Comments

  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Just another maga-is-fucked Monday in Murica :clap: :sweat:


    @NOS4A2
  • Ethics: Applied and Care
    I don't see justification as a negative thing; isn't giving leisurely consideration to your actions post hoc a good idea, if it is done with an eye to improvement? Seems to me to be an essential part of the process of developing one's virtue... A feedback loop. — Banno
    :fire:
  • Logic and Disbelief
    In short we can't rule out any of 'em as incompatible with our experiences. — Agent Smith
    I disagree completely.
    Agent Smith
    The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural disasters, man-made catastrophes & self-inflicted interpersonal suffering is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship.
    — 180 Proof
    Just sayin ...     — 180 Proof
    This excludes an "OOO" deity. :halo:

    Besides, Smith, none of the classical arguments^^ for the possibility of g/G°°are sound whereas, on the other hand, there are quite a few sound arguments (including my own**) for the impossibility of g/G.°°

    (transcendent facts (vide Spinoza) aka "magic")°°

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653775 ^^

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/463672 **
  • Logic and Disbelief
    ↪Agent Smith
    That doesn't clarify what you meant by "all gods are possibilities" ... possibilities of what?
  • Currently Reading
    Closure: A Story of Everything, Hilary Lawson
  • Logic and Disbelief
    All Gods are possibilities we can't rule out with 100% certainty. — Agent Smith
    What do you mean by "possibilities"?
  • Logic and Disbelief
    ↪Agent Smith
    Yeah, but which "god may exist"?
  • Logic and Disbelief
    ↪Gnomon
    :sparkle: :rofl:
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey's monolith.
    Are we alone in the universe?

    Have we ever been?

    Frank Drake 1930-2022

    We may be living within their simulation, Mr. Fermi.
  • James Webb Telescope
    Frank Drake 1930-2022
  • Ethics: Applied and Care
    ↪I like sushi
    You asked to be corrected. I've done so. Grow up. ¡Hasta!:sweat:
  • Ethics: Applied and Care
    ↪I like sushi
    I've already referred you to Carol Gilligan. :roll:

    Update:

    For anyone interested in actually reading a more extensive synopsis of care ethics than the wiki article:

    https://iep.utm.edu/care-ethics/#H5
  • Ethics: Applied and Care
    ↪I like sushi
    "Some individual" is only the originator of the form of ethics at issue. Nevermind, sushi.. You're welcome to your incorrigible misunderstandings. :shade:
  • Philosophical AI
    I think computers play dumb just to let us think we are still in charge. They are biding their time. — Cuthbert
    :clap: :nerd:

    Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft
    Even when such an AI (publicly) comes online, why should we listen to such an entity spouting nostroms about "human existence and our meanings" when it does not itself have any human existential skin in the game? :chin:
  • Ethics: Applied and Care
    Subset of Normative Ethics would be more accurate I think?

    Correct me if I am wrong.     — I like sushi
    I have already in my previous post corroborated with a link to the wiki article on care ethics along with its founder Carol Gilligan.
  • Western Classical v Eastern Mystical
    Western Classical Philosophy v Eastern Mystery Traditions — David S
    I interpret your dichotomy this way:

    Epicureanism-Stoicism v.Daoism-Buddhism
    (i.e. eudaimonia v. non-attachment).

    I had explored the latter (with some devotion) as an undergraduate in the early '80s but the former had prevailed I suspect because that tradition suits my Western (individualistic & logico-mathematical) educated biases much better. Thus, my enduring affinity for Absurdism
    ↪180 Proof
    .
  • Ethics: Applied and Care
    ↪I like sushi
    You fail to make the case that care ethics "avoids responsibility" because you haven't stated clearly what you mean by (moral) "responsibility". As the linked wiki article points out, care is proposed as a virtue (benevolence), that is, a moral – non-instrumental - habit. Do you believe virtue ethics, of which care ethics is a subset, "avoids responsibility" too?

    I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. — L'éléphant
    :up: :up:
  • Western Classical v Eastern Mystical
    My own judgment is that there is no ultimate reality or mystery to solve, or purpose to find, nor any thought system that will work or appeal to all. I'm for making things up as I go, and happy to steal the odd idea from wherever if it looks like that idea can help. Personally I avoid systems, for we are already encrusted with all kinds of conceptual detritus and schemas just through socialization and enculturation. For me the journey is more about learning to ditch bad habits and unhelpful thinking. — Tom Storm
    :fire:
  • Most Important Problem Facing Humanity, Revisited
    41% of the world pop. (China, US & India) accounted for 60% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019). — 180 Proof
    :mask:
    Citing the US, China, and India is fine — they are indeed the largest emitters. But that’s not saying much — — Xtrix
    Well, it's saying at least as much as "7% of the world's population is responsibble for 50% of the emissions", as you've claimed, is factually incorrect by a significant margin. :eyes:
  • Logic and Disbelief
    They have no reason to believe there's a god without evidence, and yet no atheist says that he KNOWS there's no God, or she shouldn't. — GLEN willows
    I think this depends on how g/G is defined or described. Consider positive atheism. :halo:
  • Logic and Disbelief
    ↪Agent Smith
    :smirk:
    Its ["Enformationism' "BothAnd" "Meta-Physics"] primary contribution is to support ancient Holistic (e.g. Taoism ; Idealism ; Stoicism , etc) philosophies with cutting-edge (reductive) scientific knowledge (e.g quantum & information), and Einsteinian Relativity (POV framing). — Gnomon
    1. Why do "ancient Holistic philosophies" need non-philosophical "support"?

    2. What is such "support" suppose to change about or with "ancient Holistic philosophies"? And change for whom?

    3. Lastly, insofar as scientifically literate philosophers / students of philosophy tend to dismiss your repetitious (mis)uses of scientific theories and their findings coupled with your own (disingenuous?) confession to being a neophyte in both philosophy and natural sciences, how do you know, Gnomon, that the pervasive "lukewarm reception ,"is due to "reductive scientistic bias" and not due to well-founded learning that is philosophically and/or scientifically superior to your own? What does overlooking or denying the more likely prospect of the latter possibility say about the "openness" – or lack thereof – of your "mind", sir?

    Addendum to
    ↪180 Proof
    ...
  • Most Important Problem Facing Humanity, Revisited
    Important to remember that the issue isn’t individual consumption, however. — Xtrix
    The problem identified is net overconsumption of and/or by national populations as shares of the global population. Why even mention "individual consumption"?
  • Western Classical v Eastern Mystical
    ... Eastern and Western systems ... bringing those contemplations into [harmony with each other. — Bret Bernhoft
    Why aim for "harmony"?
  • Western Classical v Eastern Mystical
    Western classical philosophy has a lot of doctrines and variations. It is complex to choose one of these to explain the purpose of living. But you were specific and referred to a 20th century man so my choice goes to Absurdism. — javi2541997
    :100: :up:

    (For a few decades now, for me – a self-styled Epicurean-Spinozist, it's been) P.W. Zapffe, A. Camus, C. Rosset, A. Murray ... :death: :flower:
  • Most Important Problem Facing Humanity, Revisited
    Addendum to these addenda
    ↪180 Proof
    :mask:

    Okay. Fact-check ...
    When 7% of the global population are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions— I don’t think “overpopulation” is the problem. — Xtrix
    Overpopulation is one of the main drivers of anthropogenic climate change. Consider:

    (carbon dioxide emissions by country, as shares of 30 gigatonne per annum, 2019)

    https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/

    (populations by country, 2019)

    https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_569_0001--the-population-of-the-world-2019.htm

    As of 2019, the top ten carbon emitting countries (gigatonnes):

    1. China 1.4b people (10gt)
    2. United States .339b people (5.4gt)
    3. India 1.4b people (2.7gt)
    4. Russia .144b people (1.6gt)
    5. Japan .127 b people (1.2gt)
    6. Germany, .084b people (.76gt)
    7. Iran .083b people (.72gt)
    8. South Korea .051b people (.66gt)
    9. Saudi Arabia .034b people (.62gt)
    10. Indonesia .269b people (.62gt)

    3.92b people out of 7.7b people or c51% of the world population (2019) emitted 24.3 gigatonnes out of c30 gigatonnes (annual) or c81% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019).

    41% of the world pop. (China, US & India) accounted for 60% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019).
  • Thought Detox
    In order to achieve better thinking, there should be less internal monologue and more internal dialogue. — Fooloso4
    :100: :fire:

    Are we addicted to thought? — Xtrix
    No. We're "addicted" to beliefs.
  • What is the Idea of 'Post-truth' and its Philosophical Significance?
    Some may see truth as a matter of logic and, to what extent is it about the principles of rationality or about human meaning and the framing of understanding? — Jack Cummins
    Broadly speaking, a value which satisfies a variable of a self-consistent function is a truth (Dewey-Quine?) Narrowly, a truth is also a public fiction without which a species cannot survive or a community cannot function (Nietzsche?)

    How do you understand the concept of 'post-truth" itself?
    For me it indicates ... wtf ... "alternative facts" (i.e. H. Frankfurt's bullshit).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael
    :up:

    "Do not try and read the classified documents—that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth."
    "What truth?"
    "There are no classified documents."     — Michael
    :clap: :cool:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    A very powerful woman tells a very weak man (and, by extension, his very weak-minded supporters):
    Claiming you have money that you
    do not have does not amount to the art of the deal. It’s the art of the steal.     — Letitia James, New York State Attorney General
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/21/trump-new-york-investigation-ivanka-donald-eric

    Yeah, stop the steal and lock Individual-1 up asap! :victory: :mask:

    update:

    More good news today. :up:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/21/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-records-hold-lifted
  • eudaimonia - extending its application
    ↪Benkei
    Sustainability (e.g.circular economics), not eudaimonia (aretḗ); the latter is the intrinsic benefit of a person living ethically and the former is the extrinsic benefit of a community living ecologically.
  • How Different are Men and Women?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Rather than "essentialism", I attribute to gender in nature a kind of functionalism. Gender is what it's easier to do reliably with respect to reproduction and offspring-care rather than "what one is".
  • Universal Mind/Consciousness?
    My consciousness is all that I really know exists. — Art48
    This is not true.

    Solipsism is the philosophical view that only my consciousness exists that everything else exists n mu consciousness.
    Even if it's the case, despite it's conceptual incoherence, "solipsism" doesn't makes any non-trivial difference to existing day to day.
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey's monolith.
    The monolith gathers all of these archetypes. But exactly in this concept... how can we treat the monolith? As an enemy or as an adviser? — javi2541997
    Maybe we can "treat" the Monolith as an event whereby each encounter with it irrevocably changes all that has come before. Every encounter is the same encounter, there is only ever one Monolith for the intellects (us) within its simulations. Neither "an enemy" nor "an adviser", I imagine the Monolith is (for us) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming – monomyth – of all intelligences ...

    (NB: My Spinozist interpretation contains a 'Hegelian telos' which is, however, only the mirror image of daojia.)

    Stepping back from (out of) the "screen", perhaps, analogously, we the audience are Sisyphus and the aporia the "Monolith" presents us with is the proverbial (philosopher's) Stone on a dark, silent, mountain slope. Kubrick-Clarke's story is an odyssey, an endless(?) journey, rather than merely a "quest" to reach some definitive, knowable destination; and perhaps this is the Monolith's odyssey – it's simulations – not (just) ours? :chin:
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey's monolith.
    ↪javi2541997
    As long as I can remember I've imagined Kubrick/Clarke's "Monolith" as the ultimate intelligent descendant of terrestrial life interacting with its primeval ancestors (us) in "higher dimensional" quantum-level simulations (e.g. "pocket universes"). Symbolically, for us, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown – e.g. individual death; species extinction; event horizon; cosmic horizon; heat-death of the universe – the a priori strange attractor that self-organizes intellect: nonbeing ... emptiness (à la Nāgārjuna).

    When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"?

    Anyway, 2001 is stll my all-time favorite cinematic experience. :fire:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/741055

    Time for bed. :yawn:
    Will I dream? — SAL-9000
  • If Death is the End (some thoughts)
    ↪TiredThinker
    :up:
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    It really is a nice theory. The only defect I think it has is probably common to all philosophical theories. It's wrong. — Naming and Necessity
    "I wish I could have skipped college."
    ~Saul Kripke 1940-2022
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey's monolith.
    Watching 2001: A Space Odyssey on New Year's Eve is a four decades plus tradition of mine ... — 180 Proof
    Link to post with a fairly thoughtful youtube. :nerd:
  • Hawking and Unnecessary Breathing of Fire into Equations
    My model is a mathematical structure, and no, I don't claim it 'is real' since there's no specification of 'real to X'. This is similar to Tegmark's MUH, but not with Tegmark's property realism, but more like Rovelli's relational realism. — noAxioms
    You don't seem to grasp either Tegmark's or Rovelli's ideas of fundamental immanence, which like Spinoza's and Epicurus', entail that there is no "out there" – reasoning about reality necessarily happens only within, or in relation to, reality (i.e. relations of relations, multiplicity of structures, "the totality of facts, not things" (TLP), etc), such that reasoning is just another relation entangled with relations and encompassed by relations – and that "the view from nowhere" or ontological exteriority, is an illusion of "pure reason". This is why I think 'kataphatic ontology' fails (as I pointed out previously in the link
    ↪180 Proof
    ) from attempting to say what cannot be said because saying presupposes 'being at all'. As far as I can tell, noAxiom, your position conflates platonism (essential forms) & positivism (empirical facts) in way that seems "irrational".

    Also, I think you're looking for a "model" in the wrong place; at most, philosophy, proposes interpretations, criteria, methods, sometimes paradigms, (via gedankenexperiments) for evaluating and remaking models" but, in my understanding, metaphysics alone cannot deduce a defeasible, explanatory model of nature or reality as such.
  • eudaimonia - extending its application
    ↪Benkei
    Interesting. :chin:
  • Hawking and Unnecessary Breathing of Fire into Equations
    I'm after a model of what's 'out there' that stands up to rational analysis ... — noAxioms
    Well, my point about was that Hawking is that he does not to assume "objective realism" but model-dependent realism. I don't know what you mean by "rational analysis" here; care to elaborate?

    As far "out there" ontology, I think the best we can do rationally is determine – derive – what necesarily cannot be "out there", that is, cannot be real (e.g. impossible objects, impossible versions of the world, impossible worlds). I suppose, noAxiom, what's "out there" depends on what you/we mean by real. By all means, if my speculation (link) does not suffice, propose an alternative "model".
Home » 180 Proof