Check again.Modus tollens logic is of the form "If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B." — Alkis Piskas
Valid and sound.If anything is an appearance it is known mediately,
The individual knows that he (or she) acts non-mediately
Thus, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21 — ItIsWhatItIs
No. It doesn't make me change my mind. If there are evidence of alien life forms, and they've reached the Earth, and caught on camera, then they should be here. Man-made space debris fall on Earth in minute particles undetectable by our existing technology. If you found something at the bottom of the ocean that's "strange", most likely it's our own space debris.Questions like, should this footage elicit a change in beliefs at all? — flannel jesus
Yes. You do.do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim? — Bob Ross
I understand. You are right to call out statements such as "a woman has autonomy over her body" carte blanche. Abortion is one of those situations where there is a lot of gray areas -- she can have an abortion, but she cannot use drugs while pregnant. The hazard for women who birth live babies is that the moment the baby is born, that baby is a whole person with a whole bunch of rights given to them, such that if she harms them in any way, it is criminal automatically.I just like to use examples that prima facie aren't about abortion so that the conversation doesn't derail into begging the question and to try and latch onto intuitions one may have outside of abortion talk which are pertinent to it. — Bob Ross
From the sound of it, she developed this not as a child, but as a teen.She has been doing this from infancy, in spite of all attempts by her caregivers and teachers to modify the behaviour? — Vera Mont
So, we can eliminate people and let actions happen? lol.There's a basic flaw in the assumptions of this thread; actions are what are good or bad, not people, and not genes. — Banno
You can say all the right things, but suffice it to say that her employer and colleagues had always been supportive of her. That did not stop her from taking advantage of them. Like I said, I haven't talked about the really serious issues. But I will no longer talk about it. I just used it as an example that you could stumble upon people who are just truly evil even if no one has harmed them.Her ‘dark side’, her ‘evil’ and manipulations are how her behaviors appear to us when we fail to see the world through her eyes , and instead try to force our perspective on her. — Joshs
In certain states in the US, a woman does not have a full autonomy over her body. An example is, if she was pregnant and a drug user, it is criminal.I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy? — Bob Ross
In my previous posts I avoided saying the "mental conditions" because I don't want to turn this into a mental health issues. When the OP asked if good and evil are born or nurtured, my response is they are born (nature). And we only turn to nurture to modify bad behaviors (and foster good ones). So, continuing on, the reason why I don't want to bring in the emotional or mental health issues is because most people have those conditions, short term or long term. There are many bipolar individuals who are not evil, let alone mean, for example. So, I hope this is clear.In addition to genetic mental conditions — Outlander
You must not have heard the joke about the thought police. No, we don't imprison people just cause they were born bad. We wait until there's evidence. There was a research done on some murderers whose ancestors were once murderers as well. Generations of families did not wipe out the traces of evil in them.I would find it hard to believe for the simple reason as it could be argued then that people should be imprisoned or stripped of rights from birth because they are fundamentally bad. — Benj96
I thought we're talking about the evil here? Obviously, we can ignore those.Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children a good thing or a bad thing? — Agree-to-Disagree
People are born either bad or good -- so nature. I apologize in advance to those who disagree. When we apply intelligence to behavior, i.e. learning, experiment, results, we are turning to nurture to modify bad behaviors. Look at recidivism of criminals (although it's not confined to those who went to prison as we do have other bad people at large also).How many of you would propose it is down to one thing: that people are really born bad or good eggs, or that really there is only conditioning and interpersonal influence at work. Who would propose that it is in fact an obligatory combination. That both are neccesary to give rise to certain outcomes. Please support your arguments with examples. — Benj96
You're not convinced with your own assertion. "Kind of"?An explanation of what something “is” or isn’t— that’s dealing with meaning, and is a kind of definition. — Mikie
But the definition of a fetus by the state changes depending on who terminates the life of the fetus.Not a puzzle. A woman's bodily autonomy does not transfer to a murderer. — LuckyR
I disagree. Banno's comment is an explanation of doing philosophy, not its definition.Funny that you’d end your post with a definition of philosophy as an “ongoing conversation.” — Mikie
Any government does not have a monopoly in information. This is what a common person believes -- that everything that comes out as information is created by the government. There are modern intelligentsias who continually write, if not verbally contribute, about the society. There are also the capitalist multi-nationals who continue to shape our beliefs -- good or bad.In a society where govenments try to tell you what is true and raise you into believing what you believe, — Hailey
The truth is somewhere in between. Life is not suffering. Life is one huge experimental lab that anyone could explore and try things out. It should allow you to think and be satisfied, be unhappy, or happy about what you find. (JS Mill might help here as a reference). Philosophy is a refuge to those who find that material things do not make them satisfied -- or they find that material possessions or wanting material possessions leave them empty. Science is also that -- many inventors in the past had devoted their entire life -- often dying without success -- working on their projects. Then, there's the artistic or creative realm where you can bury yourself just creating.This leads to the individuals recognition that they’re in a self created bubble allows room for their self emergence from it and different perspectives on life and reality and maybe a pursuit of knowledge be that self-knowledge or philosophy.
But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG
This is not the norm unless you are a narcissist. I mean that in a factual way. Most people have a good sense of more here, little there, okay, and good. In fact, even an egoistic individual would only be egoistic within his own circle around him -- usually a very tiny one: himself and another person.We all think we’re special. — Mikie
I could explain some of it, but won't.where do the loan repayments come from? — LuckyR
Good idea on paper. I would like an automatic benefit plan for minimum wage. The good argument is, the retail and food sectors really need people to work at low wage. They need people to stay at that level. The bad argument is, any employment benefits, including health coverage, is part of the compensation package. That is, you need to include that in the calculation of their overall compensation. So, the cost to the employers is much higher than the actual per hour rate. Labor is one of the most expensive costs in running a business. (Don't worry, come staff reduction, the highly compensated employees are always the ones being scrutinized. But this is for another topic).Do you think some kind of scheme should be put into place to help minimum wage workers in later life? I do. Maybe open up a pension/saving scheme to set up like I said? Good idea or bad idea? — I like sushi
To me, his mistake is to think that history -- or the development of political history is linear. The ancients actually thought it was a cycle, in which the liberal democratic form is just going through its phase, and then another political form replaces it. There were probably 4 or 5 forms of a government. They cycle around until it repeats.Thus, Fukuyama appears to be looking in the wrong place for a new movement. — Count Timothy von Icarus
That's assuming that "political freedom" and individuality continue to be the ideal values. But we can't even fathom now that a possibility exists that the development in eons, human minds could change into something we wouldn't recognize now. Maybe humans would actually turn docile and think that an oligarchy is desirable -- so long as the needs of the population are being met, the oligarchs are the ideal masters. Maybe in eons, the population do not want to be responsible for their own life and want the ruling elite to take care of everything.Rather, he thought (he is writing in 1989-1992) that no alternative to liberal democracy could emerge that would be widely considered to be a more legitimate alternative. — Count Timothy von Icarus
We can't have this if our world worships massive material wealth -- the surplus economy where only those in position to hold the surpluses flourish.Ancient philosophy was designed for the sake of living a truly eudaimonic life. The modern philosophies that have risen since the Enlightenment need to shift towards this paradigm of therapeía, that is to say, "healing. — Dermot Griffin
A spouse dying also works. I don't recommend it. But that's how it can work too.So, what do they do instead? — Mikie
Reality is the whole cosmos. But in philosophy, we really do not have a hard definition of it. Philosophers do not intentionally define it, for good reason. Instead, what we have is a contrast against appearance, illusion, imagination, and possibilities. This is the best way to understand what we mean by reality. A negative definition works better than any other attempts.I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now." — Cidat
To me this is incorrect as there are actually panels of experts who write the dictionary, they're just not cited for each word definition. So, it looks like "no human source" was used in the making of the dictionary. Besides, words, as years go by can change its meaning due to change in population's way of talking or writing. And more words are added to the dictionary, as we now know "google" is a verb.Someone on a philosophy forum once said the amount of new information (they might have said knowledge) in a dictionary is essentially zero, because all the dictionary does is refer to itself. That's always stuck with me. What do you think of that? — RogueAI
Influencers. — Sir2u
Yes, this is all good.I’m also basically jobless/unemployed, and not interested at all to run his (my father’s) businesses ... — niki wonoto
