What advantage is this? :eyes: — fdrake

It was one of you guys who I read say something along the lines of "what I tell/teach/do with my students is..."

Academic background, I presume. :cool:

Hope you've voted! :smile: — Amity

There ya are, one vote. :up:

I probably wouldn't write one, my essay skills have yet to evolve from early grade school (Paragraph 1: Introduction; Paragraphs 2 - 4: Three supporting reasons, Paragraph 5: Conclusion). Former English teacher once said to me: "Everything to write about has already been written, there is nothing new, only clever rehashing." He teaches philosophy at a major-ish university, last I was aware. I'm sure a few people here more intrepid than I could give him a run for his money, however. It'd be nice to see what gets submitted, that's for sure.

Other than that, got to remember running a competition requires a good amount of time and coordination. I assume many of the TPF eldership have somewhat busy personal lives, holidays not helping. Except for Jamal. We all know he's just wandering around trying to find more meat to velvet.

Didn't there used to be an "Articles" link at the top of the forum or did I imagine that also? Good idea either way. Pretty sure fdrake would just win every time though. He has an occupational advantage from what I've gathered. :eyes:

because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done. — Hyper

So, 3.5 billion or so people of the opposite gender vanished overnight? That's a thinker. I suppose life must carry on, sure. Even if trapped on a desert island with no reasonable chance of rescue or similar would make one ponder the same: Would it be worth it? Even if a newspaper somehow washed up ashore notifying you of an all-out world war with major cities being destroyed leading you to reasonably believe you might possibly be the last cradle of humanity, it still leaves much to consider.

if they do end up having a baby and that baby is deformed, then is that still a reason not to have it? Life is better than no life. — Hyper

It's willful engagement in behavior that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects. "Life is better than no life" would not be a way to justify drinking alcohol during pregnancy or competing in a boxing competition while pregnant. Why would it be any different in this scenario?

Go on. How does this make one re-examine our place in the world, one's concept of self and identity, and elementary philosophies of truth and reason? Does it at all?

As somewhat of a non-traveler these days, for all I know, the entire world outside of my tri-county area may not exist. Of course, I know this to be false. I have friends in other parts of the world, I've traveled to places before, I can track shipments for packages that travel to and fro as well as watch live webcams of places. But for many practical intents and purposes, it's like the world outside our own little spheres of interaction may or may not exist.

I doubt I'll ever step foot in the White House, for example. So, at least for my existence, it's as if the place does not exist, never did, and never will. Yet it does, surely. Might I ask: is Schrodinger's cat involved here in any way? :smile:

Suppose when people say "real" or "fake" they mean something that exists in the manner in which we do, that can either be touched, felt, observed, or otherwise "experienced". There was a thread here about (or touching on) such differences between "existing" and "real". I forget the relevant quote at the moment but something along the lines of "unicorns are imaginary, but exist and are real". I've likely butchered the original quote in my misrememberance but it was something along those lines. Reminds me of the proofs thread where something can be factually false whilst simultaneously being valid and sound. A bit hard to grasp and easily dismissed as nonsensical.

Not really philosophy more text-specific analysis, but if it's permitted.

Generally, a person can identify as whatever they please. Certainly schools of thought, ways of life, and religions hold doctrines that one must adhere to or accept to be considered a true follower or not "hypocritical." "Problem", per se, is that, like most things, different people agree and disagree on different things, hence, in this case, why certain religions have unique denominations, often a result of what was- in many cases, at first- a small splinter group or movement. Christianity is no exception. Protestants believe one thing, Baptists believe another, Catholics, another still- to the point others have stark disagreements where one views the other as "simply wrong". I believe a few "popular" disagreements are works-based salvation vs. faith-based salvation, per-tribulation Rapture vs. post, etc. One who believes one thing and not the other generally views the other person as "lost" or, again, "just wrong" or even not a true whatever the title or group happens to be.

