Dude, to say something is "better" is a subjective opinion.Are you just identifying your subjective opinion, or are you saying something objective?
As in, you think you better express yourself with painting than sculpture, or are you saying that sculpture is the truly best way to express certain perspectives?
Seems the former would be the only sustainable claim. — Hanover
Yes, I'd say one is better than another, to me (being a multilingual). One is good for daily spoken language, but not for writing a powerful declamation. Another is writing comedy -- I would have to switch the style or even the type of comedy with one language, and use another style and topic if using another language.For me it is clear that languages are different and that if there is a difference then one is to be better than another. — I like sushi
Clearly you do not understand what you're talking about.Firstly, it should be obvious that we can read, understand and interpret bits. Second, our perception is literally composed of what a bit is - a binary distinction. You either see an object or your don't. You either distinguish something from another, or you don't. Our perception is completely dependent on binary distinctions. — Hallucinogen
In Nicomachean, the "means to an end" is part of moral reasoning. But Aristotle was focusing on the means, because the end has already been decided, so the one thing left to decide on is the means to achieve it. Note that he didn't believe in 'whatever it takes' to get there.IMO, that's instrumental reasoning (re: things, i.e. means-to-ends) and not moral reasoning (re: persons, i.e. ends-in-themselves) — 180 Proof
Our mind does not read bits. We use perception to view the world. In pictures -- which means a complete picture.Pictures can be represented in bits and bits can be processed to produce a picture. So I don't recognise the mutual exclusivity that serves as the basis of your reply. — Hallucinogen
Information processing is perception in humans. Computers do not perceive. There is no vantage point with computers.They both use information processing. Saying that one of them "reads" some substrate that isn't information isn't going to be defensible. — Hallucinogen
Okay, good exegesis!So, there’s a certain moral perfection to a society where no-one goes astray, where there is no crime, people cooperate fully etc., but the emptiness of this social morality is highlighted by the cost necessary to achieve it. — Baden
I'm confused why you mention this - computers do "use" bits, and our minds do understand the world in pictures. This is an example of why my points are rushed and undefined? — Hallucinogen
Check your premises #1 and #2. You are arguing that the mind reads like how a computer does.3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space.
4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen
Here is Book II:I don't quite follow: doesn't Aristotle believe that the good is objective? — Bob Ross
He is not arguing for a universal, objective right reason.Since then the object of the present treatise is not mere speculation, as it is of some others (for we are enquiring not merely that we may know what virtue is but that we may become virtuous, else it would have been useless), we must consider as to the particular actions how we are to do them, because, as we have just said, the quality of the habits that shall be formed depends on these.
Now, that we are to act in accordance with Right Reason is a general maxim, and may for the present be taken for granted: we will speak of it hereafter, and say both what Right Reason is, and what are its relations to the other virtues.[4]
But let this point be first thoroughly understood between us, that all which can be said on moral action must be said in outline, as it were, and not exactly: for as we remarked at the commencement, such reasoning only must be required as the nature of the subject-matter admits of, and matters of moral action and expediency have no fixedness any more than matters of health. And if the subject in its general maxims is such, still less in its application to particular cases is exactness attainable:[5] because these fall not under any art or system of rules, but it must be left in each instance to the individual agents to look to the exigencies of the particular case, as it is in the art of healing, or that of navigating a ship. Still, though the present subject is confessedly such, we must try and do what we can for it.
