On aimlessness, self expression, and purpose.

The feeling of aimlessness can be likened to being surrounded by various pools of water, and occasionally dipping one’s toes into one; these pools represent the different passions one can devote their lives to. As you age the people around you submerge themselves: some without a second thought. You never decide on one on the grounds that you might swim greater in another; the fear being that once you submerge yourself fully, you cannot return to idly sitting at the water's edge. Through the fear of devotion you end up depriving yourself from self-expression; so great is your fear of closing off just the option of exploring other avenues of purpose, that you unwittingly close yourself off to any purpose.

[removed]

The paradox of utopia I often find in literature and fiction that utopian societies are often based around one particular set of ideals or philosophies. Examples like bioshock, 1984, and we happy few are recent enough examples for context. And they either always fail, or looked on in a negative light. This is because the idea of a utopia for everyone is impossible. The idea of a utopia is in itself subjective. Everyone has different values and beliefs, wants and desires. Everyone has a different idea of a perfect world, of how things should be run, on what should and shouldn’t be done. And most ideas of a utopian society would be doomed from the start because within a society’s worth of people, there will always be those who have their own ideas. What is perfect to someone will not be the same as perfect to someone else.

Why do people entertain themselves with religious philosophy? The one I dislike the most is Buddhism because it has managed to cultivate this image of a peaceful philosophy that can lead an individual to happiness. But the issue is that like all religious philosophies they rely on non-rational means to knowledge, they rely on claims without evidence from scriptures and as a result they're no different than other religions in that they're all based on unsubstantiated and arbitrary propositions. Yet people treat them with intellectual kids gloves instead of telling them Santa and Buddha isn't real.

Absolute hours are hours above the 24 hour mark. Its absolute not because of quantity but due to the finite amount it can be divided into. We do not count passed 24 hours in a day; not because of earths rotation around the sun which gives us "day" and "night" but because that would require a single time keeper through the history of time, ultimately binding the world together by the same hour count from when the clock first begun. Do not confuse that for what we call "years", I'm talking about absolute hours.

I guess it’s simply because the faith comes from the belief. They believe it is true. They believe it is real. Their entire philosophy is built upon that belief. For them maybe it’s not entertaining themselves, it’s just out of pure belief that what was told will happen. And as much as facts are thrown at them, they don’t interpret them as facts, but instead as either nonsense or inconsequential to their truth.

Is the so-called "evolutionary humanism" is philosophy to be taken seriously? The German philosopher Michael Schmidt-Salomon even wrote a book entitled "Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism".

In my opinion it is even a contradictiion in terms.

On the one hand the theory of evolution, which tells us that Homo sapiens too is nothing else than an animal, an evolved living being like millions of others. If Sapiens also has specific characteristics that distinguish us from apes, for example, this is nothing unusual, since many species have such characteristics or abilities that are not found in other species, without this entailing a special position.

But this is exactly the basic idea of humanism: that man has a special position within nature. Classical humanism saw this special position in the fact that man alone connects the material world with the spiritual and divine worlds ; man therefore has a mediating role between the "above" and the "below".

Modern humanism is no longer based on the idea of the spiritual or even the divine. Nevertheless, it grants man a special position by ascribing to him a unique DIGNITY (from which then special "human rights" can be derived). This dignity distinguishes Sapiens - and only him ! - It marks the qualitative difference, the gap which separates the human being from the animal kingdom.

Here's a question for those who would deny that such a qualatitive gap exists: imagine a herd a migrating wildebeests somewhere in Africa. They cross a river and 50 of them drown. Now image a group a migrating humans, and 50 of them drown while trying to cross the Mediterranean or the Rio Grande. Is there a difference in value between the two accidents? The first incident is just something that happens every day in nature; animals are born, they surive, they die. But the death of 50 human migrants is not something in the category "things happen": is a tragedy. Because of special human dignity.

To sum it up: The evolution theory says: no special role / special position for the H.sapiens. Humanism says: yes, because only the human being, regardless of his abilities, has a special dignity.

Therefore the "evolutionary humanism" is a philosophical impossibility, the attempt of a squaring of the circle.

Evolution makes no claim about human worth either way. It's the scientific theory that explains the origins of humans, and human morality. Humanism is not a scientific theory, it's an assertion that humans have worth. We assert it because we're humans.

In this case humanism is the equivalent of racism, just on the level of species. We ascribe to ourselves a special human dignity just as white racists ascribe a special value to themselves. There is no justification behind this assertion, just pride (be it as a race or a species)

I have a bubble of faith that I go to when I require spirituality breaks, but all other times I work, contribute to society and no one knows what's in my Bubble because they don't need to. I find this method to work best and does not affect anything but myself it also allows me to be med free and truly happy

Aristotle claims that things that are true and just prevail over their opposites.

Do you agree with this? Do moral, factual arguments actually tend to prevail in mainstream society?

Comparing Heidegger to Husserl

Heidegger’s program of the destruction, and deconstruction, of metaphysics was critical of all past viewpoints. He addressed Kant's and Descartes’ notions of the subject-object relation: perception as being, being is perception, presence, perception of the given, existence is dasein is perception. Heidegger contrasts this view with his interpretation of Parmenides for whom thinking is being. Heidegger is on the phenomenological side, away from the empiricism of Kant's notion of perception encountering the given because he is critical of Kan't transcendental ego (so was Sartre for different reasons) which presumes a contentless consciousness that is filled by the actual. Heidegger does define phenomena as both being and intuition. The meaning of being is partly the correlation of the given and present with logos, with correct statements. For Heidegger, how the given is given constitutes the meaning of Being. For Heraclitus, the past is contrasted to the present, and Heidegger acknowledges this as relevant : facticity is our history. Heidegger however describes the historical facticity as thrownness and appropriation by death and/or forgetfulness and concealing. The event is the thrownness, the appropriation, i.e. lethe, therefore, alethiea is the unconcealing.

Heidegger's notion of phenomenology is 'to the issue itself' which is consciousness. The question is how time, the 3 ekstases, provide horizons of meaning. Although time itself, the temporal structure, is being, how does time affect the event and alethia? The main issue in Heidegger is the relation between Dasein and Being where Dasein interprets its own being in terms of other objects. Heidegger claims that Dasein has a mistaken or inauthentic self-conception; Dasein understands its own being in terms of the world. Heidegger is concerned to differentiate Dasein from the world - the attributes of Dasein are called existentialia and the properties of objects are categories. Existentialia, the ontological structural concepts of existence in the world, refers to the modes of being-in-the-world where Dasein is related to other Daseins by care, and related to objects which are either ready-to-hand (the mode of use) or present-at-hand (the mode of contemplation). Being-in-the-world is always being with others - there is no isolated I. Being-with-others, or thrownness, may alienate Dasein from its true self. Care gives rise to the tendency to be like others and in subjection to others. The loss of autonomy is to the 'they' (das man) - defending one's independence is a heavy burden. Heidegger distinguishes the they-self from the authentic self; the latter 'falls' to the they-self and fails to stand by its own possibilities. The falling movement of becoming is the dominant state of being that belongs to man: falling into inauthenticity. Absorbed in a world is Dasein's not-Being. Fallenness has the appearance of a secure and genuine mode of existence. Anxiety, however, is the opposite of the tranquilization of the they; anxiety individualizes Dasein as the sense of not-being-at-home which Heidegger claims is Dasein's union with its own deepest selfhood.

Husserl’s conception of consciousness is: "Consciousness, considered in its ’purity,’ must be reckoned as a self-contained system of Being, into which nothing can penetrate, and from which nothing can escape; which has no spatio-temporal exterior, and can be inside no spatio-temporal system; which cannot experience causality from anything nor exert causality upon anything ..." (Ideas, Collier Books, p. 139).

"Because consciousness is self-contained, the method for studying it must exclude all reference to the outside world. The method will reveal the essential, universal structures of consciousness which determine the universal meanings or appearances things have. In other words, this method will illuminate the universal life-world, the essential structures of absolute historicity, namely, those of a transcendental community of mankind." (Crisis, p. 259)

This method is transcendental phenomenology, the epoche; Husserl contrasts it to all other views which do not take consciousness by itself, in its absolute subjectivity, and which include reference to the external world when considering consciousness. Carl Ratner, 1974, Review "The Crisis Of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology."

For Heidegger, language is the true agent of history - the disclosure of truth is the work of language. Poetry is the essence of language. The essence of art is poetry. Heidegger, Basic Writing, "The Origin of the Work of Art." Sheehan, 1997, writes, "For Husserl, Heidegger's analysis of preconceptual understanding of Being is not the product of true phenomenological investigation and description, and it creates rather than eliminates obscurity. So when Heidegger asserts, "We understand Being, but as yet we lack the concept," Husserl exclaims, "We lack it? When would we need it?" For Husserl, it was an irrelevant, unnecessary quest. The quest Heidegger so ardently pursued for the meaning of Being, a quest that dominated his philosophical life, leading him later into the philosophy of Nietzsche, into reflection on the "origin" of the work of art, into explicating the poetry of Hölderlin and down "forest paths" without end, (Adorno exclaimed to Horkheimer in the early 30’s, ‘Heidegger is on our side, he believe in ‘false paths’!’ Husserl would say, had he lived to see it, was a dead end, only a way of getting bogged down in subjective reflection instead of making a solid and positive contribution to philosophy."

Yes, unless you believe all the conspiracy theories...

Like 25+ hours in a day? You must live in the Arctic circle.

this is so bad man holy crap. please read some philosophy, please.

Racism is not the statement that "we are deserving of valued" it's the statement that "they are not deserving of being valued".

It's the opposite thing, and it's incoherent. Where as the humanist says human life is valuable, the racist says that human life is and is not valuable.

holy crap that reply you got is messed up, and it's upvoted. is this sub always so bad?

did you read the book, or did you literally read the title and just imagine that that's all there was to it.

literally 4 second google says they care about humanist values in an evolutionary context. Context =/= values.

wait... do you think no one who believes that natural selection exists can have morals. ffs.

I’m confused. If people fall for those conspiracy theories, then doesn’t that prove him wrong?

I entirely agree, but Nineteen Eighty-Four is not really an example of a utopia that failed. Towards the end of the book we learn that Ingsoc, the ideology behind the society of Oceania, was never utopian at all. The destruction of all beauty and pleasure, the self-perpetuating misery endured by pretty much everyone, is all a feature, not a bug. It's a case of systematically making things worse and worse, deliberately.

>'The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.' [O'Brien] paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: 'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'
>
>Winston thought.
>
>'By making him suffer,' he said.
>
>'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but MORE merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy--everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always--do not forget this, Winston--always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever.'

Then we find out why on earth anyone would want to do such a thing.

>'You are ruling over us for our own good,' [Winston] said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore----'
>
>He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.
>
>'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'
>
>He pulled the lever back and continued:
>
>'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'

To Winston Smith's horror, he learns that the founding impulse behind the entire ideology is no deeper or more meaningful than the sadistic delight of a cruel little child pulling the legs off a spider, to make himself feel like a god.

Whereas Nietzschean will-to-power is in the best sense about self mastery and self overcoming, here is the will-to-power of the pathetic bully whose only way to feel powerful is to inflict torture on others. It's a whole class of such sad characters, in this case.

Yeah, Nineteen Eighty-Four is quite the read.

You’re the first mate on a Titanic like ship that went down in the cold northern atlantic. Yourself, some other sailors, and the captain are on life rafts in the water. Surrounding your rafts are 100 passengers (equal thirds of them being 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class passengers) in the water, but unfortunately you only have 70 spots available on life rafts. You need to choose a system that will decide which passengers get a spot on a raft and which ones are going to die in the water from the cold and fatigue

The captain comes up with two systems

System one: For some reason somebody brought the bingo raffle cage along with them, and a sharpie. You go to each swimming passenger and draw a unique number on each of their foreheads. Then the captain will draw numbered balls from the raffle cage to choose which passenger gets a seat. Although it is completely random, this system does take a while and during the proceedings 33 passengers slipped into the water and died. 67 passengers were randomly saved but 3 seats went unused.

System 2: Whoever can give the captain the most money from whatever they had in their wallet at the time will get a seat. This means that most of the wealthy 1st and 2nd class passengers will get a seat while basically all of the poor 3rd class passengers will die. It’s a faster system so all 70 spots are used but the captain gets to make a lot of money by poaching the pockets of desperate passengers.

The captain knows its not a good look if he picks system 2 so he leaves the decision up to you the first mate, which system will you choose?

System 1: purely random but slow, 3 seats are unused and 33 random passengers die

System 2: the wealthy get spots on the raft, 30 poor people die in the water, and the captain gets a fist full of cash.

The only logically valid morality is to embrace chaos when possible. (explanation below)
tldr;
Order is only a virtue for those that are comfortable within that order.
It directly follows that supporting order will inherently invalidate and perpetuate the harm and suffering of the vulnerable which is immoral.
It follows form that that it is moral to embrace the lack of order when that order is critiqued (aka: chaos).
More explicitly:
We all have perception bias and we all seek to promote our own survival. This will inherently cause us to create ordered systems for purposes of protectionism and with predictive capabilities (even if the predictions have to be manufactured). But - except in rare cases - these will only be accepted if it can be used by influential people to become more influential. This will lead to manufactured truths and outright intentional misinterpretations all to support the current "order".

Since these "myths" will be promoted more than "critiques", it cannot be known what positive knowledge (aka "truth" or "a defense of order") is valid. If these positive assertions are to be accepted as "objective", then no amount of suffering will be valid in light of these "truths".

Or - said more practically - essentialization of knowledge is at best ignorant, and at worst malicious.

The only alternative then is to accept that "I don't know" or (when known) "that specific truth is incorrect" will be more advantageous to social equality than defending the order that we are all inherently desire. So, valuing chaos over order is ultimately a "moral good".

This isn't to say that order can be removed. In fact quite the opposite: we are ordered beings. Life is ordered, so our self preservation demands that we create narratives to understand the chaos that surrounds us. While we inherently do this practically (picking the narratives that promote our survival and success the most), it is never justified except through a selfish perspective.

If you find any flaws with this reasoning, please let me know. Thanks for your interest.

It does, not to mention when people in society are looked down on for doing the "wrong thing" when in truth it's not necessarily wrong, it's simply another opinion.

No, In fact I would submit the opposite. It is only by rejecting that the accepted truth is correct can the most just systems come forth. I expanded on this within my own post, but I will link it here for convenience.

Well explain how it's messed up, don't just whine about it.

Humanism doesn't assert that animals don't have value, but simply that humans have value. More importantly it claims that humans must be the solution to human problems, as opposed to deities. Considering value in this definition is a broad and subjective philosophical word, it can certainly be compatible with an scientific understanding. Also it's not really pride, although pride in moderation is a good thing. We should be proud of ourselves and of humanity for many things, and disappointed for other things. The fact that we evolved doesn't mean we shouldn't value human life.

Always? No. Often? Yes.

Sorry I thought you had half a brain. And also I did.

So recently after watching so many trippy Nova Science Documentaries on Physics and the Universe I started posting throughout all the science reddit subs.

I learned absolutely incredibly trippy and interesting tidbits that I am forever grateful for.

In regards to Philosophy when I was doing undergraduate studies in the area I remember learning about Zenos Paradoxs, Philosophy of language, Philosophy of mind.

Zenos paradoxes made me much more aware of how I was thinking.

Very similar to Zenos paradoxes Philosophy of language made me realize that the very concepts and language I use can create problems in and of themselves.

Philosophy of mind though really went even further!

We learned how like being pinched although all physical reactions, touch of skin to skin, nerves firing, brain interpreting, etc. Still gives rise to an immaterial reality (feeling). And this brings up questions like how do physical and immaterial things have causality, etc.

It opened up how even now-a-days on things we think we have solved are completely open and how much of our "solved" relies on reductionism and eliminativism.

So with philosophy what are tidbits and things you have learned that were huge for you!!!

I'd love to see the magic of philosophy really shared here as I imagine like many these moments were transformative and made you really fall in love with the whole discipline :) \

It is time for Philosophy to shine!! :)

Dude, that’s the way my mind talks after I’ve been smoking weed. Do you mean something like “observed hours”? The number of observers times the number of hours of observation?

Is it better to have corruption while saving more lives or no corruption while more people die seems to be the scenario of this hypothetical.

The captain will know he traded lives for money as will all the survivors. This will either haunt them or they rationalize it making it more likely for them to do corrupt things in the future or a bit of both.

This has future impacts and in the long term seems worse than having more people die, because it could lead to more corrupt decisions that get rationalized.

So I think system 1 is better because of long term impacts

I'm currently writing an essay on the way we treat AI and if it's supposed to have rights. While writing I came to a point, where my anthropological research became more and more focused on the nature of AI itself, rather than the comparison to humans. But because of Anthropology being the science of the nature of humans, I am tempted to call it Xenoanthropology, a branch of science, I literally just know from movies. But because of the name itself being a combination of "xeno" (greek for foreign) with anthropology, I am unsure if the name fits. What do you think of the idea?

Would you consider order that considers everyone a moral good, or is order inherently exclusive to certain groups of people. If you found an order, and it is not harming others, would you find that moral?

I have recently come up with a razor (it doesn’t seem to previously exist)and I was wondering about your thoughts on it. The razor is as follows “If something could be wrong, it is wrong”. The reasoning is as follows: When I make an assertion, it may seem right in my head, but sometime in the future someone may disprove my assertion. Therefore, due to this possibility, my assertion could be false. To circumvent believing in an assertion, but to only it be disproved, this razor would come in place. One must ask oneself if the assertion could be wrong. If it is discovered that in some possible way the assertion is wrong, then one should realize that your assertion is disprovable. If something can be disproven, then it can be found as wrong. Thoughts?

Anyone read The religion of Socrates by Mark Mcpherran? Or Socrates' Devine Sign by Pierre Destreé?

Practically? Yes. I think we have to think this way. It's what all people are under the practical delusion that they can achieve. We are limited and all organisms are an ordered collection of impulses. I don't think we could fully embrace chaos if we even wanted to.

Theoretically? No. All ordered systems will be built out of perception bias of the creators. They are built to ensure that some things that hurt the group they are appealing to are condemnable. But this is a reaction to those things existing to begin with.

For example, to say "murder is bad" helps the vast amount of people in society, but this is only a declaration because there are instances in which murder happens (which means the actor felt justified). This claim of "order" will hurt the murderers. Is this a good thing? Society says yes... for good reason, it generally helps them. But it doesn't help everyone. This is an extreme example that I'm using to make your case, but even in this extreme example I think you can see that the harm still exists. For lesser cases it would just happen more so.

I hope this follows.

Sure. That makes sense.

Thanks for the question :)

> I'm currently writing an essay on the way we treat AI and if it's supposed to have rights.

Before even considering AI; do humans have rights? What are rights and how do we know? What rights do people have and who has them? Do you think you can square something controversial like the debate over abortion where both sides claims to support rights?

I'd think if you even attempted to answer "do AI have rights?" you'd already have answers for these questions.

"There where most darkness lies there light shall thrive"

~C.E.G Väinämöinen

Hello can anyone explain to me in 4 or more paragraph Plato's Divided Line

What if "Death" is misunderstood?

Hear me out but have you ever heard the saying "Sleep is the cousin of death"? Well what if there's more truth in that statement then society gives it credit for?

Think of when you sleep, you have no concept of time in the slightest. So why would death be any different? Physics tells us that energy can never be destroyed, it only changes form. Once passed, you'd have no conscious self to keep track of "time" so even though it would take an unimaginable amount of time to happen, eventually in the cycle of the universe all the elements that make up us would surely come together again at some point and we'd experience what we know as conscious life again right?

I mean of corse we wouldn't be aware of our previous lives like so many claim to be able to remember but does this mean in a technical sense "Reincarnation" "could actually scientificly possible.

[removed]

Interesting. So "wrong" in context pretty much means "false." Certainly your razor looks quite unwise. The claim that "When I make an assertion, it may seem right in my head, but sometime in the future someone may disprove my assertion" requires some unpacking. Do you mean like for every assertion? There are assertions that are not possibly disproven (in the sense of being proven to be false). I suppose any true assertion is such that it's not possible to prove that it's false. It is true after all. It can't happen that in the future there is some argument out there that makes it seems like it's false. But that's a different thing.

The phrase "possible way the assertion is wrong" seems to suggest a different idea. Perhaps you have in mind different interpretations of a single assertion? On some interpretations the assertion is false, say? There are two things: (a) a more or less clear single assertion and its future vicissitudes vis a vis efforts to prove its falsehood; (b) a vague or ambiguous assertion, its various disambiguations, and various efforts to prove the different interpretations false.

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate the feedback.

I do not mean 'false' when I say 'wrong'. A better interpretation would be 'not true' which does not necessarily mean false. 'Wrong' would include half-truths, part-lies, and the like which I wouldn't necessarily consider false. However they are not true or correct so therefore I use the word wrong.

I think there is some confusion on the application of the razor, and what it does and does not entail. I'll make an example:

Say I studied birds as my profession. Say I found a new species of bird and developed a theory explaining its behaviour. For thirty years I wrote books, gave lectures, and made publications promoting my theory. However, after thirty years, a study comes out with new evidence that completely debunks my theory. I feel embarrassed for spending thirty years of my academic life promoting a theory that ended up wrong (not true).

In this example, I did not use the razor. What I should've done is consider if there was a possibility that my theory was wrong and then analyze that possibility. I could've discovered that there are holes in my theory and that it could be wrong. That way, instead of spending decades promoting a wrong theory, I could've readjusted my understanding earlier and found what was true earlier.

In this example, something could be seen as true if by denying it one would look like they are denying the entire understanding of the behaviour of this bird.

This razor could be useful in debunking conspiracy theories. Often in conspiracy theories, they rely on possibilities of malevolence. However, if you analyze the possibility, you will find that the possibility of non-malevolence being much more likely and fundamental to what we know to be true about a certain person's behavior.

Thank you for your comments and feel free to ask me any questions.

I'm not sure what the bird professor did wrong. Did he ignore evidence he should've paid attention to? If he checked what he was supposed to check, then it seems like he didn't do anything wrong. If it turns out his theory is not true, them's the breaks, right? Such is the fate of man that our theorizing is not foolproof.

Many people know facts like "peanuts are legumes", "alcohol is a drug" or "chicken nuggets are made of animal flesh". However, some merely recognize these as facts that are true by definition, but seem to not be fully committed to their truth or grasp the consequences. Its like they didn't adopt the fact fully into their actual belief systems. They tend to keep acting like these facts are not true even though they consider them to be true.

I think this may be related to cognitive dissonance.

Are there philosophical terms to describe this phenomenon or is this merely a matter of psychology?

>Once passed, you'd have no conscious self to keep track of "time" so even though it would take an unimaginable amount of time to happen, eventually in the cycle of the universe all the elements that make up us would surely come together again at some point and we'd experience what we know as conscious life again right?

Indeed; and this is how I've thought about it for a while. I don't believe that the dead consciously experience anything at all, including the passage of time. And any passage of time that we don't consciously experience, even the history of an entire cosmic cycle multiplied by the largest number you could imagine, is squashed down to zero time from such a perspective (really, the lack of a perspective, or no point of view). We literally have eternity to wait for the right conditions for nature to happen to produce us again, and no matter long that might take, it will subjectively be no time at all.

From a first person subjective point of view, I imagine it going something like this:

your "final" conscious moment -> blink -> you "first" conscious moment all over again

Since you're newly formed at that point, and memory seems to be mostly or entirely neurological, you'll never remember any moment of conscious experience prior to this. But maybe during the course of your life you'll hit upon the the idea that you might've experienced this all before.

For two current cyclic cosmologies, see Roger Penrose and Paul Steinhardt.

The bird professor did not consider possibilities of his theory being wrong. He checked all of the evidence that he thought of checking, but since he was unaware of the possibility of contrary evidence, he did not check that evidence. Also, while no theory is foolproof, some theories ended up fundamental to our understanding of the universe around us. Two important and fundamental theories that come to mind is the theory of evolution and the theory of heliocentrism. These fundamental theories are seen as true and are important to our understanding of the universe around. Theorists have considered opposing theories for centuries, yet these fundamental theories have stood the test of time as more and more evidence comes in their favor. This is something that the bird professor should’ve done, and this is what this razor advocates for.

Checking all the evidence you think of checking could be ok or it could be totally inadequate. Really depends, right?

Maybe. All I am pointing out is that all of the evidence that you think of checking is not all of the evidence out there. Science often solves this problem with peer review, but it is not the same as analysing as many possible evidences (even once you don’t normally think of) to try to find out if the theory or assertion is wrong.

[deleted]

In this episode (https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/abusing-dolores) Sam Harris argues (as he has many times before) to Paul Bloom that moral blame is irrational in that it is impossible to blame someone once the truth of determinism is understood and hence it is understood that they couldn't have done otherwise.

Can this argument be correct if we're interpreting blame to be an emotion?

Though we have some control over our emotions in the long term we really don't choose them in the short term and generally speaking even when we do choose them that choice is not typically done within a hyper-rational framework although perhaps in principle it could be. To the extent that emoting in a particular way is viewed as an agential behavior it should be possible to at least intentionally calibrate our emotional responses in a rational way.

However I don't think that Sam is arguing that the practice of blame in general is going to have greater costs than benefits. His argument hinges on the premise that moral blame is predicated on the idea that the transgressor possesses libertarian agency (not sure if this is a term but I mean the type of agency which an agent which had libertarian free will would have). Therefore he is saying moral blame is irrational in the sense that it is a consequence of an irrational belief (the belief in libertarian free will). This strikes me as very odd that something which human beings seem to do innately could be predicated on something which in his view (and mine as well) is not even a coherent concept. When I think about blame from a first person firsthand perspective it also doesn't seem to be predicated on libertarian agency.

I suppose it's possible that all he really means is that if one really understood and accepted that a particular transgressor couldn't have done otherwise in the most general sense then it would simply be impossible to blame them. If we view this as a phenomenological claim then it seems at least plausible to me except that I think perhaps there are two types of moral blame which can be differentiated by their function. The function of the first type is to facilitate some sort of behavior modification algorithm in order to correct the behavior of the blamed. The function of the second type is to simply identify the transgressor as an enemy of the social group to facilitate the removal of the transgressor. The second type of blame seems possible even without any conception of agency at all. In fact it is possible (although generally considered wrong in our society) to blame someone specifically because of their immutable characteristics.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Thank you for your comment!

While it is true that the academic world has a lot of evidence behind their studies, this razor would be in better use for theorists and those who analyse the studies, not necessarily those who make the studies.

On the paradox, you are correct that we should not simply accept the new study. The razor should apply to them as well. Whatever theory or assertion, it should be able to explain more than any other theory or assertion to be considered more true. In this case, the new theory provided contrary evidence that the old theory could not explain away. Due to the new theory accurately explaining more than the old theory, the old theory should be done away. In an ideal world, a purely true theory would be able to explain everything and can answer all contrary evidence, but such a theory of everything everywhere does not exist for the universe around us.

I also would like to point out that it is unlikely for one study to completely dispel a decades-old theory like in the example given. In real life, it would take numerous years and many studies and assertions to overthrow a previous theory. I just simplify it for the sake of argument to show the importance of considering if there could be possible contrary evidence and how the razor could fix that problem.

Thank you and feel free to ask any questions.

Edit: Also, it is true that many theorists are very careful about their theories. That would just mean that they use the razor without having a name to it. I am only formalising a razor that people may already use to come up with their ideas.

Do you guys know a work that talks about Plato's dialogues as a colection of techniques of thought?

I know this may sound kind of obvious, but, for instance,

- Hippias Major is the attempt to define something from what we know, but then showing the limit, hence we have to abandon the knowledge and restart later with more knowledge.

- Phaedrus has some techniques, but as I recall one of the main ones is the idea of, from an single object (argument) realizing the group in which it is part (the technique of argumentation, sophistry) and then studying the nature of this group by subdividing it in categories. [this is, by the way, what I'm trying to do with the dialogues themselves]

and so on.

I'm still pretty new on this, so I just read some dialogues. I do read philosophy, but I hadn't have the chance to read studies about them.

So, would you guys recommend me something on that line of investigation?

I'm not sure if it's still worth to answer your question, since you may have finished the essay, but in any case, for the discussion itself, well, AI probably will have rights.

I think there are 3 points of comparison that makes the topic clearer.

1st: the rights of animals.

There are a bunch of rules that are basically about preservation of life. Some places may go further, some may not, but still this is the point in consideration. In my country if someone poisons or runs over an animal, if it is discovered, you have to at least pay something (and in running over, you get bad points in your driving license).

2nd: the rights of the owner, also just like pets.

One thing is to own something in nature; another one is on society. Owning on society means you need to have rights to guarantee that if it is taken from your, or if there's such a risk, you have the possibility to get back or avoid the problem. So rights to avoid breaking, stealing and so on.

3rd: patents and copywrights.

Specially if you're considering only the software, not the robot itself, this is pretty much the thing. As a software, it's like any other. So there will have the rights of protecting from being hacked, copied, modified without your permission and so on. We don't have a right about modifying the DNA of your pet, because it makes no sense more than "you have to steal the cat first", and that's illegal. But you can modify the "DNA of the software" without touching it directly. So there certainly will have eventually laws for this type of protection.

I hope it helps.

The Ship of Theseus Paradox is a very old question that came across my mind after quite a while. "If the parts of a ship are replaced gradually, one by one, such that all of the parts are replaced, is it the same ship now?"

I would like to answer this with another question - Over the course of years, if all the cells in your body are replaced by new cells, are you still you? Here, instead of a ship, we have a person, and instead of parts of the ship, we have cells of the body, that are replaced.

This means that it is the same ship after all...

Is it a common belief that all life is just different manifestations of the same consciousness? Not in a vague spiritual way, like a real, physically consistent way. I really can't think of a better explanation. Take consciousness as a fundamental, singular property of the universe (or reality in general) that can manifest in different ways (with some complicated interaction with brain structure/information that results in different qualia).

We obviously can only remember our own lives because physically it's only possible for our brains to generate the qualia for remembering our own past. But different people (and life, and whatever else is conscious), would still be part of the same consciousness, just physically disconnected. In the same way you might not remember being a kid a long time ago, you don't "remember" being other people (because it's physically impossible for you to have those qualia), but it's still all "you," because consciousness is just one thing, not something that gets "duplicated" for each person.

You could "model" it as reincarnation, where you experience another life after death but don't remember you're old one, but really there wouldn't be time dependence (you're this life, then you're this life), they would just be two, causally disconnected lives that don't happen in any definable order (you're this life, and you're this life, no explainable order because there's no causal connection).

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

But how much does the continuity of self plays a part in it? Even if it is assembled exactly the way you were when you were born, would that be you? Or would it need to be exactly as you are in this point of time? What happens if you are reassembled right now with different atoms but exactly as you are, would you experience that consciousness? This questions really intrigues me, because it makes me think we are only what we are right now in this blink of time, and in the past or future there’s another conscience that only inherits our memories or is constructing ours. Or maybe we are just everything everywhere at once just experiencing this fragment of reality, like if you were looking at this page of the book at this moment.

This premise appears to dismiss the potential for dark matter to interface with the energy which fuels individual choice?

Seems unwise to start by discounting 95% (+/-2%?) of the universe's alternatives to understood physics.

Well, we may all be constructs in a simulator for others - NPCs in a holodeck, and when we're not serving others... we dream of our lives in a world where what occurs isn't controlled by a program; it's insane, and often destroys itself... then is recreated, cuz the programmers who designed us felt empathy for the artificially created sentience they made.

Just a possibility.

Any assertion is rooted in subjective observation... which is derived from the limited sensory input a human can experience, over a limited (cosmologically, speaking) span of time.

"Wrong", like "Right", is a temporary perspective rooted what one chooses to look at. For example, Obi Wan Ethics - If you hold to A Certain Point of View, it's ok to lie to a kid if it'll help ensure he's willing to murder his father.

To put it all another way, yes, most observations may be understood to be of temporary validity... Your future self may have different goals and/or intentions.

Which may mean the choices made when you think about what future "you" would prefer... are the ones you'll be glad to have made. Ain't a perfect guiding principle, always; can depend on how far ahead one goes.

Thank you for your reply! The subjective perspective certainly is interesting. I do have a question for you though (just to understand how you think). Do you think that objectivity exists and it can be discovered? Objectivity being something that is always true and is always applies everywhere.

Can someone direct me to a thread maybe dealing with this.

The nobel prize in physics went to some peoples discovering the universe is non-local. What is the philosophical implications of such a discovery?

"Always applies everywhere" has some prerequisites that don't seem to match speculated reality.

To amplify, the laws of physics warp around intense gravitic points like neutron stars & black holes. The words "Always" may not apply where space/time doesn't work that way, so "everywhere" becomes by definition an impossibility to either achieve or - when considers that the Observable Universe is in no way the limitations of the universe itself - verify on any level that would matter to a human lifespan.

The sun rising in the West is a "constant" only because it has been through human history; the briefest quantum flash on a cosmic timescale. Any number of celestial events/bodies could disturb Terra's orbit and make Sol a distant memory... and we'd never see it coming, because it could be many astronomical units away.

That which humans consider "Always/Forever" is usually an absurd concept in and of itself, rooted more in emotional bias than reason. Or, as Heinlein wrote, "Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one."

Part of what this means is that humans seek to validate their emotional reactions rather than question whether they're accurate. Revisionist history, the internal adjustment of events to present oneself as more sympathetic and then believing in that story even to the point of denying physical evidence to the contrary... is a common event among the entitled.

​

If all of the above hasn't sent you clawing for an exit, here's the fundamental answer to what we believe was the intent of your inquiry: There is what is happening; what can be perceived, and the stories we make up to explain the quantum snapshots of cosmological and personal events we can even perceive... is really only a fraction of what's going on.

There are spectrums of light we can't see... that can blind us; ranges of sound we can't hear... that can deafen us; things we can't see, touch, smell, or hear that will kill us more thoroughly than a pissed-off sehlat... as Madame Marie Curie may have attested to.

Our point, be it ever-so-jumbled, is that of all the things we take in... and use to build our understanding of the universe?
Is just the barest, meanest fraction of what's actually going on.

So any conclusions we may come to are probably just flat out fucking wrong - we can't know enough to understand what's happening, either in the universe or even this world... emphasized by how most people can barely comprehend what's happening within themselves.

Thank you for your response.

You seem to hold a epistemological skepticism philosophy. This is what I was suspecting after your consistent use of the word subjective, without mentioning objective reality. I understand this philosophy to some extent, because I had once held similar beliefs.

I would like to counter your objections to the words always and constant. There are a few things that are always real, however, no matter how you feel about it subjectively.

1. Reality is always real. To suggest otherwise would be self-contradictory, as it would be saying that things that are real are not always real.
2. Matter always is real. This has been determined through rigorous mathematical and scientific studies that have shone that nothing ever end, but may instead reform into something else.
3. Life will always adapt to the environment around it, or will go extinct. No matter how subjectivity works, the principles of natural selection are eternal when it comes to life.
4. Everything always follows the laws of physics, even if we don't know every law yet. You mention black holes and how they bend space-time, which is true, but these black holes bend space-time according to laws and processes that are constant, even if we don't know all of these laws yet.
5. Life that reproduces sexually will have always sex to have further their species. This is logically consistent and is fundamental to understand these animals.

I could list more truths that will always occur, no matter the time or place, but here are a few to show that truths can be forever. I am not simply hoping for things to last forever, and make logical jumps that are incoherent. This is not the case. There is objective reality, and there are things that are objective.

While I agree that no human may ever know or experience everything, this does not mean that we cannot understand the fundamentals of the universe. Do not think of knowledge as a state, but instead as a process that is continually learning. This is what science is all about, and what I believe we should be all about. We may never know everything, but if we understand that knowledge is a process, we can perfect that and understand the universe around us. This is how science has figured out so much. They are not simply making guesses based on subjective reality. They have understood the process of knowledge and have learned much truth because of it.

Finally, and in conclusion, I would point out the statement "our conclusions are probably flat out wrong" is inconsistent with the fact that this is your conclusion. Your conclusion is that conclusions regarding objective reality are probably wrong. However, if we were to apply that logic to you, I could dismiss everything that you say. After all, it's likely flat out wrong, so why should I believe you? This is my problem with ideas like epistemological skepticism, nihilism, and absurdism, since they are self-contradictory in and of themselves.

Thank you and feel free to ask any questions.

[deleted]

First, the premise that you feel impelled to counter our observations of subjective limitations seems... like you might want to meditate on your own motivations.

Your list of "Things Dead People Insisted Were True" is unimpressively wrong.

1. You haven't defined "reality" in a meaningful way; as it stands, we're both stating that what is really occurring isn't perceived by humans, so what's your goal here in noting an overlap of agreement?

2. Your misuse of the word "always" is just what we meant about the sun rising in the west - just because humans haven't yet found an exception, doesn't mean there ain't one.

3. You don't know or understand the principals of natural selection as they truly occur because you can't perfectly predict which living things will survive or not. You're just stating a vague generality you assume to be true yet haven't demonstrated any reasoning to believe that what you're asserting is factual... so, noise dismissed.

4. You can't defend the laws of physics while stating we don't know those rules - that's the same as saying "Magic" or "God's Will", functionally. So, again, you're pointing to "the laws of physics we may not understand is the way things are even if humans can't perceive them" as an argument against our point that "humans lack the perceptive ability to understand what's truly happening around them"... because..?

5. How you dragged sex into this, while managing to be flat-out wrong, is fucking funny, aight? Sad, yet funny.
   There are species of life on Earth perfectly capable of reproducing without sex, and are also capable of having sex... as your Google search history may soon show.
   Here's the worst part: This information dates back to junior high school science class... so the effort to bestow the grace of thy understanding upon the world might want to back it's ignorant ass up to integrate some of that fundamental science you're claiming to grok.

Then, once you've got a solid grounding in the basics of your tenet... you can look forward to the chance to discuss concepts which challenge the assertions and even the validity, of any science rooted in filtering out the contributions of BIPOC for centuries.

Finally, you may consider the notion that "Always" is a concept dependent upon the flow of time as you have always experienced it... continuing to flow that way. There are places in the universe where the scientific community agrees time probably doesn't move at all, and so "always" wouldn't be a thing that had any meaning at all.

So this is potentially a great day for you. You've learned something you clearly did not know, and you have a chance to explore new concepts.

The question is... what will you choose to do next?

>First, the premise that you feel impelled to counter our observations of subjective limitations seems... like you might want to meditate on your own motivations.

I'm countering your objections because this is a philosophy subreddit. Here we have discussions and bring counterpoints to each other. This isn't out of malevolence or any other motivation. I simply am countering your claims. As I have said, feel free to ask questions and counter me. That is what this sub is for.

>Your list of "Things Dead People Insisted Were True" is unimpressively wrong.

Where'd you get that name from? I've never called it that. Nor is anything I said talking about dead people. This seems like a straw man/ad hominem to make my points less valid.

>You haven't defined "reality" in a meaningful way; as it stands, we're both stating that what is really occurring isn't perceived by humans, so what's your goal here in noting an overlap of agreement?

Sorry but I did define reality. It is, and I quote myself, "things that are real". This could be real things that is perceived, and real things that are not perceived. Both are part of reality.

>Your misuse of the word "always" is just what we meant about the sun rising in the west - just because humans haven't yet found an exception, doesn't mean there ain't one.

True. I'd love to see an exception to some of the 'always' things that I listed, though. I chose them because they are always true. I choose to believe things that I as a human even have the ability to believe. If we humans can't know something, then it's useless to everyone. Again, your view of knowledge seems to be like it's a state. I refuted this earlier. Knowledge isn't a thing, but a process or direction. I choose to continue the process of knowledge.

>You don't know or understand the principals of natural selection as they truly occur because you can't perfectly predict which living things will survive or not. You're just stating a vague generality you assume to be true yet haven't demonstrated any reasoning to believe that what you're asserting is factual... so, noise dismissed.

We can predict which living things will survive or not, though. Scientists have figured out which animals will go extinct in future decades due to climate change and similar effects that come from humans. Natural selection is not a vague generality, but a real rule that all living beings are affected by everyday. While I am no biologist, I do understand the basics of evolution and the rules that biology understands guide life.

>You can't defend the laws of physics while stating we don't know those rules - that's the same as saying "Magic" or "God's Will", functionally. So, again, you're pointing to "the laws of physics we may not understand is the way things are even if humans can't perceive them" as an argument against our point that "humans lack the perceptive ability to understand what's truly happening around them"... because..?

Except we do know the laws of physics. All I was saying is that there are probably more laws that will be discovered one day. This is not to say that the laws of physics do always guide our universe. I'm sure there are more laws, but that would only be more evidence for my claim, not less.

>How you dragged sex into this, while managing to be flat-out wrong, is fucking funny, aight? Sad, yet funny.
There are species of life on Earth perfectly capable of reproducing without sex, and are also capable of having sex... as your Google search history may soon show.
Here's the worst part: This information dates back to junior high school science class... so the effort to bestow the grace of thy understanding upon the world might want to back it's ignorant ass up to integrate some of that fundamental science you're claiming to grok.

I dragged sex into this because we are having a formal discussion on reality and truth. Also, I never said that all species reproduce by sex. Of course there are different modes of reproduction. I was very specific with my wording to be only talking about animals that reproduce through sex. I quote myself "Life that reproduces sexually will have always sex to have further their species". I am quite clearly talking about animals that reproduce sexually. Not anything else. Also good insult about my Google search history. Really helps me want to listen to you more.

>Then, once you've got a solid grounding in the basics of your tenet... you can look forward to the chance to discuss concepts which challenge the assertions and even the validity, of any science rooted in filtering out the contributions of BIPOC for centuries.

Don't worry. I understand what I'm talking about. Also, it's interesting that you brought racism and race into this discussion. Personally, I think that science is free from racism because science isn't a thing but a way to gain knowledge. Maybe some of the people who started science were racist, but that doesn't invalidate what they said which was true. If anything it shows that they found truth despite their faults.

>Finally, you may consider the notion that "Always" is a concept dependent upon the flow of time as you have always experienced it... continuing to flow that way. There are places in the universe where the scientific community agrees time probably doesn't move at all, and so "always" wouldn't be a thing that had any meaning at all.

Now we are talking about the reality of time. Time is a weird thing because it is tied with space (aka space-time). You seem to be talking about the center of black holes (I'm assuming, but you were very vague here). While this does seem to be true, we are not in black holes, so this does not apply to us. We have never been in black holes, so this cannot apply to us. Also, it has taken me a certain amount of minutes to reply. No matter what, I can't go back in time and change that amount of time that I spent writing this reply. It will always be a certain amount of time, and since I did not write it in a black hole, time does apply to me.

>So this is potentially a great day for you. You've learned something you clearly did not know, and you have a chance to explore new concepts.
The question is... what will you choose to do next?

Well, hopefully I've shown that I'm not as horribly ignorant as you seemingly thought I was. If there is something that I said that you find incorrect, please counter my points. If you have any questions, please ask them. I'm happy to still discuss this with you. I wish you all the best and respect.

Thank you! I appreciate that.

You get what I was trying to say! Thank you for commenting.

https://youtu.be/vxhTDIUCPMM

No you didn't but whatever, you're a rude interlocutor anyways so I'm over it

Irrelevant, but I think Rene Descartes proposed something like this. Though not a razor, but still. Or maybe not? Well, tell me your thoughts. Still I think your razor is certainly interesting but I believe it is flawed.