I made that point already, such things matter only if you have to live and there is no have to when it comes to living. — Darkneos

I didnt ask you to make the point, I asked you to expand on the points and specifically:

“What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves?”

They’re not, you’re just not able to engage with them. It’s easier to just dismiss such things rather than wonder why we even bother with them. — Darkneos

You cannot engage with something incoherent, correct. However it is not true that I am being dismissive, I do wonder why people bother. Observe I have not made flowery appeals to lifes beauty etc.
That is because I don’t think those things are inherently good and people are free to place no value on any of that stuff (inner peace, self love, loving others, being part of a community…any of that pro life jibber jab)
Just answer my two questions above if nothing else.

Did you perhaps underestimate how full of shit politicians on BOTH sides really are? I do not know the politics but it seems obvious you were misinformed or lied to about the positions they actually had. I would posit that the only ideology these parties had was staying in power and not what they profess to believe at all but Im quite cynical about politicians.
How common is this sort of reversal in Australia?

To make a case against it you'd have to engage with why living would be preferable when it's not a requirement to be alive. — Darkneos

Why would ice cream be preferable if youre not required to eat it? Why is it preferable to drive your car when you don’t have to drive your car?
These questions don’t need to be engaged with because they are incoherent, and so is your comment above. Once you bring requirement into it you are no longer talking about preferences at all. Incoherent.

There is no reason to do it. Filling life with stuff to do only counts if you have to live and you don't. — Darkneos

You have yet yo explain why, make an argument instead of an assertion. Also, no reason for you doesnt mean no reason for anyone. Obviously plenty of people have found their own reasons reasons.

You didnt answer my other comment:

What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves? — DingoJones

You need to expand on these points youre trying to make if you're actually interested in discussion.

I’ve struggled to find a good argument against suicide that doesn’t involve either nonsense or special pleading to life or hindsight bias.

The way I see it if there is no greater reason to meaning to life then there isn’t really a reason to keep going. Not reason to really struggle and fight for a place in the world. No reason to really pursue anything. One can just end their life and be done with the pursuit and struggle. — Darkneos

What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves?

To me arguments for staying alive or for meaning only work if you HAVE to live. Filling life with good things, doing what you love, all that junk only has logical weight if one is unable to die until a set time. Baring that I see no reason for living. Desire for pleasures only applies if you are alive, if you die there is no need for any of that. Same with love, friendship, food, money, etc. — Darkneos

Huh? Nothing in life matters because you will die and when youre dead nothing in life matters? Is that what you are saying? If so, why wouldn't the life stuff matter while youre alive?

Why should one do that which is good? No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. Please input into this conversation with your own takes. — Hyper

What we “ought” to do depends on the goal. “Ought” doesnt exist by itself, it is incoherent to posit what we “ought” to do without also positing a goal.
So to your question, if being good is your goal then you ought to do good things. If being good is not your goal, then naturally you will ignore what you “ought” to be doing in order to be good.
Is the goal an orderly society? The maximum well being for the most amount of people? The “ought” to be good is justified by its usefulness or necessitation to the goal.

No doubt? How can you have no doubt without seeing me attempt to argue? Tuck in your shirt, your arrogance is showing.

Kudos for recognizing a kindred spirit.

The value of those policies is monetary, in service to the military industrial complex (MIC). The fantasy held by people not directly involved in the service to MIC is a result of successful propaganda disguised, among other things, as nationalism or patriotism.

Philosophy pants :lol:

That one made me laugh.

f you had to choose between saving a fertility clinic where a million (or a billion or a trillion) zygotes are stored or saving an orphanage where a dozen kids are trapped in the burning building, do you really have to think about — RogueAI

A very clarifying question as to the value of each. Wouldnt the one saving the zygotes instead of the children be a moral monster?
Nice one RogueAI. :up:

Metaphysically necessary means that everything is contingent on it, which makes it omnipotent. A metaphysically necessary entity is non-contingent, which means it is eternal. Denying or disbelieving in those of those means rationally having the same attitude toward metaphysical necessity because they are mutually inclusive. — Hallucinogen

None of that is definitive of atheism. Atheism is the rejection of theism.
No sense in repeating ourselves. I think you’re missing a logical fallacy that you are making as indicated below. Im sure it has a name.

No, it is not just like that. The concept of a German Shepherd neither implies, nor is mutually inclusive with, your specific dog. — Hallucinogen

The logical fallacy you are making is just like that.
Obviously your intended point isnt going to be fallacious, you just committed the act while making your point.
Maybe its a poor analogy, thankfully what I said above (my previously quote and response in this message) applies regardless.
Youre just not talking about atheism.

Atheism involves disbelief in, and/or denial of, a necessary being, because metaphysical necessity is a defining feature of an omnipotent, eternal creator. — Hallucinogen

I believe you are mistaken. Atheism involves not believing in or the denial of an omni potent, eternal creator as defined in theism. Atheism is not about a necassary being just becuase that is an attribute of the omnipotent eternal creator (as defined by theism). Just like my poem
about my dog is not a poem about a german shepard even though a german shepard and a husky are both dogs. If I had a husky, or a poem about it.

And you read my response to it, hopefully? To deny theism is to deny a necessary entity, which entails a contradiction. Rejecting theism but not nontheism doesn't mean not rejecting theism... it's still rejecting theism. Get it? — Hallucinogen

Its not though. A necassary entity, on its own, has nothing to do with atheism. Sorry to say sir, but you are trying to use language to smuggle in your argument here. Though often overused I believe the term is “strawmanning”. Your argument is based on a strawman atheism.

Apologies I musta hit a wrong button. I meant to address Hall.

The point is that denial of a necessary entity entails a contradiction. — Hallucinogen

No, the point is that your “contradiction” has nothing to do with atheism. Even if one concedes a necessary entity (note it doesn't have to be an entity at all.) you still have said nothing about a contradiction in atheism.
180 Proof even said it plainly but you still missed the point entirely.
You have to deal with this:

Lastly, atheism denotes rejection of theism (i.e. theistic conceptions) but not any nontheisms (e.g. animism ... pandeism, acosmism). — 180 Proof

Because it renders everything else in your argument powerless.

How would we be able to determine intelligent life existed pre big bang?

He should be banned for that deception imo
That is the act of a bad faith actor who is trying to game this forum and undermine/repurpose it.

Yes, the U.S. treated Native Americans horribly. Does that mean that Native American tribes would be justified killing civilians and/or American soldiers in an armed uprising? Suppose Cherokee Nation pulled off an attack similar to 9/11. What should the American response be? — RogueAI

Thats a great point, but the situation is a bit different in that the people responsible with Israel and Palestine are still around. The conflict is so much more recent, living memory for many. That means there is a somewhat more tangible connection to retributive strikes imo.

Do you know any racists? I bet you do. So do I. So does everyone here. That suggests it's systemic, no? — RogueAI

Or that that the term “racist” is being too liberally applied.

No, it would mean that art is subject to misjudgment and misunderstanding just like all other type of human communication. — T Clark

Ok, but then you are saying getting something from art not intended (communicated) by the artist is essentially incorrect.
“Your doing it wrong! Its a happy painting not a calm one you fool!”
This is a very restrictive way to define art isn't it? Im not saying thats bad, just clarifying.

Communication can be and often is a back and forth between people, but it doesn't have to be and often isn't. The user's manual for my new CO meter is a one way communication unless I have questions and contact the customer service line. — T Clark

Fair enough, I retract my suggestion.

My apologies for misinterpreting your post.

I agree with what Angelo Cannata wrote - "The essence of art is human inner experience that is communicated." It's communication from one person to another. What happens when there is no actual experience being communicated? — T Clark

Not sure I can agree with that. Wouldnt that mean that getting a different experience from what the artist is communicating is impossible? That is, if art is only communicating experience of the artist then when someone gets a different experience (a different emotion for example) then we couldn't call it art.
Also, an AI may not have an intent like a human but they can still make art intended to provoke an experience. For example if you ask it to draw something scary it will reference what images scare humans and generate an image based on that. I would argue that there is no real difference other than where the “experience” is coming from. Again, I think if you cannot tell the difference in a blind test between AI art and human art then you can’t rationally say something is missing from the AI generated image.
Also, “communication” might not be the right word. That implies a two way exchange in my mind. Isnt art more provoking a response than communicating something?

Sure, but the whole process is brand new and seems to be changing very fast. What comes next? — T Clark

My guess is AI will keep mastering things, eventually robotics will catch up and we get robot servants who can do everything for us. How that effects our civilization…should be interesting.
As for the kind of AI that kills us? My guess is we will create it by accident, a result of accumulated knowledge and stored information becoming memory before becoming consciousness. We won’t know until the AI does whatever it ends up wanting to do. Best case for us is it just leaves its insignificant creators behind.

This brings up a question that has been discussed previously here on the forum - How important is technical mastery in the production of art. I've gone back and forth about it, but at some level it seems clear to me that the technical limits imposed by the form of art are the framework, the superstructure, that artists work with to communicate with their audience. What happens when technical mastery of any sort is no longer needed? It seems to me we're left with little more than paint-by-numbers. — T Clark

I think sufficiently advanced paint by numbers will be indistinguishable from any art humans can create. Human art will change, my guess is it will blend with science and scientists will be the new artists. Once we can do anything, there will be artistry in the choices in how to do it.

That kind of subjective free for all stains real art, diminishes it imo. A pretentious and self indulgent game of “make believe” that the bored participate in so they feel elite without having to actually earn it. A game of false status. Its why its so easy to trick that world (the wine world is like this too), its easiest to be a poser amongst other posers.
I know thats a bit scathing but setting the bar so low a painting could be “just as good” if it was accidentally hung upside down is just jerking off in public aa far as im concerned. Its a vulgar insult to artists who actually strive for meaning in their work.

I wonder where there will be room for humanity when it's all over. — T Clark

These AI art and writing programs are nowhere close to the kind of AI that would represent a threat to humanity, if thats what you mean.
As for art, I think commercially human art will be a pale shadow to AI commercial art but the human desire to create art will never really die.
Something else to consider is a human artist using AI like any other tool (pencil, straight edges, paint brush, various canvas types etc) to create works of art they could only imagine doing before. The scope and scale of a project skyrockets with a good AI to handle key components of an overall greater work of art, for example adding a microscopic or very small perspective image so that the paintings primary object has less of that hollowness you mentioned. The observer of the art will be experiencing a richness they cannot even detect with their naked eye.

First test would be to see if you can tell the difference between AI art and human art. If you cannot, that would imply the “hollowness” exists in your mind and not the artwork.
Also the lack of pornography is built in. There are ways around it but the programs mostly resist nudity. AI sucks at drawing humans touching as well.
The reason it ignores portions of the prompt used is usually because the latter portions of the prompt are pre-empted by the random generation of previous portions of the prompt.
Lastly, it is only a matter of time (short time) before most commercial art is AI generated. Book covers and the like are getting easier and easier for AI to get right.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's logically unsound. — Moliere

Well, it’s circular. Thats a fallacy if logic so i think logically unsound fits unless Im missing something.

Dialogue is a part of philosophy because there's always been this call and response, or back and forth, between those we consider philosophers. — Moliere

I’m desperate to understand what I’m missing here.
Im not saying dialogue isnt a part of philosophy, Im saying that it isnt a necessary part of philosophy. I could even agree that dialogue is necessary for the best philosophy but to me its very clear that some philosophizing can and does happen without dialogue.
Look above for the absurdities that come with the position that philosophy requires dialogue. And what do we gain in return for this concession to absurdity? I don’t see a single thing, and I do not mean we gain nothing from dialogue I mean we gain nothing by making dialogue a prerequisite to philosophy.

Whether you buy it or not is completely irrelevant. — Tobias

Not if your are trying to convince me. You aren’t making an argument, you are asserting something about philosophy: that its defined by dialogue. So that would mean that no matter the philosophical brilliance a solitary person has they aren’t doing philosophy if no ones there to dialogue with. That doesnt make sense.

My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue but not that every dialogue is philosophy. Your objection is logically unsound. Your apology is conceited because it is not meant. — Tobias

Logically unsound in what way. Not wrong, you arent saying Im wrong you are saying what I said is not logically sound. Point out to me where ive been logically unsound.
Also, get your head out of your ass, youre not a mind reader. Me saying “sorry” was a sincere way of trying to tell you I was not convinced. And what do you think “conceited” means? Please explain this bizarre relation between conceit and insincerity.

This is a good example. In this particular example both are not yet philosophy, because just asking a philosophical question does not make you engage in the discipline of philosophy. However the first sentence is at least on the way. Roger will give an answer, something in the vein of "hey I do not know, what do you think?" Then the person asking the question must make her position explicit and articulate the reasons and arguments for taking that position. Since philosophy is an argumentative practice we are at least getting somewhere. Ruminations that just run around in someone's mind are not philosophy, only arguments are because they can be countered by other arguments. — Tobias

You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.
You can ask yourself questions, and answer them.

Ok, let me try one last time.
Larry contemplates the matter of free will and comes up with some really interesting answers, his answers consider angles no one else on earth thought of.
Not philosophy.
Some clueless moron walks in and makes a bunch of bad arguments and asks Larry questions and dialogues with him. Now it’s philosophy?
Or even just some guy comes in and dialogues with Larry and Larry just keeps saying “I know, I thought of that already, I wrote it down, see?” Over and over and over again thats philosophy but it wasnt when Larry came up with the stuff on his own?
These are the absurdities you commit yourself to when you have the position that philosophy requires dialogue.
And again, all you have done is describe dialogue and call it philosophy as an argument that philosophy requires dialogue. That is a pretty basic breach of logic, you must have come up with it all by your lonesome cuz its surely not philosophy. :wink:
Larry the brilliant thinker comes out of his cave with a treatise on ethics and runs into Bob who has the exact same treatise (it can even be vastly inferior in your mad world) and so Larry gets excited and exclaims
“neat, we both philosophized the same thing! What are the odds?!”
And Bob says
“oh no Larry you knucklehead, what you did isnt philosophy. I did philosophy, not you”
So Larry says
“…but they are the exact same…?”
And Bob says
“Yes they are, but I talked to Ralph about mine.”

That last line of Bobs is a punchline, because the claim dialogue is necessary to do philosophy is a joke.

If you respond to anything in this post, please start with this:

“You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.”

If you can’t address this then I don’t think anything else needs be discussed. Thank you for your time though, and thats a sincere thank you just in vase you're tempted to use your unreliable mind reading powers again.

Ya and if someone else comes in and starts dialogue it becomes philosophy instead? Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Not buying it.

Ok, so you are saying its necessary now. So if I am sitting in a cave by myself contemplating whether or not I have free will…im not doing philosophy? Sorry, I just don’t buy that. Its the exact same thing but just by yourself.
It seems like a totally unnecessary distinction to make and I don’t understand what purpose is served by restricting philosophy to its social aspects. Thanks for taking the time though.

I think Banno is right in that there is something social to philosophy. "Inherent" is good enough for me, but I wouldn't say "necessary at all times". There are times we aren't together, that we think thoughts -- but to make it philosophy I think I'm still on the "gotta present it to others" track. Or, maybe there are some who are just that good, but there is definitely a huge benefit to being a part of a community for growth and knowledge.

Take @Tobias point that eventually you should find a mentor. Isn't that a social relationships there? I don't know if it's necessary, but I can say I've had more than one mentor with respect to philosophy and it's always helped me. That community part of philosophy is a big part of growth, though of course we're supposed to be able to think on our own too. — Moliere

I agree that it is highly useful, perhaps the best way to do philosophy and of course exposure to the ideas of others is invaluable but it seems very strange to say those things are necessary for philosophy. Like, “hey Roger, do you think we have free will” is philosophy, but “hmmm, I wonder if we have free will” isnt? Huh?
I understand that was Bannos claim not yours, but we kind of started there so…ya.

Ok, I see. You agree with my conclusion but not my example? Is that right?

Spirituality. — Moliere

Nope, you added to what I said in order to apply spirituality. I didnt specify “within their respective religious practices”, you added that after the fact as an ad hoc support for your “spirituality” answer.
To repeat my question:

Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then? — DingoJones

Make it just a guy instead of yogis and gurus if its easier, that way your not tempted to reference the “spirituality” those folk practice in addition to any philosophizing they might do. [

quote="Moliere;831440"]That is -- there's the public side of philosophy that would bring back our worshipers and spiritual reveries to the people we live around who we then would engage in dialogue about the answers we might have found to those questions.[/quote]

The “public side”? Whats the other side, the not public one? Isnt that exactly what Im talking about re the guy in a cave contemplating life and the universe?

You think Descartes lived in a cave? He corresponded with the greatest minds out there. I agree with Banno that philosophy is social. All those ruminations of Descartes drinking his cognac in front of the fireplace starting to doubt stuff i — Tobias

I thought he did his meditations alone in a cave. I blame Trump for my mistake.
The point being, one can engage in philosophy alone. Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then?

Sure, it’s both imo. If it’s both, neither can be inherent to philosophy since the two are mutually exclusive. Obviously there are different ideas about what philosophy is but one that says its defined by (inherent) talking or not talking to people is very strange.

Speaking alone is still speaking. Philosophy might differ when its in solitude but I dont see how it would cease to exist.

Not what I said at all, but you know that. Is there just no more chance of you and i having an actual exchange? Remember? Im a human being? In your world doesnt that at least deserve the courtesy of telling me to *insert Banno speak for fuckoff*? I mean, I would respect your wishes and leave you be. If not, engage. Maybe it’ll be worthwhile.

Oh come on. Lol
Is sociality really inherent to philosophy if it can be done alone? Maybe we are using “inherent” differently?

Reading is a form of dialogue. — Quixodian

Its by definition not a form of dialogue, not in the sense of a philosophical dialogue anyway.

Philosophy involves dialogue. It's inherently social in a way not captured by your four points. — Banno

Descarte wasnt doing philosophy in his solitary meditations? When you say “inherent”, wouldnt that make it a pre requisite for philosophy? So what was Decarte doing in his cave, if not some kind of philosophy?