Expressions And Meanings - Part 1: Introduction

In this series, I will ponder on case-scenario suggested by a fellow blogger:

Suppose young Timmy mistakenly takes 'prime number' to be roughly synonymous with 'cool number'. So he goes around saying things like '666 is a prime number'. Does he believe that 666 is a prime number? Presumably not. He certainly doesn't have a de dicto belief involving the concept prime number, since he lacks this concept (he associates the words, 'prime number', with a different concept entirely). Nor does he have any de re beliefs about primes, i.e. beliefs which talk about this property under a different guise: he does not believe, for example, that 666 is divisible only by itself and 1. What Timmy believes is that 666 is a cool number (or, more likely yet, that '666' is a cool numeral), and he mistakenly takes the sentence '666 is a prime number' to express this belief. (source)

As we can see an utterance (an expression) has a meaning behind it. Usually, meanings are the goal and expressions are merely means to achieve that goal. Thats why, it is important that when we hear an expression, we analyze it and start digging for the meaning behind that expression.

The problem is, as humans we are incapable of communicating meanings, we are only capable of communicating expressions. This realization leads to The Problem of Representation (aka representational skepticism) that I have discussed before.

Lingual skepticism and other forms of skepticism like brains in a vat skepticism, and The Matrix skepticism are closely related. They all go around the limitations of empiricism, and the limitations of our senses to grasp reality.

In this series:
Expressions And Meanings - Part 1: Introduction
Expressions And Meanings - Part 2: Elaboration
Expressions And Meanings - Part 3: Linguistic Relativism
Expressions And Meanings - Part 4: Conclusion

Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis

At several points so far, I discussed how our environment and physiology influences our language. I also supported this view by three hypotheses, the first one is the deep structure hypothesis, the second is the critical period hypothesis, and the third is Wittgenstein's view that humans cannot understand animals because they live in different environments and have different needs.

But the interaction between us as humans and language is a two way lane. Thats to say, the human nature affects language (as explained previously). Not only that, language affects our abilities and understanding of our surrounding, it might even cripple the human understanding.

This view is usually called "Linguistic Determinism", which simply means that human thoughts is determined by (or limited by) their language.

In a study of a Brazilian tribe whose language only defines the numbers one and two, it has been shown that those people had difficulties recognizing groups of four items or more. For that tribe, numbers are one, two, and "many"!! In an experiment, the members of that tribe were shown a random number of items (with a maximum of ten items), and were asked to make another pile that contains the same number of items. For piles made up of one, two, or three items, the members were able to make such a pile. Most of them failed to create piles of four or more items!!

The above study shows that because the tribe members couldn't verbally specify the number of items in each pile, they consequently failed to represent that number in piles.

Also, think about why certain linguistics professionals insist that in order to eliminate sexism in our communities, we should use non-sexist language. For example, "chairperson" replaces "chairman", "mailperson" replaces "mailman", and say "businessperson" replaces "businessman". This replacement might seem useless "political correctness", but experts believe that changing the use of such words can dramatically catalyze fighting sexism.

Humans since the beginning were aware of the differences between males and females, and they consequently reflected that in their language. Humans ever since starting of thinking of everything as male or female, black or white, ...etc. Thats an example of how our world affected our language, and consequently our language affected our thoughts. It is hypothesized that changing language can act in the reverse manner of reshaping our thoughts.

In extreme cases, some believe that what we define as "logic" is merely a consequence of the grammar we use in languages, and that language eliminates all forms of objectivity. If Linguistic Determinism was true, one has to think of how our personality, perceptions, and views are limited by the language we acquired as infants. Wittgenstein recognizes this limitation when he says:

"The limits of my language are the limits of my world. All I know is what I have words for." (source)

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Dreams And Hallucinations

Hallucinations are defined as perceptual sensing of non-existing objects, or shortly delusions of perception. So when someone hears, sees, or smells things that have no basis for existence, we call those people as delusional.

Imagine a place where "normal people" don't have dreams. And one day, a guy wakes up and tells his fellows about his visions while sleeping... It's a no-brainier: He is delusional... And we cannot change the fact that dreaming is an act of delusion.

So back to our earth where people dream at night. One has to ask: Why is the delusion of dreaming not getting intensive treatment by psychologists?! Guess we have generally accepted dreams as healthy delusions. What I am trying to say, is that medicine isn't treating cases of hallucinations because hallucinations are bad or anything, just because people have labeled certain people as lunatics, while overlooking the obvious hallucinations that people get almost every night.

There is another case of delusions that I experience on daily basis. Thinking. Yes, thinking is a delusion. When I think of some formula I see it forming in my imagination... I actually see a formula and manipulate that formula in my head... If thats not delusion, I dunno what is!!

So one has to ask the question: Based on what do we label people as lunatics?! Another question that comes to the surface is: Is medicine an objective science or is it simply based to enforce the normative view of a society?! - This latter question begs itself strongly. For example, in psychology we label pedophiles as mentally sick... Why mentally sick?! Is there a biological reason to consider them mentally sick?! Or is it simply because people don't like pedophiles so we label them as mentally sick?!

Medicine can make things work both ways... We can make a hallucinating person stop being delusional using some drugs. On the other hand, we can make a non-delusional person become hallucinating by prescribing other types of drugs... So we have drugs for both cases, so based on what we choose one but not the other?! Also a psychologist might be able to turn a non-pedophile into a pedophile, and might be able to turn a pedophile into a non-pedophile... Which one do we choose?! Based on what?!

Medicine has considered homosexuality as a mental illness, but now this is no longer the case... Based on what?! The normative view?!

Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation

The important question now is: Can we resolve all lingual non-equivalence representations?! - Superficially, yes - or better say, might be. But only superficially. Many inconsistencies will remain implicit and non-detectable, and some of those might be impossible to resolve. Consider the following scenario:

Say PersonX sees Red as Blue. He will NOT notice the difference between him and regular folks since he will start to refer to what he sees as Blue as "Red", but other people would see it as Red, thus avoiding confusion. Also say that PersonY sees Red as Green.

• Imagine PersonX and PersonY as a baby brothers (with no knowledge of language).
  
• In front of them is a red apple.
  
• PersonX sees a blue apple.
• PersonY sees a green apple.
  
• Their parents refer to the apple as "red".
• PersonX learns that the word "red", represents what he sees as blue color. (Result-1)
  
• PersonY learns that the word "red", represents what he sees as green color. (Result-2)

Now, one year later:

• Imagine PersonX and PersonY having learnt language.
• PersonX sees a blue car.
• The car is actually red. (Since PersonX sees red as blue)
• PersonX says: "This red car looks amazing". (He says "red" because of Result-1)
• When PersonY hears the term "red car", he visualizes a green car. (Because of Result-2)
• PersonY agrees that the "red car" is amazing. (Result-3)

From Result-3, notice that both PersonX and PersonY refer to the car as "red", while each one of them sees a different color. They superficially agree about the color of the car being refer to as "red", while to each one of them the word "red" refers to different visual experiences (blue for Person X, and green for PersonY).

The above mentioned scenario reveals the shocking possibility that we might use consistent notation to represent our ideas, but those representations are not the same for all people. More importantly, there is a good chance that we superficially agree!! How can anyone be sure that when they refer to a certain experience by a certain word that others actually use the same word to represent that same experience?! I guess, we cannot!

Now assume that the visual experience of the color Blue is good, and that the visual experience of the color Red is ugly.

• PersonX sees blue color as a good experience.
• Regular people see red color as an ugly experience.
• When presented by a red object, PersonX argues that its "red" color looks good. (Since he sees blue color)
• Other people disagree with PersonX stating that the "red" color looks ugly. (Result-4)
  

In this scenario, using Result-4, disagreement is only superficial, because they disagree about what the term "red" refers to, not the visual experience itself, as PersonX and other people have different visual experiences.

So when we study Wittgenstein's quote:

"If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." (source)

We realize that the "understanding" that Wittgenstein refers to deals with deep meaning, not superficial meaning.

