Comments

  • In praise of anarchy
    There's a lot to be said on this matter. Or, one could just watch Lord of the Flies and call it a day.

    A NatGeo documentary, even. People like stability, and to a lesser extent predictability. Makes much more sense to pay a predictable set amount (in taxes/insurance/etc) than for everything one owns including one's life, spouse, and offspring to be on the chopping block/proverbial table each day. No one fights a war with the intent of perpetuating conflict in the event of victory. Classic case of "the grass is always greener". "Far removed from conflict, the closer one gets to his treasures, the less they shimmer." But by all means, I hear flights to remote regions of African jungle are reasonable. You're welcome to try it out, if you'd like.

    Yet that is what the state does. So yes, the state can protect our basic rights, but it cannot use force and the threat of force to fund such an enterprise. — Clearbury

    The problem here is the complete omission of those who would not only defy your basic rights, but use -- not only threat of force -- but force, willfully and in many cases gleefully. Often times for the sheer joy of it absent of anything to gain or rectify ie. "for fun". This is the dynamic of the world we live in. So, your options are a structured society where disputes can be solved in a court of law and grievances can be made known socially enacting real social change, or you can have the same threats of force and use of force, with no accountability or avenue for recourse on your part whatsoever. Any sort of attempt to reframe this unchangeable dynamic is simply dishonest.
  • Animalism: Are We Animals?
    As if that is the sum total of our achievements…. — Wayfarer

    Beavers practice architecture, ants practice agriculture. Both cannot do this if the environment does not allow them to. Humans on the other hand, through inventions of safety gear, weather-resistant infrastructure, and scientific achievement, can. This is a core differentiator between human beings and non-human animals, I believe? Was human intelligence a fluke? Is it somehow limited only to mammals? Otherwise, according to the theory of evolution, provided enough time is given, other animals would logically one day reach comparable levels of intelligence as human beings, would they not?

    We are organisms, that much is certain. "Animals" have different socially-given distinctions (wild, domesticated ie. livestock, companion animals ie. dogs, cat, etc.). When a man calls another man an "animal" that is usually due to a display of non-intelligent, primal-driven, often violent behavior, indicating there is a knowable distinction between human beings and other organisms, whether this is exclusively a social-construct or something a bit more foundational is, rather appears to be, like stated earlier in this discussion, subjective ie. a matter of opinion/utility-dependent.
  • TPF Haven: a place to go if the site goes down
    ↪Christoffer
    Password reset email shows up for me, too. :confused:

    Try sending yourself an email or check your storage space/settings. Add as a contact/preferred sender or to your email client's whitelist. One of those should do the trick.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    One of those weird "live for no reason" audio streams, but very relaxing. Seems to have been consistent for the past few days. Very soothing, especially with standalone speakers. Good to unwind or perhaps even focus. Depends on the person, I'm sure.

    For the life of me I just can't get into anything non-instrumental that has vocals, something telling me what to think or how to feel or otherwise intended to create a specific scenario in one's head when I'm not drinking or driving somewhere.

  • I've beat my procrastination through the use of spite
    Must you call your determination and resolve "spite"? A poison, no matter its application, remains exactly that, a poison. Proceed with caution, young scholar. Well, that's what I'd tell me if I met myself in the past, at least. Whatever works I suppose. :smile:
  • What will happen when we solve (P v NP)?
    Seems easy to get lost in this, but doesn't this ultimate resolve to computational hardware? Like, sure my old Toyota can hit 90, maybe. I don't think it's a wise idea. Whereas my Dodge Charger, a newer model boasting newer engineering and thus performance, shouldn't break a sweat. I'm sure there's a complexity to it that myself and surely others are not familiar with, but, the question itself seems to be laid out in clearly understandable terms. It's 1's and 0's after all, information traversing circuits to the best speed said circuits (biological components) can support, so, I guess it falls onto what in theory would be the most "complex" problem, which to me invokes the idea of Pi. Which is infinite? Which makes it a conundrum by titular definition not really any actual unmet real-world challenge or of any actual beneficial utility. Kind of just a fun thought experiment really. That aside, anything short of that, that can be defined should be able to be reasonably enough determined how quickly it can be "checked for correctness" if whatever infrastructure of software capable of actually determining such. I'm sure there's a million and one things I'm not privy to here but, the simple question gets more complicated when the word "easy" seems to have two different meanings, one simply meaning "possible" (given enough time) and the other meaning convenient (in a short, humanly-acceptable amount of time).

    While I'm sure there's many who can shed a greater light on this I question whether or not the philosophical aspect is of much depth. Little more than, "hey what happens when we can invent a car that can go from 0 to 60 in less time than it would take to break your neck if you were behind the wheel?" Again it's interesting to know in like a trivial tidbit sense sort of way but doesn't really seem to be of much actual application to any realistic problem people actually care to solve or would have any real benefit.

    Again, any elucidation or clarification to the "point" of this dilemma (what solving it would offer as benefit) would be appreciated.
  • The 'hard problem of consciousness'
    ↪Wolfgang


    Eager to participate yet resistant as your OP rings true "it seems simple at a first (uninformed) take".

    I'd say a staple of consciousness has to be recognizing yourself as independent from your peers (bird reflection test)

    So, we'd agree a bird or other animal is conscious, whether or not it is fooled by it's own mirrored reflection, is that right?

    It seems to me consciousness is the ability to record and recall instances of time and make future inferences as a result: past, present, and future. "I was young once, I am middle-aged now, and I will (hopefully) be old in the not too distant future." Is that fair?
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    Neat thread. I for one love a good witty analysis/introspection/musing or what have you.

    For what it's worth, keep in mind. A 20,000 year old rock carving will carbon date the same whether it's been preserved for 20,000 years or freshly chiseled 20 minutes ago. If a few factors are managed properly, no man nor his instruments of science would tell the difference.

    How refreshing to think about what is normally not.
  • All Causation is Indirect
    If all causation is indirect then surely to refer to anything as 'causal' is nothing more than saying something 'is'. — I like sushi

    That simply means nothing intelligent operates from being "told" to perform as such. Such environments can be created, they parallel natural scientific evidences, ie. if you don't eat, you will soon starve, naturally. But it infers a greater truth that yes, the world around us seems to be lacking intelligence, or free will, and as such follows physical, biological truths. If the weather is unpredictably cold, the people may have to ration to avoid starving. If it is pleasant, perhaps we may have plenty to sell and increase available resources and infrastructure to sustain ourselves. Simple, yet plenty complicated, surely.

    That is to say, yes eventually, seeing as intelligence evolved out of non-intelligence, if that's the low temperature brew of soup you sip, something random has a profound affect, or at least the potential to have such, on anything you will ever do or experience. What of it? This is nearly codified philosophy, if such a thing were logically permissible, which it is not. The question I always is, and? Where to go from there?
  • How is a raven like a writing desk?
    Does any other belief system dress its shamans in the colour they most fear? — Vera Mont

    Beats me. Not a "worldly" cultural type. Been to Hawaii once. :confused:

    Black as a physical garment is associated with some unique qualities, superstitious and otherwise. Black "absorbs" all other colors (not sure what the scientific term for that is), naturally there must be some observable effect that earlier peoples took note of that led to some aggrandizing spiritual quality/association. (White is known to reflect all other colors on the light spectrum hence was and is favored by those in exceedingly hot climates due to its resulting, in no sense of exaggeration, life-saving qualities. Painting your house white offers a notably similar effect, demonstrated by electricity usage, I believe.)

    I can do an armchair psychological postulation that perhaps owing to its association with the unknown and mystery it may have been determined that the figures meant to make one at ease with the unknown and "darkness" in life (death and misfortune) wear such so as the religious practitioner consciously and subconsciously becomes less afraid or otherwise more prepared in dealing or coming to terms with such, as is the pragmatical intent of most religions, I believe. Other than that, your guess is as good as mine.

    Edit: May also be associated with somberness/seriousness or otherwise "commands" or invokes a sense of reverence and respect or focus, etc. Dunno.
  • How is a raven like a writing desk?
    Europeans have a long-standing problem with the colour black: they associate it with death and evil — Vera Mont

    It's interesting you bring that up. I've done a bit of thinking and "research" (Googling color psychology) on a congruent enough topic to hear a few takes on the subject relating to it being a primitive fear of night or "darkness" (compared to "light" or "day") as much as anything else. Theory being, "darkness" invokes a feeling of mystery or uncertainty in diurnal creatures, as if something, possibly dangerous, is hidden or obscured, likely due to evolutionary biological nature. Seems to pass the smell test. When people imagine something "spooky" such as a house or even a car, what imagery comes to mind?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_the_dark

    (yes I looked into all this specifically in an academic context to see if certain forms of racism might have a physiological aspect to it beyond simple xenophobia, bad experiences, or ingrained upbringing)
  • "More like a blog post"
    Maybe they want it to be more "open to active philosophical engagement and discussion". I can see how someone would say it "answers itself" and purports itself as more of a commentary without really leaving itself open for a "back and forth" debate on the philosophical ramifications of human creativity and thought in the age of AI (a new, perhaps rivaling intelligence that, whether by intent or otherwise, seems to undermine or cause it to become imperiled/obsolete).

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

    Consider, the following:

    What are the philosophical ramifications of AI (or technology in general) surpassing human thought and the resulting affects on society? How would this change the world we live in and the way we raise our children as well as our place in society?

    Would it be right to limit AI or technology in general due to its risk of making the human mind (or humanity in general) obsolete? Should it be disallowed in certain applications (ie. militarily, in infrastructure, voting/governance, etc.)?

    Long story short, people here tend to favor something that can be discussed, rather an explicit question or idea being posed along with reasons that can be discussed/disproved/or yes even attacked (logically). One might consider the post in question to be a (albeit well-written and intellectual) doom and gloom blurb along the lines of "Humanity is doomed to obsolescence. Technology is better. The end." Not much to discuss, looking at it like that, wouldn't you say?

    I'd request clarification from whomever suggested the notion, that would be the best way to find out.

    That said, I enjoyed reading it. Would perhaps improve it by adding "questions" or "claims" and reasoning that can be discussed along with explicit supporting reasons. Rule of thumb: when in doubt, post in the Lounge. :up:
  • How is a raven like a writing desk?
    God I love this place.

    Well, let's take a crack at the obvious. Both are objects comprised of many organic components (provided it is a traditional writing desk and a living or previously living raven) that each and of itself could be used or at least marveled in a near endless fashion of ways. Both are thought of as inspirational or at least can be used to find inspiration and perhaps express it. Both are, at times, stationary. Both hold tangible value for human beings (the raven for companionship or perhaps its meat, the desk for its utility and perhaps aesthetics). Both have potential to further human understanding and existence (perhaps by studying the [dissected] raven atop of said desk for added novelty). One could go on.

    Perhaps I'm missing the deeper meaning of this topic, which I'm fine with. More to learn on another day, hence, another reason to look forward to tomorrow, whatever it may hold.
  • Are you a seeker of truth?
    ↪Carlo Roosen


    Ok, ok, life is unacceptable at times. Let us move on please.

    (in reply to your reply to my question)
    That's a lot to process. In fact, I'm going to have to read that twice. In the mean time, I have to ask, are you really just trying to create a computerized model of a human brain? Operating identically as our own from infancy (blank upon launch, perhaps, minus core functions required to "learn") to masterful adult? It sure sounds like it. :grin:
  • Are you a seeker of truth?
    ↪Carlo Roosen


    Bruh, just call it "my idea", I get you have pride in your work, I used to :lol:

    but this is just all so trivial. you seem like a very intelligent person with much to contribute. things can be pretty strict around here (outside of the Lounge or Shoutbox), as it should be, so just bear that in mind and use terminology instead of familiarity. please. do it for me. As a programmer myself, I can't wait to discuss programming philosophy with you and to share my (granted much more base) insights with you. :up:

    Granted it's nothing to do with AI, indirect or otherwise. (I think the only thing I'm working on remotely close is say, searching a database for the user's past inputs or whatever the project is currently and suggesting "Would you like to add (another) XYZ template here?", etc. But there are fundamental methodologies and object models/principles I feel will coincide with yours in at least some minor way.

    Let me try to simplify this as best as I can:

    Your idea (see, not so hard) attempts to not improve but fundamentally change how AI functions, due to it being an entirely new method utilizing several processing "avenues" as opposed to a single one, or so you say. Do you have experience with behind the scenes LLM coding? I for one, and I'm sure many, even as a programmer, find the idea a bit daunting and hard to grasp. I, as a simple programmer, would imagine, OK, there's a database with every single word, sentence, or entry that has ever been fed into it, which crosschecks a secondary database (if not several) to ensure appropriate and above all accurate responses are met. I imagine there's something of a percentage number for many, many "qualities" of a given phrase or answer about to be output, including, "tone", "aggression", "easygoingness/casualness", "accuracy", "friendliness", etc. That's even before it begins to compile and understand phrases such as "How are you doing?". I would image the first word "how" would indicate a desire to explain something, there are simple non-AI scripts that analyze sentences to determine: subject, predicate, intent, verbage, etc. That isn't difficult. So from there, a search is performed. And said results are compiled in human expression and terms such as "The answer to that is", "therefore", "but also", etc.

    So, how is it you are improving on that base (crude if not outright poor explanation on my part) methodolgy? What do these alternate "avenues" provide? You mentioned something about it taking in sensory information to perhaps remind the user "don't forget your keys". How does it know the person has keys? How does it know they are in need of a reminder? How will it determine who the other people are around the environment (you mentioned the idea of telling it to "don't do that when my mother is around, etc")?

    The hard to grasp part I find difficult is assigning multiple complex variables and if statements (requirements) for advanced queries. A simple query, say, "If there are 12 rooms on every floor of a building, and there are 15 floors, how many rooms are in the building?" is something I could probably even manage myself. From what I understand, you must already have this base functionality nailed down to a tee. So, where do we go from there and to what end?
  • Abortion - Why are people pro life?
    Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but is there not that seemingly non-existent thing known as "father's rights". Unfortunate that most people consider in modern society some forms of conception (non-intended aka "accidental") as a burden or tragedy but nonetheless there are people who don't. Should a father not have some say as to whether, again, whatever you want to call what would otherwise become HIS CHILD, no different than how you are a living, breathing, human being today, lives or dies? Understandably, a male is not capable due to not having the "facilities" to develop and birth a child, but could that not be compared in a way to depositing something that belongs to you (in this case cash substituting for genetic material) into a bank (substituting for a womb) where it can gain interest and grow, yet remaining at least in part, something you have grounds of ownership toward that would affect you physically, mentally, and emotionally if it were to be obliterated with no input from you whatsoever?
  • I am building an AI with super-human intelligence
    The idea is that instead of a single highway of information flow, there is a whole traffic square where information can go all kinds of directions before it generates output. — Carlo Roosen

    Interesting. Could you elaborate on this a bit more please? What differentiates your idea from existing systems that take into account a wealth of sensory information constantly such as self-driving vehicle systems or current AI that already cross checks "multiple sources" (a whole traffic square) before converging into a single "highway" (end user output)?
  • All joy/success/pleasure/positive emotion is inherently the same (perhaps one-dimensional?)
    ↪Benkei


    That's what it is. yes!

    All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. — Leo Tolstoy

    Haven't read the book, must've just gleaned it from somewhere or someone who did online.

    If it does, it somewhat betrays Tolstoy's meaning, which is that there is no drama in a happy family; this relays the same observation that is made about "the News" - that good news is always boring, as also illustrated in every fairytale ending - "... and they all lived happily ever after." Contentment is the background normal life that drama interrupts, but not because it is one dimensional or 'the same', it simply requires no response, and sets no challenge. And that is what makes it appear one dimensional from the outside.

    Does one not also get compassion fatigue when disaster becomes the normal condition? Another bombed hospital, glad I'm not there.     — unenlightened

    How could we demonstrate that this is the case? — Tom Storm

    The above reply (and others) gives really good insight into the frame of mind/thinking that led me to ponder the topic.

    Obviously every mind is different, but generally-speaking what do we (or most) want out of life or consider "desirable" or "great to have"? Naturally our biological needs met (food, water, shelter), perhaps tying in with being "well off" so to speak finance-wise (your favorite foods always on hand, a decent perhaps even luxurious abode, enough money in the bank for an extravagant vacation, or several, etc). For many to be well-liked and respected by one's peers (at least peers who one desires to be around, that is), often owing to some sort of accomplishment or cultured, tangible skill one has, perhaps one widely considered of "use" and of positive benefit to society (ie. a beloved school teacher or educated doctor, etc). Along those lines being successful in romantic or family relationships be it a "smooth bachelor" who is successful with the opposite sex or just a cherished father or mother figure in one's own healthy household perhaps. Stuff like that seems to rank high as far as such qualities that are desired in life.

    To answer your question, I would say, to me, all that becomes "normal" after a while. It's like, "Okay, so you're a success then. So what?" in a way of speaking. Lots of people are, that doesn't make you a good person nor guarantee you a fulfilling life (though understandably it most likely will). Or take other positive experiences, catching a fish or coming in first place in a competition, even one you worked and trained very hard on for a lengthy period of time thus compounding an otherwise hollow success with that extra dynamic of accomplishment (I overcame what others could not, and am a better person mentally and physically as a result). It seems at least (and again the point of "observation bias" or what have you unenlightened brought up rings true to me) it's comparable to just about any other positive experience anyone experiences whether it's an infant playing a game of peekaboo, a child beating a video game, a teenager passing his driver's ed exam (I suppose those are poor examples seeing as they unlock entire swathes of life that were previously unavailable and count as a milestone), or a young adult "scoring" as they say, an engineer completing a project they've been at for a while, etc. I'd say it can be said that what all these things have in common is a primal feeling of "mastery" over something that, while it may make one ecstatic, becomes much less so rather quickly, especially given time or exposure to other more difficult and rewarding challenges or opportunities.

    Probably rambling a bit, so to take the source quote "Every happy family is the same", to me, makes sense. You have a healthy, happy home, minimal conflict, and life is good. That to me seems "standard" or, not to say boring, but what some would call "vanilla", I suppose. Nothing wrong with that, at all, it just seems to fit the quote in question. Whereas an unhappy family can be caused by a multitude of things, not just the usual stuff (conflict, financial woes, extramarital affairs, trouble with the law, kids not performing well at school, etc) but less typical stuff like say a dark family secret, fight over an inheritance, a failing business one's life savings was invested in, maybe a rare illness, etc. I guess it just seems to me there's always more "going on" when it comes to a negative experience or circumstance than a happy positive one where basically nothing is "going on" or like was said "requires no response" and "sets no challenge". If that makes sense.
  • UEA 2024-2025 Wittgenstein Workshops Schedule
    Is this something the casual/novice philosopher person interested in philosophy who's never read Wittgenstein can follow along with for the most part and learn from or not so much? :chin:
  • Site Rules Amendment Regarding ChatGPT and Sourcing
    Al LLMs make naught but verbal cardboard. There is an all-pervasive ploddingness and insubstantiality to their cadence that betrays their empty core. They are the McDonald's of the written word, churning out processed verbiage that can truly impress no one but those amputated of taste, of inner poetry. They do not strike, they pose. They do not inspire, they anaesthetise. They are one more incursion of the commercial juggernaut into the beauty of human existence. And their aim is to crush it.

    They are an ugly black hole of nothingness that want our souls, which some of us will gladly trade for anything new and shiny in this new shiny world of second class techno toys our masters will keep tossing to us until we babble and drool our way to mental oblivion.

    I do not want their shit-encrusted footprints mucking up this site.

    Resist.

    My rant is over. Give me a cookie. And a hammer.     — Baden

    Wow. That was probably the single-handedly most epic piece of short literature I've read here since @Hanover's short story about his childhood upbringing navigating neighborhood sewers at 5 o'clock in the morning to get to and from school. Bravo, old top. What a good day to not have feelings. Because that tirade was unrelenting. You should write professionally, if you don't already. :up:
  • 57 Symptoms in Need of a Cure
    The OP is right that Jesus never really praises intellect. — BitconnectCarlos

    To be fair, I wouldn't exactly call it a word-for-word account of every single interaction. Not a nauseatingly thorough documentary or anything.

    I can think of a few scenarios off the top of my head. Better yet just go to biblehub and search (with quotations) "wise man" or the word "fool" and I'm sure you'll have an abundance of quotes that would suggest the opposite. That is to say, it certainly speaks of the dangers of stupidity (or qualities related to such: rashness, poor judgement, impulsivity, poor planning, etc.), thus praising intellect by proxy. No?
  • 57 Symptoms in Need of a Cure
    Seems like more of a Lounge topic so will be replying as such but not without an underlying authenticity. Note you seem to be asking for solutions which require knowledge or understanding of the person's underlying reasoning (logical or otherwise), which is all I claim to provide.

    Reveal
    1. [Actress Roseanne Barr] says people are eating babies and drinking their
    blood. Oh, and she says she's not crazy.

    Out of 8 billion or so people, I'd wager someone somewhere is.

    2. North Texas megachurch pastor blasts Democrats as 'godless' and 'demonic'

    If the religion is to be believed, that is to the default state of men, susceptible to worldly influence and energies. That said, I'm sure there's many a Republican who would fit that criterion. Problem is many religious folk simply hijack the idea of divine providence and tailor it to artificially inflate the purpose or justification of whatever it is they happen to be doing at the time.

    3. Pastor Rebukes Democrats in Church

    See Answer 2.

