in the shell Forum Index in the shell
Discussions about the many incarnations of Ghost in the Shell, philosophy and more!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Restricted Ghosts and Recursive Aura

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    in the shell Forum Index -> The Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Reconsciousness



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Location: omaha nebraska

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:17 pm    Post subject: Restricted Ghosts and Recursive Aura Reply with quote

First off, recursive aura is my euphemism for 'self-awareness'. I love all these fancy euphemisms that at first make no sense.

Anyway, think about whether self - awareness plays a part in proving individuality, or defining humanity. How would a program prove to another that it is self aware? How would we? Are there any technical hurdles that cannot be jumped in programming a true ghost?

Secondly, I have to ask about defining a consciousness. Or, a restricted ghost. One that has certain properties that we wish to define.

Here is a thought:

Which would a truly evil being, faced with a choice of selfishness or sadisticness of equal magnitude, pick? Would he (or she?) throw away his life in order to make others worse? Or would he choose to live out of selfishness anyway. (actually this is a bad example, he would choose to live in order to do more damage another day..., but you get my point)

Personally, I think that a truly evil being, if definable, would theoretically be more sadistic than selfish.

And another case of a restricted ghost.

An omnipotent being, a god, someone perfect, etcedera. Are these ghosts possible? Or in a simpler form, would the set of perfect things one could do be so narraw as to have only one choice in everything, and thus not have a free will? This would of course not make them a ghost, and thus there would be no such thing as a perfect ghost.



Some more technical things:

Please dont make super-long paragraphs, they scare people with small attention spans like me away. Put breaks in the paragraphs for relief.

Also, when using analogies (i havent seen this happen yet, but ...) note that some things are too unique to have reasonable analogies existent, like ghosts and consciousness. Everyone knows a program (at least today) cannot get anyware close to being like a ghost.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sonic
Special


Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 274

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, what does the "recursive" part mean? Or, why "recursive"? I don't get why you picked to use that as a term for self-aware. Call me silly, but it makes me think of joined-up handwriting. Like, you used to know how to do it, but then it regressed back to non-joined up handwriting, and then you finally learnt how to write in cursive again- thus, it is "recursive". I'm just... silly. But I haven't heard the phrase "recursive" before.

Quote:
An omnipotent being, a god, someone perfect, etcedera. Are these ghosts possible? Or in a simpler form, would the set of perfect things one could do be so narraw as to have only one choice in everything, and thus not have a free will?


That's probably best answered in Christian theology and the classic "God and the problem of evil and free will" question. It's kind of been answered pretty exhaustively (working within the specified rules and accepted definitions and terms, of course). Well, it's not exactly the same as talking about the ghost, of course, but enough of it can be extracted and applied to that idea as well... It's essentially the same thing. A perfect thing has "the ability to do the impossible" (there's semantics for you), and is also 100% in existence (I mean, incapable of having a lack of anything). At least by the definition of "perfect" as it is used in that argument. So theoretically, every option should be available to it throughout existence... except the ability to lack (have a privation... the opposite of 100% metaphysical goodness)... It's kind of complicated, basically it's a question whose answer is a set of contradictions and counter arguments that somehow all work together to create the whole thing. It's one of the most fun games philosophy had to offer... The problem with working on something like your question, outside of the regular approach to a similar topic in theology, is that there are no clearly defined rules that everyone knows. You say "perfect", and we don't know what you mean. And even if you try, it'll be really hard to create the meaning without having to create other meanings for those meanings. Is it your view of perfect, mine, theology's definition of perfect, or some other thing? And that's not even going near the "free-will" part, which is also messy that way...

Quote:
Please dont make super-long paragraphs, they scare people with small attention spans like me away. Put breaks in the paragraphs for relief.


That a swipe at me? Mr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spica



Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 132
Location: The Sleeping Universe

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
First off, recursive aura is my euphemism for 'self-awareness'. I love all these fancy euphemisms that at first make no sense.


Euphimisms of this sort are pointless, they're just tools that philosophers who cannot express their views clearly use to make themselves seem more intelligent. If a philosopher (or scientist) is truely skilled then he can explain his theory in simple, easily understood terms. As for theories, the one that is best is the one that fully describes the phenomenon and does so in the simplest terms possible. In science this concept is called parsimony, a term which could be considered a euphemism, but it has a practical function in that it explains a concept in a single word rather than an entire sentence.

Now for the questionable free will of a perfect, omnipotent being. If you are an omnipotent being then you make the rules, which would mean you could decide what you want to do and then decide that that action is perfect. Of course a deity such as this would be extreamly capricious, but no one could do anything about it, because the being in question is omnipotent. The situation changes if the omnipotent being is also omnibenevolent. Then the question of free will is determined by whether or not the being in question created the existance over which he presides. If he did create it, then he created any other beings that also exist in that particular existance, and therefore decided ahead of time what would be best for these beings to exist. That would mean that he has free will because he decided how the universe would work. If the the omnipotent, omnibenevolent being emerged from a pre-existing existance, with a pre-determined standard for what is best for the other beings in that existance, then the deity figure would have no free will because he would have to follow these guidlines of benevolence because he is a being of absolute benevolence.

For more information on topics such as this I would suggest that you read Rene Descartes' classic philosophical treatis "Meditations." I don't necessarily agree with what Descartes says, becuase he was a dualist and I am a philosophical Materialsit, it does address a variety of philosophical issues such as epistomology (the study of knowledge), ontology (what exists), the problem of other minds, and the nature of God. What I feel is the most important part of this book is Descartes' realization of the axiomatic (undeniable) concept, "I think therefore I am," which cannot be refuted because to doubt ones own existance is to think and something has to be doing that doubting/thinking, and that something is you (Descartes explains this concept much better that I do). If you do choose to read this book, make sure you read any essays, foot notes, and criticisms that have been included. It is important to take anything that anyone says with a grain of salt.
_________________
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
-Hamlet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Reconsciousness



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Location: omaha nebraska

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting... I used the word recursive because we are 'working with our own question' in a sense. If one realizes the existence of oneself...
And yes I have heard of Descartes works. I dont like it that he doubts mathematics. I can logically prove the congruence to "does something equal itself?", but thats something else.

I even have something to add to it (if it hasnt already been added)
"I think of many things, therefore many things exist"
Its proof that more than one thing exists, however obvious that sounds.
But no I have not read it. Maybe its in my school library? I will check...

Yes I have been thinking about the definition of 'perfect'. I have come to the conclusion, that if something is done 'perfectly', it is done the most efficiently (though this could get us into problems, like is time of profit worth more, etc) to get the goal accomplished.

This isnt much help, but ill try working on that more. When I said an omnipotent being, I kind of meant a omnibenovelent being. An omnipotent being (under your definitions) cannot exist by logic. BUT it can be existent under natural restrictions. (like not being able to restrict ones own powers, or create something in which he cannot create. He cannot prove he (it i suppose) is not existent. It must be confined within reasoning)

But in the predetermining of the world by that omni-benovelent being, wouldnt he therefore try to pick the most benovelent world? If there is one maximum benovelent world, he will pick that, and will therefore not have a free will in his choice.

And he also has to put into perspective that the beings created have free will, which will really mess things up. To choose the best world, he would have to have the computational power of an oracle from a hypercomputer (do infinity tasks in 0 time with 100% efficiency) But thats another story.

Sylphisonic: Is that a swipe at me?
No, that was a slash at you. Let me define to you the difference *slashes you*
Just kidding, ur paragraphs arent too long, of the ones i read... Razz

Euphemisms: Yes, they are just a tool to boost ego or hide something. (like a lower intellect) But hey, what would be the fun of renaming
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex
as the following:
Consciousness of the physical container: Individuality
or any other way, it just wouldnt be as ... fun i suppose.

And more about the reason that would confine a semi-omni-potent being. I do not believe in Set Theory or some things in Discrete Mathematics/Abstract Algebra. These things I seriously question just like Descartes questioning math.
_________________
A mind opened never regains its original dimensions; a mind isolated will never acknowledge what is deaper inside...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gillsing



Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 109
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reconsciousness wrote:
"I think of many things, therefore many things exist"
Its proof that more than one thing exists, however obvious that sounds.

Well, at least it's proof that thoughts of many things exist, but just because I think about something doesn't mean that it exists. Which is sometimes unfortunate. Such a bother having to actually create stuff I come up with. :(

Reconsciousness wrote:
Yes I have been thinking about the definition of 'perfect'. I have come to the conclusion, that if something is done 'perfectly', it is done the most efficiently (though this could get us into problems, like is time of profit worth more, etc) to get the goal accomplished.

I wish to define "perfect" as "the inevitable flaws of the 'flawless' execution are so hard to detect that our flawed perception and reasoning can't detect them". It's like two wrongs make a right. Wink
_________________
Recommended cyberpunk:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spica



Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 132
Location: The Sleeping Universe

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"I think of many things, therefore many things exist"


Who is this quote attributed to? Its a falacy of logic in every ontological paradiam. The quote "I think therefore I am," proves that you exist in that you are thinking, not because you think that you exist. It does not imply that one can shape the matter by pure force of will, and it only proves that you exist, not that anything else in the universe exists. As Gilsing said, thinking of things only proves that your own thoughts of those things exist.

With these statements we have started sliding down the ontological slide that leads to epistemology, and the dilema of how do we know that what we think we know is really true or just an illusion. Beleave me, the less you know about epistemology, the happier you will be. I know epistemology and it does not make me happy. I am also most displeased that the topic has even surfaced on the forum.

The error you are making in regard to the omnibenevolent, omnipotent deity is that you are assuming that there is a pre-existing absolute morality. If the deity in question creates the universe he has decides what is moral and what is not, and so therefore can tailor what absolute morality entails. You are also assuming that any beings that the deity creates have free will.
_________________
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
-Hamlet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lightice



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spica wrote:

Who is this quote attributed to? Its a falacy of logic in every ontological paradiam. The quote "I think therefore I am," proves that you exist in that you are thinking, not because you think that you exist. It does not imply that one can shape the matter by pure force of will, and it only proves that you exist, not that anything else in the universe exists. As Gilsing said, thinking of things only proves that your own thoughts of those things exist.


"I think, therefore I am" only works if you assume that "to think is to be". More accurately you should say: "there is taught, therefore something must be".

In any case, under the logical basis of the known universe, alone, an omnipotent being cannot exist. Not only the concept of omnipotent can be broken with variety of paradoxes, such as the old "could God create a rock so great, that He cannot lift it?", but it also raises a question about the origin of this omnipotent thing. Assuming, like people who believe in vigilant omnipotent beings usually do, that everything has originally been created by something greater than itself, then how has this source of everything come into being?
_________________
Hei! Aa-Shanta 'Nygh!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
base of the pillar



Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 88
Location: drifitng on the winds of change

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightice wrote:
Spica wrote:

Who is this quote attributed to? Its a falacy of logic in every ontological paradiam. The quote "I think therefore I am," proves that you exist in that you are thinking, not because you think that you exist. It does not imply that one can shape the matter by pure force of will, and it only proves that you exist, not that anything else in the universe exists. As Gilsing said, thinking of things only proves that your own thoughts of those things exist.


"I think, therefore I am" only works if you assume that "to think is to be". More accurately you should say: "there is taught, therefore something must be".

In any case, under the logical basis of the known universe, alone, an omnipotent being cannot exist. Not only the concept of omnipotent can be broken with variety of paradoxes, such as the old "could God create a rock so great, that He cannot lift it?", but it also raises a question about the origin of this omnipotent thing. Assuming, like people who believe in vigilant omnipotent beings usually do, that everything has originally been created by something greater than itself, then how has this source of everything come into being?



The Big Bang?
_________________
"And if we spirits have offended think but this and all is mended. That you have but slumbered heree while these visions did appear."--A Midsummer Night's Dream

History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lightice



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

base of the pillar wrote:

The Big Bang?


The original Big Bang theory does not offer an explanation for exactly where did it originate from, but logically something must have existed to cause the event.

More modern theories speculate of cyclical universe, or possibly several universes interacting with each other, in which the direction of the flow of entropy isn't completely fixed.

Ofcourse the complete validity of any of these theories is questionable, as long as unknown variables exist - that is to say, most likely forever.
_________________
Hei! Aa-Shanta 'Nygh!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mirrormirror



Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Restricted Ghosts and Recursive Aura Reply with quote

Reconsciousness wrote:
First off, recursive aura is my euphemism for 'self-awareness'. I love all these fancy euphemisms that at first make no sense.


My euphimism for the "soul" is "polyphase intrinsic electric field". When engaging is theological discussions people will ask what that means. I explain and then offer to baptize them with the tazer in my car.

"polyphase intrinsic electric field" was inspired by Warren Ellis
_________________
The Ego, the Self, perhaps even a Soul.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mirrormirror



Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use the word polyphase to emphasize the metaphysical nature of the soul.
_________________
The Ego, the Self, perhaps even a Soul.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Elmo



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 219
Location: Plato's Cave Weapon of Choice: Sarcasm

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

personally I like using the german word 'Giest' which has multiple meanings of spirit mind or ghost and even though it seems to totally rip off using 'ghost' in GitS, i did it first so nerrr.. Razz
_________________
Joseph Cambell wrote:
Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Elmo



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 219
Location: Plato's Cave Weapon of Choice: Sarcasm

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anything that distances itself from religion is good IMNSHO. metaphysical opinions are all well and good but 'soul' strays too close to the 'g' word for my liking.
_________________
Joseph Cambell wrote:
Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Faustus



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:30 pm    Post subject: I Reply with quote

Quote:
Which would a truly evil being, faced with a choice of selfishness or sadisticness of equal magnitude, pick?


I don't really understand sadism, to me it just appears to be selfishness. When being sadistic you are satisfying a desire to see others in discomfort. While it is not a normal desire it is a desire all the same so by being sadistic you are merely satisfying desire. However, since this desire does cause discomfort to others it is viewed as selfish. So, sadism, at least to me, just seems like an extreme of selfishness. While in some cases selfishness may seem more justified it is almost always fufilling a desire. That desire may come of selfpreservation but it's essientially the same. In this way both the sadistic and the selfish are equally 'evil'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Lethagrin



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Location: eastern part of New York

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

I don't really understand sadism, to me it just appears to be selfishness. When being sadistic you are satisfying a desire to see others in discomfort. While it is not a normal desire it is a desire all the same so by being sadistic you are merely satisfying desire. However, since this desire does cause discomfort to others it is viewed as selfish. So, sadism, at least to me, just seems like an extreme of selfishness. While in some cases selfishness may seem more justified it is almost always fufilling a desire. That desire may come of selfpreservation but it's essientially the same. In this way both the sadistic and the selfish are equally 'evil'.

Selfishness is doing whatever one must/wants to make themselves happy where as sadism is more finding pain to others the happiness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    in the shell Forum Index -> The Philosophy All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group