infinity refers to an idea humans have no conception of.
Also String Theory absolutely has references to multiverses. Watch any 3 minute Michio Kaku video on youtube or another physicist and you will get that really quick.
Yes, I read Edwin A. Abbott in high school too. But none of what you wrote makes a square circle on a Euclidean plane any more possible. I'm not just saying that because I'm "thinking in terms of linear physics"; I actually do know what I'm talking about here. For what it's worth, higher-dimensional spaces are hardly off-limits to us. We can't draw 4-dimensional shapes, but we can define and explore them mathematically. They are actually very well understood. But this is beside the point, because Euclidean planes, squares, and circles are two-dimensional. In a space of any dimensionality two or greater, if you construct a Euclidean plane, and you draw a circle on that plane, then that circle will never be a square. I am not invoking any physical laws whatsoever; it follows from the basic definitions of the terms "Euclidean plane", "circle", and "square". What I said was not meant to be a multidimensional mathematical mystery. It was a simple contradiction in terms, like "married bachelor" or "wholly black and wholly white".
I thought it was perfectly clear that I was referring to the rock band, on account of I actually wrote, "that's not a number, it's a rock band". You will never find a number that is this rock band. Giving a number the same name as a rock band does not make the number the rock band, any more than naming your dog "Sasquatch" puts to rest all cryptozoological skepticism, or naming your car "Enterprise" lets you travel through space. Playing with names is important in literature and comedy, but in science and philosophy we are trying to learn about reality, which means paying attention to the real things that the names refer to.
Really? That's where you're getting this?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
However we pretty much know that animals have consciousness just as we assume humans have consciousness, and therefore why I think it is wrong to exploit animals and cause them unnecessary harm. That is why I no longer buy any products made using (or made out of) animals.
Speaking of the sun, one really weird theory I had is that the sun is a computer, and the cause of all life on Earth. That our creation is the result of random data contained in sunlight which coincidentally contains a command sequence for all life to develop and evolve.
edit: Vsauce made a video about this, titled "What is Consciousness?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ
In short, science has no way to prove that consciousness exists. They also invoke the idea of a "philosophical zombie", meaning a hypothetical person who doesn't have a consciousness but is in every other way exactly like any other human being. Basically, a living robot.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
In the sense as to why it's reasonable to believe the sun isn't conscious and we are... I'll just go with the first definition of consciousness that I pulled off google.
Consciousness: The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
The fact that I'm able to type an answer to this post proves that I am aware of and responsive to my surroundings. I was aware of this post and responded to it. Boom. Consciousness.
As for the sun, all things that we know to be conscious have also had brains. We also know that with enough brain damage, conscious things lose consciousness. Therefore it's pretty reasonable to believe that a working brain is required for consciousness. Based on our understanding of what stars are and how stars form, it's reasonable to believe that it doesn't have a brain. Without a brain, it's reasonable to believe that it is not conscious.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I know I said this a long time ago when this thread first started, but since it's still going: Another reason the sun isn't conscious by this definition is that it is very hard for an object to be responsive to its surroundings when it obliterates everything in its surroundings. Nothing in our neck of the universe can physically impinge on the sun in a meaningful way.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Also, to some of the other OP things...
1) We know what satisfaction is the same way we know what a tree is. We listen to see how the word is used and then figure out the definition. Or just look it up. It just so happens the word satisfaction describes a feeling. That's how when know what satisfaction feels like. It's just a term for a common feeling.
2) It's highly reasonable to believe that your computer doesn't feel anything when you type, much less satisfaction, because it doesn't have a nervous system or a brain in which chemical reactions can be produced.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane