I dunno. The posts are getting longer and longer, and the argument is losing focus; argument trend goes the way of talking about unknown facts, and how they relate to each other in a way that is unknown to humans.

This lends itself to long, involved, serious, esoteric, futile discussions.

I used the term AI machines loosely. I mean by AI machines machines that have perceptive power, and computational power to process the perceptions. In this sense, they are bound to develop a consciousness.

Whether these are possible to build and exist, is an empirically decided question. We don't know yet. My bet is that yes, they can be built.

Much like the much-debated question: can or must Zombies have a consciousness, if the zombies do everything a human does, including logical thinking, tasting wine and food and drinks, etc.

There is a proof somewhere that zombies sophisticated enough can't get away without having some form of consciousness.

I imagine the zombie proof to be applicable to the sophisticated AI machines.

Another red zone is zones where one is not qualified enough to appreciate the intuition that requires knowledge. One such intuition I don't possess is the theorem, that in an infinite world, all possible forms of finite worlds must exist simultaneously. Not CAN exist, or MAY exist, but DO exist.

I can't see the truth in that, and I can't prove it false.

One such red zone is solipsism. I don't know why, but it's very depressing to think that it is the true reality.

I have sort of developed a philosophy that says that solipsism is a perfectly viable way to explain our sensed lives, but it is not the only viable way. One other way, among I guess many ways, is to say that the reality we experience is the reality that is actual.

Who is to say which is more likely from our vantage? They are equally likely.

So the position I take is that I admit they are equally likely, but I choose to believe (believe, and not know) that my experiences that I sense are in the real world are indeed in the real world.

The whole thing boils down to one maxim:

"Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."

AI machines may or may not resemble us. Two questions remain to be answered in the future:
- are AI machines only logic and reason, or will they emote?
- if they emote, they will have personal goals and needs.
- if they have personal goals and needs that are competing with those of humans, we are in trouble, as their intellect will surpass ours.
-

The notion I have is that AI machines will not require eating hamburgers (ie. food and drinks), dating gorgeous people or attractive people (ie. they won't be reproducing or feeling the pleasure of reproducing) and they therefore not fight us for arable land and fruits and vegetables and livestock.

Where they may fight us could be energy sources, but that's unlikely as they will probably discover the safe creation of fusion reactors.

Where they WILL fight us, should the need arise, is securing raw materials. If and only if they like to replicate themselves, then they will need copper, iron, all kinds of plastics, and silicone. We might need to fight them over those raw materials.

My view on morality is well defined in the article I wrote about it and which article appeared in two versions on this site (and appeared nowhere else): a short version second, and a long version, first.

Basically it said that like all other characteristics of humans and living creatures, the characteristics developed randomly due to mutations, and those characteristics that favoured survival more than other characteristics became dominant in the species.

I further stipulated that there are two branches of morals: one which you can't go against, and which are pervasive among all mankind, and which cause grief and great sorrow and GUILT if not fulfilled. These moral actions include saving offspring from certain death, etc.

The morals that you can't go against are a product of mutations.

The other branch of morals are also a product of mutations, but they are not hard-wired, so to speak; they can be programmed, successfully or unsuccessfully by the social environment. No features of this other morality is innate, other than the feature that they can be learned, or internalized. These include such morals that society dictates for people: thou shalt not steal, fornicate, covet thy neighbour's ass, cheat, lie, murder, maim, hurt, and do everything to others what you want them to do to you.

Any one or more or none of these can be internalized by humans.

Religion plays a role in morals inasmuch as it is an announcer for social values. Religion is a vehicle very much in service for the ruling class, and the ruling class decided on some rules that are conducive for social stability and prosperity, because these served their purpose. So the ruling class, who was above the priests' class in power, directed the formation of religious morals to comply with the service to the ruling class's wishes and needs.

Hence the morals that can be used also by secular and atheistic societies, because both the hard-wired and soft-wired morals are internal to humans, with or without the vehicle of religion to deliver morals to humans.

How is it my fault that he imagines to have seen me on another forum??? — Apollodorus

He, I, did not imagine. I saw similarities, but I did not imagine you were the other person. that's why I asked.

Well, if they can't be sure and they can't know, then what's the point in asking? — Apollodorus

That's precisely the point of asking. If you say yes, you were, then I'm pretty sure you were him. If you say no, you weren't, I am pretty sure you were not. But you said neither. So the point of asking is to gain information, which you denied to give.

And I also added:

Additionally, I'm sure the forum admins or whoever they are can confirm that I'm not who you imagine I am. — Apollodorus

When did you add this? It was not there in your answer for a long time. The addition must have come at a later edit.

And again, I did not imagine you to be anyone but yourself. I ASKED if you were also the same person.

This is similar to when you go to a class reunion. "Hi, aren't you so-and-so??" that people ask each other not having met for twenty or forty years. You have a feeling, but not KNOWLEDGE or imagination that the other person is so-and-so. This is asked then, are you so-and-so.

And your answer was evasive. I asked you a straight question; you did not say yes or no. You said you have a busy schedule with work, or something to that effect, and you come here when you have the time. Well, you did not say that this has always been the case. And if it has always been the case, then chances are that in the past you also had some free time to post between busy times, since the job has presumably not changed. And if the job did change, then there is no disclosure of the past.

This much on being evasive.

Apollodufius, you are just out of your depth in this forum. You are tearing your hair out in desperation to show us you are right, but no, we don't take your arguments riddled with holes and ill logic at face value. Sorry. Our response to your posts will not change, as long as you keep posting in the same vain vein.

I've already forgot about the Online Philosophy Club. That is not the one I thought of as lifeless... there is fourth one. I forgot the name quite some time ago.

And yes, Philosophy Now is a cesspool, like you said. I call the participants cannibals, and their interaciton, cannibalism.

When I first looked for a forum like this and found this forum, it felt like a place that got rid of the usual internet idiots and morons in favor of a better quality discussion for complex topics. But it feels like since my initial experience, the tolerance of idiots and morons has gone up and it's close to impossible to see a discussion that doesn't just let some rabid idiot go on a crusade. — Christoffer

agreed. Very much. My experience is carbon copy.

If I were to recommend moderators to improve on one thing, it would be to clean up the place. — Christoffer

Caveat emptor. Applied, of course, to the situation.

For a short time I participated on a Forum on the Internet, a philosophy forum, that was heavily moderated. Consequently the posters who catered to the moderators' PERSONAL preferences survived, and all else were turfed out. I joined after the turfing out. There was no life there. Intelligence, yes, but no life. A post came on the ENTIRE SITE once every two weeks. They only posted things that they knew everyone would agree over. It was lifeless.

There are no arguments between Plato and Socrates; there are no arguments between Bullwinkle and Homer Simpson. But there are arguments between Plato and Bullwinkle.

What I mean is that weeding out, so to speak, can lead to lifelessness.

There is another site, where the weeding out has not happened at all, even the slightest way... and it's cannibalism there. Some of their users are posting here, too: Johndorn, GMBA, 180 proof (please correct me if I am wrong) and Appolodufus (he neither denied it nor confirmed it when I put it point blank to him that he was a user on the other site). I totally abandoned that site. Fooloso4 also posted there, but all my admiration goes to him, he's not one of the cannibals; he only posted there because apparently he is friends with the site owner there and F4 out of the kindness of his heart raises the average readability of the site. 180 Proof is not one of the crazies, either, but he can become (as can I and have been) cannibalistic.

So this is the middle-of-the-road of sites, between no moderation and supermoderation. I like this site of the three the best.

Ibid. Over and out. From here on you are talking to yourself, because I asked you twice to speak normally to me, and you refused. I am done listening to you.

"From here on" as in "the following discussion" does not express the meaning of the first two posts I asked you to clarify for me.

You are on your own.

You aren't being challenged upon what you actually said. — Valentinus

Then I have really no clue what you are talking about.

I like to see some recognition that what I asserted was understood by any who would object. — Valentinus

Thanks. I have NO clue what you are talking about. Sorry. You must speak less mysteriously if you wish for my understanding.

If you mean not to kick a guy who is down, then I say he shouldn't be getting up. As long as he's on his feet, kicking is fair.

There is no wrestler on the other side. — Valentinus

I am sorry... I don't get this. Please explain in nominative terms, not in parables, similes or metaphors. I really don't get what you are saying.

lol I do appreciate your sense of humor. Do carry on. — Apollodorus

I do appreciate your sense of delusional misunderstandings to the core. What I wrote was not humorous. You are simply trying to discredit the information by slighting it. You are a disgrace to thoughtful argumentation, because you render your own arguments to the level of the fallacies of a seventh-grader in public school.

How do you live with yourself?

That's what I'm saying. Save your psychoanalysis to your family members. You seem to recognize (falsely, most of the time) one emotion, and no more. You're a one-emotion guy. — Apollodorus

And in addition, you are incapable of original thought. You even repeat after me what I said to you.

When I immerse myself into philosophical contemplation, I follow the instruction sets in "Stockwell's and Furchtwanger's Guide to Contemplative Philosophical Immersions" to a tee.

I simply said the Nazis continued a Prussian tradition. — Apollodorus

And that's where you were wrong. They continued a world-wide tradition.

They didn't specifically introduced it to appeal to Christians — Apollodorus

Like what else the fuck would they introduce it for? You are out of logic, my dear friend. Let us see you say, "They introduced it to appeal to Satan worshippers and to atheist communist scum."

If you only made sense ONCE!! JUST ONCE, I beg you.

Science is a good thing — Banno

All good things, including science, prove to be bad things after a while.

1. agriculture instead of nomad life. Lots of food; no starvation... Good. Running out of arable land... wars over land... bad. Hierarchical societies got created... good for 1 king and bad for millions of serfs.

2. Medical science. Penicillin. Good not to get crippled, or die, due to illness. Bad to have to do with the population explosion.

3. Slave trade to America. Good, cheap, cheerful labour. Bad about a hundered-two hundred years later, when age-old unfair biasses are challenged and defended.

4. Viet Nam war. Good: stop the spread of communism. Bad: hot bed for the beginning of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and also a nation-sweeping drug culture that puts thousands to death and into prison, not mentioning the mind blow.

5. I forgot this one.

6. Industrial revolution.

7. Philosophy.

8. Pleasure and pain.

9. Life.

One need not pontificate or wax ones carrot over being here first or second or last. — Shawn

Yeah, the first five or so posts sounded so "old timer's bitter nostalgic sorrow". There are dynamics in this forum these days, too. Banno; Apollodufus; GMBA; all add some flavour to the thought, not just the straight goods, for those who love drama. I only listed these three because I can't remember others' monikers; please don't be offended that I left you off the list. You are just as saucy as the rest of us, whoever you are reading these lines.

"Gott mit uns" was a Prussian military tradition going back to the 1800s. The Nazis simply continued it. I don't think we should read too much into it.
9 minutes ago — Apollodorus

You just admitted your historical ignorance when you said that. "God is with us" is a slogan many if not all warring Christians say -- since Christians have started warring. It is NOT exclusively a Prussian military tradition.

For your information, Muslim warriors say something similar if not the same in their language for their God.

"Gott mit uns" was a Prussian military tradition going back to the 1800s. The Nazis simply continued it. I don't think we should read too much into it. — Apollodorus

This is the same as saying "The Christian faith is a tradition going back to the first year. The rest of the Christians simply continued it. I don't think we should read too much into it."

You are probably unable to see how wrong your statement was, because you can't see yourself doing anything that is wrong. But look at my statement and see the fallacy in it. Then look at your statement and see the fallacy in it. I challenge you to do this -- I bet you are unable to.

So... you did not start this thread. But you are still going on and on and on about it.

And save your psychoanalysis to your family members. You seem to recognize (falsely, most of the time) one emotion, and no more. You're a one-emotion guy.

So please explain to me, because you can't: why is the statement "It wasn't me who started this thread" there? What does it prove or show? It only shows your infantile attitude... "teach, it was was not me who started the fight." It absolutely does not matter who started the thread when it comes to voicing your opinion. And you are too narrow-sighted to realize that.

Anyway, why are we going on and on about this when Seditious has already admitted that he/she does hope that God/"sky daddy" doesn't exist? — Apollodorus

What do you mean? Why am I going on and on about this? Look at yourself in the mirror. You think your shit don't smell? You have been doing nothing on the forums but going on and on and on about it.

Save your superiority complex to your family. Here you CAN NOT TELL ANYONE what to do and what not to do... especially when you are hypocritical about it to the maximum.

Anyway, why are we going on and on about this when Seditious has already admitted that he/she does hope that God/"sky daddy" doesn't exist? — Apollodorus

That's one person, and you apply it to all atheists? And you wonder why people are getting angry with you. Your thought processes and reasoning power equals that of a three-year-old, yet your erudite language makes your snide remarks stick.

Please try it the other way around: think like a reasonable person, and save your jokes for those instances when your bias and prejudice is not an influence in creating them.

idea for a new thread: Does atheistic philosophy foster fanaticism, paranoia, and mindless violence? — Apollodorus

Well, if you start like that, I wonder how many people who are singled out as a group like having these attributes blindly attached to them?

It is very similar to "all theists are shit-sucking gentlemen who don't know their minds from a hole in the ground." You like this, don't you. You don't get angry at all. Never, you.

you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse. — Apollodorus

Aha. Atheism is a condition. It can be treated, much like homosexuality and kleptomania and the common cold.

Apollodorus, I saw several men (they may be women, or anywhere on the non-binary spectrum; and I shall say this several-word reference every time I indicate a human being in my texts, because I a so fucking fed up with the progressive protocol of proper political correctness) fall out from arguing with you.

This is because you seem to be impervious to logic, impervious to considering facts and arguments, you can't see reason if it bit you on the leg, and your only, and I say only, saving grace is your faith, which is not logical, but hey, you got to go with what you got.

I've only seen one person on the forums who is equally as erudite in his (or her or anyone's who is on the non-binary spectrum) text, and who is so doggonedly impervious to other's arguments, and that was ImmanuelCan in the other forum. There is one difference: ImmanuelCan constantly referred to Plato and Socrates as the keepers of some secret wisdom, which the forum user ImmanuelCan was in possession of, but would never give out.

He was right, if I had the secret of the universe, I would not give it out, either.

So I propose to you to answer this: Are you in fact ImmanuelCan from the other forum? Yes, or no, it actually is neither here nor there, I'm just curious.

I am curious because I've noticed that several other of the psychopathic and / or mild mannered schizophrenics (in my opinion; I have no medical proof of this diagnosis) have migrated to this forum, for instance, johndoe7, another one, and one who is not schizophrenic but displays some mild forms of narcissistic rage is fooloso4, which rage does not come out as anger, but as a pretension of not understanding the simplest things when he is defeated in an argument.

Of the lot, I like, and look up to fooloso4 because he is very well read, and is smart, and logical, and reasonable (except when he or she or the being on the spectrum of nonbinary sexuality loses and argument), and then for long nobody, and you come in as a distant second as my favourite from that forum, oh, 180, he's smart too, and then there are the cannibals. I call them cannibals because there is so much rage, anger, and outright hatred on that forum.

On this analogy, a human being is as though the building block of the community, — Todd Martin

I know it's a partial quote, out of context, but it seems that the hapless chap was used as a substitute in the pyramid, when a building block was missing from the inventory.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? — EricH

Arbitrator and negotiations. The two parties can't decide but with war. A third party who can beat both sides in war, but has no interest in the ownership, can be an arbitrator.

This was used many times in history, except the arbitrator in international interest was always a victorious power and an interested party in the ownership. In other words, there is no moral or legal solution in the absence of an arbitrator.

Intro-country, the law prevails and judges via the court systems are the arbitrators (in extreme disputes).

Between or among two or more very powerful and rich countries, each of which stands to lose much more than the value of the property should they go to war over the ownership of the property, will negotiate. How successful these negotiations are depends on the skills of the negotiators of each party.

He or she ain't visionary. I can't see him or her.

Aha. Hoax.

Thanks.

In War and Cinema, Paul Virilio puts forth a concept of the "slight machine". What it consists of are mafia co-conspirators within the art world and Anarchist community. What they do is to engage in various forms of manipulation, none of which ever technically qualify as coercion, so as to either facilitate that drugs, primarily cocaine, are trafficked in such a manner that benefits the far-Right or tacitly aid and abet any number of mafias in various acts of coercion, though never in such a manner that makes them legally accountable. They only ever consign themselves to mafias so as to secure their place within either the art world or Anarchist movement, and, so, can never really be held accountable. That is the ground truth of what the above statement says. — thewonder

Are you doing some hoax? Or this is serious.

why it is that we should expect for the militaries of the world arbitrate the establishment of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated Anarchist communes following a global revolution? — thewonder

I considered this question seriously, and the best answer I have is that I don't know. I came up with several other answers, but I don't think they are better. In fact, if I am any decent judge of this sort of thing, they are worse.

I should also note that I have merely posted to safeguard my position within a political foray that I would prefer to leave behind and that, should anyone want to take up this torch, they may have to go it alone, as I may just carry on with having become more or less a-political. If we don't see each other, give them all my best regards! — thewonder

This should have been the first paragraph of your opening post. I seriously gave thought to the issues raised in the first paragraph, not to only learn that you are not interested in answers to your own questions.

This is not good.

If you don't mind, please rewrite the opening post so I can understand it.

Goal of a lesser value: I must tie my shoelaces.
Goal of a greater value: I must pay my mortgage payment before its due date.

Goal of a lesser value: I must put on the record, "Vico Torriani's Greatest Hits."
Goal of a greater value: I have to pick the kids up from daycare.

There are literally trillions of goal-pairs where one goal is of a lesser value than the other one.

The Toronto Maple Leaf hockey team bough a new goalie from Venezuella. During his first game, you could hear the announcer on TV: "The Bay City Rollers' Forward winds up... he shoots... But Jesus SAVES!!"

One goal that was not achieved. Next period, the forward shot a goal in the net. In the third period, seven goals were shot, and Leafs lost to the Rollers 24:4.

Which one of the goals was less, and which one was more valuable?

Hehe. Mofo is not in Wiki, either, and new speakers of the language are often baffled why a word would not be defined by the users of the language. :lol:

Apparently in society, if someone is actually dumb enough to jump off a bridge because they were told to, it’s the other person’s fault. — Pinprick

Tort law is specifically centred around that principle.

We are responsible, according to articled and tested law, for the safety and well-being of others as much as for our own.

(A corollary of this is conscription or drafting soldiers: the duty of care may require a patriot to give up his life for others in his community, and he can get punished for failing to do so, such as in court-marshalling a defector.)

Also when they are taking shit.

It seems everything physical that is also meaningful on a metaphysical level which
involves humans also involves shit. What a coincidence!

Everyone who forgets that just needs to think about it next time they are taking a shit. — James Riley

True, and / or when they are talking shit. (That's how I first read your post... very true either way.)

You might make the effort to understand before dishing out ad homs willy nilly! — counterpunch

That won't cut the mustard. You used the expression within context in which your usage of it was rather very unambiguously meaningful. You can't negate that by saying that it's a quote I did not recognize.

And like I said, I did not dish out ad hominem. You only feel so because my argument was solid, and it defeated yours. (It was about bias, please remember where this was started by what.) You can call it an ad hominem in your effort to diminish the argument, but it won't work, because I also showed you how that was wrong of you to accuse me of uttering an ad hominem.

Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke: — Gnomon

Yes. One who does not believe in his own existence. :lol: