Philosophy

I learned that free will is basically the ability to decide your fate, or make decisions based upon random variables that you rationalized yourself.... Unlike a computer, you're only limited by the choices provided, or "sensible" solutions to situations, whereas humans can act in whichever manner they please, illogically or logically.

-^^- Also, very well written post to you btw!
 
Slade said:
snip
Click to expand...

It's a valid point that viewing the future from a past perspective is contradictory (considering that you are only looking at the past from a further past perspective). Something was still nagging at me though. I started to wonder if it being contradictory was relevant or not. The fact still remains, that at one point in time event X hadn't happened yet (in the future). Whether we look at the event from a present standpoint or not does not change that fact.

As for whether its logical or poetic, I completely agree that it has more poetic value then logical. In many different conclusions I find that the outcome is more poetic than logical (such as in morality). This, however, does not negate the logical process used to reach said poetic conclusion.
 
We will always be restricted by the limitations of our sensory perception. When we make abstractions about unknown things, all we are doing is comparing it to something with similar properties.

No one has actually seen a black hole, so why do we call it a black hole? Because not even light can escape it, it consumes the light, so we make an abstraction calling it a black hole, even though no one actually knows what it looks like. It's nothing more than a description based on preexisting theory.

There's nothing wrong with that, but some people make the confusion that absolute knowledge of anything is possible when the best we can hope for is an interpretation.

Socrates said that the only thing you can really know for sure is the fact that you know nothing. Nietzsche said that the only people that are free are the ones who know they are not free.

I think the real problem with epistemology is whether you are on the rationalist side or the empiricist side of the fence, both tend to think that knowledge itself is a real thing.

We don't have true knowledge. What we really have is past memories and new sensory data trying to analyze our current situation. Abstractions, interpretations and comparisons is the best we have.

You know, come to think of it, I would even take it a step further. I don't even think 'intelligence' is a real thing either. No one has yet to define what 'G' is, and no one likely ever will. Everyone will have a common sense notion of what makes a being intelligent, but again best case scenario is simply an interpretation.

A computer might beat you in a game but you certainly wouldn't call that computer intelligent. What you would say, is that it's been programmed well to be very good at specific tasks only. A calculator is way better at math than me, but the calculator is not 'intelligent'.

I think the same thing for people, and all life for that matter. Our sensory input and past experiences constitutes our 'programming'. Education counts as experience as well. Essentially we are nothing but trained dogs fundamentally, even though we are vastly more complex than dogs.

I might be the only person on the planet who doubts the existence of intelligence as a whole, who knows. It's an idea I've been toying around with for a awhile now. It's one of the reasons why I'm against IQ testing as a whole, because it's largely arbitrary and has little impact on a person's ability in a given field. Besides, telling someone that their stupid doesn't do anyone a damn bit of good, it might discourage people from trying things they otherwise might be good at. Everyone I think has a little bit of 'savant' in them to a degree. I might be terrible at lot of things, but I bet there is at least one thing I can do better than anyone else in this room, and visa versa.

And the most ludicrous thing of all is trying to 'measure' intelligence in the first place. If you can't define it, how the hell can you measure it? Things get even more crazy when you take 10 different IQ tests and get 10 radically different results.

Then again, maybe I'm a complete tard and have no clue what I'm saying :)
 
CaptainHook said:
Really large snip
Click to expand...

As i understand it, this is your post in a nutshell.

We can't obtain true knowledge. Intelligence (being defined as the ability to acquire knowledge and skills) therefore, cannot exist for we would first have to be able to acquire (true) knowledge (which as was stated before is impossible). We, in essence, are computers "programmed" by our experiences and sensory experiences.

I know I'm just repeating what you said in a simpler form but I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.

Now, the first thing I would like to bring up is what exactly do you define as "true knowledge"? Is it tied only into the physical world or can it exist in "our minds" so to speak? Does true knowledge dissipate the moment we experience it; for by the time we realize it, it is already an experience? I think a more clear representation of what true knowledge is should be established before anything.

Secondly, assuming that the definition above is an accurate representation of the word intelligence; do we need to acquire true knowledge? Can we simply acquire knowledge? Or does the fact that it's not true knowledge mean it can't be constituted as knowledge at all? If I say that I have intelligence because I have obtained knowledge, regardless off its validity, would I not meet the qualification for being intelligent?

Should I suppose that I can never have true knowledge, am I not obtaining the knowledge that I cannot obtain true knowledge? So would the statement "I can never obtain true knowledge" be false knowledge negating its validity?

If "I can never obtain true knowledge" is true knowledge. I have just obtained true knowledge, nullifying the statement.

On the flip side

If "I can never obtain true knowledge" is not true knowledge. The statement itself is no longer true and is thus nullified.

I'm currently taking a break from the HUGE project due in like 18 hours and don't have nearly enough sleep but I think my logic is sound. Then again, I'm tired as fuck.

Feel free to rip me a new one should I have made any mistakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top