I don't see any difficulty. SCAMPER is a method i.e. a way to be creative and that in the coder's universe translates to algorithm.

Idiom: ON/FROM/LIVING ON ANOTHER PLANET!

Definition (from Macmillan Dictionary): used for saying that someone does not notice what is happening around them, or has ideas that are not reasonable or practical

Example sentence: The party doesn’t seem to be in touch with popular opinion – it’s as if they’re from another planet.

:chin: Hmmmmmm...

Creative AI simply means there's an algorithm for creativity. Here's one: SCAMPER TECHNIQUE

Round or roundish? — Yohan

Well, round enough in my humble opinion. Just to set the record straight, you're right in that scale is important.The earth is flat at the human scale but the earth is defined at planetary scales not at atomic or cosmic scales and at that level of detail, earth is round (enough).

what motivates people to believe in this type of “Alternative” philosophy — SteveMinjares

The word "alternative" is important! We have a set of observations and we need a good hypothesis that fits these observations. If you're creative enough you can concoct multiple hypotheses to explain observations. Some choose the mundane - simple hypotheses that go with observational data. Others tend to opt for more colorful, more elaborate hypotheses - these are what bigfoot, ancient aliens, flat-earth, etc. are all about.

While Occam's razor would have us adopt simpler hypotheses,

every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken

You think a monk in his cell is 'escaping reality', then you have a serious problem of understanding. — Wayfarer

:up:

If we are super exact, it is neither flat nor round. Just look at it closely. It only appears flat or round from a distance. Distance blurs the fine details, giving the illusion of a simple shape. — Yohan

Distance does nothing to the Earth. Distance only changes what part of the Earth you see and the detail that you can make out. So, like us, if you're close enough, you get to see only a small portion of the Earth's curvature producing the illusion of flatness. Plus, small enough, like we are, and you can see the bumps and dips (surface irregularities). Distance is about the observer, not the Earth which is round.

Interesting. Flat-earthers claim is earth is flat. Is it? What do we mean by earth?
— TheMadFool
All definitions break down when we exercise rigorous precision. There is no meaning that is not vague. — Yohan

How so? The earth is the planet we're on. Is it flat or is it round?

Which point of view is more objective.
The microscopic or macroscopic.
Far enough a way the earth looks like a shapeless blip
Closer, like a sphere
Closer, flat
Closer, neither flat nor curved exactly

How can you escape subjectivity? If there is no observer, which of the above perspectives would be true? — Yohan

Interesting. Flat-earthers claim is earth is flat. Is it? What do we mean by earth?

Path of least cognitive effort and easiest dopamine kick / social "belonging" — 180 Proof

Yep!

fear of reality (onto/vera-phobia) — 180 Proof

Bored with reality is more like it. For some people reality just isn't interesting enough, they want more! The only way they can get that extra kick out of life is by believing in weird stuff.

My understanding of quantum mechanics is its not an observer that causes outcomes, its active measurement. — Philosophim

If God is not engaging in "...active measurement" at the quantum level, God isn't omniscient.

we can also posit that God is able to know what is happening on a quantum level without altering the outcome of that quantum pathing — Philosophim

God's omnipotence saves the day! It appears that we can't argue against omnipotence. Gives a whole new meaning to argumentum ad verecundium and argumentum ad baculum

So he just made an obvious mistake? I'm somewhat skeptical of that, but it's possible nonetheless.

The statement “nothing exists” is either false or meaningless (neither true nor false), but obviously not both false and meaningless. — Amalac

Not really. A meaningless statement, say Q, is neither true nor false.

In classical logic if a proposition P is neither true nor false then P & ~P (contradiction).

In other words Q is equivalent to a contradiction (P & ~P)

I think this'll help. For any sentence R
1. R (R is true)
2. ~R (R is false)
3. Neither R is true nor R is false. This means,
3a. R is meaningless
3b. R & ~R (contradiction)

In other words, if I say R is neither true nor false, it's a contradiction (false) or R is meaningless i.e. contradiction (false) = meaningless.

What's happening here is that if someone tells me R is neither true nor false, either there's a contradiction (R & ~R) which is false or R is meaningless but I can't tell which it is i.e. they're same. The identity of indiscernibles.

Furthermore, in classical logic, the middle in the law of the excluded middle (a proposition is either true or false) is a contradiction (both true and false = neither true nor false). If R is meaningless, R is neither true nor false i.e. it's the middle. That means a contradiction (false) = R being meaningless.

Ok, but what I'm wondering about is: How can Kolakowski know that the statement “nothing exists” is false if he doesn't understand what the statement means? — Amalac

I'll give it my best shot.

Basically, Kolakowski is equating meaninglessness to falsehood.

Meaninglessness means neither true nor false. Neither true nor false is a contradiction which is false. Ergo, meaninglessness = falsehood.

Also,

1. Meaningful (semantically positive) sentence aka proposition, say P: P (true) or ~P (false)

2. Meaningless (semantically negative) sentence Q: True/False N/A. Unintelligible.

Suppose now that a psychotic logician puts a gun to your temple and demands that you assign a truth value to Q or else...bang! bang!

What would you do?

True/False? Which is the most rational choice?

You can't say Q is true because you wouldn't be able to prove it since it's not a proposition. Can you say it's false? You wouldn't be able to do that too since then you're implying it's a proposition.

However, you have to assume Q is a proposition or else...goodbye! In my humble opinion, it would be better to say Q is false for the simple reason that Q is false means Q is claiming something that isn't real and Q, unintelligble, is not about reality.

Your choices:

1. Q is true: Making a claim that something is about reality.
2. Q is false: Denying that something is about reality.
3. Q unintelligble: Not about reality.

Don't 2. Q is false and 3. Q is unintelligble look similar?

false, but also unintelligible and absurd. — Amalac

To the two year old me:

1. 2 = 2 + 2

Statement 1 was unintelligible (I could barely speak), absurd (contradiction) AND false.

But apparently the proposition "The proposition "life is good" needs an argument" doesn't and can simply be asserted without one. — Isaac

The proposition "life is good" = "Life is good" is a proposition. "Life is good" can be true/false. Ergo, "Life is good" is a proposition.

Evil has benefits in the short term. Drawbacks in the long term. — hope

Fascinating! Well put. However, this may not necessarily be true. It's possible that evil has far-reaching positive effects. That however is not a reason to be bad. I think those who resort to evil based on the maxim ends justifying the means lack imagination!

Nevertheless, good & bad aren't about gain/loss and if you insist they are then you'll have to concede the value inversion that takes place: loss is good & gain is bad. Of course I'm talking of personal gain and loss. As soon as an other is involved, gain is good & loss is bad, the world is right-side-up again.

I'm hqving trouble equating good with benefit and bad with drawback. It's as if we're monetizing morality and while I don't see an actual issue with it, my gut instinct is to resist such an interpretation. Maybe it's just word play in the end.

Take more spacetime into account and being good has more benefits most of the time. — hope

Again, let's not reduce morality to economics.

Taking more spacetime into account requires more intelligence and experience. — hope

Spacetime? Indeed, it's all about space and time, both are scarce resources. Robots can save a lot of time and will also be able to take out more from a given space than a human can. As for slaves, they were merely substitutes - replacing a freeman with a slave meant that the former had time to do other things and also could own vast tracts of land (space).

But why do we need benefits? Because we are needy. — hope

See above.

Well there is benefits and drawbacks to cooperation and competition.

Society now considerers slavery to have more drawbacks then benefits. — hope

I wouldn't view slavery that way. It's not about pros and cons. It's about what's right and wrong, good and bad. What's good is good no matter how many or how severe the drawbacks. Bad is bad no matter how many or how great the advantages. Perhaps this is the dreamer in me speaking because I've noticed that as of late, being bad is a huge drawaback - people immediately and viciously call one out on it. On the flip side, being good gets you all the best deals there are. Mind you, this is what it looks like. Smoke and mirrors?!

For once! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

You were right, you were always right!

Sure, but it was at a very high cost to ourselves. — hope

Yes, losing our "humanity" is what some would call it and that too for a "few" bucks! The slavemasters' luxurious and comfortable lives were tainted with the blood, sweat, and toil of slaves. They didn't realize that. Hopefully it wasn't that they didn't give jack shit!

What could 'life is Good' possibly mean without people to think it? How could anything just have the property of being 'good' absent of the minds in which that judgement resides? — Isaac

Whether life is good or not can't be decided by a vote i.e. in an election-like manner. There are enough cognitive biases to muddle the thinking of even the best thinker among us. That would manifest in our thoughts as for example the view that life is good. We can't have that, right? The proposition "life is good" needs an argument, not a vote.

Indeed. Can "most people" be mistaken about how good something is? I brought up the idea of an exploited worker who cheerfully overlooks being exploited. He doesn't perceive the exploitation, but he is exploited. I also brought up notions of having generally negative experiences but then saying, "Life is good" or "Glad to be born" if asked the question. There is more than just what people want you to hear going on. Psychological mechanisms can distort ones ability to evaluate something (not wanting to get oneself depressed, always looking on the bright side, Pollyannaism, adapting to lowered ideals, etc). Certainly culturally ingrained ideas can do this as well (superstition, don't look a "gift horse" in the mouth, religion, not looking negative to others, etc.). All this worry and coping and dealing with, and then suck it up because that's life.. but "that's life" is not inevitable!! — schopenhauer1

It can be said that many of us are under some kind of illusion that life is good. At best, life isn't as good as we think it is or at worst, life is bad. I believe it's the former and not the latter. Why? We've imagined something far far better viz. heaven and also something unimaginably worse viz. hell.

One's attitude towards life on earth then depends on what one's comparing it with - hell (life on earth is orders of magnitude better), heaven (life on earth is misery on steroids).

It must be mentioned though that for some people earth is hell but to complicate matters for some of us earth is paradise.

Given this situation, it's best not to make sweeping generalizations like natalists and antinatalists. Let each person/family, after analyzing how much happiness they can guarantee their offspring, make their own decisions.

Unfortunately, having children is not just about how well you can provide for them. Other non-hedonic factors are at play e.g. the Catholic church's opposition of contraception.

Interestingly, when I think for someone else based on what most people want, I'm ignoring the rationale behind the want i.e. the reasons (propositions) that are put forward as grounds for the want.


Argument A
1. Most people want to live
2. X is a person
Ergo,
3. X wants to live

Argument A can't be refuted. It's basically what you referred to as democratic (vote count).

The key premise, 1. Most people want to live, is based on surveys.

***However, the question that arises, why do most people want to live?

An answer: 4. Life is good.

Statement 4. Life is good, can be part of a survey and we could conclude:

5. Most people think life is good.

However, 5. Most people think life is good doesn't support the statement 4. Life is good unless you subscribe to the wisdom of the crowd (I'm not entirely sure if it's even relevant. You decide) and barring this curiosity, we have to justify 4. Life is good by resorting to an argument that proves that 4. Life is good.

I believe it is this latter part of the process (***) you're talking about.

... So can a silent magician! :smile:
... So could Charlie Chaplin in the era of silent movies! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Touché! :up:

True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal). — schopenhauer1

The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point. — schopenhauer1

You're, I believe, conflating truth with want. The argument I formalized is about what most people might want. Truth, on the other hand, isn't about how many people believe it or not. Like you said, truth isn't vote-based although the so-called wisdom of the crowd seems to point in that direction. Truth works under an authoritarian system with logic as supreme leader.

One way we could make some sense of all this is as follows: Say, most Nazi's want all Brits dead. If you're a Nazi, the likelihood is high that you too might want all Brits dead. This is the argument that I formalized. Want.

However, why do most Nazis want all Brits dead? This question can't be answered with a vote i.e. democractically as you put it on pain of committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truth.

Bringing the discussion back on track how does nirvana (emptiness) relate to Zhuangtzu's work. As I said in my previous post, Zhuangtzu as translated by the OP seems to be about a Cosmic Perspective. If you ask me, once you come face to face with the grandeur and immense, unimaginable size of the cosmos, everything we normally care about looks teeny, insignificant and worthless (sunyata/void).

Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmic Perspective puts us in our place, no? Just like how the Buddha attempts to achieve that very same goal by self-abnegation. In comparison to the infinite, we're simply nothing.

Did you see the Jill Bolte Taylor video some years ago, ‘My Stroke of Insight’? That is about this. — Wayfarer

I just did. Interesting video. Was the Buddha left-handed (right-brained)?

you would know, wouldn’t you? :wink: — Wayfarer

:lol: I'm afraid I'll have to say, "yes".

There's another principle in Buddhist philosophy, that of 'prapanca', meaning 'conceptual proliferation'. It is literally 'becoming entangled in thought.' — Wayfarer

Thanks! Becoming Entangled In Thought. Sounds painful! :chin:

Chiggala sutta. — Wayfarer

:up: :ok:

Deep and difficult point: what is a concept? It might be, as Descartes said, a ‘clear and distinct idea’. It might be an idea that is not peculiar to a single mind, but that anyone can observe, like geometric principles or Newton’s laws of motion. The Western mindset is such that concepts and ideas come naturally to it. Conceptual thought is one of the hallmarks of Western thought and one of the main factors behind the astonishing success of scientific method. But śūnyatā is not a concept. It is not an idea. It is an observation about the nature of experience. It is not something that the Buddha ‘thought’, in that sense. — Wayfarer

I feel sunyata is deeply connected to the idea of existence. It's about nonexistence to be precise and in that there's self-denial (anatta). There's this psychiatric disorder called Cotard Delusion where a person denies faer own existence. I'm not saying that Buddhism is some kind of mental illness of course but it's rather intriguing that traumatic brain damage can yield the same result as decades of learning and practicing Buddhism - anatta (no-self).

There is an expression in Buddhism, 'this precious human life'. Your assignment: discover why they say this. — Wayfarer

:smile: :up: :ok:

Well, if you allow me to go Mahayana on you, I'd say a human life, ceteris paribus, is supposed to provide us the best conditions for enlightenment, those in hell are in too much pain, those in heaven are too distracted by orgiastic pleasure. Being in between extremes, we have the advantage of getting to know the flaws of the 2 realms I mentioned above and realize they aren't worthy goals (both hell and heaven are to be avoided).

There's this story of a blind turtle who lives at the bottom of a deep and vast ocean. It comes to the surface every 100,000 years. There's an island in the middle of this ocean with a tree that has a branch with a loop at the end, this branch sways erratically in the strong winds that blow there. The probability of being born as a human is equal to the probability of the blind turtle's head getting snared in the loop at the end of the branch. That's how precious human life is! To be born as one is beating such mind-boggling odds. :chin:

Better = That which gives more pleasure overall, taking into account space and time. — hope

Reduces suffering is more to my taste.

If robots become too human then we will be forced to treat them morally for our own sakes. — hope

Slaves are human and yet we treated them like robots!

It's impossible to conceive of death, nothingness, or unconsciousness. The mind tends to visualize them as total blackness or total whiteness. Neither of which are them — hope

I see. For me, it's like :point:

He looks exclusively to logic and the necessary conditions it imposes on knowledge. This will not allow the world to "speak" and mostly, he is right about this. Do you know the color yellow? If you do, then you can say so, like knowing what a bank teller is. But no saying so, no knowing. Wittgenstein and Derrida are close here, in the way logic and language have no application in basic questions about actuality. But in the end, and Wittgenstien knew this well, it is Hamlet who wins the day, for "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." — Constance

No saying, no knowing! Yes, precisely what I believe is Wittgenstein's position vis-à-vis epistemology (knowledge) which he equates with a person's world. Someone's world consists of the things this someone can express in words. Very socratic.

What I know I can tell. — Socrates

.

Hamlet 1, Wittgenstein 0.

:up: Thanks a ton!

A drive-by of the relevant Wikipedia pages suggests to me that what sunyata means can't be understood until we grasp what the void (sunya) meant to Indians back then with special emphasis on what the Buddha thought the void (sunya) was/is

There's a reference to dependent origination:

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, śūnyatā refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature (svabhava) — Wikipedia

Then there's also this:

The concept of śūnyatā as "emptiness" is related to the concept of anatta (non-self) in early Buddhism. — Wikipedia

Then I discover this (meshes with my own idea of sunyata as valuelessness):

According to Shi Huifeng, the terms "void" (rittaka), "hollow" (tucchaka), and "coreless" (asāraka) are also used in the early texts to refer to words and things which are deceptive, false, vain, and worthless. This sense of worthlessness and vacuousness is also found in other uses of the term māyā — Wikipedia

Well, the significant word there is "entertain." As an entertainment or as a matter of whimsy we might wonder if some demon is having a bit of fun with us, but it's not a true doubt. — Ciceronianus the White

You're equivocating. You know that right?

Here is my question as it relates to ethics:
Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"?

If not, then antinatalism is much more strongly defended.

If so BECAUSE you hate antinatalism, simply prejudicial thinking.

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule?

I'd also like to note that the sphere of politics (majority rule) can be (and perhaps should be) separated from normative ethical principles — schopenhauer1

1. Most people would want x
2. Y is a person
Ergo,
3. Y would want x

It's not possible to refute this argument. It's an inductive argument and depending on a percentage value roundabout 90% that corresponds to "most", the argument is cogent!