Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Artificial Intelligence

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:07:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was just talking to a friend who is studying AI, with the eventual goal of designing a machine to be as human like as possible, including reason and emotion, and the ability to communicate fluently. This raises a lot of philosophical questions, so i figured i would start a thread and see what DDOians have to say.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:34:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:07:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I was just talking to a friend who is studying AI, with the eventual goal of designing a machine to be as human like as possible, including reason and emotion, and the ability to communicate fluently. This raises a lot of philosophical questions, so i figured i would start a thread and see what DDOians have to say.

I don't think it's a person. Why? Because I don't think that the mind is an emergent property of physical matter, and I don't think that physical matter is the mind either.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:34:43 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:07:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I was just talking to a friend who is studying AI, with the eventual goal of designing a machine to be as human like as possible, including reason and emotion, and the ability to communicate fluently. This raises a lot of philosophical questions, so i figured i would start a thread and see what DDOians have to say.

I don't think it's a person. Why? Because I don't think that the mind is an emergent property of physical matter, and I don't think that physical matter is the mind either.

It being an emergent property doesn't necessarily contradict idealism though...

You have the grand mind and then you have sub-minds made of the same stuff but emergent from the grand-mind-stuff (physical matter).
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:47:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:34:43 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:07:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I was just talking to a friend who is studying AI, with the eventual goal of designing a machine to be as human like as possible, including reason and emotion, and the ability to communicate fluently. This raises a lot of philosophical questions, so i figured i would start a thread and see what DDOians have to say.

I don't think it's a person. Why? Because I don't think that the mind is an emergent property of physical matter, and I don't think that physical matter is the mind either.

It being an emergent property doesn't necessarily contradict idealism though...

You have the grand mind and then you have sub-minds made of the same stuff but emergent from the grand-mind-stuff (physical matter).

Very good point,but I think mike means that he doesn't think consciousness is emergent from non-consciousness.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:33:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:28:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:47:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:34:43 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:07:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I was just talking to a friend who is studying AI, with the eventual goal of designing a machine to be as human like as possible, including reason and emotion, and the ability to communicate fluently. This raises a lot of philosophical questions, so i figured i would start a thread and see what DDOians have to say.

I don't think it's a person. Why? Because I don't think that the mind is an emergent property of physical matter, and I don't think that physical matter is the mind either.

It being an emergent property doesn't necessarily contradict idealism though...

You have the grand mind and then you have sub-minds made of the same stuff but emergent from the grand-mind-stuff (physical matter).

Very good point,but I think mike means that he doesn't think consciousness is emergent from non-consciousness.

In idealism, is your perception of a teapot a 'conscious teapot' or an 'unconscious teapot?'. Or furtherstill, is every individual electron conscious?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:37:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with John Searle, in the sense that using computation alone will not and can not produce a mind. You cannot get semantics from syntax. The only hope is to replicate the brain, even then I'm not sure if it will work.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:00:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:07:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I was just talking to a friend who is studying AI, with the eventual goal of designing a machine to be as human like as possible, including reason and emotion, and the ability to communicate fluently. This raises a lot of philosophical questions, so i figured i would start a thread and see what DDOians have to say.

We talked about this a few months ago and had an interesting conversation:

https://www.debate.org...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:33:12 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:28:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:47:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:34:43 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:07:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I was just talking to a friend who is studying AI, with the eventual goal of designing a machine to be as human like as possible, including reason and emotion, and the ability to communicate fluently. This raises a lot of philosophical questions, so i figured i would start a thread and see what DDOians have to say.

I don't think it's a person. Why? Because I don't think that the mind is an emergent property of physical matter, and I don't think that physical matter is the mind either.

It being an emergent property doesn't necessarily contradict idealism though...

You have the grand mind and then you have sub-minds made of the same stuff but emergent from the grand-mind-stuff (physical matter).

Very good point,but I think mike means that he doesn't think consciousness is emergent from non-consciousness.

In idealism, is your perception of a teapot a 'conscious teapot' or an 'unconscious teapot?'. Or furtherstill, is every individual electron conscious?

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:25:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If idealism is true, doesn't that kind of make us mind-readers?

Assuming what appears to be the external world is just the thoughts or dreams of God, aren't we reading God's mind?

In the case of us interacting in what appears to be the external world, our thoughts (especially our decisions and volitions) affect the world. So to an extend, what goes on in the external world is the result of each person's mind. I can witness what you're doing, and you can witness what I'm doing. Does that mean we're reading each other's minds?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:39:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:25:23 PM, philochristos wrote:
If idealism is true, doesn't that kind of make us mind-readers?

Yes.


Assuming what appears to be the external world is just the thoughts or dreams of God, aren't we reading God's mind?

His daydream sure, but not all of his mind. If I have a daydream right now and you read it, you only get the information pertaining to the dream. My knowledge, or what I will do tomorrow? That information is not accessible to you, if you only have access to my daydream.


In the case of us interacting in what appears to be the external world, our thoughts (especially our decisions and volitions) affect the world. So to an extend, what goes on in the external world is the result of each person's mind. I can witness what you're doing, and you can witness what I'm doing. Does that mean we're reading each other's minds?

Perhaps, but if so, only aspects of each particular mind.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too? If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness? Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind? Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:43:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too? If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness? Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind? Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?

Also, assuming that we are products of God's mind, does that mean everything we think, feel, believe, and do is also a product of God's mind? Is some sort of divine determinism true in that case? Are we like characters in God's dreams with the only exception that we are self-aware whereas the characters in our own dreams are not self-aware? Or are we independent persons that can interact with the mind of God, but are not products of God's mind?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too?

Yes.

If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness?

Well, if you have a big cookie, you can take mini-cookie cutters and make mini-cookies out of the big one. Maybe that's a bad example, but I think God can "segregate" aspects of his consciousness into sub-minds.

Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

Yes, and yes, but I don't see your point...


To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind?

Well, our minds are just aspects of God's mind, so it is hard to tell.

Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?

Us effecting God's mind is the same as aspects of God's mind effecting aspects of God's mind. As our minds are aspects of God's mind. not seeing a problem...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:51:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:43:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too? If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness? Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind? Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?

Also, assuming that we are products of God's mind, does that mean everything we think, feel, believe, and do is also a product of God's mind?

Yes, but us having free-will to do what we want is essentially the same thing as God having this free-will and doing what he wants, as all our minds are, are aspects of his mind (if that makes sense). My model of reality would be draw a big circle called "God's mind" and then a bunch of mini-circles inside it called called "sub-mind 1", "sub-mind 2" etc...

Is some sort of divine determinism true in that case?

Are we like characters in God's dreams with the only exception that we are self-aware whereas the characters in our own dreams are not self-aware?

Maybe the characters in our dreams are self-aware but to a lesser degree? However, I tend to think that being all powerful and having such a grand mind, his dreams could easily produce self-aware beings. However, ours are probably less powerful dreams (if they come directly from a sub-mind), I tend to go with intuition on this one and say that our dreams when we sleep do not include beings that are self-aware. However, nothing rules that out, so, who knows?

Or are we independent persons that can interact with the mind of God, but are not products of God's mind?

Well, were are not "independent" from God's mind. It would make sense to say we have our own identities though. You see, us interacting with the world, is equivalent to aspects of God's mind interacting with aspects of God's mind.

The view is that God's mind exists, and nothing else outside of his mind exists. I suppose God is a "solipsistic entity" as some Idealists have called him.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:53:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:44:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too?

Yes.

If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness?

Well, if you have a big cookie, you can take mini-cookie cutters and make mini-cookies out of the big one. Maybe that's a bad example, but I think God can "segregate" aspects of his consciousness into sub-minds.

So in a sense, we are all part of the mind of God? Or we ARE God?

Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

Yes, and yes, but I don't see your point"

Well, if we produce mental images ourselves, and if we have causal interaction in the world, then it seems like the world can't merely be a product of God's mind. It's also at least partly a product of our own minds. But you already answered that earlier when you said, "God can 'segregate' aspects of his consciousness into sub-minds."

To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind?

Well, our minds are just aspects of God's mind, so it is hard to tell.

