• The Penrose Bounce.
    ↪Joshs
    What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist.     — I like sushi
    I see you have a good grasp of Penrose, but nothing at all of reading between the lines.
  • Can minds be uploaded in computers?
    .godwantsitthisway

    could be shortened to just

    .god

    which might stand for genetically organised download.
    Okay, I might have taken my attempt at humour too far! :blush:
    I got carried away because my career was teaching computing science and you laughed a wee bit at my .hahastillhere joke. :smile:     — universeness
    Nice to meet you. Yeah, cause you got the joke, too.

    Those are great extensions, btw!

    Cause I was thinking of some good ones:
    .foolish
    .fake
  • If there were a god, are they fair?
    ↪TiredThinker

    No. They're not fair. There I said it. They're not. The ones at a disadvantage pray to them for help, the ones doing well pray for more.
  • The separation of mind and reality
    A read of this forum shows that plenty of minds are separated from reality. — Banno
    :sweat:
  • Can minds be uploaded in computers?
    It happens that I am an IT person and I also know a lot about the mind and how it works. So, most probably, because of this and also the huge amount of nonsense I have heard on the subject, I use to overreact to considerations, propositions and sometimes allegations, such as the one of this topic ... — Alkis Piskas
    Awesome! :up:
  • Dealing With Rejection
    Well even if you aren't losing anything the fact remains that rejection can be very painful, painful to the point in which it might lead to suicide, an example would be in Japan when people don't get into college. — HardWorker
    I get what you're saying. In that regard, let's change your question to What's the harm to you if you venture out or take a risk?
  • Can minds be uploaded in computers?
    .hahastillhere — universeness
    hahaha! :lol:
  • On The Origins of Prayer
    Considering the climax of this process: Is the cry of the beast a prayer? — ZzzoneiroCosm
    No. The instinct is kicking in -- it's an automatic response to a threat or injury.

    If the cry of the beast is no prayer what can we do to it to make it a prayer? — ZzzoneiroCosm
    When the beast no longer thinks it's in control of the situation and wishes for a chance.
  • Can minds be uploaded in computers?
    If anything, you could try to save the mind to a disk or thumbdrive. Then when you try to watch or listen to it, it would be blank or "this file could not be opened". Because unlike the DNA, there's no mapping with mind to structure.

    In what format are they thinking of uploading the mind? .docx? or .exe? .jpg? :wink:
  • Dealing With Rejection
    So you're saying that when you get rejected you aren't losing anything because whatever you got rejected from was stuff you didn't have in the first place. — HardWorker
    Yes. The law of 100%.
  • Can minds be uploaded in computers?
    "Mind uploading, also known as whole brain emulation (WBE), is the theoretical futuristic process of scanning a physical structure of the brain accurately enough to create an emulation of the mental state (including long-term memory and "self") and transferring or copying it to a computer in a digital form." — Haglund
    This is error in thinking. No, it could not be done because perception doesn't happen only in the brain -- but through other organs as well. The brain is not a depository of a complete picture or story that one could extract and upload somewhere. Your amputated arm would itch still. The roughness of a surface doesn't reside in the brain, but in the touch -- the fingers bring alive the sensation of roughness, and once you're not touching that surface anymore, the brain won't retain the roughness. We have memory of how a sandpaper feels, true, but that memory would not translate, if you tried to extract roughness through the brain, it would not translate into "roughness".
  • Can morality be absolute?
    And what is goodness?

    What is a favourable outcome?     — PhilosophyRunner
    That's your job to figure out.
  • Dealing With Rejection
    You had all these hopes to do all the stuff that I mentioned above and now those hopes are dashed. So is that a loss? I will say this much, it can be very painful when you don't get the promotion you were hoping to get and you don't get to do all the stuff you were hoping to do when you got the promotion, which you don't end up getting. — HardWorker
    *Sigh* you just repeated yourself while ignoring what I just said. You are speaking in terms of emotional perception. You didn't have the job of a manager, but you're hoping to get promoted and get that job. But now, you didn't get promoted, so you lost that job? Wrong.

