Comments

  • Medical Issues
    ↪jgill
    Thank you.
  • Thought Versus Communication
    Language is not about sharing information so much as coordinating behaviour. — Banno
    i.e. communicating (à la synchronizing), no?

    ↪Banno
    I didn't get that from your post. In any case socially "coordinating behavior" (i.e. communication^^) – such as observed in other primate groupings as well as described in, for instance, Wittys proposal of socially acquired language-gaming – seems more reasonable than not to assume is the why of language use and not only, or reductively, the what-for of it.

    ^^e.g.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_pragmatics
  • Medical Issues
    ↪0 thru 9
    :up: Thanks.
  • Hobbies
    Addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/603428

    As far as analogue role playing games go, my jam is (still) *low/no prep, rules lite & roleplay heavy* (i.e. so TotM, not maps & minis) rpgs such as

    Blood & Honor
    Cairn
    Freeform Universal     (FU)
    Lasers & Feelings
    Tricube Tales

    (secondarily: FitD games, Houses of the Blooded, PbtA games (except DW), Sorcerer (+ suppliments) & Zenobia)

    Lately, I like to watch actual plays of "narrative games" like these on Youtube. :nerd:

    No digital games – for me, they automate (eliminate) too much players' improvisational creativity (since all possible actions / reactions are already scripted (coded) in the program), fully cybernetic illusionism / railroading.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    And it will continue indefinitely. With US support. — Mikie
    :brow: Yes disgracefully so.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    29Feb24, Rafah:

    +30,000 Palestinian noncombatants killed (c70,000 injured) and +2 million Palestianians displaced (ethnically cleansed) by the state of Israel since 7Oct23.

    +1,100 Israelis et al killed (c5,500 injured) and +240 hostages taken by Hamas & co since 7Oct23.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war

    ↪ssu
    :up: :up:
  • Thought Versus Communication
    we coordinate behaviour by communicating. — Banno
    :100:
  • Migrating to England
    No one is more cynical than the believer who failed to find what they wanted. — Pantagruel
    :up: :up:
  • Medical Issues
    From 2021 ...
    Covid-19, probably a long-hauler (c4 months so far), with chronic fatigue and brain fog and minor respiratory issues ... — 180 Proof
    :mask: ... even though the world has moved on, long covid still has me by the throat:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/28/brain-fog-from-long-covid-has-measurable-impact-study-suggests
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    ↪RogueAI
    On 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
    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
    I don't see why we would need – why it would be useful – to do that.
  • Migrating to England
    I wouldn't want to be 30. — Pantagruel
    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:
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    Is it in principle possible or impossible that some future AI might be sentient or have a mind of its own? — flannel jesus
    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?

    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.

    ↪Pez

    ↪NOS4A2
  • Migrating to England
    ↪Jamal
    :up: :up:

    ↪Pantagruel
    :cool: Yw. Good luck with your search!
  • 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:

  • What religion are you and why?
    anarcho-Marxism — Moliere
    :up:

    (i.e. libertarian socialism)
  • Types of faith. What variations are there?
    ↪flannel jesus
    I don't consider –semantics aside – "trusting people" synonymous with faith (e.g. "having faith in people") as I point out here:
    ↪180 Proof
    .
  • Thought Versus Communication
    ↪ucarr
    Chomsky 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?
    ↪flannel jesus
    In evidence we trust ... :smirk:
  • Types of faith. What variations are there?
    "Faith: not wanting to know what is true." ~Freddy Z

    How many types of faith are there? — TiredThinker
    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:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    $112,000 a day accrued interest ...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68407054

    :clap: :mask:
  • What religion are you and why?
    ... the Prime Directive makes good sense ... — Agree-to-Disagree
    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:
  • What religion are you and why?
    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
    :smirk:
  • What religion are you and why?
    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
    :fire:

    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
    :100:
  • What religion are you and why?
    What would you need? — Tom Storm
    :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:


    ^ https://absentofi.org/2021/05/karl-schroeder-any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-nature/
  • What religion are you and why?
    ↪AmadeusD
    ↪Tom Storm
    ↪Vera Mont
    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 ...
  • Rating American Presidents
    ↪Mikie
    For me, FDR is 2nd only to Lincoln.
  • I Don't Agree With All Philosophies
    Even philosophies that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years can be wrong. — HardWorker
    Explain what you mean by "wrong" – how a philosophy is "wrong" about this or that and/or how a philosophy goes "wrong".

    Also, in reference to your OP, explain why it matters philosophically whether or not you "agree" with any philosophy.

    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • Wittgenstein’s creative sublimation of Kant
    ... 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
    :100:

    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.

    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
    :fire:

    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 Presidents
    ↪Mikie
    Chomsky'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)
    ↪Relativist
    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.
  • I Don't Agree With All Philosophies
    I don't agree with all philosophies ... — HardWorker
    So what?
  • What religion are you and why?
    If i myself had any spiritual leanings, I'd be attracted to some form of animism... — Vera Mont
    :up:
  • What religion are you and why?
    Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation. — Vera Mont
    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.
  • What makes nature comply to laws?
    I'm not a Kant scholar, and have never read any of his works. But, "Transcendence" ... — Gnomon
    ... 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:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881651
  • What makes nature comply to laws?
    The question, if we can infer from this experience to something outside of consciousness, has been a long dispute among philosophers. — Pez
    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.

    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...
    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
    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.

    https://www.npr.org/2024/02/19/1232447088/historians-presidents-survey-trump-last-biden-14th
  • Rating American Presidents
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882497
Home » 180 Proof