Is a vague philosopher a lazy philosopher? — Don Wade

Absolutely not. But are we talking "vague" now?

You can use the measure of time, as well, to argue for why organizing your daily tasks makes logical sense -- you have 24 hours a day, so apportion time for basic needs (basic means essential, not optional). If I don't do x, then some y crap happens.

And also try to critique those who use the expression, "I put in 110% effort or time to doing Z". Logically incorrect, though funny.

A lazy philosopher can still be a philosopher! — Don Wade

There are other things implied in a "lazy philosopher". C'mon man, we are discussing philosophically here.
Saying, we can bring everything to agreement, for example, violates a lot of philosophical principles.

A point of view may at first sound like a contradiction with another point of view. That in itself is part of philosophy until alignments can be made to show agreement. That's where discussion can help. — Don Wade

And therein lies the misplaced belief about philosophy. Philosophy thrives in pointing out distinction, in defining a domain, in laying foundation, even in definition. Anyone who proclaims alignments and agreements in just about anything is probably lazy.

Describe how you might program a computer, or robot, to philosophize, or mimic a philosopher - such that it would be able to fool a group of experts on a standardized test. — Don Wade

Seriously, dude, this is contradiction at its best!

Philosophize and standardized test? Which one? You can't have both!

Who is trying to uphold moral values more; someone naturally bad that forces themselves to be good or someone who is naturally good but doesn’t have to try to be. — Benj96

I've heard once there is something good even in a bad person who tries hide his evil ways. I think it's in reference to the idea that a truly bad person would feel excitement in showing off what bad things he could do to people and watching the reactions and suffering of his victims.

But on to your point -- there is an effort exerted by the former that the latter isn't engaged in at the same given moment. The first one can take credit for this effort -- he is actively suppressing his true nature in favor of acting morally. So, he is commendable, first, regarding himself, and two, regarding the effects of this action to others.

But to answer the question of who is trying to uphold moral values more -- there's a few more things to touch on this subject. But I think of two students who scored equally in an exam -- but one, naturally lazy, studied long and hard just to be like others. Should this student be given an extra praise for achieving what others achieve naturally? Yes!

What if an AI saved your life? Last I checked, the deep bond that occasionally :chin: forms between a savior and the saved is based wholly on the act, the act of saving and not on the mental/emotional abilities of the savior. Just asking. — TheMadFool

I think putting it this way is meandering away from the point of this thread.

A man paid a $100k for a sports BMW equipped with saving the life of a driver in the event it flips over multiple times during an accident. Then the accident happened -- the car traveling 100mph flipped several times, he got out of it and walked away, from an accident that would normally kill.

To say he formed a deep bond with this machine is sentimentality. One would be very thankful. Amazed. But to call it a deep bond is projecting.

So, going back to the task at hand, can a bot have gut feeling? Do not be fooled by the word "feeling" here. Gut feeling actually operates as intelligence used in decision-making.

Rules that favor less heart and more brain. — TheMadFool

I can construe this either way -- do you mean bots or humans?

Truth is, they could create the most realistic AI in all appearances but eventually our connection would be shallow, and often lonely. AI cannot replace humans in many ways. How's 'gut instinct' for good measure?

Instead of doing a Turing test and weeding out chat-bots, they're actually conducting a Reverse Turing Test and expelling real people from internet forums and retaining members that are unfeeling and machine-like. — TheMadFool

Yeah death by sterilization.

First, let's make sure that the mods themselves are not bots. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can think of life/civility balance.

I guess it lies in the rules they laid down. Then, an unwanted consequence -- civil, but all bots themselves. Messy and emotionally charged, but real humans.

Copper/metallic wires pulsing up and down, off and on, the harnessing of this...Electrical power stations, all that.. — schopenhauer1

By the power of clear talking, please make your post easier to understand. Please explain.

Sorry perhaps comparison isn’t the right word. “Association”. The tie of money to a group. Value as a concept exchange between multiple individuals — Benj96

And therein lies the gist of your post. Forgetting the pesky details of money cause of the big picture.
Is it really just association? Or the degree of control of ourselves dictate what happens to the reality of money? The external appropriation of cause is misplaced here.

There is an alienating aspect to this. We can never mine enough minutia to know all the aspects (only in theory perhaps but not in reality). Why would we bring people into a world of such limited efficacy of possible knowledge of what makes the "modern" world run? — schopenhauer1

Because there is such a thing as brain optimization! And optimization is a good thing! I don't need to know everything, just what I need to carry out a task at the moment till the next moment and so on.

Our anatomy is a complex web of connected organs, tissues, chambers, and network of veins -- do we really need a complete knowledge of how each and every organ fails besides the 'graphic user interface' that we have now? -- I go to a doctor for treatment.

I find it curious that you made this comparison. As when we study biology or specifically bioenergetics we come to the understanding that ATP is the “energy currency” of the cell. Why is it that even in biology money or “the symbolic potential to release energy/ perform actions” is an inescapable truth of the development and persistence of ordered intelligent systems. Cells have societies too do they not? ;) — Benj96

Comparison?

Is it altruistic to want to give other people life experiences that we have had, and in what way is the altruism affected by the knowledge that no matter what we do all experiences may ultimately be unique? — TiredThinker

I wouldn't confuse generosity with altruism. Altruism is much more than generosity -- one is giving up something that truly sets him back: giving up a life, a decade or two of life, taking risk that has a great chance of causing his own life.

Sharing one's experience is generosity -- you want to impart knowledge by freely providing it to another who could benefit from it.

The question I'd ask is less "can such a comparison be made" and more "what does it entail"? What new insights do you think this conceptualisation offers? What predictions result from applying it? Does it agree with the actual history of money? — Echarmion

While I'd say it is misplaced to compare it to a living entity -- "living" here could be given a narrative of 'what caused it to come to life, and what's sustaining its life' spin.

No new insights to me, as the concept of money has always been a subject of studies of societies. Our view of money is a reflection of our values as people. Our use of money is a reflection of our requirements for happiness.

it feasible, to try to find loose ends to join the science with philosophy. Science makes an effort to make sense of various phenomena.Is science a natural philosophy? — rohit29

No. First, the proof sought by scientific activities is not the philosophical principles aimed at in philosophy. While science deals with facts and discoveries, philosophy attempts to apply the narrative of existence and nature of being, among others, on these facts. Science is an instrument whose findings can be used by philosophers to formulate philosophical principles.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!!

Oh yeah, same here. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Awesome! Way to go, Proof!

the catalogs I keep, thinking I will order something — Athena

:grin:

Doe combination of increasing population, the squeezing of other species out of their living space, and reliance on complex technology result in evolutionary instability that is favourable to the creation of deadlier viruses? — Jacob-B

While this requires qualification, I say no, no, and no to the three points above. We should say that despite the increased knowledge and modern technology, there will always be micro systems of diseases (viruses) that will co-exist with all the other systems we have in place. We are the transmission mode of these contagions -- our bodies are the perfect host and carrier. Unless we become androids or some sort of beings that aren't biological, we are in perpetual vulnerability.

The black death in the 1300s came at a time when modern inventions and technology were (it can be argued) 'comparable' to our time. And there's not a billion people back then.

Pax et Bonum

What is your New Year resolution or what do you think of making a New Year Resolution? — Athena

To be more organized -- I am already -- but I'd like to not have anything go beyond the deadline. I'm trying to get my place as empty as possible. Also to cook healthier food.
I think NY resolution is great! I've been doing it -- even before NY comes, lol -- and I have been blessed to be able to accomplish the little things I'd decided to do.

How would you react to this? — Outlander

Shocked and amazed.

What would you do? What would you say? Would you trust anything or anyone ever again? — Outlander

Try to calm down and gradually assessed what just happened to me. I'd give the people around me the benefit of the doubt. Trust is important at this point -- well, trust is always important -- but, this is the time when your ego or self should let go of control and allow the surrounding reality to be the word of the day.

Let's not forget what we've learned so far from all this talk about philosophical foundations -- this is what the "get a grip of reality" is all about. Find a solid footing -- these people in the hospital room, what are they trying to gain by pretending? If it's a practical joke, wait until they reveal it's a joke.

I can affirm - from experience - that the worst way to spend your days is as a prisoner of the past. Memories, regrets, victories and defeats. — Gus Lamarch

And battling the future that has yet to arrive -- one can be consumed anticipating the negative things that 'are' coming and thinking of ways to fight them. One could spend hours, days, or weeks thinking of how to deal with "impending" unemployment, for example, the uncertainty of the future, and forgoing the enjoyment of what's happening now, while bills are being paid, rent is secured, house is comfortable, and extra time to enjoy outdoor activities.

There is no cure for negative thoughts -- the best one can do is to let those thoughts go through the process of fermenting and subsiding. They will subside, but at different rates for everyone. Once you emerge from it, you will have a window of clarity and energy afforded to you. This window can last a long time or briefly -- but take advantage of this window to 1. work out or exercise (this is cumulative, like a bank account) 2. eat well ( those times you couldn't eat, you'd feel envious of others who could) 3. study or read up on something 4. earn money.

Why do you post to this forum?

I'm not clear on this -- do you mean the lounge? Cause sometimes I want to connect with posters through their posts on just about anything. I don't always post in the lounge, but I read sometimes.

But if you mean to the philosophy forum, it's cause I'm into philosophy, and this is one way you get to talk about philosophical ideas. I can't go to a market square and stand on concrete and broadcast my philosophical ideas. I'd become a nuisance.

I am a big believer in science communication (as if people arent- see the above questions)- it is important that people just... Understand science. So- political grossness aside- what is the problem? — dan0mac

There is also bias and cultural/environmental background -- no matter how well the communicator of science has laid down the points, the ideas, or the subject matter in every conceivable arrangements of strings of words and sentences; no matter how many authoritative citations and substantiation are put forth for fact-checking and clarification, the targeted audience will misunderstand it. A lot of times it's willful misunderstanding.

Real estate price are the classic way to speculate: if economic activity is going to increase somewhere, it will likely be seen in real estate prices. — ssu

Nice graph!

But okay. We're not in disagreement here.

True, but notice there are indicators as Price to earnings ration, the P/E. — ssu

This is not the only measure. There are ways to look at a new company, for example. Seasonal or cyclical changes can askew the earnings. But, for investors not looking at stock price, but say real estate properties, the criteria are different.

If someone thinks that prices are ALWAYS going up, meaning real prices (not that the currency is losing value), that simply is by any means quite a risky, speculative approach to investing. — ssu

This is just partially correct. You need to also include the fact that speculators ignore the (necessary) market fundamentals responsible for the increase in an asset's value. What supports a continued increase in value besides crossing fingers? One could expect, understandably, the value of an asset to keep going up during the times of sustained profitability, demand, production, and other sound economic conditions. This is not speculative bubble -- this is called sound investing.

Surprise at that extremely improbable fact is wholly justified - and that calls for an explanation. You would immediately suspect that they missed you on purpose, by design."

Anyone want to argue that, in the above scenario, they wouldn't be surprised to find themselves still alive? Or that you wouldn't immediately conclude you survived by design? — RogueAI

I like this little snippet of contemplation.

Though I cannot justify a comparison between the contemplation of the existence of the universe with the contemplation of surviving a firing squad, your calling our attention to our reactions to these scenarios is warranted.

For the firing squad, I'd be shocked if a 100-gun squad missed me, so I could only think it was intentional or, philosophically speaking, by design that I came out alive.

But I think that the astonishment we feel whenever we contemplate the existence of the universe is of a different kind. "Surprised" or shocked wouldn't be the right word, I think. "Wow!" is more like it, or breath-taking, no pun intended. Or even a revelation -- yes, it is more like a realization that it is awesome!

What dont you understand? — schopenhauer1

Oh I understand what you're saying -- I want you to put more effort in giving an account of how pain plays a role in our lives.

For example, can you try to qualify the below statement -- who says they're more fulfilled or complete after experiencing pain? If a physician must suffer all kinds of cancer, headache, broken bones, shattered limbs, and or cracked skull, then she wouldn't be an excellent doctor, would she? She'd be dead, as in rigor mortis.

According to this theory, it has some sort of redemptive quality whereby being exposed to it and overcoming it, one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines. — schopenhauer1

No, actually, pain destroys a lot of people. Abusive parents destroyed a lot of children.

Yep. — schopenhauer1

And what are you saying there? It's not like you're making any more sense than when you started this thread.

And my reply would be the same. — schopenhauer1

Which is this thing below...?

How do you know who or when someone would fall apart prior to their birth? If its about "manning up" then why is thst a value people must be exposed to in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Surely, it doesn't have to be a definite yes or know. Some people fall apart amidst pain and suffering whereas others learn and are transformed. There is also the extent of pain and how much each person can bear and what support the person has. — Jack Cummins

That's why I'm not voting in @schopenhauer1's poll.

The concept of agency explains all that's required of a moral person or society. There shouldn't be a confusion as to the intention, understanding, rationality of a moral agent. I think when we describe a rational agent, we do cover all that's necessary for a moral argument. Otherwise, we need to examine our own understanding of what a moral agent is.

If there's a question as to the person's ignorance that potentially could bring so much destruction to others, then we need to ask why this person's ignorance could bring such devastation results. Is this person irrational, as in, mentally incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions? Then what is his society doing to address it?

While he may not be called immoral, his agency is certainly deficient -- a moral society would want to do something about that.

I'm interested here in how TPF readers, those who really read, handle and manage their book "life." Do you have books? How many? On shelves or stacked on every other horizontal surface? Do you buy books? A lot of books? Or is it the library, school or local? Or a bookstore? — tim wood

I have a small book shelf -- it's filled with books, but small. So I don't have a lot of books-- just a realistic number. But I like all of them. All Philosophy, lol.

I bought them. I used to use the library, but since I've been really busy with work -- and it's mentally exhausting -- I have stopped going to the library. Lately I have been trying to get back to spending time reading in my spare time, but with work, exams, etc., I just couldn't do it on a regular basis. I plan on becoming more involved in Philosophy once I've completed other things.

I am not suggesting that a rock might be conscious of being a rock, that rocks have thoughts, animal-like senses or any such thing. Rocks surely lack the right kind of integration for anything like that. But there could be very simple, poorly integrated experientiality in the matter that makes up rocks. This same matter, when arranged in the right way, might even become capable of reporting experience. — petrichor

When arranged in the "right way", it is no longer a rock. I think we have to be fair when trying to argue for something as commonly understood as consciousness. If we are going to inject new rules to the definition of consciousness, let's clearly say so. Please explain why the current definition of consciousness no longer suffice.

It might be that rather than producing consciousness, brains simply amount to a kind of organization that makes recognizable reports of experience possible. — petrichor

Then the Excel spreadsheet might actually be conscious -- it tells you when your input is invalid, asks you if you want to save it before closing, and provides protection for if you don't want your data to be deleted or changed.

One could also argue from the point of the relativist that the realist has to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. Do they exist out in the universe, or are moral claims tied to some observable entity? Where is the reasoning? — Aleph Numbers

The existence of moral principles is not like proving the existence of physical entities. Obviously, there is a distinction. Some truths can be understood through rational deliberation or meditation. A priori arguments can help with the understanding, and so can empirical ones. But one thing that prevents us from admitting the validity of a universal principle is the constant use of induction or anecdotal accounts of experience, especially in the first person perspective.
I gather that by "demonstrate", you mean to show it in actions or point to some empirical entities. Or do you mean through argumentation, or a question-and-answer that results in either contradiction or validity of one's moral view?

Morality is a social convenience, nothing more. — Roy Davies

So, morality is optional, then?

Excellent point! Nevertheless, word limits do impose a serious constraint on poets. — TheMadFool

Yes, every word counts, and no extraneous effort needed to make them get your point. Same with stand up comedians -- if they need to use more words to make the audience laugh, they've already failed.

He hated poetry and poetry is about saying something that can be said in one sentence in as many a sentences as is possible. — TheMadFool

Unless it's a haiku.

Me: That doesn't make sense. Suppose I want to say something that's going to be 50 seconds long and I do it in small bursts, each 10 seconds long. It doesn't matter that I broke the original message into five 10 second chunks because 10 seconds + 10 seconds + 10 seconds + 10 seconds + 10 seconds = 50 seconds. The total amount of time you'll be listening to me is still 50 seconds. — TheMadFool

59 seconds of voicemail is a bit too long. (you said earlier it's 59 seconds).
That's about a minute. You want to keep it shorter than that. It doesn't matter whether you make small bursts of 10 seconds each. If it's a really close person to you, it wouldn't matter. A good friend or family member would want to hear what you need to say. But anyone less than that, it's too long.

Is there a name for my friend's attitude and his behavior in psychology? Does this attitude/behavior reveal something about the human psyche? — TheMadFool

It reveals something about the state of affairs. With all the competing distractions that we face each day -- whether you're unemployed, stay at home, or a traveler -- our patience, or better yet, our expectation of time of completion has warped beyond belief.