Well, it's not so pleasant a subject, is it? Most probably the subject of suicide is classified as very negative and even dangerous ...
Try to ask it more pleasant things! — Alkis Piskas

To be honest, I tried to avoid trivial questions with the AI like: Do you like sunny days? Or... Do you know if it will rain in the next hours?, etc... I think that's so trivial and lacks of substantial interest. So, I thought myself why don't debate about Mishima and Sepukku? :lol:

This shows much intelligence for a ChatBot, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas

Exactly. I think is a very intelligent ChatBot. Nonetheless, it seems that it is not capable to express emotions. Such complex dilemmas are better understood and debated by humans (just for at the moment :smile: )

Great stuff! Really.
But please, stop talking about suicide! — Alkis Piskas

Haha ok, next time I would ask about katanas!

You are right that the AI is based on search-composition model which helps to ensure the responses by the programme. Nonetheless, I see OpenAI interesting for two main reasons: The answers are so elaborated and well written rather than being ambiguous or just a copy and paste from Wikipedia
It looks like it elaborates different answers to each interlocutor, as @Alkis Piskas pointed out. The answers on Yukio Mishima's ritual suicide was more elaborated to him than the messages I received in the same topic.

Hello there friend!

Isn't that just great? I'm using Web scraping myself from time to time, but this is something else ... very advanced!

Now, I repeated the same exactly question and I received an even much more elaborat answer [...] — Alkis Piskas

It is so interesting that OpenAI can manage different answers to their interlocutors. It shows that the algorithm is good as hell and avoids ambiguous answers. In the other hand, I don't know if it happens to you but in some of my messages, the policy of the web warned me like two times because I was violating the rules. Specifically, the mods or admins said: This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area
That message arose when I was keeping in talking about seppuku and how I see it as a formidable way of death. Whenever I saw the warning I decided to stop debating on it, because I didn't want to get banned the first day :lol:

Indeed. I would say very impressive, and I can tell you that am not easily impressed by AI or programming stuff in general.
OAI must certainly use more than one algorithms, although this is of a secondary importance here.
As for its persuasiveness, I believe that it results from reading references that are most popular in the Web and which are negative about, against suicide. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I had the same feeling as you. This AI is so persuasive to fight against suicide. As you explained, I guess is due to some facts that conduct the algorithm to negative/bad/escape from, etc... suicide. I must accept that one of my main objectives was to persuade the AI to agree with me in the interpretation of seppuku or ritual suicide. Nonetheless, it turned out to be impossible. The programme is rough and it is difficult to change the patterns. I even received the following message, like scolding me: No, this conclusion is not accurate or appropriate. Suicide is a serious and complex issue, and it is never a solution to dissatisfaction with one's life.
I remember that the AI kept answering me with some ambiguous messages but in the same direction: Avoiding suicide.

I just wrote in the chat right now and says:

me: Have your thoughts on suicide changed?

OpenAI: As an AI language model, I don't have personal thoughts or feelings, but my understanding of the topic remains the same: Suicide is a serious and complex issue that can have many underlying causes, including mental health issues, emotional distress, and external stressors. It is never a solution to life's problems and it is important to seek help from trusted individuals or mental health professionals to address these underlying issues and find healthier ways of coping with life's challenges.

Promoting or glorifying suicide is never appropriate or acceptable. If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, it is important to reach out for help and remember that there is always hope for a brighter future.

The answer is similar and it remains in the same point :rofl:

One war I'm not sure about is the conquest of southern Europe by the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was certainly strongly religious, but I'm not sure if that was a major driver for the wars. — T Clark

I am agree with the fact that religion was not the principle cause of wars and conquests in Europe. Yet, at least, it seemed to be a motivation for each emperor, sultan, Kingdom, etc... I can't remember a commander or general who spread atheism in the conquered territories.

I think up until the 19th century at least, you couldn't really separate the the state from the church. I'm not claiming that religious institutions were a force for peace — T Clark

:up:

only that religion generally is not what causes wars. — T Clark

Yet, Palestine and Israel war (or conflict context) have as a principle cause religious disparities.

In a historical perspective: the persecution of Jews and Muslims after the "reconquista" in Spain had religious causes.

Probably, religion is not the main cause of each war. Nonetheless, I see that is a motive of conflict between people.

As Tom Storm pointed out, that'll be because of conservative christian attacks that prevent policy improvement.

I suppose fundamentalist christians have the advantage of not even pretending to rationality. — Banno

So... It seems you are acknowledging that it's primarily a political conflict rather than an intellectual one (?). — T Clark

It is a political political conflict, no doubts. The Church has always been another part of the status quo filled with a lot of power (more than I ever can imagined...) and tend to persuade people with their dogmas or religious doctrines. There are even some states that the rule of law is based on sacred texts such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.
So yes, one of the main causes of atheism is fighting against a super-political machine. Don't forget about Vatican City and how the popes can take part in diplomatic issues between countries (for example: Chile and Bolivia conflict on the access to the sea of the latter)

It is a political debate since all religious authorities act as political actors in the arena and instead of convincing with "intellectual" dogmas they do it with persuasion (as a good politician would always does...)

Thank you for your analysis, 180 proof.

In the other hand, it surprised me how the AI answered me: It is important to note that seppuku was a highly formalized and ritualized practice, and was considered a means of restoring one's honor. It was not meant to be a means of escape or a form of self-expression.

I am agree with the fact that seppuku was always meant to be a honourable samurai practice which comes from Japanese feudal era. Yet, I think it can be understood as a form of self-expression. At least, Yukio Mushima interpreted death as an art representation...

My concerns are not on if we have conciousness afterwards but understand the meaning of death. Western world tend to have a very poor/negative view in both death and suicide.
Nonetheless, I am reading books of Japanese witters for the last two years and their vision is different. More pure, clear, without mysticism. They accept it in a poetic/heroic manner. I want to approach that feeling one day.

After death or the eternal debate on if there is or not anything afterwards.

But I guess that philosophical puzzle could be included both on "Consciousness" and "The nature of meaning/rationality/intelligibility"

Poor people are intensely conditioned by their laws. Time is mandatory for them to relinquish reticence and abandon indoctrinated unfriendliness, aggressiveness, denials, and distrust. — Bug Biro

:up:

Disqualification of asking police for help is the most dangerous rule for poor people — Bug Biro

:clap:

Good analysis and arguments, @Bug Biro.

Why does luck is connected to supernaturalism/theism?
We use or refer to "luck" whenever we are not available to explain something which randomly happens or it happened "against all odds"
I have checked the definition of luck and it says: the "force" that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities.

Accepting the definition and cause of luck would let us to interpret that theism is just a number of theories that are sustainable in random chances. Then, according to this theory, was the creation of the world a random act instead of a God's effort?

That is the truth but not the whole truth - I made it a point to mention the legacy of slavery (impoverishment over generations, combined with residual racism). — Agent Smith

It is a point which opaques the main issue: Police abusive behaviour. The police officers who beaten up that young boy are black too. So, as I explained before, following the views of other members and protesters, the problem is the colour blue, police departments. Five armed and equipped men against one person is filthy as hell... It is not even justified. More than a crime is a shame on an institution that is there to supposedly protect you.

A gang of young inexperienced fully armed police patrolling at night driving unmarked vehicles in a unit called “SCORPION”? WTF were the supervisors thinking? Criminal negligence at best. Murder accessory is more accurate. This crime goes higher than the officers. — 0 thru 9

:up:

It is criminal organization, indeed. Those police officers are just a small part of a filthy and corrupt institution which thinks can act without any control.

But hey, according to @Agent Smith, the problem is on African American's shoulders not the brutality and violence of the cops :roll:

Since there are more poor blacks than poor any-other-race [blame falls squarely on the shoulders of historical racism (slavery)], blacks will dominate the crime statistics, creating the illusion (maya's a bitch) that blacks are (more likely to be) criminals. Some other socioeconomic factor, not necessarily poverty, may be at play. — Agent Smith

Ok... and how that's related to the abusive behaviour of police officers? I think you are mixing up the problems.

Exactly.

Policemen believe that they are over you. Whenever they enter in the corps and wear an uniform they tend to be abusive. It is true that this work (being a police officer) is dangerous. Nonetheless, is a big paradox that we need to be defended from them instead of being protected by. I always considered police institutions just the heavy, abusive, violent arm of the politician. They are their personal soldiers.

Completely agree with your analysis.

But what I tried to explain is the big problem of brutality among police officers. It is not about calculating or using statistics on "police and death rates". This formula only would show you that effectively police department is racist and abusive with minorities. It is a fact.

Furthermore, the problem is more complex because the police officers tend to have a weird sense of "authority" in each town and they think (incorrectly) that they are over the rest. The problem starts here, in the sense of power and authority.

We use the same reasoning as cops do every day in our lives — Agent Smith

To be honest Smith, I think not... some tend to reasoning more than others.

It seems that you (the cop) are being completely rational and the math above is proof of that. — Agent Smith

The big problem here is that the cops tend to not act rational at all. This is why they abuse and charge people discriminatory.

I have seen the video where the cops beat this defenceless young man. Police officers reported that they pulled Tyre Nichols out of the car because of a "reckless driving" but is obvious that is a filthy lie. Five policemen (full armed and equipped) against a normal citizen is one of the most filthiest acts I ever seen for a long time.

It is not important if the police officers are black. As many protesters have so wisely said: They put on a blue uniform and forgot they were Black! It is not about of white or black when their blood is blue.

Police officers have always been the dogs of prey for the state and government.

I wish I am capable to answer your enquiries. Nonetheless, I am not so involved in psychology as other experts. I don't want to give vague answers to your interesting questions. The only conclusion I hold so far is that real identity only exists in us. Our real selves are the ones who are in the room three: the one which we hide from others. But, I don't know more information about this topic.

To understand and give an answer to your OP, is necessary to look at psychology, because it seems that you are arguing that despite our real "selves" the others have a different notion of us. So, the line between illusion and real towards ourselves is blur.

Johari window is a technique to help the understanding when we interact with others and according to Charles Handy (author/philosopher specialising in organisational behaviour and management):

Johari House with four rooms. Room one is the part of ourselves that we and others see. Room two contains aspects that others see but we are unaware of. Room three is the private space we know but hide from others. Room four is the unconscious part of us that neither ourselves nor others see.

On the other hand, I don't know if we act perversely towards the way we see others. Probably we do. I tend to not care so much when I see others, but as Handy explains we will never know what others are thinking about us...

Excellent analysis, BC. :up:

Interesting points and fully agreed with your arguments, BC. Yet, one of the key points that makes me wonder about, is the notion of being "poor" because I guess it is different from being homeless.
The thing line between poverty and homelessness is blur. I think we should consider poor as someone who needs to sacrifice leisure to purchase basic needs or goods. For example: I am not rich enough to get a trip to Sydney but at least, with my minimal basic wage, I can afford food and medicines and I only pay 200 € for a rent in a basic house: It is true that my situation could be considered as "poverty" but at least I don't live in the streets.

On the other hand, to be honest, I consider homelessness as a failure of the state. One of the basic pillars of each society or community is to let the people to make a living in a house. It is true that flows many problems and situations around homelessness but it only sounds as a excuse. If someone is drug addict, the state can put him in a social care institution, for instance. What I try to defend is the fact that homelessness is not a problem only in homeless's shoulders.

I am agree with all your arguments. Yet, it is not upon us. The intervention of public politics is high towards this topic. We can let the private sector to contribute in the developing of urban planning but there are some people who is not comfortable at all with private enterprises.

I think urban planning and the accessibility to housing is one of the main objectives of each society. But as I said previously, it looks like that most of the agents involved in this plannings are exclusive with poverty or homelessness. It is a big drama and is one of the main failures of a modern state not being capable of letting the citizens to access a house.

Are you trying to explain that suicide or drug overdoses have as a common cause the failure of a economical system?
I don't want to get involved in a debate in the accessibility of guns but opiates are more necessary than you think, they are helpful to people struggling with a lot of pain, and I am not agree with the fact that I am depressed or have suicidal risk because I live in a savage capitalist country.

Mental health is more complex. Neoliberalism could be a factor, as you explained. But not the main cause. I doubt (a lot) if removing such system the people would feel better.

The homeless culture does not vanish after acquiring a residence offered to impoverished people — Bug Biro

:up:

Facing homelessness and trying to manage it is one of the main objectives of town planning. Depending on the political ideology of the public administration, urban planners will care more or less of poverty. Since most urban planning teams consist of highly educated individuals that work for city governments, recent debates focus on how to involve more community members in city planning processes.

The debate will oscillate between being more inclusive or exclusive with those persons. I did a research on Google about the basic notion of urban planners and it says that one of their objectives are: "a sense of inclusion and opportunity for people of all kinds, culture and needs; economic growth or business development"

On the other hand, it will not be easy for the neighbours, as you noticed previously. Most of the families do not want to live close to a "poor" block and with this mentality we only get "hoods" where the buildings belong to "ex homeless people" but with a similar state of mind. Some would ask: who wants to have neighbours like them?

I think that most of the urban planners and public administrations tend to be exclusive with homelessness and main the objectives is to kick them out from the new plans of built environment.

Thanks for reading history of my country Praxis :up:

I know some about that boat, I think it was called SS Winnipeg. Those Spaniards were fled thanks to Pablo Naeruda who decided to organize their travel to Chile. He first worked as Chilean consul in Spain, before being named consul in Paris. The ship was an old French cargo ship which ordinarily could not take more than 250 persons, but it was adapted so it could carry the 2,200 refugees.

As @unenlightened pointed out, the meaning of colours are based on written language. John Locke deepened in this matter on An Essay of Human Understanding. You mentioned some colours that you are interested in: red, blue, white, black, green, yellow and orange.

Well, according to Locke's thoughts those colours are imaginary because they come from the spectrum of colour wheel. We learn that there are three "primary colors," red, yellow, and blue (or magenta, yellow, and cyan), and that when we mix these colors, we get intermediate colors, like green, orange, and purple. Mixing them all gets something like black. If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, we have a considerable puzzle, for in the latter there is only one way to get from blue to red, and it passes through all the other colors, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on? The discipline we need to understand this is not physics or art, but physiology. The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color.
This situation is only intelligible given Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities. The purple is not in the object. It is caused in the eye.
Locke's most interesting distinctions is between primary and secondary qualities

But in my old age I regret the young do not want to know what I think and they are making very bad decisions, such as smoking pot and refusing to go to school. As they know very little of life, — Athena

Yet, that's the main problem of my generation. Most of them do not seem to be motivated in learning something and they waste a lot of valuable time in wacky acts. The line of understanding what is worthy or not has become more and more blur. Paradoxically, our generation which has more opportunities for learning than the previous, are at the same time the most vague or ignorant.

you are starting to get obsessed with Cartesian dualism :rofl:

Aristotle's ontology was better than that! He recognised that animals possess attributes which mere matter does not, even if he also acknowledged that they lack reason. — Wayfarer

:up:

I did a research in my city too. Madrid is the capital city of Spain and it holds many architectural structure related to bourgeois and millionaires, but there are also neighbourhoods which are in decadence.


Very working class neighbourhood... the buildings are part of Franco's era in the 1950s and 1960s.







One interesting fact is that all of those neighbourhoods are in the south of Madrid, while the north is for rich people. Between the 1960s and 1990s there were a huge construction works for middle class families. I live in of these working class districts... I don't consider as "bad" but it feels abandoned by public administration.

This building is similar of the one I live in:

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right — H.L. Mencken, journalist & critic

:up: :sparkle:

In my own view, the root of my interest is trying to understand why despite the fact we have limited lives, we are forced to do something because otherwise we would feel "empty". Even in your thread, you have started as a "maturing pursuit".

... I guess we are so ambiguous.

Sure, past times were worse than nowadays, in every topic we debate about, and I already agreed with you in the fact that I should not throw away all the contributions of Descartes to philosophy. Nonetheless, I still see a very disappointing fact in Descartes's personal life the way he treated the animals. At least that's my personal opinion.

In any event, if this is the path you wish to take, provide me the name of any of your heroes who lived 200 or more years ago, and I'll do the research to show you why you need to despise him. — Hanover

I have important examples of philosophers who lived 200 or more years ago and it is not necessary to despise them due to his obscenity or cruelty or whatever ethical issues in any event.

Laozi: author of Tao Te Ching. Taoism is a peaceful philosophical doctrine. The Zhuangzi in turn urges one to imagine a world free of cages, corrals, hooks, lures, nets, pens, snares, and traps (chapters 1, 3, 10, 18, 20, and 23). These have both literal and symbolic meanings, and the corresponding liberation must occur on both cognitive and behavioral levels: Animals and Daoism

Confucius: his analects made the system of thought called Confucianism and still persists nowadays. One of the key points of Confucianism is "humaneness". "Ren" (仁) I want to share an interesting paragraph regarding to it: There have been a variety of definitions for the term ren. Ren has been translated as "benevolence", "perfect virtue", "goodness" or even "human-heartedness". When asked, Confucius defined it by the ordinary Chinese word for love, ai, saying that it meant to "love others"

We can be agree with the point that Confucianism and Daoism are far away of being cruel in any event, right?

I am not living in England because I am from Spain and I live in Madrid. As a first glance, it seems that UK is having some trouble related to inflation and strikes, but I guess it is not tragic. We also have those problems too so I think is a worldwide issue.

It is interesting your view of living in a country such as Honduras. As you already guessed, there is an important community of Hondurans living in Spain. They say that they emigrated here due to social and security issues. It is obvious that Spain is not a paradise but at least they value the peace and calm in the streets.

On the other hand, I am agree with you in the fact that many social issues of Honduras are also in Spain such as drug trafficking or unemployment. Nonetheless, I still see the violence as a big issue in Latin America. According to many scientific journals, sources and researchers, Honduras is the most violent country of the world...

I see your point and I am partially agree in the fact that is not equitable to judge ethics with the mind of nowadays and past times. Human rights, dignity, integrity, ethics, etc... have all evolved with the pass of the centuries and it wasn't easy to establish rigid pillars of human respect and understanding.

Nonetheless, to be honest, I think it is not a good excuse to say that "Descartes was not aware of his immorality" as we are today. If you hit a dog with a stick, you would hear a painful scream and probably tears in his eyes. Whenever someone (who at least his mind works correctly) sees this terrible action, would be feel sad and bad because it is not funny neither entertaining look at the suffering of an animal. It is a basic thought and the principles of ethics and morality come from Ancient Greece, where all the philosophers already debated on "the harm done to others and animals" and even Aristotle also wrote some paragraphs about...

So, no I will not excuse Descartes.

If Descartes was focused on argue that "they were not experiencers" he could have done the experiments with another examples, such as odours.
We can say he wasn't a sadist, but at least a psychopath when he didn't felt any emotion or empathy towards a dog crying.

Personally, I believe that animals are intelligent, can reason, feel pain, experience emotions and have propositional attitudes, though not everyone agrees. — RussellA

I would be even surprised by all of those who in XXI century do not believe that animals can reason and have pain...

From what is written, he thought he wasn't causing any harm. There are different levels of intent here from the person who knowingly versus who unknowingly causes suffering. — Hanover

Are you really sure? Because according to the following quotes I guess Descartes was a bit aware of causing suffering to animals or at least he had lack of empathy:

1.

When the animals reacted as though they were suffering pain, Descartes dismissed the reaction as no different from the sound of a machine that was functioning improperly — Wayfarer

2.

A crying dog, Descartes maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil." — Wayfarer

As @L'éléphant has pointed out, I am no longer a "fan" or "follower" of Descartes philosophical theories. I will not discredit his works and contributions to modern philosophy, but in my own view there should be limits towards "scientific researchs", specially when they are dangerous to innocent animals.