Are you just identifying your subjective opinion, or are you saying something objective?

As in, you think you better express yourself with painting than sculpture, or are you saying that sculpture is the truly best way to express certain perspectives?

Seems the former would be the only sustainable claim. — Hanover

Dude, to say something is "better" is a subjective opinion.
So, I don't understand what the confusion is about.

For me it is clear that languages are different and that if there is a difference then one is to be better than another. — I like sushi

Yes, I'd say one is better than another, to me (being a multilingual). One is good for daily spoken language, but not for writing a powerful declamation. Another is writing comedy -- I would have to switch the style or even the type of comedy with one language, and use another style and topic if using another language.

(I shouldn't say "better" -- it is politically and culturally unacceptable to say this).

Firstly, it should be obvious that we can read, understand and interpret bits. Second, our perception is literally composed of what a bit is - a binary distinction. You either see an object or your don't. You either distinguish something from another, or you don't. Our perception is completely dependent on binary distinctions. — Hallucinogen

Clearly you do not understand what you're talking about.

IMO, that's instrumental reasoning (re: things, i.e. means-to-ends) and not moral reasoning (re: persons, i.e. ends-in-themselves) — 180 Proof

In Nicomachean, the "means to an end" is part of moral reasoning. But Aristotle was focusing on the means, because the end has already been decided, so the one thing left to decide on is the means to achieve it. Note that he didn't believe in 'whatever it takes' to get there.

Pictures can be represented in bits and bits can be processed to produce a picture. So I don't recognise the mutual exclusivity that serves as the basis of your reply. — Hallucinogen

Our mind does not read bits. We use perception to view the world. In pictures -- which means a complete picture.

They both use information processing. Saying that one of them "reads" some substrate that isn't information isn't going to be defensible. — Hallucinogen

Information processing is perception in humans. Computers do not perceive. There is no vantage point with computers.

So, there’s a certain moral perfection to a society where no-one goes astray, where there is no crime, people cooperate fully etc., but the emptiness of this social morality is highlighted by the cost necessary to achieve it. — Baden

Okay, good exegesis!

@Bob Ross, Nicomachean does not condone moral perfection at the expense of the happiness of others.

I'm confused why you mention this - computers do "use" bits, and our minds do understand the world in pictures. This is an example of why my points are rushed and undefined? — Hallucinogen

No, I'm the one confused with the above comment. I pointed that the computer does not read the way our mind reads. Yet you said this:

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space.
4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

Check your premises #1 and #2. You are arguing that the mind reads like how a computer does.
This is false.

I don't quite follow: doesn't Aristotle believe that the good is objective? — Bob Ross

Here is Book II:

Since then the object of the present treatise is not mere speculation, as it is of some others (for we are enquiring not merely that we may know what virtue is but that we may become virtuous, else it would have been useless), we must consider as to the particular actions how we are to do them, because, as we have just said, the quality of the habits that shall be formed depends on these.

Now, that we are to act in accordance with Right Reason is a general maxim, and may for the present be taken for granted: we will speak of it hereafter, and say both what Right Reason is, and what are its relations to the other virtues.[4]

But let this point be first thoroughly understood between us, that all which can be said on moral action must be said in outline, as it were, and not exactly: for as we remarked at the commencement, such reasoning only must be required as the nature of the subject-matter admits of, and matters of moral action and expediency have no fixedness any more than matters of health. And if the subject in its general maxims is such, still less in its application to particular cases is exactness attainable:[5] because these fall not under any art or system of rules, but it must be left in each instance to the individual agents to look to the exigencies of the particular case, as it is in the art of healing, or that of navigating a ship. Still, though the present subject is confessedly such, we must try and do what we can for it.

He is not arguing for a universal, objective right reason.

4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

Incorrect. All your premises are rushed, and without definitions. For example, if computers use bits, our mind reads the world as pictures.

#6 is fallacious.

What normative ethical theory do you subscribe to? A form of deontology, perhaps virtue ethics? — Bob Ross

Yes. Nicomachean ethics. Virtue ethics. Because we don't waste our time debating about its being objective or its being relative.

Can we morally justify sacrificing people for the greater good, especially if it is a huge sacrifice (like getting tortured constantly)? — Bob Ross

No we cannot. And the reason for this is, all of us do not have the moral entitlement to live. None!

I find it amusing that with the hundreds and thousands of posts here at TPF, we're still not getting the point of ethics and morality. Entitlement is not the same as being treated as a moral agent. If you live in a civilized society, you have the right to be treated ethically, within reason. But to intentionally break a moral principle, so others could continue to live is unethical. If you have the money to buy the body organs, enticing the financially desperate and the greedy people to give up their lives so you could preserve your health, you're immoral and a criminal.

Is Judith Thomson’s abortion analogy valid?

No, it isn't. It is a false analogy. In a false analogy, the two ideas share one common aspect, nothing else.

Through membership in organizations such as the United Nations, those in power get together and afford each other the natural rights that would make a lowly anarchist seethe with envy. Perhaps ironically, that dreaded State of Nature Hobbes so feared is regnant on the international stage, based as it is on his conception as the state as a person. — NOS4A2

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
A State has its own legal existence that the individuals that make up its population do not enjoy. I would say it's a naïve view, or even ignorant, to think that the nations exist purely to take care of its population -- food, shelter, well-being. Nations are political and governmental in essence. You must have forgotten that the memoirs of the ancient emperors were full of the rise and fall of their fortunes.

Like Von Miller and the assault charges against him, etc. — TiredThinker

And she was pregnant.

:sweat:

What did Aristotle have to say? — jgill

Have you noticed that there's no philosophy of risk because the point of philosophy is the contemplation of the world. It's a passive activity.

A nuclear plant disaster would vindicate both the stoics and the cynics. The former would accept it rationally and move on. The cynics would have plenty to write about.

I wish your team the best!

There is an inflated sense of belief in the power to measure risk, especially with technology, including artificial intelligence. From what I have seen, reliance on such technology often results in gross errors. It is likely that genuine risks are underplayed rather than overplayed. — Jack Cummins

Where then should we rely on?

Sorry, but 100% of all nuclear plant disasters were caused by human error and inadequate training. Ignoring warnings and complacence.

Honestly, we're doomed. We are the catalyst of our own extinction. At any given moment, we are building the AI to become our future's demise. Here's a thought experiment: imagine a world full of AI. No procreation needed as they could build their own family members and friends. They would be the aliens that we never had -- you know, the UFOs. We would be the creators of a population of aliens and UFOs. Problem solved.

One of the disadvantages for misuse which I see is the potential for identifying risk factors and seeing them in a concrete way rather than as possibilities. — Jack Cummins

Nuclear war comes to mind. Prevention is everything, because the actuality of it is the end of it all. So, we do not have the luxury of waiting for it to happen to assess how much risk we are taking. We need to have zero occurrence for it happening -- which means:

In particular, when risks are identified, especially in risks of human action is if the risks are taken too concretely. — Jack Cummins

We need to take the risks concretely.

It is in the context of actual and virtual possibilities that I am asking the question of the nature of risk. What is reliable and imaginary, and how do the two come together in proactive and preventative measures in sound philosophical thinking? — Jack Cummins

The central intelligence have the power to assess the possibilities. Of course you are asking in terms of philosophy. So, what then? Empirical tests and observations, which rests on what reality we're talking about. If we're talking about the ordinary world, then there's your answer. But if you're thinking about the reality of Schrodinger's cat, then you can have all the thought experiments you want.

Aren't you sort of generalizing that all self-destructive people are irrational? — kudos

Yes.

Most people who choose a path, destructive or not, have some grounds for doing so. — kudos

Now you're intentionally blurring the lines. I no longer know what you really mean here.

Carrying over to the mainstream of the conversation, in a climate where your freedom of choice were under arrest, wouldn't a rebellious path with aim of liberating the freedom of the individual be worth taking? — kudos

Meaning to self-destruct? If one dies for a cause, that's one thing. But if one just waste away because of discontentment, then that's a problem.

So the choice was between renouncing beliefs -meaning teaching truth, wisdom, and philosophy to Athenian youths - and death. So how was it not self destructive to choose death? — kudos

No, you misunderstood. To him, any of the choices of punishment is like death. I mentioned those already -- exile, renounce his beliefs, and death are all similar in effect.

See below, for javra's take on it:

Moreover, were he to choose exile and a renunciation of his beliefs rather than concede to his sentence of death, this would have served to obliterate the cause which he strove for. So, especially given that all choices pointed toward the destruction of his own identity, conceding to die was that one option what best served his cause. — javra

:100:

Hey, as to being debased by others, “javra” does translate into “cur” — javra

I see. :grin: I've never used this word before.

It would be appropriate at this point to ask you for clarifcation on what you mean by 'nurture and tenderness' and 'chaos and suffering.' This assessment would be opposite of someone who has achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards their attributed circumstances. Don't you find such individuals tend to come from backgrounds of adversity and pain? Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life? — kudos

Sorry, I still don't see how the "will to power" amounts to self-destruction and that the natural tendency to not choose chaos and suffering automatically betrays their background as the reason for being so. I was trying to tell you that even in the wild, they wouldn't choose self-destruction. Socrates was doomed and he knew it. Exile was not an option because he was old and didn't want to be separated from his loved ones. In essence, he was already destroyed by the powers that be. His choices -- exile, renounce his beliefs, or death -- all points towards the destruction of his identity.

Are we making up stuff as we go along in this thread? Because as I see it, statements like yours are generalizations with no basis.

I've sent them images of the process in the inbox, even how to quote. I think there's a language barrier. — Vaskane

:up:

-on the part of the little monkey, that is — Bella fekete

Tell me what you mean.

:lol:

I have no words at the moment.

If you want to alert a poster that you quoted them, click on the @ icon on the ribbon, just above, then type the first and second letter and you should get the correct hit for the poster's name.

The reason for ChatGPT’s inadequate answer the above mouse query (and to others like it that I have posed) is that ChatGPT is trapped in the Chinese Room. It has access only to arbitrary linguistic shapes. Because semantic regularities are often mirrored by linguistic ones, it can answer many queries in ways that seem eerily intelligent. Even so, it will always lag human intelligence. — Jonathan Waskan

This. The ChatGPT's first mistake is not understanding what a thing is -- it is carved out with holes for eyes and mouth. So its concern about the mouse not able to breathe is already misplaced. It's like talking to someone whose society did not know about jack-o-lanterns. Not bad at all, but there's the kink already.

But here's a real-life human interaction I just had. We went through a fast food drive-through. It was an AI that greeted us. We recited our orders and the AI responded accordingly. As with the human interaction, there's always a clear indication that one's order is complete. But then, the AI started asking if "we would like to order this, or that". We said no, that'll do it. However, it continued to offer a thing on the menu. So, my friend thought, how do we stop it from talking? haha.

One might think that the problem has to do with the expressions lacking ‘grounding’ in the real world. But purely from an engineering perspective, what ChatGPT lacks is internal representations that are more richly isomorphic to the real world. — Jonathan Waskan

This and other things.

Society runs on trust, and therefore needs to deter and prevent dishonesty. And this cannot be reversed because the dependence is one way, linguistically. — unenlightened

This is the key to the narrative regarding honesty (or dishonesty).

In my previous post, I maintained that honesty is a situational behavior, not a permanent trait. And that works with the fidelity of a given society or population.

Trustworthiness (fidelity) is, to me, the word more appropriate with a trait. (I can argue for this if anyone challenges it).

Yeah, but what was he accused of, and why didn’t he stop? — kudos

I'm not sure. It's a matter of debate as this is Socrates.

I was reluctant to address your observation about my writing; The idea that it might be better than it appears is encouraging. Is the deficiency a penchant for merely making connections between texts rather than explicating a thesis? — Paine

I wasn't talking about a deficiency. But yes, it is better than it appears to you.
Here's the full paragraph:

In the mythological explanation provided by Diotima in Plato's Symposium, Eros is the child of very different parents: — Paine

Truly, this, to me, is written by a writer, not by someone trying to submit an essay for a mark after having studied the recommended tone and population limit of undefined terminology and nouns squeezed within a paragraph, let alone a single sentence.

Keep writing.

Sorry to go off-topic.

What about who you’d call the grandfather of Western philosophy, Socrates? Someone who, as the story goes, chose execution over fear and groundless obedience to the natural order of his day. — kudos

I don't think you got the whole story of why he chose to drink the hemlock. It was a calculated decision on his part -- aging had a lot to do with it. His relationships with family and peers was very important. His identity was tied to his beliefs and how he lived. So, he was trying to avoid self-destruction by choosing, instead, to die.

This is interesting when looking at how Plato is working with Diotima's account. — Paine

I meant what I quoted. Your writing.

It is unfortunate that our language has taken to calling personalities 'illnesses,' and 'problems' because they are obsessive (could also be viewed as fore-thinking), depressed (could also be viewed as introverted and inventive), or anxious (could also be viewed as meticulous or full of creative energy). True, taken to extremes these become obviously problematic for society and the individual in question, but even then thinking of things as illnesses or problems is only moderately helpful as a metaphor to overcome, but this is not to be taken in the literal sense in my view; that would only serve to externalize things with no real hope of ever gaining any real closure. — kudos

It is not unfortunate, as you would like to see it. Observational approach to understanding the behavior or humans and animals -- in their natural order! -- points towards nurture and tenderness. We would not naturally seek chaos and suffering. So, establishing what's normal is really establishing the human psychology.

A baby monkey would cling to the terry cloth mother, than to a wooden mother. See Harry Harlow - The Nature of Affection.

"Problems" are meant to be solved, or analyzed. The human tendency to try to solve problems is part of continuation of life, as you say. If the word bothers you, then there are "cases" .

In the mythological explanation provided by Diotima in Plato's Symposium,.... — Paine

If I had written like this during my academic non-philosophy essay days, I would get a markdown -- in fact, anyone would have gotten a markdown. Those teachers did not know how the writer's mind works.

Can one still be deemed an honest person if they occasionally engage in deception? — YiRu Li

Honesty is a situational behavior, not a permanent trait of a person. Do not burden someone with that label because it isn't always necessary to be honest at all times. White lies serve the purpose of kindness. Of course, honesty serves that purpose as well.

Is 'honest' a noun or a verb? — YiRu Li

An adjective, if I take your question literally.

I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

It cannot possibly. You are conflating the symptoms with the cause. Self-destructive tendencies are a symptom of a deeper problem within a person, which is better relegated to the field of psychiatry and psychology. Instead of glorifying it within the philosophical discussion, we should understand that it is a problem.

Even the Cynics would not recommend for us to be self-destructive. The Stoics recommend a view of life in self-restraint. None of them specifically talked about "continuation of life", rather, the fact that you are alive still and has some work to do while alive. In other words, take care of the life you have by using wisdom. If living is tiresome for you, try to understand yourself.

I actually find BIV (brain in a vat) a boring thought experiment. It is because you are given a scenario already pre-arranged so that everything is as it is now, except you are actually hooked up in a machine simulation. And then the scenario asks you to argue whether your knowledge or belief is a true belief. To me it is a dumb thought experiment.

Isn't it because of the influence of materialism? That was the philosophical view which sought to understand the Universe as aggregations of physical particles. (As you probably know I'm generally critical of materialism, hence my OP The Mind-Created World.) — Wayfarer

:up: Yes, I agree. I also never agree with materialism as it removes the observer -- the sentient being -- from the narrative.

Yes, good passage. But what should we think of the thought behind it? That quantum mechanics removes the vantage point of the observer and presents the world as a collection of sub-atomic elements. We really have a "flat" earth without the interaction of the observer.

So, let's say that we should really think of the world in terms of atoms and particles, not the fabulous world we live in -- the trees, and the birds, and the bees. What does philosophy have to say about that? Because it would all eliminate the "illusion", the deception, or the errors in beliefs, or even the whole metaphysics itself. From now on, we have a one-dimensional reality -- it's all atoms and subparticles. No time and space to consider.

The truth is, we don't interact, or rather we don't act as if our world has no colors and dimensions. We make decisions based on the wholeness of existence, the three dimensional reality is what we see. We based our morals based on the whole people and whole animals. We have a sense of completeness or fullness or composition which the quantum world does not recognize. We think of ethics in terms of life, death, suffering, harm, pleasure -- which, again, the quantum world does not know about.

I don't understand why we are so torn apart because subparticles exist. They should be thanking us for being here in the universe. For the first time, someone had paid attention to them. People discovered them. That we aren't in a symbiotic relationship with them is something we need to keep telling ourselves. In the billions of years that organic life weren't here, nothing fucking happened. It's 80 billion years of blank pages. You can skip to the last page and it's still the same.

Stephen Hawking said 'whenever I hear of Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun.' — Wayfarer

Hahaha. :grin:

My take on that thought-experiment is that it was a rather sarcastic model to try and communicate the philosophical conundrums thrown up by this issue. It was kind of a joke albeit with serious implications. — Wayfarer

But isn't that exactly what you presented in your previous post?

And that ambiguity arises from superposition. This principle suggests that particles exist in all possible states simultaneously until they are observed or measured.

This concept challenges classical notions of reality and determinism. In classical physics, objects have definite properties and states at all times. However, in quantum mechanics, entities like electrons or photons exist in a superposition of states, with probabilities for each state, until an observation "collapses" these possibilities into a single state.

Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter. — Wayfarer

Not ambiguity, but uncertainty -- the uncertainty principle. So, with that, the Schrodinger's cat experiment doesn't deny the definite properties and doesn't deny space time. It is actually more like a critique of the very notion of the uncertainty principle, which, in all fairness, is a principle about us! -- the observer. And it doesn't purport to state that all possible states exist, rather only two states -- is the cat dead because of the poison, or is the cat alive because the poison didn't detonate.