The idea that a projection of one person's mind can have a mind of its own is mind-boggling to me. :-) It at least appears to me that I have a first-person point of view about myself that I don't have about you. I feel my feelings and see my visions, but I don't feel yours or see yours in the same way. So you and I can't possibly be the same person. We must be distinct persons. But if we are products of the same mind or if we are part of the same mind, then there is a sense in which we are the same person. Or at least we're different parts of the same person.

But that raises the question of whether a person can really be sub-divided. I suppose multiple personality disorder might be an example of a person's consciousness being subdivided, but I don't know enough about it to say. Do the different personalities in a person with that disorder actually interact with each other or view each other as distinct persons? Do they each have feelings and experiences from their different first persons awareness that the others don't experience?

Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?

Us effecting God's mind is the same as aspects of God's mind effecting aspects of God's mind. As our minds are aspects of God's mind. not seeing a problem...

This question was based on the assumption that we are not God, but independent minds or selves, which you already addressed.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:58:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:51:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:43:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too? If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness? Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind? Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?

Also, assuming that we are products of God's mind, does that mean everything we think, feel, believe, and do is also a product of God's mind?

Yes, but us having free-will to do what we want is essentially the same thing as God having this free-will and doing what he wants, as all our minds are, are aspects of his mind (if that makes sense). My model of reality would be draw a big circle called "God's mind" and then a bunch of mini-circles inside it called called "sub-mind 1", "sub-mind 2" etc...

Is some sort of divine determinism true in that case?



Are we like characters in God's dreams with the only exception that we are self-aware whereas the characters in our own dreams are not self-aware?

Maybe the characters in our dreams are self-aware but to a lesser degree? However, I tend to think that being all powerful and having such a grand mind, his dreams could easily produce self-aware beings. However, ours are probably less powerful dreams (if they come directly from a sub-mind), I tend to go with intuition on this one and say that our dreams when we sleep do not include beings that are self-aware. However, nothing rules that out, so, who knows?

Or are we independent persons that can interact with the mind of God, but are not products of God's mind?

Well, were are not "independent" from God's mind. It would make sense to say we have our own identities though. You see, us interacting with the world, is equivalent to aspects of God's mind interacting with aspects of God's mind.

The view is that God's mind exists, and nothing else outside of his mind exists. I suppose God is a "solipsistic entity" as some Idealists have called him.

Assuming that God's mind is sub-divided, and you and I are each different subdivisions within God's mind, does God experience a unified consciousness the way each of us does? I mean I have a sense of myself being a unified thing. I think, feel, perceive, and desire, and it's the same me having all these different experiences. Does God as a whole experience each individual's thoughts, feelings, desires, perceptions, etc. as if they were his? Or does he have a sense of himself as a whole that is distinct from us--the subdivisions within his consciousness? I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well, but I'll see how you answer and try to clarify if it seems like you misunderstood me. Maybe you know what I'm talking about.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:04:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
BTW, I'm not asking you all these questions to challenge you're point of view. I'm asking because I think your point of view raises a lot of interesting questions, and I'm interested in it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:08:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:53:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:44:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too?

Yes.

If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness?

Well, if you have a big cookie, you can take mini-cookie cutters and make mini-cookies out of the big one. Maybe that's a bad example, but I think God can "segregate" aspects of his consciousness into sub-minds.

So in a sense, we are all part of the mind of God? Or we ARE God?

Our minds are aspects of God's mind, but there are aspects of his mind extend beyond our minds. We are only some of the story, if you will...


Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

Yes, and yes, but I don't see your point"

Well, if we produce mental images ourselves, and if we have causal interaction in the world, then it seems like the world can't merely be a product of God's mind.

Well, our minds are aspects of his mind. So, if we produce something, that is, in at least some sense, God producing it.

It's also at least partly a product of our own minds. But you already answered that earlier when you said, "God can 'segregate' aspects of his consciousness into sub-minds."

Exactly.


To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind?

Well, our minds are just aspects of God's mind, so it is hard to tell.

The idea that a projection of one person's mind can have a mind of its own is mind-boggling to me. :-) It at least appears to me that I have a first-person point of view about myself that I don't have about you.

That is true. When you experience God's daydream (the aspects that aren't my mind), you can see my virtual avatar (body), but you cannot actually see my mind. God only gives you access to the dream, not the minds of those who share those dreams.