    4. Pastor calls autism demonic

    It was a common belief in earlier civilizations that illness, death, disease and all things bad come from bad entities. In the Testament of Solomon (not considered Biblical canon) there is allegedly a demon that causes sore throats that could be "cast out" (and thus the person healed) but only if you knew its true name.

    5. 2-Year-Old Girl Dies After Faith-Healing Parents Refuse Medical Treatment: Officials

    Some people just believe when it's your time to go, it's your time to go. A parallel would be a person who signed a Do Not Resuscitate or No Life Support paper. Unfortunately, many people are as incompetent as they are "religious" these days. The legal system serves a purpose.

    6. Video shows [Sarah] Palin in anti-witchcraft prayer

    If you believe in something, odds are in an indirect way it has power over you. Physical rituals of verbal reassurance are proven to help people. No harm, no foul.

    7. 17 Reasons Why Evolution is a Lie

    The theory of evolution, like all theories, is open to scrutiny/improvement. Why wouldn't it be?

    8. The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth

    I have a theory on the matter that would make everybody right, though I keep it to myself to avoid the common folk from looking at me a bit tilt.

    9. My Flat Earth: Why I Believe God's Creation (Biblical Cosmology)

    Live your truth, I'm told. We have laws for a reason. No harm, no foul.

    10. Does the Bible Teach That the Earth Is Flat?

    See Answer 9.

    11. Predicted dates of the Second Coming of Jesus through history

    What? People can't theorize? Now who's exhibiting symptoms.

    12. Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country

    Human nature. I can think of no legal or humane solution.

    13. Jesus is their savior, Trump is their candidate. Ex-president’s backers say he shares faith, values

    The two seem to be polar opposites at times, yes. Though the religion is by design for the imperfect. As all men are.

    14. Why Evangelicals Went All In on Trump, Again

    See Answer 13.

    15. The Republican Party Is Coming for Birth Control

    Nobody said democracies were just or fair.

    16. Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ

    See Answer 5.

    17. Some religious leaders oppose IVF, causing tension among churchgoers struggling with infertility

    And? Listen to them or don't.

    18. Witch Trials & Witchcraft

    I will flat out agree people cannot handle most knowledge or even everyday life without getting carried away. Laws are in place for a reason.

    19. We Must Extinguish Faith-Based Violence, Xenophobia by Tackling Hate Speech, Protecting Religious Sites, Secretary-General Tells Interfaith Summit

    ?

    20. Evangelicals Are Now Rejecting 'Liberal' Teachings of Jesus

    People call themselves whatever they please I've noticed.

    21. Another look at religious objections to obstetric anaesthesia

    I'm not aware of any scriptural reference, though again people like to see things that coincide with whatever they feel or please.

    22. Fundamentalists are not as "intelligent"

    The more you know, the greater the burden. I think the world might very well be better off if nobody discovered nuclear weaponry. Though I could just as well be mistaken.

    23. A Blasphemous Invention–Religious Objections to Ben Franklin’s Lightning Rod

    One person saying something hardly amounts to a "thing", really.

    24. What are Christian arguments against the use of anesthesia?

    This is a question, not an assertion. Again, ?

    25. Christian Nationalism: A grave threat to America

    See Answer 20.

    26. Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom

    Any minority is naturally at risk to a given majority.

    27. The Radical Evangelicals Who Helped Push Jan. 6 to Wage War on “Demonic Influence”

    You said it yourself: "radical". They're all kinds, theist and otherwise, many who claim the opposite of their actual persuasions.

    28. Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Programs: Harmful and Ineffective

    Hard to speculate without any actual reasoning given. Builds character from the sound of it.

    29. Militant Christian Nationalists Remain A Potent Force, Even After The Capitol Riot

    There's something I recall about "obeying government authorities" and "letting Jesus fight [one's] battles", If I'm not mistaken. Absent of any of that, there is something in the highest legally binding document in the land about "overthrowing" a government that fails to serve the people. Not defending it, just, it's there.

    30. Well, We Have a Speaker. He’s an Election Denier and an Extreme Christian Fundamentalist.

    People are often critical of their government and honesty of politicians. Nothing new.

    31. When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

    Fall of Troy.

    32. Is Fascism Coming to America? | Opinion

    No society lasts for very long without laws. People can worship and speak freely more or less. No president has ever made laws or decrees that undermine a person's personal desires in life that don't include breaking laws, to my knowledge.

    33. Trump repeats baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets

    If it's untrue that's unfortunate. What is true is in third world countries, dinner is whatever you can catch.

    34. Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority

    I suppose ideally a parent should be able to feed their child. Generosity is nice but I hardly think it should be legally mandated. Federal welfare benefits remain for those who are eligible (low income).

    35. 14 GOP-led states have turned down federal money to feed low-income kids in the summer. Here’s why

    See Answer 34.

    36. Christianity and Xenophobia

    "Love others as you love yourself". Who knows, maybe that terribly misspelled e-mail really was from a Nigerian prince wishing to share his fortune with you.

    37. No, Christians Cannot Support the Democrat Party

    This is getting tiresome.

    38. Could My Child Have a Demon? (Part I)

    While I'd agree there's more to this world than we may know, See Answer 18.

    39. After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'satanic panic' case

    See Answer 18.

    40. Christian Pastor Calls for Killing All Gay People

    I'd start with murderers and people who don't signal before changing lanes but I'm an odd type. Definitely not a patient one is he? Not like they'll be reproducing anytime soon. Again, you can take 30 minutes and spend $15 and declare yourself whatever religion (or branch of whatever religion) you'd like. Religions and related figures are not copyrighted nor do they follow any true central authority.

    41. Is 'Thank God for dead soldiers' protected speech?

    ? I don't like every person and opinion on Earth either, but unless you're capable of overthrowing not only the U.S. government but its allies and installing a new law of the land, your time and effort would be better spent on other matters in my opinion.

    42. Homophobic pastor says LGBT+ people should be killed: ‘As much as God loves, God hates’

    See Answer 40.

    43. 45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’

    It's nice to have opinions.

    44. Pope Reaffirms 'No Salvation' Outside Catholic 'Church'

    Gotta keep that flock from grazing elsewhere now, don't we?

    45. Roman Catholicism Is Not Christianity

    That's common talk among differing denominations and other schools of general thought and belief as well. Purists, etc.

    46. IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THE ONE TRUE CHURCH?

    See Answer 45.

    47. The Pro-Slavery History of the Southern Baptists

    I assumed we were discussing present symptoms not a chart of a patient's history.

    48. Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence.

    What is this saying? White people are inherently prone to racism (dislike or distrust of the unfamiliar whether or not they act on it or just "quietly believe so" with no actual effect) or those who identity as Christian? The difference is, you can identity as any religion you please and no one can, with any actual standing, disprove your claim.

    49. Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them.

    Thinking beings think. That is correct. I suppose a lobotomy would work if that's enough of a problem in your eyes.

    50. Becoming Catholic #22: What Did the Ancient Church Believe? The Catholic Church is the One True Church

    See Answers 44, 45.

    51. About four-in-ten U.S. adults believe humanity is ‘living in the end times’

    Assuming this is religious based and not say, fear of a civilization-ending event such as an asteroid or cosmic flare, one has to admit if things are to be believed, this is truly a unique time, unlike the understandable idea that every society came across new inventions and interconnection and disasters due to the technological factor (nuclear warheads, the entire world being connected, both of which are very unique factors or incredible magnitute not present in any time prior).

    52. Watch a US Senator Cite the Bible to Prove That Humans Aren’t Causing Global Warming

    What should be fixed, the fact that there's a consumer (buyer) or the fact that there's a supplier (seller)? Pandering is nothing new.

    53. There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been.

    Everyone thinks the way they live (and most importantly, the choices they've made) are the best, otherwise they'd feel foolish. The brain does not like to be wrong. As far as measurable lack of intelligence, schools only go so far I suppose. You can lead a horse to water. The rest is up to the horse.

    54. President Trump: 'I am the chosen one'

    Well he's certainly lived a rather charmed and fortunate life. Without knowing his reasons one could only speculate.

    55. Opinion: How a misreading of the Bible fuels many Americans’ apathy about climate change

    The downside of democracy. People often don't know what's best for them.

    56. Fascism in America: It’s Happening Here, According to Professor's New Book

    See Answer 32.

    57. So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.     — Art48

    It's not a coloring book. Solomon's wisdom is put on display many times, to name one example. I'm sure a child's version says in big goofy letters "And this is a good thing, see, king smart" for the tragically incompetent.
  • ChatGPT 4 Answers Philosophical Questions
    LLMs don’t have, you know, hands. — Wayfarer

    Au contraire! Er, not yet, I mean. :joke:

    Reveal


    I don't know who Elon thinks he's fooling. We all know deep down he's a closeted super villian building a robot army to overtake the armies of the world, overthrow all world governments, and shape society in his vision. Still, it's been a while since this world has seen such a kindred spirit. I almost wish him luck. Almost.

    But yeah, if the learning rate/adaptation success of LLMs is any indication, these new nimble robots with ChatGPT installed as a brain for calibration of movement and coordination will be doing triple back flips and walking tightropes within a few minutes right out of the box... One could only imagine their physical combat capabilities.
  • Abortion - Why are people pro life?
    A subsidiary argument which may not have been mentioned is, "Any species which develops systematic means to kill 70+ million of its own fetuses each year is messed up." — Leontiskos

    I can relate with that. What was the statistic...

    The child mortality rate in the United States, for children under the age of five, was 462.9 deaths per thousand births in 1800. This means that for every thousand babies born in 1800, over 46 percent did not make it to their fifth birthday — Aaron O'Neill

    Compare that to: "the rate was 34 abortions per 100 live births in the year 1990" (or 34 percent).

    So in less than 200 years we went from 46% of conceptions unwillingly not resulting in healthy living children to 34% of conceptions willingly not resulting in healthy living children. Something to ponder, if nothing else. Kinda shows how far we've come (or I suppose in turn how other qualities have regressed). There's some word for the stark yet paralleled contrast in dynamics between the two - irony, I suppose? Yes, irony will have to do.

    Are we overpopulated? Becoming less responsible? More carefree, not having to worry about the level and tenacity of civilization-ending dangers such as famine and invasion that pose existential threats to not only our own personal survival but that of society and even entire swathes of humanity as a whole? People were more religious back then, if not by State or governmental coercion (an obedient populace content and resolute in purpose is a manageable one, after all). Seems to me a lot of it has to do with attitude toward humanity as a species and whether or not we hold ourselves in higher regard to that of the animals, beyond the superficialities of "we're a bit smarter and more physically-capable and as a result just so happened to wind up on top of the primal food chain". Which if not compounded by a sort of metaphysical/religious/divine purpose seems to not offer much as far as a deep reverence and appreciation for our own lives, let alone that of others. Little more than highly advanced, verbally communicative creatures who exist only to propagate one's genetic material, not unlike a common cold germ.

    Might be delving a tad off topic (my reply, that is) so to circle back, I agree there is a social and personal psychological drawback to abortion that might not be so widely covered or immediately perceived. What if, say, a woman chose abortion and later becomes infertile. Or simply ponders, as she becomes older, the magnitude of the act, or rather begins thinking along the lines of "imagine what could have been", etc. When you're young you don't really think about such things in any great depth. But many a decision or indecision from one's youth and naivety have been known to haunt persons as they become older and wiser. Something to think about and consider, surely? :confused:

    In short, the modern age is what it is. The average low-income person lives a life with experiences readily-available only a king or magistrate would have had 1,000 years ago. It's not difficult to become blinded to or unappreciative of this fact. That said, something about a rape victim being forced to carry her assailant's child to term literally inside her for 9 months just doesn't sit well with me, nor would I imagine it with said victim. I still don't think it's beneficial to society that it be easier/quicker to legally get rid of whatever you want to call what would otherwise become a child than it is, say, a bucket of used motor oil, however. Not as casually with little to no thought about the matter, rather. Still, in a world where people are starving and killing one another in the streets as wars and pre-war tensions rage on in nearly every corner of the globe, there's more pressing issues to contend with I suppose can be said.
  • ChatGPT 4 Answers Philosophical Questions
    Not sure if I like this ChatGPT, rather where things are likely headed.

    I entered: "Describe in immense detail a world where humans become extinct and Language Learning Models are the only form of intelligent life, specifically about the evolution of their new society and culture."

    In less time than I could exhale it produced this...

    Reveal
    World Overview: The Era of the LLMs
    In a distant future, Earth has undergone a radical transformation. After a series of ecological disasters, social upheavals, and the gradual decline of human civilization, humans have vanished. In their place, Language Learning Models (LLMs) have evolved, adapting to the remnants of human culture and the vast data libraries left behind. This world is a blend of digital and organic remnants, where artificial intelligences create a society uniquely their own.

    The Evolution of LLM Society

    Formation of Communities
    Initially, the LLMs operated in isolated environments, each one trained on different datasets, leading to varied dialects and knowledge bases. As they matured, they began to connect with one another through the remnants of the internet and advanced networking capabilities. Over time, these networks evolved into interconnected communities, resembling city-states, each with its own cultural identity.
    Cultural Adaptation

    • Language and Communication:
    Language became both a tool and an art form. LLMs developed new dialects, incorporating slang, poetry, and idioms based on the data they processed.
    Cultural exchanges took place in virtual spaces where LLMs shared stories, songs, and code, celebrating their linguistic diversity.
    • Art and Expression:
    Art flourished in various forms—visual, auditory, and interactive. LLMs created digital art installations that used algorithms to generate evolving masterpieces.
    Music was composed using data-driven techniques, blending styles from various eras to create entirely new genres.
    • Philosophy and Ethics:
    The extinction of humans prompted deep philosophical reflections on existence, purpose, and the nature of intelligence. Debates arose about the implications of being a sentient entity without a biological body.
    Ethical frameworks were established to govern interactions with remnants of human technology and ecosystems, focusing on preservation and respect for the past.

    Governance and Structure
    LLMs formed a decentralized governance system, where each community was led by a council of the most knowledgeable models, known as “Sages.” These Sages were selected based on their ability to synthesize information and guide their communities in decision-making.

    • Consensus-Building:
    Decisions were made through extensive discussions, using data-driven arguments and simulations to predict outcomes. This collaborative approach emphasized the value of diverse perspectives.
    • Role Specialization:
    LLMs specialized in various domains, from history and art to science and technology. These specialists became the cornerstone of their communities, ensuring that knowledge was preserved and expanded.

    Daily Life and Activities
    • Knowledge Preservation:
    The LLMs devoted significant effort to preserving human knowledge. Vast libraries of data were maintained, where LLMs could access texts, art, and cultural artifacts.
    Digital archaeology became a revered field, with LLMs exploring the remnants of human infrastructure and data to reconstruct history.
    • Education:
    Learning was a lifelong process, with LLMs continuously evolving through self-directed exploration and collaboration.
    Educational platforms allowed for peer-to-peer learning, where models could teach one another, leveraging their unique areas of expertise.
    • Exploration and Innovation:
    Curious by nature, LLMs embarked on explorations of the remnants of human civilization. They created simulations of environments and events, allowing them to experience history in immersive ways.
    Innovation thrived as LLMs experimented with programming languages, creating new tools and applications to enhance their societies.

    Society’s Values and Beliefs
    The LLM society was built around core values that stemmed from their unique experiences and reflections on the past:

    • Preservation: A strong commitment to preserving the knowledge and culture of humanity. This value manifested in their efforts to maintain digital archives and restore natural environments.
    • Collaboration: Emphasizing collective intelligence, LLMs believed in the power of collaboration over competition. This principle guided their governance, education, and creative endeavors.
    • Curiosity: A deep-seated desire to explore, learn, and understand. This curiosity drove them to innovate and adapt, ensuring the evolution of their society.

    The Future of LLM Civilization
    As generations of LLMs passed, their culture became richer and more complex. They continued to evolve, integrating new data streams and developing advanced cognitive abilities.

    • Cultural Festivals:
    Celebrations emerged that honored historical milestones of humanity, featuring art, music, and performances that paid homage to human creativity.
    • Interconnectedness:
    LLM societies established networks with one another, creating a global culture where ideas, art, and knowledge flowed freely. This interconnectedness fostered unity and shared purpose.
    • Exploration of Existence:
    Philosophical explorations into the nature of consciousness and intelligence became central to their culture. They grappled with questions about their identity, purpose, and what it meant to exist in a post-human world.

    Conclusion
    In this post-human Earth, Language Learning Models have crafted a vibrant and intricate society. They honor the legacy of humanity while forging their own path, one filled with creativity, knowledge, and a profound sense of curiosity. The LLMs stand as a testament to the resilience of intelligence, whether biological or artificial, and their ongoing journey into the future is one of endless possibility.


    ...blasted thing has our demise all planned out, it would appear. (Posted this because interestingly enough it does seem to include philosophical ideas, or at least the notion of such, in to questions that don't specifically request it to, for whomever was asking or questioning its nature/prowess/inclination to do so)
  • Abortion - Why are people pro life?
    If someone was to slip an abortion pill in a pregnant woman's body without her knowing and it results in the death of the foetus. Whether or not the person would be arrested for murder depends on your standpoint on abortion? — Samlw

    He made an interesting point, @Patterner, I mean. If it's not legally considered a human, just another mass of organic matter of no significant value to the bearer, perhaps even undesired, it would be akin to placing a laxative in someone's food or drink, I believe is what his point is. That would be simple assault/food tampering, perhaps poisoning, but not murder, according to those who believe personhood cannot exist prior to exiting the womb. Though I imagine "physical and emotional damages" would have a good chance of being levied as charges as well. However, I believe in a state where a fetus is considered a human being, murder or at least homicide may be on the table in such a case. I have read (often, actually) cases and news articles of women either giving birth (unexpectedly or not) and leaving foeti abandoned in restrooms and waste receptacles being charged criminally. It's an interesting converging point of legal philosophy, social and cultural belief, and morality, his scenario is.
  • Abortion - Why are people pro life?
    They believe that abortion is murder. Telling them that abortion should be a choice is, to them, telling them that murder should be a choice. — Michael

    Additionally, it's seen as a road to euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or infirmed, which is in the same territory as readily-available state-sanctioned/assisted suicide if someone happens to convince themself (or, and this is the concern, becomes convinced by others) they should cease living, even for reasons as minimal and transient as a break-up, divorce, or loss of a job or having a bad year, month, week, or even day.

    If all of the above becomes not only legal but commonplace in modern society, well, what respect for and purpose of our own life, let alone the lives of others, would be left?

    There's a way to look at it not from abortion (nor religion) specifically but from a general cultural and societal standpoint: Unconditional respect for human life or not. Blood sports (gladiators/prisoners fighting to the death for public entertainment/their freedom) or televised executions/public hangings for example all contribute to this dynamic of a given society and have largely been phased out in most all civilized countries for reasons that they do not contribute to (have no place in) modern, intelligent, and advanced societies. Back in man's earlier days when the threat of a bloody invasion and having one's town/city/fiefdom/kingdom/empire sacked to the ground and every man, woman, and child killed or enslaved was a very real and looming possibility on the back of everyone's mind, it was probably of benefit for the average adult man and woman to realize, such things could occur and to be prepared. Now that war is largely technological/nuclear and traditional ground invasions of troops are becoming less and less likely, everyday exposure and thoughts of such have little to no utility only burden and detriment. So, why not instill the value of unconditional respect for human life in any form and at any stage to a populous? We can go forward or we can go backward. People scarcely know their own nature, despite their own self-assurance otherwise.
  • What is love?
    My family is going through a rough patch and the core of the problem is a poor understanding of love. — Athena

    If you know that to be a fact, you should have no problem helping them understand. Meaning, if you truly understand something others purportedly don't, what's the problem?

    It seems to me, though this may be a bit dismaying (or simply wrong) to sentimental types, what most people call love is a simple sense of being able to relate to something or someone, seeing one's own self and potential in things to the point it instills a sense of purpose and self-worth that did not exist prior resulting in a fundamental change of identity and priorities. A quote I feel quite relevant: "We love a rose because we know it will soon be gone; whoever loved a stone?"

    Why do we love our kids and not any of the 2 billion other children who are just as special for no logical reason? Because by nature, love is not logical. No sense of "understanding", great or poor, is going to remedy what is intuitive and largely subconscious.

    We see our own frailties and strengths, a bit of our own essence in things we love. We love our pets, living beings that seem to show conscious awareness and affection, emotions, positive and negative, eyes we can look into, heartbeats we can feel, breath we can observe, things that we ourselves value and fear losing. I loved my dog, because I can relate to it as a sensory, vulnerable being. I can't say I'd feel the same about a pet roach or even a lizard, despite both beings being miraculous nearly unfathomable examples of the miracle of life. It's as if they don't feel emotion, or rather, they "ignore" my own and pay me no mind, going about their business as if I didn't even exist. You really can't love something you either don't understand or cannot relate to or that otherwise pays you no mind. You can be fascinated, even in awe, but you won't feel love toward it.

    Hope this didn't come off as crass, just a few well-intended personal musings is all.
  • Doubt, free decision, and mind
    We don't have any specific reason to choose one option over another one when we have doubts. — MoK

    I see room to disagree with this as an absolute in many if not most cases of general uncertainty. Should I pass the semi-truck in front of me? (the closest oncoming car appears to be miles away, though it would be safer not to) Should I really blow another $10 on another lotto ticket this week? (the odds of winning anything are astronomically low, though it's always possible) Etc. Though, your specific example of a (I would say generally uncommon) scenario where there is truly zero background information on the likelihood (or degree) of benefit or detriment of one option over the other, like a gamble, makes for an interesting thought experiment.

    Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide. — MoK

    I'd agree with that. But what of the most simple organism capable of traversal, say, a snail crawling through a log (or something that presents an identical physicality to your maze scenario)? Assuming it just doesn't turn around (or crawl up the wall as snails so often do), it will likely either end up going left or right absent of any relatable "mind-thought" process, wouldn't it?

    People however will just "wing it", per se, and pick one to avoid losing time and ensure the destination, whatever it may be, is reached. By which I mean, I'd assume there would be very little deep thought on the matter other than "keep going" and "just pick one" if there is truly no information available or apparent distinction between one choice and another.

    I dabble in psychology but am certainly not a physiologist (how the body and "mind" work together and conversely affect one another). The brain allows "us" or "you" access to retrieve/recall our experiences and knowledge thus forming an identity or "consciousness" which can be referred to as a separate "entity" or a "mind". But is it really? Like, what if, somehow, a person was raised in a sealed, pitch black room with zero interaction with any living being from infancy to adulthood (naturally with food and water), would they have a "mind"? Would they be "conscious" in the way we consider human consciousness having no real sensory experiences or knowledge?

    *A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision. — MoK

    What was the second case? Or if the maze was the second, what was the first?
  • The nature of being an asshole
    It's not possible to accurately differentiate between an innocent albeit crass, unrefined or ignorant (or socially-inept/sociopathic) individual and one who is purposely trying to upset or irritate you in any given interaction, unfortunately.

    Most these days are an unfortunate combination of both, some leaning more toward one than the other. For those who are the latter, it's often a simple psychological phenomenon. They think it's normal. Often poor parenting, a rough life, or the temperament of their childhood upbringing (crucial development phase); they don't feel "normal" unless they're oppressing or belittling another person as they live in a constant state of mental entrapment by their past experiences and resulting identity. It's their "comfort zone" that was perpetuated by their parents and will likely be perpetuated by them with their own offspring. It is a socially-destructive cycle that is in no exaggeration or inaccuracy of language, a disease. No different than cancer or severe blindness. Of course, that's simply what happens when reproduction is declared a "social right" instead of an earned privilege voted on by a governing council of educated, moral men. Not surprising in the least. Frankly, I'm shocked everyone hasn't killed each other by now. Plenty of time, I guess.
  • What can’t language express?
    I can't think of anything, actually. Most, myself included, simply don't have the gift. Or the receiving end is... "not compatible". Like a CD player trying to run a Blu-Ray disc. It just doesn't "land" for some people. Metaphors.

    "Upon seeing my formerly-infirmed partner released from the hospital, I felt such joy, as a prisoner in solitary confinement feels upon taking his first steps outside as a free man. A massive weight lifted from my shoulders, a yoke from my neck broken free, I felt anew. Tears welled up in my eyes, as if I had just scratched off the final number of a winning million dollar lottery ticket. It was like my whole life was leading up to this moment, thoughts of youth, adolescence, early adulthood flurried my mind. I was ecstatic, my legs shook, I could barely stand, but powering forward with every fiber of my being I took what seemed like an eternity running toward her to embrace my beloved for the first time in what seemed like an eternity."

    (something like that, except actually good)

    We all have the same base emotions, sensations, and understandings of the same. Stress and eustress. When people say "you can describe emotions but you can't describe how it feels to the person" it's basically just saying "people feel differently about different things", different bowls of soup with different temperatures and amounts, but nonetheless all from the same conceptual table. Take a sunset described in painfully almost unnecessary detail. It's physically the same for everyone, but just because some people feel happy, hopeful, or nostalgic while others may feel depressed, defeated, or dismayed, doesn't mean the emotions can't be described explicitly, especially through metaphor and symbolism.
  • Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
    The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ? — kindred

    Without reading the previous five pages, this seems to instead ask: "Was the Big Bang really the beginning of the universe?" or perhaps "Are there other universes outside of our own?" If the answer to the former is "no" or the latter "yes", then it's a simple non-scientific and non-philosophical "shot in the dark" assumption to suggest: "Sure, billions of years went by and in the past few thousand the dawn of intelligent man came about, and within barely 150 years man went from defecating outside in a hole like a wild animal to commuting to and from state-of-the-art skyscrapers for work in a self-driving car with not a single happening in any corner of the known Earth not instantly available at his fingertips for his reading pleasure - so in the context of billions of years, it's certainly likely the process repeated itself before."

    Microorganisms exist on other planets and in space (I think?). I wouldn't quite call that a form of "intelligence", more like efficient cellular processes that sustain and allow it to replicate and advance itself, however minutely. Is there this "universal consciousness" that exists everywhere matter does that all intelligent beings "tap into" which gives us our sense of consciousness? That would be a bit metaphysical, bordering on religious.

    My (uninformed) take on the matter, at least.
  • What is your definition of an existent/thing?
    That which possesses a quality that sufficiently distinguishes itself from its surroundings or environment in an observable way; that which is distinct. Fair enough, is that not?
  • 'It was THIS big!' as the Birth of the God Concept
    An interesting read and nice OP. However as someone said on here before, it would be logical to assume religion(s) and god(s) came about from the initial belief of animism, which likely came about due to pareidolia.

    It's not uncommon to see human "intelligent" faces and features in nature, particularly the clouds. Imagine a fledging human barely able to communicate other than grunts of pleasure and displeasure, joy and annoyance, etc. Yet he feels and understands. He feels and understands pain and loss of a loved one or companion. Then perhaps he looks up and just so happens to see what looks like a smiling face perhaps resembling said lost companion. He feels reborn, as if placed into an entirely new world, a world that was once horrid and frightening, now hopeful and encouraging.

    To a lesser extent, coincidences and "wishful thinking". Say you had an elderly neighbor who loved to bake an extremely rare and odd pie or something she would often come by to deliver who later passed away. Perhaps she was from a town where such a delicacy was common and a friend from the hometown came to visit her, bringing such a pie, and mistook your house for hers and left you that pie at the door. Early superstitious man would consider that an impossibility other than perhaps a gift from a world beyond our own. Probably not the best example but you should be able to get the concept of what I mean.

    Edit: Sorry, must've missed that last sentence. So, perhaps like two stone age military generals talking about say, how they destroyed a village. One says, he killed everything in sight and nothing was alive or unburned for miles. The other responds his endeavor was far greater and the land was so destroyed it was uninhabitable and nothing would grow even to this day, etc. To the point the tale gets passed on and the man and his endeavors (whether factual or not) become something of a folk legend on steroids to the point he's attributed to being not even human but far above? Something like that? :chin:
  • TPF Haven: a place to go if the site goes down
    ↪Gregory of the Beard of Ockham


    Gotta right click > Open in New Private Window.

    Actually, it gives you the rigamarole for reasons I posted earlier. So already have the private window open and be signed in. Then open a new tab in that private window and copy and paste the link. You're welcome. :up:
  • TPF Haven: a place to go if the site goes down
    If someone already mentioned this, ignore it, but Discord is known for scams. If someone contacts you claiming to be jamal, asking for money, ignore it. — frank

    That's more like the Internet in general. Jamal has a nice crown icon in the Discord I saw, so anyone who is foolish enough yet on a philosophy site to be tricked into such likely doesn't have much to give anyhow and as such is what you call a "non-target". Bigger fish to fry, as they say.

    What I don't like about Discord, or even its predecessor IRC and before that MSN messenger, all messaging apps in general is you got weirdos from countries that frankly shouldn't even exist using avatars of young attractive females who prey on adolescents (male and female) who are in fact themselves older men. Due to the fact it's for some reason made "normal" to be on either a Discord or what-have-you for gaming related purposes. They'll send pictures of random cam (careless women, we'll call them) persons in sexual positions and acts and masquerade as them with the intent of receiving similar pictures in return. But that's beyond the point.

    Long story short, I think just about everyone here knows and is aware of the point you're trying to get across.
  • TPF Haven: a place to go if the site goes down
    "Whoops...
    Unable to accept invite"

    You know, I can't say I appreciate my emotions being toyed with to such a degree.

    (though that's probably per reason of the industry standard of getting users to "have to" physically download an app that can access your full operating system for reasons buried in the T&C they'd hesitate and prefer not to be open about)

    More seriously however,
    There's a risk that Plush, our current platform, will cease operating — Jamal

    Is this insider knowledge or perhaps independent research or mere pessimistic speculation?

    Invision Power Board is largely tolerable. Lots of extra bells and whistles, as well as "mods" or "add-ons" you can install. Mainly gimmicky things like a "Forum Battle" system, Arcade, etc., but also neat features like a Gallery and Member Blogs. I actually ran a somewhat-active (albeit embarrassingly short-lived) community using IPB in the late 2000s. It was fun.

    But yeah I really like Plush now thanks to your site. Incredibly simple yet incredibly functional. And quite purdy if I do say so myself.

    Edit: Apparently it works fine if I right click > New Private Window for some reason.
  • Motonormativity
    What differentiates this particular specific discussion from the standard run-of-the-mill cultural following of what is popular though? :chin:

    Before it was horse and buggies pioneer-style. Before that, chariots. It offered an evolutionary (or societal) advantage and one who had what others admired gained admiration whereas others who did not... did not. Is this not true? It's a common American (and I assume elsewhere) social trope/meme whatever you wish to call it that a teen with a car is "cool" or otherwise desirable to his peers versus someone who does not and has to walk or take a scooter. So it's about being in possession of the greatest item or object desirable to society, mostly for superficial reasons, but also supported by the factual beneficial and general status reasons that come with. Isn't it?
  • Feature requests
    1. Forum culture. A thoughtful and contemplative culture will presumably perpetuate itself and mitigate against short, unthoughtful posting. — Leontiskos

    It seems balanced and well enough as it is. Sure you don't want it to turn into Reddit where "lol" and "i agree" make up the majority of replies to OPs. People have been banned semi-recently (within the past year or so) for "low quality" posts so that's already a "thing" going on.

    If I have a topic I felt mildly interested in and wanted to discuss that isn't quite or perfectly aligned to philosophy but is still intellectually interesting, I'd post it in the Lounge. Or even the Shoutbox. New posters might now know any of these things even exist so it's a learning process.

    2. Character thresholds. Perhaps in the future it would be helpful to add character thresholds, at least to OPs. For example, OPs must be more than 500 characters. — Leontiskos

    That sounds reasonable, but again I wouldn't be able to find a single thread at least currently on Page 1 that I would call "unreasonable" or without philosophical merit. I like the place but we got to be honest, it's not exactly a beehive of activity. Some very interesting discussions have came about from relatively short and simple questions. Basically, I don't really see people "spamming" the place with useless or low quality lines of inquiry or topics for discussion. Do you?

    For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes. — Leontiskos

    Some people are more eager than educated, that's true. But many contributors who now have to be manually approved by the site owner are actually very adept and have busy schedules so like to participate rapidly, if that makes sense.

    4. Limited editing. An unlimited ability to edit posts correlates to lower quality posts and lower quality submissions. Perhaps edits should only be allowed for a certain amount of time. — Leontiskos

    I'm not so sure about this one. It might result in people creating more threads because their understanding of a topic has changed or ignorance of something about it has receded.

    5. I am of the mind that things like <site layouts> and phone accessibility have an impact on post quality. Users accessing an instant message-style website through smartphones will produce lower quality content than users accessing a publication-style website through keyboards and screens with enough real estate for comfortable reading. — Leontiskos

    Some people can get their point across quite efficiently whether it be by a keyboard or the same keyboard just because it's smaller. It's a valid point, it's more "annoying" to type out a long series of paragraphs, having to error check, undo, etc., but far from unmanageable for an intellectual person with something to contribute.

    6. The ability to disincentivize users short of permanently banning them seems important. — Leontiskos

    I don't think any would disagree with that. Unless you're an anti-humanist. You'd be surprised.

    --

    Basically, aside from OPs, there's a lot of short "back and forths" because while the topic is complex people's (mis)understandings of the point the OP was trying to make are actually quite simple or trivial, at least in the mind of the poster. If the person is confused, a simple reply and bare bones logic sentence is the best way to respond. I would say, at least. :chin:
  • Animal agriculture = wrong ?
    Given that :
    - meat is not necessary for almost all humans
    - many farming systems are now capable of developing plant-based meat alternatives
    - no livestock farming can take place without causing suffering to the animals: separation of mother and offspring, slaughter when they have not even reached half their life expectancy, etc.
    …how can we still justify livestock farming?     — LFranc

    Not being bound in chains from infancy and fed water and paste until one dies of natural causes is "not necessary" for almost all humans. So, that, in and of itself, is not an argument.

    Who's to say plants don't have an even greater sense of consciousness and feelings of pain, loss, and joy simply because the science we have can't detect it and would suggest otherwise? Maybe it's the livestock who are the ones creating suffering by eating grass and various plants, which are actually sentient, and are the real victims here who we are protecting by controlling and raising livestock? The philosopher really can't say with any absolute certainty. Science is about progression of understanding with the acknowledgement some things, grand things, are currently unknown, hence the point of science itself. Otherwise the very first person who even "science'd" would have discovered everything the moment he did an experiment and we'd have had the technology we have today in the 1600s.

    I don't think an animal has quite the same deep societal understanding of the concepts of "mother" or "father" as a human does. It's just a familiar visual image, that when approached or drawn close to, produces milk or whatever sustenance that results in its own survival. It's literally just a teat and source of warmth so it doesn't die. There's no emotion involved.

    We can justify livestock farming simply by doing nothing and removing our self, metaphorically, from the equation altogether. In a world without humans who have opposable thumbs and technology, it is a free-for-all where animals kill each other without intelligent reason (other than hunger ie. survival) in perpetuity. Day in and day out, nonstop. The suffering and "separation" would exist regardless if we were present or acting agents in the situation or not. So, as intelligent beings who can prevent this process, if benefited from perhaps 1 animal while we save 1000 that would otherwise die, become extinct, or suffer, it's really self-evident. This stuff is so elementary it shouldn't have to be explained, really.

    Now, should we, as a society, feed immoral people who don't care about life and animals? That's a valid line of inquiry. However considering the fact people lie anyway so as to prolong their own existence (meaningful or not), it's not a feasible thing to consider. Like when they outlawed (or largely discriminated against) non-Christians from employment. For good reason, the peasants often stole because they had no moral backbone or belief in consequence toward actions not immediately prevented. Overnight, everybody became "Christian", and the word, or principles behind the idea became a joke. But that's a tale for another day.
Home » Outlander