Are we essentially just brainwashed by society and nothing more than puppets in our lives or is there more than that? — Darkneos

The typical mind will generally by a reflection of its experiences filtered through the lenses of deep-seated beliefs it identifies as Truths (upbringing, indoctrination perhaps), yes. This is why people pursue higher education, to learn things that they did not know before and have them become second nature or indistinguishable from first knowledge even.

You reminded me of a user here whose screen name caught my eye. @Cartesian trigger-puppets. I asked him what the meaning or origin of that was and apparently he read and presumably was convinced that we are all, in a way, Cartesian trigger puppets, relating to Descartes and his philosophies, of which I am not familiar. Similar as your premise suggests. Perhaps you may wish to look into that.

When I ask other people no one seems to think that just because emotions are cause and effect that it means they aren't genuine. But if you are being affected or influenced by something else then it's not genuine, you're being controlled. Though no one agrees, not even Buddhists who I ask. — Darkneos

Well, hey. You can by and I'll give you a flick on the arm and you can see how that does or does not affect you. Or I can step it up a notch and tell a "yo mamma" joke so volatile you'll want to call her just to make sure she's alright. :wink:

Generally speaking yes, your mind should not randomly have unnecessary fluctuations of emotion for no reason whatsoever. That's bipolarity I believe. We live in a physical world with physical people and unless you live in a walled off kingdom with no knowledge (or care for that matter) of others, you will be inevitably be affected by other people just as you will inevitably affect them. There's nothing complicated or "tricky" about that really.

their advantage — frank

You've never boarded a plane before? You have to make sure your own mask is secured before securing that of your child. Selfish? Hardly. What good is an incapacitated parent to that of a child in need. Very little I can assure you.

Ethically, how would the costs then be distributed? — jasonm

You don't run before you can walk. Once a thief always a thief perhaps? What's he going to steal next? $5, $300? $10,000. My wife? Why stop there?

Stealing a candy bar, as a common example. The person would probably get arrested. It's fascinating to socially analyze because how much manpower and resources are spent by a deputy responding, arresting, transporting (fuel costs), processing, feeding, etc. a person. It's a deterrent because the person now has a permanent criminal record and anyone with a brain knows that will (potentially severely) impact your life and opportunities in said life over something that costs 30 cents to produce

. The costs of litigation to receive .50 cents of damages are obviously frivolous. Though it could be argued the person "created a culture of fear" and impacted the lives of any staff and contributed to destruction of society resulting in anxiety and trauma and what not if it wasn't done surreptitiously.

In the first case, is each person just to be charged 0.50 (because that's the amount of damage they caused) or some larger number (because they irreparably bankrupted the business)? — jasonm

Reminds me of the reason why firing squads when executing a person use multiple persons, sometimes with blanks. No one man can say he was solely responsible. This seems like a very legal question as if there was a coordinated attack on the business by an organization who knew each other with the intent to do precisely that or if it was just random dudes.

Similarly, in the second case, is the person charged with $500,000 or some lesser amount? — jasonm

Well, it would seem so. If I steal a puzzle set from you, wouldn't you want the whole puzzle back if I haven't lost the pieces and not just some or "most of them"?

An equation is gibberish for those who aren't meant to utilize it's final product. And rightfully so.

Anything can be a problem. Without belief in a Higher Power or sacredness what is love? A symbiotic exchange of communication and resources to prolong an otherwise purposeless series of chemical reactions in efforts to strengthen or add resilience to a societal group and promote its advancement and longevity over that of another. How romantic. I'll light the candles.

Power does not corrupt. Power reveals character. A person who obtains power and "becomes" corrupt, was always a corrupt individual all along who was constrained only by the threat of punishment of some kind. An uncorrupt person who obtains power will still remain uncorrupted because their morals and values were not reliant on the threat of harm from others for not following them. — Philosophim

Interesting. Why do I doubt this. If the grass is indeed always greener, what else might hold true. Nurture vs. nature, basically, or something in between? People can't change? Ignorance and reclusivity (or perhaps luck) to never have the limits of one's resistance to temptation tested need not be mistaken for virtue, mind you.

Steven King's "The Langoliers". The philosophy just under the surface would fill a library.

If you have a good three hours (and perhaps something to drink) definitely worth a watch I'd say.

How would you assess accountability? — frank

Well seeing as I have no idea who the heck you are or where you're from but if I read you're in distress it's now known by (up to billions of) people for one... and you know, folks might want to investigate that. Or at the very least prepare themself for what danger or misfortune that allegedly is befalling you.

There was no news back then. The telegraph and the oceanic cables brought intercontinental communication which you must admit changed things considerably.

I'm saying there is no increase of crime itself simply increased awareness of it and to the average person sitting at home sounds alarming.

Oh it's not the crimes. It's the accountability and widely held ability any person wields to make them known in this day and age that's changed. Little more. Though it does discourage. Sometimes.

There's many kinds of power. Lack of discipline breeds lack of discipline. With enough resources and influence one can title that however one wishes.

Your thoughts are twisted as hell... — javi2541997

The man is a reflection of a depraved world, not a source of it. I don't believe, at least. One could argue to not be impacted by the various goings on of this world is what should call a man's sanity to question.

Still, I'm sure many wish they had real life friends with the adamant loyalty and fervent determination to see things through as the online friends of some. What a testament to the good of humanity this thread is, if nothing else.

Personally, I'm a nihilist, so I don't care what happens to it. — Leftist

This is the human condition in a nutshell. Can't even find purpose in the greatest gift, one's own autonomy, yet has plans for things they've yet to personally verify exists simply because "it's there".

For me, the forum is not just the internet. There is a community here. — T Clark

Is this supposed to support or disprove my claim? (if you had to make a choice)

Either choice promotes my point.

People just don't seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be petty and vindictive. — T Clark

Look at it this way. The average man (or woman) wakes up, sees his significant other. There are rules to follow. He or she goes to their job. There are rules to follow. You have to take a bathroom break, you guessed it, there are still rules to follow. You hang out with your friends/acquaintances after. Yup. Still rules to follow.

A man logs onto the Internet.. Suddenly. Freedom is found.

You know what would solve all this.

A new section (preferably one that includes an Arcade) that has a Guest shoutbox/rudimentary live chat... just to keep things interesting. When someone wants to learn something and improve their life, asking a master or expert is intimidating. You don't want to waste their time, seem like an idiot, yadda yadda, etcetera, etcetera, what have you. The improvement of one's self is the least of goals as far as philosophy is concerned, rather to empower one with wisdom and confidence behind said wisdom to improve the life of other's around oneself and thus society as a whole.

As philosophers we should take full advantage in every opportunity there is to do so.

I try to be a forgiving person because you never know when your situation can change and someone else will be at your former helm to dispense mercy or justice unto you.

That said, TPF is famous for it's "everlasting bans". I suspect the silence from moderation is just them giving us a place to complain.

What needs to be remembered is I don't believe any recent bans were not the result of the poster flat out saying "I don't care if you ban me" or to "go ahead", etc. Granted one would hope moderation are not looking for challenges like this from posters but that seems to be the facts in most all (recent) cases.

Also it's just a website. One I vastly enjoy and at least visit nearly every day. There's some interesting people with interesting things to say. I'd feel a bit lost without it, to be quite honest. But that's my fault. If getting banned from an online forum has such dire consequences, well... it is an investment, can become a very large, intimate and personal part of one's life and routine. It'd probably get me upset if another user somehow got me banned or it was the result of literally just arguing in the same manner another user does all the time. Hard to say.

There's one exception I would probably be vocal in advocating for...

Heat of battle passion, when there is an active and ongoing global military conflict and the person is a relevant stakeholder in one or more sides and is thus no longer operating (arguing) from a reasonable and logical mindset as is intended for this forum, but is instead operating from fight or flight adrenaline and emotion as their life and everything and everyone in it could be severely impacted or killed as a result of said conflict being discussed.

That's what this last one was about, wasn't it?

Oh.. :sad:

I for one will be enjoying a few drinks and perusing his past works.

I have a feeling they are likely to increase in value.

I still think this place would benefit greater from an Arcade or word game section (something intellectual, even a daily "guess the word or scenario" thing but it's the first time I've seen a new major structural addition here so :party:

Ours could use improvement. In civil court, restitution and punitive damages to the plaintiff are the standard forms of resolution — Vera Mont

Can it now? Money and damages can be revoked/returned by man upon introduction of knowledge forthcoming/a larger picture. Life cannot.

I met a man today who claimed to know everything everyone was thinking. — trogdor

We all have base desires. Fears. Etcetera. "Common sense" some tote. A normal person with a normal brain can perhaps indeed be described as "predictable" assuming the variables of one's environment or the scenario are known. Thing is, they seldom are as things are not always what they seem.

Maybe this man is in fact a scholar or champion of understanding the human condition. Many successful advertisers/marketers are. Maybe he's just some idiot who judges persons and things by first glance and just happened to have been lucky so far. What does it matter? By even pondering this, is this not the essence of free will?

there is no biological reason why women should wear dresses and bake cookies or men should be the bread-winner or protector — busycuttingcrap

This perhaps could be challenged by replacing should with are inclined to, no?

Stereotypes, perhaps. But averaging all peoples, men are generally of larger muscle mass and perhaps as a result tire less. Life, regardless of the plush comforts of society or in the context of a single person alone on an entire planet, requires physical work. Whether the result of our current biological inclinations can be changed/altered (enter the taboo topic of "genetic trauma" which can be redeemed as the adaptability and salvageability of the human condition) does this not hold true?

Since everything occurs in time — Hanover

Or does it? How could one have ascertained that which encompasses all being without theoretically placing oneself outside of it... is this not how "time" was discovered and differentiate from the falsehood or "current understanding" that must have existed prior to its discovery? People fail to ask themself these questions.

Perhaps it simply goes undercover in times of ignorance, thus preserving itself from those who seek only gain with little to contribute or show after the fact, to be later salvaged by those preserved by the very same...

I like every character here, so to speak. This is a good "mix". I would be entertained if you all were simply sitting around discussing how terrible I am as a person. Perhaps it's like my old English teacher would say "Kid's easily impressed". Perhaps he was right.

As stated, the content is also high quality and thought-provoking so that's great as well.

Hi, this is an ancient form of deceit it took several thousand years of war and science to ascertain. It is called "being wrong". Please use this knowledge sparingly.

Is it useful to view human behavior this way? — Mikie

It created this thread, didn't it?

I love these threads. It is argued that Godlike omniscience can be "replicated" by knowing the state and position of every atomic particle on Earth. So, that bridge that is weak will collapse approximately at 1800 hours because due to the observed affect of its integrity from X cars that are scheduled to pass and knowing there is a large truck that is scheduled to pass over it (due to their being no current obstructions in route) that event can - in theory - be pinpointed precisely to the microsecond. Or that due to full analysis of someone's state of mind and knowing of an interaction or situation that will lead them to be at the bridge with a sledgehammer, they will be in a state of anger and destroy the bridge with it... Something like that. The ultimate or holy grail of AI, perhaps. It may not enslave humanity, but someone using it surely could. It only exists in theoretical discussion of course... or so we're told. :D

From the title of this post alone, all discovery becomes mute, annulled, voided. Truly a stark testament of the times in which we live where despite everyday use of things by those who could not reproduce said things themselves on request shamelessly use to profane the very notion of possibility itself. It truly boggles the mind.

As someone who actually works with stories and writing, I can tell you, it's not easy. — Christoffer

Sorry, I meant from an abstract programming design point of view as to what constitutes "a story". I believe you.

You still cannot generate something that flows as a story with just a basic input/output mechanic as you described before. — Christoffer

I'm suggesting, again from a programming point of view (I am doing that as we speak) that one can easily program the very intricate subtleties of what makes a great story following a relatively multipurpose and reusable (hence simple) coding function. That is to say it is physically possible for someone with enough time and expertise to create such a function, albeit not like what we see here.

Creating a great story takes skill, however I do believe in the idea that many things can be simplified yes it does lose defining qualities but still keeps its "essence" or innate quality ie. accuracy. What is a plot? Something happening. Some things are unlikely or simply cannot happen depending on the constants of the query ie. a story about a fish cannot take place in a bank but can underwater. Your request "write a story about why X doubts Y can be Z" for example.

X = Me
Y = robots
Z = must be (V)
V = only inputs and outputs (not equal, less than something)

Known (conflict): X believes Y is (Z)
Action (intro): Create reason why X believes Z about Y

Plot Options (resolution): X changes state (doubt to belief)/Y changes state (perceived to be/not be V)

Known: Y is a robot that is/is not Z.
Action (resolution): X meets a robot that is in fact Z.

Plot Options (filler): X (gradually, of course) changes state (doubt to belief)

Ending: Lesson learned, conflicts resolved.

I believe you wholeheartedly as to the complexities of the art of storytelling. Just, as I've been accused of on more than one occasion, sometimes, you really can just throw in witty things other people have said where it seems to fit and get a standing ovation. I have much respect for stories and their tellers. This could not be farther from anything other than a general observation applied under the context of programming philosophy. However yes I did hear a quote once that stuck with me. "Movies are designed for two audiences: male and female. Male-oriented movies the viewer is "chasing" something (Indiana Jones and the treasure, Borne Identity and the antihero). Female-oriented movies the viewer is "protecting" something (Titanic and the relationship, The Notebook and "eternal love", etc). We all have base emotions/fears/goals that don't take a lifetime of studying the human condition to know how to target.

I generally get the sense that you play the "unimpressed" person for some reason, like if the engineers who worked on this didn't achieve something monumental as a milestone for AI. — Christoffer

I think it's important to keep perspective. Perhaps it's only natural for man to belittle that which he fears or doesn't understand. I much enjoyed conversing with you, hope to again soon.

While I get your argument on how it structures its inputs, I don't see how this type of story output is merely the result of basic commands. This type of text requires more than just putting definitions together in a pre-defined structure. — Christoffer

Stories are generally easy. This does seem to very accurately establish the "premise" and integrate it completely as opposed to just wrapping a cliche tale around a vague "inputs and outputs" theme that barely has any relevance except by chance. Or basically replacing Jack with (your name here) and throwing in a random place, set of characters, plot from a predefined list.

Every story has a plot. That is something being discovered or something being resolved. Most all stories will fall into one of the two categories so it becomes a matter of defining what the subject is with as much details and relevant plot scenarios to go along with as possible.

Tell it I know what it did last summer.

Really that is impressive, but like I said earlier it's just commands. This particular response seems to involve "hardcoded" specifics specifically created to respond to its own integrity. I'm sure the developers even refer to it and related mechanisms as its "identity" in more than one internal references.

As a developer, here's what I see:

• $paragraph1 (establish/identify premise/main argument and subjects)
• $paragraph2 (define terms, correlate similarities between subjects)
• $paragraph3 (reaffirm similarities, attempt to bridge differences, correlations, validate main argument)
• $paragraph4 (confirm facts both supportive and opposing of both arguments ie. summarize)

Like I said, fancy. No argument there.

So the question is, what would a world look like where software could be as easily written as this forum post? — Christoffer

It is. I suppose you mean broken down, universalized, and simplified to the point of basic sentence structure. Words are words. Just a few can rival or "defeat" an argument that takes up a library full. This is not the same of commands, which is what code is. If it does anything useful or complex, it will be lengthy and equally complex. Is this not simply swapping out nomenclature for much of the same only simpler?

Furthermore, as-is ChatGPT seems little more than a fancy dictionary that pulls up a list of related terms or concepts than bridges them together with language relevant to the structure of the original query. We already had AskJeeves in 1996. Looks like Jeeves finally got his GED. 30 years later. :yawn:

-wrong thread-

So, my point is that if we wish to extract the good from free speech, instead of treating free speech like a holy rite, we have to have institutions that are willing to enforce rules on that speech (much like our world class mod team here). — Hanover

I'll bite. What if slavery was legal. Or some other "one-day-to-be" widely condemned practice or belief that goes on commonplace in society that we have yet to determine is grossly inhumane.

Legally (last I checked) if I wanted to I could create a self-hosted private website or blog stating that I dislike "X people" and think they do not deserve to exist. This is passive. Generally speaking if it were active ie. actively recruiting others into a tangible collective that creates real and imminent danger to "X people", that is no longer free speech. Similar to how people can die if you shout "fire" in a crowded theater or that a random stranger on the street just sexually assaulted your child. Interestingly enough even telling someone you know cannot fight that another person who is extremely skilled in fighting is calling them very offensive names, or slept with their wife, etc. All these things can get people killed. "Free speech" is a relative amendment of an absolute, that absolute being "right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness". It is conditional and only exists when the absolute is present and not obstructed.

Moreover, the difference between the online environment and real life is in public (not private homes or establishments that many people mistake as true "public areas") there are the following laws along the lines of: "inciting a riot" (that guy's a terrorist!), "disturbing the peace" (shouting offensive things), "assault" (yelling in someone's face or stating intent to harm), "harassment" (anything short of the aforementioned) that can pretty much shut you up in any and all scenarios where said speech would become a problem (ie. the relative does not exist because the absolute is not applicable). This is a real legal action performed with an authorized law enforcement officer and the person directly in the real world. This would get complicated with said "world" being nothing more than a series of 1's and 0's that anyone can manipulate and "officers" who may or may not ever be known or exist.

A functional human brain free of disease knows what is moral and immoral long before it is fully developed. It is ingrained and hard coded.

A baby cries until it is nourished or cared for. Simple hunger or not.

Normal children don't cry when they get what they want. Normal children don't laugh when they are physically punished or harmed.

You don't smile when you're excluded or singled out or scammed, robbed, injured, or lied to.

Any response that starts with "a psychopath" or along the lines of "well what if I like being injured" is not applicable as yes, sometimes the human body and components can be "broken" or made to become so.

The only thing is "the lesser of two evils" ie. "the trolley problem". We don't know the consequences of our actions. The degenerate who picks a fight with you at a bar might go on to save the president of the country or cure cancer- somehow. Or he might go on to ruin or take the lives of more people than you can count. Who's to say what would or would not have happened by choosing to walk away from it, resulting in him continuing to live, and more specifically whether or not it was "moral" or "immoral".

Note this does not include cognitive bias hypocrisy ie. a child being raised to kill others because they're "bad" and so "it's good" and knows only praise and reaffirmation in doing so or social norms with said hypocrisy ie. slavery.

I assume religious writings are written by very few and are treated as truth largely just within the faith? — TiredThinker

That's one possibility I haven't a way to prove or disprove (as opposed to the "widespread popular culture/everyone's talking about it" way some believe).

In this particular case (the Bible) I believe it is true the purported sources (apostles, kings, prophets) even those in relatively menial occupations all had some "reputation" about them that set them apart from "just anybody". This of course was a time when information was heavily controlled especially literature. It is highly possible any of the texts we read today are simply not the same.

In my view, it's not something we're ever going to know therefore takes second priority. So as far as names of popular religions they are simply cultural terms to describe the alleged divine works of non-human entities, typically portraying a message to humanity from a benevolent being or beings regarding ways one should or must live. Rather, the observation and following of such wishes or commands in one's life as absolute truth or highest priority.

There is some disconnect between discussing religion purely philosophically. Many people who associate as following a certain religion are fundamentalist in nature to the point of myopia. They literally claim to believe in a divine being that can "do anything" and is superior yet think every possible detail or event regarding said being was forcefully written on paper for their leisure. This is the frustration I get most people feel when attempting to engage in philosophical discourse with religious people. "In the beginning..." - the beginning of what? Eternity? The 9 millionth planet this alleged omnipotent being can create at any time decided to make? ... people don't think.

Is it common that religious books write about historic events that there may not be evidence to support that they ever happened? — TiredThinker

Probably, but that's not really relevant if you classify evidence as this grand, incorruptible concept in which any proof of an occurrence that isn't literally written across the observable galaxy and out of reach of the destructive and manipulative hands of man "may not be evidence". I can catch someone murdering a man in my front yard. Just because I can't guarantee the photo I just took or the body I'm staring at in front of me "may not" exist 1,000 years from now doesn't mean I should just go back inside and take a nap now does it?

Either way if you're living in a mud hut and everybody you know in your mud hut town starts saying something incredible happened- it's probably relevant enough to jot down, wouldn't you say?

How exaggerated do religious texts get to tell a story for people to put faith into? — TiredThinker

Some say religion creates its own god or as atheists say Man created God. I can write down words on paper of any degree of accuracy I wish. Only until entire civilizations internalize one or more assertions or claims within over a prolonged period of continual self-propagation independent of my own doings can these words written down on paper be considered "religious texts".

Whether or not events in a book centered around a figure known for metaphors and non-literal euphemisms happened literally or not, entire civilizations lived and died as if they did. ie. The reality where an event did happen and the reality where an event did not happen become one and the same. The only difference between an alleged event having occurred or not having occurred exists solely before the event did or did not take place. The non-occurrence becomes the occurrence for all intents and purposes. Confirmed religious texts are absolutely fascinating as far as sociology and psychology of those before us and even our very own, if nothing else.

I am qiute a bit offended by many people — god must be atheist

Ah, the universal gateway to higher learning. I don't think any great mind started at another point of origin. Just an observation :)

To the point, contrary to popular belief, empathy is simply the ability to understand reality. Lack of it is not an "asset" or something "earned" or worked toward it is simply an intrinsic part of the logical process that is missing. In contemptuous individuals. pity is simply that nagging reminder that everything you thought you've gotten away with still exists and is being accounted for, if not in and by your own mind and if one ever ends up in such a state it is truly deserved and no being real or imagined would have anything to say to you as a result other than it is what you desired and chose to spend your time and energy to create. It is also a harrowing glimpse into the future of said individuals if I have anything to say about it.

The comparison is ridiculous. Deliberately? — Vera Mont

Indeed. However it is not about the comparison, what one should make note of are the underlying consistent truths present in both examples. You or I may be able to see them showcased in such an absurd scenario, I'm sure most do. But when blanket claims of morality or any subject for that matter begin to be thrown around and huddled against for intellectual warmth one is inclined to believe said blanket cannot ever harbor or become an incubator for, that which is counterintuitive to its purpose.

It wasn't a counter-argument or retort more of a request for the views of a poster I admire that may or may not help in clarifying OP's stance on one or more things, which at present seems to be unclear.

Seems to me you are simply choosing to ignore the definition of a well-known word for some arbitrary- perhaps philosophically provocative- reason. This is not-so-veiled nihilism pure and simple.

Moral claim: "I wish to cause the least harm to the greatest number of people possible".

What is wrong with that moral claim? — Benj96

Quantity over quality. Similar to mistaking sound for substance. ie. "I would prefer to destroy the least amount of schools as opposed to the most amount of brothels because destroying buildings is generally considered immoral therefore it is the moral choice to make", etc.