9 ms·

I think this is an example of the "answering machine paradox," which philosophers have been writing about since the 1970's. https://philpapers.org/rec/SIDTAM h

• tempodox 2y ago
  This is ludicrous. Failure to distinguish the person (“I”) from their recorded voice does not make a philosophical problem. It's pure and unadulterated stupidity.
  • Y_Y 2y ago
    When you say "this", I assume you are referring to the message you were writing at the time.
  • skyechurch 2y ago
    Alternatively: placing finger on the peak of Olympus Mons on Martian map "I am not here now". I'm not seeing the problem. There are a lot of philosophy 'problems' like this, which leads me to think philosophers lead blessed, problem-free lives.
    • bravetraveler 2y ago
      > leads me to think philosophers lead blessed, problem-free lives. I agree, perhaps with the qualification of 'eventually', having been both of these people: 1) someone born dirt poor who had to spend every waking moment to feed myself 2) someone who can pontificate in comment sections As my life became more blessed I could afford more philosophy. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach wander philosophically. Playing with ourselves. Man plans, god laughs. Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the mouth. I could go on.
    • goatlover 2y ago
      You probably haven't thought deeply about the problems. Usually they expose some issue with our concepts or assumptions. Things we take to be obvious and simple aren't always on careful reflection.
      • adammarples 2y ago
        They normally expose some problem with our language, and nothing deeper than that. This is a perfect example.
      • vsuperpower2020 2y ago
        This may be true, but if it is the canadian journal of philosophy is doing their reputation no favors by publishing the "answering machine paradox". Paradox. Paradox. That's a funny word, isn't it? Paradox.
        • djur 2y ago
          A paradox is just a statement that is self-contradictory. It doesn't mean a difficult or mind-bending problem as it is sometimes used colloquially.
          • Joker_vD 2y ago
            No, that's pretty much what the word "paradox" used to mean, but logicians of the late XIX–early XX century had hijacked it. PARADOX, in philoſophy, a propoſition ſeemingly abſurd, as being contrary to to ſome received opinion, but yet true in fact. No ſcience abounds more with paradoxes than geome- try: thus, that a right line ſhould continually approach to the hyperbola, and yet never reach it, is a true para- dox; and in the ſame manner, a ſpiral may continually approach to the point, and yet not reach it, in any number of revolutions, however great. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1771, Vol. 3, p. 455
      • mannykannot 2y ago
        On the one hand, these puzzles often arise as counter-examples to a theory within analytical philosophy, and unless you understand what they are a counter-example to, they seem pointless and even ridiculous. For example, when Russell posed his famous paradox to Frege, he was not trying to find out who shaves the barber. On the other hand, perhaps we should consider whether analytical philosophy, following the linguistic turn [1], is creating problems for itself when it tries to find metaphysical truth by analyzing human language as if it were a formal system. For example, when David Chalmers says "even God could not create a male vixen", is he mistaking an accidental lexicographical fact for a metaphysical insight? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn
    • djur 2y ago
      Do you think that mathematicians are drama queens because "2a = 4, solve for a" is a "math problem"? Just because something is intuitively simple doesn't mean that you don't have to account for it in a formal system. The intuitive solution for a lot of simple questions is incorrect in some cases. (How do you determine the length of a word?) In your example, "here" is semantically different from the "here" in the answering machine case and doesn't result in a paradox.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • BurningFrog 2y ago
    I think that describes a considerable chunk of the Philosophy field. But that's of course what an engineer would say.
  • andybak 2y ago
    I find that the joy many commenters here have in both denigrating philosophys and at the same time proudly demonstrating no interest in knowing anything about it to be one of the more embarrassing things regularly on display.
    • b112 2y ago
      Oh "anything about it" isn't quite valid, now is it. We see gibberish with nonsensical blather thrown in, and zero logical reasoning behind it. It's not a science. If you want to tell me it's akin to astrology, or some other pseudo made up framework, fine. I don't have a problem with fantasy. I have a problem with those telling me it's real. "I took a series of university classes, where we examined the natural laws in The Land, and Thomas Covenant's ring, and derived a measure of predictive weather patterns! I know science!" <-- philosophy
      • andybak 2y ago
        I rest my case.
        • b112 2y ago
          Your case was "that made up 'science' is real, and you can't say no because you haven't studied it for years". I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Yet I've hear a lot more philosophical blather than that, and so yes, I have enough data to make a determination. There's an inner logic to tarot cards, books and books on it, but that doesn't make it useful or valuable.
          • Ma8ee 2y ago
            You very clearly illustrate andybak’s point by showing that you just don’t even know what philosophy is.
            • b112 2y ago
              So your argument, is that one must spend years studying nonsense, to have an opinion on its worth? I've already clarified why this is not so. Thus, your main, true disagreement is that you do not agree with my assessment.
  • ordu 2y ago
    I wouldn't say so. If we mark this a stupidity, then a lier's paradox is a stupidity also. If people could easily deal with such statements and understand them correctly, it doesn't mean there is no problem. Problem arises when you try to devise some formal system describing all the statements, and then you find some more statements and the system doesn't work for them. Zeno's paradoxes for example show us the weaknesses of Ancient Greek's system of reasoning, the weaknesses of their kid of logic and math. But will have troubles seeing them as paradoxes if they do not know logic at all or if they know modern logic and modern math which solve all of the Zeno's paradoxes (or most of them?). Now Zeno's paradoxes are not paradoxes at all, but the silly mistakes of reasoning. It reminds me of edge-cases in programming, you designed a beautiful program and then edge-cases started to pop up, you patch your program, patch it some more, and in no time at all your beautiful program becomes a heap of spaghetti code. The only way to avoid it is to code something that you coded before many times and know all the shenanigans allowing you to combine beautiful design with the practical applicability. Here is the same thing, if you do not know what the system the author uses, you cannot judge if his reasoning stupid or not. I don't know either, but I believe, that it is an interesting observation. The person said "I'm not here now", and it was obviously false, when they said it, but when answering machine says it the statements becomes true. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think, that the problem starts biting you hard, when you try to define a set of all such statements and to choose a condition of their truthfulness. Of course, you can use your intuition as a tool for demarcation, but philosophy doesn't work that way, it seeks an objective criteria, preferably a formal one.
• runlaszlorun 2y ago
  Absolutely off topic, but does remind me of a Mexican movie ‘I Am No Longer Here’ that I’d seen not long ago was astonishingly good for something I hadn’t heard of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_No_Longer_Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_No_Longer_Here
  • rayval 2y ago
    By the way, that is a great movie. Or do I say "was"?
    • earth-adventure 2y ago
      Thats a great movie, if you are just making that statement. That was a great movie, if you've just finished watching it.
• croniev 2y ago
  Many commenters here seem to be hostile towards philosophy. Heres a take for you: This is only a paradox if you think of language as a way of describing some "real", static state of affairs in the world (look up " correspondence theory of truth"). There is no paradox here if we think of language as pragmatic, action directing, since it is obvious what the sentence should convey (look up "pragmatism"). Some people will argue that there is some sort of static meaning hidden behind the actual words which enters the consciousness of the listener, others will say that the meaning is only generated by the person hearing the words. This is as philosophical of a question as it gets, and has been debated even more heatedly ever since Wittgenstein. If you do not see that debating these questions is relevant and interesting, but would rather reduce all of philosophy to that first obvious-seeming and thus "not a real problem" position, then I wish you a good time bathing in your ignorance. However, if you comprehend that what we take for granted in every area and discipline can be subjected to reasonable reflection, then I welcome you to the dark side. Nothing is clear, no knowledge absolute - many engineers seem to forget this while over-indulging in an overly simplistic world view :)
  • nuancebydefault 2y ago
    I think it is okay to philosophise about situations and events that seem a bit paradoxal but the explanation is obvious. Even more, that is a core trait of philosophy. There are many similar situations where what we hear, read or see is technically incorrect. Since the sender (or the activator of an agent) of the message in such case assumes the interpreter has enough common knowledge, it is a perfectly okay communication. A video tape containing a recording: "your watching this means I'm dead." A secretary of a company impersonating the company when sending a message to many recipients. An actor speaking about his character, as if they are somebody they know very well. Writing that an AI hallucinates. My car informing me that one of the tyres is low on pressure, even though it does not know what a tyre is, let alone how to measure pressure.
    • HocusLocus 2y ago
      > [...] My car informing me that one of the tyres is low on pressure [...] Thank you for putting this in a larger philosophical prospective. For I have something on the next level, a car that tells me "a tire has low pressure", but does NOT tell me which tire it is. I did the best I could to understand why my beloved car would do this, but gave up and had to interpret it as a deliberately malicious act. My suspicions were confirmed when 1 of 4 sensors (inside the tires) had failed, and the technician read the diagnostic and proceeded directly to the tire in question. I had been desperately holding on to the remote possibility that the car really didn't know which tire has low pressure or which sensor failed, but it told the technician but not me. I am wondering if it would be best to give the car to the technician to ensure my personal safety. How would the next aspect of this dislike manifest? Most scenarios I can think of result in the car's own suicide, but perhaps it will run me over? Please help. Signed, LOW TIRE PRESSURE