Comments
-
Are necessary and contingent truths necessary?I'm a little confused here. I thought that truth was un-analyzable. That, given any truth, one occupies a position to ask "Well how do you know that's true? Also that a necessary truth was one that any query relied upon to even ask a question in the first place. If I am just a brain in a vat, then there is no reason to save the dog from drowning. There is no dog, and perhaps no me, so there is no compulsion to act. No reason to consider a truth existing.
-
Pascal's Wager and Piaget's Hierarchy of moral thinkingPersonally, I cannot force my reasoning mind to believe something, no matter what might happen. — Carolyn Young
Doxastic Voluntarism is a philosophical view that people elect their own beliefs.[1] That is, that subjects have a certain amount of control over what they believe, such that a subject may choose whether or not to believe a certain thing.
(From Wiki) -
Artificial Emotion: The ethics of AI therapy chatbots expressing sympathy & empathy.I would think the chatbot would be at least as effective at imitating empathy as I am :smile: — ZhouBoTong
And yet, we are social animals. We do not flourish in solitude. We need human contact like we need food. Perhaps the chatbot provides an easy candy (false food) when we need immediate gratification. -
Artificial Emotion: The ethics of AI therapy chatbots expressing sympathy & empathy.Humans have a tendency to go for the small but certain pleasures. Very reliable. Would we become more inclined to hear the always reassuring chatbot message than a human message with tough love or the possibility of repoachment?
-
Artificial Emotion: The ethics of AI therapy chatbots expressing sympathy & empathy.If the user perceives the chatbot as caring for them and finds the product an effective means of help, does the lack of genuine emotion matter? Is it just the relevant behaviour (expressing empathy) that matters, or is it the source that drives this behaviour (the feeling of empathy) that matters when considering the ethics of these products? — Ellie For
Not to be cynical, but do we really know when some one genuinely cares about our troubles? Certainly there can be many motives and many filters. At some level don't we project the meaning and relief upon the helpful empathy that we believe we are receiving? -
Video games and simulations: Consequentialist Safe Haven?And of course critical thinking is an impediment to marketing to the consumer. And we must consume.
-
Video games and simulations: Consequentialist Safe Haven?It amazes me that philosophy isn’t part of education curriculums much earlier in life. I don’t remember ever really having the option of studying it until high school. — Mark Dennis
Indeed. Too great a threat to religious indoctrination. You probably didn't get to study critical thinking either. -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)It was also the SDF’s line.
“Syrian Democratic Forces declare total elimination of so-called caliphate and %100 territorial defeat of ISIS," Mustafa Bali, head of the SDF press office, said on Twitter. "On this unique day, we commemorate thousands of martyrs whose efforts made the victory possible.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/syrian-kurdish-forces-declare-victory-isis-syria/story?id=61564565 — NOS4A2
So ABC news is not fake? -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)It looks like Adam Schiff received 4 Pinocchios for his false claim that he or his committee didn’t speak to the whistleblower before the complaint was lodged. Why would he lie about that? DNC fingerprints all over this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/ — NOS4A2
So the Washington Post is not fake news? -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Hearsay is generally inadmissible for a variety of reasons, and those reasons apply to this hearsay. — NOS4A2
Apparently not true.
https://abovethelaw.com/2019/09/trump-impeachment-hearsay/ -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)This is precisely my point: people would rather justify their hatred for Trump than anything else. — A Gnostic Agnostic
This claim is rhetoric. "People would rather" implies that there is a clear binary choice and the people are taking the illogical or disreputable one. "Justify" presumes that any dissatisfaction with Trump is not self evident or supported by documented evidence, but is only an unacknowledged bias. "Hatred" is a melodramatic straw-man, a feeling which no one could really attain without knowing the man, and morally hypocritical given his track record of warm fuzzy feelings. -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)To little education, and too much television. — Wayfarer
Teaching critical thinking in schools would create a discriminating consumer. Nobody sees any profit in that. -
At The Present TimeWouldn't this be a case where any meaning would necessarily be deferred, delayed, and distributed?(Derrida)
-
'Truth' as an expression of agreementI agree. Perhaps truth is just a social cooperation strategy so we can get on with a common task.
-
Love of truth as self-delusion or masochismdarthbarracuda — darthbarracuda
Maybe I see what you mean; that we, as egos (operating systems), cannot (are not entitled to) co-opt revealed truth, as validation of our progress towards anything. Is that close? -
Love of truth as self-delusion or masochismWhat then does possess worth that is separate from it's own truth? Perhaps I am missing the point. I'll re read the OP.
-
Love of truth as self-delusion or masochismit's more about beautifying truth into something it's not. — darthbarracuda
OK, I see that. But I don't see how the cure gets formulated. It begins to sound circular; a true critique of truth? We must index to something. What index is "wholly deserved"? -
Love of truth as self-delusion or masochismTruth is not valuable in and of itself, and a terrible truth will leave you on the side of the road, nursing your wounds and wondering why you ever thought it was valuable in the first place. — darthbarracuda
Does cognitive dissonance leave you any better? or fallacious reasoning? or reductive? -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Dammed if you do or don’t. — FreeEmotion
Which is a fine dinner but a poor breakfast. Do we make a world of progression or procession? -
Is casual sex immoral?I argue that risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for sexual pleasure is immoral. — Ronin3000
Is my method moral even though it increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy in exchange for increased pleasure? — Ronin3000
If you are going to bog me down in whether or not abortion is murder, then I think you are not philosophically minded, and this thread is not for you. — Ronin3000
You seem to be bogged down in your own self judgement. Abortion being murder seems central to your appraisal. This is settled law to you, what can we add? -
Mathematical Conundrum or Not? Number Fourthat is basically what you are doing, being a child pretending at having authority. — Akanthinos
-
Mathematical Conundrum or Not? Number FourIt is not even the right application for Occam's Razor. — Jeremiah
Oh but it is. Perhaps you are unable to see your unnecessary, superfluous, psychological baggage that you pile upon these threads of yours. -
Smoking puzzleDasher would grip the galvanized steel paddock rails in between his teeth and would drag his teeth back and forth on the rail, all day long. We call it "cribbing" but Dasher? I think he would have been just as happy with smoke, after smoke, after smoke. :up: — ArguingWAristotleTiff
So, have you decided that Dasher was content while doing this all day long? -
The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?If we let 'psychology' stand for the characteristics of our operating system (our ego), then I think philosophy exists / serves to inform our operating system on the choices to made. Clearly we are all born with a built in operating system that develops into a model that enables us to survive our youth. But with age, we come to re-evaluate our criteria for making decisions and philosophy emerges to tell the wheat from the chaff. I believe we are all philosophers and the 'imperative' is the constant adjustment to change, to maintain the homeostasis of our premise.
-
Mathematical Conundrum or Not? Number Threeyou are dragging this thread off topic — Jeremiah
What AndrewK may be getting to is that you are the topic. You just want the attention. -
Mathematical Conundrum or Not? Number ThreeAre you aware of a reason, in your own mind, why you believe you are posting these things?
-
What's the purpose of philosophy?Spinoza could not help but to examine what was before him. We all do by degree.
We're getting hung up on the trappings -
What's the purpose of philosophy?and I don't see why philosophy 'ought' to have a 'use' — StreetlightX
Then how can it be trivialized any further by saying that it is ubiquitous? -
What's the purpose of philosophy?I couldn't disagree more. I believe philosophy is far more humble than its trappings. We are all philosophers. It is an activity of anyone with a world view. We make decisions every day that reveal a commitment to philosophical positions, however sound they may be, and whether or not we recognize we committed to them. It's like voting; if you don't vote you still have made a choice that impacts the election. It was just a poorly informed choice. Or more accurately, the choice was based on at least some error that could have been eliminated. Philosophy constantly considers (reappraises) the shifting criteria we use to make decisions based on insufficient information and informs the ego (our operating system) abductively.
Monitor
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum