Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 04:48:44 pm

Author Topic: The philosophy thread (all welcome)  (Read 20020 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2014, 12:04:06 pm »
0
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

slothpomba

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Chief Executive Sloth
  • Respect: +327
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2014, 06:17:04 pm »
0
First of all, it's great to see a different take on it (linguistics/phil. of language)! The thing i love about philosophical problems like this is anyone can have a crack at it from any perspective. If you were a mathematician you could think about translations in space and time. If you were a chemist or a botanist you might think about the structure of the wood.  If you were a boat enthusiast you might think about what the boat means to a person. The list really does go on.

Don't take my short reply/lack of quoting to mean i didn't read it, in fact i agree with a lot of it and feel i understood it quite well which is precisely why it wasn't quoted.

Both ships would warrant the label Theseus, because the label is inherent to the idea we form in our mind of Theseus but merely superimposed onto the physical object.

So, basically what you're saying is we have an idea or "check" of what is an object in our mind. We analyse things and if it meets that criteria, to us, it is that object.

If i had the ability to transform into a table and sat in my living room, people would think im a table. This is because i meet all their mental criteria for "table-ness". We have examples of this regarding art in the aesthetic section but it might be useful to think of changing parts of things as well. Say i broke into your house while you're on holiday and replaced everything with identical items, you wouldn't say anything is different at all. Likewise, if i broke into your car and rebuilt it over night using identical parts, you wouldn't say (or even know its any different).

I would reply to everyone else but i've ran out of steam!

This problem is in-fact also called the Ship of Theseus just like the book. Wikipedia has some suggestions. Most of the things said cover all that the book mentioned so in this particular case, i wont write up what the book has said. We can continue discussing the old (Theseus) problem and the new one for an extra day or two if need be to wrap up any lose ends but then to avoid being chaotic i think we should totally move on.

Now, the next problem as chosen by DJALogical by random numbers...

2. Buridan’s an ass (Logic)



If its too small i can make up a new one. The main question here is how should we choose between two equally as rational and evidenced choices.

This is a relatively easy problem, i think it is easier than the last one. On the surface, it may seem simple and boring. I'll add my own interpretation to beef it up. This problem, in a sneaky way, really asks us just how rational do we have to be. Do all our choices have to be "rational"? Should be look down upon choices that aren't "rational? What if we have two equally as rational options, what do we do then? One particular philosopher, in the case of religious options suggested that if the cases for two beliefs were similar, we can simply choose to believe the one we like better, its debatable whether this is a good method of resolving the deadlock. If many of our choices are outside the frame of rationality, what does this say about us or any of our beliefs?

It partially results from a quote by Jean Buridan (who the problem was named after and often distributed to):
Quote
Should two courses be judged equal, then the will cannot break the deadlock, all it can do is to suspend judgment until the circumstances change, and the right course of action is clear.

In this case suspending judgment obviously leads us to starve to death, in that way, we are almost forced to act outside rationality (or starve and remain "rational"?).

That's my own layers of interpretation on top of it, feel free to derive what other questions (beyond the obvious) you can from it.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 06:31:36 pm by slothpomba »

ATAR Notes Chat
Philosophy thread
-----
2011-15: Bachelor of Science/Arts (Religious studies) @ Monash Clayton - Majors: Pharmacology, Physiology, Developmental Biology
2016: Bachelor of Science (Honours) - Psychiatry research

brightsky

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3136
  • Respect: +200
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2014, 09:07:40 pm »
0
So, basically what you're saying is we have an idea or "check" of what is an object in our mind. We analyse things and if it meets that criteria, to us, it is that object.

If i had the ability to transform into a table and sat in my living room, people would think im a table. This is because i meet all their mental criteria for "table-ness". We have examples of this regarding art in the aesthetic section but it might be useful to think of changing parts of things as well. Say i broke into your house while you're on holiday and replaced everything with identical items, you wouldn't say anything is different at all. Likewise, if i broke into your car and rebuilt it over night using identical parts, you wouldn't say (or even know its any different).