Incorrect. All your premises are rushed, and without definitions. For example, if computers use bits, our mind reads the world as pictures.4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen
Yes. Nicomachean ethics. Virtue ethics. Because we don't waste our time debating about its being objective or its being relative.What normative ethical theory do you subscribe to? A form of deontology, perhaps virtue ethics? — Bob Ross
No we cannot. And the reason for this is, all of us do not have the moral entitlement to live. None!Can we morally justify sacrificing people for the greater good, especially if it is a huge sacrifice (like getting tortured constantly)? — Bob Ross
No, it isn't. It is a false analogy. In a false analogy, the two ideas share one common aspect, nothing else.Is Judith Thomson’s abortion analogy valid?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.Through membership in organizations such as the United Nations, those in power get together and afford each other the natural rights that would make a lowly anarchist seethe with envy. Perhaps ironically, that dreaded State of Nature Hobbes so feared is regnant on the international stage, based as it is on his conception as the state as a person. — NOS4A2
And she was pregnant.Like Von Miller and the assault charges against him, etc. — TiredThinker
Have you noticed that there's no philosophy of risk because the point of philosophy is the contemplation of the world. It's a passive activity.What did Aristotle have to say? — jgill
Where then should we rely on?There is an inflated sense of belief in the power to measure risk, especially with technology, including artificial intelligence. From what I have seen, reliance on such technology often results in gross errors. It is likely that genuine risks are underplayed rather than overplayed. — Jack Cummins
Nuclear war comes to mind. Prevention is everything, because the actuality of it is the end of it all. So, we do not have the luxury of waiting for it to happen to assess how much risk we are taking. We need to have zero occurrence for it happening -- which means:One of the disadvantages for misuse which I see is the potential for identifying risk factors and seeing them in a concrete way rather than as possibilities. — Jack Cummins
We need to take the risks concretely.In particular, when risks are identified, especially in risks of human action is if the risks are taken too concretely. — Jack Cummins
The central intelligence have the power to assess the possibilities. Of course you are asking in terms of philosophy. So, what then? Empirical tests and observations, which rests on what reality we're talking about. If we're talking about the ordinary world, then there's your answer. But if you're thinking about the reality of Schrodinger's cat, then you can have all the thought experiments you want.It is in the context of actual and virtual possibilities that I am asking the question of the nature of risk. What is reliable and imaginary, and how do the two come together in proactive and preventative measures in sound philosophical thinking? — Jack Cummins
Yes.Aren't you sort of generalizing that all self-destructive people are irrational? — kudos
Now you're intentionally blurring the lines. I no longer know what you really mean here.Most people who choose a path, destructive or not, have some grounds for doing so. — kudos
Meaning to self-destruct? If one dies for a cause, that's one thing. But if one just waste away because of discontentment, then that's a problem.Carrying over to the mainstream of the conversation, in a climate where your freedom of choice were under arrest, wouldn't a rebellious path with aim of liberating the freedom of the individual be worth taking? — kudos
No, you misunderstood. To him, any of the choices of punishment is like death. I mentioned those already -- exile, renounce his beliefs, and death are all similar in effect.So the choice was between renouncing beliefs -meaning teaching truth, wisdom, and philosophy to Athenian youths - and death. So how was it not self destructive to choose death? — kudos
:100:Moreover, were he to choose exile and a renunciation of his beliefs rather than concede to his sentence of death, this would have served to obliterate the cause which he strove for. So, especially given that all choices pointed toward the destruction of his own identity, conceding to die was that one option what best served his cause. — javra
I see. :grin: I've never used this word before.Hey, as to being debased by others, “javra” does translate into “cur” — javra
Sorry, I still don't see how the "will to power" amounts to self-destruction and that the natural tendency to not choose chaos and suffering automatically betrays their background as the reason for being so. I was trying to tell you that even in the wild, they wouldn't choose self-destruction. Socrates was doomed and he knew it. Exile was not an option because he was old and didn't want to be separated from his loved ones. In essence, he was already destroyed by the powers that be. His choices -- exile, renounce his beliefs, or death -- all points towards the destruction of his identity.It would be appropriate at this point to ask you for clarifcation on what you mean by 'nurture and tenderness' and 'chaos and suffering.' This assessment would be opposite of someone who has achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards their attributed circumstances. Don't you find such individuals tend to come from backgrounds of adversity and pain? Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life? — kudos
I've sent them images of the process in the inbox, even how to quote. I think there's a language barrier. — Vaskane
Tell me what you mean.-on the part of the little monkey, that is — Bella fekete
This. The ChatGPT's first mistake is not understanding what a thing is -- it is carved out with holes for eyes and mouth. So its concern about the mouse not able to breathe is already misplaced. It's like talking to someone whose society did not know about jack-o-lanterns. Not bad at all, but there's the kink already.The reason for ChatGPT’s inadequate answer the above mouse query (and to others like it that I have posed) is that ChatGPT is trapped in the Chinese Room. It has access only to arbitrary linguistic shapes. Because semantic regularities are often mirrored by linguistic ones, it can answer many queries in ways that seem eerily intelligent. Even so, it will always lag human intelligence. — Jonathan Waskan
This and other things.One might think that the problem has to do with the expressions lacking ‘grounding’ in the real world. But purely from an engineering perspective, what ChatGPT lacks is internal representations that are more richly isomorphic to the real world. — Jonathan Waskan
This is the key to the narrative regarding honesty (or dishonesty).Society runs on trust, and therefore needs to deter and prevent dishonesty. And this cannot be reversed because the dependence is one way, linguistically. — unenlightened
I'm not sure. It's a matter of debate as this is Socrates.Yeah, but what was he accused of, and why didn’t he stop? — kudos
I wasn't talking about a deficiency. But yes, it is better than it appears to you.I was reluctant to address your observation about my writing; The idea that it might be better than it appears is encouraging. Is the deficiency a penchant for merely making connections between texts rather than explicating a thesis? — Paine
Truly, this, to me, is written by a writer, not by someone trying to submit an essay for a mark after having studied the recommended tone and population limit of undefined terminology and nouns squeezed within a paragraph, let alone a single sentence.In the mythological explanation provided by Diotima in Plato's Symposium, Eros is the child of very different parents: — Paine
I don't think you got the whole story of why he chose to drink the hemlock. It was a calculated decision on his part -- aging had a lot to do with it. His relationships with family and peers was very important. His identity was tied to his beliefs and how he lived. So, he was trying to avoid self-destruction by choosing, instead, to die.What about who you’d call the grandfather of Western philosophy, Socrates? Someone who, as the story goes, chose execution over fear and groundless obedience to the natural order of his day. — kudos
I meant what I quoted. Your writing.This is interesting when looking at how Plato is working with Diotima's account. — Paine
It is not unfortunate, as you would like to see it. Observational approach to understanding the behavior or humans and animals -- in their natural order! -- points towards nurture and tenderness. We would not naturally seek chaos and suffering. So, establishing what's normal is really establishing the human psychology.It is unfortunate that our language has taken to calling personalities 'illnesses,' and 'problems' because they are obsessive (could also be viewed as fore-thinking), depressed (could also be viewed as introverted and inventive), or anxious (could also be viewed as meticulous or full of creative energy). True, taken to extremes these become obviously problematic for society and the individual in question, but even then thinking of things as illnesses or problems is only moderately helpful as a metaphor to overcome, but this is not to be taken in the literal sense in my view; that would only serve to externalize things with no real hope of ever gaining any real closure. — kudos
If I had written like this during my academic non-philosophy essay days, I would get a markdown -- in fact, anyone would have gotten a markdown. Those teachers did not know how the writer's mind works.In the mythological explanation provided by Diotima in Plato's Symposium,.... — Paine
Honesty is a situational behavior, not a permanent trait of a person. Do not burden someone with that label because it isn't always necessary to be honest at all times. White lies serve the purpose of kindness. Of course, honesty serves that purpose as well.Can one still be deemed an honest person if they occasionally engage in deception? — YiRu Li
An adjective, if I take your question literally.Is 'honest' a noun or a verb? — YiRu Li
It cannot possibly. You are conflating the symptoms with the cause. Self-destructive tendencies are a symptom of a deeper problem within a person, which is better relegated to the field of psychiatry and psychology. Instead of glorifying it within the philosophical discussion, we should understand that it is a problem.I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos
:up: Yes, I agree. I also never agree with materialism as it removes the observer -- the sentient being -- from the narrative.Isn't it because of the influence of materialism? That was the philosophical view which sought to understand the Universe as aggregations of physical particles. (As you probably know I'm generally critical of materialism, hence my OP The Mind-Created World.) — Wayfarer
Hahaha. :grin:Stephen Hawking said 'whenever I hear of Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun.' — Wayfarer
But isn't that exactly what you presented in your previous post?My take on that thought-experiment is that it was a rather sarcastic model to try and communicate the philosophical conundrums thrown up by this issue. It was kind of a joke albeit with serious implications. — Wayfarer
Not ambiguity, but uncertainty -- the uncertainty principle. So, with that, the Schrodinger's cat experiment doesn't deny the definite properties and doesn't deny space time. It is actually more like a critique of the very notion of the uncertainty principle, which, in all fairness, is a principle about us! -- the observer. And it doesn't purport to state that all possible states exist, rather only two states -- is the cat dead because of the poison, or is the cat alive because the poison didn't detonate.And that ambiguity arises from superposition. This principle suggests that particles exist in all possible states simultaneously until they are observed or measured.
This concept challenges classical notions of reality and determinism. In classical physics, objects have definite properties and states at all times. However, in quantum mechanics, entities like electrons or photons exist in a superposition of states, with probabilities for each state, until an observation "collapses" these possibilities into a single state.
Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter. — Wayfarer