New answers tagged

-1

Limits of functional definition Functional definition (of a object) is a definition based on a (primary) function. In our case , definition would be something like "keyboard is an object used for typing letters and other signs". Of course, this definition could be further clarified (connected to a computer or typewriter, has keys to be pressed, etc ...) but ...


1

A broken chair is a chair if it has almost the shape of a chair. Similarly a broken keyboard is a keyboard. Don't you call it a keyboard if a tiny inner-part, soldering is gone, OR if there is a loose contact in it? Similarly a keyboard without keys can be called a keyboard because it was a keyboard earlier and it has the shape of a keyboard. But you can't ...


3

In short form, it depends on how you WANT to define keyboard. What you are getting at is a question about the nature of definition. This is related to the ancient problem known as the ship of Theseus. 'What makes something what it is' is a very ontological question, but what you've spotted is an issue raised by Ludwig Wittgenstein and his observation of ...


0

First of all, there MUST be a difference. It has been argued for probably centuries, and it must come to a end. Existing Vs. Being Real Let us use the analogy: Illusion Illusion, is arguably both true and false. True in a sense that it is and can be presented, therefore exists.. and False, because its nature is referred as fallacious and deceitful. In an ...


0

There are many geometries. Most of us are familiar with the Euclidean, having Descartes' coordinate grid superimposed on it. This grid naturally leads us to think in terms of points. Set theorists are apt to follow that convention. But the real world is closer on a large scale to the Minkowski spacetime geometry of Relativity theory, modified on a minute ...


0

Imagine a pink Goblin. Give him two very white ears. Now change his color to blue. Make him a bit shorter than he was. Good. Now where does this Goblin "exist"? In my understanding I have come to accept that "exist" is a loaded word and can suffer from ambiguity of meaning based on different contexts. To say that something exists, like numbers, when ...


0

Not to be glib, but it does "exist" "somewhere." In your mind or imagination, experience, etc., as, for instance, qualia. Moreover, a classical idealist (See metaphysical/ontological idealism, say, ala Berkeley), essentially holds that the mental "it" of experience [though any idealist worth his salt would distinguish between, say, your imagination and a ...


0

Emotions are a feature of our consciousness, so this question is basically asking what the ontology of consciousness is. That is the central question of the Philosphy of Mind, and it has been a focus of much philosophic thought for the last century. This is because, as your questions note, the dominant movement in philosophy over the last century, ...


0

Beware of any claimant that can not do the following: Bob says "There is at least one dog on planet earth." Larry says "Prove it." Bob shows him a dog and says "HA! HA! I win!" Contrast this with the following claim. Bob says "There is at least one man over 100 feet tall on planet earth." Larry politely says "Prove it." Bob says "Theories can never ...


1

Yes, looking for the "hand of a designer" is a legitimate activity, and could be applied by the inhabitants of a simulation. It is a key feature in anthropology, in the SETI program, and in the tests of a Creator God claim (tests for the Problem of Evil, the Problem of non-optimization, etc). The tests for a Creator god are the only ones that answer your ...


0

Yes we can know 'something' about 'outside' world, if we live in a simulation. If Super Mario somehow figured out that his world is a simulation, what could he have judged about the world of its creators? He might have thought: Well, I can jump, probably my creators can jump, too. I can walk upstairs and downstairs, probably there are stairs in 'real' ...


0

To answer your main question: Yes, it does make sense. "One of his key assumptions is that other civilizations exist that can simulate us. Why do we make this assumption?" That assumption is not derived from a physical evidence, but is an assumption in itself for the sake of argument. So, Bostrom's argument is that (as I understand him from this interview: ...


1

The Leff article can be downloaded here. It is an interesting read. Looking at it critically, though, I think it's a good idea to contextualize Leff's position. Leff's problematic isn't really a matter of morality; it is, instead, a matter of moral authority. He keeps returning to the "who sez?" question (his spelling), and that question constantly ...


1

Preface Please consider reading this answer in the voice of a highly motivated and potentially slightly crazy University Professor which talks about the Topics he loves with great passion: https://images.app.goo.gl/bbcQeEtYZxBRrdew7 (That's not me, but it makes my point.) I will not link to external third party evidence that the contained thoughts are true....


Top 50 recent answers are included