If we get the AIs working for us cleaning, washing, writing, cooking, gardening ... etc etc, we will have plenty of free time for sure. — Corvus

To do what with all that free time? Play videogames? Watch films, preferrably consisting of nothing but deep fakes?

It seems to be in the interest of the stakeholders in the AI business that people consume and dumb down. What is more, it seems to be somehow evolutionarily advantageous to be an avid consumer and to dumb down, as this is the way to adapt to modern society, and adaptation is necessary if one is to survive.

If you took the time to read what I wrote and at the linked dialogue with ChatGPT, I don't see why you would say it is a waste of time. — Wayfarer

That's in your mind. I never said it was a waste of time. I think it's a luxury very few can afford. And you're apparently among the lucky few. I've never even visited the ChatGPT website.

I did call something a waste of time today (if that is what caught your attention), but it wasn't about AI.

And I don't think I accused you of trolling.

Like here, and in private.

You responded to an OP I created on idealist philosophy with the accusation that I wanted to enjoy the fruits of Buddhism without paying any dues, or something along those lines.

Of course. I think you are approaching Buddhism from a safe distance. It's very common for Westerners to do so. This isn't a personal criticism against you, it's pertinent to religious epistemology.

I think you can be a very insightful and smart contributor but I think sometimes you tend to shoot first and ask question later, if you know what I mean.

This is a philosophy forum. Sapere aude!


And back on topic!

So the topic becomes that of individuation — Banno

Autonomy.

Do you agree with my prediction? — Judaka

No.

The situation with slavery shows that even though it is officially condemned, new forms of slavery are springing up all the same, perhaps even more pernicious, more insidious than the traditional forms.

This pattern can be observed elsewhere as well: there is an official, hyper-tolerant, politically hyper-correct doctrine about how we are supposed to think about things, and then there is the actual way people think about things and what kind of thinking they actually value. In regard to things such as racism, obesity, age, mental illness, ecology, traffic laws.

It doesn't seem it could be any different when it comes to meat, especially given the current foodie and general consumerist trends.

I was raised Catholic and educated for twelve years by Franciscans & Jesuits; most, if not all, of the "doctrines" I had "internalized" stopped making sense to me by age of fifteen (and still don't forty-five years later). — 180 Proof

What is the case for you isn't necessarily the case for everyone else. Your case doesn't prove anything much about the general pattern (which is what I'm talking about).

Nonsense, baker, is nonsense

I suppose externalizing like that can be really helpful.

But there are more ways to gain distance from something religious/spiritual other than declaring it nonsense.
I maintain that my way of distancing is less confrontational; certainly not as egoically aggressive and satisfying as declaring something religious/spiritual to be "nonsense". I like my way, it makes the religious/spiritual problem into a non-issue. It makes it into an "other people's problem".

whether "religious doctrine" or not – whether "internalized in childhood" or not. For instance (a famous historical example), Spinoza was excommunicated for not keeping to himself that the "doctrines" of Torah, which no doubt he had "internalized", did not make sense to him.

Lack of diplomacy and lack of pragmatical insight on his part.

All that by way of saying, folk can make stuff up? — Banno

You know it's more complex than that.

"Reincarnation" simply does not make sense, except as an article of faith (i.e. figment of imagination), without publicly specifying what exactly is allegedly "reincarnated". — 180 Proof

Religious doctrines, in order to "make sense" to a person, need to be internalized early on in life, or perhaps can be assimilated later only if the person is undergoing a psychologically intense period in their life.

It's not clear that it is possible to accept and internalize any doctrine/teaching/philosophy/ideology simply by reading a syllogism.

Not from scratch, though. A person born and raised into a religion that teaches reincarnation will have internalized it even before their critical cognitive faculties have developed. So such a person doesn't actually "make stuff up".
— baker

So, instead of making their own stuff up, they accept and introject the stuff that others have made up; stuff that has been canonized in their culture? — Janus

It cannot be said that what children do when they internalize the religious teachings of their parents and their community is an act of "choice" or conscious acceptance. Given that for children born and raised into a religion the exposure to religious teachings begins to take place even before the child's critical cognitive abilities have formed to the point of consciously being able to a make choices, to consciously accept or reject things, it's remiss to say that this is what is happening.

It's like with one's native language: it's not subject to one's choice, it "just happens".

How is it that old you is the same as young you - directly contradicting Leibniz’ Law
Chrysippus’ Paradox
101 Dalmatians
The ball of clay
Theseus' ship
London and Londres — Banno

The idea you both are suggesting is that it's not what one commonly calls one's self that is reincarnated, but a something else, a sort of essence...

But what that is remains undefined, or defined only by hand-waving. — Banno

This just illustrates what happens when one takes a concept out of its native context and tries to understand it and work with it regardless of said context. It's nonsense, and a waste of time.

To be clear, I'm not "advocating for reincarnation". In a broad sense, I'm advocating for semantic holism.

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone.
— baker

Could you plug it in? I'm not sure what to do with that! :smile: — creativesoul

First about gratitude:

It's a popular sentiment that children don't owe their parents anything, e.g.


Yet bearing in mind the premises in your OP, it's clear that one couldn't be where one is today were it not for one's parents, and that some akcnowledgement of this debt is in order.
Similar for one's teachers.

Another popular sentiment is to think of oneself as independent, as not having needed anyone in order to succeed, and taking pride in this. Similarly as above with parents and teachers, it's clear that such is not possible, and that a million things need to come together in order for a person to succeed, a million things over which the person has no control.

*sigh*
You accused me of trolling several times. I actually don't have much time at the computer, even less for the forum. Which is, apparently, not something you'd understand.
Your accusations made me feel like shit and made me doubt myself. And I've come to admire you and envy that you have so much time for all the topics I don't. On your throne, judging. Must be great.

Zombie nature is Buddha nature: empty. — praxis

And when the power runs out ... you won't even hum.

Most people truth it because they do not know what it is, once it's newness dies off people will quit caring. — Isaiasb

The question is whether the cognitive tendencies made worse by the use of technology will abate once they stop using the technology (so much).

Here I mean that those cognitive tendencies made worse by the use of technology like increased distractability, poor focus, lesser working memory, a decrease of learning abilities. Someone who relies a lot on technology will at some point become unable to function without it.

This is an ignorant take on the value of meditation. — Nils Loc

Serious Buddhist meditators meditate in order to realize nibbana, the end of suffering, through realizing paticcasamuppada. Statistically, this appears to be extremely rare.

In contrast, what usually goes on under "meditation" in popular culture is an act of zoning out, distracting oneself. And of course, distracting oneself, mentally checking out for a while can have positive effects. It's just not conducive to liberation from suffering.

If one can't escape being a robot, one might as well strive for robotic bliss (if it is real).

That's a horrible way to underestimate life.

I'm amazed by people who manage to get all their work done and still have time for things such as Chat GPT.

I signed up for ChatGPT the day it came out, used it every day since. — Wayfarer

Where on earth do you find the time for it??

It should start with dismantling it's apartheid regime and stop it's continuous well documented human rights violations. — Benkei

But Israel are God's chosen people! They are justified to do whatever they want.

Are you suggesting that self-awareness precedes awareness of the environment?

My point with the opiates, alcohol etc. is that it's not just any calm that will do for actually having peace of mind, but that it has to be the right kind of calm, arrived at the right way.
Drugs are not the right way.

Both actions are tolerated and respected by me. — javi2541997

It's possible to be so open-minded that one's brain falls out.

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling.. — creativesoul

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone.

However, AI devices will never be able to operate like humans do in terms of biological, social and mental life. — Corvus

But humans are very much on the way to operate like AI devices.

What if I imagine myself — Joshs

Can one really define oneself?

Your default notions of who you really are are not your own, but inherited from the society/culture you grew up in. So you cannot define your starting point, as that has been done by others already.

At some "personal defining juncture" however you choose to define yourself anew, possibly in contradistinction with your old, inherited idea of "who you really are", that new definition is still going to be in relation to your old one. So it seems that one cannot actually chose one's identity.

I think the concepts of "soul" and "disembodied consciousness" are similar, if not exactly the same. — Art48

They can't be, because one is from a religious context (pulling along all the connotations), and the other one is not.

So some impersonal entity, not me (i.e. not mine-ness), "gets reincarnated"? — 180 Proof

I would have thought you're all sufficiently informed about the reincarnation doctrine ...

To recap: A reincarnation doctrine like it can be found in Hinduism teaches that it is the soul that gets reincarnated. The soul is also who a person really is. But when the person is under the influence of maya, in a state of delusion, they don't know who they really are, and mistakenly identify themselves with their body, their mind, their feelings, or in relation to their possessions, their tribe.

So we make stuff up. — Banno

Not from scratch, though. A person born and raised into a religion that teaches reincarnation will have internalized it even before their critical cognitive faculties have developed. So such a person doesn't actually "make stuff up". Such a person conceives of themselves according to the doctrine of reincarnation: that who they really are is an eternal soul who inhabits a body, and that this body, the thoughts and feelings they have are not who the person really is, nor do they see themselves defined by their possessions, socio-economic status, tribal affiliation etc.


The bigger picture here is that who we think we are (including the abstract concept of what selfhood is) is something we have internalized long ago and take it for granted. Our notions of selfhood are something we become acculturated into even before our critical cognitive faculties have developed.

The latter is a more precise word: calm, or placid, mild, etc. — javi2541997

Opiates can give you a calm mind, too. Or alcohol, or junkfood, or a number of other things, depending on your conditions.

(A) taking customary questions and/or answers for granted (i.e. living somnambulantly)

(B) faith in miraculous answers which we do not know how to question (i.e. living religiously)

(C) contemplating fundamental questions which we do not know how to answer (i.e. living philosophically)
Your proposed "optimistic technopaganism", Bret, seems suitable for maximizing (A) & (B) – far more completely than any human religious tradition or mystical practice ever has – at the expense of minimizing / eliminating (C). Ramification of bio-physical law: paths (A & B) of least effort / action, especially when facilitated-amplified by orders of magnitude (re: OP's 'ubiquitious, continuous cognitive automation'), trump any path (C) of more-than-least effort / action; in other words, a species-wide cyber-lobotomy. — 180 Proof

Sure. And religion/spirituality has paved the way for this already.

Quite ironically, religions/spiritualities themselves sometimes criticize such an unthinking, unreflecting approach to religion/spirituality.

A.I can never have a soul or sentience. No matter what religion a person is, that idea is dumb. A bunch of 1s and 0s cannot be life — Isaiasb

Some people have great trust in technology, they trust it more than they trust people. So it's no wonder that the admiration of and reliance on technology can take on religious/spiritual connotations.

Bah.

I wonder if the past, in any sense, still exists. Or is the past utterly gone? — Art48

At least for those who still have to work and are at the mercy of employers and clients, the past very much exists.

There's a conceptual flaw in all this speculation. — Banno

And the flaw is in taking a concept (in this case, reincarnation) out of its native context.

The problem here is the same as that for reincarnation: what is it that is reincarnated?
/.../
If you returned to an earlier time, it would not be as an observer, but as that participant; nothing would or could be different.

The philosophical problem for reincarnation - and for the re-embodiment of the OP - is explaining the individuation of the self.

The Hindus have no problem with any of that. They explain that it is the soul that gets reincarnated; that thoughts, feelings, the body are not the self.

I don’t define morality with a split between society and self: I define it as simply what is right or wrong, period. I am not saying that whatever society says is the standard, nor the individual but, rather, that morality is the study of what is right or wrong (period). — Bob Ross

And with this view, how do you account for persons?

In what relation are persons to right and wrong?

Secondly, how do you explain that people disagree on what the moral facts are?

People disagree all the time. Why would that negate the possibility or existence of moral facts? — Bob Ross

It doesn't negate the possibility or existence of moral facts, but disagreement brings up problems of talking about moral facts, or anything else for that matter. Unless moral facts are somehow something that we can grasp directly, with direct insight, we probably need to learn what they are, and we do so through some kind of conversation with others.

If there is such a thing as a "moral fact", then it must exist somehow independently of persons.
How can people learn what the moral facts are?
How can people know that they have the correct knowledge of moral facts?
On the grounds of what should one person trust another to tell her what moral facts are?

I asked you what the purpose of health and happiness was, since you advocate for health and happiness.

You talk about freedom and redemption. I often ask people who talk about freedom to explain what they mean by it. One isn't just somehow "free" per se. One is free from something, or one isn't. And one is free to do something, or one isn't.
What are those things that one is free from? What are those things that one is free to do?

Don't mistake the carrot for the moon, as the saying goes. — praxis

That's a creative mix of two popular images!

If you do not yet understand that making life healthier and happier and more secure for the people living it as sufficient purpose, that video would not get you any closer to understanding it, so there's no point watching it. — Vera Mont

I'm challenging the widely held conviction that health and happiness are somehow worthy goals in and of themselves.

And, as I am not a certified philosopher, neither can I give you sufficient explanation.

Bummer.

I'm thinking of using Rashomon and As I Lay Dying as explications of the nondual perspectivist position. Both narratives give us the-world-for-characters. We never get the External Aperspectival World, and I've been claiming that such a thing is a round square, a seductive empty phrase, for we all get the world only as such characters. The world we know is the-world-for-characters. — plaque flag

I'm not disagreeing. But my worry is that such an outlook makes a person unfit for living in the world where people typically take for granted that there is an external aperspectival world (and that they have intimate knowledge of this world).

One can dismiss all those "Well, that's just your opinion but not the truth" only for so long until getting in trouble with other people.

Maybe I’ve been enclosed in my particular philosophical bubble for too long, but when I see a fundamental inquiry into the nature of things begin from “the universe” as its starting point, I can’t help but associate it with notions like flying spaghetti monster.

Shouldn’t concepts like universe be left as later constructions rather than as starting suppositions for basic philosophical questions? — Joshs

Not at all, unless we wish to suggest that we come from some other place than the universe.
Answering where we came from we can answer what and who we are and where we're going.

I don't see the ideas here as being necessarily "impersonalist." Conciousness arises from process. All process is ultimately interconnected, but we can still identify long term stabilities in process that account for different entities, and some entities are concious. When mystics talk about "oneness," they seem to be talking about something deeply personal. More "the universe in me," than the "me in the universe." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Reading your OP, I immediately recognized notions of impersonalism.

Impersonalism
A belief system that places little importance on individuals and their subjective viewpoints and experiences.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impersonalism

Impersonalism is the notion that ultimate reality is without any personal attributes.

https://gitadaily.com/the-ceiling-of-impersonalism-is-the-beginning-of-transcendental-personalism/

The term Advaita (literally "non-secondness", but usually rendered as "nondualism",[5][6] and often equated with monism[note 3]) refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real, while the transient phenomenal world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman. In this view, jivatman, the experiencing self, is ultimately non-different ("na aparah") from Ātman-Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.[3][7][8][note 4] The jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ātman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.[9]

In the Advaita tradition, moksha (liberation from suffering and rebirth)[10][11] is attained through recognizing this illusoriness of the phenomenal world and disidentification from the body-mind complex and the notion of 'doership',[note 5] and acquiring vidyā (knowledge)[12] of one's true identity as Atman-Brahman,[13] self-luminous (svayam prakāśa)[note 6] awareness or Witness-consciousness.[14][note 7] Upanishadic statements such as tat tvam asi, "that you are," destroy the ignorance (avidyā) regarding one's true identity by revealing that (jiv)Ātman is non-different from immortal[note 8] Brahman.

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

I suppose a core idea I wanted to get at was that this explains how our freedom as individuals can be so interconnected; how our fellow humans can empower or frustrate our efforts to be free.

But free from what, and free to do what?

Yes, I think it's just natural human diversity. Can you imagine living in a society where everyone agreed about everything?
/.../
The salient point about disagreement is that things, human experience, can be framed in various ways. Why should we expect there to be just one true way of framing things? — Janus

Disagreement is fine, as long as it is about trivial things. It's not fine once your job or your freedom is on the line.