The "simulation hypothesis" is indeed quite different from the hypothesis that there are imitations of people around. I'm not quite sure that it has "...
In this context, do we really have a basis for making these judgements? I've no problem with the idea that the Enlightenment is not perfect, and perha...
Well, perhaps, "without bugs" is an ideal, a target that may well not be achievable. Wittgenstein identifies what could be considered a bug with that ...
Maybe the expectation that either is a coherent system is a mistake. Evolution only requires that the systems work in normal circumstances. So quick a...
"Purposes" has to be interpreted liberally here. It will work in some cases, but not in all. For example, I don't think it works very well in the cont...
I'm sorry haven't been able to reply to you, but it seems that the moment has passed and the discussion moved on. In interesting ways Yes, that's the ...
It sounds as if Language is a real rag-bag. But I'm guessing that you are relying on the structure of signifier and signified as the common element. B...
When I wrote "dialect", I did not mean "dialectic". But maybe you are pointing to the same issue - mutual comprehension. There's only one philosophy t...
In one way, I agree with you. However, I have great difficulty in understanding the philosophical dialect you are speaking after that. One problem (wh...
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If it is within those boundaries, it is new in an old sense, already catered for. The points where the boundaries ...
I'm not sure whether you are saying that the T-sentences resolve the problem or not. I'm reminded of Wittgenstein asking himself how he can possibly u...
I see why belief is dyadic. But I don't see that truth is monadic. Surely truth has an (often suppressed) object - "true of" or "true to". A true righ...
Well, it is certainly true that the only kinds of beings that are conscious in our universe are humans and animals. Humans are our paradigm of a consc...
I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you exp...
This is a much contested theory. But what's the alternative? A logician can simply decide that "know" is primitive; but that's just abandoning the ide...
It just goes to show how easy it is to mistake "the people that I know" for "everyone". It happens all the time. One issue is whether the mind is loca...
The fundamental problem is to understand when we can say that the machine is doing anything, in the sense that humans do things. Can they be said to c...
I see that a lot of people have jumped on this. There's a lot of disagreement. But I agree that most people think that there is a close connection bet...
This is a really useful way to think about these issues - particularly when we are thinking about how AI might develop. It seems to me that it can be ...
This has been a very interesting - and stimulating discussion and I regret that I can't contribute more to This is a fascinating discussion and I regr...
That's an interesting idea. Perhaps someone will design artificial birds and deer - even big game - so that hunters can kill them without anyone getti...
Well, some people claim that they can't think at all! Are you conceding that they can think, just not creatively? Can you give a definition of "creati...
Yes, I guess so. So long as you make quite sure that they cannot reproduce themselves. It seems safe to predict that, on the whole, we will prefer our...
Exactly - though I would have put it a bit differently. It doesn't matter here. Yes. Further information can be very helpful. For example, the wider c...
I agree with every word of that! :smile: I think the fundamental problem is that neither Turing nor the commentators since then have (so far as I know...
We're not getting anywhere like this. Time to try something different. I did put my point badly. I've tried to find the analysis you refer to. I could...
I see. But then, there's the traditional point that induction doesn't rule out that it might be false, as in "the sun might not rise tomorrow morning"...
Yes. Do you disagree? What is your ground for moving from "it hasn't happened" to "it will never happen"? I know that other people are sentient, so I ...
I'm really puzzled. I thought your reply to @"RogueAI" meant that you thought we should not take such fantasies seriously. But you are now saying that...
Yes, that's exactly my point. In the world of "Matrix", not everything is a simulation. As to virtual reality, it is a representation of reality even ...
As it happens, I can say that it is impossible that everything is a simulation. A simulation needs to be a simulation of something. Take simulations o...
That's exactly why Turing's test is so persuasive - except that when we find machines that could pass it, we don't accept the conclusion, but start wo...
Yes. I don't think we'll really get anything out of going through all that again. Nor do I think we'll get further than our partial agreement. I'm jus...
That's a very good example. "A cloud of philosophy condensed in a drop of grammar", as Wittgenstein would say. In this case, condensed in the definiti...
That's a complicated statement. I'm not at all sure that I understand it. Sometimes it means exactly that. When it doesn't, it means "the first cause ...
If I could get my head round your dialogue with @"ucarr", I would have intervened before now. But I can't. No real meaning has ever been attached to p...
I guess that's true, though it leaves room for people to adopt a range of views, non of which would be incompatible so long as it doesn't presuppose a...
I'm afraid I can't resist some explanation why I can't contribute to this discussion. Paradoxical, I know, but then what's another paradox or two in t...
It's nice to agree on something, isn't it? I wasn't sure whether you would welcome the agreement or criticize the way I undermined it. I'm not sure I ...
Good question. It is awkward and that's why I like it. Wittgenstein leaves us with these ideas, but little indication of how he would take them furthe...
I'm not sure what the foundational order of thinking is or even whether there is one. But it is true that we are so reluctant to accept "no cause" tha...
I hadn't thought that far ahead. But yes, why not? It might require accepting, what Wittgenstein never said, but I suppose might have thought, that th...
Too right. From my point of view, this discussion suffers because it sets out to discuss metaphysics, which seems to be interpreted as discussing the ...
I'm not sure it makes any difference, but I think you have left out two options. I think the options are:- 1. A beginning, but no end (your ray). 2. A...
Yes, I thought it an interesting - even ingenious - manoeuvre. But it ends up as a rather fruitless disagreement, which is fundamentally merely tactic...
Ah, well, that's different. I even understand you when you say:- But I don't understand you at all when you say . Why don't you just say "therefore th...
I had thought that it must be possible to "extend" our time-line beyond the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. If we treat "now" as the origin of the line...
Quite so. It's perhaps worth noting that the same applies to what happens after the heat death of the universe. My difficulty here is that you seem to...
I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I think that's not quite what Hume says. He accepts the sceptical argument against the scholastic notion of a "...
Comments