Comments

  • Are you a seeker of truth?


    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?)


    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 birthdayAaron 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


    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 operatingJamal

    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.
  • Do I really have free will?


    So basically, things outside of our control exist and are "a thing". That's correct. I had no control over who my biological father impregnated and where and what circumstances I was raised in prior to receiving an education that allowed me to think properly for myself. Meaning, if I happened to have been raised in a household without a consistent presence of food in fridge, I very well may likely turn out to be a thief. If the opposite is true, and I happened to have been raised in a household with more sports cars in the front yard then there are fingers on my hand, I would likely have turned out to be a person of admirable morality. None of that matters when we are given opportunity to choose morality or immorality. Or at least, environment to foster and develop a distinction between the two.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    If there is such a thing as a "world" you call "fake" you seem to have the need to bolster defenses against, perhaps it begs a question as to your own understanding.

    Is "reality" fair and just? Is a tool created for one purpose unable to be used for the opposite?

    Sure, there's a natural dynamic. It seems for one thing to live, another thing must die. This is the problem in thinking, sentient beings. It doesn't seem "right" or "moral". Even if one's "morality" is efficiency in disguise.

    Nevertheless, we must abstract the fact we have the ability to recognize when a thing is wrong, immoral, etc., and from there choose what we wish to "do about it", per se. So, the possibility of such is there, as is the chance of the opposite. What happens next is up to you, I suppose it could be said. :smile:
  • A Reversion to Aristotle


    It's probably a reasonable variable that there is a distinct difference in persons who voluntarily complete surveys, versus those who do not.

    That is to say, there are countess variables to consider that could reasonably throw any sort of absolute or intrinsically-correct/accurate data out as far as (f)actuality. Note I specifically avoid "usefulness" as that is subjective to those who seek a purpose beyond actual legitimate aggregation of data.
  • Pragmatism Without Goodness
    But we know what living organisms have that these things lack. An active semiotic modelling relation with world based on an encoding mechanism like, principally, a hierarchy of genes, neurons, words and numbers in the case of us socially-constructed humans.apokrisis

    These particular things do in fact make up the end result of "consciousness" but do not define themselves as the bare minimums to achieve such. Granted, based on that which is currently evidenced or "observable" with our consciousness would suggest ours is unique. But this, though reasonable and socially-acceptable, is not any argument-ending contention when it comes to philosophical inquiry.
  • Suicide
    I feel like there's a best way to frame the underlying rationale and question, which is, are some actions advantageous compared to others?

    People commit forms of suicide, each and every day. Moral, economic, social, etc. Some knowingly but most unknowingly, at the time, of course. Many of which who become reborn in "death" of false ideals and understanding to become new and greater versions of themself. Not always, of course.

    I find it interesting you make a claim, whether inadvertently or not, that legality and morality are intrinsically not of rationale. That is to say, the purest form of rationale. This is a form of such in and of itself really. So you have to answer, what is the purest form of rationale? Definitively, this is logic. Which of course can be reduced mathematically, often, however, based on one's values and virtues, or understandings and beliefs. So what are yours? The typical ones being, suffering is bad, pleasure is good. Possibility is usually possible, but not always, so the factors that contribute to the determinations of such are relevant in determining said understanding.

    Based on the current social zeitgeist, I frame your inquiry to be of such: should a person who just so happens to feel depressed, if not for a prolonged state perform an action that ends one's life? Absolutely not. Though this may be of logical benefit to naturally not only themself but that of a majority, say, a prisoner on death row. Which I find laughable since, in a base and fundamental way, any life born in this world is, per se, in a rationally comparable way. But back to that, yes, prisoners on death row are in fact forbidden from possessing certain objects that can feasibly contribute to one's own death, so, there is certainly at least a perceived rationale. Prevalent enough to reasonably have codified measures in preventing such.

    It's a dark topic, but invokes the realities of the world in which we live in so remains of value. I would say, and this is just a personal philosophy of course, if someone led one to be in such a state who themselves would kill to prevent, a hypocrite deserves neither to be an executioner nor that worthy of life. So if there is even a chance your own life could disrupt, end, or destroy that which unwarrantedly and "immorally" created such a state of one to be in, which means would live with reasonable ability to further create such a state in other innocent minds, you have a duty to survive and neglect choosing such a selfish option. In my opinion. So, sometimes rationale is only circumstantial, to the point it masks possibility of change or better outcome, and logic itself. In the end, your personal, that is to say, specific avenue of inquiry is quite limited to a biological binary. Life or death. One's heart functioning and ceasing to function. But there is a wider topic I believe the sheer macabre nature of your OP might discourage others from pursing. :wink:
  • The Philosophy of Mysticism
    I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? Open to the fact one's reality could be completely incorrect, in ways previously thought improbable or even impossible and such advancement towards greater understanding of oneself and the world around oneself may or may not be ascertained by inquiry. Reminds me of "the unexamined life". You are an entirely different person with entirely different truths then you were a few years ago and will be again an entirely different person with entirely different truths in a few years. This is just much more dramatic and pronounced in youth and adolescence. Once you get older the differences become less pronounced, to the point they can seemingly be dismissed as trivial, even. But the starkness remains, given will to observe. :smile:
  • A List of Intense Annoyances
    I just saw this as a bait thread. That is to say, could be exploited as such. "Think of things that piss you off, go on, it's allowed, in fact, it's the rule. Then to be judged in such a mindset is impervious to rationale", is all. See my reply to fdrake. Go on, I permit you to.
  • My understanding of morals
    The problem is that "heart" is not really defined by you.Hanover

    I too noticed this. Rationally, I tried to think why one says "in your heart" or, far that matter "in your mind", as some sort of required preface to ask a question. As if the asker or said question was simply unable to express their points without surpassing some sort of ingrained barrier.

    Do you not see what I mean? I suppose, "in your heart" would reference, "your core", that is to say, an ideal world where all is well. I certainly enjoy speaking from the heart. But without acting from one's mind, such a reality will never be achieved. Or rather, last for very long..
  • It's Big Business as Usual
    Ah, greed. Where to begin. There's the old saying: "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway." In relation to modern economic systems, it's probably worth bearing in mind the fact most all things in life are a gamble, some in more ways than others. Since that much is fairly self-evident, we'll come back to that later.

    So, what is greed, really? Scholars, theistic and otherwise, seem to purport "the desire (or perhaps tendency or habitual nature) to obtain more than what one needs." Often with the implied nature of crass/brashness and lack of empathy toward one's fellow man being present, to the point one might have even learned to enjoy doing so simply for the feeling or emotion associated with the act and not what is gained by the act as a result.

    I think that's a fairly solid and universally-agreeable (reasonable) starting point. There's a few questions that can be immediately ascertained from such a claim. Who defines what one "needs", after all? Surely the self, societal norms, and what not? When I go grocery shopping I buy more food than I will eat in one setting, more than I will eat in one day, more than I need in one week, sometimes longer. In fact, considering the desire and belief I hold to live and enjoy a long life, I need basically everything in the entire store! At least, it wouldn't go to waste, if expiration were not a factor.

    In short, I think it's an established vice for a reason that men become blinded in gain and success so much to the point it becomes detrimental to what's best for a society if not unchecked. So this is where a moral deviation could occur. Best illustrated by the answer to the following question: why do people do things? Because they have to. The farmer who tends to his crops or the mother who tends to her young doesn't do so because it's some "idealistic dream" one has always held or desired to participate in, not typically, at least. But rather because, one must for existential reasons crucial to one's survival. So it seems, to me at least, greed can be used interchangeably with desire. And desire can not only be ill-formed but also categorized as beneficial or detrimental, both to one's self and of course to a larger society.

    As far as it's relation to business goes, that's why we have regulation and a free market. Prevents, say, a mechanic from doing a poor job (not fixing the problem, using subpar materials) and getting away with doing so long-term. Or from charging ridiculous amounts for something that in this modern day and age is so crucial to the bare existential survival of most. Basically there's an argument or avenue of discussion in relation to corporate business where "maximizing efficiency" and "greed" can be inappropriately equated to one another or erroneously used in reference. Say I believe the government over-regulates and has become a detriment to efficiency and innovation, I won't make a single dime more than adhering and living to this truth or not, I do it because I think it's best for society or at least the company, so I do it. "Greed", per se, simply wasn't present or a factor in such a scenario.

    I'm not quite sure if any of this was or will lead to the direction you desired this discussion to result in? Perhaps your preference is your own greed.. not automatically of negative benefit, let alone intent. Just my take on the matter.
  • A List of Intense Annoyances
    If that makes you murderously upset, please go elsewhere.Baden

    I don't see what warrants such a claim or comparison at all, frankly. I simply take a man for his words. "Intolerable" means "fundamentally interrupts one's existence to the point of action". That was his claim, not mine, friend. I simply remind the commenter, perhaps his frame of mind is not without benefit of expansion. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "intolerable" is all. His is simply dramaticized and I remind him, rubber will inevitably meet the road.

    I can assure you, law and order is no stranger to me. In fact, it's something of a religion of mine. Heh.
  • A List of Intense Annoyances
    Wish I could say the same.hypericin

    You don't have to wish anything. Act against your fellow man's right to expression, and, oh, let's wish you good fortune, your current existence will end, quickfully, friend.

    So, that's the end of that plain and simple.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations.schopenhauer1

    So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering.

    Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?

    That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying?
  • A List of Intense Annoyances
    The music is not there to somehow induce tipping (show me this "scientific evidence"). It's there because management decided the shopping public wants to hang out in a place playing music they presumably like.hypericin

    Gladly. It's so beneath my effort I require a few sips to simply fit the role, naturally.

    Oh "they decided" you mean, they noticed the fact of the reality that, I see fact and fiction becomes blurred with you. No matter. You're tolerable. Under the right setting.
  • A List of Intense Annoyances
    Yes, for me ambient music, particularly pop, disrupts my intuitive feeling for a place, replacing it with a candied consumerised cadence that I find repulsive and emotionally disruptive.Baden

    Well, keep in mind, while you're the most valuable, you're also the most infrequently or leastly present. The employees reside there as well. You know, the people who make everything happen? It's about their consideration and preference as well. Many of whom benefit more than nominally, on tips, tips that scientifically evidenced to be brought about by the "candied consumersed cadence" you so haughtily talk down upon as if it were you stocking their fridge and fulfilling their dreams, which you in fact, are not! So riddle yourself that for a spell.