Communication in any form -or any language- is a communication of representations. We communicate representations of our feelings and ideas NOT the ideas and feelings themselves. It is impossible to communicate ideas, only representations of those ideas. This problem of representation is the basis of Representational Skepticism. Representationalism (study of the relation between reality and representations) is the main concern of cognitive sciences in general.

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities

Lingual ambiguities have lead to numerous paradoxes; One of the more famous of these paradox is the Heap paradox that states: When one considers a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Is it still a "heap" when only one grain remains?

A similar paradox arises if we ask this question: Imagine a tall man - say, 2.5 meters. If we take a millimeter of his height he'd still be a tall man; If we take another millimeter, he'd also still be tall... If we continue the process of taking one millimeter at a time, after which millimeter the man becomes no longer tall?!

The above two paradoxes emphasize the inconsistency of vague (unquantified) terms in our everyday language, such as "big", "a lot", "tall", "short", "medium" ...etc. We have generally accepted ranges of say, how tall is tall, but a lot of complexities still arise.

Other ambiguities also arise from incompatible definitions. For example, is Atheism a religion or anti-religion?! Does an atheist have a religion or lack one?! People can give different interpretations to the word religion. Personally, I would argue that Atheism is in fact a religion, consider:

According to Babylon: Religion: collection of beliefs concerning the origin of man and the universe.
According to dictionary.com: Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

Following the above definitions we can say that Atheism is a collection of (non-theistic) beliefs, and thus is a religion. Some might disagree.

Can we resolve all lingually ambiguous representations?! My personal conviction is: NOT REALLY!! - The reason for this conviction follows in Part 5.

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

I Think Therefore I Exist, Or Do I?

One of the famous quotes in history is the "I think therefore I am" statement by Descartes. But is this statement true?! I think not! At least not objectively. In subjective theories, that assumes cognition at some point, this statement might be justified within that context.

I think therefore I exist, is a complex statement that can be reduced to three simpler statements:

1. If it thinks then it exists
   
2. I think
   
3. I exist

This statement is in the logical deductive reasoning form:

1. p => q
   
2. p
   
3. q

Here we have two premises (1) and (2), and one conclusion (3). In order to verify the claims of Descartes we have to inquire the validity of its premises. In this post, I will not discuss the first premise, but the second one.

Do Humans have the ability to think?! Some might argue positively... Descartes apparently supports this view. I disagree. Humans cannot think.

To think is to be creative. To think is to be free. Humans are neither creative nor free! We might think we are creative and free - This is the illusion that eluded even the most reputable philosophers. This view is influenced by my pessimistic incompatibilism views.

So how do we explain those illusions?! What most humans fail to see is that our consciousness is merely an advanced form of Artificial Intelligence. Actually, its more like Naturally-Implied Intelligence, but my point is, we are no better than an intelligent machine. If we consider things more deeply, we find that an intelligent machine is not much different from a non-intelligent one. So we're no better than any machine if we consider things at the low level. I already discussed this perspective before. Our survival depends on being self-protective. This recognition of self is the source of our illusion to think and existence. We would not protect what does not exist. If we acknowledge our inexistence, then our survival will be endangered. Nature has its own ways of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest... Its ironical that an illusion is what gives us our strength, but well.. Thats how things work!

So far, I have considered "thinking" in a very strict notion. A notion that requires creativity and freewill. To ease things up, one can consider a less strict concept of thinking. Such model would be even more tolerant, that it might even include machines as being able to think. Personally, I got no problem with this view. If a machine was so sophisticated in a way that is comparable to humans, I guess we have to acknowledge it as a being of worthy existence. If we adopt this view, maybe few years later, we will see "Machine Rights" activists!! Seriously!

Back to the fist premise... Does ability to think imply existence?! I will leave this question open for the time being...

Seeing Is Believing?!

So seeing is believing?! You judge for yourself....

Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion

Language, what is language?! Language can be roughly defined as a set of conventional signals that are used to suggest or convey information (or just data). Those signals can be in any form: Phonetic signals as in spoken language; Hand motion as in sign language; Electrical pulses as in computer communications; Numerous other forms exist. But the keyword in the definition of language is "conventional". Without conventions there are no languages. Consider how internet protocols are created: Certain dedicated committee of professionals meet in order to come up with a "standard", these standards are then published in either electronic or printed forms; From that point on, developers are expected to follow the conventional standard.

But what about human spoken language? Two highly interrelated questions arise: The first one is, how was first human language made? The second one is, if a person (say, a baby) has no knowledge whatsoever of the conventions used in a certain language, how would he develop an understanding of it? As an answer to this second question we can say that the combination of our pattern recognition abilities and continuous observation enables us to acquire language. Still the question is worth further analysis.

One of the main influences of creation of language and consequently understanding of language are the environment and experiences. In one discussion about language acquisition (here), I argued about the inherent difficulty for humans to analyze extraterrestrial languages. My position can be summarized that: Language experts have long been in the analysis of prehistoric languages (say, ancient Egyptian languages), their job is relatively easy because they are analyzing human languages - made by humans just like us. The real challenge would be to analyze and understand languages of beings that share neither our environment nor experiences.

Many philosophers have recognized this limitation, one such recognition is Wittgenstein's quote:

"If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." (source)

Other instances -say, the title "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."- seem to suggest that even humans may be incapable of understanding eachother due to different physiological and psychological needs. All those instances seem to suggest that understanding of language is highly dependent on our familiarity of the concept being suggested.

A consequence to the "pattern recognition" method for acquiring language is ambiguity. Take two example nouns: "Knife" and "Love". The word "knife" can be easily recognized through observation, the concept is mainly unambiguous and not open for interpretations. On the other hand, the term "love" is highly ambiguous -each person has their own interpretations- since diverse patterns are attributed the same word "love".

An extreme view of the above two paragraphs, considering individualism and since every person has different experiences in life, then the meaning of words each individual perceives is different! We might say that no human really understands another, and we are merely deluded to think otherwise.

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Points Of View: Relativism And Objectivism

Consider the sketch below, assuming all cars are on a straight line, and that all velocities indicated are in the +ve x-axis direction taken with respect to the parking car which is also the speed indicated in the speedometer in each car respectively... Lets further assume that each moving car contains the driver and a passenger next to him.



Now, we can see that the speed of CarB relative to CarA is 30 KM/H, yet the speedometer indicates 50 KM/H. Can we say that the speedometer's reading is wrong?! Not really, because the speedometer measures the speed relative to the ground not CarA!! The two values indicate the speed of CarB, but each one has a different reference, which means that speed is in fact a relative value.

So what exactly is the speed of CarB?! This question is unanswerable! You cannot ask about the speed without defining a reference object... The speed and the reference are inseparable. Is there any objective value of the speed of CarB?! YES!! We can objectively say that the speed of CarB is 30 KM/H with respect to CarA... As we can see, although speed has a relativistic property we can objectively state the speed. It is meaningless to say: "The speed of CarB is 30 KM/H", without qualifying the claim with its reference. Yet, once the reference is defined nothing is ambiguous!

Within this context we can define at least 4 points of view [POV as a shorthand]; one for each car. Each car has a different POV. From the POV of CarA, CarC has speed 80 KM/H. From the POV of CarB, CarC has speed 50 KM/H. It is evidently obvious that with respect to each POV CarC has a different speed value! One car with different speeds values from every POV!! Does this mean that one POV is correct and the other is wrong?! Not really. We cannot assign a truth value to a POV. We cannot say that the speed calculated from CarA's POV is correct and that of CarB is wrong. Somepeople may intuitively claim that the parking car's POV is more correct. As intuitive as it may seem, the last claim is flawed!

So does this mean that anyone claiming to know the speed of CarC is necessarily correct? Absolutely not. Consider the the driver and the passenger in CarA each make a different claim; The driver says: "From my POV, CarB is moving at 30 KM/H", while the passenger says: "From my POV, CarB is moving at 40 KM/H"... Both claims are initiated with the magic words "From my POV", yet the driver has made a truthful claim, while the passenger has made a false claim. The speed of CarB is 30 KM/H from the POV of the driver, and is 30 KM/H from the POV of the passenger as well since both are in CarA and moving with equal velocities.

A POV is different from an opinion. As in the previous example, the driver and the passenger in CarA each had the same POV, but with different opinions. Unlike a POV, an opinion can be assigned a truth value as being either true or false. A person may be wrong even from their own POV. We cannot say that the driver and the passenger had different opinions and both opinions are true. It is possible that two different opinions are both true - there is no contradiction, but nonetheless we cannot say that all opinions are necessarily true.

As a final twist, the driver in CarA may use this inference: "From my POV, CarB is moving at 30 KM/H. From my POV, CarC is moving at 80 KM/H. Thus, the speed of CarC with respect to CarB is (80-30) KM/H = 50 KM/H." - In this simple example, we see that the state from a certain POV can be calculated from other POVs, as the driver figured the POV of CarB from his own car.

Conclusions:

• Some quantities are relative. eg. velocity
  
• Relative quantities are inseparable from the reference.
  
• Relative quantities coupled with their respective reference are objective facts.
  
• POVs are defined on references.
  
• POVs cannot be assigned truth values.
  
• Opinions are statements.
  
• Opinions evaluate to truth values.
  
• POVs can be evaluated from other POVs.
  
• Relativism and Objectivism DO NOT contradict.
  
• Relativism DOES NOT imply all opinions are true.

The Dream Example: Domain-Specific Knowledge

Skepticism for long has been accused to suggest that knowledge is unattainable; While this might seem like a reasonable conclusion, it isn't particularly so.... Denying knowledge is equivalent to denying all rationality, which isnt particularly the purpose Skepticism is aiming at.... On the other hand, Skepticism thrives to enlighten our rational choices by admitting the limits of our knowledge and perception of the world: Which is what is about to be presented.

To help better understand the arguments, lets consider the dream example: PersonX dreams of having been to Italy. Now, If they say: "Yesterday, In my dream, I was in Italy", they are justified! But if they say: "Yesterday, I went to Italy", then they are not justified!! This simple scenario illustrates how the domain affects the accuracy of claims.

Now, lets say that PersonX claims that: "Yesterday, In my dream, I went to France", this is a false claim just as much as "Yesterday, I went to Italy" is... So although dreams are merely non-actual worlds truth values still holds at least within that domain... Somehow, things that never actually happened are like facts in the realm of fantasy!

Within scenarios like the Matrix it becomes necessary to make a distinction between the realm of our consciousness (the "Common World") and the "Actual World"... This means, while we may have absolutely no knowledge at all about the Actual World, we still have functionally useful knowledge about the Common World - the world that our senses percieve!!....

The relation of the Dream World to our Common World is similar to the relation of the Common World to the Actual World!! Practically, the Actual World may have no real significance as opposed to the Common World; The argument here, assuming your current consciousness leads you to believe that you are pursuing GoalX, then you will want to fulfill this goal regardless of wether your consciousness is within the Dream World, Common World, or the Actual World... In all cases you fulfill the goal according to the "physics" of the world your consciousness lives within!!

PS: Inspired by this entry [recommended-read]

Is Science Justified?

Following the tracks of radical Skepticism one has to wonder if science or anyother empirical line of thought can be justifiable within that philosophical stance... Many (including philosophers) have accused Skepticism to be in contradiction with Rationalism, the greatest concern was that Skepticism suggests that knowledge is unattainable - which is a false accusation (as demonstrated in this post)!!

The argument goes like this: Skepticism implies that perception is an unreliable source for information, that all information collected through perception is deteriorated and misleading to the truth of things... Skepticism holds that one cannot be certain of anything, and that empirical observation doesn't lead to factualness... Skepticism also holds the position that all scientific observations might have systematic errors and that all science is prone to error, no matter how solid it might seem (consider how Einstein redefined Newtonian physics)....

Most of these arguments are more or less true, BUT NOT the conclusion: Some have concluded that if Skepticism was true then all science has to be abandoned, and no-one would ever be justified to seek knowledge... I object to anyone who claims that Skepticism advocates abandoning science or rationality!

