 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tomo670
Hummingbird
Joined: Oct 05, 2009
Posts: 23
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Iv'e actually seen heaps of humans before don't know about you guys but I actually think they really do exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
X_Parasite
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 29, 2006
Age: 19
Posts: 712
Location: Right here.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good job reading the thread before posting.
Anyway, the main problem that I see here is with the definition resulting from a narrow observation.
People are people. See that? That's actually the best way to phrase that! "Humans are people." just doesn't sound as good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8447
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tomo670 wrote: | | Iv'e actually seen heaps of humans before don't know about you guys but I actually think they really do exist. |
Well, to get back to the original thread, and ignore later nominalist arguments, there are tons of human beings out there, but none of them are people by the definitions I've given for personhood.
| X_Parasite wrote: | | Anyway, the main problem that I see here is with the definition resulting from a narrow observation. |
Well, I wanted to make a controversial claim, but also justify it. I mean, I think the definition I am using is relatively good because people consider the attributes I am disproving to be rather central to being a person, and because I think that the possibility of non-human persons needs to be considered in some philosophical manner, but yeah, the thread did start off somewhat out of a silliness.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
PhD in Science Fiction
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 13403
Location: The edge of the universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8447
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | No person exists.
Awesomelyglorious is the username of a person who posts on WrongPlanet.
Awesomelyglorious does not exist.
And for the heck of it, WrongPlanet does not exist either!!!  |
Well, if I were to be consistent, I would deny premise 2.(which your argument requires as done)
I think there is a basic argumentative issue that both sides are seeing past each other, and it is essentially illustrated by GE Moore's "here is a hand" argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand
The issue is that we have different starting points. I am starting from essential traits of personhood to disprove personhood, you are starting off assuming personhood, and working backwards from that. Thus there is no discussion, as Orwell is the only person to suggest other aspects of personhood to address.(I still stand behind my assessment of those being lacking considering personhood to be a more philosophical issue)
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Well, I think part of the issue between us is terminology, as I would also say "London is a socio-cultural representation to help us understand the existence of a grouping of humans in a certain basic geographic location" while also saying "London does not exist". And what I mean when I say "London does not exist" is that London lacks an objective existence. Not that when we say "London" we aren't referring to anything. |
I think we are using different definitions of "existence" then.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8447
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Well, I think part of the issue between us is terminology, as I would also say "London is a socio-cultural representation to help us understand the existence of a grouping of humans in a certain basic geographic location" while also saying "London does not exist". And what I mean when I say "London does not exist" is that London lacks an objective existence. Not that when we say "London" we aren't referring to anything. |
I think we are using different definitions of "existence" then. |
I do think we are dealing with a definition issue, however, I do think that once my point is grasped, it will seem kind of mind-twisting but obvious.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | I do think we are dealing with a definition issue, however, I do think that once my point is grasped, it will seem kind of mind-twisting but obvious. |
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be downplaying the importance of schemas in representing reality. This I do not agree with. Yes, it can be argued that many concepts (city, forest, family, chariot, etc) are just convenient ways of organizing information that we deal with. But I tend to think that there is at least some validity to our categorizations. I won't try to defend Platonic realism, but going so far to the opposite conclusion seems like a huge stretch to me.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8447
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be downplaying the importance of schemas in representing reality. This I do not agree with. Yes, it can be argued that many concepts (city, forest, family, chariot, etc) are just convenient ways of organizing information that we deal with. But I tend to think that there is at least some validity to our categorizations. I won't try to defend Platonic realism, but going so far to the opposite conclusion seems like a huge stretch to me. |
Validity or utility? I can admit to the latter, but I would still deny the former.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 9014
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | .....as Orwell is the only person to suggest other aspects of personhood to address. |
Haven't read most of the thread, a quick reply for this thing I noticed, that I too recognize Orwell as a person or that he must be a person, regardless issues with the ontology of personhood.
_________________
"I realized, nothing really exists". |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8447
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: |
Haven't read most of the thread, a quick reply for this thing I noticed, that I too recognize Orwell as a person or that he must be a person, regardless issues with the ontology of personhood. |
*sigh* I'll argue it this way: the term "person" is easy shorthand that even I tend to use, however, persons do not really exist. Honestly, I can say that utility allows us to declare something a person, however, that this definition is just an arbitrary reflex, and this gets me out of the situation somewhat.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Validity or utility? I can admit to the latter, but I would still deny the former. |
Utility is unquestionable. Validity I suppose depends on how you're viewing it, and how for you take the idea. I can accept a claim that, for instance, a forest does not exist. Trees exist, and when we have a large collection of trees we call it a forest. A forest is obviously not a discrete identity. But breaking it down further? I suppose we can, but it gets harder and harder to do so as you move to a smaller scale. After all, a tree removed from a forest is still a tree. A leaf removed from a tree is nothing. A single cell removed from a leaf is even less.
Figures that people would be so opposed to a concept of Gestalt on an Aspie forum.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8447
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
Utility is unquestionable. Validity I suppose depends on how you're viewing it, and how for you take the idea. I can accept a claim that, for instance, a forest does not exist. Trees exist, and when we have a large collection of trees we call it a forest. A forest is obviously not a discrete identity. But breaking it down further? I suppose we can, but it gets harder and harder to do so as you move to a smaller scale. After all, a tree removed from a forest is still a tree. A leaf removed from a tree is nothing. A single cell removed from a leaf is even less.
Figures that people would be so opposed to a concept of Gestalt on an Aspie forum. |
Why say that a tree is a different object than the dirt surrounding it? Even the air surrounding it? In both cases, we just see collections of molecules.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 9014
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | *sigh* I'll argue it this way: the term "person" is easy shorthand that even I tend to use, however, persons do not really exist. Honestly, I can say that utility allows us to declare something a person, however, that this definition is just an arbitrary reflex, and this gets me out of the situation somewhat. |
well yes, utility allows us to define person and identify subjects with the concept, and that seems enough of a justification to recognize the importance of the concept, and I would say that the term 'person' exists as a concept, and ideas and concepts do exist, as long as the human species continue existing and perpetuating these ideas then these ideas and concepts will continue to exist. I suppose you could say that people was created by people and even so, denying its existence can be rejected.
Personhood is related to ethics, in which denying the concept of personhood seems to implicate ethics as well, and the issue would seem to lead to moral nihilism in the end, anyway, wether that is the case or not, it is an interesting thing to see.
Another interesting thing is that of denying to existence of people, and that leading to deny everything else, such as: children don't exist, apples don't exist, trees don't exist, human beings don't exist, etc.
Because the issue seems to lead to the complete disregard of abstractions and identification, and that seems a problem.
| Quote: | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand |
There is a quote from the link above:
| Quote: | | Moore, however, defends his argument on the surprisingly simple grounds that skeptical arguments seem invariably to require an appeal to "philosophical intuitions" that we have considerably less reason to accept than we have for the common sense claims that they supposedly refute. |
well, I actually tend to see that as valid and few people who not only would reject philosophical skepticism but philosophy as a whole could argue this exactly, although not necessarily in favor of common sense but empiricism.
| Quote: | | Why say that a tree is a different object than the dirt surrounding it? Even the air surrounding it? In both cases, we just see collections of molecules. |
well, different arrangements of different collections of molecules seem to make the difference and the need to recognize and identify that difference. Adding apples to the picture, I believe there is some difference between eating apples and eating dirt and eating a tree.
_________________
"I realized, nothing really exists". |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8447
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: |
well yes, utility allows us to define person and identify subjects with the concept, and that seems enough of a justification to recognize the importance of the concept, and I would say that the term 'person' exists as a concept, and ideas and concepts do exist, as long as the human species continue existing and perpetuating these ideas then these ideas and concepts will continue to exist. I suppose you could say that people was created by people and even so, denying its existence can be rejected. |
By "importance of the concept", do you mean utility? Because utility is good enough for it's own justification, but I don't see it as enough for the justification of any philosophical stand about an external existence. I don't think the argument is about the existence of the mental schema though.
| Quote: | | Personhood is related to ethics, in which denying the concept of personhood seems to implicate ethics as well, and the issue would seem to lead to moral nihilism in the end, anyway, wether that is the case or not, it is an interesting thing to see. |
Depends on whether you believe in objective ethics. You are right, the lack of an objective personhood also means the lack of an objective ethical stand.
| Quote: | | Another interesting thing is that of denying to existence of people, and that leading to deny everything else, such as: children don't exist, apples don't exist, trees don't exist, human beings don't exist, etc. |
Actually, the arguments are somewhat disconnected, they have similarities in both being skeptical but one could believe in personhood while denying applies, or believe in apples while denying personhood.
| Quote: | | Because the issue seems to lead to the complete disregard of abstractions and identification, and that seems a problem. |
No, the latter argument leads to the notion that abstractions and identification are mental constructs. If you read the last link in the OP, one sees an argument that selfhood is a narrative fiction created by the mind, this does not mean it is irrelevant, only that it is not an actual defined notion.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand |
There is a quote from the link above:
| Quote: | | Moore, however, defends his argument on the surprisingly simple grounds that skeptical arguments seem invariably to require an appeal to "philosophical intuitions" that we have considerably less reason to accept than we have for the common sense claims that they supposedly refute. |
well, I actually tend to see that as valid and few people who not only would reject philosophical skepticism but philosophy as a whole could argue this exactly, although not necessarily in favor of common sense but empiricism. |
I would actually see this argument as invalid. I tend to be skeptical towards "common sense" notions(which I do think you'd have to accept rather than just going to empiricism) and thus there is no reason that the argument necessarily tells us that an external world exists, as the non-existence of that world and the viability of hands being representative of that outside world is in question.
| Quote: |
well, different arrangements of different collections of molecules seem to make the difference and the need to recognize and identify that difference. Adding apples to the picture, I believe there is some difference between eating apples and eating dirt and eating a tree. |
Well.... in the context of a human being, yes, there is a difference. Really though, if we relate all things back through a human perspective, we only get subjectivism, unless you say that the entire world is really just made out of mindstuff or something.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
