#descartes' evil demon

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

The Matrix (1999, Andy and Larry Wachowski)

07/11/2024

[literallywhyamidoingthis]

Things heard in my philosophy a-level class:

"I've slammed Descartes like three times in this essay already..."

"I always imagine Hume coming in on a skateboard, wearing sunglasses."

"I was explaining intuition and deduction thesis to my mum and now she hates Descartes."

"I actually liked Aristotle until he said that only white, male philosophers can flourish."

"... the evil demon, a.k.a. Mr. Phillippou, ..." [an ex-philosophy teacher of our school]

The teacher: "left-handed people are superior. I tried to force my kids to be left-handed when they were learning to write..."

"Descartes pisses me the fuck off."

"... G. E. Moore, a.k.a. G. E. Awful, ..."

"I love error theory. It just says that everyone is wrong all the time."

"What's that guy in the Gettier example with the barns called?" "Barney." "No, no, it's Henry." "Wait, Henry? I thought it was Harry!"

"I always remember that name because my great aunt named her pet rabbit 'Carruthers'."

"But the concept of infinity doesn't make sense!" "Well, according to Georg Cantor's set theory, it does." "What even is set theory, then?" "Don't even go there. You don't need to know, so just don't ask."

"Onto and Teleo are okay, but I just can't with Cosmo. Don't even get me started on Aquinas' ways..."

"Eschatological verification is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. No offence to Hick or anything..."

"Do you think Richard Hare's friends ever called him 'Dick Hair'?"

"I don't understand how some people can even doubt qualia..."

"P-zombies freak me out."

"So you'd be willing to concede that if everyone in China had walkie-talkies, they'd be considered a mind?" "... I mean, yeah. Why not?" "You're not supposed to say yes!"

[love4ng1e]

༄ Cogito, ergo sum.

"Je pense, donc je suis." René Descartes.

I think, therefore I am. One of the most famous statements in history of philosophy. Before manifesting, there was philosophy (essentially).

Warning ⚠️: Long post ahead about philosophy, which is related to manifesting (if you put two and two together), so if you want to build up your knowledge on both philosophy AND understand manifesting better than I'd say, go ahead and read!

1.0: The Rationalist.

Descartes was a part of a school of philosophers named The Rationalist. They believed that they were such a thing as an Eight Knowledge. Knowledge that is absolutely dependent of all experience. For Rationalists, there are truths that can be known prior to an observation or experimention.

When Descartes wrote his famous line, he was seeking to discover what kind of knowledge we could know beyond observations. Beyond the external world, if anything. After all, observations might be false. How do we know the human mind is not making things up?

2.0: The First Meditation.

Descartes' inspiration for his book The First Meditation was the simple question: How can we know that anything is true? It's possible that we are dreaming. After all, when one dreams, they aren't aware that they're in a dream. Therefore, they believe every second of it is real.

So Descartes to try to discover what we can know with absolute certainty decides to take everything that is possible to doubt and treat it as false. Therefore, whatever is left will only be beliefs we can know as true with absolute certainty. This way, we can find a base upon which we can build up our beliefs.

Descartes introduces the concept of an evil demon. A deceiver. A deceiver powerful enough to make everything a mere illusion. The evil demon was nothing Descartes believed literally. Instead, it served as a tool for radical skeptism. He went as far as denying basic truths, like mathematics.

3.0: The Second Meditation.

The Cogito.

At this point, Descartes is not doing well. Luckily for him, he finds a middle ground. Even if his hands or his feet are real, he must be real. Even if he is being deceived entirely, there must be a He to be deceived. He can not deny his existence because if he denied his existence, well, who would be denying?

If one's doubting that they are thinking, they must automatically be thinking. Doubting is a kind of thinking. So by doubting they are thinking, they are proving that they are thinking. So, as they are doing some kind of thinking, they are. As long as I am doing some kind of thinking, I am.

"So after considering everything very throughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessary true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." - René Descartes, The Second Meditation.

4.0: Deduction or Intuition.

"I think, therefore I am", sounds a lot like a deduction. A deduction is a method of reasoning or a process of drawing a specific conclusion based on a general principle or fact. "I think" is one statement from which we deduce the conclusion "I am." There's a debate in litterrarure on whether Descartes intended for it to be an argument or as a singular intuition.

Before, we must acknowledge that something called a syllogism exists. A syllogism is a form of logical reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two premises. A syllogism begins with a major premises, follows with a minor premises and ends with a conclusion.

For instance,

Major Premise: All birds have feathers.

Minor Premise: An Eagle is a bird.

Conclusion: Therefore, an Eagle has feathers.

We could understand The Cogito to be a form of syllogism. Which would look like what follows.

Major Premise: All beings that think exist.

Minor Premise: I think.

Conclusion: Therefore, I exist.

But Descartes himself, opposed to this.

"When someone says 'I am thinking therefore I am, or I exist' he does not deduce existence from thought by means of syllogism but recognises it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of mind." René Descartes, reply to The Second Set of Objections.

5.0: The Connection.

Now that I humbly assume you've read all of this, maybe you weren't able to put two and two together. Let me be of hand.

By doubting something, you prove that it is possible. When you doubt wether or not your desires are possible to achieve, you essentially prove that they are. By doubting you acknowledge that they are alternative outcomes. If you were truly convinced something wasn't possible, you wouldn't doubt.

Additionay, remember syllogism? Do you want to see manifesting in a more "logical" side? No problem.

Major Premise: Our understanding of reality is filtered through our thoughts.

Minor Premise: I desire something; therefore, I assume it is real.

Conclusion: Therefore, my desires shape my perception of reality.

Please let me know if you guys want more of the philosophical side of manifesting. This is a first for me!

All this information I got from studying Descartes philosophy with YouTube, research, and my own understanding. I do not study philosophy myself (yet). I did it all at my own free will.

I think, therefore I am. I act, therefore I am. I want, therefore I am. I AM.

[onecornerface]

Chatgpt's suggestions if a philosopher was on "Pimp My Ride"

Me: "Suppose a professional analytic philosopher was on "Pimp My Ride." What philosophy-themed excessive additions would be put on their car?"

ChatGPT: "If a professional analytic philosopher appeared on Pimp My Ride, the car would definitely get some highly specialized, philosophy-themed "pimping." Here are some fun and over-the-top modifications that could match their intellectual vibe:

Logic-Themed Dashboard: The car's dashboard could be reprogrammed to display logical symbols instead of traditional speedometer and fuel indicators. Every time the philosopher accelerates or brakes, symbolic logic (like ∀, ∃, ⊃) would flash on the screen, turning the drive into a live propositional logic experience.

Kantian "Critique of Pure Drive" GPS System: The car’s navigation system would come with an AI assistant that continuously questions whether the philosopher is taking the “categorical imperative” route. It would offer philosophical critiques of every decision at each intersection: Is it morally permissible to turn left here?

Custom "Thought Experiment" Paint Job: The exterior would feature famous thought experiments painted as vivid murals—like the Trolley Problem on one door, Descartes' Evil Demon on the hood, and Plato’s Cave on the trunk—each in a playful, comic-book style.

A Dualism-Enhanced Trunk: In honor of Descartes, the trunk could be divided into two separate compartments: one labeled Res Cogitans (for immaterial or “mental” storage) and one labeled Res Extensa (for tangible, physical items). You’d have to decide where each item "truly" belongs.

Nietzschean "Ubermensch" Exhaust Pipes: These would roar with a quote like "What does not destroy me makes me stronger!" every time the philosopher revs the engine. The pipes would be excessive in size, reflecting the idea of transcending limits.

Infinite Regress Cup Holders: Every time you think you’ve pulled out the final cup holder, another one appears beneath it. Perfect for hosting philosophical discussions about the nature of infinity.

Philosophy Horn: Instead of a regular honk, the horn would shout out famous philosophical phrases. For example, a short tap could trigger "Cogito, ergo sum!", while holding the horn might blast "The unexamined life is not worth living!" at top volume.

"Veil of Ignorance" Tinted Windows: The car’s windows would be so deeply tinted that no one—including the philosopher—could see inside or out, mimicking John Rawls’ thought experiment about fairness and equality.

Solipsism Self-Driving Mode: The car would occasionally switch to an auto-pilot mode called "Solipsism Mode," where the vehicle insists that it's the only real entity and that the driver is just a figment of its own imagination.

Epistemic-Justification Gear Shift: Each time the driver wants to shift gears, they would need to provide an epistemically justified reason for doing so. There would be a short quiz on knowledge, beliefs, and truth before the car will allow the change.

This philosopher-mobile would turn every trip into a journey through the great questions of existence while still being totally tricked out!"

--

Me: "Make them more excessively over-the-top, aesthetically creative, and remarkably impractical."

ChatGPT: "Let’s crank the absurdity dial way up! These philosophy-themed additions would be so over-the-top and impractical that they’d belong more in a conceptual art exhibit than on the road:

Giant, Spinning Golden Bust of Aristotle on the Roof: A massive, rotating, golden sculpture of Aristotle's head would sit on the roof, spinning slowly as you drive. It would glow at night, with The Nicomachean Ethics etched into his beard in ancient Greek. The bust would also quote Aristotle out loud in a booming voice whenever the philosopher accelerates past 30 mph, saying things like, "Virtue is a habit!"

Plato's "Forms" Neon Underlighting: The car’s underbody lighting would project shifting, abstract 3D shapes that represent the perfect “Forms” in neon—blindingly bright triangles, circles, and other Platonic solids in purple, green, and electric blue. The lights would flicker and change shape based on the philosopher's speed, making the car a literal moving representation of the metaphysical world.

Levinasian Face Mask Grille: The front grille would be replaced with a giant, human-like face molded into the metal. This unsettling visage would “gaze” at other drivers, forcing them to confront the Other, reflecting Emmanuel Levinas' philosophy of ethics as an encounter with the face of the Other. The mouth would move mechanically, repeating philosophical aphorisms in an eerie monotone.

Infinite Bookshelves as Spoilers: Instead of a traditional spoiler, there would be enormous, totally unusable bookshelves towering at least 6 feet above the car. Filled with hundreds of fake, antique books titled after unreadable philosophy texts like Being and Nothingness and The Phenomenology of Spirit, they’d cause ridiculous wind drag and make the car nearly undrivable on the highway. The books could randomly fall off when turning corners, just for extra inconvenience.

Rousseau’s "State of Nature" Upholstery: The car’s interior would be completely covered in moss, vines, and faux animal hides, representing the philosopher’s ideal of returning to a more primal, natural state. Driving would feel like a hike through an overgrown jungle, and the seats would be so rough and tangled that it’s impossible to sit comfortably. Occasionally, fake birds would flutter out from the seat cushions, because, why not?

Hegelian “Dialectic” Steering Wheel: The steering wheel would be divided into three sections, labeled Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. To turn the car, the driver would first have to rotate the wheel through a mini-dialectical process, where it asks increasingly abstract philosophical questions about the nature of motion, history, and progress, before allowing the turn to happen. Each response adds an extra 30 seconds to every maneuver, turning a simple left turn into a high-stakes intellectual challenge.

Bizarre Zeno’s Paradox Accelerator: Instead of a regular gas pedal, the philosopher would encounter an impractical Zeno’s Paradox mechanism—no matter how hard they press, the car can never reach full speed, because it only accelerates half the distance needed to go faster with each press. The philosopher would forever be trapped in an absurdist race against time where they're always close to full speed but never quite getting there.

Gigantic, Shimmering “Simulacrum” Rearview Mirror: Instead of a functional rearview mirror, there would be a huge, holographic Jean Baudrillard-inspired installation reflecting a constantly shifting simulacrum of reality. It would show hyper-realistic images of a parallel universe, but nothing from the actual road behind the car, making reversing or changing lanes impossible. It would randomly glitch to reflect scenes from philosophical utopias that don't exist.

Epicurean “Garden” Exhaust System: The tailpipes would be hidden within an elaborately constructed mini-garden in the trunk, complete with fountains, sculptures of reclining philosophers, and an artificial waterfall. Every time the car accelerates, the garden would emit clouds of rose-scented smoke instead of exhaust, causing traffic jams as everyone slows down to gawk at the impractical, fragrant contraption.

Kierkegaardian "Leap of Faith" Doors: The doors would be non-functional, so the philosopher must literally take a leap of faith to enter the car. A trampoline would be built into the ground next to the car, forcing the driver to bounce and catapult themselves through a sunroof to enter. This absurdly impractical system symbolizes existential commitment but makes casual car access almost impossible.

Giant "Cave Shadows" LED Projectors: Gigantic LED projectors on the rear of the car would beam shadowy images onto the road behind, recreating the allegory of Plato's cave on a large scale. The car would leave an eerie trail of flickering, distorted images of reality in its wake, confusing and unsettling everyone who drives behind it. These shadows would constantly shift and make it impossible for other drivers to see the road clearly.

Spinozan Hydraulic Suspension: The car would be equipped with a hydraulic system that raises and lowers the car at random intervals to embody Spinoza's view of the universe as a system of deterministic laws, where everything is driven by necessity. The philosopher would have no control over this, symbolizing their lack of free will as the car unpredictably bounces up and down in a kind of philosophical surrender to nature.

Philosopher's Towering Vanity License Plate: Instead of a standard license plate, the back of the car would be adorned with a comically oversized golden plate the size of a billboard, with the number “42” (a nod to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) surrounded by a verbose, rambling quote about the meaning of life. It would obstruct rear visibility entirely, but at least everyone behind the car would contemplate life’s grand mysteries.

This excessively impractical, hilariously over-designed vehicle would ensure that the philosopher never actually gets anywhere on time, but they'd be the most profound car on the road—guaranteed to cause both traffic and deep existential crises wherever they go!"

[juniperhillpatient]

How’s it going @juniperhillpatient ?

I know that you’re a huge canon of the horror genre. But what are your opinions on cosmic horror. Of the Lovecraft variety and the like. How humans deal with the ideas of ancient demon gods that control reality, and falling into madness or worship, or hostilities.

How would you consider cosmic horror in terms of Azutara? If indeed, you do find Cosmic horror to be interesting.

Say Azula and Katara are both tormented by their own brands of cosmic monstrosities. Let’s say Tui (basically an ATLA version of Cthulhu) targets Katara at her village in the SWT (or conversely somewhere in New England) and assaults the community. Perhaps indirectly or through a cult of sorts. In typical Lovecraft fashion. Minus the Racism!

I know that Azula usually ends up taking the role of a detective or PI in your stories. Which is one career I can absolutely see Azula doing (and enjoying) by the by.

Anyway, Hakoda perhaps calls up the Police of his state or county. Asking (perhaps even pleading?) for assistance. They refuse. But one kind souls directs Hakoda to an up and coming Private Investigator. One who’s has penachant for solving crimes, and also has a not totally undeserved crackpot reputation. Especially, considering she deals with horrible truths of the world others don’t want to accept. That PI is of course Azula.

Azula herself is also tormented by Cosmic horrors. In her case by the draconian demon god Agni. It also doesn’t help that her father Ozai is the head priest of the deity’s…cult. Which haunts her very shadows.

Azula and Katara then meet for the first time and have to deal with two differing cosmic horror deities, their warring cults, human sacrifice, murder, and a whole host of crime sand evils. And also their budding… desires for each other. and the story goes on from there. Oh and Azula and Katara are about 23-25 years old at the start of the AU.

So what do you think?

Also how do you think either Azula or Katara deal would deal with the realization on the “reality on unreality” . To enumerate, take how in the Cthulhu Mythos the deity called the “blind idiot God” is also known as “the great dreamer”. Why? Because everything that exist is dream. This one bbeings dream specifically. Everyone and everything and every experience (no matter positive or negative) is but an expression of a thought. A dream coming from an unconscious non-personal deity. Even Cthulhu and the other gods are mere instances of this dream. An individual is but the mirror image of a foreign intelligence. A person is not themselves. And if that creature ever wakes up, “reality” blinks out of existence. Everything gone faster than a snap.

That whole idea in probably (inspired by) something that Lovecraft got from the Vedas (probably the “Hymn of Creation”?) or the Hindu philosopher Shankara. It also gives me a massive migraine just to think about. But for the sake another Azutara Au idea, we must press on!

Everything is (in a word) a simulation, a dream. Including the “gods”, including individual persons, including Azula and Katara. How would they [Azula and Katara] deal with this existential question? Would succumb to despair and perhaps fall to madness. Or perhaps the two would rely on each other and come to embrace Descartes philosophy “I think therefore I am”. Leading Azutara to conclude that they do exist in spite of the machinations of Tui and Agni (who are demon gods tormenting them in this au) in trying destroy their sanity and attack their (Azula and Katara’s) very sense of self.

How would all these struggles bring them [Azula and Katara] closer? Or would it see the two fall apart. Or fall apart temporarily , but ultimately help each other in staying sane. Which is a big part of the “Call of Cthulhu” RPG.

Sorry if the ask was a little long.

—745 Voice of the People

Hi there! I enjoy Lovecraftian horror - I’m not hugely educated on it but conceptually I like it & I had a lot of fun with the ‘Call of Cthulu’ game I played a while back. My brother & I were just talking about my character & our old campaign earlier tonight!

Your idea seems like a really interesting fic that could truly dive into some existential dread & terror in a fascinating way. And the concept for the plot with Hakoda reaching out to Azula, who solves mysterious issues & is almost considered a crockpot but actually knows what goes on in the world because Ozai is the head of this cult?? Yeah that’s Super interesting!

I love the idea of Azula & Katara navigating this existential terror & decline in their sanity while also facing feelings for each other. This seems like a really fascinating fic concept!

[omegaphilosophia]

Aspects of the Philosophy of Doubt

The philosophy of doubt explores the concept of uncertainty and skepticism regarding knowledge, beliefs, and truth claims. It questions the reliability of human cognition and the certainty of our understanding of the world. Doubt can be seen as both a philosophical problem and a methodological approach, influencing epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and other areas of philosophy.

Some key aspects of the philosophy of doubt include:

Epistemic skepticism: This is the view that knowledge claims are inherently uncertain or even impossible to justify. Epistemic skeptics raise doubts about the reliability of our senses, reasoning, and cognitive faculties to accurately perceive and understand reality.

Methodological doubt: This is a systematic approach to inquiry that involves questioning assumptions, beliefs, and conclusions in order to arrive at more reliable knowledge. Methodological doubt is often associated with the scientific method and critical thinking.

Cartesian skepticism: Named after the philosopher René Descartes, Cartesian skepticism is a form of radical doubt that seeks to doubt everything that can be doubted in order to find indubitable truths. Descartes famously expressed skepticism about the reliability of the senses and the possibility of being deceived by an evil demon.

Existential doubt: This form of doubt concerns questions about the meaning, purpose, and significance of human existence. Existential doubt often arises in response to existential crises or profound experiences that challenge conventional beliefs and values.

Moral skepticism: Moral skepticism is the view that there are no objective moral truths or that moral knowledge is inherently uncertain. Moral skeptics may doubt the existence of moral facts or argue that moral judgments are ultimately subjective or culturally relative.

Overall, the philosophy of doubt encourages critical reflection, open-mindedness, and intellectual humility in the pursuit of truth and understanding. It reminds us to question our assumptions, challenge our beliefs, and remain open to new possibilities, even in the face of uncertainty.

[renposter]

they should make a version of the "wake up you're stuck in a coma" meme but with Descartes's Evil Demon theory

[ta9rboost]

Who are you?

How do you know you're real? It's an obvious question until you try to answer it, but let's take it seriously. How do you really know you exist? In his "Meditations on First Philosophy," René Descartes tried to answer that very question, demolishing all his preconceived notions and opinions to begin again from the foundations. All his knowledge had come from his sensory perceptions of the world. Same as you, right? You know you're reading this with your eyes, hearing your voice reading it with your ears in your thoughts. Your senses show you the world as it is. They aren't deceiving you, but sometimes they do. You might mistake a person far away for someone else, or you're sure you're about to catch a flyball, and it hits the ground in front of you. But come on, right here and now, you know what's right in front of you is real. Your eyes, your hands, your body: that's you. Only crazy people would deny that, and you know you're not crazy. Anyone who'd doubt that must be dreaming. Oh no, what if you're dreaming? Dreams feel real. You can believe you're swimming, flying or fighting off monsters with your bare hands, when your real body is lying in bed. No, no, no. When you're awake, you know you're awake. Ah! But when you aren't, you don't know you aren't, so you can't prove you aren't dreaming. Maybe the body you perceive yourself to have isn't really there. Maybe all of reality, even its abstract concepts, like time, shape, color and number are false, all just deceptions concocted by an evil genius! No, seriously. Descartes asks if you can disprove the idea that an evil genius demon has tricked you into believing reality is real. Perhaps this diabolical deceiver has duped you. The world, your perceptions of it, your very body. You can't disprove that they're all just made up, and how could you exist without them? You couldn't! So, you don't. Life is but a dream, and I bet you aren't row, row, rowing the boat merrily at all, are you? No, you're rowing it wearily like the duped, nonexistent doof you are/aren't. Do you find that convincing? Are you persuaded? If you aren't, good; if you are, even better, because by being persuaded, you would prove that you're a persuaded being. You can't be nothing if you think you're something, even if you think that something is nothing because no matter what you think, you're a thinking thing, or as Descartes put it, "I think, therefore I am," and so are you, really.

[princesamermaid]

the evil demon (my parents( but also the evil demon as in what Descartes said

[hayvyah]

descartes, re the evil demon, as interpreted through the brain in the vat analogy

Requires of the matrix, that in the act of it's computation, freedom still be an actual property of the beings in the matrix.

This is the strongest argument for quantum indeterminacy that I'm aware of.

With regards to simulation theory being influenced in a bizarre way by chaos theory and the limited capacity of information processing.

However it seems to be stronger in the sense of predetermination, or else requiring a third party influence in order to engineer free will.

And this isn't a theory of free will I've ever encountered before.

The need for a 3rd party, to influence the evil demon/matrix, based on some legitimate capacity of an unknown higher being, to read the individual and co-opt the processing of the matrix.

This weird level of interaction is also the best interpretation of a Christian type of trinity -holy spirit- that I've ever heard.

[ebficnotes]

Random thought:

If neural networks/AI ever became sapient, we would never know, because we humans can't even objectively tell whether we ourselves are sapient.

[afutureworththinkingabout]

Text and Audio of 'Are You Being Watched? Simulated Universe Theory in "Person of Interest"'

(Direct Link to the Mp3)

This is the recording and the text of my presentation from 2017’s Southwest Popular/American Culture Association Conference in Albuquerque, ‘Are You Being Watched? Simulated Universe Theory in “Person of Interest.”‘

This essay is something of a project of expansion and refinement of my previous essay “Labouring in the Liquid Light of Leviathan,” considering the Roko’s Basilisk thought experiment. Much of the expansion comes from considering the nature of simulation, memory, and identity within Jonathan Nolan’s TV series, Person of Interest. As such, it does contain what might be considered spoilers for the series, as well as for his most recent follow-up, Westworld.

Use your discretion to figure out how you feel about that.

Read the rest of Text and Audio of ‘Are You Being Watched? Simulated Universe Theory in “Person of Interest”‘ at A Future Worth Thinking About

[existentialcomicsfeed]

Philosophy News Network: The Evil Demon

[planctonmarin]

“Bonsoir” it means “good evening” in french. ---- I love this old philosophy story about the evil demon of Descartes which illustrates systematic doubt : it’s about an omnipotent trickster that makes you see the world as it wants you to see it.

[inspriteofitall]

this is just what most academic philosophy is like

sometimes i think about doing sick experiments like what if i took a child and spent their whole life only exposed to nightcore and found out most music is slower when they got older. or like what if the inverse they only heard music at half speed wat would happen then?

[saintkevorkian]

Descartes predicting socionics:

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.  And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken[sic] the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects.  For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it.  The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it.

Descartes, Discourse on the Method [1637]