As they say, some things, like a malfunctioning toaster, "have a mind of their own." — TheMadFool

:smile: Funny comparison.

Love, though it can be said to boil down to the act of coitus, also transcends it; love exists, as a distinct entity, at the level of human relationships and should be studied within that context. — TheMadFool

It goes beyond the physical, or rather, despite the physical, it is real. There'd be a moment of dread sometimes -- the feeling of wanting to protect your love. From what? I don't know. Silly notions. But I get that way. You also tend to "spoil" the brattiness in him. When he's being petulant -- you just...smile at it. Allow it. Like, ah, he's having his moments.

Hence GIGO. Machines programmed or operated by cretins – automated (not "artificial") or manual stupidity by degrees. Isn't intelligence just a self-appraisal of the "user-illusion"? — 180 Proof

Hi Proof. Heck yes.

Morality is invention. A compromise of actions in expression for survival. Nature is neither moral or immoral. The perspective of morality is based off of how humans do not like to struggle. To prevent perspective struggle. Morality is not the same with every sub-species. One individual's pain is another's pleasure. — ExistenceofSelf

Every time I see the words "morality is invention", I feel an unsettling feeling that makes me want to disengage. I think people use the word "invention", instead of "system" to preemptively unfold what's to come in the narrative. It is a loaded word. An ethical system is created by humans, yes. So it is an invention. But not in the sense that it is a make-believe that shouldn't be taken as if it's real.

If you want to understand how philosophers use the word "creative", ethics and morality is where you should search. Because creativity in ethics and morality means humans create a device, through imagining a world where this device, commonly known as a system, could function harmoniously, resulting in a philosophic system of ethics and morality that actually works.

But more stringently, can philosophy ”as such” help in big matters? In that case, how? — Ansiktsburk

Yes -- through a literary movement, a strong one. Pen is mightier than a sword type of battle. Yes, I am aware that this was the norm in the past -- gather, write, publish manifestos to voice opinions on political/economic matters. But forms of persuasion don't change. Announce a symposium.

I understand you want to emphasize urgency. Think of the precipice. Steady and firm, but not go crazy over an ideology, or you would just be part of the populace reacting, no longer the wise philosopher who could move mountains.

As an addendum to this post -- invite the obscure rock stars of philosophy -- the retired, secluded, and the silent ones who'd written great treatises and polemics in the past, let them bring back those forgotten writings.

Science isn't a self-correcting system though, because it needs guidance from theory and hypothesis, which are derived from sources non-scientific, like metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the empirical scientific school of thought is criticized for this. There are principles outside of perception that are needed if the scientific methodology is to be judged scientific..

Sometimes I'd like to say that stupidity is organically cultivated. Hence, machines can never be called stupid.

↪Caldwell
So, what's an example from another discipline in science? What is the general rule broken or mispractice of Bohr? — Bylaw

Empirical science which puts sensation and observation on a pedestal. Which, according to critics, is done to the detriment of things outside of our perception -- thing in itself. Whether you agree or not, this is a real concern for them.

At this point, I don't have much opinion anymore about Bohr's controversial quantum postulate (for which I provided snippets in another page of this thread. You are welcome to discern what you may from those quotes).

But in the case of a leaning algorithm, the failing might be in the teaching. The point is that the burden of finding the problems is likely to fall on those at the edges of the norm; that is, it is likely to unfairly burden minorities such as the disabled. SO automatic vehicles is an equity issue, an impediment introduced by engineering. — Banno

Yes, I agree with the consequences -- but these negative effects of "dumb" machines are all across the board. For example, ergonomically friendly equipment that addresses the default, mind-set mentality of mass produced products that ignore the needs of a segment of a population.

Smart machines, by name, naturally elicits the naming of its counterpart -- dumb machines. This is understandable. But that's the failing of our epistemological curiosity. We came up with a name of "smart" and already we are burdened with the opposite consequence, which is the presence of "dumb".

I'd say, the automatic vehicle fails in capability because it wasn't designed with some features.

Automatic vehicles cannot cope with the unusual. Wheelchair users will often turn the chair around to go up small inclines. An automatic vehicle recently hit a wheelchair user doing this because it thought the chair was going in the other direction - it has assumed the direction of travel from the shape of the chair. — Banno

Give it more tweaks and it should have that capability.

Admittedly, some machines perform ultra complex operations, like the automatic vehicles. The failings would be on the design.

...not sure that applies to heuristic machines. Hence my point about those with disabilities. — Banno

How so?

Can we say the same of people? — Thunderballs

No. People don't hold back a quality because it hasn't been "implemented" yet.

*

There is much ado about AI. But what about AS, artificial stupidity? Does it come along naturally in making AI? — Thunderballs

There are no stupid machines, only insufficient ones. There is no opposite of "smart" machines.

There was a time when machines at point-of-sale would allow a transaction to go through even if the debit card did not have enough funds. The eventual transaction is that a customer would be overdrawn by, say, $5, then the bank would charge the customer $35 for overdrawn transaction. This is clearly abusive, but at the time, nothing was being done about it.

When a bank clerk was asked why would a debit card be approved when there's not enough funds (this was before debit cards could act like credit cards), the bank clerk responded that the debit card wouldn't know there's not enough money in the account. Well, where are we now? Card decline generation. The card decline feature during their time wasn't implemented yet.

Absolutely no intention in doing so. Not interested in laziness. Sorry. — I like sushi

Sorry to disappoint. :meh:

Okay maybe we did touch on Reich. :cool:

I really cant tell if you are serious or not! — Thunderballs

Disappointed much?

Trust me. I studied History and Classics and Philosophy. (I also studied Calculus and Algebra -- my favorite subjects, but now I'm not good in math. lol!)

Wow! I was completely ignorant about the orgone accumulator. :sad:

Good Lord!

What was Reich all about, besides being German?

So it is at the heart of religion. Galileo's conviction was a rational one! — Thunderballs

:blush: Okay.

Science is a self-correcting system. — Wheatley

Yes, that's a good postulate. Rationality is at the heart of scientific endeavor. Just like in philosophy, where "therapy" is the remedy for obsession with too much metaphysical speculation, skepticism, or maybe even nihilism; adherence to scientific principles will correct itself.

We can be an optimist and say it's self-correcting.

↪Caldwell
No idea what you're talking about so next time don't write in a rush. I recommend editing the OP :) — I like sushi

Not sure if I even have the stamina at this point. Just try to read through the thread.

Just thinking, would it be better to say that there is a decay in the understanding of science? — ssu

Guess who the front-men are. Bohr, for example.

Isn't linear progression growth? — Thunderballs

Yes. What's your point?

If a photon is absorbed there is an increase in the potential energy of the electron. — Thunderballs

Hah! Not until after it gets "excited" and jumps to higher energy orbit. It is the distance from the nucleus that electron increases the potential energy. This is rough. Not sure.

PS: I got banned from an economy forum for asking this question (there was even a tag "philosophy of economy). They asked me every time, firstly, to ammend my question (to re-open it). So the question grew longer and longer, backing it up with references, which were considered unscientific every time. I went a bit agitated at a point... — Thunderballs

I don't how you worded your question in that forum. But, the thinking in terms of economic is linear progression. Which means, for example, productivity translates to an increase of something. A population can't be called productive and be stagnant at the same time, or worse, be shrinking. The more activities, the higher productivity, the bigger the market gets.

What internal motion is meant here? That of an electron? — Thunderballs

Yes. Measured in quanta? So I guess the heretical point is that how can a measured energy absorbed not translate into the same measure in movements?

And perhaps, now that I have laid this out, you can see that I have misunderstood you. Hopefully not, but that's more or less, how I have been taking the Rosenfeld Bohr issue. — Bylaw

:up:

"Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity"

↪Caldwell
It seemed like he supported him on those, though I have trouble finding clear info. — Bylaw

Let's use logic here. He supported Bohr's remark that the quantum postulate is a horrid assumption. Not that Rosenfeld supported the postulate itself. Tell me if you get this vibe. You can correct me.

You're using interchangeably a quantitative G and a universal G. — tim wood

@TheMadFool change the negation of universal with an existential. Then try to see if a logical equivalence is equal to a logical translation.

And, barring grave mishaps that can ruin the dance along the way, these two find increased convergence into one via the inter-path/course they partake in. All this conditional on both being there for each other when it counts. — javra

Yes! Lovely.

Getting racy around these parts. :blush: — javra

:halo: When you love someone.

I actually noticed that what I wrote in my previous post was .."flaws in all". 'corrected it. But I know why I wrote it incorrectly...I was thinking, he's flawed in all aspects, lol!

5. God exists (G) = All things identical to God are existent things = A
6. God doesn't exist (~G) = No things identical to God are existent things = B — TheMadFool

It's where you place the negation. It makes a difference from
1. G = God exist.
2. ~G = God doesn't exist.

And yeah, I give him the best fuck ever!

That aside, here taking my cue from the title, what does the phrase “real love” signify to you? — javra

You accept the person, flaws and all. You leave him alone when he wants to be. But embrace him when he's back.

I thought we were talking about science deniers, not the limits of science. — Gary M Washburn

Neither. We are talking about decline theorists' estimate of..well..implosion of science.

Let's play a game: what's my IQ?You have to comb back through all of my 4.7 thousand posts to figure it out. The winner doesn't get banned. The loser is banned. — Noble Dust

I'm game.

Hmm. You can be either, but not both.