Desrtopa comments on The benefits of madness: A positive account of arationality - Less Wrong

101 Post author: Skatche 22 April 2011 07:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (121)

Comments (121)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Desrtopa 24 April 2011 05:20:27PM 0 points [-]

It might be more appropriate to say "something appears to be thinking." Perhaps in the chaotic mass of whatever-exists-ness, a random collision of entities has produced something that feels from the inside like thoughts and memories of a past, but has no continuity.

I suppose you could say that the entity is still "I," even if it's divorced from your conception of yourself, but I think a better solution is to not entertain the notion at all.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 24 April 2011 05:40:10PM 0 points [-]

Try "thinking is happening" and "observing is happening". No entity required.

Comment author: shokwave 24 April 2011 05:58:23PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, this clarifies what I thought on the matter - although it touches on anthropic reasoning, so I guess it isn't a standard answer.

For the record, it would look something like:

  • "Thinking is happening" entails " "Thinking is happening" is being observed".
  • " "Thinking is happening" is being observed" entails "observing is happening".
  • "Observing is happening" entails the existence of an observer (existential claim, can't find the symbol, would be "There exists an x such that x is an observer")
  • Some further work on the concept of "me" or "I" would define it in terms of observer-property, some argument from denying "me"-ness of observer requires multiple observers, etc.
Comment author: abramdemski 25 April 2011 02:50:20AM 0 points [-]

Putting this in formal logic, it only works if "being observed" is defined from the two-place predicate "x is observing y". We could also use a one-place predicate, "x is observed". So it's still not totally free of assumptions, so to speak.

The point is, Decart was supposedly doubting everything; so this particular argument, while decent, is not so unusually decent as to justify being held up as the one undoubted thing.

Comment author: shokwave 25 April 2011 04:14:46AM 0 points [-]

I feel like the existence of an observer is a necessary condition for "x is observed" to be true - but that is again anthropics, and so fully fleshing out this argument might take more than a comment,

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit