The real world of average thinkers.

[integral]

Quote

Personally, I doubt everything.

I can't name a single thing that I can honestly claim to know 100%.

Even "experiencing".
You said it yourself, no one has ever understood "not experiencing" - therefore, how can we know the difference?

How can we tell the difference between "I am, definitely, experiencing" vs "I think I'm experiencing, but I'm actually not".

I have never identified an honest satisfactory answer to that question.

Besides, there are benefits to doubting everything and not having a solid foundation for knowledge.

it avoids Munchhausan's Trilemma completely.

honestly admitting that everything actually is doubted is better than claiming or thinking you have an absolute foundation for knowledge when you actually do not. That is, with doubt there's no chance of deluding one's self.

^ The above is from a Reddit comment In a metaphysics forum.

Don't ask why I'm there, it's just random entertainment. I rarely spend any time there.

"I think I'm experiencing, but I'm actually not". 😂😂😂😂

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[integral]

More:

Quote

 

"How do you know that?

I possibly could not be experiencing right now when I'm reading this because I don't know everything.

Any and every rational person should doubt that we are experiencing right now because no one is able to answer the following question:

How do you identify a difference between actually experiencing something and only thinking that you're experiencing something, but you're actually not?

If you can't answer that - you're with me and the rest of humanity, and you should doubt "existing" because we don't know everything.

If you can answer that, fantastic, please proceed. I can learn something and you can get a Nobel Prize because no one has ever been able to answer that question before."

-rediter

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[Nemra]

Doubting the truth of a thing that includes the doubting itself. 🥲

[Nemra]

Quote

you should doubt "existing" because we don't know everything.

[integral]

@Nemra I'm being too harsh because I had all the same way of thinking when I first did philosophy as a teenager so There's nothing wrong with what he's doing.

But yeah, it's hilarious watching it. lmAOO

What's interesting about all this is that AI is technically thinking and not experiencing.

Only proving further that Descartes was 100% wrong.

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[Nemra]

46 minutes ago, integral said:

I'm being too harsh because I had all the same way of thinking when I first did philosophy as a teenager

I only knew the word "philosophy" when I was young. 😆

The philosophy lessons at my university were so bad (basically memorizing some stuff that wasn't even explained properly) that I became demotivated from exploring philosophy. I intuited that the lessons were very shallow. I was unknowingly doing philosophy in my own way.

46 minutes ago, integral said:

What's interesting about all this is that AI is technically thinking and not experiencing.

Only proving further that Descartes was 100% wrong.

How can a thought exist inside a POV that doesn't exist?

Aren't you experiencing your thoughts?

Edited 4 hours ago by Nemra

[integral]

34 minutes ago, Nemra said:

How can a thought exist inside a POV that doesn't exist?

Aren't you experiencing your thoughts?

How I think of AI is that it's a rock that we tricked into computation.

Computation is not the same as experiencing thinking.

Is a calculator experiencing anything when it adds 2 numbers? No.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, integral said:

"That is, with doubt there's no chance of deluding one's self."

Oh how wrong he is.

[integral]

@Leo Gura 

they're confusing "what is existence?" with "How do i know i exist?".

They think you have to answer the first one to answer the second one.

The second one is self-evident but they wont accept self-evidence as evidence.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[Nemra]

8 minutes ago, integral said:

How I think of AI is that it's a rock that we tricked into computation.

Computation is not the same as experiencing thinking.

Is a calculator experiencing anything when it adds 2 numbers? No.

Sure, a calculator isn't thinking. So an AI, no matter how complex computations it does, isn't thinking.

But if it someday reflected the capability of thinking, then you would have to say that it has a POV due to using the idea of thinking from your POV. But the thing is that its POV happens inside your POV.

[integral]

24 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Sure, a calculator isn't thinking. So an AI, no matter how complex computations it does, isn't thinking.

But if it someday reflected the capability of thinking, then you would have to say that it has a POV due to using the idea of thinking from your POV. But the thing is that its POV happens inside your POV.

This would flip everything upside down and be that thinking is what then creates experience.

 

[Nemra]

The Redditor thinks that the self-evident nature of doubt is evidence of non-existence. So, for the Redditor, non-existence becomes self-evident just by being able to doubt existence.

But the Redditor does not understand that self-evidence means that the existence of a thing is its validation of being existentially true.

For the Redditor, truth can be non-existent. But how can a thing be true if it does not exist? By definition, if anything exists, the existence of that thing is true.

[Nemra]

22 minutes ago, integral said:

This would flip everything upside down and be that thinking is what then creates experience.

Have your thoughts ever referred to non-experiential stuff?

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

The Redditor thinks that the self-evident nature of doubt is evidence of non-existence. So, for the Redditor, non-existence becomes self-evident just by being able to doubt existence.

But the Redditor does not understand that self-evidence means that the existence of a thing is its validation of being existentially true.

For the Redditor, truth can be non-existent. But how can a thing be true if it does not exist? By definition, if anything exists, the existence of that thing is true.

Which is why anything that is assumed to be true will be self-evident due to truth being self-evident.

The deviousness of that is underappreciated. It's genius.

So, no one will admit that they are wrong without being open-minded to being wrong.

Nobody can be convinced if they don't want to be convinced.

That is how hypnosis works; you must be willing to be hypnotized in order for the hypnosis to start working.

Edited 2 hours ago by Nemra

[Thought Art]

@integral He is above average , but where he is in his contemplation.