RE: 3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)
June 15, 2014 at 10:10 pm
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm by GrandizerII.)
(June 15, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(June 15, 2014 at 9:18 pm)Irrational Wrote: I observe that Rampant.A.I. is an individual who posts and makes responses to others in this forum. Every other individual I observe here (including you) confirms this observation by treating him as if he is an individual in his own right posting in this forum.
Ok, disregarding the extra questions that come with the online nature of the Internet (such as whether or not some poster here or there is actually a bot), I argue that the observation above is empirical evidence. And as such evidence has yet to be falsified, then I have established empirically that Rampant.A.I. is an individual in his own right and not a figment of your imagination.
How does that distinguish him from a sophisticated automaton that emulates consciousness, but does not possess it. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Before you argue that such things do not exist, how would you determine this empirically?
Maybe you're looking at "empirically" differently.
Do you agree that determining anything empirically is a matter of observing with our senses in addition to confirming the observation repeatedly and in various ways? And making the proper inferences as a result of what has been continually observed?
Based on what I mean by "empirical", I can determine human beings experience pain when they tell me that they experience certain feelings that make them feel some suffering as a result of being struck hard by something or whatever. As it can be (and has been) observed that human beings experience these feelings, then that's the empirical evidence right there.
(June 15, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Here's your problem, Rampant, and the point you are missing. You say, rightfully so, that you have no empirical evidence to suggest condition X. I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the notion that you can then conclude not-X, not without justifying that empiricism is sufficient to observe all of reality. It's an assumption (and one that I operate under the assumption of), but that assertion is not in itself provable empirically - it's an *assumption of empiricism*.
Empiricism is restricted to what we can detect, directly or indirectly, with our senses. How can you possibly know that (using only empirical processes) without asserting some unprovable axiom?
Empiricism is an assumption itself, yes. I assume empiricism and go by it as a result. Why do I assume it? Because it's the only way that I find reasonable enough to gain new semantic knowledge.