Whether or not Christ was raised from the dead (physically, hence the purported visual apparition allegedly witnessed by followers) seems to me like an incredibly minor detail based on the underlying context of Abrahamic faith (which again different followers hold different beliefs as far as what the purported Messiah is, signifies, and functionally "does") If I'm not mistaken, Jewish prophecy states the Messiah would be a military leader who would ensure them a victory against their enemies. Christianity states Messiah (literally messenger), as exactly that, a messenger who gave men a heavenly decree that the Old Testament is no more, and those who follow the god of Abraham have new (more lax) laws to follow, as well as, well, to put it casually, something of an "update" that mortals are now allowed in Heaven provided they meet certain conditions. This, if I'm not mistaken, is a change from the way it was before as Heaven was previously reserved only for angels and divine beings (and possibly those who God "likes", I guess, not sure- but based on the doctrines of the faith an all-powerful god can in fact do anything, so, yeah.) If I'm also not mistaken, Jews generally believe Jesus was not the prophecized Messiah and was either A.) a liar and/or B.) just some guy trying to make everyone feel better. Which means they await the true Messiah who, as they believe, has yet to come.

To your point, you are a Christian if you believe in Christianity, the idea Jesus existed and, presumably, was the son of God, and/or by extension (though again depending on belief the two are not mutually-exclusive), the foretold king/prophecized Messiah foretold in Jewish texts. You could be a "bad" or "untrue" or "lost" Christian, I suppose, why not? To answer your question one asks the opposite: what is a non-Christian? Typical answer being someone who "doesn't believe in the Bible" or that Jesus existed and performed all or most of the purported doings and activities alleged, whose word is the Truth, believes such, and strives to live as Christ (rather, God via Christ) commanded or stated one should. (You can believe in all of the above, but reject the idea, and live in willful opposition to the alleged new ("Christ's") commandments, that would make one a non-Christian).

Basically, Jews and Christians ultimately believe in the same Messiah, one just believes the other is wrong. Christians believing the ancient scripture was fulfilled and as a result anything commanded or proclaimed by Jesus is divine and eternal law, Jews believing said prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and nothing has changed from when God purportedly gave Moses the Ten Commandments to before the day Jesus was born to now (and naturally as a result Christians are misled, at worst damning themselves and those around them or at best wasting their time). Kind of the same as what they believe of them.

To put it casually: was it the real slim shady or not? Therein lies the only divide between Judaism and Christianity.

Personally, I believe in a compassionate, all-knowing God. Which means God obviously knows that people are pretty dumb. If you're a good person, and there's a Heaven mortals are allowed to reside in, you'll probably end up there. If not, mankind is pretty boned any way you slice it.

(The reason I call this non-philosophy is because the ultimate goal of your question is a result of what a purported text or school of thought ultimately resolves to. It's an explicit yes or no, 1 or 0 binary based on explicit, static information [whether the information is true or false is not the issue] and nothing more. Meaning, logically, the answer remains the same whether or not you are a devout Christian or an atheist who views this as a discussion on par with what Santa Claus' favorite cookie is.)

Hi,

Fascinating thesis and congratulations on your professional success in higher education, and by the looks of it, life itself. Assuming I live long enough, it'd be an honor to reach even a nominal fraction of said status in life myself. And I consider myself religious. :grin:

I've been following along, somewhat latently to the best of my ability (which isn't particularly note-worthy).

Might I ask: Could it be said that to sufficiently provide an acceptable answer to the following example in your thesis: "We might reason that the freedom over one’s eyes is less important than the freedom to live, but the question is how much less important. Five times? A hundred times? A thousand? Presumably, there is a number, and it seems unlikely that it would be morally correct to blind the world to save one life, but it is not clear what that number is.", would be considered a total or partial solution? Or is there perhaps a greater, singular hypothetical question/example that more fully encapsulates the essence of the conundrum? And if permitted, a second: what would you say would be the closest opposite of freedom consequentialism?

Regards,
Outlander

(Just some personal ramblings here, feel free to disregard. It's often stated that "it's the thought that counts". For example, say a person who, unbeknownst to me, is about to commit a heinous mass murder happens to be just about to walk by my house. I, completely unaware of said person or their intentions, decide to myself, "Hey, I'm at my wits end. I am contemplating self-harm. But before I do, I want to take one innocent person with me. I will harm the next person I see." before opening my front door and engaging in said action. Said action is performed, I, again, unbeknownst to me, just prevented a historic mass shooting without realizing it. Freedom consequentialism would say I did the right thing by choosing to do what I knew to be wrong, is that correct?)

the prospect of a female president — 180 Proof

This I think has more relevance than is being gave credit for. Not saying it's fundamentally sound or logical, but during a time where there are at least three "hot" international conflicts (soldiers and civilians actively killing or being killed), with several brewing on the back burner, people tend to find more confidence in a boisterous male persona when it comes to their safety and national defense and well-being. Again, not saying it's right, it's just how people largely tend to think, consciously or otherwise. Arguably rooted in biology, which affects the mind more than many care to acknowledge or hold ability to recognize.

Moreover, how did the American public react when Bill Clinton's affair was uncovered? Some thought he was a national disgrace, a "pig", per se. Others found him more relatable as a result and proof of democracy's function that the most powerful man in the world is "just like us", imperfect, prone to temptation and folly, and is not in some untouchable near-godly class. What about when the order to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given? Some consider that the worst atrocity against human life in history, rivaling if not surpassing the Holocaust.

It goes back to an ancient school of thought, a near-primal division, a form of culture and indeed "religion". Do we accept that we as human beings are imperfect and not only capable of horrors and sleaze but prone to them and in fact happier when we engage in these things and any sort of "morality" or piety is a lie that will inevitably collapse in on itself and serves as nothing but hindrance to human potential? Or do we realize that, like children, we have natural faults and tendencies that need to be corrected, perhaps constantly, so that we can reach a true and greater purpose and contentment as not just a society or civilization but as a species writ-large?

It's easy to have one's morals and values spun around and turned on their head by even a single isolated incident such as a heinous murder or debilitating accident, say in the course of being a good Samaritan and helping a stranded motorist, but should single isolated incidents or persons really serve as permanent indicators and premonitions of the entire future and destiny of mankind? I think not. They can certainly dramatically alter a particular society's zeitgeist overnight to the point it becomes unrecognizable, but I'd humbly suggest such an event does not dictate the declaration of a society let alone a world being "post-truth".

As far as Trump specifically, I've noticed he seems to moderate his actual behavior a bit better when he's actually in office as opposed to campaigning. He's an entertainer first and foremost, which seems to go hand in hand with politics. People have a tendency to be frustrated and like to hear their frustrations being echoed by the highest levels of power. Pandering 101. Additionally, there's an unfortunate bias among most people where we tend to believe if a person is being aggressive or callous it equates to being truthful. Which makes sense as the average person deals with a plethora of problems and frustration in their daily lives (work sucks, bills too high, goods and services too expensive, etc.) and they themselves often view their own instances of politeness as obligatory and not genuine. Like many things, only time will tell. Hope I'm right.

You act as if this is your first election.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SleazyPolitician

Q. “How do you know a politician is lying?” A. "Their mouth is moving."

Or day on Earth, frankly. :smirk:

You're dealing with ingrained human nature, to benefit oneself over that of another. Deception and unscrupulous behavior is a form of survival. You can't honestly tell me if there's one dose of medicine that doesn't belong to you, that you have means to procure, and there's two sick children, one being your own and the other being a stranger's, you'd "do the right thing", even if said medicine belongs to said stranger. Go ahead, lie to us. :smile:

You have a great point, it's an ancient debate indeed. We love to take the moral high ground and insist anything to the contrary will lead to the destruction of society itself- until push comes to shove and it's you or yours on the chopping block of life. Sadly, such is the way of the world.

But basically they are bad writers! — Swanty

Well, show the world how it's done then, champ. If you purport to know what is bad, creating what is therefore "good" should be a cake walk. Let us know when it's done, eh? There's a short story competition coming up I believe. Knock it out of the park. :up:

There's nothing wrong with writing a story and including captivation/entertainment in your work. It shows how the writer reached his or her conclusions or views and perhaps where they may have erred or glossed over pertinent and related ideas or criticisms. The chronically impatient have little use or business in philosophy, IMO, despite needing it the most.

It's relatively easy to pry open the eyes and beget further inquisition and engagement to a person half-asleep with even the faintest of light. Reminds me of a quote I read in fiction: "Many a warrior follow the path of the dragon. Perhaps such warriors are attracted to doctrines of few words."

I, and I'm sure many others, don't mind, even prefer, going on a lengthy and unyielding journey into a great mind (provided one has the time and will to do so, of course). Besides, you can find summaries and outlines online or as study notes in most lectures.

Pity. Smart guy. A certain vitriol about him, but, such seems to come standard and be par for the course for any well-traveled intellect on this hectic journey we call life. Any guy who can understand proofs has a leg up over me. If only I had reached out to him, as I was going to after noting his return from his two-month posting hiatus about the importance of restraint and self-control. Someone, or something, once told me: "Control yourself lest ye be controlled."

Ah well. Can't win 'em all. Glad it wasn't me. :lol:

I am pointing out that those in power are among them! — Clearbury

In a democratic society they can be removed. In a structure-less society, there is no process for doing this, at least not one that would last for very long as, devoid of morals, such is the default state of human will unrestrained. If the majority of people wish to target a minority group in an anarchy, they can do so much more easily and without any form of overarching legal repercussion than in a structured society with codified human rights.

What governments do is allow some of those who enjoy violating the rights of others the opportunity to do so on an industrial scale. — Clearbury

They also facilitate justice and due process to those who do, something not possible in an anarchy. Sure a rogue totalitarian state would not. That is a real concern, the concentration of power to a single individual or office. That is a bad form of government. There are good forms of government where law and order and justice for all is manifested, imperfectly, but more so than a system where it's not even entertained. I find your above quote similar to saying "Food poisons people" simply because some types of food product are bad or improperly prepared therefore "all food is bad". Not so, friend. Not so.

Tendency towards optimism: we have a positively distorted perspective of our lives in the past, present, and future. — Benatar article

Well with all due respect to the benighted scholar (bear with me while I bring up other people again), thousands of years ago the average person had to deal with threats of invasion, plagues, an abundance of disease, terrible low-quality shacks, frost-filled winters and/or brutal, sweltering summers, no cold drinks, sorry excuses for nutrition, terrible corruption via class discrimination perpetrated by unscrupulous "upperclassmen", bloodthirsty highwaymen, torture chambers as prisons, just to name a few things modern man no longer has to face. So, pardon me for saying but, yes, modern man has a correct perspective of optimism in his daily life. Why shouldn't he? We live in some sort of futuristic heavenly utopia, if someone from said time in history could step through the doorway of time into our own. It's easy to forget how fortunate we have it now. You've never been in love before? Never had "the best day ever"? Sure you have! You can't tell me in your best moments in life you weren't as giddy as a schoolgirl with all the optimism of a starry-eyed young prince. Things happen, we grow older, see the world for what it is, rather become aware of what we were once ignorant of, and it weighs heavy to those intelligent who think and feel, of course. That doesn't mean great delights and better times are not yet to come. I mean, again, look how far civilization has come. There's nothing "distorted" about factual categorization and accounting of positive development.

Adaptation: we adapt to our circumstances, and if they worsen, our sense of well-being is lowered in anticipation of those harmful circumstances, according to our expectations, which are usually divorced from the reality of our circumstances. — Benatar article

So basically, the hedonic treadmill. A noted phenomenon, yes. What of it? I still double down on the "failure to see positive possibility and future change (even if it not be enjoyed while one is alive)", despite the odds being less than favorable in many a circumstance.

It's a cruel and unforgiving world largely governed by primal nature where the selfish and abominable seem to come out on top time and time again. I'll give you that. And yet, a world full of warmth and bliss, for those fortunate. Not everyone who achieved these rewards did so by ill-begotten ways and means. What of them? It's not an unreasonable belief to hold life as "more trouble than it's worth", not unreasonable at all. But you can't honestly tell me you didn't have at least a few moments or experiences you're glad to have had, can you? Of course not.

Suppose the code was deleted mistakenly, and all your hard work was wiped out? — schopenhauer1

That would be quite awful, yes. I do keep backups but I get your point. I would be sad. Angry, distraught, the works. Thankfully, or regrettably (not sure), much of my time was spent "figuring things out" and learning along the way so reconstructing it wouldn't be as daunting as one might envision. But I get your point.

Anyways, strife can be found anywhere, just as much as joy. Pursuits of joy are temporary. That's the point of Schopenhauer makes of goal-seeking, attachments, and all of it. — schopenhauer1

Joy is often short-lived, yes. But that is no reason to abandon all pursuit of desire. I could be terribly mistaken but I'd otherwise bet you have a great many things to be thankful for, things others would kill for, even if these things are relatively common to the degree you have lost (or never had) appreciation for them. Perhaps you should bear in mind those around the world who have things much worse off than you and not let your relatively good fortune to have been in vain. Ironically, Schopenhauer had a goal and attachment to write a book, several I'd imagine, so that's kind of an interesting position to hold. I suppose it remains valid if you really want it to.

Sure, the simpler a life one lives, that is to say the less social affairs one has, the less room for drama or unsolicited burden. Why the choice of the word "withdrawal" though? Why not enhanced engagement in one's inner focus, self-betterment, and private works in the comfort of willful solitude? I suppose if one craves socialization, as most normal people do, at least every now and then, it is a willful, conscious act of deprivation. It doesn't have to be. I can't think of the PC version for the following quote so I will just say it does the mind and soul (or psyche) wonders to occupy oneself with true vocational purpose. Example, I have an ungodly amount of computer-related work to complete this season. It brings me joy when I complete a portion or bring a functionality of the software I'm creating to fruition. It also brings me joy, when I'm feeling a bit burnt out staring at thousands of lines of code for hours or get stuck on a particular area or simply need a break to tab over to TPF and see if there's a reasonable entry-level discussion that interests me enough to participate in, like this one. It's about finding balance.

By reducing food to the bare essentials, we liberate ourselves from the cycle of indulgence, craving, and dependency that distracts us from a clearer, more tranquil state of being. — schopenhauer1

Do we really? Willpower begins and ends in the mind. It's about setting reasonable goals and limitations you can expect yourself to follow through on, I'd say. For lunch today, I plan to bake a frozen fish filet. Nothing fancy, by any means, but nutritious enough to provide my body what it needs to focus and feel well enough to complete what I have in front of me. Food is an interesting thing as nutrition should be part of what one includes "bare essentials" for any sort of quality existence. I could easily open a packet of tuna and a roll of crackers and call that lunch. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you mean excess and extravagance, such as a three-course meal with lobster, buttered potatoes, and desert, for example. Or whatever one's "favorite" foods happen to be. Diet and fasting have been purported to yield benefits physical and beyond of course, so you may be correct. I still hold the mental component to unhealthy cycles of physical action or inaction to be paramount, regardless if whatever the physical object of ones concern is in reach and easily-accessible or not.

The ultimate step is complete abstention from food, moving beyond mere limitation of intake. Eating fuels the Will’s endless cycle of craving and satisfaction, tethering us to desires that perpetuate suffering. By choosing abstention, we reject this cycle altogether, severing our dependence on physical needs that only serve to bind us to the body's relentless demands. — schopenhauer1

That one's a bit too esoteric for me I'm afraid. Sounds a bit fatal, frankly. If that's what it takes to reach your desired state of being, I'd question your sense of reason in regards to what you want out of life and how to best go about obtaining such.