I think the Newtonian physics example is a good one: We all know that ( Force = Mass * Acceleration ), this formula was constructed by Newton, and proved to be wrong by Einstein! This is an example of scientific fallibilism which demonstrates that even scientific propositions cannot be held as certain... But lets consider the functional view: This formula has been a great assist in numerous sciences and inventions including but not limited to sky rockets, cars, projectiles,...etc. So at the functional level, although this formula has NOT been absolutely true it has made our life easier and got us to technological advances that would have been otherwise unattainable!!

So while Skepticism questions the factualness of science and empirical observation, it does NOT imply that they are not justified based on functional and practical grounds... Therefore it is justified and need not be abandoned - because its serving its purpose!

Organic Life-Forms: A Closer Look

Consciousness: what is the definition of consciousness? Living being: what is the definition of a living being? what is the definition of a being? The actual answers to these questions are merely CONVENTIONS! What might be living by your judgement can be dead by others. The question of consciousness has came by a long time for people in the computer industry, specifically artificial intelligence. Lets take a closer look there: scientists are aiming at building up robots with intelligent reactions - robots with consciousness! Consciousness is defined as simply having the ability to respond to changing factors in the surrounding environment. Robots achieve that through sensors and intelligent algorithms. Humans have been able to do that with their senses (seeing, hearing, touching). So here is my challenge question: if computers (robots) where developed with the ability to move around, think, respond, and have consciousness - even more advanced algorithms that enable it to feel, judge, invent, and perform other human-like actions... In what ways are they less alive than us? ..... "Well, for GOD's sake, they're just metal and electricity!", someone might scream... My question now to that guy is: why do u consider an intelligent action from a being made up of organic material like C,S,N,...etc, more living than another being that can come up with other intelligent actions but with a small difference of being made up of iron and silicon??

A similar pitfall arises: humans have long been searching for life on other planets. But do they have a clue for what they are searching for? Should we expect extraterrestrial life-forms to be made up of organic material like carbon? Does organic material as defined by our chemistry stand for the only substance of life? Or better say, why is carbon considered more living than say iron? In our world we say that we are made of organic material, and us together with creatures having same characteristics being classified as living (eg. animals, plants, bacteria ... etc.), yet things made up of iron are not living (eg. robots). [This view is rejected by Alternative biochemistry where the classical carbon-based biochemistry is called "Carbon chauvinism"]

Looking at the picture from a lower level we can see that humans are no more living than a robot.... Ohh heck, we are no more living than the keyboard i am typing on! Our consciousness is nothing more than electrical signals going through our heads, combined with our analytical and creativity capabilities have been doing stuff. The concept is simple yet tricky for those who never thought that way. This explains why i disregard biology: it gives existance to things of null reality.

The Servitude Of Truth

Truth is a mean, rather than a goal: A mean to make rational decisions and well-informed choices to enhance our experiences and favor those pleasant ones... Lets consider the basic definition of Satanism: It aims at understanding the mechanics of life so we can get through it, so we can make best use of things in our hands.

Knowledge is power: This is the main claim... But we dont sacrifice the end for a mean, do we? Its stupid if we do, but sometimes one gets too carried away with the mean that they forget the end!!!

Functional Analysis Of The Matrix

Trinity: The Matrix isnt real!
Cypher: I disagree Trinity: I think the Matrix could be more real than this world... (source)

Lets first define what "functional" means: Any system can be described in terms of inputs, outputs, and internal states only! Thats the full definition... But what does that mean? This means that we strip intermediate states and processes and focus only on what some call a "black-box" that defines the system as the output relating to input! Within this view we can define a human in terms of senses (inputs) and feelings, emotions, actions, moods, and other mental states (outputs)...

Our nervous system transmits neurological signal to the brain which induces our consciousness, and after analyzing incoming signal produces an intelligent reaction that may consitutes emotional states... These neurologcal signals are actually electrical signals, but once our initial senses have been converted into electrical signals the real source of this signal cannot be verified nor reproduced... If we imagine our brains as a system where both inputs and outputs are electrical signals then we can understand that if identical inputs are provided within equivalent internal states then it is only logical to guess that identical output will follow!!

The Matrix does exactly what the above system aims at... The Matrix consitutes of internal states that are translated into electrical pulses identical to those if the internally described state was actual, then it feeds this input to the brain, which in turns modifies its own internal state as well as providing output that is used to update the internal state of the Matrix!!

Based on this view we can see that as long as the brain is concerned the input regardless of its actual source is what it constitutes as "reality"... Additionally humans are concerned with emotions, and whether you are actually fucking a gorgeous guy\girl or just stimulated to believe so doesnt matter as long as you are feeling ecstatic!!

What Is The Matrix

Morpheus: Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

Neo: We are now inside a computer program!
Neo: This..... This isnt real!
Morpheus: What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, smell, taste, and see then 'real' is simply electrical signal interpreted by your brain!

Morpheus: What is the Matrix? Control.
Morpheus: The Matrix is a computer-generated dreamworld built to keep us under control to change a human being into this\(a battery)...
Neo: No! I dont believe it! Its impossible!

(A boy bends a spoon without even touching it)
(The boy hands the spoon to Neo)
Boy: Dont try to bend the spoon, thats impossible! Instead only try to realize the truth!
Neo: What truth?!
Boy: There is no spoon!

Trinity: The Matrix isnt real!
Cypher: I disagree Trinity: I think the Matrix could be more real than this world... (source)

The Matrix presents a version of an old philosophical fable: the brains in a vat (with some spice to make a cool film). Since its not easy to explain all aspects here, read more in the given link!

Skepticism Is True - by Abraham Meidan

Skepticism is true, is the name of a book and a position argumented for by Abraham Meidan... The introduction of this book has been provided to enlight readers of the different aspects to skepticism as a philosophical hypothesis! Its a light read if you get acquainted by few terms used in that section... I'd say its a must read!

I am a supporter of skepticism, and soon there will be quite a few posts in this regard dealing with the topic from various points of view....

The main theses of the book are:
1. All statements are neither certain nor plausible. In other words: skepticism is true.
2. Skepticism, as formulated above, does not imply any absurd conclusions (in contrast to the view commonly held by philosophers).
3. People do not choose their beliefs. What we believe is determined by psychological processes.
4. People believe in statements that minimize the extent of the unexpected events of which they are aware. (source)

Click here to read the introduction (PDF)

Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories is a collective term coined for a wide range of skeptical claims that gained momentum throughout history, although may have not been supported by positive evidence... Conspiracy theories are abundant in politics, by regular people skeptic of the governments accusing them of conspiracies. One such conspiracy theories are the anti-semetic theories regarding Jews taking over the world, other conspiracy theories have been coined up about the assassination of John Kennedy or the inter-governmental collaboration to eradicate evidence of underground existance of aliens!!

Apart from political conspiracy theories there are various philosophy-oriented theories usually called "Philosophical skepticism" in order to distinguish them from the more dominant political conspiracy theories; The most popular philosophical skepticism is the dream skepticism: The eternal question if our lives were nothing but a dream that felt like reality!

Finally, conspiracy theories have an important role in science-fiction... Numerous writters have established ground basis for skeptic science-fiction; The film (triology of) "The Matrix" (my all-time favorite science-fiction) has pioneered that category!

It is important to note that "conspiracy theories" are actually ONLY hypotheses (rather than theories) because they dont have well-grounded falsifiability...

Decieving Your Own Mind

Is ignorance a bliss? This is the second time this question is posed on this blog... The answer is not straightforward, and involves deep philosophical investigation! This entry features the same question, but from a totally different perspective...

Some people say: "What you dont know cannot harm you!"; I think this statement is false and misleading... Most of the time, what you dont know WILL hurt you, because it will lead you to uninformed decisions... But what this entry is about to address is when what you dont know ACTUALLY cannot harm you. For that condition to be satisfied, what you dont know must be completely irrelevant to your current decisions, that is to say that the difference it makes is not detectable!

Lets consider a cheating partner example: One person cheats on his partner, this partner is ignorant of that, could this ignorance hurt him? To answer such question we must consider the consequences: Roughly speaking this ignorance can hurt this partner in quite a few ways: If the partner discovers the incidence later on he might be emotionally hurt; It might lead him to optimistic decisions about the relationship, while he should have put expectations to minimum; In short the difference between reality and percieved knowledge can cause confusion!

But what if that cheating partner was so professional in his work that no emotional disconnection or contradiction of evidence entailed to such act, does this scenario seem equally unfavorable? The question is: What makes you afraid of being cheated? Is it the simple fact of being cheated? Or the knowledge of being cheated? Or the unfavorable consequences? Rationally, its the latter! Whats so bad about knowing that you were cheated if no negative experiences followed? And more importantly, what so bad about being cheated if you never knew on the condition that such lack of knowledge didnt harm you?

To elaborate more on the matter consider this case-study scenario: PersonX pays for PersonY to be their partner (assuming PersonY is a perfect pretender) and then has memory modifying operation to forget that such deal took place (ie. become ignorant of the deal)... Is PersonX a reasonable person?

The more important and fundamental question is: Is this scenario intrinsically better than the cheating partner scenario? Does it matter who made the decision to create an enjoyable fantasy? These are few radical and interesting questions to ponder!

Pessimistic Incompatibilism

Do humans have a free will? Quick answer: No!

I am one of the proponents of determinism (read more)... And asserting determinism can lead to one conclusion: We don't have true free will! Our actions are the effect of past incidents, that's all! Our thoughts are the natural consequence to the experiences of our past; Nothing is original we are only living the consequences of the past...

We don't have a free will, we have a naturally-dictated predetermined will...

But what this entry is about to add is that even if determinism was false, and indeterminism was actually true, this doesn't mean that we'd have a free will, it simply changes from a predetermined will, to random will... But never free will!

This view is called pessimistic incompatibilism! Pessimistic incompatibilists generally view that the term "will" itself is nonsense...

Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction

Survival of the fittest is one of the most respected and simply sophisticated theories of our time... In many occasions i have showed my admiration for this theory... The most important consequence of this theory is my personal view that i call: "Evolution of truth";

To be specific, it doesn't mean that truth morphs through time, but rather our understanding of truth morphs through time.

Lets face it, our understanding of physics and almost all other sciences is derived from our limited perception of the world around us.... Lack of understanding, and misconception will stay there forever; yet, truth always stands out from the crowd! Not necessarily quickly, but it eventually will.... Our perception of the world around us will be put to trial on every occasion we try to apply our theories about the world around us; The misconceptions will fail to explain the phenomenons that we observe!

We all know the old "spontaneous generation" theory that suggested that:

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth. (source)

In accordance to the perception of those people, it was obvious that 'spontaneous generation' does happen... But as we always know, "mutations" will come in the way!
New mutant ideologies did evolve and competed for survival against the prevailing 'spontaneous generation' ideology... At that time, truth (maybe not complete truth, but merely a better perception) was nothing more than very few mutants; A similar example is how the spherical earth thesis, has been long time ago challenged by the flat earth thesis!! But truth is always way much solid than falsehood; Perception of Truth evolved! We now know better....

Not all lies are equally "bad"; the really bad ones are eliminated first; the more serious and obvious a falsehood is, the sooner it will go away; that's natural!! You cant jump up ladders, you go one step at a time. In other words, 'spontaneous generation' was a weakly supported perception of the world, so it got way before than the theory of "atomism" (Greek word atomos which means "that which cannot be cut into smaller pieces"), as atoms were not as easily observable as living organisms are.

Much like in the animal kingdom, no animal is invincible (ie. we don't have perfect perception of our world), but there are always the strong, the stronger, and the weak!! Once the weak ones are out, a new series of competition will take place between the remaining strong ones, and so forth forever!

In this context, i bet you that a D-student in our time, can easily out-smart an A+-student in 1000 BC; and an A+-student of our time, is such a big failure against a D-student in 3000 AC!

In this series:
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought