Comments
-
Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problemOn what grounds would one ask that question (which is like asking whether or not a complete skeleton is "conscious")?
-
Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
I don't see why we would need – why it would be useful – to do that.OK, let's suppose we develop sentient AI. Do we then have to reevaluate sentience for all the computing devices we didn't think were sentient? — RogueAI -
Migrating to England
I'd gladly trade this 'glitchy' 60 year old husk for my peak healthy-fittest 25 year old body :strong: but only if my 60 years of memories, learning, understanding (i.e. maturity) remained. Granted that "wish", I'd relocate to a much more remote, physically challenging environment in a country in the global south where the hazards of climate change are, and will be for the foreseeable future, minimal. Such places, however, are no countries for old bourgeois men or women ... :fear:I wouldn't want to be 30. — Pantagruel -
Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
What do you mean by "sentient" & "mind of its own"? Do you believe these properties are attributes of human beings? If so, why do you believe this? And, assuming it's possible, would these properties be functionally identical instantiated in an AI-system as they are embodied in a human? Why or why not?Is it in principle possible or impossible that some future AI might be sentient or have a mind of its own? — flannel jesus
As for me, I've yet to find any compelling arguments for why in principle a machine cannot be built (either by h. sapiens and/or machines) that functionally exceeds whatever biological kluge (e.g. primate brain) nature adaptively spawns by environmental trial & error, and also since the concept-prospect does not violate any (current) physical laws, I see no reason (yet) to assume, or suspect, that "sentient AI" is a physical/technological impossibility.
-
Migrating to England@Pantagruel
What about New Zealand instead? That's my second choice (if I were to leave the US for good); British Columbia, Canada is my first choice (I currently live between Portland and Seattle so I'm slowly becoming more familiar with the province than I had been from visits in the 90s) and Costa Rica is my third choice. -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)28Mar24, NYC
Will Putin bail out Fraudster/Loser-1? Maybe MBS? or Elon Musk? No bank or bond company will ... :rofl:
-
Types of faith. What variations are there?I don't consider –semantics aside – "trusting people" synonymous with faith (e.g. "having faith in people") as I point out here: .
-
Thought Versus CommunicationChomsky is confused (à la Witty, Peirce-Dewey). I think thought is also a kind of communication (unless something other than 'coordinating with others via synchronizing sign(al)s' is what is meant by communication). Or has this thought not communicated anything? :chin:
-
Types of faith. What variations are there?"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." ~Freddy Z
I discern three "types of faith": (1) trusting the impossible was the case, (2) hoping the impossible will be the case and (3) imagining the impossible is (always) the case; and by 'the impossible' I understand that which is rational to deny, or negate (e.g. contradictions ... incoherent objects, inconsistent things, unconditional events ... reified ideas aka "idols"). :halo:How many types of faith are there? — TiredThinker -
What religion are you and why?
It seems to me :nerd: the "non-interference" PD only makes statistical sense such that, if and when Terran civilization invents FTL "warp drive" so that there is non-negligble risk of making direct contact with – biologically contaminating – or even aggressively threatening an ETI's "civilization", only then will the need arise for an ETI to interfere with us either to Terra's benefit (à la Star Trek: First Contact) or detriment (à la Village of the Damned ... or Invasion of the Body Snatchers ... or Annihilation). TBD. :yikes:... the Prime Directive makes good sense ... — Agree-to-Disagree -
What religion are you and why?
:smirk:It is amazing that the gods want the same things that I want.
— Agree-to-Disagree
The gods don't. Only the one particular customized god you invent for yourself does. — Vera Mont -
What religion are you and why?
:fire:For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe [ ... ] It appears to me that everything is interconnected [ontologically inseparable] and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe. — praxis
:100:That's the beauty of imaginary entities: they are infinitely adaptable and interpretable [ ... ] not to explain things, which they could do very well for themselves, accurately or otherwise, but to grant wishes. The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes. — Vera Mont -
What religion are you and why?
:chin: I can't imagine it would take anything less radical than sudden onset acute schizophrenia or dementia (or maybe undergoing a full lobotomy) for me to believe that – hallucinate – some "personal god" (e.g. mageia) exists. Otherwise, I think I'm too old now (60) – too committed to p-naturalism (plus e.g. Clarke's 3rd Law —> Schroeder's Law^) – to be persuaded (rationally or not) out of my life-long, irreligious disbelief. No doubt, however, stranger things than 180° de-conversion have been known to happen, so ... :mask:What would you need? — Tom Storm
^ https://absentofi.org/2021/05/karl-schroeder-any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-nature/ -
What religion are you and why?I edited the question in my previous post since "the God of Abraham" is apparently too specific (or triggering) to encourage broad speculation.
-
What religion are you and why?@an-salad @AmadeusD @praxis @Agree-to-Disagree @Lionino @Vera Mont @Tom Storm @Jamal
What evidence or experience would convince you that(e.g.) "the God of Abraham"at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists?
edit: I hope the question is clearer ... -
I Don't Agree With All Philosophies
Explain what you mean by "wrong" – how a philosophy is "wrong" about this or that and/or how a philosophy goes "wrong".Even philosophies that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years can be wrong. — HardWorker
Also, in reference to your OP, explain why it matters philosophically whether or not you "agree" with any philosophy.
:up: -
Wittgenstein’s creative sublimation of Kant
:100:... Wittgenstein's later philosophy and the notion of language games and forms of life to emphasize that the locus of his new kind of transcendental philosophy is ultimately taken out of the head and placed in social practices. — Jamal
I think, just before Witty, Nietzsche & Peirce (among others) in their own ways also elevate "social practices" and deflate "pure reason" as well. Witty's way might still be the most insightful, even compelling.
:fire:It is logic rather than language which is transcendental. Logic is the transcendental condition that makes language possible. Language and the world share a logical structure. Logic underlies not only language but the world. It is the transcendental condition that makes the world possible. — Fooloso4
This is the gist of the TLP but I think Witty extends this from formal – "transcendental" – logic (re: world-structure) to a concrete 'logic of practice' (re: forms-of-life, language-games (i.e. being-with-others-in-the-world aka "mitsein")) later on. -
Rating American PresidentsChomsky's breezy rundown in the video of the war crimes / atrocities of postwar US Presidents, who, in fact, were (are) presiding over the American Imperial project, is indisputable. Throughout history from "Manifest Destiny" to "Sino-Soviet Containment" to the "War on Terror", some were better at administering "Pax Americana" (while also minimizing social conflicts & national costs) and some were very much worse; this is how I interpret any published "Ranking of US Presidents" from the historically bad to very bad to worst presidential record.
-
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)FOX spews lies to an audience who wants be lied to, many of whom don't vote, so those "headlines" are as irrelevant as the Ranking of Presidents is irrelevant to historiical illiterates. And, IMO, Loser-1 will not win another term of POTUS so your question is moot.
-
What religion are you and why?
:up:If i myself had any spiritual leanings, I'd be attracted to some form of animism... — Vera Mont -
What religion are you and why?
This very much reminds of my mother's idiosyncratic non-doctrinnaire, or ceremonial, Catholicism: quiet prayer-focused and weekly charity work usually in lieu of Mass. I wonder if this 'blessed' state is why she's still the healthiest, most optimistic octogenerian I know.Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation. — Vera Mont -
What makes nature comply to laws?
... you vapidly conflate with Kant's use of transcendental (which you further confuse with "Transcendentalism"). Apparently, it never occurs to you, Gnomon, to first read, let alone study, what you wantonly bloviate about. More shameless sophistry. :sparkle: :sweat:I'm not a Kant scholar, and have never read any of his works. But, "Transcendence" ... — Gnomon
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881651 -
What makes nature comply to laws?
Only some (idealist) philosophers ... most of whom argue from rather than towards their conclusion. Anyway, at least since Democritus in the 5th century BCE, many philosophers have inferred and then modern natural scientists have demonstrated that nature is, in fact, vastly "outside of consciousness" and that "consciousness" is therefore nature-dependent (i.e. reality-dependent) rather than the other way around. In other words, Pez, it's reasonable to infer that it is also a (meta) "law of nature" that intelligent minds can abstract "laws of nature" from (modeling) nature.The question, if we can infer from this experience to something outside of consciousness, has been a long dispute among philosophers. — Pez
Btw, I understand the concept of noumena (Kant mostly uses the plural form whereas Schopenhauer critically uses the singular "noumenon'") to denote the asymptote-like limits of phenomena – limits of ap/perception – and not a posited "beyond" or "behind" phenomena (i.e. "transcendental illusion"? pace Hegel et al). IMHO, Buddhist "shunyata" is completely different from – opposite of – Kantian noumena insofar as, so to speak, (1) 'we can think but not experience' the latter whereas 'we can experience but not think' the former and (2) Kantianism posits things-in-themselves (we just cannot 'know' them) and Buddhism denies things-in-themselves (there are only 'transient illusions'). -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)From a 2020 thread Ranking American Presidents...
154 varied and distinguished scholars agree: Loser-1 is still ranked at the bottom of the list of 46 US Presidents – and if this Republic is lucky, no future president will be nearly as bad as or worse than this malignantly narcissistic demonstrable ignoramus, misogynist, defamer, rapist, racist, con artist, fraudster, insurrectionist, wannabe gangster / autocrat & pathological liar who was once (thanks, Shillary!) the 45th – and never to be again – occupant of the White House.My assessments, I'm afraid, are fairly conventional. Wiki, etc has helped me to recall the devilish details (always mindful of historical contexts and the risks, constraints, & opportunities (missed & taken) for presidential leadership). Of course, in the end, just a game of charades (or ideological rorschach) ... :cool:
5 Best U.S. Presiden(ts) - 2 or more of the following: leadership in war; statemanship (i.e. diplomacy to prevent armed conflict); strengthened 'the rule-of-law' (i.e. constitutional order & norms); promoted civil political or fiscal reforms in order to minimize domestic social conflicts; etc
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Jefferson
4. TR
5. Washington
5 Worst U.S. Presiden(cies) - 2 or more of the following: mal-administration (i.e. conspicuous incompetence); flagrant corruption (further undermining public trust ...); demogoguery (i.e. inciting / pandering to "racists" "xenophobes" "misogynists" "nationalists" "religious bigots" "conspiracy" wingnut agitprop, etc); weakening 'the rule-of-law' (i.e anti-democratic abuses of one or more branches of government, etc); hawkish militarism (e.g. "wars of opportunity"); etc ...
1. TR45H (aka "Individual-1" "Putin's Bitch" "Agent Orange" "M.oscow A.sset G.rifting A.merica" "SCROTUS" ...)
2. Buchanan (+ Pierce + Tyler + Fillmore)
3. Harding + Bush 43 (aka "Dubya" "Shrub")
4. A. Johnson + Cleveland 2nd
5. Cleveland 1st + B. Harrison — 180 Proof
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/19/1232447088/historians-presidents-survey-trump-last-biden-14th -
What makes nature comply to laws?
Well I disagree with this antirealist suggestion, Pez – "concepts" do not "change" themselves, we change our concepts in order to adapt. Turning on house lights at night in an unfamiliar house does not change the house, rather you change only your capability for orienting yourself within that unfamiliar house. Likewise, given that we inhabit the world, the 'models (i.e. pictures, maps, simulations) of the world' which we make conform with varying degrees of fidelity to the world and thereby inform our expectations of how we can adapt to the world. For instance, GR & QM were as true about the physical world in Aristotle's day and in Newton's day as they are today even though Aristotle, Newton and their contemporaries, respectively, were completely ignorant of them. Thus, changing our concepts of reality, in effect, only changes us and not reality itself.These concepts change and so does the world we live in. — Pez -
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?"Beliefs" such as? Also, please clarify what you mean by "embracing them fully".
-
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
As I understand it, philosophy concerns making explicit – problematizing – the "limitations of the mundane" beginning with reasoning itself (e.g. Plato, Kant) so attempts to reason-without-limitations (i.e. thinking/knowing-beyond-thinking/knowing) is, it seems to me, pseudo-philosophical nonsense (Witty) or not doing philosophy at all (e.g. religious / spiritual / therapeutic fantasy). Except maybe in poetry, IMO, there is no "beyond".I am inclined to agree [with] Pantagruel about the limitations of 'the mundane'. — Jack Cummins
We exist on a plane of immanence (Deleuze et al) that is unbounded in all directions. We are also inseparable from this plane (i.e. "the mundane"), therefore, though limited, we are not merely finite beings. :fire:It seems such a 'flat perspective'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_of_immanence (scroll down half way)
Aren't we all? :monkey:I may be my worst enemy here.
Play Chess or Go, Jack: the real is always "hidden" from you in plain sight on the board (i.e. "the mundane", "the surface") while you play the game (i.e. live/think). Play Jazz music or European / Indian Classical music – truth is there if you listen with both your body and your ears.However, it is also a quest for 'waking up' and looking beyond surfaces. The idea of 'hidden' may be mythical as opposed to an objective 'reality' beyond the visible. -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?Spinoza is my (modern) 'metaphysical' touchstone ... then Freddy & Witty, Zapffe-Camus, C. Rosset ... and more recently Meillassoux-Brassier. Not the usual post-Humean/Kantian suspects or Hegelians either. Nonetheless, my point is: when discussing the history of (western) metaphysics I think it's more useful to clearly distinguish it from an anthopological / social psychological term like "worldview" rather than to conflate them (pace Hegel). If clarity is "analytical", Joshs, then I'm guilty as charged. :smirk:
-
US Election 2024 (All general discussion):smirk: Yep, it's only February ... and so it goes.
-
What religion are you and why?
I've witnessed this sort of "divorce" afflicting several friends and acquaintances throughout my life and always have felt fortunate that I didn't go through such "agony" because I'd realized while still at my Jesuit high school that, despite a decade or more by then of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing and education, I had had no "faith" to lose, recognizing that I didn't believe the biblical stories were any truer than the superhero comics (& Greco-Roman, Egyptian-African myths) I'd geeked-out on or that Catholic symbols & practices were anything but tribal customs like wearing team jerseys and flag waving. I can't say forty-five years later that the experience of 'coming out as a nonbeliever' (I wasn't aware of the word atheist or freethinker yet) was anything like "enlightening or triumphant" since it greatly displeased my mother, irritated both of my favorite teachers who were priests and confused my younger brother and our closest friends.I'm still not a believer in losing one's faith as being a universally enlightening or triumphant experience. Loss of faith has been one long, agonizing divorce for me. — Noble Dust
Fortunately, all I had to do was shut-up about my apostasy and go through the obligatory motions like before and no one mentioned it again until after I'd graduated high school a couple of years later. "Loss of God", however, was more of an intellectual than existential difficulty for me only after I'd been seriously reading philosophy for almost a decade because the "loss" had deprived my thinking of any "foundation" or "absolute" or "teleology", etc ... which, ironically, had gradually become illuminating.
NB: My irreligious 'road to Damascus':
i. apostasy —> ii. agnostic/negative atheism —> iii. positive atheism —> antitheism —> pandeism ...
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum