• The Question of Causation
    I question that the brain can be described in solely physical terms or as a physical thing. — Wayfarer

    By what means? Its the current scientific consensus.

    But a living brain exists in constant flux, generating experiences, meanings, and novel responses that seem to emerge from, but aren’t reducible to, these physical substrates. — Wayfarer

    Take an instrument. Take air. Alone they are physical substrates. Combine them together over time and you have interactions. But those actions cannot occur without the existence of the two physical identities.

    Even if successful, it would miss the semantic content, the intentions, the meaning being imparted. — Wayfarer

    If you don't include the meaning, content, and intentions, then of course they aren't included. If you do, they are.

    'It would be possible', wrote Einstein, 'to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.' — Wayfarer

    I have no objection to describing things emotionally. Raw science is a careful breakdown to understand how and why it moves at a detailed level. I can scientifically describe a hinge on a door or simply say, "Its so the door swings open." We shouldn't confuse the context of emotional and colloquial language as somehow superceeding the underlying detailed reality we often gloss over. Scientific language does not call for the elimination of poetry, wonder, or emotion. It simply provides a detailed understanding behind it.

    How any combination of neurochemicals can 'produce' or equate to an idea or some neural content is currently completely unknown. — Wayfarer

    This is simply not true. Modern medical science and pharmacology would not be where its at if we did not understand the brain at the level we do. The brain being the local of thought is not a belief system, it is the only rational conclusion modern science can make. Until that rational conclusion is legitimately challenged, one can suppose or imagine that the thought comes somewhere else than the brain, but they cannot rationally assert it as a reasonable possibility.
  • The Question of Causation
    ↪Philosophim I am asking what you think. You sound like you are buried in the physicalist reductionist camp. What flaws are there with this position? — I like sushi

    Answer my question and you will likely know what I think. I do not follow 'physicalism'. I'm simply asking you a question after answering yours.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    ↪Philosophim You wouldn't know philosophy if it jumped up and bit you. — Sam26

    The fact you only responded with an insult should be telling to yourself Sam.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Coming back to this one after a while.

    The fundamental issue isn't whether NDE testimonies are true or false, but whether we're applying consistent standards. If we accept testimony about the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) or the existence of black holes, both beyond direct verification, why not testimony about experiences during clinical death? — Sam26

    Because those claims have already passed scientific rigor. Years of research, peer review, and challenges using careful experiments have been cleared to finally be passed down to lay people. You can look up the experiments, the research, the process, and the evidence. You can question the falsifiable conclusions yourself. I see no evidence of testimony not receiving consistent or fair standards in scientific inquiry.

    Many people mistakenly believe that if science hasn't confirmed something, we cannot claim to know it. — Sam26

    And many people don't. The problem is that the scientific studies that have been made on this have not found any conclusive evidence of consciousness existing apart from the brain. The problem isn't that science hasn't 'confirmed' it. Its that there's no scientific evidence for consciousness after death that passes muster. Its why science also hasn't confirmed Big Foot or unicorns. That's why you're not going to a scientific forum to publish this, but a philosophy forum. You want to bypass the people who will clearly point out why you are wrong because this is a genuine neuroscientific exploration, not philosophical exploration.

    Our deepest convictions about meaning, morality, and relationships transcend purely empirical methods. — Sam26

    That is because we lack empirical alternatives. We do not lack empirical alternatives to explore consciousness surviving brain death. There has been, to my mind, no scientifically peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates consciousness survives after death. Willfully denying empirical evidence is irrational. You can believe someone loves you, but if evidence is found clearly that they tried to murder you, you rationally come to accept they don't in fact love you.

    What's missing is a genuinely neutral investigation, one that neither assumes NDEs are glimpses of the afterlife nor dismisses them as dying brain phenomena. This requires examining the testimonial evidence with the same rigor we'd apply to any important knowledge claim, whether in science, law, or history. It means developing clear criteria for when testimony provides genuine knowledge versus mere anecdote. — Sam26

    We already have that. No one doubts that people experience NDEs. They are real to the person experiencing them. That doesn't mean that one's vivid experiences correlate correctly with complete brain death, or that these vivid experiences accurately are an accurate interpretation of reality. We already know that testimonial evidence can be unreliable while conscious, much less unconscious. https://carleton.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/c320ba1c-a9dc-44b9-b161-3052bfba78d3/content

    Considering you have not answered many of the criticisms noted about near death experiences, and you're still pushing this thread, I would ask yourself why you're dodging points that need answers and trying to skirt around this. This isn't philosophy. This is an obsession.
  • The Question of Causation
    Yet, we are aware of things that do not exist for us through abstractions. We are 'aware' of abstractions. — I like sushi

    Through our physical brains.

    Of course the onus is on non-physical positions to help physicalist positions rethink what 'physical' means now and coudl mean under a cognitive paradigm shift — I like sushi

    Exactly. Can you point something out to me that exists but isn't somehow physical?
  • Artificial Intelligence and the Ground of Reason (P2)
    1. AI does not have its own bodily way of perceiving the world. Everything that AI "knows" about us, about our affairs, it takes from human texts. Returning to the ideas of Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, AI is deprived of temporality and finitude, it is deprived of living experience. Today it is a complex algorithmic calculator. — Astorre

    Fantastic. AI knows the world through language models. How it, 'understands it' is a subjective notion that we have no more understanding of than a person. But what we can know is its imputs and what is processes. If we could allow a language processing model to have access to the five senses of people, then we could begin to compare it to people. As it is, it is likely an intelligence, just one constrained in what thinking is for it, as well as what it can think about.
  • The Problem of Affirmation of Life
    ↪kirillov


    Welcome to the forums!

    First, I would see a psychologist if you're having issues dealing with depression or emotional issues. Philosophy can when we're not knee deep in emotional torpor, but a good person can help you work through it when you're in the thick of it.

    I view good as existence. The more, the better. Life is one of the most complex and concentrated existences the universe contains. It is a set of chemical reactions that does not merely burn out, but seeks to renew itself for as long as possible. And as such we, life, make the world into something so much more existent than it would be had we all remained inert carbon.

    The sadness of course is some life has it harder than others. Could be physical or mental issues. Yet while such a life is not as blessed as another, in comparison to the rocks in the ground it is still a light in the universe. Focus not on the things you can't do, but on the things you can. Write, read, play games, make some art. Do, be, and live in ways that let you forget its pains where you can.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    How do they learn that? The elder could easily have brown eyes, as far as she's concerned. — flannel jesus

    Because the elder sees that everyone left has brown eyes. Its the same as one person who doesn't know if they have blue eyes looking at other blue eyes, though perhaps it would take 101 days to figure it out.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    Why would they have? — flannel jesus

    Let me think through it again. The elder has green, first person view doesn't know if they have green, brown, or some other color eyes.

    After all the blue eyes leave, everyone sees that there are only brown and one green eyed person. No one would leave the first day. But what do we learn from that? The elder learns they do not have brown eyes, nor blue eyes, but, something I missed, they'll never know they have green eyes so can't ever leave the island.

    Since the elder doesn't leave, the brown eyes who don't know their own color know they don't have blue or green eyes. So I guess this leaves the idea that they could have some unknown color like red. At this point it means there is only one eye color that is uncertain, each brown eyed person doesn't know if they have brown eyes. So perhaps I was right the first time and they would simply follow the logic that the blue eyes people did. I would think further, but I have to go to work. Again, fun puzzle. :)
  • Does anybody really support mind-independent reality?
    Nope. This topic is not an epistemic one. I'm not asking how you know something exists or not. I am looking for a belief system that is consistent with mind independence, and where the limits are placed is critical to that. — noAxioms

    What you are looking for is a way to find rational or cogent inductions. Read my paper, it answers that. I'll post the answer here but you probably won't understand it until you do. Once you understand what applicable knowledge is, (A definition that you test deductively against reality for contradictions), the next step is being reasonable about situations in which you cannot test deductively against reality. The most reasonable thing is to create an induction that has the least steps removed from what is applicably known. While an induction can never be certain by definition, it can be reasonable, and thus a hierarchy of inductions can be created.

    Probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational are the hierarchies of induction. Probability is the belief that what is applicably known can happen again, and applicable knowledge of its limits. Possibility is taking what has been applicably known and believing it can happen again. Plausibility is distinctive knowledge, or a creation of an idea in the mind that seems logical, but has yet to be tested against reality. Finally an irrational belief is holding that distinctive knowledge which has been shown to be contradicted by reality, is believed to be known or induced as being viable in reality.

    While none of the inductions are certain, in a competing set of beliefs, it is most rational to take the higher order of induction over the lower. For example: Its possible to win the lottery, but improbable. As probability is a higher order of induction, the most rational belief to hold is that it is massively unlikely that you will win the lottery and not bother purchasing a ticket. If someone comes up to you and says, "It's plausible a unicorn that cannot be sensed by any means exists, we should base our actions as if one exists" you can counter, "Yes, but we've never applicably known one. Therefore its possibility of existence is 0, and we do not have to rationally consider that it exists in our decisions going forward."
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim I don't think so. I only think blue eyed people can leave. — flannel jesus

    Ok, and I might be wrong on this, but I'll put my logic out.

    Once all the blue eyed people leave, then everyone else sees just brown eyed people and the elder. Meaning that essentially the elder just said, "I see someone with brown eyes". And at this point, I think I was wrong on it taking another 100 days. If you see 99 people with the same eye color and they don't leave, they all are uncertain of their own eye color. But, since all 99 don't leave the next day after blue eyes leave, that's because they each brown eyed person realizes 'I must have brown eyes, otherwise they all would have left'. So its day 101, that none of the brown eyes people leave, then they leave on day 102. Finally day 103 the elder would leave as no one is left on the island.
  • The Question of Causation
    ↪Wayfarer
    There is no 'mental' reality that exists apart from the physical.
    — Philosophim

    Them. They are physical. Their brain is physical. Again, this is very much like a computer cycling through one's and zero's in the machine. Just because its not emitting light that we can see, doesn't mean that physical processing isn't happening.     — J
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus
    To clarify, this calculus is to see if they have blue eyes. And I mixed up colors, I meant brown eyed people, not the elder. Once all the brown eyed people leave, then at that point the same thing would happen with the brown eyes people. On day 101 the game would begin again for the brown eyes, and at day 200 they would all leave as well. Finally the elder would leave at day 201. Do I have it right?
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus
    I see, the detail I was missing was not thinking in terms of days later. It just takes glossing over one detail to throw you off. I can see that working for two. If you looked around and saw only one, and they didn't leave, then yes, that would mean one other person had to have blue eyes, and logically that would be you.

    Alright, let me tackle 3 now as I think I see what you're getting at. From my perspective, I would see 2 blue eyed people. I don't know if I have blue or green eyes. But if I had green eyes, I would see one more blue-eyed person than someone with blue eyes. So after the second day, if no one left, from the blue eyes perspective people, they would know that the other two blue eyes see one more blue eyed person. So by day 3, all blue eyed people will leave.

    I'm assuming this pattern continues up to day 100. The reason why blue can do this is because green eyed people will be doing the same calculus, but one day behind blue. Ok, that's pretty cool!
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus
    Sure I'm game. I'm not seeing how either could know.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    There are 100 blue eyed, 100 brown eyed, 1 green eyed. That's not a "rule", that's just the scenario. — flannel jesus

    This is a logic puzzle, every detail is an important rule. If you misunderstand or don't think critically about everything, you're going to miss out. Thank you, I'll think about your scenario again. I find it odd that you mention the day they would leave.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    so you're inventing nonsense to be confused about, and now you're inventing stuff to be angry at.

    Try to use logic and think about it.     — flannel jesus

    No, I'm done if you won't confirm that I had the rules right at this point. I just feel like you're trolling. If you want me to keep playing, please confirm my understanding that there are at the time the elder is speaking, 100 blue eyes, 100 brown eyes, and 1 green eyed elder.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    2 blue eyed people, 198 brown eyes. Guru says "I see someone with blue eyes". What do you think happens then? — flannel jesus

    If this answer is something like, "Everyone will turn and stare at the two blue eyed people, I'm going to be angry. That's not a logic puzzle, that's a riddle. Logically it is not definite that people will turn around and all stare at the blue-eyed people at the same time, as the blue eyed people would need to be looking at both blue eyed and green eyed people to see who's staring at who.

    Logic puzzles leave no room for human error or uncertainty.
  • The Question of Causation
    When you imagine a red apple, you experience the color red in your mind’s eye, but there is no actual red in the brain. — RogueAI

    No, because the red that the brain sees is not emitted light. Its physical light that is interpreted into a subjective experience of those brain cells.

    01100001 Do you see the letter A? Well if this is processed into a visual medium and displayed on a screen, you would see this binary code as A. But if I don't have a screen and am looking at the bits, I have no idea its A. But its still 'A' in the language and process of the machine.

    The fact that a brain state accompanies a mental state doesn’t mean the two are the same. — RogueAI

    Correct, if the mental state has some other measurable aspect. But it doesn't does it? Actual neuroscience has demonstrated that altering brain states alter the states of one's experience. Just because we don't have a physical screen to translate that physical experience into something we can see with light, doesn't mean there is some ephemeral non-physical existence. We need some type of evidence for that, and there doesn't seem to be any.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim I'm asking you to imagine something. That's it. Either you can, or you can't. If you cannot imagine any different scenario than the one presented, then you will be incapable of understanding the logic of the solution. — flannel jesus

    Ok, so I'm going to assume that YES, its always 201 people, but that the eye color can vary at any one time. In that case, the solution is trivial. Obviously if the eye color can vary, then in the case where one person could see everyone else did not have blue eyes, they would know they have blue eyes. Flannel, your logic puzzle needs another pass on clarity. People not understanding the rules of your puzzle isn't a puzzle, that's just confusing.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim I don't even understand what you're asking. — flannel jesus

    I said in my summary that there are at the time of the elder speaking, 100 blue eyed, 100 brown eyed, and 1 green eyed elder. You said that summary was correct. You are now presenting a scenario in which there could be a different balance of eye color. Are you saying that the balance of eye color could be any variety at the time the elder speaks?
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim I'm asking you to imagine something. Can you do that? — flannel jesus

    I'm asking you to clarify the rules. Imagining something that isn't in the rules is pointless if I'm unsure of the rules. Please clarify the rules as I noted, then I will gladly imagine it.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim I'll work my way up to the answer.

    Imagine instead that of the 200 people the guru was speaking to, 199 of them had brown eyes and 1 had blue eyes. The guru says "I see someone with blue eyes". What happens next? Can anybody leave then?     — flannel jesus

    You agreed with me earlier here:

    A. There are 100 blue eyes, 100 brown eyes, and one green eyed elder. — Philosophim

    Are you now saying this was incorrect and that the number of people with different eye color could be different when the elder finally speaks?
  • The Question of Causation
    "Mental actions are physical actions."
    Does not follow at all. How do you get an identity statement out of the first two? Compare:

    You cannot have a football game that exists apart from the players and the field.
    It is a mistake of category to believe that "a football game" is divorced from the players and the field.
    Therefore: A football game is the players and the field.

    ? - I don't think so. At best, you might conclude that the actions comprising a football game are made by players, on a field, but that's not nearly a good enough description.     — J

    Your therefore is wrong. You can only conclude a football game is comprised of players and field. If you have no players or field, you have no existent football game. A football game is a game that comprises players and a field. You cannot have a football game apart from these.

    Now lets go back to physical reality which doesn't quite fit your analogy. 'Mental' actions are physical reality. If my brain connects in a certain way, that physical reality is that I feel X. "Mental" is a category of physical experience, but is still physical. There is no 'mental' reality that exists apart from the physical. I cannot grab something non-physical out of the air and say, "That's a mental reality." Mental actions are simply a category of physical actions, and it is a category mistake to think they can exist independently when no one has ever shown this to be the case.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim all 200 people. — flannel jesus

    Thank you. Then logically taking only the information given, no one would be able to leave the island. All the elder has confirmed is that blue is a color of eye that at least someone has. Of course, everyone already knew that. It didn't need to be the elder that stated it, it could be anyone. "Someone" in the logical sense means "at least one".

    At least, this is assuming there is no other outside information that is needed to know about eye color etc. Taking the problem verbatim with no outside knowledge needed, its impossible for anyone to determine the necessary logical conclusion about their own eye color. If you're concerned about posting the answer here, feel free to give me a direct message. I promise I won't reveal the answer.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus
    Not a worry, that's just how I break down things to make sure I understand the situation correctly.

    The elder saw all of them and was looking at everyone when she said it. Not any one person. — flannel jesus

    And when you say, "All of them" do you mean the 100 blue eyes and 100 brown eyed individuals on the island? Or could this be a variable number like there only being 1 besides the elder at the point the elder speaks?
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim it genuinely seems like you're trying to be confused — flannel jesus

    Out of all the replies I didn't expect this one. Any good logic problem needs to be broken down and poked at carefully. If I appear confused while breaking down your logic problem, perhaps your logic problem isn't very straight forward and needs some refinement? Feel free to correct my points if I have misread anything.
  • The Question of Causation
    What are your thoughts regarding Mental Actions as Causal Actions? — I like sushi

    Mental actions are physical actions. You cannot have a mental action that exists apart from some physical reality like the brain. It is a mistake of category to believe that 'mental' is divorced from physical reality.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    Any islanders who have figured out the color of their own eyes then leave the island, and the rest stay. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. — flannel jesus

    Ok, so one person knows all the other people on the island, and knows their eye color. The only one they don't know is themselves.

    On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). — flannel jesus

    Ok. So I'm assuming that this is taking place when there is this number of people on the island. This is VERY important as if the elder can speak at any time and the number of people would be different, then this is a different story. In fact, if they can change from this number, this initial number never should be mentioned and this needs to be restated more carefully.

    but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totals could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes. — flannel jesus

    Ok, so no one knows what color eyes another has, and apparently we can make up colors of eyes that people don't have like purple. Are you sure this is just not limited to green, blue, or brown?

    Standing before the islanders, she says the following:

    "I can see someone who has blue eyes."     — flannel jesus

    What is "The islanders?" Because you mentioned earlier that there were 100 with blue eyes and 100 with green eyes. "Islanders" implies "All of them". Is this poorly worded? Is it "At least one islander?"

    As the initial premise is written, this is the set up.

    A. There are 100 blue eyes, 100 brown eyes, and one green eyed elder.
    B. However, the islanders do not know that this is the limit of eye color, and their eye colors could be any color under the rainbow. They also don't know the actual number. So even if they see 100 blue eyed individuals, they're own eye color could be blue or anything else.
    C. The elder is speaking to all 200 other people on the island, and we're assuming he sees all 200 people, and says, "I see someone with blue eyes".

    The only uncertainty that isn't listed here is how many people the elder saw while speaking to everyone. If its more than one person, there is no one who could know their eye color, as they don't know the total of blue eyes on the island. Therefore the only logical conclusion I can think of if we know someone does figure out their eye color, is if the elder is speaking to everyone, but one person is the only one being seen, and understands they are the only one being seen. That person could figure it out then and leave that night.
  • Opening Statement - The Problem
    The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles — Pieter R van Wyk

    Yes, I did that in the link for a proposed objective morality. I have yet to have anybody rationally critique its first premise conclusions that the necessary base of any possible objective morality that is real, must note that existence is preferable to non-existence. From there I build a theory which is absolutely a work in progress, but I can't get anybody to go deeper than the initial premise because most just want to talk about human morality. My morality starts as 'existential morality' which eventually builds up to human morality.

    The only thing that I ask from any "astute reader" is an agreement on the perception of the conditional truth that physical things (the things consisting of mass or energy) exist. All my understanding follows from this assumption. — Pieter R van Wyk

    It is perfectly fine to insist on any starting conversation "We are going to assume X is true." If anyone says, "But I don't believe X is true" then you simply note that is not the scope of the conversation and that the discussion is IF X is true. Anyone who does not agree to this can be ignored in their responses.

    If philosophy could not arrive at a better understanding of "human nature", an understanding that would render a better chance for solving humanity's problems, then it is high time that we consider a different understanding. — Pieter R van Wyk

    Correct. Its why I entered into the field. Its what I've focused on for years. But most people in this field are not interested in it. They want to safely stay in the things they are familiar with as scholars. They want to play word games or tell you what THEY think instead of listening to and actually dissecting your ideas. Or worst of all, just troll your thread.

    I am very interested in talking about things besides long dead philosophies of the past that truly have no further relevance or solutions. If you are interested in seeing my takes on the issues, feel free to read my posts and comment in them. If you have your own take and you want me to dissect it, feel free to post and I will do my best.

    Oh, one more on the valid speculation of God. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1
  • Does anybody really support mind-independent reality?
    Pick something you believe doesn't exist. Why do you believe it doesn't exist? What is your criteria for deciding one way or the other? I ask because the criteria specified is most often based on observation, making it observer dependent. — noAxioms

    Its irrelevant why I believe something does not exist. Its relevant if I know that something doesn't exist. Belief is a feeling. Knowledge is an objective determination.

    There is often a confusion between "What we know" and "What is".
    Almost everything is 'what we believe'. Much of what claim to be known is just beliefs. I'm fine with that. I'm not asking if we know reality is mind dependent. I'm seeing if the beliefs are really what they claim to be.     — noAxioms

    The only way to know if a belief is valid is if you have done the diligence to turn it into knowledge. There is a way to measure inductions by a hierarchy of types, but you need to know what knowledge is first.

    That is a fantastic example of a belief. Plenty of self-consistent views deny this. I personally would say that a world external to myself is perceived. That much makes it relation with an observer. It does not imply that said world exists, unless 'exist' is defined as that relation (which is often how I use the word). — noAxioms

    No, its basic knowledge. There was a time you did not exist, now you do. Do you think you spontaneously created and are the only person in existence? Why do you need to breathe? Go ahead, hold your breath for as long as you can. Don't eat for a month. Stop drinking water. Don't make the mistake of getting so caught up in word games that you ignore the basic reality that will kill you no matter how much you don't want it to.

    And yes, you perceive the outside world. its 'outside'. How else are you supposed to experience it? Why does the fact that you perceive means it can't exist apart from yourself? You even know you can misperceive it. Try jumping 10 feet down and believe that you'll float. Doesn't work does it? The outside world will happily grab a two by four and smack you over the head again and again. Those who don't learn end up crippled or dead.

    If you're interested in a knowledge theory that results in a hierarchy of induction (a rational way of managing beliefs), read my knowledge theory. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 There's a summary from the first poster if you want the cliff notes.
  • Opening Statement - The Problem
    ↪Pieter R van Wyk
    Welcome to the forum Pieter! You might look at the current world and think philosophy has done nothing to fix it, but the reality is the world of today is a far better place than it was even 300 years ago. The important part is to understand what philosophy actually is to understand its contributions.

    I find it easiest to start with science. Science starts with a hypothesis, which is a set of known words, and posits a conclusion. We then test against those words and conclusions to see what outcome we get.

    Philosophy is the creation of logical words that we can put together to test in science. "Gravity" at one time was not a word. "What if everything in the world is constantly pulling on everything else in the world?" That's a philosophy. You piece together a hypothesis. Then you test it.

    Philosophy that is successful integrates into a culture and the sciences. The idea of a 'human right' was proposed as a philosophical concept and is agreed upon by many cultures as defacto. "Gender ideology" I would argue is still a philosophy, and a particularly bad one at that.

    So why is philosophy seen as dead? Because it has generally been subsumed into other areas that have science and specialized learning behind them. Can you wax philosophically about the mind without keeping up with the current science of the human brain? Not effectively, no. Philosophy is ironically an independent field of study that eliminates itself over time as it succeeds. There really aren't many problems left that do not already have an associated field. I would argue that AI involves a massive amount of philosophy, but you also need to understand how it works to construct something that you can test.

    I argue that there are only a few areas of pure philosophy that are still left.

    God, knowledge, ethics, and art. Even then, there are specialty fields and discoveries that one must be aware of it adequately approach these. Its just that none of these areas of philosophy have become objective fields yet. The day that they do, they will no longer belong to 'philosophy' but become a science.

    The fact that there's not much left shows how much philosophy has already accomplished. Unfortunately many people come into philosophy and try to make a career out of its failures. The preservation of old philosophy and its study is really just an academic pass time at best, and often times just a fun exercise in creativity and logic if one wants to tackle the subjects in seriousness. There are a few people who genuinely try to push the field forward, but its a hard road. I have two papers here that attempt to tackle knowledge and ethics from a unique venue, so if you're interested in exploring something that has not been ascertained by society as 'true or false', you might enjoy the read.

    Knowledge as context
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context

    A proposed start for an objective morality
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

    Maybe you'll enjoy them and find some value. :)
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner

    I really like this post btw. I would like to propose an alternative. "Everything has subjective experience, but consciousness is one aspect of subjective experience."

    In other words, I'm going to give you the idea that everything has subjective experience. We can't prove it one way or the other currently anyway, so why not? But is all subjective experience consciousness? I don't think so.

    Consciousness is more like a meta subjective experience. It is the subjective experience about experiences. Let me see if I can explain. Right now you're looking at these words, but there's still light from outside of the screen coming into your eye. Your brain is processing that light, but you aren't 'conscious' of it. Consciousness is the attention to the multiple subjective experiences your brain has, in a way that can sort it all out and decide what to do about it.

    So while a rock could indeed have the subjective experience of being the atoms, it doesn't mean that there is an awareness of 'subjectively experiencing'. When I'm conscious I am aware I turn my head. When I'm not conscious off it, I'm not aware that I've turned my head. Thus consciousness is a level and intensity of meta awareness. I'm not conscious off my intestines digesting food, that's handled on its own. But I am conscious of what I decide to pay attention to within my vicinity.
  • Does anybody really support mind-independent reality?
    Is anyone willing to defend a mind-independent view? — noAxioms

    Yes. How did you type your response and send it over the internet to me? Do you think there was a mind involved that created the electricity? Do you think that if your power was out, you could walk over to your computer, type a message, and it would appear on the internet? Reality constantly smacks us in the face with a two-by-four with contradictions daily to what our mind wants to believe is true.

    There is often a confusion between "What we know" and "What is". What we know is what can be best reasoned with the limited information we have. But even that knowledge could be contradicted one day if we haven't yet encountered everything that involves the knowledge claims reasonableness.

    What we know is clear: There is a world independent of our own minds. Does that mean we've grasped that world accurately? What does accurately mean? To create a concept of the world that when applied is good enough for most purposes. Gravity accelerates at 9.8 meters per second on Earth. For most calculations, this gets us the outcome we predict consistently. And in this regard we have what could be considered an accurate assessment of reality independent of a mind. We didn't set gravity to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second on Earth, we discovered it.
  • The decline of creativity in philosophy
    ↪Skalidris

    An interesting topic. I've found myself drawn away from these forums for just this reason. Creativity is rare and the proposal of it is rarely explored beyond basic thought. I've had a few truly wonderful discussions here with some members, but most people just aren't willing to engage at a curious level and really dig in.

    Another thing to consider is that most truly intelligent people don't go into philosophy anymore. If you're brimming with intellect, creativity, wonder, and trying to solve problems, there are so many better ways to do so while also profiting more. Philosophy is mostly the realm of caretakers and hobbyists now. Not real thinkers or people looking for wonder. They have made their own mind up on their own outlook in life, and desire the comfort of knowing what they know and their ability to defend it.

    This has a consequence of philosophical academia being ironically, a conservative ancient dinosaur. Creativity is stifled in place of simple takes wrapped in complex word play on well worn topics that you can complete quickly to keep publishing. I got my masters in it, and could barely stomach the fact that every professor seemed desperately trying to keep their job and were constantly telling everyone to hold back and focus on 'what was popular' at the time.

    Finally, many people come into philosophy thinking it has a pedigree to it. Where real intellects lack, false intellects gather that pretend to be smart and prey on those coming in. Use of esoteric vocabulary and a focus on minutia and inconsequential points can make one appear smarter than they are, with words and concepts to retreat behind if one is found out. Its not exactly friendly to genuinely curious people who lack such an ego, and those are the people who are most likely to be creative and contribute to a field.

    Finally, creative ideas are hard to communicate, read, and grasp. Search some of my work on knowledge and morality. I can safely say I'm actually a creative philosopher. Check it out and maybe you'll see why more like me aren't here.

    All in all, philosophy is best pursued not as a focus, but alongside what people are working on in today's world. That's where I'm focusing now, and its definitely been far more satisfying and impactful then these boards of late.
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    ↪Philosophim What do we need to measure? If we are empathetic, we know when someone is suffering. The idea of an objective morality is, as much as possible, to avoid causing others to suffer. It is not so much a matter of a moral system; it is more a matter of having a moral sense. — Janus

    Look at it like this.

    I have subjective empathy and that causes me to give a person 5$ who needs it. I don't have subjective empathy but I have objective knowledge that a person needs 5$ so I give it to them. The action of giving 5$ is correct because it actively helps them. Whether I feel it helps them or not is irrelevant. I do lots of things I deem good without any feelings behind them Janus. Sometimes I don't want to do them, but I do anyway because the situation calls for it. Morality is not a feeling. That's just someone being directed by their own emotions.
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    Whether someone fells empathy for others or not is an objective fact, just as whether or not someone suffers is an objective fact. — Janus

    Right, but a moral system needs an objective measuring system. All feelings are objectively felt by every being that has those feelings, but the feeling itself is a subjective experience that no one can measure. We can measure brain states or actions, but not the feeling of being that person itself.
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    Empathetic people know when others are suffering. Suffering is an objective fact; if someone suffers they suffer regardless of whether anyone knows about it. — Janus

    I wish that were true. What you're describing is human empathy which is a subjective experience. We're talking about an objective morality which literally has zero feelings behind it. An objective morality should be measurable like a liter of cola. It is not a measure how how much someone personally likes or dislikes cola.
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    1. What do you mean here by "morality"? — 180 Proof

    A system that evaluates the consequences of a decision holistically and not merely to a narrow goal as to the best action in a particular circumstance.

    2. In what way does suffering-focused ethics fail to be "objective" (even though, like the fact Earth is round, there is (still) not universal consensus)? — 180 Proof

    Because it doesn't hold up if we treat it as an objective principal. Suffering is a subjective principal in many cases. Take two people who are working at a job and look at them from the outside. How do we know how much suffering each has? What if one person expresses how much pain they're in, but the first person is lying and the second person is not?

    And this is only in regards to a specific suffering, pain. How do we compare and contrast the pain of losing money to taxes vs the ease of suffering from someone who doesn't pay taxes? Is inequality of outcomes suffering? Should we all win the at games and eliminate competition? Is exercise or dietary discipline suffering for a healthy weight suffering?

    Finally because suffering is subjective, it relies on the human emotion of sympathy, something an AI does not have. It needs something objective. Measurable. Ironically, a measurable morality may be beyond the complexity of human kind and only a computer will have the ability to process everything needed.

    3. Why assume that "AI" (i.e. AGI) has to "reference" our morality anyway and not instead develop its own (that might or might not be human-compatible)? — 180 Proof

    What you're saying is that morality is purely subjective. And if it is, there are a whole host of problems that subjective morality brings. "Might makes right" and "It boils down to there being no morality" being a few.
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    ↪Darkneos
    Every time we advance technology that replaces tons of jobs we come up with new things we didn't think of before that requires humans. We'll still need oversight on AI, manual labor, and who knows what else.

    What we probably aren't prepared for is AI without morality. We have no objective morality that AI can reference, therefore it may usher in one of the deepest immoral eras of human history.
Home » Philosophim