These are all from OP's on the home page:

Periodically, Kant’s CPR comes back to haunt me: it is like a world-class quality car—but there’s one screw slightly loose.

While browsing the CNN site this morning I came across this article:
Why the ‘Godfather of AI’ decided he had to ‘blow the whistle’ on the technology

I know it's a bit of a brainfuck because it's literally impossible to imagine another logic that doesn't use our logic connectors at all, but conceptually, why would people think that our mind happens to have the right tools to understand the universe?

Maybe they want it to be more "open to active philosophical engagement and discussion". I can see how someone would say it "answers itself" and purports itself as more of a commentary without really leaving itself open for a "back and forth" debate on the philosophical ramifications of human creativity and thought in the age of AI (a new, perhaps rivaling intelligence that, whether by intent or otherwise, seems to undermine or cause it to become imperiled/obsolete).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

Consider, the following:

What are the philosophical ramifications of AI (or technology in general) surpassing human thought and the resulting affects on society? How would this change the world we live in and the way we raise our children as well as our place in society?

Would it be right to limit AI or technology in general due to its risk of making the human mind (or humanity in general) obsolete? Should it be disallowed in certain applications (ie. militarily, in infrastructure, voting/governance, etc.)?

Long story short, people here tend to favor something that can be discussed, rather an explicit question or idea being posed along with reasons that can be discussed/disproved/or yes even attacked (logically). One might consider the post in question to be a (albeit well-written and intellectual) doom and gloom blurb along the lines of "Humanity is doomed to obsolescence. Technology is better. The end." Not much to discuss, looking at it like that, wouldn't you say?

I'd request clarification from whomever suggested the notion, that would be the best way to find out.

That said, I enjoyed reading it. Would perhaps improve it by adding "questions" or "claims" and reasoning that can be discussed along with explicit supporting reasons. Rule of thumb: when in doubt, post in the Lounge. :up:

Thank you that helps. I am in an ongoing struggle with two moderators and so far I didn't get much help, just the occasional "if you do this again you'll be banned".

You haven't provided anything of substance. Lots of opinionated fluff and vague assertions.

:up: :up:

Personal reflection on your own thoughts and experiences is not, on that basis alone, philosophy of mind. It is conversational in tone and almost devoid of philosophical content. Hence, lounge.

You haven't provided anything of substance. Lots of opinionated fluff and vague assertions. — Heracloitus

I don't agree. Beyond that, the forum is full of opiniated fluff and vague assertions. I don't know why @Carlo Roosen is being singled out.

Personal reflection on your own thoughts and experiences is not, on that basis alone, philosophy of mind. It is conversational in tone and almost devoid of philosophical content. Hence, lounge. — fdrake

Carlo Roosen's discussions are no less substantive than many here on the forum. I don't know why you are singling him out.

You seem to be rejecting the use of introspection as a mode of studying the mind. If so, that is an unreasonable prejudice on your part.

You seem to be rejecting the use of introspection as a mode of studying the mind. — T Clark

Naw, it's why I wrote "on that basis alone". We have plenty of similar-ish threads, as you say. Phenomenology uses introspection as well and that's super duper philosophical.

I don't know why Carlo Roosen is being singled out. — T Clark

What makes you believe Carlo is? It is entirely possible that I'm acting inconsistently, so I'd like to know what you think. Please bear in mind that this discussion is public, given your prior comment expressing discomfort regarding public airing of related issues.

Hence, lounge. — fdrake

No offense to the OP, but I am glad to see the bar being raised and the lounge being utilized. I think this will improve the quality of the site in the long run, and will give users an opportunity to write more focused OPs.

Beyond that, the forum is full of opiniated fluff and vague assertions. I don't know why Carlo Roosen is being singled out. — T Clark

"The house is full of dirt, so why are you cleaning!?"

What makes you believe Carlo is? — fdrake

Because his posts and discussions are within the bounds that are usually allowed here on the forum. Even if they are low quality, which I don't think they are, a lot of crap is allowed here. Also, as I noted previously, the public nature of harsh criticism by moderators is inappropriate.

Please bear in mind that this discussion is public, given your prior comment expressing discomfort regarding public airing of related issues. — fdrake

That's not what I said. I said that it is inappropriate for moderators to threaten posters in public. Beyond that, I'm not criticizing @Carlo Roosen, I'm criticizing the moderators.

Even if they are low quality, which I don't think they are, a lot of crap is allowed here. — T Clark

So do you think low quality posts should not be moderated? Every time a low quality post is moderated are you going to come along and try to make an argument in favor of low quality posts? What in the world are you supposed to be arguing here?

Besides, it was moved to the Lounge. It wasn't deleted or closed.

That's not what I said. I said that it is inappropriate for moderators to threaten posters in public. — T Clark

I know it wasn't exactly what you said. I wanted to raise that point because the discussion you and I are having could be read in a similar vein.

Because his posts and discussions are within the bounds that are usually allowed here on the forum. — T Clark

Details regarding general conduct: the first is that Carlo joined very recently and since then has made many threads, all of which discuss his idiosyncratic worldview with his own largely unarticulated technical terms. The worldview hitherto expressed has few touchstones with any form of academic philosophy, and a couple of touchstones with pseudoscience which could get it deleted - people claiming to develop superintelligent general artificial intelligences. Moreover, Carlo has exclusively talked about this with other forum members and has shown little to no intention to engage with other members otherwise.

It's a mixture of the content quality, the content's lack of overlap with academic philosophy or common philosophy discussions, the style of engagement, the frequency of thread creation and the singularity of interest in one's own already written work.

All of those things skirt the rules individually. Compare evangelism, quality, spam, tone and self promotion. They rarely occur together. Hopefully that makes sense.

I like and respect you and I’m tired of barking at you. So I’ll leave it at that.

So do you think low quality posts should not be moderated? Every time a low quality post is moderated are you going to come along and try to make an argument in favor of low quality posts? — Leontiskos

You don’t seem to have read what I wrote.

I like and respect you and I’m tired of barking at you. — T Clark

Same. The thread remains open, should you decide to bark more.