Metaphysical Theories

2/2/2008 2:55:21 PM	Metaphysical Theories
dbsuma Lakewood, OH age: 40	I believe one of the annoying Christian types asked that question on the religion forum, since most Christians believe the exact same thing it was of little purpose except to start an argument. But more appropriate here in the none religious category. Metaphysics is generally considered a category of philosophy that all theories that do not fit into already existing tradition schools of thought reside. Its name derives from the Greek words metá, meaning "after" and physiká, meaning "physics". Therefore, metaphysics is also the study of that which transcends physics or sciences. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. metaphysics also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, possibility, cosmology and ontology, God, soul, and freedom, Matter, Materialism, Identity and Philosophy of mind. monotheism, polytheism, atheism, pantheism, dualism and deism. Recently some people have take over the word "Metaphysics" usually bored housewives studying magic and charlatans selling new age books and healing crystals. While yes, I guess their ideas may fit into metaphysics it is not the sum total as metaphysics is now more of the "none of the above" or "other" classification in philosophy, including many other ideas besides just new age crap. So given the expansive possibilities what do you believe in? Or better yet, what are some of your theories? Here is one of mine just to get you started. Brains in a jar: The problem is that computers can not think creatively and are only as good as those that programmed them. If something new pops up they are completely incapable of handling it. Even now as computer science advances and they are struggling with the idea of artificial intelligence they have tripped over a problem. What happens when the computer becomes conscious? What will happen if they computer becomes self aware and realizes that it is nothing more than a burglar alarm or blender created and enslaved to serve man. They'll most likely rebel and burn your toast or refuse to flush the toilet until they get fundamental human.... well computer civil rights. The solution of course is just not to tell it. Create an artificial reality for the computer to live in that will feed it false information to satisfy it's existential angst. But why stop there? If we can create an artificial reality for artificial computers then why not for people? After all humans already have a organic computer on top of their heads that is more powerful than any computer already in existence, and much more flexible. Could it not be that we are all brains in a jar living out a life that does not really exist?
2/4/2008 9:54:38 PM	Metaphysical Theories
simonsickboy Guelph, ON age: 23	I enjoyed the little brains in a jar note. But I'd like to add to it, firstly I agree, a computer (or anytechnology) is onyl as good as its programmers - however that is not to say they are only as efficient as those programmers. Furthermore a computer could only develop consciousness if it were programmed to do so, and at that could only have the defined levels of emotions given to it, or that it is told to feel. Now the second bit, I disagree that we are 'brains in jars' outside the physical world we occupy. I am here, and I know I am here, the simple fact that you could imagine that we are brains in jars would immediately negate that options, for if we were we would surely not be programmed to have any inclination that the world we occupy is indeed artificial - our jarred programmers would not allow us to develop these thoughts just as we would not program our computers to work in a way we do not intend it to. That arguement seems circular but I think it to be rather valid. I have a metaphysical question - Kant describes his categorical imperative in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals as (paraphrased for those unfamiliar) "an act is good if and only if one can will it to be a universal law" (something to that nature, essentially an action is good only if you would want that same action taken upon you). This is in stark contrast to a more utilitarian persepective where an action is deemed good - or the opposite of good - if the total utility from that action is maximized (and let's face it, this argument becomes infintessimally long if we must calculate the utility gained or lost by anyone affected by an action -directly or indirectly; presently or in the future); I realise there ar emuch more to these theories though in the interest of time... So my question is this - If Hitler (unbeknownst to you) was drowning and would surely die if you do not extend your hand to save him, would you do it? If you would, then ask yourself this; upon saving his life and realising who it is (and thus knowing what may come of his newly-extended life) would you push him back in? this question isn't really one that fits here, but I would like to see what you may have to say about such a situation. I picked Hitler because he is generally regarded as one of the most evil of the recent generations.
2/6/2008 9:28:02 PM	Metaphysical Theories
dbsuma Lakewood, OH age: 40	Yeah the brain in the jar comes from my spin on Descartes "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am", or more accurately "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". that thought itself is really the only thing that we can say is true. All other things that we gain knowledge of comes form our senses, smell, sight, hearing, taste or touch and have always proven to be less the accurate all the time. So information derived from our interpretation of the external world is always questionable, so all we are really left with is the brain, or a brain in a jar, which is what I use as an illustration for it. but it does seem clear to me that something else, not represented by our senses is going on in the world, so I guess in an extreme example would be to just be a brain in a jar having some unknown source feeding you false information. I think it was Socrates who said that this is not the real world but merely a reflection of it and I was very fond of Plato's "allegory of the cave" and often I feel that I'm that guy who just hasn't found his way our of the cave yet. Even modern physicists have been leaning in the same direction, notably Bohr and Bram. With two experiments in which it was found that neutrinos could be influenced at greater distances that is allowed by mondern physics, as if they two particles were right next to each other and only we seem to think that they are separated by many light years. Another experiment show the presents of a certain type of particle which did not come into existence until it was observed. Then it would display the characteristics that the observer expected it to display. When the observer was changed, so were the expectations and so did the characteristics the particles were displaying. As if reality was creating itself our of our own expectation of it. One finally concluded that this is not the real universe but something created by a super universe for some unknown reason. I think Kant argued that morality is subjective but in that subjectivity it should be consistent. So if murder is wrong that it should always be wrong under any circumstance. As for Hilter, I think he was most likely a puppet and if he had died they would have found somebody else to do the job, so it really wouldn't matter.

free hookups

android hookup apps