I don't think we're like this because we're a benevolent species, I think it's perhaps because people instinctively or subconsciously see merit in being seen as a caring, dependable team player. Or is it just because people who think collaboratively gravitate towards philosophy in the first place? — Judaka

I'd assume its because the human species is collaborative by its nature, and species that work together soon overcome species that work individually. Idiot humans who are brainwashed into believing they are all-important 'individuals' are a bit like fleas perhaps?

As Camus famously put it: "“There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy." the question of life's worth and suicide has been going around my mind for months now.
Do you think that life is worth living? And if so, what fuels that belief?
And what would your reaction be if on your commute you saw someone on the verge of taking their life by jumping off a bridge? — Rhasta1

I very much doubt that philosophical discussion ever decided anyone's view on suicide. It never came up much when I was a Samaritan, whatever. I certainly came to believe that only a very small minority didn't feel very different given a chance to talk about it, though I've known friends make a purely rational decision, when terminally ill, to be off to Switzerand, not needing discussion. On the whole, I think life is worth living if somebody cares whether you live or die. If in serious doubt, ring the Sams, though they won't discuss philosophy much!

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that robots are better than humans? This is such a wonderful subject it deserves its own thread. Why would a robot care about anything? — Athena

Robots will be what we decide to make them, I suppose, and might survive the capitalist world-burning. After the latest British and American elections I'd need a lot more than some programme to sell me on the current species. The majority are now endlessly manipulable, I'd say, and the system will manipulate them to the end.

I think that is a wrong assumption. Only if we value a study of history do we keep ourselves as informed as we need to be. Unfortunately, with education for technology came disrespect of the elders because today we so much smarter than older people. Like every generation, our young think they are smarter only unlike previous generations we have turned the young against their elders in favor of faith in technology.

Unfortunately, I have a college education and burn with resentment towards some of my professors. Had I been young I would not have known better than to sit in awe of them. As an older student, I was often horrified by what they said. Not only do some of them insist information for papers be from the abstracts, but it must also be less than 10 years old. With this mentality, our university government document library emptied its shelves of the books recording government documents. Today no one can find information without knowing exactly what to look for and depending on a librarian to retrieve that information that is electronically stored. No more sitting with the old books and discovering what is in them. This is like blinding the whole population! I am horrified by what has been done. Information today is as controlled as when the Church had power. It is just a different set of people controlling it.

May all those who remember when things different raise their hand. — Athena

Well, the last few generations of Elders, having left us up Shit Creek without a paddle, seem to me to deserve about as much respect as some Chinese geese we once had to keep the lawn down - we lost track of them in the grass! I think that we need to distinguish very clearly between the material of history and the other subjects and those who have control of education. When I was a kid in the Rhondda, after what had been done to our people, about the only person we respected was Paul Robeson, and when I was in Cambridge about the only person I respected was Leavis, the great critic, who didn't much respect anyone else. It was a place full of rich snobs from public (your private?) schools, many on closed scholarships, and I was in perhaps the worst of all the colleges in that respect, so my reactions were just boredom and contempt. Isn't the stuff you are talking about available on the internet? An amazing amount of material does seem to be. I'm not unsympathetic with your views, but I feel that each generation is now adapted to the technology it is supposed it will be living with, and it cuts down on generational contacts, because capitalism will see to it that technology goes on developing fast. Wouldn't designing humanoid robots and bowing out with dignity be a preferable approach?

I am excited about reading your explanation of that statement. — Athena

Well, I assume we write into the basic programme the ability to change in response to changing conditions. It is, after all, how our own evolution worked, and well within current possibilities, surely?

Freud's nephew moved to America and began the total manipulation of the mugs, which grew and grew to near-perfection long since.. Now the internet sees to it that none of them ever hear or see anything they don't already believe as a result of that manipulation.. How can you have democracy under such conditions?

Excuse me but I must disagree with you. Not only do I find little value in life without humans, but robots also demand finite resources. A problem with electric cars is the finite resources required for their batteries. But what if we are God's consciousness? Can that be transferred to a robot? I don't think so.
And our planet sure does not need robots to preserve life. But many ancient cultures thought it was man's purpose to help nature. Too bad we don't live with that belief today. — Athena

The problem is not resources but capitalism, which is burning up the world. It's my own notion that it is probably an inevitable evolutionary development, the reason no-one has ever contacted us - they're all ashes. I suppose some sort of 'natural' life may evolve to live in the heat, but so what? We'd have more in common with robots we ourselves had developed, I think. We have all the possible historical beliefs to prevent destruction available to us, but unfortunately we live in a system dedicated to immediate profit whatever the cost. I wish we didn't.

Athena - I was talking about the way death is made into a big deal. I suppose my notions are loosely based on the Buddhism I learned when I was fourteen, doubtless very limited, but fundamentally I think that if we believe in these imaginarily consistent 'selves' suggested by grammar we shall always be in some sort of emotional muddle.

Robots just don't fit into my fantasy of what is valuable. I am old and as far as I am concerned if humans do not thrive, nothing matters. I care as much about robots outsurviving humans as I care about my shoe existing a hundred years from now. — Athena

Well. flesh-and-blood humans aren't, I think, likely to survive the capitalist climate Gotterdammerung, so if we want something to survive, robots seem the best bet, if we create them such that they evolve.

Good grief, I associate death with loss. I suffered the loss of my mother when she died, and I don't even want to think of the loss of a son or daughter or one of their children. I am sure my life is of no value to people in this forum, but I think it has an important value to those I am close to. Growing up without a mother or father can be very painful. Losing a sibling can throw the whole family into grief and radically change the trajectory of one's life. Death is about being human and our relationships, and that is a little more just our individuality. — Athena

All true to experience ... BUT it all depends on certain assumptions based on language I think. What is this individuality based on except the noise 'I'? Once accepted, the concept suggests all sorts of pain.

↪iolo I agree in terms of civilisation, but a few humans will survive like they did last time and the time before that etc.. ( we can say how many times, but I expect more than historians think). This trick is to somehow pass some knowledge on to the survivors to help them along, so they don't have to go right back to the Stone Age and start all over again. — Punshhh

It's conceivable, but there would need to be some big evolutionary changes. Wouldn't it be better to be developing successor-robots now? They'd last better, and there might be some profit in them.

For my money, the species has done for itself. Let's hope it's quick. Do people think it matters much?

It seems to me, on a very basic point, that an economic/political system based entirely on immediate profit simply can't suddenly remake itself to take in long-term interest, especially where those who profit by the system can so immediately control the minds of voters, buying the services of those how to do it.

Isn't death only a problem for those who accept the heavy promptings of language to believe intermittent and shifting consciousness 'is' 'an individual'?

Everything, surely, depends on who owns the robots? Will it be those who currently do the work or those who profit by it. I think we know the answer to that one.

Meaning of life? At some point that 'we' can't remember a sort of consciousness aparently began and after a while 'we' were trained in a language which assured 'us' that 'we' were something known as individuals and that this was of huge importance. After a 'life' or various lengths of time this consciousness apparently stops. It is all deeply 'meaningful', some say. Others tell the truth. :)

They can get rid of me when they please. I've been here a long time, and it's getting worse by the day.

We'll have to make it up as we go along, doubtless. I'm no utopian bossman.

If you keep capitalism there is no point in bothering with a 'society' at all, surely? It is just a looting-machine, and we shall only get shot of it by learning to combine together like sensible people instead.

Fair enough. I once taught English and I'm relaxing! :)

I'm afraid that is total rubbish. The main thing is to stop believing such arrant nonsense and learn to co-operate with all the other people.

We haven't got many more days or nights if we keep your rulers and their system, have we? 100 years' worth, if we are VERY lucky.

The point is that all forms of government stink. That's why anarchism exists. Do vote for whomever you please, if that's the way you like to pass the time: it will have very little influence on your capitalist masters. Churchill was the gangster who sent troops to Pontypridd in 1910, to scare the most Liberal working-class seat in Britain. That's why his Liberal Party soon disappeared as a serious force - they demonstrated just how much capitalist democracy was worth.

Anarchy is an attempt to get bullying clowns off our backs. Governments are systems for allowing bullying and exploitation. There are further - economic - questions about how such idiocies could have developed, but I stick to the obvious.

If we have the sense to create robots that carry forward enough of our characteristics to count, perhaps, but they better get on with it. Asbestos robots, I suppose.

The point about Anarchy is that it is hard to achieve, and people are too easily persuaded into striking prematurely.. Compete disbelief in the bosses' propaganda is an essential start.

If I agree then I'm not obeying anything - I'm doing what I choose. What society are you talking about? Capitalism? The English occupiers here? It is easier to grin and bear this silliness, but I certainly don't 'obey' these clowns. In schools they used to teach you to respect them by hitting you on the arse with sticks. Happy days! I just developed a tough arse, and they couldn't kick me out because they wanted an Oxbridge scholarship out of me! :)

'Obey' is what you do when you allow someone to treat you as a trained dog. I'm not one of those. If they want me to obey, they'll need someone standing over me with a rifle all day, and there's no profit in that, or in shooting me. Why give inadequates power over you unless you have to?

I don't 'obey' anything - I observe rules I think sensible.

No - capitalism never solves problems except incidentally, surely? It exists to make money NOW, not to worry whether the planet is here tomorrow.

I'm baffled. Why should I obey anyone?

Never ever volunteer, never rush to obey the bosses, always express extreme scepticism, make fun of the mugs who believe in the system - stuff like that.

It doesn't need much philosophy, surely? We are going to destroy our species quite soon by altering the climate to keep capitalism. The majority of people, for reasons not clear to me, prefer to stay alive.
What's the problem?

Experience, especially in the Ukraine and in Spain, seems to show that anarchy is impossible to achieve without an organised political party to hold people together and teach them about the past, but such parties either fail or turn deeply authoritarian in revolutionary crises. If you just stop obeying on a mass scale, they send in the bully-boys to kill a few of you and frighten the others. There seems to be a similar personal development over time - the two keenest anarchists I've known are appallingly authoritarian figures. Obviously, any kind of power of one person over others is obnoxious, but the best answer seems to be to co-operate as little as possible, always. Italy seems to me rather good at this, despite everything that has happened there.

It is a linguistic problem, I suppose. The language s we inherit from our distant forebears require an 'I', and we assume it must stand for something. None of it makes any sense whatever as far as I can see.

2.5k

Re: Can you trust your own mind?

What is the "you" that is being referred to in this sentence? Is the mind something that is separate from the "you", and is something that the "you" owns? — Harry Hindu

I took it to mean 'perceptions and conclusions'. People can clearly see and hear things that aren't, for the rest of us, there at all. We must assume we need confirmation for our world-view, I suppose.

Surely the only way we can, or ever could. live is by provisional hypotheses and habit? If our minds aren't in reasonably reliable contact with the world, what answer but treatment or suicide?

If only the issue hadn't got mixed up with American imperialism. It's more and more like the Cold War, alas!

That sounds a bit unfair. As the junior partners in the coalition govt the Lib Dems could not hope to get all their manifesto pledges into the joint policy agreement. As the Tories did not like the scrapping of tuition fees it was axed. Being the govt they were then obliged to vote with the Tories on the subject. I have thought the Lib Dems were unfairly lambasted for this 'breaking of a pledge' ever since. Maybe people in the UK need to learn how coalition govts work. — Tim3003

Why? If they'd given a personal pledge, they shouldn't have put the tories in power to do something else, surely? They were backing them because they chose to.

Remember the Liberals' 'personal pledge' to save student grants? Reactionary 'honesty' can 'prove successful' only if backed by total lies, surely?