Philosophical headache thread: Is your mirror image alive?

[Skylar1]

This is relevant.

[miniPhil]

This is relevant.

You know I never imagined that a youtube poop would be relevant to anything. Even though it isn't the greatest poop.
Maybe in mirror land youtube poops make sense.

[Skylar1]

You know I never imagined that a youtube poop would be relevant to anything. Even though it isn't the greatest poop.
Maybe in mirror land youtube poops make sense.

I have corrected the problem. My apologies.

[Bulf]

I think it's pretty simple, your reflection is real and YOU are the real reflection.

 

Great job on bringing my headache back, Eris.

[DOOM!]

Why the mirror? You could say the same thing about any reflection, distorted, refracted, translucent or otherwise, but is it because the silver coated back of a glass reflects at a more clear, proportional level? Because it doesn't: if you put two large mirrors facing eachother and create a tiem parad0x you'll notice the images get distorted after a few reflection times. What, the silver screen reflects some radiation back too? Just makes it seem more lifelike, but not at all levels. If you mean "anything that moves must be alive" then I think we need to set some borders on what alive means.

[Digital Dragon]

All things contain some living energy.

[Eris]

All things contain some living energy.

Please elaborate as to what this "living energy" is, and how to convert it to and from other forms of energy.

[Digital Dragon]

It is refered to ad "odic force". There is an article on the theory from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

[Eris]

Then it's not actual energy, but just the result of new age quacks that don't know what energy means thinking it sounds mysterious and profound.

[Digital Dragon]

Perhaps, but most mysticism and study of metaphysics are based on such concepts. If this is truly a pholosophical question, such theories do play into it.

[Eris]

Perhaps, but most mysticism and study of metaphysics are based on such concepts. If this is truly a pholosophical question, such theories do play into it.

Just because it's a philosophical discussion doesn't make mysticism any more valid. It's just as much gobbledygook as in any other discussion.

[Digital Dragon]

Just because it's a philosophical discussion doesn't make mysticism any more valid. It's just as much gobbledygook as in any other discussion.

Based on YOUR beliefs. But since I don't want this to become a religious debate, I humbly drop the subject. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

[Eris]

Based on YOUR beliefs. But since I don't want this to become a religious debate, I humbly drop the subject. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

I only submit that you logically derive the building blocks of your arguments from mutually agreeable observable facts. As mysticism by definition is impossible to derive from observable facts (since it relies on gods and spirituality and woo woo like that), it has no place in philosophy.

[Digital Dragon]

I only submit that you logically derive the building blocks of your arguments from mutually agreeable observable facts. As mysticism by definition is impossible to derive from observable facts (since it relies on gods and spirituality and woo woo like that), it has no place in philosophy.

If you say so. This is where we have to agree to disagree.

[Eris]

You fail to elaborate as to what part you are disagreeing with.

[Digital Dragon]

All religion is applied philosophy. Usually such philosophies derive from spiritual experiences of a leader or guru, usually in a state of altered consciousness, either resulting from meditation or by taking substances. Every philosopher in history based some of their teachings on the religion of the times. No philosophy has ever derived from objective observation, that would be science, not philosophy.

[Eris]

All religion is applied philosophy. Usually such philosophies derive from spiritual experiences of a leader or guru, usually in a state of altered consciousness, either resulting from meditation or by taking substances. Every philosopher in history based some of their teachings on the religion of the times.

You are affirming the consequentwiki. While religion is often a sort of applied philosophy, philosophy is not the theory of religion.

No philosophy has ever derived from objective observation, that would be science, not philosophy.

Science is an offshoot of philosophy. It started out with the rather telling name natural philosophywiki. It's not the first time philosophy has become so comprehensive that part of it has broken off and gotten it's own name. Mathematics and logic were earlier offshoots, and psychology is one of the more recent ones.

I would argue that all philosophy (and most religion) started out as attempts at drawing conclusions from objective observation. But due to the fact that logic was not yet developed (or that the philosopher had a poor grasp of logic), illogical things like religion and mysticism emerged instead.

[Digital Dragon]

I would argue that all philosophy (and most religion) started out as attempts at drawing conclusions from objective observation. But due to the fact that logic was not yet developed (or that the philosopher had a poor grasp of logic), illogical things like religion and mysticism emerged instead.

While I would argue that their conclusions, while logical, were based on more than that which is easily observed. There is something to be said for having a spiritual experience, even if some would argue that it was the result of flawed perception. As I said, there are things we will have to agree to disagree about.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

Consider your mirror image. It can move. You can see it eat. It reacts to being poked with a stick. It can reproduce with other people's mirror image. If anything else did these things, we would say it was alive. Yet, we call our mirror image dead. What do you think? And no appeals to "commons sense" or other silliness.

I hadn't realized that people gave their mirror images such thought as to deem them as either alive or dead. It's an interesting thought, but I see no reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that my mirror image is alive. Why should I? No matter how much time passes or whatever may occur, my mirror image will never do or say anything that I won't. And even if I reach out to try and touch it and it tries to touch me back, I'll never feel anything but the mirror.

I see no reason to believe that such a thing is deserving of being called alive or dead. It simply is.

[GameGeeks]

Consider your mirror image. It can move. You can see it eat. It reacts to being poked with a stick. It can reproduce with other people's mirror image. If anything else did these things, we would say it was alive. Yet, we call our mirror image dead. What do you think? And no appeals to "commons sense" or other silliness.

The mirror is a mimic, it can only replicate what you do and if you poke it with a stick when looking at water then that's the water reacting and not the image. You just distort the image but wait long enough and it returns back to normal. Mimics can only copy, they don't think or feel. As such, they are neither dead nor alive. That which never existed can't be alive. Now if you argued what if you where the mirror image then when you walked away you'd simply cease to exist.

[wolfgirl90]

It is refered to ad "odic force". There is an article on the theory from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

While I do believe in inherent life forces and the like, I don't really how this applies to a mirror image. I mean, I may be a New Ager (and let's not discuss this further because I know how Eris and the rest of the forum think about this) but the theory about life forces would only go as far as the mirror (maybe; I honestly do not go that far), the object by itself. It wouldn't really apply to the reflection since the reflection is really a phenomenon caused by the mirror. Without the mirror, the reflection wouldn't be there.

Which I guess could apply to the original question as whether or not my mirror image is alive. Sure, it reacts the same way I do, does the same things I do. However, once I walk away from the mirror, they stop. Which begs another interesting question: does my mirror image continue to exist when I walk away from the mirror, living her mirror life, doing her mirror job, eating her mirror hot pockets? Or is her life a fleeting existence merely validated by my need to look in the mirror or walk past a water puddle, her presence basically dust in the wind, like a fart or Bella Swan?

Then again, my mirror image can't possibly be alive as I murdered her a long time ago. Fool tried to steal my Skittles. She got what she deserved.

[Skylar1]

@GameGeeks:, @Digital Dragon:, @wolfgirl90:, and well... pretty much anyone here in general, I believe that the time has come that I de-mystify some of the myths that I see are beginning to circulate here about what the definition of life is.

All life is, is nothing more than a very complex form of matter. The distinction is made though by the ability for the matter to preform extremely complex actions of both physics and chemistry which is defined in the following (and must meet ALL of these prerequisites or is does not qualify as life):

• Adaptability to environment
• Must be made of at least 1 cell (because anything less then that wouldn't have the resources necessary to carry out the functions to preform all of the prerequisites.)
• Metabolism (it's gotta make food into energy to sustain it's self.
• Growth and development
• Capable of Evolution
• Responds to outside influence (ie, stimuli)
• Must have the ability to Reproduce it's self

Because Viruses do not meet these specific requirements, they themselves are not categorized as life, but instead a sub-group known as non-cellular lifewiki.

Through using this method, one can distinctly determine whether or not something is technically "life" or not. A human would count, while a rock on the other hand would not.

[GameGeeks]

How does that conflict with my statement that it's a mimic. While I didn't touch the genetic aspect of it I did touch on the mental aspect of it.

[Adanadhel]

I didn't know that we considered our reflections dead. I thought we considered them nonliving or something.

Ah! That's a crucial point! We can only consider dead that which has lived before. Something that has never possessed life can't be considered dead, it's merely a non living being. But maybe the question here would be what do we see when we see our reflection? Is it something living or something that is dead?

[Skylar1]

How does that conflict with my statement that it's a mimic. While I didn't touch the genetic aspect of it I did touch on the mental aspect of it.

Because you said

Mimics can only copy, they don't think or feel. As such, they are neither dead nor alive. That which never existed can't be alive.

I felt the need to point it out because of your personification. It gave the impression of some kind of "entity". nothing more than that really. If you had used "it" instead, I would have bounced over you on the definition.

Ah! That's a crucial point! We can only consider dead that which has lived before. Something that has never possessed life can't be considered dead, it's merely a non living being. But maybe the question here would be what do we see when we see our reflection? Is it something living or something that is dead?

Refer to my previous post.