    And no, you didn't lose the increase in salary. Or you didn't lose that corner office with large windows overlooking the bluff.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    Is there a "fact of the matter" that we can strive to discover about this? Or is each correct for themselves? — PhilosophyRunner
    It isn't facts that you should be enforcing -- although it is part of everyone's argument: Fact: you killed my dog. But now comes the measure of the immorality of that act. And so on. We can now get to the issue of morality. Discuss it.

    What you're supposed to be thinking of is to optimize the goodness (note I didn't say maximize). Optimize the goodness or the favorable outcome of moral acts.
  • The ends of the spectrum
    The point of the post is whether it’s reasonable to believe that there is a worst person alive and a best person alive or would it be impossible to say because of everyone in between being various mixes of the two groups of traits and therefore having different criteria for the best and worst — Benj96
    The latter. I used to think boring people are at a disadvantage. Until I find that they're seldom bothered by what's happening around them, and seldom compare themselves to others. I'm sure you know the advantage of having this personality, no? The shitty things life throw at us won't damage them much, if at all.
  • Dealing With Rejection
    What you could lose by not getting the promotion is that your ego could be hurt and your hopes could be dashed, so there's that to lose. — HardWorker
    But you don't have to. I don't think you're understanding what I say when I say, you didn't lose something you didn't own in the first place. I'm talking about concrete. But you're talking in the sense of emotional perception. If you don't risk going after something, then you don't risk losing your ego-- this is what you're saying. Some people actually do not lose their ego.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    Maybe there are better arguments for objective morality that avoid the above pitfall, but I am fairly new to the topic so have only just started reading about it. — PhilosophyRunner

    I'm telling you that you are mis-attributing "objectivity" here.
  • Dealing With Rejection
    but there is another side to it that might not be as often discussed and thats, "nothing ventured nothing lost." — HardWorker
    I beg to differ. Think of the law of 100%. You could only lose something that you already own. If you didn't get that promotion, you didn't lose anything since you never had in the first place. I think we often make a mistake in thinking that the opposite of gain is loss. It's not. The opposite of gain is not-gain.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    it is an analogy, and I think an apt one as I am asking whether there are objective facts about morality. — PhilosophyRunner
    Apples and oranges. The method of observation and examination of human interaction is different than the one required of physics.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    Take the analogy of physics laws (my area). I observe that force applied on an object is proportional to it's mass multiplied by it's acceleration. People have observed that since newton, and it is one of the laws of motion he suggested. This has very accurately and reliably been shown to be true. I'm pretty confident in it. I can use it to make predictions.

    However I cannot use it to say how nature should or ought to behave.     — PhilosophyRunner
    I could only say that you are a victim of incorrectly attributing similarities where there shouldn't be. We are talking humans here. Let's get physics out of here.

    I preface my post with, this thread is intentionally contentious, without wanting to come to a common understanding.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    Don't miss my point here: I agree the rapist is wrong, but I deny its wrongness is simply social convention or a genetically dominant trait. I suggest it's more than that — Hanover
    So we don't disagree. I thought you meant it's just a social convention.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover
    Sorry, but this is a blatant disregard for humans' fundamental reality. I just said. There are fundamental things that we hold dear to us. Disgust with rape is not taught. The body knows without being told. So, yes, rape is immoral.
  • The ends of the spectrum
    And yes, many of these folk I can recognise within a minute or so of meeting them. The extent of their capacity for destruction, is not apparent unless witnessed or read about in a file. But the ones that worry me most wear suits, speak softly and run corporations.... I don't meet many of those. — Tom Storm
    We're the opposite. I meet them, the ones in suits or run companies. And yes, they're scary if you know what to look for. Their eyes, for one. And their movement when they're "in the zone".

    saintly human — Benj96
    It was never endorsed by any thinkers to be a saintly human. I don't think you're aware of the make-up of saintly humans.
  • IQ and intelligence
    The rich will always cause inflation because it is how their psychology works. One equal state of ownership couldn't happen because there are too many who want to be rich — Gregory
    It is not enough that one has a lot of money. It also must be at the top 1%. So there's never enough, as one should feel that there's enough.

    There's your problem, right there. Just don't. There are better ways to spend your time. Take up walking, or gardening. Get a pet, or start making miniatures. Learn yoga. Just about anything. — Banno
    :up:
  • IQ and intelligence
    Peterson has debated Zizek on capitalism. They are both extreme in many ways imo — Gregory
    Žižek's not extreme in my opinion. Well, I browse through his thoughts on capitalism. And I couldn't disagree -- capitalism encourages greed, and it encourages people, even the ordinary people to be corrupt.
  • The Absurdity of Existence
    For examole: Buddhists, Jains, Daoists, Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics & Pyrrhonians, each tradition in its own distinct way, exemplify that humans suffer more from what we make of what happens to us than from what happens to us. — 180 Proof
    Good point. One thing I noticed is that there's a common idea among these different school of thoughts -- capitalism, which fosters greed and power, is absent.
  • IQ and intelligence
    Peterson says that there are many people with 160 IQ who are worthless at being successful in life. — Gregory
    Haha! Is Peterson brainwashed by capitalism, too? Successful in life? In what way? If you create great music that doesn't sell, and you're forced to rely on your parents or partner for support, is that a failure?

    I'd like to know what's his definition of success. I bet it's defined by capitalism.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    This doesn't really help. One person's harm is another's good. — hypericin
    It does because there are fundamental reality for all humans. One, humans would not want their families massacred. That's reality. So, we can all agree that it's immoral to annihilate one's family members. There's self-preservation -- that's built-in in us. That's also true about animals, btw. They do protect their offspring from predators and attacks. I mean, I could go on. We just need to be honest about reality.

    Now, killing. Is it always immoral to kill? No. There are cases when killing is justified.

    And let's not use religion here since different religions have different views of killing. Some religion requires killing a family member for infidelity or whatnot. So, I want to exclude religion in morality. Just really, what's fundamentals in being human. All too human.
  • The white lie
    Should you lie to bolster their confidence. Or would you simply be undermining them by being dishonest? And how do you know if your own judgement of fashion is better than theirs?
    Which option makes you a more supportive friend?     — Benj96
    I'm gonna respond in practical sense. No need to use philosophy or psychology. And you know, I know myself -- I shoot my mouth and then hope for "good" consequence.

    So, to give them the benefit of the doubt, since they're already dressed, I would just relegate it to "they've made up their mind, otherwise, they've asked me for choices before putting on the clothes. (I'm speaking in real life experience). They look happy with their choice. I'd say, "let's go, that works" in sincere honesty. I could say it without me wanting to wear the clothes myself. And that's support of them. Respecting their tastes and not always insisting yours.

    Anyway, I have my own sense of clothing which probably wouldn't work for them. Shit, I wear fitted clothing :wink: which would not work with others.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? — PhilosophyRunner
    Don't think of wright and wrong. Think of how harmful it is. If one's moral view creates harm than good, then it is immoral. On a lesser intensity, it is offensive.

    People who start a moral argument using "right" or "wrong" set the argument up so that it is intentionally contentious and designed to get a rouse out of you, without meaning to come to an understanding.
  • Philosophers and their country.
    ↪TiredThinker


    Well, the ancients were firsts in questioning the universe and objective reality.

    Then came the 16th - 17th century with the god meditation and the self.

    Then the beginning of the 19th century, existentialism and nothingness.

    Then the twentieth century, analytics, epistemology/logic, you know, the clean philosophy who wouldn't touch dirt if their brain depended on it.
  • Philosophers and their country.
    Is this a silly question? — TiredThinker
    It's not.

    It's just... boring.
  • Protest: What Political Influence Does it Have For Human Rights and Civil Liberties?
    The thought of what may happen if there was a nuclear attack is hard to imagine. When I have spoken with friends about it, one question is whether it would be better to die at any early stage or live with the aftermath of devastation. — Jack Cummins
    Early stage. Radioactive plutonium will disintegrate your insides while you're alive.
  • Protest: What Political Influence Does it Have For Human Rights and Civil Liberties?
    I am wondering how marginalised are such movements in the present time, although there were some demonstrations in response to the Ukrainian crisis, including one in Trafalgar Square in London. So, it does seem demoralising that in the twentieth first century a situation exists where mass weapons of destruction present a real threat. — Jack Cummins
    Does it really? WMD is a psychological warfare. Mass protests are great. But they won't stop WMD stockpile. What you need to ask is, what can stop any nation with WMDs from using them? One nuclear blast cannot destroy a whole state, let alone an entire nation. So, if you attack the United States, be prepared to be destroyed from the inside out of your anatomy with the more powerful stateside ballistic missiles with accuracy at a blinding speed.
  • Does just war exist？
    You have introduced sovereignty, rape, torture. These are naturally widely understood as unjust, but they needn't be appended solely to wars. — gloaming
    It wasn't me who introduced these elements. It's I like sushi.

    BTW, I spend 30 years as an officer practicing and studying war professionally. — gloaming
    Then tell me an example of actual war that's just. What nation started a just war?

    Sorry, didn’t realise this was some stupid word game. Bye — I like sushi
    Goodbye. Word game is a catch all argument if one is not happy with the way the thread is going.
  • Popper's Swamp, Observation Statements, Facts/Interpretations
    Let's say a theory predicts a reading of between 23 and 25 kilograms. A scientist records a measurement of 24 kilograms. All is well, right? But what goes into taking a measurement? Do we worry about the device's proper functioning? The eyes reading the needle, scooping up sense-date? Is the scientist delusional? Should he measure 20 times, 2000 times? The point is that worry/doubt must come to an end at some point. We must trust in a swampy informal layer of 'experience' or 'common sense' or 'ordinary language.' This recalls On Certainty. — jas0n
    Right. There is a point at which doubting is absurd. Which then we know what "absurd" amount is. So, yes, common sense, sense-data, formal measurements, device all play a role. Calibration is a thing -- we're good at calibrating different devices so that we're not being fooled or delusional. Like I said, the bridges would have fallen by now if that's not the case.

    I prefer to emphasize the limited applicability of the dichotomy. To eject it entirely is to eject Popper's conventional demarcation of science from non-science. IMO, familiar distinctions tend to be justified in familiar contexts and only become problematic when taken by philosophers as absolutes. — jas0n
    Oh no. When I said there's no dichotomy, I really meant that the philosophers meant within the scientific knowledge. So, the dichotomy matters in context. We're not comparing apples and oranges -- scientific observation and the arts, for example.
  • Popper's Swamp, Observation Statements, Facts/Interpretations
    We do know this. Do we explain knowing this in terms of sense-data? Or do we start with testimony? Can and should we formalize checking that the bridges haven't fallen? — jas0n
    All of the above -- that's why I'm saying about no dichotomy exists.
  • Popper's Swamp, Observation Statements, Facts/Interpretations
    Do we confer and co-articulate what we agree is an apt description of an otherwise private consciousness ? — jas0n
    There is public observation (consciousness is a misnomer to use here as it pertains to individual consciousness -- the "collective consciousness" we hear from time to time mentioned in writings is a hip pop philosophy, nothing else. It doesn't mean a thing in philosophy).

    So public observation has coherence and objectivity. The bridges would've had fallen a long time ago if it weren't the case. The thing that science philosophers often cry about is the dichotomy between "theory" and "observation", which the likes of Putnam (you can correct me on this, not sure) also have criticized for being mistaken as a dichotomy.

    I said this in another thread -- objective reality means that reality (out there: là-bas) contains the components of the scientific theories we develop as a result of our observation. The theories themselves are our observations -- which coheres with reality.
  • Does just war exist？
    A defender of sovereignty, or of any other principle, law, or custom, deemed universal or not by either side or by onlookers, enters a just war if they enter it at all. — gloaming
    It's cause you think of wars you saw in movies. The brave underdog nation defending its territory. War is a political relationship. Let's read up on history as to the timeline of what led to a war.

    Would it be just to come to the aid of people in one nation where the powers that be are systematically killing/torturing/raping them?

    In simple terms it is a just cause to stop such acts even if it meant going to war.     — I like sushi
    Yes. So it becomes just? There is only one war in your scenario. It isn't just when there's raping, torture, and killing. One enters an unjust war. And winning an unjust war could not make it just.
  • Does just war exist？
    To me, even when diplomacy fails, every living human has the right to defend himself against harm, right or wrong. — gloaming
    Of course. Any nation being oppressed has the right to defend its sovereignty. So, they enter an unjust war.
Home » L'éléphant