Withdrawal is preventative, but also a statement about not allowing oneself to inflict harms upon others. The key is to ensure that any contact is purely transactional- just enough to meet the basic requirements of existence, without letting it spiral into further emotional entanglements. — schopenhauer1

Different strokes for different folks I guess. It is true many eastern religions and other forms of thinking hold value in solitude or "cutting oneself off from the world" ie. the monks of olde. It's just not feasible for most people in modern society who aren't exceedingly well off. You can remove the object of temptation but the underlying "unwellness" (if that's what you consider such) would undoubtedly remain, at least in some form, wouldn't it?

It is unpopular because the minute we accept that we are animals, dualism, ego/spirit, anamnesis, eternal truths, heaven, hell, and immortality all vanish into the illusions that they are — ENOAH

I'm afraid I don't follow. The large majority of philosophers do not subscribe to the idea of most if not all of the concepts you mention, so this can't be the source of their reasoning at all. Besides, what is an illusion, really? Something that can't be proven to be a substantial thing in its own right, not dependent of some other process or source. What is love? Friendship? Respect? These things by the aforementioned descriptors are but illusions too. Yet they drive men to madness, war, and on the opposite end provide comfort, purpose, and belonging. These things are regarded as substantial entities in and of themself, regardless if they be "facades" of biological workings or mere social constructs, by philosophers and non-philosophers, theists and atheists alike. Is this not so?

Can a single violent crime (ex. the rape of a loved one) initiate a feedback cycle of violence in a community due to the natural need/impulse for retributive justice (tit for tat). — Nils Loc

Also to add, you can make a person or group of people believe anything with the right preconditions. A simple example would be framing a person for murder by placing an intimate item or lock of hair (if for some reason the person had unusual hair) at the scene of the misdoing. Oldest trick in the book. And in the heat of passion, fueled by a combination of horror, sorrow, and rage, even the mildest of men won't hesitate to ask questions second. Imagine being the framed, quietly minding your own business and some psychotic loon, or several, tries breaking down your door. You will also likely not hesitate to ask questions second, for there would be no time for any other course of action.

This stuff happens often. Not to mention flat-out lying. Some people thrive on chaos. It goes back to their upbringing. I've seen all kinds. Some for the attention, some for the sense of power/control, some for the "freedom" found only when all guardians are occupied, some for the sheer entertainment of it all. The list goes on.

Civil enforcers play many roles, but a major one is separating the belligerent parties until everyone is calm and no longer operating on pure emotion, their wits return to them, and facts can be made known.

It just doesn’t follow from any of this that we require a master. — NOS4A2

But when has a man with any worth ever not had a master? From birth, from walking, from basic reading and writing, to basic mathematics and scientific formulation, from learning to operate modes of transportation to being taught how to operate basic job equipment, to learning advanced skills. None of this could be possible without a greater more experienced person, whether that person is in the flesh or in the form of words in a book. I suppose one could take the trial and error route, at the expense of one's own safety and more egregiously that of those around him.

People don't like being constantly supervised as it feels restrictive, even if said supervision and apparent restriction prevents severe consequences. As well, people with great life experience and wisdom don't like having to spend their time babysitting every person who tumbles into existence. So it's a mutual dynamic that a man should become self-sufficient and able to govern his own household and immediate affairs. While there is no "master" in free and open societies, I feel it could be argued that biologically or by evolution, humanity has an ingrained "spot" in the brain for a figure of guidance and administration, be it a parent as a child, a teacher as an adolescent, or a supervisor as a young employee. Whether this spot is filled by the primal "bigger and stronger" person simply for the fact they happened to have been born bigger and stronger, or the wiser more experienced person for the fact society values virtue, wisdom, and effort over static physicality. We have a choice who we follow in structured society. It's a beautiful thing, wouldn't you agree?

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.

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.

Password reset email shows up for me, too. :confused:

Try sending yourself an email or check your storage space/settings. Add infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom as a contact/preferred sender or to your email client's whitelist. One of those should do the trick.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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)

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:

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.

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:

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?

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?

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)?

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.

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: