• What's the Difference between Philosophy and Science?
    The scope of science includes more th[an] nature? — ucarr
    AFAIK: no, it cannot.

    The scope of nature includes more than material things and their attendant physics?
    Yes (e.g. facts, subjects).

    I argue for the vanishing point of difference between science and philosophy through the essential linkage connecting brain and mind.
    I agree, but for a different reason: reality itself is the negation of impossibility (e.g. facts in contradiction to one another or to themselves; things with inconsistent properties), or that the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) is the coin of the real(m) with complementary faces: Philosophy (roots, heads) and Science (branches, tails).

    NB: 'religion', however, is only an 'IOU' (fiat money).
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    (Writing this out now so you can throw it at me later if I’m wrong.) — Mikie
    :smirk: :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    5April24

    FWIW: my 2024 "election predictions" (based on (A) electoral trends 2017-2023 completely favoring Dems; (B) SCOTUS & MAGA-GOP taking away women's reproductive rights / criminalizing abortions; (C) consistent trend of 20% of GOP primary voters rejecting Loser-1 even after Haley, DeSantis & Christie suspended their campaigns; (D) Criminal Defendant-1 convicted in NY by June/July; (E) benefits of Biden's economy broadly felt by September; (F) etc):

    1. Biden-Harris reelected
    -gets 5-7 million more votes than Loser-1 again (even with lower turnout than 2020)
    -gets more (suburban) women voters
    -gets more under 35 year old voters
    -gets more minorities voters
    -gets more independent voters
    -wins 4-5 out of 7 "swing states" (plus 1-2 more "red states" (e.g. NC))

    2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)

    3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain)

    update:

    Third-party candidates RFK, J. Stein & C. West collectively will be a non-factor in the outcome of the 2024 election.
  • Wondering about inverted qualia
    ↪bert1
    How so?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Many[none] of these circumstances applied when Hillary ran and she lost. — Benkei
    Not so, not even close ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851623

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it because my gut and my head tells me not to panic. Loser-1 and his MAGATs are going to keep on losing as they have every year since 2017. :victory: :mask:
  • Wondering about inverted qualia
    Ah well. I'm here to talk philosophy. — AmadeusD
    :gasp:
  • Wondering about inverted qualia
    ↪AmadeusD
    :yawn:
  • Wondering about inverted qualia
    Qualia are experienced as non-physical. — AmadeusD
    :roll:
  • Wondering about inverted qualia
    ... qualia (the subjective feel of experiences) cannot be accounted for purely by physical/functional properties ... — Matripsa
    So what accounts for "qualia" other, or more efficacious, than "physical/functional properties"?
  • Understanding ethics in the case of Artificial Intelligence
    But AGI is limited to knowledge, and so, structurally, it can only decide and choose based on information already made explicit that it is told or learns. — Antony Nickles
    This is incorrect even for today's neural networks' and LLMs' generative algorithms which clearly exhibit creativity (i.e. creating new knowledge or new solutions to old problems (e.g. neural network AlphaGo's 'unprecedented moves' in its domination of Go grandmaster Lee Sedol in 2016)). 'Human-level intelligence' entails creativity so there aren't any empirical grounds (yet?) to doubt that 'AGI' will be (at least) as creative (i.e. capable of imaging counterfactuals and making judgments which exceed its current knowledge) as its makers. It will be able to learn whatever we can learn and that among all else includes (if, for its own reasons, it chooses to learn) how to be a moral agent.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪RogueAI
    Big whup. :wink:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076
  • Information and Randomness
    ↪Wayfarer
    :up: :up:
  • What's the Difference between Philosophy and Science?
    Science of Philosophy, or philosophy of science? — ucarr
    Philosophy of science.

    Can scientific truth and philosophical truth contradict each other and yet retain their validity, respectively?
    Philosophy is not theoretical but rather is interpretive (i.e. makes explicit – problemarizes – presuppositions and/or implicitations) of non-theoretical as well as theoretical statements.

    Does science deviate from the philosophical project when it rolls up its sleeves and gets down and dirty with observation of nature, experimentation, and double-blind testing?
    Science extends, not "deviates" from, philosophy into matters of fact (e.g. applied maths and logics).

    If science discovers a posteriori the facts of nature, then does it follow that science, being the source of empirical truth, equates itself with materialism?
    No

    Is every[any] category of science a type of materialism?
    No.

    Does philosophy hold aloof from science within an academic fortress of abstract math and logic?
    I don't understand this question.

    If philosophy of science governs scientific practice, then does it follow that philosophy, being the source of the rules, equates itself with metaphysics?
    "Philosophy of science" does not "govern science", it only clarifies and interprets concepts, methods, models, experiments, etc (and maybe even the import to, or impact on, non-scientific, or cultural, practices).

    Is every category of philosophy a type of metaphysics?
    IMHO, a (kataphatic) metaphysics proposes a categorical hierarchy, or organization, of topics/aporias in philosophy – (e.g.)
    [ontology¹ [axiology² [epistemology]]]
    which can be read knowing derived from valuing derived from being
    – that is, 'conceptually making sense in the most general way of reality in the most general sense'.


    (including theology & cosmology)¹
    (i.e. aesthetics, ethics, logic)²
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    ↪SpaceDweller
    Read the articles I've linked so you can tell for yourself whether or not "JTB is antiquated".

    Say we have accepted some not-yet-falsified claim and count it as knowledge, and then it becomes falsified. Was it ever knowledge in that case? — Janus
    No, but actual knowledge is fallibilistic.
  • What happens when we die?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    I wouldn't assume that's true. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Anecdotes ain't good enough for me, Seeker.
  • What happens when we die?
    Did you watch the video and read the research paper in the first post on this thread? — Truth Seeker
    No.

    Are you saying that they don't count as evidence?
    Yes, of course (or at least not as relevant and sufficient "evidence"^^).

    If so, why don't they count as evidence?
    As I've already stated:
    Resuscitation is not resurrection^^ (or reincarnation). Death is irreversible brain decomposition^^. Unless 'dis-embodied subjectivity' (i.e. flat earth) is the case, "NDE" or "RED" cannot be anything but a false memory illusion. — 180 Proof
    ."Clinical death" indicates the limit of (available) medical interventions for reviving a patient and not [relevant and sufficient evidence^^ :point:] the terminal stage of a patient's morbidity.
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    ↪SpaceDweller
    "JTB" is antiquated. Much more cogent:

    "belief"
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

    "knowledge"
    https://iep.utm.edu/karl-popper-critical-ratiotionalism/
  • The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
    Why use scientific progress and not simply technological progress? — ssu
    :up: :up:

    ↪SpaceDweller
    Every 'civilization' is always most vulnerable to (thermodynamic and/or information) entropy.
  • What happens when we die?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    This thread topic is "not based on evidence" either.
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    Belief is assent (true if warranted, opinion if unwarranted, delusion if its negation is warranted).

    Knowledge consists of truths or not-yet-falsified claims the statuses of which are independent of dis/belief.
  • What happens when we die?
    No one deserves to go to heaven or hell because no one has free will. — Truth Seeker
    Calvinists, for instance, (seem to) believe that some are pre-determined to be "damned" or "saved".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    But feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. — boethius
    Been there, done that. :lol:
    .
  • If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?
    Perhaps human agency (free will) is at the pinnacle of their determination of what is good for us. — Benj96
    :chin: Even so ...
    I've no reason to doubt that this "all-knowing omnibenevolent entity" would coopt us into engineering a humanly inescapable menagerie ("Matrix") for our own good that optimally simulates "the illusion of agency". — 180 Proof
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    2April24

    To date over 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israel since 7Oct23 and the (US-backed) slaughter continues ...

    Feel the Bern: "Stop murdering innocent people!"
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/02/bernie-sanders-netanyahu-gaza-murdering-innocent-people

    "Netanyahu branded 'traitor' by Israeli protestors"
    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2487171/middle-east
  • The Meta-management Theory of Consciousness
    ↪wonderer1
    Thanks for posting! Excellent article.
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    I feel my soul is rotten — javi2541997
    Forgive me but this sounds like you need a therapist or priest and I don't think you'll find either here on TPF.
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    I know those will affect my spirit because I believe I have one. But how would affect you 180 proof, if you reject spirituality? — javi2541997
    I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, javi. As a moral naturalist, I believe the "affect" on me has been to help me daily to be a more effective moral agent who is also free of superstitions. :strong:

    What is the aim or cause of improving my moral judgment according to your beliefs and ideas?
    The "aim or cause" is to develop habits of "moral judgment" (i.e. virtues) in order to help reduce your apparent anxiety at 'inconsistently choosing' to follow rules (i.e. "obey religious commandments"). I assumed I'd made this clear in my previous posts. :confused:
  • Existentialism
    Am I free to abandon my commitments? — Ludwig V
    IIRC, an existentialist would say you're not committed if you remain able to "abandon" them afterwards.

    If so, how are they authentic and essential?
    They are not commitments in the existential (e.g. "leap-of-faith") sense.

    If not, how am I free?
    You are free to "leap" but not free of the consequences (i.e. falling).

    I'm not even clear what is wrong with being inauthentic, if that's what I choose to be sometimes.
    This is called "passive nihilism" or "bad faith".

    The idea of bad faith suggests a reason, but a moral one, which means it can be a choice.
    IIRC, one cannot "choose" bad faith since bad faith consists in the denial of free choice (i.e. commitment) such as "What can I do? Shit happens. I can't do anything about this" etc ... Bad faith means conformity, or banality, and passivity over agency – not a "reason" or "choice" but rationalization instead.
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    ... my intention is to see ethics objectively. Is there a universal principle of good and bad? — javi2541997
    Yes. Consider the 'naturalistic morality' I've pointed out already ...
    Reducing suffering is like reducing illness: though the local customs of morality (or public health) vary, the problem confronted is the same for every member of the human species. How can it not be? — 180 Proof
    And furthermore:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892545

    What about lying and honesty? Etc.
    From the perspective of a 'naturalistic moral agent' one judges whether "lying" or "honesty" reduces needless suffering (right) or fails to reduce needless suffering (wrong) and then one acts accordingly. Practice – learning by trial and error application of this principle (criterion) – gradually improves (habitualizes) moral judgment/conduct.
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    We create our own values, therefore we are gods, although small. — bert1
    :roll:
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    It seems to me that 'Christian Ethics and Values' (or whatever we can call it) is kidnapped by the Church. — javi2541997
    After all, "the Church" invented "Christian Ethics and Values" which, in effect, "kidnapped" pre-religious, naturalistic morality just like other cults had always done and still do. As Plato's Euthyphro implies: morality and laws cannot follow from the decrees of "God or gods", javi. What do you think makes Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical" possible? Ethics (re: eusocial norms of judgment and conduct) and religion (re: cultic paths to salvation/liberation) are independent of each other, even though the latter usually "kidnaps" the former. However, Good is not dependent on "God or gods" and vice versa.

    This is why I struggle with religious faith.
    Maybe you have an emotional need for "faith" (i.e. magical thinking) but it's the unbelievability – hope for things too good to be true – that is in conflict with your reason and/or lived experience. Maybe you'd benefit from therapy rather than reading about the 'spiritual torments' of others and online discussions like this one ...
  • What happens when we die?
    I realised that we are all doing inevitable things and are not worthy of praise or blame. — Truth Seeker
    Well then, apparently, it's "inevitable" for me to "praise or blame" ... :mask:
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    My response to that has been to return to the source material, at which point, what is the point of religion? — Tzeentch
    :up:
  • What Might an Afterlife be Like?
    @ToothyMaw

    In case you missed this one ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/891578
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    Why do they do this? — javi2541997
    In sum, 'churches' – organized/official cults – are confidence games (i.e. pyramid schemes) and 'heretics' make the grift harder to keep going and harder to keep the suckers in the game. Like any other racket, customers (victims) straying from the authorized script(ure) is bad for business. IMO, the more 'missionary' and corrupt a religion is, the less tolerant of 'heresy' it becomes. Read histories of (e.g.) Catholicism and Islam.
  • Understanding ethics in the case of Artificial Intelligence
    ↪Antony Nickles
    I've not drawn any "picture of morality". My point is that the 'AGI', not humans, will decide whether or not to impose on itself and abide by (some theory of) moral norms, or codes of conduct; besides, its 'sense of responsibility' may or may not be consistent with human responsibility. How or why 'AGI' decides whatever it decides will be done so for its own reasons which humans might or might not be intelligent enough to either grasp or accept.
  • Understanding ethics in the case of Artificial Intelligence
    ↪Antony Nickles
    I should have written "I don't follow your thinking". And I still don't since it doesn't seem that you are responding to what I actually wrote.
  • Understanding ethics in the case of Artificial Intelligence
    ↪Antony Nickles
    You lost me.

    ↪Arne
    :up:
  • Existentialism
    ↪Ludwig V
    I don't quite follow you. As I read them, Kierkegaard and Sartre are existentialists (i.e. commitments which manifest an 'essence') and Camus is an absurdist (i.e. striving against both 'having an essence' (idealism) and 'not having an essence' (nihilism)) – none, however, are nihilists (i.e. 'not having an essence', (therefore) 'no commitments' (i.e. arbitrarily riot for the sake of rioting, obey for the sake of obeying, f*ck for the sake of f*cking, belief for the sake of believing, kill for the sake of killing, etc)).
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:

    I wonder to what extent Kierkegaard or Dostoviesky inspired you ... — javi2541997
    Not at all. I read their writings much later.

    The code of conduct is not universally applied.
    No doubt. My claim, however, is that, applied or not, 'naturalistic morality' is always applicable wherever and whenever there is needless suffering.

    What we think, in the Western world, as norms and values can be very different in the East. The basic notion of how to act accordingly to ethical principles is still blurred.
    Reducing suffering is like reducing illness: though the local customs of morality (or public health) vary, the problem confronted is the same for every member of the human species. How can it not be?

    ↪wonderer1
    :clap: :smirk:

    I find Ortega y Gasset an important counterpoint to Unamuno. A struggle to understand experience.

    As an "American", Octavio Paz hits me hard with many of the same questions.     — Paine
    :up: :up: Oh yes (decades ago for me, especially Paz).

    Do you feel the same? — javi2541997
    I don't because, in the following sense, I'm neither "spiritual" nor "religious":
    "Spiritual" means to me haunted by ghosts (and "religious" belonging to a spiritual community). Th[ere] may be proof of feeling haunted, [but] not "proof of ghosts" (i.e. disembodied entities). — 180 Proof
Home » 180 Proof