It's only the lives of people who don't matter. And besides, they brought it on themselves. — S

Oh no. Don't go there. I wanna keep my smiley face on. I like the Happy Lounge :party:

We'll do the burning part, but forget about starting afresh. — S

Hmmmm. Are we talking about end of life now ? This could get serious. Watch out.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar is a book where the moral of the story is to eat and eat and eat and just keep on eating until you're obese enough to turn into a beautiful butterfly. This sends the wrong message, and has lead to the obesity crisis we now find ourselves in. Instead of lots of beautiful butterflies, we just have lots of ugly fat people.

Because of this, all copies of the book should be burnt, along with all fat people. Then we can start afresh. — S

:smile:
I feel deprived and cheated. I never read the Hungry Caterpillar :sad:
I like what wiki tells me about it:
" One Sunday morning, a caterpillar hatches from an egg. He is known as the Very Hungry Caterpillar, who loves eating, and so he begins to look for some food. He eats through increasing quantities of fruit on the following 5 days. First it's one apple on Monday, then two pears on Tuesday, three plums on Wednesday, four strawberries on Thursday, and finally, five oranges on Friday. On Saturday, he eats an enormous amount of food. He eats through one piece of chocolate cake, one ice-cream cone, one pickle, one slice of Swiss cheese, one slice of salami, one lollipop, one piece of cherry pie, one sausage, one cupcake, and one slice of watermelon. Then that night, he gets a pain in his stomach from over overeating (from all of those 6 days; Monday through Saturday). But the next morning, it becomes Sunday again. The caterpillar becomes much better after he eats one green leaf. Finally, he's neither hungry nor little. He was a super big fat caterpillar. The caterpillar spins a cocoon around himself. There, inside he sleeps in it for 2 weeks. Later, the caterpillar emerges as a butterfly with large, gorgeous, multi-coloured wings."

I like the idea of sleeping in a cocoon for 2 weeks. Effortless change.
Yeah, sends the wrong message laziness and overindulging 》 beauty.
But wait...he became better after eating one green leaf. Ah...on a Sunday too...
Hmmmm...

The butterfly symbol of resurrection ?
Or simply change.
Burn and start again ?
No. Don't do it. Let it be :sparkle:

I don't feel as though my response to my socio-cultural concept of what constitutes happiness is conducive towards the supreme philosophical goal of eudaimonia. — Wallows

You need to clarify what you mean by:

1. A 'socio-cultural concept of what constitutes Happiness'
2. Eudaemonia

Also, explain why your response to 1. would not be conducive to 2.

There have been quite a few discussions on Happiness already.
Baden recently was on the lookout for one of quality. Here in this brainstorming exercise on what a discussion on Happiness might look like:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/251523

Baden defined Happiness as:

Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.

Further questions:
Is it best to focus on only one or two aspects ? Hence the need for a focused title and OP.
How would you start? What were the influences which moved you to your destination ?— Amity

Baden's response:
If I were to write the OP, I would probably set it up as an exploration of what happiness is in a very general sense first then focus in on specific examples or experience as they become relevant in the progress of the discussion. But I wouldn't want to make it about my biography.  :monkey:

Follow up : if your definition was used to start an exploration in a very general sense, then hopefully that would inspire specific examples. Either from posters' life experience or particular philosophy/ philosophers.
What do you think ?— Amity

Baden was:
All for it.  :up:

Unfortunately, this didn't happen. Perhaps too demanding of time and energy for a would-be leader of a potential quality discussion.

I hope this one succeeds where others have apparently failed to live up to Baden's or forum requirements or standards.

Sorry, my mind has been preoccupied with some dumb shit. Personally, I've been enjoying the dialogue between Pussycat and Fooloso4. I'm not an expert on Wittgenstein, and anyone who claims that they are, are likely full of shit. So, I don't know what issues I should intervene.

I'll try and keep a more watchful eye out for the sake of this thread.

I must admit though, that my interest in philosophy has been lackluster as of late. Ehh. — Wallows

Understood. Dealing with real life issues takes priority over any philosophy forum input.
However, sometimes - as you know - forums can be a positive distraction, and way to connect with people who share same interest or fascination.
Other times, we need to get out of our own way !

Clearly the dialogue between Pussycat and Fooloso4 has been of benefit. Thanks to both. It has drawn out their respective enthusiasm and interpretation of this text. However, there has also been a straining of patience as described above.

We are all here to learn or share philosophical understandings; it is good when we can acknowledge both similarities and differences, don't you think ?

Life is difficult enough at times. And this is where being good to yourself comes in.
If reading a philosophy text or two ain't doing it for you, then use your own best way of thinking to try and lighten the load.
Sticking labels like failed Stoic or Cynic, misanthropist, on your head - how helpful is that ?

Please don't feel you have to 'watch out for the sake of the thread'. That's minor. But perhaps it might help not to have it as an Ongoing project. Rather have a timely conclusion ? That way it is less of a burden ?

Philosophy isn't just for Christmas. Or an academic term. Or about arguing the toss about what some old or dead white guy said, or didn't say. It's a way of life which at its best helps in thinking clearly and putting things into perspective. At least, those are my thoughts this morning.

Thanks to you, and others, for providing some inspiration and humour along the way.

I have no idea what you are trying to get at. I see no indication that you were using the word ironically. What I saw was you falsely accusing me of getting ahead of myself and improvising, and using that as your defense for ignoring what the text actually says and making unfounded claims. The rest of the paragraph might be your idea of improvising, but it is meaningless. It is like someone who does not understand the music getting up at a jam session and making noise, with no regard to the form or melody of the song. — Fooloso4

Yup. Your patience must be wearing thin. All this din.

This was a direct quote from the lecture. Are you saying that Wittgenstein was deceived in believing that certain experiences have supernatural value? Or are you still accusing me of not understanding him?
— Fooloso4

Accuse is a bit harsh for a choice of words, but yes, I am saying that you don't understand him. "should seem to have" is not the same as "has", I wonder how and why you don't see that. — Pussycat

Fooloso4 chooses his words carefully; it is not harsh to use the word 'accusing'. For that is what it is.
It is a continuation of your personal false allegations you made about him previously.
That much is clear.

Also clear is that you are right. The phrase 'should seem to have' is not the same as 'has'.

Fooloso4 in his understanding of Wittgenstein would probably point out that the reason why Wittgenstein said:  "should seem to have" is because that refers to how things are to Wittgenstein.

If Wittgensteun used "has" he would be making a factual claim, and he rejects factual claims about ethics.

At least that is what I have gleaned so far. From listening...to Fooloso4.
Of course, I stand ready to be corrected...as always.

So, given my adoration for the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, I was wondering if anyone is interested in participating in a reading group of it.
The text is available in a very nice and convenient format online, which can be found here.
It's fairly short and not too burdensome. — Wallows

Wallows, this is your thread, your discussion, started 9 months ago with so much promise.
What happened ?

Given recent exchanges, it seems that the aim has changed to a matter of whim for anyone who wants to join in. Questions apparently to be answered by a nebulous 'we'. There is no group as such. No leader taking responsibility.

It is unfortunate that there is little to no acknowledgement of interventions by e.g. Luke who pointed out an error in your understanding of Wittgenstein. Instead of showing any degree of comprehension, you deployed your customary strategy of deflection by question. Or, elsewhere, the use of special pleading of being 'slow'. Even when patience has been bestowed, there is little indication of follow-up understanding.

Clearly, this discussion can go on and on. After all, the title includes the word 'Ongoing'.
However, there are limits to time, energy and patience supplied so far by Fooloso4, to name but one along the way. He has worked systematically and also dealt with false allegations and more with an unbelievable generosity of spirit.

The poster Pussycat has repeatedly challenged him. Fair enough. However, each time he provides the answer it is ignored, there is a move to something else. It is not clear whethet his careful responses are getting through or whether there is a better understanding of the text.
After all that is what is important, no ?

The latest offering by Pussycat takes the discussion to a new low.
Is it now about improvising as you go...?
A serious text discussion now reframed as The Never-ending Witterings of Wallows and Co.

Can't deal with a few daily reminders as mental preparation. Too much disturbance. Diddums. :brow:
— Amity

I don't wanna! Overcome that! — Wallows

Understood.

From: https://donaldrobertson.name/2012/12/20/the-serenity-prayer-and-stoicism/

" The most fundamental principle of Stoic psychotherapy can be found in the very first sentence of the famous Enchiridion or Stoic “handbook” of Epictetus: “Some things are up to us and others are not.” The importance of this maxim and the wider implications of absorbing its meaning and implications are explored in detail throughout the ancient Stoic literature...

...Epictetus attempts to sum up these notions in a laconic maxim of the kind which the Stoics meant to be easy to memorise and constantly “ready to hand”.

What, then, is to be done?  To make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it naturally happens. (Discourses, 1.1.17)

The basis of the Serenity Prayer:

"God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

...when should you give up trying? What if, for example, you had spent hours and hours of your own time, without pay? — S

A bit like 'voluntary discomfort' ?
Time, patience and energy spent to seeming no avail. But other people might just be following the discussion and get something from it. Including yourself.

You can give up any time. When you've had enough. Or realise that the pattern of behaviour is unlikely to change.
A matter of judgement.
But you know that, doncha ? Were you just letting off steam ?
Peace :pray:
Joy :sparkle:
and Love :love:

Dashing away... — Wallows

Can't deal with a few daily reminders as mental preparation. Too much disturbance. Diddums. :brow:

Useful Resources:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epictetus/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/seneca/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcus-aurelius/

What are your thoughts about willingly sacrificing your peace of mind in the name of the good, and how important is it?
— Wallows

What do you mean by 'peace of mind' and how is it being sacrificed ?
What do you mean by 'in the name of the good' ? — Amity

I feel as though the point I am trying to make is that people tend to prefer the path of least resistance. It's dangerously easy to indulge in pleasure. People don't like being told what they are doing is wrong or not right — Wallows

This doesn't reallly answer my question. What is 'peace of mind' and how is it being sacrificed ? Your original 'willingly' seems to refer back to the 'voluntary discomfort' of your title. It is important to clarify what is meant by 'peace of mind'.

Since it seems to be the goal of Stoicism to cultivate and achieve this, why do you see it as something to be sacrificed ? And willingly. This isn't the purpose of the 'voluntary discomfort' exercise. Perhaps it would be good to revisit the OP and give references; the source of this 'concept you introduced and how you used it.

From: https://theconversation.com/want-to-be-happy-then-live-like-a-stoic-for-a-week-103117
" Stoicism holds that the key to a good, happy life is the cultivation of an excellent mental state, which the Stoics identified with virtue and being rational. The ideal life is one that is in harmony with Nature, of which we are all part, and an attitude of calm indifference towards external events."

As to doing it 'in the name of the good' - from above, the emphasis seems to differ with your account:

Well, stoic philosophy places an enormous amount of emphasis on the welfare of other people. Humanity and mankind are of supreme importance. To live in accordance with nature is important. And what is assumed as natural in stoic philosophy is to be a social animal and engage in politics and the polis. — Wallows

I think first and foremost, Stoicism is about training your mind. And that is where the mental exercises come in. The 'good' being what we strive for. The 'peace of mind' being identified with goodness or virtue. And being rational.

From above article:
----------
' The Stoics developed a whole series of practical exercises designed to help train people to incorporate Stoic ideas into their daily lives. Seneca recommended taking stock at the end of each day, noting when you become irritated by something trivial, or act angrily in response to someone who perhaps didn’t deserve it, and so on. By noting his mistakes, he hoped to do better the next day.'
----------

We have already discussed Marcus Aurelius but here it is again, perhaps more convincingly:

----------

'Marcus Aurelius had another strategy, reminding himself each morning that he was probably going to encounter a lot of angry, stressed, impatient, ungrateful people during the coming day. By reflecting on this in advance, the hope was that he would be less likely to respond in kind. But he also reflected on the fact that none of these people would be like this intentionally. They were the victims of their own mistaken judgements.

Here we get another paradox: no one chooses to be unhappy, stressed, angry, miserable, and yet these are in fact all the product of our judgements, the one thing within our control.'

----------

So, to answer the question you posed:
Your 'peace of mind' is not something to be sacrificed but something to aim for.
It is for your own good initially. The good of humanity has to start somewhere.
If you can do this by using any of the Stoic exercises, fine. If not, there are other ways.
It is not necessary to identify yourself as 'a Stoic'.

I hope this has made things clearer. It seems that more and more people are looking to this kind of philosophy as self-help. Even the modern writers of Stoicism don't agree on everything.

Best wishes for any early and late evening meditations or thoughts.
I like to think of Marcus muttering to himself. 'Don't let the bastards get you down!'
And then I think. But look in the mirror - perhaps you are the bastard ?

Thanks for introducing a useful and thought- provoking discussion. And continuing engagement.

:love:

Voluntary discomfort is one of 3 Stoic exercises described in this article:
https://dailystoic.com/practical-stoic-exercises/

1. A view from above - Marcus Aurelius
2. Negative visualisation - Seneca
3. Voluntary discomfort - Epictetus

1. I like this one. It's about putting things into perspective. To zoom out of your self while still keeping yourself centred. Marcus would have been amazed at how far we humans would eventually be able to see. The views of Earth from the Universe. The Hubble photographs:
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/04/best-of-hubble-images
Of course, this could have the opposite effect and make some feel puny and insignificant. But perhaps only those whose capacity for wonder and awe has left them.

2. Negative visualisation is not meant to be negative or especially troublesome.

In the life of a stoic, one has to be constantly aware of things that can cause discomfort, pain, sickness, and the likes. — Wallows

It is a tiring effort to wake up every day and repeat to yourself that you are going to encounter ill-will, deceit, frustration, and even anger. There is a cognitive dissonance that arises in the mind of the stoic — Wallows

You are not meant to fixate on these thoughts. It should be a simple morning exercise which again can help put things into perspective.

You need to stop this misrepresentation, as discussed in previous thread:
My reply to Wallows:
" You say you are unable to get past the burden of an ancient morning meditation which you perceive as a negative visualisation.
I see Marcus as preparing himself mentally for the day ahead. His workload as Roman Emperor was a heavy one. Amongst other things he had to spend time addressing matters of law such as petitions and hearing disputes.
Rather than being negative about people in general, he was quite the realist. He knew the different types he would have to deal with. His writings were addressed to himself as a reminder to be patient with those who had poor quality of character and behaviour. Basically, it was because they did not know any better". From :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5018/musings-of-a-failed-stoic

3. Voluntary discomfort. This is the one which I have most problems with.
It seems to me that is hardship pursued to make a man stronger in battle. Cold showers. Walking in the cold without a jumper or cosy socks. This could lead to harm, pneumonia and death through stupidity.

However, if seen as a way of challenging your comfort zone then that makes more sense to me. I am not training myself to be a Navy Seal. However, the mental challenge in reading a philosophical text carefully with a view to understanding, well...who knows where that might lead ? Boredom, fascination, enlightenment, laugh-out-loud hysteria ?

What are your thoughts about willingly sacrificing your peace of mind in the name of the good, and how important is it? — Wallows

What do you mean by 'peace of mind' and how is it being sacrificed ?
What do you mean by 'in the name of the good' ?

These are not rhetorical questions. I would be grateful for a clear and thoughtful response.
Thanks.

Maybe I've stumbled across a very good moral dilemma that might make it into an ethics book later on, or maybe I've overestimated my own creativity. It's almost assuredly the latter, which is why I didn't have an issue posting it on a public forum where anyone could read it. — Taneras

Don't underestimate yourself or your golden gem. Best get it copyrighted. I have designs on it :cool:

I will say this though, if you think you have a golden nugget with respect to the major or minor disciplines, don't post it on a public forum. — Taneras

Don't worry. The secret of the Hard Problem of Consciousness is in my back pocket. See ya at the Nobel
Prize Award Ceremony :nerd:

The machines we create to help us in this will probably need to feel hope. The machines we make to do other things might not.

Do you know of the Turing test? Essentially, you are put in a room with two monitors. You type in a question, and that question goes to recipients in two separate rooms. In one room is a person, and their answer appears on one monitor, and in the other room is a self-learning AI, and their answer appears on the other monitor. If you can tell the difference between the two, the computer loses. If you can't, the machine is indistinguishable from a human. Of course, you would need to ask many questions, but if the person asking them can't tell the difference at the end of the day, then how do you justify the machine not being both aware but also human? — TogetherTurtle

Even if it were possible why would we need to instil hope, or emotion, into a computer. If some computers are given varying degrees of humanity, the situation would quickly evolve into a state of competition, each tribe having their own territory or interest. Robot wars.

A form of The Turing test happens every day. Think computer-generated spam, chat bots and the need for us to prove we are human as part of online security.

I think the larger question in all of this is: What does it mean to act human ?

More and more we are using computer assessment tools to make decisions, the results of which can seriously affect someone's life. Quantitative check boxes while helpful can only go so far. The person administering should also have life experience, qualities of empathy, compassion and common sense.

I don't have to justify anything about a computer and how human it might be no matter how well it manages to deceive a questioner. We can be deceived by chatbots. That still doesn't make them human.

OK, enough input/ output for me, I think. I'll leave you with...

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” 
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Thanks — TheMadFool

My pleasure :up:

Can you kindly tell me how is it that you believe in a non-physical mind. Share your insight. It could help me a lot. Thanks. — TheMadFool

No. I think I have explained it to the best of my ability. If you don't understand what I have said then I can't take it any further. Thanks.

So, a neural network is essentially a computer program that tries to mimic consciousness in one aspect by modeling itself after how neurons fire — TogetherTurtle

'Tries to' and 'in one aspect ' being the operative words here. Human consciousness is more than neurons firing.

Our current machines are not outfitted with such things, but they can be. However, I think the question quickly becomes "should we?". Is it ethical to make a machine feel pain? We only feel pain because it is a necessity. If you start bleeding internally or eat something poison, then pain is the only way you will know. A machine might not need to feel pain to work and may, in fact, benefit from not feeling pain. If I were you, I would rather have a virtual mind help me shut down a failing reactor rather than complaining of the heat coming off of it. — TogetherTurtle

Yes. Of course I can see the benefits of computers, robots in everyday life and in extreme circumstances. To boldly go where no man has gone before- or where it would result in pain or death.
The thing is - there would be no awareness and no sense of being bold. No sense of accomplishment.
That is the difference in type of consciousness and yes, we would not necessarily wish to burden a computer with what it means to be a human.

how do we even realize that all of this is real, how are we aware?". — TogetherTurtle

The first part is another philosophical argument which does not concern me. I doubt the value of such speculation. However, I know that others become quite activated and enthused by it.
How are we aware ?
Well, that is the question of consciousness addressed by various disciplines.

We just have to know that we're doing the best that we can. — TogetherTurtle

Well, we can hope that we are doing the best we can but we don't know that we are.
To hope is to be human.

Thanks for the link. I guess I was trying to explain consciousness in physical terms. How does one explain brain damage and the subsequent loss of mental capacity in non-physical terms?

What is argument for a non-physical consciousness? — TheMadFool

I find it strange that some people cannot see what I can. But perhaps that indicates the point I am trying to make. We may all have the same brain structures but there is a difference in our level of awareness and subjective assessment of the world and ourselves. And that can affect our objectivity and sense of identity over time.

I think it common sense that humans are more than just skin, bone, and connections. Why do philosophers give themselves such a hard time...

Here is link which explains the effects of brain damage in terms other than physical matter:

https://www.headway.org.uk/about-brain-injury/individuals/effects-of-brain-injury/

'...For some people, the emotional, behavioural, physical and cognitive changes after brain injury can have an impact on existing and future relationships. There are a number of ways in which this can happen and a number of different outcomes. Some relationships may strengthen, whereas others may become strained over time or even completely break down...'

In my view, as a physicalist and a nominalist who doesn't buy genidentity (identity through time) — Terrapin Station

So you identify as a physicalist and a nominalist. I am not sure what that entails. What does this mean to you, when and how did you decide ? Did it change your way of life ?

I would be surprised if you didn't already know about Chalmer's Hard Problem of Consciousness and the various arguments involved:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

'Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness:  the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness.  These features can be explained using the usual methods of science. 

But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present.  This is the hard problem...'

Does not everything live inside our minds...? — Echarmion

I challenge you to go out into the streets of London and ask that question.
Transported from an earlier identity to a new consciousness, people and memories die a little.

Streets of London lyrics:

Have you seen the old man
In the closed down market
Kicking up the papers
With his worn out shoes?

In his eyes, you see no pride
Hands held loosely at his side
Yesterday's paper
Telling yesterday's news

So, how can you tell me you're lonely
And say for you that the sun don't shine?
Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London
I'll show you something to make you change your mind

Have you seen the old girl
Who walks the streets of London
Dirt in her hair
And her clothes in rags?

She's no time for talking
She just keeps right on walking
Carrying her home
In two carrier bags...

...And in the all night cafe
At a quarter past eleven
Same old man
Sitting there on his own

Looking over the world
Over the rim of his tea cup
Each tea lasts an hour
And he wanders home alone...

...Have you seen the old man
Outside the seaman's mission
Memory fading with
The medal ribbons that he wears?

In our winter city
The rain cries a little pity
For one more forgotten hero
And a world that doesn't care

So, how can you tell me you're lonely
And say for you that the sun don't shine?
Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London
I'll show you something to make you change your mind

Songwriter: Ralph Mc Tell

I think the difference between a virtual fire and a virtual mind is simply in function. Sure, a virtual fire can't burn anything in the real world, but it also isn't meant to. A virtual mind, however, can interact and manipulate the real world if given the right tools to manipulate them with. — TogetherTurtle

I have no idea what a virtual mind is. I understand that there are models of a virtual brain out there in science world which can be manipulated to assess changes in structure to behaviour. Not sure about current research. Can you give me examples of how a virtual mind could change the real world, thanks.

If the human brain only uses electrical signals and chemicals to transfer its messages, then there is really nothing differentiating it from a computer anyway. — TogetherTurtle

Really ?
A computer does not have nerve endings to receive data. It would never say 'Ouch ! That hurts. '
It is not connected to muscle fibres which act on information. Avoidance of pain.
It does not become conscious of itself or how it fits into the world.

It actually brings up an interesting idea in biological computers, essentially growing a brain that is good at whatever task you need it to be good at. If you could get the contents of a human mind to fit in that, while also adding some synthetic components, you essentially have the same idea discussed above but even under skepticism like that above it works because where the human mind is transferred to is biological and technically not a simulation. — TogetherTurtle

Interesting. Where is the information on biological computers ?

Computers communicate through the internet all the time. I think that would be the equivalent of the interaction with social space. To experience the ecological world, they could simply have cameras for eyes and speakers for speaking. That is how they would interact kinesthetically with their environment. — TogetherTurtle

.

I don't think that computers experience anything. They might be able to interact via technology. However, there is no sense in which they are experiencing the human concerns re those situations mentioned above:
'...large-scale social projects, such as a building project or a disaster relief effort, occur across a considerably extended space and through the intersection of many people’s minds, and are not limited to neuronal firings in any individual brain'.
But that might be a good thing :)

That's pretty much what I was aiming for. The vision I have for this story is fairly dark, and it's about a hero, if the reader sees this person as such but that's my goal, attempting to pull himself back out of that trough. Thanks for the non-sugarcoated observation :) — Taneras

An undercover author infiltrates a particularly gruesome gang of dangerous, babbling thinkers.
No initiation required; although will be put to the test eventually by a bitter crank. His laser sabre language cutting right to the chase.

The question remains would the real assignment ever have been discovered.
Given the lack of feedback to a variety of responses, it would only have been a matter of time.
Or would it ?

Taking advantage of the group's fascination with yacking speculation, addiction to drug-fuelled opinion, the undercover agent would slyly glean material for the dark story.
Brains picked and observations mined for golden nuggets.
How moral is that ?
I feel used and abused :gasp: :naughty:
Nothing new there then :roll:

I am interested in why you think that consciousness is a pattern of matter-energy. And what does this even look like ? How can something as nebulous as inclinations be included ?
— Amity

Well, death is my proof. There’s no difference between me alive and me dead in terms of structure - everything (cells, tissue, organs) is in the same place. As it’s consciousness and identity I’m concerned about let’s stay with the brain. So, no structural difference between a dead brain and living brain. Yet one has consciousness and the other doesn’t. My theory is that what’s missing from the dead brain is a particular pattern of activation and interaction within itself (neuronal and regional) - which is consciousness and identity. — TheMadFool

If it's consciousness and identity you are concerned with, then there are varying levels of consciousness which can be researched to try and explain what it might be. Also, cases of brain damage which affect a person's identity; memory and behaviour. It is too simplistic to say 'death is my proof'. It explains nothing about what identity is other than that if there is no subject alive there is no identity. It tells us nothing about e.g. the subjectivity of inclinations - that part of my question you didn't answer.

It seems like you share Dennett's view ( of which I know very little I admit ) when he said that only a theory that explained conscious events in terms of unconscious events could explain consciousness at all: "To explain is to explain away".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

I enjoy reading Dennett but can't agree with this reductionist view.
I do think that any real or substantial findings will not come from philosophical speculation but a variety of disciplines - neuroscience allied with social and behavioral sciences perhaps being the best bet.

Would killing them be morally wrong? — Taneras

I would say no because I believe there should be no exceptions to one's moral code. Also all people should be respected. (Yes, I basically quoted Kant, but I agree with him) — hachit

I think you meant you would say 'Yes, killing them would be morally wrong'.
So would you then say that an undercover officer is morally wrong simply for taking the job which involves lying ? Because in your world, lying is always wrong.
How then would this tie in with 'All people should be respected' ?

The undercover officer had no idea about the initiation test, they were unaware that they'd be required to kill an innocent person to join. — Taneras

Undercover officers already know that they have to assume an identity whereby they might be asked to perform illegal or immoral activities associated with whatever group they are penetrating.

If they have no idea about such tests, then they have been inadequately prepared. I pity those in such circumstances being put in such a moral, life- threatening spot. It is difficult to see how anyone could judge any decision or action taken as being immoral.

It could be argued that an undercover role in itself is immoral. I think it is a case of whether the final outcome is worth all the deceit and the means to reach that point.

Previous comments about identity living inside our minds, got me thinking about how our sense of identity is formed and how it changes over time. So:

The issue of Identity over time ( continued )

From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/

'...Suppose, as may one day be medically feasible, an individual A's still functioning upper brain is transplanted from A's body to the debrained, but living, body formerly belonging to B. Upon being transplanted A's upper brain is connected to what remains of B's central nervous system so that a person, call her A-B, results. A-B believes herself to be A, can Q-remember what happened to A, has A's psychological dispositions, and so on. Should we say that A-B is the same person as A, the same person as B, or an altogether new person? Psychological continuity theorists will have little hesitation in answering that A-B is the same person as A.

A person can function fairly normally with much of their brain destroyed. Suppose A loses an entire brain hemisphere. Given the plasticity of the brain, and aided by our hypothetical future medical technology, it may be that A could survive such a loss. If so, it would be unreasonable to deny that A could survive the transplantation of only one brain hemisphere given that she could survive the transplantation of he entire intact upper brain.

The putative conflict with transitivity arises when we consider a case in which both of the separated hemispheres of A's original brain are transplanted to separate bodies resulting in what certainly look to be distinct individuals. Suppose, one of A's brain hemispheres is transferred to B's body, resulting in a person PB, and the other to C's body resulting in a person PC. It flouts transitivity to say that PC is identical with A, and that A is identical with PB, but deny, at it seems we should, that PC is identical with PB.'

-----------

I really don't understand much of this. It is all highly speculative in any case.
Remind me why are we so concerned with the issue ?

My own interest would be in understanding both the internal and external influences on how we think of ourselves. Clearly we change over time but there is still the core 'I' which does the changing. It does not die but ideas do.

I think consciousness, specifically the part that constitutes identity (inclinations, memory, whatever that one considers as an essence) is a pattern of matter-energy.

If the transporter can replicate this pattern perfectly then death hasn’t occured [...] I believe that if the transporter could preserve and then reproduce the pattern that constitutes a personal identity then death hasn’t occurred. We’ve simply been transported as it were. — TheMadFool

I am interested in why you think that consciousness is a pattern of matter-energy. And what does this even look like ? How can something as nebulous as inclinations be included ?

As for just a brain transplant, it would be useful if someone had information that you needed but their body couldn't go on living, so you transfer them to another body. If the brain is where all experiences and knowledge is stored, then it only seems logical that the memories would be present in a new body. — TogetherTurtle

A brain transplant, if ever possible, would have to be done before someone died.
I began to think along the lines of freezing a brain or its memories. A bit like egg, sperm and embryo storing. I found this:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321235.php

'When we die, the neural connections that make memories start to degrade. But what if our brains could be preserved? What if our memories could be backed up like computer data? One start-up company says it's possible.

A start-up company claims it may one day be possible to preserve human brains and retrieve memories.
Introducing Nectome, an organization whose "ultimate ambition is to keep your memories intact for the future."
The company — co-founded by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate Robert McIntyre — says that soon, we may be able to preserve the human connectome and even "upload" our memories to the cloud.

According to the Brain Preservation Foundation, the connectome is a map of the brain's neural connections, or those between brain cells.
These connections are called synapses. Synapses are structures that pass electrical or chemical signals between neurons. In other words, synapses allow brain cells to communicate with each other, and these structures are important for memory formation.
Using a technique called aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation — also referred to as vitrifixation — Nectome believe that they could preserve human synapses, along with the memories they have helped to form....

...While the preservation technique has shown some feasibility, scientists are still not sure whether it is even possible to retrieve memories from the human brain after death, and Nectome have yet to come up with a strategy that may enable them to "upload" retrieved memories.'
----------

And that would seem to be the major problem. Our brains are not computers.
I think that there would be something lost in the transference of the physical component of memory.
That is the quality of experience and the way the memories might be triggered. The smell and sounds in the environment are important aspects. Phenomenon through the senses rather than thought simply might not 'compute'.

I guess I am arguing against the reductionist theory of the mind, as per the Churchland's 'eliminative materialism'. Fom the little I know I seem to side more with Searle, Clark and Chalmers, see article:

----------
https://philosophynow.org/issues/87/Philosophy_of_Mind_An_Overview

'...To Searle, the reason computational logic patterns can’t be causal explanations of mind/brain behavior is that they are simulations. He points out that simulating a hurricane on a computer may tell you some things about the hurricane, but it doesn’t constitute causing a hurricane. And the simulation has no causal power to make the hurricane do anything, such as change course or grow less powerful. Likewise, simulated fires don’t burn anything, and simulated car crashes don’t bend any metal. Simulated logical patterns don’t cause mental states or influence brain states. Searle accuses the Strong AI people of confusing their virtual reality with the real thing...


...Clark shifts the philosophical emphasis from analysis of the brain to analysis of a human’s kinesthetic interaction with an ecological and social space. He points out that large-scale social projects, such as a building project or a disaster relief effort, occur across a considerably extended space and through the intersection of many people’s minds, and are not limited to neuronal firings in any individual brain. Clark, in a joint paper with David Chalmers, discusses the fictional example of Otto, a man with memory problems who remembers the location of a library (and other useful pieces of information) by writing it down in a notebook. They argue that Otto’s memory is literally in the notebook, not in his brain. Similarly, much of the memory of all of us arguably now resides in a variety of electronic devices...'
----------

I would simply be glad that I could be put to some use after death, even if the consciousness isn't continued. — TogetherTurtle

This reminded me of organ transplantation. It is about continuing the function of the organ in another body. What would be the point of your mind being uploaded to someone else if consciousness wasn't continued ?
The organ in question would be the brain. I am not sure that the original mental states would transfer over. However, it could continue to function with awareness but 'as new' ?

I am beginning to think I shot myself in the foot by making the Star Trek references so overt :wink:.
The implications of this debate for something like mind uploading might someday be relevant though. — Echarmion

But you knew that would happen and I happily obliged :wink:

Yes. It is a fascinating debate. I think discussing the implications is already relevant, from wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading

Underlying the concept of "mind uploading" (more accurately "mind transferring") is the broad philosophy that consciousness lies within the brain's information processing and is in essence an emergent feature that arises from large neural network high-level patterns of organization, and that the same patterns of organization can be realized in other processing devices.

Mind uploading also relies on the idea that the human mind (the "self" and the long-term memory), just like non-human minds, is represented by the current neural network paths and the weights of the brain synapses rather than by a dualistic and mystic soul and spirit. The mind or "soul" can be defined as the information state of the brain, and is immaterial only in the same sense as the information content of a data file or the state of a computer software currently residing in the work-space memory of the computer.

Data specifying the information state of the neural network can be captured and copied as a "computer file" from the brain and re-implemented into a different physical form.[24] This is not to deny that minds are richly adapted to their substrates.[25] 

An analogy to the idea of mind uploading is to copy the temporary information state (the variable values) of a computer program from the computer memory to another computer and continue its execution. The other computer may perhaps have different hardware architecture but emulates the hardware of the first computer.

These issues have a long history. In 1775 Thomas Reid wrote:[26] “I would be glad to know... whether when my brain has lost its original structure, and when some hundred years after the same materials are fabricated so curiously as to become an intelligent being, whether, I say that being will be me; or, if, two or three such beings should be formed out of my brain; whether they will all be me, and consequently one and the same intelligent being.”

This topic is on whether the transporters in Star Trek kill people — Echarmion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_(Star_Trek)

A transporter is a fictional teleportation machine used in the Star Trek universe. Transporters convert a person or object into an energypattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization). The term "transporter accident" is a catch-all term for when a person or object does not rematerialize correctly....

...the technology itself has been known to fail on occasion, causing serious injury or usually death to those being transported. This was demonstrated in Star Trek's 1979 film debut, Star Trek: The Motion Picture when a malfunction in the transporter sensor circuits resulted in insufficient signal being present at the Enterprise end to successfully rematerialize the two subjects, and Starfleet was unable to pull them back to where they had dematerialized from. The transporter system attempted to rematerialize what little signal was available, and despite the efforts of Kirk and Scotty, the system failed and both subjects vanished from the transporter pad. Kirk, visibly shaken by what he had witnessed asked, "Starfleet, do you have them?", to which the response was made "Enterprise, what we got back didn't live long, fortunately".

----------

So, the answer to your speculative question is:
A fictional transporter can kill fictional people, if there is a problem with said transporter.

Scotty is not a murderer. How very dare you :naughty:

Apologies, real this time. Off at a tangent.

[ So this thread has been moved to Feedback which can hardly be seen...

So, talking about feedback. The layout of this forum is confusing when threads are moved from the main page. Almost instantly. I think they should be given more of a chance to be read by people just clicking on. Oh, never mind...I may have got that wrong...

'All discussions' section is a misnomer. It does not include 'All discussions'.
Jeez :roll: ]

I'm typing up these comments for a reason, and I want you to put the effort into at least making it look like you're trying to address the points I'm making. So quote me, and break what I say down into more manageable chunks so that you decrease the risk of digressing or missing something important.

This should be quid pro quo. If I do it in my reply to your comment, then I expect the same in return. — S

Yes. Effort is the key in addressing points being made. And I am not just talking about use of quotes here. In 'bad ways of replying', there is more to be said.

In another thread about being Addicted to the forum:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4950/addicted-to-the-philosophy-forum

'I create many discussions that I don't even get involved in. I bombard this forum with discussions and it probably annoys some people. I don't even read what people write most of the time, I just skim through their posts. Most of the time, I don't even understand what people say. Some people have said that I should try to improve my concentration, but improving my concentration and reading comprehension has proven to be very difficult for me, almost impossible. So I really don't see me getting much out of this forum'.

It is understandable that some people might not have the required attention span for whatever reason.
Some ask others to be patient with them because they are 'slow'.
I think this can often be used as an excuse for laziness in not following through with care.

It is disappointing and discouraging when the quality, interested posters spend time and effort in making their responses as clear, concise, and understandable as they can - and what do they get in return ?
Sometimes hostile accusations and personal attack.
A feeling that they are not even being read, or that a serious text discussion has been reduced to a mere whim...

Apologies if I have taken your words and run off at a tangent. Actually, no I'm not.
It needed saying...

For a list of names, consider wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Greek_philosophers

On Sabbatical leave as from midnight tonight.
— Amity

Is that what they say when they are going to the pub where you live? — Sir2u

Sussed out :gasp:
It is my way of saying I am breaking off from this discussion and yes, that might involve a drink or two.
Cheers !

Stop allowing yourself to be unduly disturbed by things beyond your control--which would include "people in general."

Easy to say. I am unable to get past the burden of Stoicism manifest in this quote from Marcus Aurelius:

Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil.
— Marcus Aurelius

Really? Begin each morning with negative visualizations of people in general? Who does this to themselves? — Wallows

You have talked of your problems with Stoicism before:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/15494

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4589/the-lame-stoic

If you have spent time reading and following up on other posters' responses, why are you still apparently in this mental quandary ? Is it that you expect easy answers on how to deal with people or life ?

There is no easy way, as you know. There is no single perfect philosophy.

You say you are unable to get past the burden of an ancient morning meditation which you perceive as a negative visualisation.

I see Marcus as preparing himself mentally for the day ahead. His workload as Roman Emperor was a heavy one. Amongst other things he had to spend time addressing matters of law such as petitions and hearing disputes.

Rather than being negative about people in general, he was quite the realist. He knew the different types he would have to deal with. His writings were addressed to himself as a reminder to be patient with those who had poor quality of character and behaviour. Basically, it was because they did not know any better.

It is perhaps wise not to pick out quotes without giving context. Or reading the whole story. The variations between early, late Stoicism and the philosophers within this tradition; it is complex and yet simple. Extract what is useful to you to find peace of mind and to interact with the world. And then get on with living.

So, to those who spend a high percentage of time wallowing with ongoing musings on a philosophy forum, Marcus might turn your question round and ask : 'Who would do that to themselves ?'

What do you mean by that? — Wallows

What do you think I mean by that ?

This might be of interest:

I come now to the unacceptable face of Stoicism their wider value system and their belief that everything except character or more generally rationality is in the end indifferent. Of course anyone who reached the Stoic ideal of wisdom would regard everything else as indifferent and then would be (almost) free of emotion. But Stoic sages were rarer than the phoenix.1 What I want to stress in this chapter is that the theory of indifference was not an essential part of Stoic therapy. It was one of their reasons their own peculiar reason for taking freedom from emotion (apatheia) as an ideal. I shall discuss apatheia in the next two chapters but we do not have to agree with that ideal in order to learn from the Stoics how to get rid of unwanted emotions. And in getting rid of them we do not have to resort to their theory of indifference. Before I can show this I must explain what the theory of indifference is.

 https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/emotion-and-peace-mind/12-stoic-indifference-barrier-therapy

----------

You don't have to agree with the theory of indifference to benefit from a Stoic therapy.

There are some daily exercises that might be useful. Or not.

https://dailystoic.com/10-insanely-useful-stoic-exercises/

PPS On Sabbatical leave as from midnight tonight.
Cheers to all for :100: :party: