Whenever they say "god", we hear "magic". In other words, let's be honest with ourselves, "otherworldly" assumptions or purposes amount to philosophical suicide (i.e. 'make-believing' at the expense of thinking-against-our-biases/phobias). "Magic"-of-the-gaps only ever denies (mystifies, occults) and does not dispel the actual, stubbornly persistent, gaps (uncertainties) in our knowledge of reality or self-understandings.
The human mind expects M O R E from the world than the world has to offer. (e.g. Zapffe, Cioran, Camus, Rosset, Murray, Brassier) How [ought] a mind cope with this congenital – radical – dissatisfaction, frustration, misery?
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Beautiful! :fire:

I don't think this follows. Art was thought to be indefinite, but it is definite as per the definition, and then beyond this it is indefinite, for now at least. :smile:

You are not objecting to the definition, but to its utility. I have given my reasons, now several times, about how a definition is potentially useful. — Pop

Your effort to define art is commendable of course for it's a holy grail of art philosophers but what I want to point out is that art has, in a sense, transcended philosophy if philosophy is about getting our hands on a crispy clear definition of art. Art has been allowed to explore the world on its own for too long - it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile.

As a telos, it would be a material tendency rather than a sentient purpose - what Salthe calls teleomaty rather than teleology. — apokrisis

I see but...speaking from how humans think and how we're so bowled over by efficiency, is it wrong to say that there's an uncanny resemblance between teleology and teleomaty? Wouldn't an intelligent sentience design (teleology) a world in which teleomaty is a priority?

If there is no God, everything is permitted. — Dostoevsky

The quote above, taken as true, implies that without the facticity of God's existence, morality has no leg to stand on. In other words, religions - humanity's preliminary expeditions in the moral universe - have to be "factually correct" from beginning to end.

All religions, no matter how hard they try not to, ground their moral code in something beyond this world. The Abrahamic triad does that with God. The buddha too, despite how reluctant he was when it came to metaphysics, had to resort to moral causality, the law of karma, that applied to worlds and lives beyond this world and this life. It seems morality is utterly untenable if we limit it to one world and one life.

Why?

One simple reason is that claimed benefits/costs don't correlate all that well with good/bad respectively in this world and this life. Despite the belief that you reap what you sow and what goes around comes around, bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. These are valid reasons to reject morality outright - facts, the reality on the ground, do not, I repeat, do not support the claims of morality. Hence, God and karma become a necessity.

Secular ethics, intriguingly, aren't about rewards/punishments - they tend to emphasize the nature of thoughts/speech/acts themselves. Neither deontological ethics nor consequential entice or threaten good and bad people with happiness and suffering. I just found out. Good for the sake of good.

To sum up, secular ethics, all things considered, is a much better deal than religious ethics. The matter of factual correctness of religions is then moot, pointless.

I mentioned why there’s controversy. The controversy has been manufactured. Just as the “controversy” about smoking and cancer was manufactured by tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies have deliberately created controversy here— and it’s all documented. — Xtrix

Please don't mention cancer as I (TheMadFool) am a chain smoker. Please don't mention climate change because I (Mother Earth) too am a chain smoker.

Fossil Fuels are basically dead PLANTS & ANIMALS. Hmmm... :chin: Dead plants and animals killing living plants and animals. It's a zombie apocalypse!

We can launch ourselves from the atmosphere, control particles to our whims, and capture the universe in a picture, a far cry from even the most impressive feats of the animal kingdom. — Jerry

So I ask, what is the reason for this vast discrepancy between us and all else in our world? — Jerry

I've said this innumerable times and this seems as good an opportunity to reiterate - the, for lack of a better concept, evolutionary gap between human-level consciousness and nonhuman-level consciousness is, it seems, far, far greater than that between the inanimate and the animate. In other words, the difference between humans and the rest of life dwarfs the difference between life and non-life. It's almost as if we (humans) are an alien life-form on this planet - we are that unique. What lies beyond, beyond the consciousness horizon? Is there another level in this game of life?

To offer a different perspective, that there's only one intelligent species (humans) suggests an antonymous, dark(er), reality - is intelligence becoming extinct? Are brains,, ergo, intelligence/sentience/consciousness going out of fashion?

If you want to get into this, we should probably start very basic, starting with definitions of mind, matter, and reality.
If you define reality as being the objective material world, then your definition already presumes materialism as true. We need to start with a definition of reality that doesn't assume either idealism or materialism, if possible.
I don't know, do you feel this would be worth the effort?
I lean toward feeling this would be a vain pursuit. — Yohan

My issue was with the way you characterized idealism and materialism. You said,

What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence)

Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan

Something's not quite right with the above description of the two philosophies. I can't seem to put a finger on it though. As of this moment all I can say is,

1. Materialists don't consider appearances as things in themselves. They actually concede the point that all that we have to work with are appearances but...they say...the thing in themselves exist independent of the mind.

2. Idealists don't claim that concepts are maps of appearances, that creates a gap between appearances and concepts as if appearances are independent of the mind, they're not (according to the idealist). What idealists are averring though is that the thing in themselves are concepts, the appearance being merely how these concepts present themselves to us.

3. Suspend judgment on whether these seeming sentient beings are genuine sentient beings, p-zombies, or mere simulations. — Cabbage Farmer

I'd have to say the rest of your argument doesn't get off the ground. — Cabbage Farmer

In other words, you can't tell whether the three (other humans, true AI, p-zombies) are conscious or not. You can't commit or come to a definitive conclusion because to do so has implications that you're not willing to accept.

The dilemma, as I stated it earlier:

If you say other humans are conscious, you'll have to accept AI and p-zombies are conscious. We can forget about the p-zombie for the moment and focus our attention on AI - they have to be treated as conscious/sentient.

If you affirm that AI isn't conscious, you must concede that other humans may not be conscious/sentient or that other humans are p-zombies.

So, either AI is conscious or other humans are p-zombies.

Thus, I've demonstrated that AI and p-zombies are intimately linked together. That amounts to something, right?

Here's one of my familiar refrains. Determinism vs. free will is a metaphysical distinction. Neither is true. Neither is false. Either may be useful in different situations. — T Clark

Right up my alley,

Sarvam mithyā bravīmi (Everything I'm saying is false). — Bhartṛhari

Unless you've been living in a cave somewhere, this information is readily available. Perhaps you missed the latest IPCC report as well. Made some news a few weeks ago.

CO2 levels and increased average temperature of the earth are very well correlated, with data going back tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

Predictions about temperature rise have been made, shown to be accurate, and continue to be made. There are many scenarios taken into account -- business as usual versus a real shift in fossil fuel use, for example.

The evidence is overwhelming. Denial is rampant because it's a difficult thing to accept and because of a massive propaganda campaign from the fossil fuel industry, especially around 2009 -- of which you seem to be a casualty. — Xtrix

I stand corrected then. Nevertheless, in my defense, climatologists, probably because they aren't trained in the scientific method like physicists are, have done a bad job of making their case. Why else is there so much controversy? Compare climate science to physics and consider how the latter has a better reputation than the former.

But I have defined it. You have to invalidate the definition, or otherwise accept it. — Pop

Indeed, you've defined it but my contention is that you had to make the definition so very broad, necessary since art is so variegated in nature, that you might as well not define it. Suppose you have a certain number of people in a room. You want to develop a criterion that includes everybody in the room but then you don't have to develop a criterion; you could simply say all people in the room.

If in a general way you take an evolutionary or process view of reality - what exists is what is self-stabilising - then symmetry principles explain what is likely to be the case because it is the most stable and persistent outcome of symmetry breaking.

So a wheel emerges as the shape that exemplifies rotational symmetry. If you want something to roll smoothly and with the least friction, then a circle is as simple as it gets. It doesn't get simpler. The circle is the limit towards which all else tends.

This is the general story behind all physics - the search for the ultimate simplicity in terms of breaking possibilities down to the point where they have got as simple as it is possible to be. At that point, flux becomes stability.

So in a state of thermal equilibrium, all the particles are in busy motion. But it no longer makes a difference. The distribution of the momenta has converged on a stable Gaussian distribution. The system has a stable temperature and pressure.

Or if we are talking about Newtonian mechanics, reality boils down to the simplicity of zero D points that then have the irreducible freedoms of translation and rotation. Point particles are constrained to a location, but remain free to move inertially in a straight line or spin on the spot.

Symmetry principles - Noether's conservation symmetries - predict the limits of geometric constraint. You can limit the motion of a ball in many ways, but - in a frictionless world - you can't stop it rolling in a straight line forever.

Gauge or permutation symmetry in particle physics explains why protons and electrons exist. Again, starting with all possible arrangements, only some particular arrangement winds up being the simplest achievable. Once you arrive at that state, you can't go further. There is no north of the north pole, as they say.

Existence is change meeting its match in the shape of a limiting state of indifference. Change might continue, but it makes no real difference.

The particles of a gas at equilibrium are as restless as ever. But their distribution remains the same in terms of its collective average.

A wheel might wear with use, but it doesn't continue to evolve into another shape.

The problem for a metaphysics of order out of chaos is explaining why the evolution of unbound possibility arrives at bounded terminus. Symmetry maths explains that. Things get simple to the point that fluctuations can't produce an arrangement that is any simpler. — apokrisis

To begin with, thanks for keeping it simple. Can we then say that simplicity (I don't know how it's defined but my understanding is that it means something like if a certain phenomenon starts off with, say, a hexagon and if a triangle should also work insofar as the phenomenon in question is concerned, nature will ultimately settle on a triangle) is some kind of telos for the natural world. If yes, how does that relate to synchronicity?

But we’re not talking about the abstract probability of an event occurring or not occurring within 24 hours here. The event is relatively improbable, sure. But it’s as improbable as any other specified five minute period. — Possibility

The problem as to mathematical probability is rather simple - the answer to the question, what is the probability of the conjunction of two events, 1) I should talk/think about/of Will Smith and 2) Will Smith happening to walk by at that particular moment?

For simplicity but without affecting the strength of my argument, let's assume that I know only 4 people, one of them being Will Smith and let's assume that the probability of me thinking about any of the 4 is equal. Ergo, the probability that I'll have Will Smith on my mind is $\frac{1}{4} = 25\%$

Come now to the probability that Will Smith should be in the same location as I am. Suppose there are only 4 spots Will Smith can be and him being at any one of them is, again, $\frac{1}{4} = 25\%$

Therefore,

Scenario 1:

The probability that I should be thinking of Will Smith AND Will Smith walking by is = $25\% \times 25\% = 6.25\%$

What about the opposite scenario?

Scenario 2:

The probability of Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him = $75\% \times 75\% = 56.25\%$

56.25% > 6.25% [It's relatively improbable that scenario 1 should occur rather than scenario 2]

Intriguingly, if I know only 2 people and any of these two can be at one of only 2 possible locations, the concept of synchronicity has no leg to stand on.

@Jack Cummins, an update for you if you're interested that is.

1. You're walking down a street, thinking of nothing in particular. You look to your left and on the wall is a Coca Cola advertisement. You then bump into someone. You turn to apologize and you realize that the person in front of you is the CEO of Coca Cola. Coincidence, meaningful.

2. You and your friend are in a deli. As you chow down on the burgers you ordered, you discuss Will Smith (the actor) and his movie I am legend. Just as one of you say "Will Smith", Will Smith walks by on the sidewalk outside the deli. Coincidence, meaningful.

3. You're in your room, quite bored. You lie down on the bed and a random thought - a police car chase you saw on the idiot box. Just then, two squad vehicles zoom past your room, sirens blaring. Coincidence, meaningful. — TheMadFool

The examples I gave above are inappropriate for what I want to say but they're not a total loss in a manner of speaking.

Anyway, here's one particular scenario that elucidates the matter.

Imagine the two of us are in a restaurant and are sharing a meal together.

Possibility 1: Will Smith (the black actor) walks by. We both see him. Our conversation then drifts into his movies, his acting prowess, black actors, black history, blah, blah, blah. Nothing's amiss. This isn't synchronicity.

Possibility 2: For some reason we discuss Will Smith, say he's my favorite black thespian. As we're talking about him, Will Smith walks by the window next to which the two of us are seated. This is synchronicity.

What's the difference between possibility 1 and possibility 2? My intuition tells me that what's odd/strange/uncanny about possibility 2 is causal reversal - talking about Will Smith AND Will Smith's presence occurs as a matter of routine in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people but the usual way, the natural order, this takes place is first see Will Smith and second talk about Will Smith. In synchronicity, the situation is exactly the opposite i.e. first talk about Will Smith, second see Will Smith. This produces a causal illusion - you and I going over Will Smith's life had the amazing effect of Will Smith walking by just as we were doing so.

This scenario can be adapted to simultaneous events as causation requires for the cause to --temporally precede its effect.

Also, to cover some of the scenarios I described above, we have to also consider the fact that in some instances that fit the description of synchronicity the special nature of the event has nothing to do with causality, directly at least. In the Coca Cola example, there isn't any reason to think the Coke advertisement can/should produce the effect of meeting the CEO of Coca Cola or vice versa. Why is this synchronicity then? My hunch is that it's unexpected to the point the phrase "never in my wildest dreams" would be applicable and this in mathematical circles is what's known as extremely improbable event.

To sum it all up, synchronicity is about,

1. Cases of apparent causal reversal.

2. Highly unlikely events

3. Simultaneous events in which case causality is N/A

I hope this helps Jack Cummins

The phenomenal world is a mixture of experience and conceptual organization of that experience, creating the sense of objects having objective material existence. Not different than how when we dream our dream experiences are conceptualized into appearing three dimensional and solid, even though its all technically flat...2-d or 1-d. Three dimensionality, I hold, to be an emergent property grounded in 2d or 1d. Something like that! I don't grasp what 2-d or 1-d are grounded in without a 3-d reality. Its out of my depth as well. For some reason, I have a great faith in eastern doctrines which call the phenomenal world "Maya". Something about it rings true to me, and I've had brief moments where the external world seemed like it was within my consciousness. — Yohan

As far as I know, the difference between idealism and materialism is that in the case of the former, whatever you perceive is mind-generated i.e. the universe itself is, in a sense, imagined by (a) mind(s). Materialism, on the other hand, claims that this isn't the case and that all that which we perceive do exist out there and that the mind has no role in the universe, existentially that is.

So, if, for instance, I perceive a red apple, this apple, for the materialist, exists even if my mind were not entertaining it as a thought but for the idealist, the apple exists only insofar as I'm, in simple words, thinking of it.

Thus, the apple, which is, if I catch your drift, an appearance, is either something mind-independent (materialism) or mind-dependent (idealism), existentially speaking.

When you say,

What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence)

Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan

it indicates that you've misunderstood these two ideas. Not true that it's a matter of taking appearances as things in themselves is materialism and also, not true that concepts are maps of appearances explains idealism. Something's off. This is unfamiliar territory for me so do bear with me if I make mistakes, even silly ones.

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” — Xtrix

:up:

Thales (first philosopher/first scientist/first physicist) has met an unkind fate in his old age. He went out from the court of his house at night, as was his custom, with his maidservant to view the stars, and forgetting where he was, as he gazed, he got to the edge of a steep slope and fell over. In such wise have the Milesians lost their astronomer. Let us who were his pupils cherish his memory, and let it be cherished by our children and pupils. — An ancient writer relating how Thales' absent-mindedness did the great philosopher in

Even the greatest thinkers suffer the occasional bout of stupidity and sometimes it can be...fatal. It appears that we haven't learnt our lesson...yet. I hope it won't be too late for us.

I thought all the fuss was about what you call apperances - the phenomenal world. Is the phenomenal world all conceptual or all material? I'm out of my depth.

I recently offered the example of a wheel. You can make a wheel any shape you like. It could be as irregular as you choose. But constrained by the purpose of getting yourself somewhere efficiently, you too will wind up designing a circular wheel — apokrisis

That's deep! Convergence, as determined by matters such as convenience, efficiency, to name a few of the possibly many factors involved.

Symmetry principles are pretty good at telling us what is probable. — apokrisis

More on this please. Gracias.

In fact I take the opposite position that something exists because everything was not possible. Reality is what is left over after all the other possibilities cancelled each other away by being contradictory — apokrisis

That's a thought I had not long ago. Nothingness is, literally, the apotheosis of potential - with not a thing in nothing, there can be no contradictions and thus, anything's possible.

That's all I have to say for now. Good day. Do leave a comment if it's all the same to you.

It does not restrict anybody. There are no artist's lining up outside my door in order to give a damn about the definition. :lol: However, the definition IS scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable. — Pop

My point is simple: Your definition is, all things considered, broad, very broad, an indication that art has a rich diversity, there's a lot to include in the definition; another way of saying that is there's no such thing as BS art and that, if you really think about it, means art can't be, and in my humble opinion shouldn't be, defined.

Why would I do that? — Pop

Why restrict the artist or, more accurately, why would the artist give a damn about your definition?

Yes by pointing out that even BS about art is an expression of consciousness. — Pop

There you go. Are you now going to desist from trying to define art?

Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please. — Pop

This is exactly the attitude your definition attempts to address.

Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please. — Pop

One man's poison is another man's food.

@Pop

The way it seems to me is philosophy of art is in the business of, ultimately, constraining art by defining it; a definition although good to have - we can know with 100% certainty what is and is not art, paving the way for deeper philosophical study of the subject - is, if one gives it some thought, a straitjacket - restricts/constrains/limits/ the artist by having to conform to the definition whatever that is.

Realize that the absence of a good definition of art is because artists have a finger in every pie - no domain of human experience remains untouched by artists. In other words, the so-called artistic license, a synonym for carte blanche, in English, do whatever the hell you want, results in a such diversity in the art world that philosophers of art can't, even if their life depended on it, pin down art, what it is.

Given all that, don't you think it's better not to define art? Why corral artists in the pen of a definition when you could let them roam wild, in complete freedom?

So, a lot's going on between composer, conductor, orchestra, soloist and so on. I didn't know music could be thaaaat complex. An eye-opener for me. Good to know.

Music is like religion then - what's meant, what's understood, what's practiced (performed) are all different in their own way.

Am I wrong or does religion have a lot to do with music?

It doesn't have to be perfect. It only has to work well enough to be useful and understandable enough so we can figure the uncertainties. You use induction all the time — T Clark

Then, by extension, determinism isn't perfect! In other words, chance and free will are a possibility.

Of course induction works. — T Clark

So, the probability that a law of nature will break down is nil?

Prove it!

Hi. You dug up a corpse of a thread.

My point is simple. Imagine an AI (X)that looks exactly like a human i.e. externally, you don't have the option of examining its innards which would be a dead giveaway.

Now, picture a p-zombie (Y) and though they are, unlike the AI, physically indistinguishable from conscious humans, here too you're not allowed to do a thorough inspection of the specimen.

Both X and Y will convince you that each is conscious. In other words, if I (assuming I'm not an AI or a p-zombie) stand next to X and Y, and you interview the three of us, you simply won't be able to tell which is which.

You have two choices:

1. Declare that all 3 are conscious.

OR

2. Declare that all 3 are not conscious.

If 1, physicalism is true (p-zombies are impossible) BUT you'll have to concede AI is conscious and not just because they can mimic consciousness (pass the Turing test) but that AI is actually conscious.

If 2, physicalism is false (p-zombies are possible) BUT then you'll have to contend with the possibility that other people are p-zombies.

It's a dilemma: either AI is true consciousness OR other people could be p-zombies.

Also in St Augustine's confessions, this prayer... "Lord, make me chaste—but not yet." — Bitter Crank

Where have I heard that before? :chin:

I take it you can't then — Daemon

Feel free, do anything your heart desires. Have a nice day.

The Achilles' heel of determinism is the problem of induction.

Determinsim seems wedded for all eternity with the so-called laws of nature (go to the science section) but, for better or worse, all causal patterns are, it seems, severely undermined by Hume's coup de grâce, delivered mid-18th century. I don't know what the fuss is all about! Determinism is predicated on the laws of nature but the laws of nature have no leg to stand on.

AI (and neural nets) is just a showy way of talking about laptops and PCs. Can you point to an "AI" that isn't just a digital computer? — Daemon

Suit yourself.

This is a somewhat disappointing response, you don't seem to have thought about what I said at all. If what I said is correct, and of course I think it is, then all this talk of self-governing, autonomous or conscious computers is vacuous (and you can move on to think about something more useful) — Daemon

You said:

When we do stuff, like thinking, or feeling, or calculating or attempting to exercise a free will which we may or may not have, we are actually doing it.

When a digital computer does stuff, it isn't actually doing what we say it's doing. Instead, we are using it to help us do stuff, in exactly the same way we could use an abacus to help us do calculations.

These words you are reading have no meaning at all for the computer. They require your interpretation. It's the same with all aspects of the computer's operation and its outputs. — Daemon

Basically, you're talking about garden variety computers like your laptop or your PC. Thus, I tried to steer the conversation into the domain this thread is about - AI which supposedly is a challenge for hardware and software engineers, that is to say, your post was way off the mark. Sorry, I disappointed you, not a habit I want to cultivate.

It's absolutele certain that we are not alone. The universe has an abundancy of life. Of course rhere is a small chance of no life being there, but then again, around every Sun-like word there are planets with life. That's no Russel's reapot. — Zweistein

God is infinite, so His universe must be too. Thus is the excellence of God magnified and the greatness of His kingdom made manifest; He is glorified not in one, but in countless suns; not in a single earth, a single world, but in a thousand thousand, I say in an infinity of worlds. — Giordano Bruno

In space there are countless constellations, suns and planets; we see only the suns because they give light; the planets remain invisible, for they are small and dark. There are also numberless earths circling around their suns. — Giordano Bruno

Giordano Bruno was, unfortunately or not, burnt at the stake for heresy. Now, no one would look askance at you for asking the same questions he did. My, my, how the times have changed.

Anaximenes of Miletus, flat-earther, flat-mooner, flat-sunner. Can you beat that?

I favour a science-based naturalism that attempts to engage with the larger holistic causal picture. — apokrisis

Keeping all options open, I see! So, your position is that anything's possible!.

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. — Mark Twain

But, the question of all questions is, is everything probable?

1. I hate emotions.
2. I love reason.

3. I love emotions.
4. I hate reason.

5. I love both emotions and reason.
6. I hate both emotions and reason.

7. I neither love nor hate emotions.
8. I neither love nor hate reason.

Can you see the paradox? I can't! :confused: :sad:

How different are "I think x is not reasonable" and "I dislike x" and "I hate x." Similalry, how distinct are "I think y is reasonable" and "I like y" and "I love y"???

1. Calculate...

2.WTF?!

3. Shut up!

shut up and calculate — Accounting

The actual way it happened: Calculate...whaaaat??? ( :chin: :scream: )...sh! sh! shut up!