Not quite. I should probably make myself a little clearer.

Firstly, do you agree that all ideas originate from some form of experience? Close your eyes and imagine the Sydney Opera House in front of you. The reason why you can form this mental image is because you have the idea of the Sydney Opera House in your mind. All you did was 'revivify' this idea. Now, the reason why you have this idea in your mind is because you have experienced the Sydney Opera House in some form before. Now, turn your attention back towards the image you conjured in your mind of the Sydney Opera House. How did you come to recognize that particular image as the 'Sydney Opera House'? After all, the term 'Sydney Opera House' is, at end of the day, simply a sequence of symbols? How did you know to attach this particular sequence of symbols to that image which you have in your mind? My theory is that we learn to attach particular words to particular ideas/physical objects through repeated experience of the words' use (experience of how people use other words also helps but obviously to a lesser extent). This is essentially how we become acquainted with a language.

Now, reconsider the example with the Sydney Opera House. It is unlikely that the mental image which you conjured up in your mind would have been EXACTLY the same as the actual Sydney Opera House which you have had some experience of before. The reason for this requires explanation. When we experience an object for the first time, we form an idea of that object in our minds. Now, obviously, one second after we experience the object, the idea that we have in our minds of the object would have been incredibly vivid. But as time passes, the vividness of the idea decreases. (This is one of the reasons why David Hume distinguishes between impressions and ideas.) Chances are, you have not experienced the Sydney Opera House in any form for quite some time. This is why when you revivified the idea of the Sydney Opera House in your mind just then, the idea was imprecise, in the sense that it did not correspond to the real Sydney Opera House exactly. But the term 'Sydney Opera House' is inherent to the idea not the actual object. Even though the idea which you conjured before did not correspond exactly to the real Sydney Opera House, you still recognized it as the Sydney Opera House (after all that was the image you conjured up in your mind when I told you to consider the Sydney Opera House). So, the answer to the original problem that you posed depends entirely on what you mean when you used the word 'Theseus'. Did you mean the precise arrangement of atoms which you first experienced the Theseus to be? In that case, then neither would warrant the label Theseus. Did you mean that ship which you would conjure up in your head if I asked you to imagine in your head the ship Theseus? In that case, then both would warrant the label Theseus.

To answer your question regarding tables, I don't think anyone would disagree with me if I said that everyone in the room would recognize you as a table, because the form you take would correspond roughly to the idea they have in their minds of a table. Does that mean you're a real table? Well, again, this comes down to what you define as a 'real table'. Are we to assume that there is an objective reality out there, and that we only experience part of that objective reality? Such an assumption is, in my view, untenable, although most people make this assumption out of hand. The only possible 'worlds' which I believe we can justifiably aver exists are the World of Experience, and the World of Ideas (which most people call the mental world). These two worlds are not mutually exclusive. Both worlds are only defined without respect to some consciousness (which I consider to be synonymous with the self). But that is for another day...

Hopefully that clears things up. I'll have a go at the second problem a little later...
2020 - 2021: Master of Public Health, The University of Sydney
2017 - 2020: Doctor of Medicine, The University of Melbourne
2014 - 2016: Bachelor of Biomedicine, The University of Melbourne
2013 ATAR: 99.95

Currently selling copies of the VCE Chinese Exam Revision Book and UMEP Maths Exam Revision Book, and accepting students for Maths Methods and Specialist Maths Tutoring in 2020!

EvangelionZeta

  • Quintessence of Dust
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2435
  • Respect: +288
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2014, 08:19:09 pm »
0
You will find Literature to be radically different from Philosophy...

Just to quickly chime in on this - this is definitely true of VCE-level Lit and Philosophy, but once you get to uni stuff you'll find there is actually a significant overlap, as a whole heap of famous continental philosophers are really just lit theorists or people working in lit departments. 

As for the Theseus' ship question, I'm inclined to agree with brightsky - identifying something is really just a question of language, which is itself a socially-ingrained code.  Whether or not it is Theseus' ship comes down to a question of what society is willing to accept.  At a more personal level it also possibly depends upon your own individual experience in being socialised. 

Re: the Buridan problem, I think it's perfectly fine to just go with the one you like better.  After all, isn't it in the interests of a rational actor to go with what they would prefer as opposed to...what they wouldn't prefer?  It seems like a dumb response to me to say that picking the one you like better isn't reasonable - if anything, it's something inextricable from rationality itself...
---

Finished VCE in 2010 and now teaching professionally. For any inquiries, email me at [email protected].

slothpomba

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Chief Executive Sloth
  • Respect: +327
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2014, 08:15:06 pm »
0
I wrote a longer response but i accidentally deleted it so ill keep it short and sweet. I've read the other responses and they've been excellent.

I think this problem is interesting (whilst seemingly dull) because it makes us think about just how rational we really are/think we are. Experience from many domains shows us that we aren't always as rational as we think we are (economics, psychology, health-care, etc).

The problem is bit of a false dilemma i think. Rational or irrational aren't the only choices. A choice can be "non-rationality", it is outside the domain of rationality sure but it is not necessarily an irrational choice. The fact that prefer vanilla icecream over chocolate isn't anything rational, theres no real logic or evidence behind it, it's just simply what i like. It's not an irrational choice, it's not as if i'm denying mountains of logic, evidence or reality to enjoy vanilla, it simply just is so. This is extended to other domains like musical taste, lovers and perception of beauty in things. Rationality or lack thereof really doesn't enter into these domains much at all.

As for the challenge posed, "rational irrationality" is indeed rational. Sure, in this case, it probably is irrational to decide it on a flip of a coin but it is rational to make that irrational choice because otherwise we would starve. If we suspended judgment or action on all things that had an irrational component to them, it seems like our entire lives would just kind of fall apart (and wouldn't be very fun either). As the book puts it "Accepting that it can be rational to be non-rational does not open the door to irrationality". Here is the wikipedia page of the problem for a little further reading but this one is fairly clean cut.



3. Kill and let die



My quick interpretation (by no means the only one). The question here is if there is any difference between killing and letting die (moral or otherwise).

This problem has several components. Component 1 asks us whether there is any difference (morally) between 5 or 40 dying. Using a utilitarian view, it is better for 5 to die over 40 but this isn't the only viewpoint. Component 2 is the obvious one, is there any difference between killing someone and allowing them to die? Is the answer to this problem true everytime or does it vary based on circumstance? As a generalised principal, is there a difference between doing an action and allowing an action to take place?

An accompanying component is about responsibility. Should we feel any less responsible for killing verses letting die? Do we have the same duty not to kill as to prevent people dying? In many cases, people are more reluctant to perform CPR on family members than strangers. Sometimes our sense of responsibility or lack-thereof can bring surprising consequences.

As always, everyone is welcome, you dont need to know any philosophy and there is arguably no "correct" answer here, don't be afraid! One sentence or 50, it doesn't matter. Can the next person to post please use the box on the right of this website to choose a number between 1 and 110.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 08:37:33 pm by slothpomba »

ATAR Notes Chat
Philosophy thread
-----
2011-15: Bachelor of Science/Arts (Religious studies) @ Monash Clayton - Majors: Pharmacology, Physiology, Developmental Biology
2016: Bachelor of Science (Honours) - Psychiatry research

slothpomba

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Chief Executive Sloth
  • Respect: +327
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2014, 10:32:54 pm »
0
Since we've gotten no responses in the thread (gotten a fair few in Chat), i'll chuck my hat in the ring. I'll leave a few days for replies and then we'll move along again (I'm not giving up yet  ::) ).

In my opinion, the question has two components that illustrate different ethical fields. On the one hand, people think about what they would or should do but this can be distinct from what they actually WILL do. Many people would say they would kill 5 to save 40; that is quite distinct from whether they would actually pull the lever though.

In many peoples minds, standing by and allowing it to happen (since it would have happened anyway) is not as bad as actively causing the death of the five. There are many situations we simply allow to occur rather than cause, we feel no guilt about them. Children are starving globally, the world is ravaged by conflict. We usually feel little responsibility or guilt for those children, sure, we could do more to stop it but it's not as if we're actively starving them.

The bystander effect partially explains it. In emergency situations, people are often reluctant to help, petrified by fear or shock. There have been cases of being robberies or beatings in public where witnesses just stand around. Similarly, in medical emergencies like heart attacks, people tend to be frozen. People are less likely to do first aid on relatives than strangers.

There are different ethical frameworks to view this issue through. Most of us will intuitively go for consequentialism , killing 5 means less deaths and thus is the better option. This ethical system is based on the consequences/outcomes of your actions, it's wrong to hit your mate in the face because it'll hurt him as a consequence. Many other options exist. Deontology (duty based) ethics is about the nature of the act rather than its consequences. You shouldn't hit him because it is simply wrong, even if no harm comes. Selling poison baby formula is wrong by the nature of the act regardless if anyone gets hurt; consequentialists may argue that isn't wrong unless someone actually does get hurt.

Who are we to decide if the lives of those 40 are worth more than the 5? The act of killing is wrong, even if it is to save lives under the deontological view. I think i'll take that position here just because it is the interesting one (feel free to argue against it). The other question is there a difference between killing and letting die? I think it honestly varies based on the circumstances and this particular issue has many philosophical ramifications for things like abortion (some argue that abortion is merely removing what the baby needs to live, in a way, it is allowing it to die rather than killing it). I might elaborate on this in another post.

ATAR Notes Chat
Philosophy thread
-----
2011-15: Bachelor of Science/Arts (Religious studies) @ Monash Clayton - Majors: Pharmacology, Physiology, Developmental Biology
2016: Bachelor of Science (Honours) - Psychiatry research

spectroscopy

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1966
  • Respect: +373
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2014, 02:24:05 am »
0
i think if we put the overall question of killing vs letting die into a real life example it becomes a bit more clear: say that you were an off duty paramedic and someone was choking to death in an empty street and your heimlich maneuver would save them, but you dont do it because cbf/petrified/sociopath - its pretty much the same as killing that person. you didnt actively kill them, but dont people who have the power to do something have the responsibility to do something? at least on that small of a scale.
if you start talking about large scale stuff like wars and famine, obviously heaps of people donate/volunteer/zidisha to help out, but because its a detached scenario from us, heaps of people can help out, and plenty do, so your inaction isnt killing people.
but the train problems sorta in the middle of that, you arent right there, but it isnt in a far off land. iunno, i think as a living organism your natural reaction if you arent subdued with stress is "shit those 40 people are going to die, quick divert the train". but on a personal level the 5 dudes will be like "wtf man you killed us", whereas if you leave the train the 40 would be like "aw greg was too slow, bye guys". and then other issues pop up that arent in the original theory like what if the train was put on that path for a reason? shit like that. imagining the scenario in real life though, it would probably take a cold hearted person to divert the train. this is still a trippy question

all i know/think is that on the small scale like the choking person, where its one on one, no tossing up choices, letting them die is like killing them, on the scale of the train in the scenario, its still pretty personal, and at that point the people are still really human(as in they arent a number or statistic to the people making the decision), if you diverted the train people would be like "greg mate you killed bob and sally and tim" but if you left it they would say more "oh you couldnt do anything" "the train was hurtling down" "its not your fault", so id probs not divert it, but if it was an even bigger scale, like a train with a bomb going to a city of 2 million vs diverted to a town of 10,000, you would divert it because instead of thinking "you killed x and y" its more like "wow you saved 2million people" and it would be a disaster not to divert,

its 2:20 am and im sleepy and incoherent so please forgive that but your posts looked lonely and i felt like saying something LOL :D

slothpomba

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Chief Executive Sloth
  • Respect: +327
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2014, 03:24:41 am »
0
I guess you make a good point that its a matter of scale and how immediately you can help as well. If it's happening right next to you and you're the only one that can help (especially if its easily so as well) it is almost killing. It would have been so easily done, with so little effort and trouble, your callous and negligent disregard resulted in a death that otherwise could have been easily and 100% prevented by only you. I'm no big city lawyer (or any lawyer) but at least in the legal system, i think even in a case like this, a distinction is still made. Indeed, i believe in many places you're not even legally obligated to offer assistance. If you count killing someone as either murder or homicide, i guess you could swing it to argue that this was homicide. Your action (or inaction) resulted in their death.

I can definitely see the point you're making about war and famine as well. Contrary to the above, it's definitely a constant thing and short of selling all your possessions (and even then) most average people couldn't possibly hope to prevent it. Your action even then might not alter the course of events taking place. Just due to this it might be an entirely separate problem from your heimlich one or the train one.  You definitely spotted a flaw i didn't even realise in what i said, bonus points!

I think you make a very good point thinking of it from the perspective of the people who the train is hitting as well. If you could revive them or talk to their ghost, i wonder how either group would personally feel about your decision.

We can continue both problems for another few days if anyone else wants to chime in, i'll edit in a new one below shortly.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 03:38:37 am by slothpomba »

ATAR Notes Chat
Philosophy thread
-----
2011-15: Bachelor of Science/Arts (Religious studies) @ Monash Clayton - Majors: Pharmacology, Physiology, Developmental Biology
2016: Bachelor of Science (Honours) - Psychiatry research

slothpomba

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Chief Executive Sloth
  • Respect: +327
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2014, 03:39:23 am »
0
4. The experience machine



I'm not even sure what to write here. I don't have an analysis like usual. I have an almost inherent aversion or even disgust for what he's doing but i can't put my finger on it. A few philosophical problems are like this, it's easy to see and feel that something is wrong but its much harder to put your finger on what. Everyone feel free to take away from it what you will. Forcing myself though, i guess the main question is this - Is a simulated 'good life' just as good as a regular 'good life'? Is the only purpose or meaning of life individual pleasure (such that the machine provides)? Is there something more then? What does many peoples inherent revulsion to this tell us, even though it would be a pleasurable experience? Would you sign up for this? Is there something wrong with this? What are the consequences for society of this kind of thing, would everyone be able to do this or only a select few? Indeed, do we even deserve something like this (even just the illusion) if we haven't worked for it? Is it a selfish act? You're basically abandoning the rest of society.

Once again, anyone is welcome to join in. You need not know any philosophy or what it is, you dont need to use any fancy words, there's no minimum length or anything like that. Don't be afraid of being wrong either, there's no one real right answer. All you need to do is have a thought about this. Have one? Post it!

Just like to also note i'll be using this post and the one after it to gauge for interest. The number of posters has declined lately and if it continues, there's not much option but to stop posting (not very fun talking to myself!). I know there are plenty of people reading it (700+ views!) so i'd encourage all you lurkers to have a go.

Since i'm a little short for my own thoughts here, i'll take the first couple paragraphs of the books answers/commentary bit:

Spoiler
It's easy to see why Robert is holding back. Life in the machine would be bogus, inauthentic, unreal. But why should an authentic 'real' life, with its remorseless cycles of ups and downs, be preferable to a bogus happy one?

A sales agent for the happiness machine could offer some powerful arguments that it is not. First, consider what 'authenticity' and 'real' mean. An authentic person is who they really are, not what they pretend to be. But Robert will still be Robert in the machine. He can reveal his true personality there as easily as he can outside.

Then you might say that in the real world, you become a star by merit, whereas in the machine it would not be his own efforts which were rewarded. To which it might be replied, have you heard most rock stars, talent has little to do with it; luck and opportunity everything. Roberts fame in the machine will be no less deserved than the fame of the countless wannabes who make it up the slippery pole of pop. Indeed, that is the great recommendation of the experience machine.  Success in life depends so much on luck: were you born in the right place, at the right time, to the right parents? Were you endowed with the abilities your society values and rewards? Did you' have access to the people and places that could help you get ahead? to say it is better to leave yourself at the mercy of Lady Luck when you could choose to be happy is crazy.

Further reading : The Experience Machine - Wikipedia.
"Philosophy Comments" Blog
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 08:07:18 am by slothpomba »

ATAR Notes Chat
Philosophy thread
-----
2011-15: Bachelor of Science/Arts (Religious studies) @ Monash Clayton - Majors: Pharmacology, Physiology, Developmental Biology
2016: Bachelor of Science (Honours) - Psychiatry research

cute

  • Guest
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2014, 09:02:45 am »
0
(Don't worry I'm here to talk to you and sound like an idiot while I do it)

The above scenario reminds me of the Matrix 'red-pill blue-pill' situation. While there is the option to live in happy oblivion, some still choose to learn the truth. Knowledge and knowledge of reality are very important to many people, which persuades them to reject false happiness in exchange for pure reality. This situation would change depending on whether 'Robert' would remember this decision. If he were to have erased memories, then either choice would seem real to him, and he wouldn't know any better. It may be difficult for him to decide at this point, but if he were to realise that future, happy him would never know of this or the experience machine it may sway him the other way.

/I've never posted in a philosophical discussion before or studied philosophy so yeah I'm sorry

spectroscopy

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1966
  • Respect: +373
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2014, 11:11:10 am »
0
I'm not even sure what to write here. I don't have an analysis like usual. I have an almost inherent aversion or even disgust for what he's doing but i can't put my finger on it. A few philosophical problems are like this, it's easy to see and feel that something is wrong but its much harder to put your finger on what. Everyone feel free to take away from it what you will. Forcing myself though, i guess the main question is this - Is a simulated 'good life' just as good as a regular 'good life'? Is the only purpose or meaning of life individual pleasure (such that the machine provides)? Is there something more then? What does many peoples inherent revulsion to this tell us, even though it would be a pleasurable experience? Would you sign up for this? Is there something wrong with this? What are the consequences for society of this kind of thing, would everyone be able to do this or only a select few? Indeed, do we even deserve something like this (even just the illusion) if we haven't worked for it? Is it a selfish act? You're basically abandoning the rest of society.

Once again, anyone is welcome to join in. You need not know any philosophy or what it is, you dont need to use any fancy words, there's no minimum length or anything like that. Don't be afraid of being wrong either, there's no one real right answer. All you need to do is have a thought about this. Have one? Post it!

Just like to also note i'll be using this post and the one after it to gauge for interest. The number of posters has declined lately and if it continues, there's not much option but to stop posting (not very fun talking to myself!). I know there are plenty of people reading it (700+ views!) so i'd encourage all you lurkers to have a go.



just a little thing - it doesnt say that he cant live his real life after the virtual one :P he could have the virtual rock star life, get it all out of his system then settle down and become a doctor or something (LOL!)
on a grand big picture scale though - a huge question becomes how useful would 'Robert' be to humanity? is he smart? super creative? can he contribute something to our societies and species? because, if he is smart and could cure a cancer, or write a beautiful symphony, or start a new tech boom, then it is sort of against his duty to humanity if he signs up for the machine. sure, these huge ambitions might not come to fruition and he might not have the best life, but if he has that potential to be a great man, and not live a myopic existence, then it is a sort of cowards way out to take the virtual life. that is an extenuating circumstance though and not many people would have that issue to worry about. assuming 'Robert' is absolutely dead median at everything he does, then it becomes more of a religious spiritual thing - assuming he follows a monotheistic abrahamic religion he has to look at if what he would be doing would be bad in the eyes of god? like what if he goes in to the virtual life becomes a rock star and has the worlds most hedonistic lifestyle? would that count against him in the afterlife? or is it a virtual world so it doesnt matter? but then again if he does that sort of thing it still shows his true character come judgement time?
^ that is all really over analysing in circumstances your average joe wouldnt be in (very religious/very smart/succesful)
as a 100% average joe he is just chasing endorphins !! :P we may think its silly or gross but if he wont be missed much in our world then let him have his fun !! :P

slothpomba

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Chief Executive Sloth
  • Respect: +327
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2014, 09:30:25 pm »
0
/I've never posted in a philosophical discussion before or studied philosophy so yeah I'm sorry

Well, you're studying it now :p. I'd just like to point out i know no more than you guys on these topics. I skipped first year philosophy which introduces all the broad areas and went straight to 2nd year philosophy of religion, that's literally all i know philosophy wise. It might not seem like it but the playing field is actually equal here. It's also the reason why the religion section is longer than the rest and has an additional book for sources (cause its one of the few other philosophy books i own). In-fact, embarrassingly enough, i actually put this problem into the wrong category as well.. more on that later though.

The above scenario reminds me of the Matrix 'red-pill blue-pill' situation.

Fun (yeah not so fun i know) fact, they use that in first year philosophy classes at Monash, they show the matrix. It's actually a pretty philosophical film (or so i'm told, i saw one of them years ago).

While there is the option to live in happy oblivion, some still choose to learn the truth. Knowledge and knowledge of reality are very important to many people, which persuades them to reject false happiness in exchange for pure reality.

I think that is a good point and i did miss that one. It could be argued that there really isn't any reality though. There are some people out there (i'm sure you know a few) who are really full of themselves and think they're say more attractive, smarter or just plain better than everyone else. Is that necessarily reality? With these kinds of people, many would say that they're not living in 'reality'. Yet for the person who believes these things, it is everyone else that is wrong. Reality to an extent might be what you make of it as well, some naturally more happy and upbeat people are bound to interpret bad things more positively than people who are a little less chipper.

It also depends on what you think "real" happiness is if you think this is false.

This situation would change depending on whether 'Robert' would remember this decision. If he were to have erased memories, then either choice would seem real to him, and he wouldn't know any better. It may be difficult for him to decide at this point, but if he were to realise that future, happy him would never know of this or the experience machine it may sway him the other way.

At least according to the machine, once you are in it, you think it is real. So, i guess that would imply its impossible to remember you're in the machine. I think you touch on another critque i picked up reading about this. The experience machine can only give you experiences that the machine (or your mind) knows or is programmed to give you. If this was the 80s, the machine couldn't give you the experience of using a computer or a large screen TV today because those things weren't around.

Anyway, welcome to the thread, hope you stay and that was a bit of a baptism by fire!

ATAR Notes Chat
Philosophy thread
-----
2011-15: Bachelor of Science/Arts (Religious studies) @ Monash Clayton - Majors: Pharmacology, Physiology, Developmental Biology
2016: Bachelor of Science (Honours) - Psychiatry research

slothpomba

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Chief Executive Sloth
  • Respect: +327
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2014, 09:43:37 pm »
0
On another note, on further reading, i kind of fucked up. It turns out this problem is more about politics and ethics than i thought (see title of source). It's an attempt to defeat the idea of "ethical hedonism" by the author. If you break it down, ethical relates to the area of philosophy that talks about morality. Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is good, indeed in this case, pleasure/happiness is the only good, the only thing that matters. Since we have mostly beginners here, i thought i'd take some time to explore the idea  (Politics need NOT be talked about, indeed, the author of the little story interpreted it more in the way of reality and meaning of life. The source that he got it from though does talk about politics).

Philosophical hedonism is a bit different to the average sense of the word but hedonism bot from futurama comes to mind to help illustrate this. He's plated in solid gold and carried around on a gold chair by servants. He has an inbuilt bowl of grapes to constantly gorge himself on (and a robot arm feeds him). If pleasure is really the only good, most people would have absolutely no problem with the experience machine. If you do, it shows you that the idea of ethical hedonism might be wrong.

So, i guess imagine an ethical hedonist society for a second. In some interpretations what maximises pleasure to you alone is a good act. So, if you're in public, you can go take a bite out of someones icecream because it'll increase your happiness or pleasure (whats the problem with this?). If you apply it to everyone as a whole, it becomes a version of a philosophy called utilitarianism. Put simply, good things are things that maximise "utility" (usually taken as happiness) across a section of people, it's actually rather mathematical. It's the reasoning we often employ in real life as well.

Let's say that you and your 4 friends (total 5) decide to go out and eat. Four of you want Chinese, one wants Italian. What would you usually do? Choose the Chinese probably. Under utilitarianism, this is the option that maximises pleasure among people and it is the right one. Let's assign arbitrary happiness units called Smiles. One positive smile ( ;D ) is assigned if you get what you want, one negative smile ( :'( )is assigned if you don't.

Sarah   Wants Chinese
Salman   Wants Chinese
Chelsea   Wants Italian
Plato   Wants Chinese
Luke   Wants Chinese

Assuming they get Chinese:

Sarah:  ;D (+1)
Salman:  ;D (+1)
Chelsea:  :'( (-1)
Plato:  ;D (+1)
Luke:  ;D (+1)

Total: (+4)+(-1) = +3

Assuming they get Italian:

Sarah:  :'( (-1)
Salman:  :'( (-1)
Chelsea:  ;D (+1)
Plato:  :'( (-1)
Luke:  :'( (-1)

Total: (+1)+(-4) = -3

Under this philosophy, you would choose the one that maxmises happiness, that is obviously going to the Chinese place. Just note that this isn't the only (or even mainstream) version of utilitarianism which talks more about utility or happiness rather than pleasure per se.


« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 10:39:30 pm by slothpomba »

ATAR Notes Chat
Philosophy thread
-----
2011-15: Bachelor of Science/Arts (Religious studies) @ Monash Clayton - Majors: Pharmacology, Physiology, Developmental Biology
2016: Bachelor of Science (Honours) - Psychiatry research

marr

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Respect: +27
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2014, 12:35:18 pm »
0
I like lurking in this thread but I'm always so intimidated to post in it due to how smart and intuitive some of the posters' answers are :P

Is it unusual that I don't have that 'inherent aversion or disgust' at the idea of the experience machine? Yes truth and knowing reality are very important in life but I agree with slothpomba in that reality itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation based on the individual. If Robert were to sign up he would completely forget his choice and would believe it to be true reality.

Framed in a darker light, is suicide ever justified? What would be the difference between Robert signing up for the experience machine and for him to commit suicide? - Both outcomes lead to him being 'removed' from our shared reality but at least in one situation he'd be happy (ignoring the concept of the afterlife).

Truth is an interesting concept, why do we seek it? Is it just an ideal that doesn't exist objectively, and if so why do we want it? Is it better to have loved and lost or is ignorance truly bliss?

Honestly I'm not saying that I'd be willing to sign up for the experience machine (maybe I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here too) but I would be understanding towards someone else who would sign up for it.


Just my thoughts ... I hope they weren't completely incoherent and crazy!   ;D

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: The philosophy thread (all welcome)
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2014, 12:40:12 pm »
0
I like lurking in this thread but I'm always so intimidated to post in it due to how smart and intuitive some of the posters' answers are :P

Is it unusual that I don't have that 'inherent aversion or disgust' at the idea of the experience machine? Yes truth and knowing reality are very important in life but I agree with slothpomba in that reality itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation based on the individual. If Robert were to sign up he would completely forget his choice and would believe it to be true reality.

Framed in a darker light, is suicide ever justified? What would be the difference between Robert signing up for the experience machine and for him to commit suicide? - Both outcomes lead to him being 'removed' from our shared reality but at least in one situation he'd be happy (ignoring the concept of the afterlife).

Truth is an interesting concept, why do we seek it? Is it just an ideal that doesn't exist objectively, and if so why do we want it? Is it better to have loved and lost or is ignorance truly bliss?

Honestly I'm not saying that I'd be willing to sign up for the experience machine (maybe I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here too) but I would be understanding towards someone else who would sign up for it.


Just my thoughts ... I hope they weren't completely incoherent and crazy!   ;D
Interesting thoughts, thanks very much :) You should contribute more often!
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️