I feel my feelings and see my visions, but I don't feel yours or see yours in the same way. So you and I can't possibly be the same person. We must be distinct persons. But if we are products of the same mind or if we are part of the same mind, then there is a sense in which we are the same person. Or at least we're different parts of the same person.

We are sub-minds, which are aspects of his grand mind


But that raises the question of whether a person can really be sub-divided. I suppose multiple personality disorder might be an example of a person's consciousness being subdivided, but I don't know enough about it to say. Do the different personalities in a person with that disorder actually interact with each other or view each other as distinct persons? Do they each have feelings and experiences from their different first persons awareness that the others don't experience?

I don't even have to go the multipl-personality route, it just seems prima facie obvious that there is no problem with their being a grand mind, who daydream's sub-minds who are segregated aspects of God's consciousness. A little confusing, and a little bit weird perhaps, but no logical or metaphysical problems. I remember Shirlock Homes once said that no matter how unlikely or bizarre, if you have eliminated everything else as impossible, whatever remains, must be the truth.

I think Idealism is counter-intuitive and weird, but I don't think it suffers the logical and metaphysical problems that Dualism and Physicalism do.


Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?

Us effecting God's mind is the same as aspects of God's mind effecting aspects of God's mind. As our minds are aspects of God's mind. not seeing a problem...

This question was based on the assumption that we are not God, but independent minds or selves, which you already addressed.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:12:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 6:08:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I think Idealism is counter-intuitive and weird, but I don't think it suffers the logical and metaphysical problems that Dualism and Physicalism do.

I think idealism, physicalism, and dualism exhaust the possibilities, and they're all a little weird, which means there's no escaping the fact that reality is a weird place.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:58:42 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:51:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:43:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:39:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:37:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:21:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:11:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The teapot is just an aspect of consciousness, like the tree in my dream last night was.

As an idealist, how do you distinguish between being awake and being asleep? Why is it that when I drink wine in my dreams, I don't get drunk, but when I drink wine when I'm awake, I do? Does the wine actually make me drunk?

There is no being awake. Reality is a dream, what you call a dream is a sub-dream. Sub-dreams are less powerful and shaky as they come directly from your mind, however the main dream is God's mind.

What about we ourselves? Are we products of God's mind, too? If so, how is it that we have independent consciousness? Don't our minds also products images and things? Aren't our minds interacting with the "world" around us?

To what degree is the apparent world around us a projection of our own minds, and to what degree is it a projection of God's mind? Is it entirely God's mind? If so, how is it that we apparently have the ability to affect it?

Also, assuming that we are products of God's mind, does that mean everything we think, feel, believe, and do is also a product of God's mind?

Yes, but us having free-will to do what we want is essentially the same thing as God having this free-will and doing what he wants, as all our minds are, are aspects of his mind (if that makes sense). My model of reality would be draw a big circle called "God's mind" and then a bunch of mini-circles inside it called called "sub-mind 1", "sub-mind 2" etc...

Is some sort of divine determinism true in that case?



Are we like characters in God's dreams with the only exception that we are self-aware whereas the characters in our own dreams are not self-aware?

Maybe the characters in our dreams are self-aware but to a lesser degree? However, I tend to think that being all powerful and having such a grand mind, his dreams could easily produce self-aware beings. However, ours are probably less powerful dreams (if they come directly from a sub-mind), I tend to go with intuition on this one and say that our dreams when we sleep do not include beings that are self-aware. However, nothing rules that out, so, who knows?

Or are we independent persons that can interact with the mind of God, but are not products of God's mind?

Well, were are not "independent" from God's mind. It would make sense to say we have our own identities though. You see, us interacting with the world, is equivalent to aspects of God's mind interacting with aspects of God's mind.

The view is that God's mind exists, and nothing else outside of his mind exists. I suppose God is a "solipsistic entity" as some Idealists have called him.

Assuming that God's mind is sub-divided, and you and I are each different subdivisions within God's mind, does God experience a unified consciousness the way each of us does?

This gets into confusing semantics, because now I have to define two different "Gods". Sometimes I might say God and refer to God as the whole shebang, or just the aspects of his consciousness that aren't ours specifically. Lets refer to the first type as God 1, and the second as God 2.

