• TPF Quote Cabinet
    Easter? :sweat:
    Forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today. — Lawrence Krauss
  • If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?
    You may opt out. — Vera Mont
    Junkies may opt out too, but ... :smirk:
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    ↪wonderer1
    :cool: :up:
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    ↪javi2541997
    I was raised Roman Catholic, educated for twelve years in strict, working class Catholic schools, served as an altar boy for almost ten years and was an "A" student in religious studies throughout. In the light of church history as I studied it, 'God, the bible & the catechism' stopped making sense to me by the age of 15 and I discovered I had no (emotional) need to trust in / hope for mysteries, miracles or magical beings.

    As for morals, my intuition has always been that suffering is the universal problem for morality just as illness is the universal problem for medicine (I was raised by a single mother who was nurse). Moral norms, or codes, of conduct are customary rules-of-thumb and, while not "objective", they are universal in applicability – I'd more or less worked that out by the end of high school from taking my first philosophy class as a senior in which I became confident of 'the universality of the problem of suffering' from reading both Kǒngzǐ's and Hillel's negative^ versions of "The Golden Rule", and Buddha's "Four Noble Truths", and Epicurus' concept of good: "pleasure as absence of pain". It took several more years of study and lived experience before I understood that, in fact, ethics is naturalistic and therefore objective (though you, @Tom Storm & many others don't buy that). And then I began studying Spinoza ... Well, anyway, my modus vivendi after four decades remains:
    striving to overcome my suffering by reducing the suffering of others — 180 Proof

    http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/the-negative-and-positive-version-of-the-golden-rule-t16511.html ^
  • I am deeply spiritual, but I struggle with religious faith
    ↪javi2541997
    I'm an anti-supernaturalist. About forty-five years ago, while attending a Jesuit high school, I lost 'my religion'. Since then, for me 'spiritual' means celebrating (i.e. stomping) the blues both ¹aesthetically and ²ethically – ¹never separating joys & sorrows and ²striving to overcome my suffering by reducing the suffering of others. Ergo – to paraphrase Camus – stupidity³ is the only sin without god. :death: :flower:

    ³(i.e. harmful, and incorrigible misuse of judgment or refusal to think)
  • Emergence
    "AI Winter is coming." :nerd:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892509
  • What Are You Watching Right Now?
    "I'll be back." :nerd:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892509
  • Exploring the Artificially Intelligent Mind of Claude 3 Opus
    "Human" is imago dei.

    "AGI" (& formerly "gods") is imago hominis.




    "ASI" = imago machina. :monkey:
  • If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?
    ↪Vera Mont
    I think you've made my 'totalitarian mindset' point (à la Brave New World ... Nozick's Experience Machine thought-experiment ... the android Norman's speech in "I, Mudd") for me, mam – 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".
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Here's (a link to post with youtube discussing) why an explosion of terroristic political violence is more likely than not after Biden is reelected this fall (or even sooner in June/July when Criminal Defendent-1 is convicted of dozens of felonies in Manhattan) ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892493
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/420051 (from 2020)

  • If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?
    [If] we were handed every solution, many would feel they had their autonomy of knowledge acquisition stolen from them. — Benj96
    :up:

    I don't understand how "to improve everyone's welfare" is a totalitarian mindset. — Vera Mont
    If this entity is omniscient, then it not only knows more that what any of us can know but it also knows better than all of us what is good for all us. No room left for 'human agency' which would be contrary to the entity's all-knowing omnibenevolence. How can such an entity not be the Keeper (caretaker, game warden) of 'the human zoo'?


    "We shall take care of them."
    "Eminently practical."
    "And we shall serve them. And you will be happy. And controlled."

    \\//_ :nerd:
  • Understanding ethics in the case of Artificial Intelligence
    ↪Antony Nickles
    I suspect we will probably have to wait for 'AGI' to decide for itself whether or not to self-impose moral norms and/or legal constraints and what kind of ethics and/or laws it may create for itself – superceding human ethics & legal theories? – if it decides it needs them in order to 'optimally function' within (or without) human civilization.
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban [or Christian Fundamentalisms], we need only read the Old Testament [& NT Pauline Letters]. — alan1000
    As Freddy Zarathustra says
    In truth, there was only one christian and he died on the cross.

    The Abrahamic doctrine of 'vicarious redemption via human sacrifice' (i.e. martyrdom, scapegoat violence) is evil .. à la "theodicy" (e.g. otherworldly ends justify all suffering means in this world). IMO, even a casual reading of the last fifteen or so centuries of history shows that 'Western Civilization' has developed inspite of Christianity and not because of it.
  • Existentialism
    ↪Ludwig V
    What I mean is that the difference between "arbitrary" (as you put it) and "subjective", IMO, is the difference between nihilism and existentialism, respectively.

    ↪Arne
    :up:
  • What happens when we die?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    "Clinical death" is not irreversible brain decomposition in the case of "NDE / RED" and therefore only a medical status and not a biological terminus.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪boethius
    :clap: :lol:

    Here's the "real world", kid –

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076

    – a historically-informed US voter's perspective on the pending US presidential election of 2024.
  • Existentialism
    An existential (arbitrary) commitment doesn't seem very satisfactory. — Ludwig V
    How about 'subjective commitment' instead?
  • What happens when we die?
    ↪Vera Mont
    :fire:

    ↪Philosophim
    :100:

    ↪Tom Storm
    :up: :up:

    ↪Truth Seeker
    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. And yes, during my twenties while tripping on various hallucinogens, I had occasionally "recalled being dead" like the song says
    She said
    I know what it's like to be dead
    ...
    And you're making me feel like
    I've never been born
    :victory: :cool:

    You keep coming back until you learn that chasing idols (e.g., money, fame, power, etc.) won't make you happy. — RogueAI
    Or maybe, as Freddy suggests, you "keep coming back" unable to do anything else but watch ourselves make the same good and bad decisions again and again and again ... unless you learn while still alive here and now to be happy – to affirm – eternally reliving every moment of this life: the only life you will ever have.

    Amor fati, no?! :death: :flower:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Again, you state that Trump is losing support, I go check the polls to inform myself whether this is really true or not, and turns out he's not losing support. — boethius
    :rofl:
  • Counter Argument for The Combination Problem for Panpsychism
    ↪bert1
    You can rely on wikipedia for information and I will keep on thinking through the presuppositions and implications of philosophical topics (e.g. 'panpsychism = animism').

    ↪Sirius
    Explain how you/we know, or have compelling reasons to assume, that "consciousness is not physical" (or consistent with – subject to – physical laws).

    ↪Sirius
    You quote me but do not address the points I raise and yet expect me to reply to your non sequiturs. :roll:

    It is an unfounded assumption that the only things that exist in our reality are things we can find with our physical senses and science. — Patterner
    Agreed, but that's not my assumption. That's a strawman.
  • Existentialism
    ↪Ludwig V
    You've quoted @Arne, not me.
  • Counter Argument for The Combination Problem for Panpsychism
    [deleted]
  • Counter Argument for The Combination Problem for Panpsychism
    ↪flannel jesus
    :up:
  • Counter Argument for The Combination Problem for Panpsychism
    ↪Patterner
    Okay, so (as far as you/we know) our 'theories' are incomplete and data insufficient – but no "magic" involved or assumed as you've suggested. We learn from We don't know yet and not from appeals to ignorance just-so stories like "panpsychism" & other metaphysical fairytales. :sparkle:
  • Counter Argument for The Combination Problem for Panpsychism
    ↪Patterner
    How do you know that "how matter becomes conscious ... just is" and cannot be explained (even, if only, in principle)? Describe which laws of nature both allow "matter to become conscious" and yet prohibits us from explaining "how matter becomes conscious."
  • Counter Argument for The Combination Problem for Panpsychism
    ↪amber
    Welcome to TPF!

    You might find my contrarian view useful – from a 2022 thread Question regarding panpsychism ...
    ... "panpsychism" is a reductionist yet anti-emergence mystery-of-the-gaps which only compounds 'the mystery of consciousness' with a proposal to substitute a (lower level) harder problem for "the" (higher level) "hard problem". A question begged, not answered. — 180 Proof
    IMO, 'panpsychism' is metaphysically indistinguishable from Stone Age
    animism¹ and therefore its so-called "combination problem" is solved by magic (e.g. Leibniz's "pre-established harmony"²).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism ¹

    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/preestablished_harmony#English ²
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    ↪Patterner
    Natural beings cannot be separated from nature.
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    ↪Patterner
    Nature.
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    How do you see the idea of intentionality as an aspect of psychology and philosophy? — Jack Cummins
    For me, in psychology "intentionality" corresponds to attention¹ and in philosophy corresponds to aboutness².

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention ¹

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness ²

    Is 'natural' defined as that which we have discovered [uncovered] with our senses and sciences? — Patterner
    More than that: nature is that aspect (i.e. causal nexus) of encompassing reality, or being, from which human beings are fundamentally inseparable.
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    The question as to whether 'mind' is 'natural' or 'supernatural' may be of significance but the division between natural and supernatural may not be clear. — Jack Cummins
    So then decide whether 'mind is either natural or supernatural' and consistently follow the implications of that decision as far as it goes.
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    Biology, physics, and chemistry, to name a few, are not theories. — Patterner
    We produce 'testable empirical theories' (i.e. explanations of how transformations of specified states-of-affairs happen) using sciences, not philosophy which, lacking any empirical means, only clarifies and re/interprets what we think we know (or mean) but frequently do not such as 'theories' (and their constitutive elements e.g. assumptions, principles, methods, formalisms, etc).

    I wonder what are the essentials for making 'good' arguments in relation to understanding the nature of 'mind'. — Jack Cummins
    IMO, begin by deciding whether "the nature of mind" is 'natural or supernatural' and thereby following lines of philosophical inquiry and argument consistent with either the best available scientific research or the most venerable esoteric traditions. Without this decision, all one can do is confuse many issues (e.g. compare apples & onions) and generate the very "ambiguity" one's own indecisiveness generates and then blames for being "too complex". And if the initial decision (i.e. either natural or supernatural) does not cash out in the end, one has learned at least that and might start over pursuing the alternative course of reflection and inquiry; however, if both paths are cul de sacs, then one is nonetheless in good company of countless seekers who at least understand how to live within (their) cul de sacs. So what if we "fail" (S. Beckett)? Why are you seemingly so intellectually afraid to fail, Jack? To decide is, after all, the thrust of Kant's motto (borrowed from the poet Horace): Sapere Aude. :fire:
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    I am not disputing valid inferences and terms — Jack Cummins
    Maybe not, you just don't bother with making – pinning yourself down with – "good arguments".
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    What is the basis of good argument — Jack Cummins
    Valid inferences, contextual relevance, clearly defined / precisely used terms, etc.

    understanding of 'mind' and consciousness'
    ... such as Socratically provoked by this post:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/891620
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
     Likewise, Philosophy is a soft science... — Gnomon
    :sweat:

    As Witty says (and many others back to antiquity point out): "Philosophy is not a theory but an activity." –TLP, 4.112 (i.e. NOT SCIENCE)

    In a later post, you replied to ↪180 Proof : "what do you expect from me?". As a survivor of many of his Either/Or broadside attacks, I will presume to guess what he wants:
    Instead of "I will presume to guess" (i.e. making sh*t up), Gnomon, just read what I actually wrote in reply to @Jack Cummins ...
    Same as every other member of TPF, Jack, I expect from you what I expect from myself: good reasoning and valid arguments rather than unwarranted opinions or superstitions ... — 180 Proof

    Speaking of which:
    ... somewhere in the middle of that Idealism---Realism range ... — Gnomon
    Clarify, if you can, why you believe "Idealism and Realism" are disparate conceptual positions on a continuum which are different by degrees rather than different in kind.
  • Who is morally culpable?
    ↪Arne
    No doubt.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    We're blind to our blindness. We have very little idea of how little we know. We're not designed to know how little we know. — Daniel Kahneman, d. 2024

    If we look straight and deep into a chimpanzee's eyes, an intelligent self-assured personality looks back at us. If they are animals, what must we be? — Frans de Waal, d. 2024
  • Currently Reading
    Have you also read A Deepness in the Sky? — Pierre-Normand
    Yes. I usually reread only the first book (or, alternately, just one other book) in a series. I'll probably reread Peace War too. Overall Vinge's novels are quite good, especially his more speculative ideas.
  • Are we encumbered by traditional politics?
    Only a Singularity can save us? :eyes:

    I wonder if it would be possible to effect a fundamental break from outmoded traditional political categories in aid of an agenda of enlightened universal inclusion? — Pantagruel
    Globally, we are roughly ten millennia on from living as hunter-gatherers outside of scarcity-driven/reproducing economies 'irregulated' by dominance hierarchies (e.g. theocracies; monarchies-aristocracies; autocracies-oligarchies; (potemkin) democracies; plutocracies-corporatocracies; ... hegemonies). In small numbers and living in uncrowded commons we tend to prefer 'egalitarian freedom over inegalitarian security'; currently, the global population exceeds 8 billion humans with over 90% of us crowded into cities of millions (or tens-to-hundreds of thousands) and towns of thousands of non-familial strangers such that material scarcities are exacerbated by cultural-status scarcities driving all kinds of tribal (i.e. populist) movements which seek 'inegalitarian security "in the name of" egalitarian freedom' (such as e.g. "enlightened universal inclusion"). IMHO, 'global civilization' is a millennia-old, (mostly) viciously circular, scarcity-trap that "traditional politics" seems needed in order to (barely) keep it going without collapsing into a catastrophic state from which it (we) might not be able to recover (... maybe, however, until now: anthropogenic climate change).

    There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka
  • Is the philosophy of mind dead?
    [P]hilosophy is tasked with finding the questions that need to be answered, and in putting some constraints on the possible answers, and that science is tasked with finding the answers that can be empirically justified. — Malcolm Lett
    Works for me. :up:

    Taking a scientific viewpoint, I have a strong theory that explains consciousness in purely reductionist mechanistic principles, and I can argue that it explains phenomenal consciousness. But any arguments I present will not be accepted because the explanations are too far from our intuitions.
    In science, this quality is a feature not a bug and therefore piques my philosophical interest. :cool:

    I've been trying to read Chalmer's The Conscious Mind, and, while Chalmer's was the one who got me interested in consciousness in the first place and I have tremendous respect for him, I am frustrated by the oblique assumptions that riddle his arguments -- assumptions that I don't agree with.
    :up:

    If you've read Being No One (or its less technical summary The Ego Tunnel) by Thomas Metzinger, I wonder what you think of his phenomenal self model (PSM) of consciousness. If you're not familiar with his work, Malcoim, I highly recommend it given your self-described interest in the philosophy of mind. (Also, this ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755060)
Home » 180 Proof