Here is the solution that occured to me, and it might not be very good. But let's say that all sorts of things do start to exist, at random. Why should we expect that different sorts of things that start existing would be able to interact with one another? Maybe stuff is popping into being all the time and it just makes no difference to us. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In other words, our conscious experience correlates with the notion of individual, since it is present almost all the time, but I don’t see any proof of causality, since one can happen without the other. — Skalidris

And of course, there's the hypocritical anti-philosophy types who don't wish to be doing philosophy, and even claim not to be doing philosophy, while not having the will power to prevent themselves from doing philosophy... and so they go, into the production of depraved philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

In case of the online information such as from WiKi or ChatGPT, the editors, publishers, scholars ..etc source information can be unknown or vague. And also the quality and accuracy of the information could be a bit suspicious too.

I prefer relying on the information from the traditional printed books and articles for the clearer information of the source, editors, writers and publishers. — Corvus

With the advent of A.I. and the use of ChatGPT getting popular, I wonder if all the Encyclopaedia and Textbooks become obsolete. Would it be the case, or the textbooks and Encyclopaedia will still be in demand? — Corvus

Philosophy has its own lexicon that's different from politics, for example. — L'éléphant

Do you refer to a particular lexicon, like a specialized dictionary or encyclopedia --e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc.-- or a personal vocabulary, based on their own personal meanings of terms?
If it's the first case, what Philosophy lexicon are you using? — Alkis Piskas

2) How can they expect to communicate effectively with others if they don't know the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms (with all their variations depending on context ) or if they have their own, personal, different definitions/meanings according to their own views and reality?
One can always of course describe one's own definition/meaning of a term --nothing bad about it-- but at least they should make that clear if that definition/meaning departs from the standard, common, agreed upon definition and meaning. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

That being said, anyone who gives you flak for daring to use a dictionary should be red flagged in your mind. Anyone who resists clear definitions is likely a charlatan who will continue to twist and retwist the meaning any time you think you get a handle on it and it points to a contradiction. Discussing with people like this can be a waste of time, so be careful. — Philosophim

One cannot be both his own slave and his own master. — NOS4A2

The acceptance and appreciation of individuality. — Vera Mont

So find laws where the punishment is X fine without jail time and so long as you're poised to make a greater reward than the fine, break the law, pay the fine, reap the profits. — Vaskane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Is Judith Thomson’s abortion analogy valid?

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

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

What did Aristotle have to say? — jgill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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