Stop being a selfish asshole. Help your father with his struggling business in any way you can – help your family, help your brother, contribute to your community. Whatever good you've experienced and benefitted from, sir, you owe them all – which is a debt none of us can repay but we can honor by taking care of others beginning with those closest to us. — 180 Proof
Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? — Pantagruel
the present moment may be all which exists, but how are we to understand looking back? I think we just have to take past, present and future as structures in human cognition which help us to make sense of our reality, but I don't know how much we can say beyond this. We can't really examine time outside of our experience of it. — Tom Storm
Ah! I see where you're not clear about. The AI is not "independent" or autonomous, as we say about humans. The AI can be launched once and be automatic. Independent/autonomous is not the same as automatic. There is no motivation (as there is no intentionality). It's the widening or limiting the restrictions, that's where you're supposed to look at.However, that is not the comparison I was making. I was trying to distinguish the two concepts:
human-motivated technology from independent AI motivation — Vera Mont
Read the fallacy of appeal to futility.I didn't say anything about futility. I said it was insufficient; i.e. does not avert the danger. — Vera Mont
Yes.There are humans behind every gun that kills a schoolchild, too. Is that the "danger of guns"? — Vera Mont
The appeal to futility actually benefits the fraudsters and scammers. And it's incorrect to think that it's futile. It's not futile. Minimizing fraud and danger is a strong response to fraud and danger. Why not just ban all vehicles, since each year thousands die from vehicular crashes?Prosecuting the few fraudulent users of AI who can be caught won't stop the fraud; — Vera Mont
And the answer to your question is, you would not have grown into adulthood, or into childhood without object-perception. Unless you are blind, no nerve endings to feel objects, and no other sensory features, and no perception of time (memory) -- in which case you would not have survived infancy -- then you really do not have a choice but be conditioned to know these things. This is your realism at its best.This might cause me some alarm, but if I am unfamiliar, fundamentally, with what an object is, then there is no way for me to differentiate the lion from everything else in the environment perceived. In other words, I would have to pick out the lion first, before I have good reason to avoid it.
But I can pick out lions, and other things. How do I do this? — NotAristotle
The internet is already up to it nostrils in disinformation of every kind. That's all human-motivated, human-initiated activity. — Vera Mont
Yes, of course. There are humans behind the AI -- humans that could be prosecuted for fraud, disinformation, and whatever.But AI doing any of that on its own initiative? Improbable. — Vera Mont
Yes, this. Our world is now beginning to show machine worship, like we've never seen before. Some because there's tons of money to be gained, others because technology worship is their way to fit in society. Was it Einstein who championed the scientific rhetoric? (God bless him)The issue is that unregulated AI has the potential to promote propaganda, malicious agendas etc with highly convincing/persuasive rhetoric. In that way AI can be used in a non measured, non objective and unethical way. — Benj96
Yes, this is the gist of the cogito.Seems to me that even if we are mistaken, viz. interpretation, about what is there, when we are faced with some illusion, we are never mistaken that there is something there. We are only ever mistaken about what it is. — NotAristotle
A cure for a dogmatic person is time.What I noticed about his 'Ouamuamua coverage, which included a book, was his dogmatic insistence that this object must be an extraterrestrial artifact. That is what other scientists have taken him to task for. He seems to brook no disagreement, and has written polemical articles attacking critics for being narrow-minded and dogmatic. — Wayfarer
I made a post earlier in this Illusion thread mentioning error in beliefs.Don’t know what others think but it seems to me Loeb has become somewhat obsessive in his quest, to the detriment of his overall reputation. Of course, if the titanium-alloy spherules turn out to be the real enchilada, then I’ll happily eat my words. — Wayfarer