I mean I have a sense of myself being a unified thing. I think, feel, perceive, and desire, and it's the same me having all these different experiences. Does God as a whole experience each individual's thoughts, feelings, desires, perceptions, etc. as if they were his?

God 2 knows, but us experiencing what we experience, is God 1 experiencing whatever it is.

Or does he have a sense of himself as a whole that is distinct from us--the subdivisions within his consciousness? I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well, but I'll see how you answer and try to clarify if it seems like you misunderstood me. Maybe you know what I'm talking about.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:19:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 6:12:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:08:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I think Idealism is counter-intuitive and weird, but I don't think it suffers the logical and metaphysical problems that Dualism and Physicalism do.

I think idealism, physicalism, and dualism exhaust the possibilities, and they're all a little weird, which means there's no escaping the fact that reality is a weird place.

There is always Neutral Monism, which isn't Idealism, Physicalism, or Dualism. I doubt you would adhere to that though...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:19:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:37:15 PM, n7 wrote:
You cannot get semantics from syntax.

That's a good way to put it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:21:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 6:19:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:12:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:08:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I think Idealism is counter-intuitive and weird, but I don't think it suffers the logical and metaphysical problems that Dualism and Physicalism do.

I think idealism, physicalism, and dualism exhaust the possibilities, and they're all a little weird, which means there's no escaping the fact that reality is a weird place.

There is always Neutral Monism, which isn't Idealism, Physicalism, or Dualism. I doubt you would adhere to that though...

I was beginning to think that your view was very similar to the Hindu view which is monistic. I don't know what the "neutral" in monism means or how it differs from other sorts of monism. But isn't your view basically monistic? The only reality is one thing--God, and what appears to be distinctions in reality is really just a product of the mind of the one God.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:22:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wonder how George Berkley would've answered my questions about whether we ourselves are products of God's mind or distinct individuals.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 6:21:10 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:19:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:12:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:08:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I think Idealism is counter-intuitive and weird, but I don't think it suffers the logical and metaphysical problems that Dualism and Physicalism do.

I think idealism, physicalism, and dualism exhaust the possibilities, and they're all a little weird, which means there's no escaping the fact that reality is a weird place.

There is always Neutral Monism, which isn't Idealism, Physicalism, or Dualism. I doubt you would adhere to that though...

I was beginning to think that your view was very similar to the Hindu view which is monistic. I don't know what the "neutral" in monism means or how it differs from other sorts of monism. But isn't your view basically monistic? The only reality is one thing--God, and what appears to be distinctions in reality is really just a product of the mind of the one God.

Yes, my view Idealistic Monism which is the exact opposite side of the spectrum of Physicalistic Monism. Neutral Monism is different than both of them, as it states that what we call "the mental", and "the physical" really reduce to some third substance that is fundamentally neither mind or physical. This view is Monism, as there is one substance, but Neutral, as it isn't Idealistic or Physicalist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:27:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 6:22:54 PM, philochristos wrote:
I wonder how George Berkley would've answered my questions about whether we ourselves are products of God's mind or distinct individuals.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. We are product of God's minds, and individuals.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 6:29:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 6:26:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:21:10 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:19:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:12:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 6:08:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I think Idealism is counter-intuitive and weird, but I don't think it suffers the logical and metaphysical problems that Dualism and Physicalism do.

I think idealism, physicalism, and dualism exhaust the possibilities, and they're all a little weird, which means there's no escaping the fact that reality is a weird place.

There is always Neutral Monism, which isn't Idealism, Physicalism, or Dualism. I doubt you would adhere to that though...

I was beginning to think that your view was very similar to the Hindu view which is monistic. I don't know what the "neutral" in monism means or how it differs from other sorts of monism. But isn't your view basically monistic? The only reality is one thing--God, and what appears to be distinctions in reality is really just a product of the mind of the one God.

Yes, my view Idealistic Monism which is the exact opposite side of the spectrum of Physicalistic Monism.

"Physicalistic monism" sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

Neutral Monism is different than both of them, as it states that what we call "the mental", and "the physical" really reduce to some third substance that is fundamentally neither mind or physical. This view is Monism, as there is one substance, but Neutral, as it isn't Idealistic or Physicalist.

I see.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle