Report to Greco by Nikos Kazantzakis. — javi2541997

The thing that surprised me the most in this Kazantzakis novel (which is autobiographical) is how he struggled with spiritual crises or existentialism. He tried to follow Christianism, and he even did a pilgrimage to Desert Sinai. However, he ended up disappointed with religion and particularly Christianism. I liked the book. It was a pleasure to read the personal goals, failures, disappointments, and lessons of such an amazing novelist.

--------------------

Now, currently reading: Spring Flowers, Spring Frost by Ismail Kadare.

Wow! This sounds incredibly magical and worthy to pursue. I don't know how to help you with Susan Sarandon's permission (perhaps @Jamal does), but don't doubt for a second that I will be by your side, friend. :cool:

But you are already super creative, Baden!

How can't you dare to re-enter? What would Wolfgang say in your absence? What about the short-story activity? You have always shown a tremendous skill in creativity there.

:up: :smile:

Joining here and becoming a contributor to The Shoutbox was one of the greatest decisions I made in the last few years.

Ten years already! Although I am not one of the Emeritus Fathers-founders of TPF, nor have I been here since the beginning, I embrace your feelings about the ten-year milestone. :smile: :party:

Over the weekend, almost seven million people in several thousand communities here in the US got together to celebrate our anniversary...among other things. — T Clark

I knew you would not disappoint me. :cool:

Gracias, señor. — 180 Proof

De nada, tío Proof. :cool:

Happy 10th anniversary, folks. :wink:

Only our "idea of" is unreal, "we" as in humans organisms/species are real. — ENOAH

What about the idea I have of humans as organisms/species? Is it too unreal? Furthermore, if I have something on my mind, I think this has to be real in some parts, because my consciousness has already given it some existence.

The "unreal" is human consciousness or "mind," representations displacing the real aware-ing with desires, emotions, perception, ideas, etc. — ENOAH

So, according to this, our idea or image of reality may be biassed by our perceptions or emotions, which might mean that it is actually non-real, right?

Being, just is. — ENOAH

How can I be myself without consciousness? My being can exist, but I think the mental concept or awareness of existing is also required.

So how does the phenomenological exercise get you to that, Real consciousness? It can't. But it gets you so close it becomes at the very least, the dream of a possibility. You only access real consciousness when you're being real consciousness. — ENOAH

I think this is very intriguing.

What do you mean by "real"? Because, reading carefully this paragraph, it seems that there could be non-real/hallucinatory/dreamlike consciousness. If this is the case, how can we distinguish? I believe that our ego is always real based on your definition of reality, but at times, our consciousness may not be. There are multiple situations where Cogito is located, but it is challenging to find out which of the different versions of myself is actually real. I do not think reality is dependent upon consciousness.

I've added the note: NO AI-WRITTEN CONTENT ALLOWED to the guidelines and I intend to start deleting AI written threads and posts and banning users who are clearly breaking the guidelines. If you want to stay here, stay human. — Baden

Well-put! :up: :100:

Honestly, the decay of some empires is a good example of how you used it. However, I personally think that the economic shrinkage came afterwards, and it wasn't a cause of Roman Empire decay. Furthermore, according to a large number of historians, the decay was produced by many things, but most importantly the division in half of the empire in the early 300s AD.

You claimed that the economy of the Roman Empire stopped growing and then decayed. But this only happened to the Western Roman Empire, while the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) endured until 1453 – the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire.
So there had been many more causes and reasons for why those empires decayed. Subsequent territories underwent significant and gradual economic growth. Look at Italy or Turkey, for instance.

I have never claimed that economic growth is infinite. I know that it can shrink at some point. But, in general terms, both GDP and GDP per capita gradually grow in most of the modern economies.

However, suppose that instead of starting its decline in 180 AD, the Roman Empire had continued to grow its GDP at around 3% per year (a growth rate which most modern economists would be happy with) until the present day, a period of 1845 years. The total size of the Roman economy would now be 4e+23 times larger than its starting point, or if you want it in more traditional notation, 400000000000000000000000 times larger. So all things considered, it's probably a good thing that the Roman economy began to shrink when it did. — Peter Gray

Could you please share your thoughts on why you believe economic growth might need to stop at some point? You claim that otherwise, it would not be logical that, if the Roman Empire never ended, its GDP would be around 4e+23 times larger than its starting point. The Roman Empire expanded into a lot of territories, and a large population was involved. Thanks to its power and economic stability, the Roman Empire was the main promoter of civilisation. I can´t see how effective to the Western world was the moment when Roman economy began to shrink. Furthermore, there are some countries whose GDP has grown exactly that percentage since their creation, like the USA or modern Japan.

Maybe we could say gradual economic growth rather than perpetual, because I guess you see it as inconvenient since there is nothing that can last forever.

What I’ve learned in comparing the forum with a.i. is that, unfortunately, the majority of participants here don’t have the background to engage in the kinds of discussions I have been able to have with a.i. concerning a range of philosophers dear to my heart, (such as Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze, Gendlin and Wittgenstein), especially when it comes to comparing and contrasting their positions. — Joshs

I include myself in those who don’t have the background to engage in the kinds of discussions you seek. I joined this site to learn and exchange my ideas with the rest, and fortunately, I always felt welcome here. However, I understand that philosophers with a high background like you want more substantial analysis in the threads. It is comprehensive. I am sorry on my behalf.

As long as I see it, this is not about preventing the use of AI by most of you. It is obvious that a large number of members actually use it every day. I think I also use AI because QuillBot proofreads my grammar before I post here, but it doesn't think and write for me. This is the whole point: avoid threads and posts which are likely to be written and developed by ChatGPT or other similar AI. What I learnt in this forum is that dialogue between us is very important, and thanks to this, I learnt a lot. Otherwise, if I wanted to trust more in an AI, I would have used Google since the beginning before joining here.

Therefore, the logical inference is that perpetual economic growth is impossible and that at some point the economy must stop growing. — Peter Gray

It is true that economic growth sticks at some point. It happened with the 1973 oil crisis or the 2008 worldwide mortgage crisis. There has always been (and probably will always be) recession. Some countries experience it more dramatically than others due to countless circumstances and reasons.

However, I do not think that perpetual economic growth is illogical. It isn't, actually. We can see many examples that corroborate this. These examples range from the increase in wages during the mid-19th century to the current era of globalisation. Supposedly, the GDP and other economic factors should grow gradually. Otherwise, the nation would be unhealthy and poor, which would indicate a serious problem rather than simply being illogical.

On the other hand, the fact that an economy could stop growing at some point does not mean that it might not still grow in the near future.

So sure, it's not like anyone can stop it anyway. — Forgottenticket

It is being stopped here.

I was under the impression that intelligence of ANY kind had already been banned on this site. — Ciceronianus

Take it easy, Marcus Tullius.

Fortunately, TPF is already very restrictive regarding the use of AI, and the site rules were tightened specifically in response to this modern problem. :smile:

Congratulations to László Krasznahorkai for being awarded with the Nobel Prize in Literature 2025. :clap:

“For his compelling and visionary oeuvre that, in the midst of apocalyptic terror, reaffirms the power of art.”

László Krasznahorkai.

:up: :up:

However, some people won't recognize this because the tentacles of AI have already trapped them.

Nowadays, there is an increased focus on the finished result, without much regard for how it has come about. This has so many negative consequences. — baker

Yep, exactly. :up: :up:

The problem with modal moral quandaries generally is that one can always make them impossible to solve.That's why they make for long and often tedious threads. — Banno

Isn't this wonderful? :wink:

What's the difference between buying a book at Amazon vs buying it at a bookstore, vs having ChatGPT make me one? — RogueAI

I think there are important differences.

First, a book is a very personal art creation. Every chapter has details and sparks of the author's identity. This is what makes some books more iconic and worth remembering than others. A book written by an AI lacks the author's unique identity, and if you feel any emotional connection, it is merely the AI replicating ideas from various sources.

On the other hand, we should never leave the power of our imagination behind. Try to write a book, poem or haiku by yourself. It is a satisfactory pleasure. It is not necessary to be a professional to write your ideas and imagination on paper. However, if we let the AI do that for ourselves, we will gradually lose the magic of creation. Although we already live in a mediocre time regarding art, AI would be the last nail of our coffin. But it is not too late—we can stop it and believe in ourselves again.

Lastly, everything seems innocent now. It is just an advanced AI recollecting information from here and there with a lot of accuracy. Yet we should not trust too much in it. We let them write books, laws, and constitutions, and in the end, we will be ruled by them. Perhaps what I say sounds like a dystopia. But it sounds more real than ever...

Report to Greco by Nikos Kazantzakis.

Why is that wrong? — RogueAI

Because it is gradually degenerating our power to imagine and create.

On AI progress; as I say javi2541997, I use AI daily to help me with work and personal tasks, as do my friends. Why don't you think it counts as progress? — Mijin

Well, if you use it as a tool, I think it will not be a real issue after all. I am sceptical towards AI because it surpassed the ability to think and create of some people, and I think it is a bit dangerous. For example, I am a non-native English speaker, and I like to check my grammar on QuillBot because it helps me to learn, and it is fun how this bot works. Nonetheless, I remember using ChatGPTto proofread my grammar once, and it totally changed the sense and meaning of my text without asking for it. I have never asked for help in English since then.

Therefore, based on what I experienced using ChatGPT, I believe that some works that depend on human creativity and effort may be at risk. It would be nice if it helped me to find some inspiration. For example, if I say, 'Hey, AI, give me some advice on children's literature because I want to write a book.' Such an arrangement would be acceptable. It just helps me. But I see it wrong if I ask the AI to write a children's literature book by itself, with me being the one who writes the prompts.

It has been used in the wrong way!! The solution: We write, and it helps us with prompts.

Exactly.

For the reasons above expressed, I do not see AI as something as important as some people do. It is an important, sophisticated programme, yes. But it has its own limits, and we should be careful when we use it. You gave a good example regarding the spiral of negative thoughts that the AI can lead some users into. However, there is also a sensitive issue regarding our personal data. I think some people provide a lot of personal and private information. For example, some individuals share details about their relationships or disclose whether they have a mental illness. Such behaviour is very dangerous, and I am happy that the EU is legislating on this matter, fortunately.

but you could probably argue that the current day has the most inequality than any other point in history if you consider the massive wealth of certain people. — ProtagoranSocratist

Is there more inequality now than in the past when 1850s children (for example) didn't have the chance to study because this was reserved for only the wealthiest? I honestly think that the world, with nuances, has progressed enough in most of the countries. However, I would not consider AI as progress; that is what seems to argue.

Your first post is really nice, and welcome to the forum. Enjoy your time here.

As you stated, most of the "AIs" are like mirrors reflecting our questions. It is clear that these tools or machines lack consciousness. However, the real problem is to precisely ask an AI to answer something. I think most of the people fell into this trap. The more information we provide to an AI, the worse off we are. We will gradually lose our ability to reason. The best solution is to try to find out the answers by ourselves rather than ask a cold machine what we would like to read or hear.

frank, perhaps @BelegCZ uses it as a experiment to prove the dangers and risks of Artificial Intelligence.

@Nils Loc

First, I ended up with the conclusion that, for the reasons you expressed above, there are differences between yourself here, in reality, and then yourself in my dreams. It seems that the latter is like a hologram or a figure in a mirror that I should not trust in.

I can't agree with that. The fact that my mind may cheat me in my dreams is somehow true, but it is not always the case. As I said in the OP, the dreams were just an exact reproduction of myself interacting with you in TPF. I thought it was very real until I woke up, and I realised that I was dreaming. That it was a dream and now I am in "the real world".

Nonetheless, I tried to think of it more deeply. It is important to begin with the observer: Javi, me.

I understand that the Cogito has always received criticism from many philosophers after Descartes posed this point. Yet I think it was actually a good example. I think in both reality and dreams; therefore, I am. Then, I exist.

Now that we are at this point, it is important to ask ourselves if everything around us exists as well. I don't want to jump in the rabbit hole of whether the external world is mind-created or exists with independence from us.

My point is that I think you exist because in different mental states you caused certain experiences and feelings in me. I think this is more than necessary to prove your existence. I don't care if you're real or a figment of my imagination; your source of existence is clear: experience.

Then if the observer gives as existent the perceived. Why do we need more to prove someone else's existence?

Interesting thoughts and post. It is late here, and I am tired as hell, so my brain is a bit off. I need to rest and sleep to heal my mind. I did a lot of things today. I promise I will answer you with a more elaborate reply tomorrow morning. Furthermore, I want to think about it more deeply before answering.

As a forethought, I will explore and discuss your perspective on why the people in real life differ from the people that appear in my dreams. I think it is plausible that I can experience the same thing twice in both living and dreaming. But I am sleepy, and I can't elaborate on this for now. Until tomorrow! :wink:

I’m confused. Above you say that an act of remembering makes something non-fiction but below you write that remembering the past makes it fiction. — Joshs

Pardon. What I tried to explain is that fiction and non-fiction sometimes interfere with each other. My past experiences are not fictional, but if I were a writer, I guess I might use some "fiction" to write a plausible story.

Their style of thinking is not linear. — Joshs

Are you really sure? Imagine for an instance you dream of a friend or family member of your childhood. They randomly appear in your dreams, after years of missing. I guess you could not say that you dreamt of unknown people or that your dream was bizarre. Precisely. Thanks for your memories; you can link those people to the source of your experience. That was what happened to me. I literally dreamt that I was interacting with members of this forum, and the thinking was very "linear". The disappointment came when I woke up and realised that everything was a dream, but look, here we are having a written interaction with each other. It is not very different from the dream I had.

What’s the difference between dreaming about me and being a novelist who writes a story with me as one of the characters? — Joshs

The second is fiction, while the first is an act of mind remembering (while I am sleeping) people I know and whom I interacted with. Furthermore, a novelist is conscious that what he writes is fiction. The level of realism varies by the type of novel, as some novels can be very realistic; however, most narratives still involve fictional elements. A dream is, in most cases, a reproduction of what we experienced before. They are sometimes bizarre and incoherent, but these are the exception.

Novelists often say the characters come to life and tell them what they want to do. Do you think a novelist distinguishes between the reality of their dreams and that of their writerly imagination? — Joshs

This is a very complex question to answer. I have not met a professional writer yet, but I tried writing some short stories to post them here in TPF. So, speaking from my experience, I can tell you that both paths intersect. I remember writing a short story about a summer day with a friend of my childhood whom I have never seen afterwards.

The characters (my friend and me) were, at the same time, both real and fictional. They were real because we exist, and I can prove that without doubt, but they were also fictional because I wrote a short story when we were toddlers, and we are no longer like that. Therefore, I can assume that a past version of myself is fictional. Furthermore, I admit that everything around us is more impressive when we are kids, so I guess my short story had fictional parts, even though I claimed that my work was based on a real-life story...

At least I was able to distinguish that my friend was real and that I put some "imagination" in our childhood memory.

Does my appearance in your fiction prove my existence? — Joshs

You haven't appeared in my fiction yet. :smile: You only appeared in both my reality (interacting with you right now) and in dreams. And yes, your existence is absolutely proven in these experiences.

My point was to note that there are people out there that would utilize your criteria to come to conclude that Zeus -- or maybe other, more plausible cosmic figures -- also exist. — Moliere

I understand. My arguments seem to be more transcendental than I thought.

Clearly I'm missing something. If the experience of interacting with me in a dream is the same as in reality, and I didn't cause your dream experience, then why believe i caused the real experience at all? At the very least it makes my status as cause suspect. — hypericin

You are assuming that dreams are necessarily caused by something or someone. Didn't you ever think that we just dream because our minds simply do so? That our mind deploys such located data like a flower expels pollen?

I attach relevance and importance to the fact that I experienced exactly the same thing both dreaming and awake. For this reason, I may approach a basic notion: you (the person whom I interact with) exist.

Have you ever noticed that when you try to make sense of a dream strictly on the basis of remembered perceptual data (the identification of people, things and the actions that are being performed, like flying) the narrative of the dream appears bizarre and incoherent? — Joshs

It is true that dreams and nightmares tend to be incoherent in most of the cases. They can deceive us, even though they are composed of information stored in our minds based on our experiences. Nonetheless, I personally believe that there are always some exceptions. My dream did not have anything incoherent nor bizarre. It was just about me interacting with you. I understand. You can say that I spent so many hours here, accumulating a lot of data, that it is obvious that you would appear in my dream. Yet, I also read a lot of Greek mythology or fantasy tales, and these characters do not show up in my dreams. My point is that their source of existence is missing in both my knowledge and consciousness. Then, I consider these characters as non-existent. But, since you appeared in my dreams looking very real, I guess your existence is plausible and my dream was more legit than bizarre.

Dont be too sure you’re dreaming about so and so just because the dream image looks like them. The feeling accompanying the image may lead you to someone else. And often, what starts out as one person morphs into someone else. Follow the feelings , not the images. — Joshs

Exactly by following my feelings, I came to the conclusion that you exist. :smile: I know that an image (like a mirror) can prove me wrong or cheat me.

:up: :up:

You're asking the eye to see itself. As always, it will go to work trying to give you the explanation you seek. — frank

Frank, I agree with all your post, and I see myself represented in it. Nonetheless, I don't seek for an answer. It is just that I realised something that is obvious but was hidden from me. That you exist. I don't think my thoughts are fallacious. Yes, it lacks better quality writing, but I follow Davidson's view on where my beliefs and rationality come from. I guess I refer to "source" when he talked about webs.

If it were then would it not be the case that God or Zeus is real for some, and not real for others?

That is, some would say that they have made an impact on them -- so just as I conclude that money is real so do I conclude that Zeus is real every time there's a lightning storm. — Moliere

It might be.

But I hardly see the possibility of dreaming with God or Zeus in any circumstances. I just can't see it as plausible, even with the fact they are anthropomorphised, and my mind should easily be able to locate them in my dreams. But, for some reasons, they don't appear in my real life nor in my dreams. Therefore, I believe their existence is highly unlikely.

My point is that some may argue that Zeus made an impact on him. But, upon serious reflection, does Zeus really interfere with people while they are asleep? I think this is key. For the moment, you (members of TPF) caused certain experiences, things, episodes, etc. in both my real life and dreams. Therefore, your existence is more plausible than Zeus'.

I agree, sort of.

First, I think I didn't claim that your existence made a cause in my dreams, and I did because I write a lot of word salad. I am sorry because it wasn't my intention. What I said is that the source of your existence seems legit to me because I had (literally) the same experience of interacting with you in both reality and dreams. For me, this is more than sufficient to claim that you actually exist. This is not about identifying a cause, but rather exploring the origin of why you influence certain experiences or stimuli in my life.

On the other hand, I even believe that my point would also be plausible if you were AI, because my argument is that I suggest you exist because you interfere in me. It is not possible to dream of God or Zeus because they never made an impact on me. But I consider it plausible to dream of you, Michael or Baden. Isn't this a good starting point to consider people real?