An Afterlife? - Unlocking the Mysteries

Much of the next exchange consists of further elaboration of themes already mentioned. I will not, therefore, comment in detail about them. There are, however, a couple of important points introduced which should be mentioned.

Richard is at pains to point out that there is a bigger picture which we should not lose sight of, namely, the explanation for why any of us are here at all. Many modern philosophers argue that we don't, and can't, ever know and so that should be an end to it. Further speculation is pointless. Richard takes the view that we cannot make sense of the human predicament without this perspective.

My own response, at this juncture is to return, this time in detail, to the issue I raised originally concerning the difference between a computer thinking and a human being thinking.

Richard's post was made on 08 Jun 2008 at 05:32 pm:

Hi Peter, in continuity in response to your last post, I think that the reason humans have aims, but computers don't, is because they have reasons for having an aim to achieve a certain goal which relates to human life. Life seems to reflect an aim, a process and a result in everything we do, which is just part of how we live our lives, if we choose not to have an aim, then you get what you are given, if you choose not to do the process, then you live with the ambition and not the drive to complete it, and the result is just what comes afterwards from ambition and the work process.

Solipsism is the route of thought I always try to avoid, because I disagree with it, yet it exists as an argument for the meaning of life, but, Solipsists think that you only live your life, and when you die, the world you lived in ceases to exist, in effect making your life unmaterialistic. I do wonder what a Solipsist response would be to historical artefacts, which obviously involve other people's lives, I would imagine something along the lines of that it is made up, as irrelevant information in one's life that isn't really "real". In response to a question of yours, we relate to materiality all the time as sources of evidence in the court of law for example. Myself I believe experience is only half the story, the other half is the material world we relate to in order to experience.

I believe personally that Philosophical flair unlocks mysteries, rather like when people believed you would fall off of the face of the Earth if you sailed too far, yet the sailor (sorry cannot remember names) kept sailing to find the end of the Earth, even though people thought he was barking mad, and how Sir Isaac Newton revolutionally discovered gravity. Without this kind of thinking outside of the box, answers to mysteries will never come, and until the day a computer can do this without humankind, then it is only the human mind who can achieve the unlocking of the great mysteries in the present day.

Richard Debnam

My response to Richard's post was made on 09 Jun 2008 at 04:45 pm:

Hi Richard. Like you, I don't believe in solipsism and I hope no one will suggest otherwise. When I say that anything other than my own direct experience, my unique point of view, is inferred I don't mean to cast doubt that there really is something to be inferred. So we are in agreement about your second paragraph. Similarly, I think we have to accept that it is probably impossible to do away with either the material world or the world of experience and very difficult to argue that they are one and the same. Describing them is another matter!

With regard to your third paragraph, I can only applaud your enthusiasm and since you believe any ability a computer might have to do away with humankind remains in the future we can safely postpone any disagreement on that issue.

What really interests me, however, is your first paragraph. You seem to be maintaining that a computer can have aims of its own and it is that which I would like to examine with you. Before I say too much can I ask you if you are familiar with the analogy of the chinese room? If not I will go into greater detail but I don't want to teach Aunt Nelly to suck eggs.

Peter Rayner

Richard's response is included here in order to complete the exchanges up to the introduction of the analogy of the chinese room. His post was made on 14 Jun 2008 at 07:15 pm:

Hi again Peter, I'm glad we both agree to disagree with Solipsism, and yes I also think it is impossible to reject either the material world or the world of experience too.

I think a computer cannot have aims without human input to start the processing. I have some hazy idea in the future that a computer will be soon be powerful enough to do things such as be your personal planner, tidy your house, etc.. But, we're forgetting one thing in this idea, computers can only be made from the idea of a human, then the engineering piece it together to create a computer. Humans created computers for their advantage of speeding things up as well as being lazier. Without humans, computers are isolated pieces of machinery, and they won't know what to do if they did become isolated. However, I have just had an idea, we could be computers made by another lifeform too, who gradually built us more complicated to the point we could not be improved, then do as we wish, this makes this topic quite deep but also rather intruguing, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

In reference to your last paragraph, I can safely say I have heard about a chinese room thought experiment, that says if you teach a computer and a human to write chinese in a separate room to yourself, and are not told who wrote which piece of chinese writing, how would you be able to tell the difference between what the computer wrote and what the human wrote?... I hope it's the same one I'm thinking of anyway, I'll end my post here to save extra detail and see if we're thinking of the same thing, otherwise it will be obscured.

Richard Debnam

Tags: afterlife mysteries bigger picture computer thinking aims process solipsism real materiality meaning of life experience point of view analogy chinese room

An Afterlife? - Soft Solipsism

Richard found my previous post disconcerting because he believed my attempt to introduce the idea of a "contentless, experiencing self" entailed a belief in the doctrine of solipsism. This is the view that nothing else exists apart from my own self and, since the material world does not exist, except in my mind, then the self, in this context, is taken to be mental only. I have included my reply to the point because it can best be understood as a single exchange. Whereas the solipsist wishes to argue that nothing else can be known for certain, I am trying to use this as a starting point to establish what else there is. My argument that each of us has a unique point of view which we experience directly, in contrast to our experience of everything else, which we must, therefore, infer, might be called a soft solipsism but, unlike the solipsist, I use it to point to there being more than just myself.

Richard then introduces a different context, in a sense, by suggesting that we need to "know the meaning of life" before we can consider the possibility of an afterlife.

Richard's post was made on 12 May 2008 at 12:31 pm:

Hi Peter, thanks for your reply. I'll get straight down to what I have to say again. From what I said from "the aim of a computer", I meant it from the point of view that the computers do not have aims of their own, but instead that us humans rely on them for their aims. As in, computers are used for our advantage to speed up the processing, memorising and calculating abilities that outperform us humans.

For example, if one would like to work out 1,267.89 x 568 for a business matter, one would consult a calculator, then for the accounts of their business they could record this in Microsoft Excel for an invoice to print off and send to the customer of their business etc. Therefore the computer would remember, calculate and create the process of buying, and the person is only using the computer for an aim of their own, not for the computer's own gain. I apologise if it was bad wording on my part, and I hope this clarifies my point.

I have one question that relates to your mentioning of the afterlife. If we "establish a self which is not tied to the physical world", then it doesn't make sense, because the only thing we can relate to is our materiality in our lives. If materiality doesn't exist, then nothing we are experiencing is real, which means there is no life or afterlife. It seems that this way of thinking has gone down the road of the solipsism, which is a theory I do not agree with.

I myself think that to consider the possibility of an afterlife, first you must know the meaning of life. If you cannot know the meaning of life for certain, then there is no reason to consider there being an afterlife. However, if you think you have a meaning to life, then it holds the key to the prescence of an afterlife.

Richard Debnam

My post was made on 12 May 2008 at 02:31 pm:

Hi Richard. I very much like your assertion that we have to address "life" before we address "afterlife" and that does raise some real problems for anyone of a Cartesian inclination. As you will know, the Cartesian view of Selfhood is that it is an entity which has no describable attributes. It is what we are and is not dependent on any "features" all of which could be the product of the evil genius. I will give some thought to your point and write again later. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do the point justice at the moment.

Peter Rayner

My next post was made on 02 Jun 2008 at 02:43 pm

Hi Richard, I have given some careful thought to your comments. We seem to be in agreement that there is a considerable difference between the performance of a computer, however spectacular, and the "aims" as you put it, of a human being. To use the conventional philosophical jargon, a computer simply processes whereas a human being has intentions. So, if human beings are simply complex amalgamations of organic materials how do they come to have intentions and why is it that computers don't? It is not that I am attempting to deny materiality but rather to ascertain whether or not there are elements of humanness which are non material in nature.

On the question of solipsism I am having some problem understanding your point. You have introduced the idea that we can have experiences which are "real" and that these are contingent upon what you call "materiality". Does this mean we can also have experiences which are not "real"? Also you state that it is materiality which we "relate to" whereas the traditional answer is that the one thing we cannot doubt is our own existence. Since no one else can be us, experiencing our unique point of view then all else has to be, in some sense, inferred, except our own existence.

As to the "meaning" of life let us first consider the "nature" of life and how it differs from matter. Perhaps we should also consider why we have matter, why we have life and how they came to be. That would be a scientific or evolutionary approach. And right in the middle of all that let us consider the place of intentionality and the place of experience. Does the evidence suggest that the clever way in which a computer works provides a close approximation of the sense of it all? Or does the unique, purposeful intentions of the conscious human being give a better clue to the underlying mysteries of the universe? You decide.

Peter Rayner

Tags: afterlife self solipsism meaning of life aim computer physical world life cartesian process intentions real materiality experiences doubt inferred existence