Comments
-
Ontology of TimeThe Court of Law is a man-made construct. It is not natural. Nature does not hold court.
-
Why is it that nature is perceived as 'true'?↪Wayfarer
You're right about everything. — Patterner
Well, if that's the case, then why are people so dismissive towards his idealism? I say that as a materialist. Evidently Wayfarer has found some sort of objective truth in the world as well as inside of his own brain. It's called self-consciousness. Or self-awareness. Or perhaps mindfulness. Or perhaps his own subjective experience of himself and of the circumstances that surround him.
I think he's right about all of that, if such were the case. And perhaps it is. Who am I to tell him that his conclusions about his own experiences are somehow not part of the world if they emerge from his specific brain-world correlation? I don't have that kind of authority. No one does.
Sorry to interrupt.
Carry on. -
Quran Burning and Stabbing in LondonQuran Burning — flannel jesus
and — flannel jesus
Stabbing in London — flannel jesus
What's the difference? — flannel jesus
(Quran Burning) And / (Stabbing in London)
If And, then:
Stabbing in London: A Horror Story
-by Arcane Sandwich
Stabbing is unethical. Especially in London.
The end. -
The Mind is the uncaused causeThought isn't a thing that occurs freely. — DifferentiatingEgg
But it can. -
What Are You Watching Right Now?It popped up on my screen randomly. — javi2541997
It's an algorithm, Javi. Nothing more.
Sorry to interrupt.
Carry on. -
Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with GodDepends on what system of ethics you adhere to and your reasoning for doing so. — philosch
Then .
I can think of some military use cases that could be argued for doing so — philosch
:100:
I'm currently working on the project of creating a malevolent A.I., and one of its purposes will be to defeat other malicious A.I.s. But that raises some ethical questions, and I don't have an answer to them, at the moment.
Think about it. Suppose, if only for the sake of argument, that we're living in The Matrix. The Matrix, according to the movie, is an A.I.
So, wouldn't it make sense to create a mirror image of it (i.e., another malevolent A.I.) in order to defeat The Matrix? The Oracle, Morpheus, Trinity, Neo, etc., none of them ever considered the option of creating Roko's Basilisk. -
Australian politics
-
Quran Burning and Stabbing in LondonAre you not aware of the centuries-old debate concerning the nature of the Qur'an?
To wit, was it created or discovered?
If it was created, then there's no problem burning it, because it can be created again.
If it wasn't created, then it can't be destroyed, so there's no problem burning it.
is obvious. -
Quran Burning and Stabbing in LondonTo burn a Qur'an is not the same thing as burning the Qur'an, for the same reason that burning a Bible is not the same thing as burning the Bible.
And yes, it's ok to burn any book if, for example, you're a homeless person living in the street, and you are about to experience a cold night if you don't keep your fire going with something to use as fuel.
And what I just said there is one hellfire ( :fire: ) of a . -
Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with GodOk, cool. Is it ethical to create a malevolent A.I.?
-
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekend@fdrake
@Wayfarer
This might cheer you folks up a bit:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15778/the-four-suits-%EF%B8%8F
-
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendWhat are your thoughts on Australians, Skipper? The ones that have descended from European convicts, specifically.
-
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekend
-
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendWhat are your thoughts, ethically speaking, on the possibility (nay, the project) of creating a malevolent artificial intelligence? — Arcane Sandwich
I'll answer my own question: there is no such thing as a malevolent artificial intelligence. And, by parity of reasoning, it follows that there is no such thing as a good artificial intelligence either. -
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendSo, Captain Francis Drake (if I may),
What are your thoughts, ethically speaking, on the possibility (nay, the project) of creating a malevolent artificial intelligence? -
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendIn the grand scheme of things whether someone is an idealist is so obscure it doesn't matter at all. — fdrake
Suppose that such is your premise. The next part follows from it:
Then it's not a big deal! : ) — Arcane Sandwich -
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendPardon me, Skipper, but it seems to me that Wayfarer's point hasn't been refuted, so far. Just saying.
-
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendCouldn't of said any of that any better myself. :up:
-
Why is it that nature is perceived as 'true'?Well, like I said, I think I've earned the right to have my own, unorthodox, and unique interpretation of the allegory of the cave. — Arcane Sandwich
My video of it: — PoeticUniverse
Looks awful. -
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendI'm fond of him, but I think he thinks he's more rigorous than he is. If you read his use of mathematics as examples of "his master" Lacan's mathemes, they make some amount of sense. Cosmogenesis {not that it's exactly cosmogenesis but whatever} out of the empty set doesn't make too much sense. The universe being equated with lack of set level concept applicable to the set of all sets doesn't make much sense either. — fdrake
Thanks for sharing that, I feel the same way about that. It's just sophistry.
never found a satisfying answer for why there are exactly four truth procedures, or why they're individuated the way they are {why not love-politics and art-science?}. — fdrake
Because he "just likes" the number 4, as stupid as that sounds. Why does Hegel always use the number 3 as a model for basically everything in his philosophy? Because he "just likes" the number 3.
The underlying issue I have with Badiou, besides the pretence of mathematical rigour that follows him around, is that I read him as basically an idealist. — fdrake
Nothing wrong with that though, IMHO. Hegel was an idealist, Marx was a materialist. Both of them were dialectical. Idealism is not a big deal, honestly.
I think that's what happens when your central category in ontology is truth - you gotta ask "of what?" — fdrake
I agree.
and here it's some world-shattering reconfiguration, and that world is always a world with humans in it. — fdrake
Yup, same old, same old.
I also enjoy, what I recall as, Laruelle's remark about Badiou that Badiou pretends to be the ultimate philosopher of multiplicity, but the scope of his architectonics and strict methodological purity in metaphysics {it needs mathemes} renders him both pragmatically and ontologically a firm ally of the one. — fdrake
I can't comment much about that, Laruelle sounds kinda crazy. To my ear, at least.
Though I think Badiou made the same remark about Deleuze for different reasons. So I could be mistaking that. Laruelle's Anti-Badiou was one of the hardest books I've read. I hope it was easier in French, but I doubt it. — fdrake
I don't know what to tell you about that, friend. I just think that Badiou is really lousy as a mathematician, so I'm obviously biased and prejudiced against him. -
fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekendWhat do you think of Badiou? You're a mathematician, he's a mathematician. Is he a sophist?
-
Ontology of TimeAnd the future doesn't exist either. Instead, it will exist! When? Well, take an educated guess.
Arcane Sandwich
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum