cancel — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

In the good ol' days of yore known as damnatio memoriae! Nothing to see here, move along, move along! :grin:

There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all! — Xerxes

:ok:

There's a thin line betwixt panic and excitement, oui?

Well if that is the criteria... I wish we could have more boring days as 11 April 1954 :rofl: — javi2541997

Most interesting. :chin: — Ms. Marple

Indeed. But that data was implemented by us. So we are the guilty fellows here :chin: some programmers put a lot of information in the AI but we are ones who put the subjective portion.
I wish we could know what happened that day and then conclude if it was a real boring day or not! — javi2541997

That's why I'd like to know the criteria for interesting/boring the AI used. Why is 11 April 1954 the most boring day in history? No births/deaths of the movers & shakers of our planet, no disasters, no wars, nada, zilch, nothing!

There's this paradox in mathematics called the Interesting Number Paradox. Have a read, if you like.

So, 11 April 1954 is blah blah blah and that's precisely why it's soooooo interesting! :grin:

What about our dear ol' pal the observer effect?

Oh boy the AI again... they are always surprising me. What would be the next? The most philosophical day ever? — javi2541997

I feel it would all depend on the nature of the analysis if we could call it that. If what's involved is going through mountains of data, a computer (AI) is the right person for the job.

Fun fact: Computer punch cards were invented for the US census; you know, to speed things up so that the census bureau could meet government deadlines which was 10 years!!!

Wow!

So Freud was bang on target! His theory of libido and eros are perfectly aligned with Darwinism in which "success" boils down to reproduction aka sex!

Don't give up on Freud or Jung yet!

11 April 1954: The Most Boring Day in History

An AI made that judgment. I'm dying to know what its criteria for interesting/exciting were.

There's obviously a connection. I think the whole question of what constitutes a synthetic a priori judgement is still wide open. — Wayfarer

:up:

Thanks to Kant and his apriori/a posteriori and analytic/synthetic distinctions, we have an opening to prove the logical necessity of causality as a synthetic a priori truth!

The question is how?

Now I get it! The OP wants to know if causality is synthetic a priori (or not).

Update

1. A,simulation can't be distinguished from reality.

There's an obvious difference between The Matrix and the Real World. It's just that when in The Matrix, there's no way of knowing that. This is just like being in a dream state. Lucid dreams? Is nirvana one?

2. Leibniz's 2^nd law of identity: The identity of indiscernibles; according to Wikipedia, a controversial claim. Identical twins!

Have you looked further in to Searle's derivation of social facts from mere language? — Banno

:scream: We can do that?!

No, it's an attempt at finding scientistic 'fact' oriented foundations for realism.
Does science have such facts? Is general formalized language suitable for bridging metaphysical gaps between sciences we don't understand and formal real worlds? Should we also consider ordinary language, even the biologically natural language of bees in a hive? — magritte

Oh, I see. I've come across scientific realism - the position that science, in a sense, speaks the truth i.e. it accurately describes facts about the world or thereabouts.

As far as I'm concerned, science is, more or less, this: The world behaves as if it's made of (say) atoms, electrons, protons, etc.. I have a feeling many scientists will consider my position sacrilegious.

Both. — javi2541997

:heart:

“Psychological underpinnings” sounds like you think it is not a rational (analytical) claim or argument. As to learning about our motives, philosophy began as a search for self-knowledge, to better ourselves by being aware of what is right and true. I’m not claiming our thought is shaped by our psychology (though what is Plato “remembering” but what we call unconscious). Our doubt, and fear, and desire for certainty are situational, part of being human. — Antony Nickles

I wuz simply trying to make sense of your post, that's all. You see, I'm not familiar with the particular brand of philosophy you seem to be championing. My bad!

Arigato gozaimus for your valuable input. I'll get back to you when and if I have anything wortwhile to say G'day mate!

So we are back to your recalcitrant reluctance to read.

"Intersubjective" is one of those oxymoronic terms that folk use to avoid thinking. If the subjective is private, then the notion of the "inter" subjective makes no sense. If the subjective is not private, then adding "inter" to it is superfluous.

Nothing is solved by waving such a word around.

And you should have learned by now that Meta has no idea. — Banno

:grin:

Good point. There's a thin line between intersubjectivity and objectivity, the two in my mind are identical twins (indistinguishable). However, I was told, the difference is subtle. One example is that money is intersubjective but the Eiffel Tower in Paris is objective. Language is social said Wittgenstein and something tells me that's relevant to our conversation.

See Language of thought.

You might have to do some reading, I'm afraid. Unless you can find a short youtube video that will allow you to think you have understood a complex issue without the discomfort of putting some effort into it. — Banno

Noted! Gracias!

That which exists when mind is removed. — RogueAI

Good one! That captures the essence of the physical in my opinion. However, it puts us in a bind to my reckoning for how are we to determine if anything is physical without the mind getting involved?

It's not actually impossible, re Lao Tzu (Wu wei). We would need to observe withouth observing! :chin:

Ils sont fous ces Romains Chinois. — Obelix

I did quick research and I found out what happened that day all over the world. Here is a brief examples:

Was April 11, 1954 the Most Boring Day in History? :chin: — javi2541997

So they all showed up on "The Most Boring Day in History" when nobody would notice arrivals from the future? :ok: — 180 Proof

To both posters above:

If a day can boring so can a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, a millennium (or two). Despite what we think/believe, this current epoch in human history may not be the most attractive of tourist destinations for chrononauts!

Furthermore, tampering with the past may not be such a good idea, oui?

I still feel your EnFormAction thesis is what religions will eventually morph into! As for being low on feelings, it makes up for that with (scientific) awe & wonder, a highly recommended swap as per Richard Dawkins, no less!

The Fermi Paradox redux: Where are they – all the backtravelers (chrononauts) from the future? — 180 Proof

11 April 1954!

The fact that women are evolutionary more important than men is a documented issue. I will not discuss that in this thread, especially with anyone who has not researched it. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Have you ever watched a hostage situation on TV? Some crazy dude or a group of terrorists take some hostages and barricade themselves in a house. The police negotiator comes along and after some time, the elderly, women and children are freed, usually in exchange for supplies and a guarantee of safe passage with the rest of the hostages (men 18 - 40 years old) but that's not the point.

There may be a good moral argument for this behavior but does it make any evolutionary sense? Ok, the elderly and the women can jointly raise the kids, the kids themselves are the future generation, but who'll do the hunting with all the able-bodied men pushing up daisies? Who's going to put food on the table? This particular way of thinking is a formula for extinction; yet, I feel there's a rationale to it that isn't obvious.

Are there any reports of Aristotle sustaining a head injury? :grin:

What's the this thread was merged with... announcements some posters are greeted to?

I’d respond that that is probably your view as well. It was also mine when I was in college. Took me awhile to realize that it was a product of my own ignorance rather than some fault of philosophy. — Joshs

Gracias!

But one thing these images have in common is that they're all what's called diffraction limited and that means they can't get any sharper because of the effects of light diffracting off of the telescope hardware and the internal optics of the instrument. So really these images are as sharp and as best focused as the laws of physics and optics allow. — Christian Ready (Content Creator)

A good template for an argument that this world is the best of all possible worlds (re Leibniz).

MIRI arsenic-doped Silicon (Si:As) Detector.

Arsenic?! Was that the best material for the job?

We're...desperate! :grin:

Cornucopia of nonsense — 180 Proof

This gets better every second!

those words are not the thing itself — MAYAEL

:up:

Shared darkness — Hillary

:up: Different degrees of darkness! Scientific!

Enlightenment hallucination — Hillary

No pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!?

Reminds me of Meno's Paradox:

If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.

If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible.

What is nirvana? Is it a very private experience? Wittgenstein did make an interesting point. Was he into mysticism (re religious experiences)?

Probably hundreds of them ... I wouldn't know. — 180 Proof

Oh! So, I'm on my own! Good to know.

You ain't got a story about the origin. — Hillary

:up:

The opposite though, mìght be the case as well. — Hillary

Who the hell turned off the lights?!

I can't answer your question — MAYAEL

:up:

As per Yuval Noah Harari, we're, get this, the most prolific serial killer in evolutionary history (assassins, we all are, agents of extinction). Is mother nature committing suicide? Is she the proverbial Phoenix - resurrects from its ashes?

1. A minimally-dependent field, or domain, which is relational and evident.
2. Aspects of existence (i.e. entities) consisting of structures sufficiently complex for computing defeasible models of said aspects of existence (i.e. entities). — 180 Proof

Are there Wikipedia articles where I can get more details on what you're saying?

Thanks for the exposition. It hits quite close to home for me, c'est la vie!

Suffering is a(n) (prediction) error! When plans go awry, that's precisely when hearts start to ache!

I wish I could say more, but that's all my brain can offer at the moment. G'day and keep posting. I'll be watching you! :eyes:

I'm not as certain as I'd like to be but does your philosophy have psychological underpinnings? It sure looks like it does.

From actions we move on to motives?

I haven't yet taken the time to settle on a particular worldview 180 Proof. Folks like us, with below-average IQ and EQ, need to work extra hard to get to the truths of life and reality. We're the stragglers, go, leave us, we'll only slow you down! Evolutionary dead ends our lot. Hail Nietzsche!

Back to the main page now! As far as I'm concerned God is still in the game but only as a hypothesis for why the universe exists (creator deity). @Gnomon , you must've noticed, doesn't restrict his idea of a G*D to religions. His thesis, EnFormAction, is what I prognosticate is religions' future in the coming few centuries to millennia. At the very least, it's an update on the metaphors we find in faiths, something religions sorely need to , well, keep up with the times. That should count as something in my humble opinion.

There's more but I have a feeling you'll take it as hogwash!