Comments

  • Silence is from which sound emerges
    let me know if it is close to what you think as "silence is from which sound emerges."javi2541997

    Thank you for the beautiful Brian Eno recommendation. I am listening to the music presently.

    Yes, this playful experience of sound(s) emerging out from silent space is what I am generally referring to. Another commenter mentioned a similar effect with classical orchestra music.
  • Silence is from which sound emerges
    I think that this discussion swings continuously between a human, experiential perspective on silence, and another perspective that tries to be as objective as possible, although this second one cannot avoid being human as well.

    The first perspective, the one that tries to pay attention to our humanity, our human experience of things, connects silence to a universe of meanings, depending on cultures, situations, contexts. In this context there would be an infinity of things that we could think and say about silence.

    The second perspective, that tries to be more realistic, tries to practice some acceptance of what silence is: silence is just silence, which is nothing, no thoughts, no perspectives, no feelings, no meanings. This perspective on silence can be scaring, because it suggests death, no hope, no possibility, loneliness, no help.

    Given this swing, I think that a good philosophical way of dealing with silence is a criterion of listening: listening to our humanity and to the tragic nature of silence, that are in a dialogue and also in a continuous conflict with each other. Listening is similar to silence, in that it means making space for something positive to happen, but at the same time it means killing it, because, humanly, we cannot listen without framing, without imprisoning things into our perspectives.

    In this context, silence works as a good revelation of what our humanity is: we are able to do marvellous things with silence, but at the same time, in that same moment, we cannot escape killing it. This is also what silence makes to us: it is able to elevate our spirit, but it can also kill it, putting us in front of the tragic nature of absence of meaning, absence of thinkability.
    Angelo Cannata

    What outstanding and intense opposites. Both humanism and nihilism at play it seems.

    You have nicely framed a middle ground for the dialogue had thus far with a single verb; listening. As well as pointed out how balance and participation are quintessential to higher wisdom and knowing. Thank you for your perspective and words.

    To listen and understand is quite an underutilized skill in today's world, if you ask me.
  • Silence is from which sound emerges
    Even if there is absolute silence, then a sound, the silence is not the cause of the sound. And the sound isn't usually generated in response to the silence.Patterner

    You make an excellent and distinct point here. Silence if not the cause of sound. It does indeed take a free agent to act upon the silence in order to cause the sound.

    But we are talking about the philosophical significance of silence itself, being pregnant with every possible sound. Silence is the womb from out of which these waveforms emerge. Without silence, sound is impossible.
  • Silence is from which sound emerges
    It can no more be true to say that silence contains the potential of all sounds than to say a blank piece of paper contains the potential of every word ever written. In both cases, the potential lies in what acts upon the silence or the paper, not within them.

    If you want to consider a more abstract understanding of silence, listen to 4'33" by John Cage. What that teaches us is that when the music stops, nothing is ever truly still or silent.
    ZisKnow

    Thank you for your response. I appreciate your perspective, and agree; a blank piece of paper contains no writing upon it. As well, it takes the freewill and agency of an author to bring letters, words and stories together, for the writing to happen at all. These are facts, and we certainly agree on them.

    But philosophically speaking, the paper already contains every story ever expressed. Just by existing. Similar to each human cell containing a copy of the body's entire genetic blueprint. Little organic fractals. From the same piece of paper, each individual will draw out a different story. But the same piece of paper can hold any of them.
  • Silence is from which sound emerges
    A pause, or silence, can create the space where expectations takes shape. ...musical silences always are pregnant with possibilities and aren't self contained moments of rest or inactivity.Pierre-Normand

    Wonderfully and clearly said. Thank you for using music as an example. There is nothing sweeter, in terms of sounds and silence, than well-organized musical notes.

    I have limited experience with classical symphonies, but enough exposure to appreciate the points you are making. Each moment of silence (or pause) does indeed contain all possible states and outcomes, waiting to be expressed.

    As to how noise is coaxed out of silence, therein is enough philosophical gold to justify an entirely separate discussion.
  • The Human Condition
    I appreciate the sentiment in this post. And I'm thankful for the author (OP) for having put their thoughts together and such a cogent way.

    Here are my thoughts on this subject.

    image.jpg

    If the human condition is anything, it is a blank canvas.

    We become what we choose to be. Especially in today's world. Because of technology.

    If we choose to be shaped (almost) exclusively by our exterior circumstances and environments, that is still a choice. Made mindfully or otherwise.

    The world, reality is a collection of choices.
  • Using Artificial Intelligence to help do philosophy


    These are fair points. And true points.

    I find ChatGPT is less of an independent thinker, and more of a mirror or echo chamber. Relying on ChatGPT for grand new ideas, is difficulty. But working with ChatGPT like a potter molds clay, is quite helpful.
  • Do (A implies B) and (A implies notB) contradict each other?
    I voted that "(A implies B) and (A implies notB)" do not contradict each other. But the only possibility is if A is false/falsy.

    Here is a JavaScript example:

    // Define the values of A and B
    const A = false; // A must be false for both implications to be true
    const B = true; // B can be any value, but it doesn't matter because A is false
    
    // Logical implication function
    function implies(p, q) {
        return !p || q;
    }
    
    // Check the implications
    const A_implies_B = implies(A, B); // A implies B
    const A_implies_notB = implies(A, !B); // A implies not B
    
    // Output the results
    console.log(`A: ${A}`);
    console.log(`B: ${B}`);
    console.log(`A implies B: ${A_implies_B}`);
    console.log(`A implies not B: ${A_implies_notB}`);
    
    // Check if both implications are true
    const result = A_implies_B && A_implies_notB;
    console.log(`(A implies B) and (A implies not B): ${result}`);
    

    In the example above the following occurs:

    • The implies function takes two arguments, p and q, and returns true if p implies q (which is equivalent to !p || q).
    • We define the values of A and B such that A is false.
    • We check the implications A implies B and A implies not B.
    • Finally, we print the results and check if both implications are true.

    When we run this code, we see that both implications are true, demonstrating the logical conditions.
  • Using Artificial Intelligence to help do philosophy
    For the moment, the main deficiency in AI (where philosophy is concerned) is its inability to formulate and argue a strong, original case. Presented with a philosophical question, its responses too often resemble a summay of discussion points.alan1000

    Thank you for your response. And I agree, that modern artificial intelligence has a difficult time with truly novel arguments for a strongly stated philosophical case or position.

    The responses that I've observed coming from AI concerning philosophy are (in my opinion) mid-grade debate team material. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily. But, as you point out, these kinds of tools must do better before they're taken more seriously.

    Time will tell.
  • Philosophy of AI
    ...when they reach human level intelligence, and we put them in cute robots, we're going to think they're more than machines. That's just how humans are wired.RogueAI

    I've also come to this understanding; that humans are animistic. And this doesn't stop at rocks and trees. We see the person in technology, naturally. Because, as you say, we are wired that way. I would say the universe is wired that way, more generally.

    This is a fascinating conversation to be following.
  • The ultimate significance of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and most of Friedrich Nietzsche's other books
    Your observation that Nietzsche's work has similarities to stoicism is understandable, but it is worth noting that stoicism is not compatible with his view; for Nietzsche considered the Ubermensch to be driven completely by passions, and not reason. Honestly, though, I drew the same kind of links to stoicism that you did, because Nietzsche often references principles of self-reliance that can be found (at least a little bit) in stoicism.Bob Ross

    Thank you for your response to my original post. Your perspective is welcome and refreshing.

    In terms of the compatibility of Nietzsche's work and stoicism, you make an interesting point. And an important one; which I hadn't considered to this point. That stoicism is founded in reason, whereas Nietzsche's Ubermensch is rooted in passions. That does seem to make them rather different worldviews.

    I enjoy learning like this, by sharing what I know to be true or "real", and having those with deeper wisdom(s) then inform, enlighten and/or uplift me to new heights of understanding. Much appreciated.
  • Can digital spaces be sacred?
    I've been giving this subject quite a bit of reflection, and it seems self-evident to me now; that animism doesn't stop at the forest's edge. In other words, digital spaces are animated with the soul of the universe as well.
  • Being anti-science is counterproductive, techno-optimism is more appropriate
    Another way of saying what this thread is all about, is to state that (in my opinion, experience and observation) atheist animism is the default worldview of humanity.

    Or you could refer to it as "animistic atheism". And that would be legitimate too.
  • Being anti-science is counterproductive, techno-optimism is more appropriate
    I am also a techno-animist, so to me the technology goes beyond being only a tool. More like a gateway.
  • Being anti-science is counterproductive, techno-optimism is more appropriate


    My essential point is that advances in technology are inherently good. We can, in seconds, accomplish what would have otherwise taken countless hours. Such as analyzing 86,000+ lines of text about Norse Paganism. Which a simple Python script that I wrote can do.

    Here's a word cloud from that analysis:

    2000-top-two-word-phrases-in-multiple-norse-paganism-texts-low-res.jpg
  • Being anti-science is counterproductive, techno-optimism is more appropriate
    I do agree with many parts of the text you have shared. There are some important comparisons and points made inside the article.
  • Being anti-science is counterproductive, techno-optimism is more appropriate


    I do agree with Mark Andreesen's "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto", in that at least he's throwing his clout behind embodying a daydreamer. We need those kinds individuals right now.

    But I was unable to review the critique, as I do not have a NYT subscription. And there is a paywall in front of the article.
  • Being anti-science is counterproductive, techno-optimism is more appropriate
    I think that everyone benefits from using technology. Which is a big reason why I'm a techno-optimist. Technology liberates the individual, while building ever greater social infrastructure. Technology naturally wants to play.
  • The ultimate significance of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and most of Friedrich Nietzsche's other books
    My understanding of 'Thus Spoke Zarathurstra' is that it involves a process of 'waking up' , beyond the everyday conventions of 'robotic' functioning. This includes conformity to religious perspectives. I see this work of Nietzsche as signifying the depths of any genuine quest within philosophy, which involves all questioning of conventions, religious, or probably, all ideologies. The book explores this, especially in the form of metaphorical understanding.Jack Cummins

    I can see what you're saying. Do you see "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" as being a product of it's time and environment? Or does it represent a more timeless quality as a book?
  • The ultimate significance of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and most of Friedrich Nietzsche's other books
    Yes, one of the reasons probably... Nietzsche's main question, how we get beyond Christian values after the dead of the Christian God is still an open question. But other reason also play a role no doubt, he was a very good writer, he has a knack of drawing you in... he's a tempter ;-).ChatteringMonkey

    Interesting. I'll admit, and it's probably obvious, that I'm a novice in terms of Nietzsche's philosophies. But his works are indeed interesting, so I appreciate the extra context.
  • The ultimate significance of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and most of Friedrich Nietzsche's other books
    ...which people hadn't realized yet.ChatteringMonkey

    Is this part of the reason why his writings remain so influential?
  • The books that everyone must read
    Here are a few books that I would recommend others read, to better appreciate the techno-optimist perspective:

    • "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" - by Katie Hafner
    • "Virtually Sacred" - by Robert M Geraci
    • "The Code Book" - by Simon Singh
    • "Neuromancer* - by William Gibson
    • "American Cosmic" - by D. W. Pasulka
    • "TechGnosis" - by Erik Davis
    • "Inner Sound" - by Jonathan Weinel

    Generally speaking, I expect that most readers will have a positive reaction to the content and ideas found within the books recommended above. As the techno-optimist paradigm, is a "glass half-full" worldview.
  • The Mind-Created World
    Yes, indeed the world is mind-created. While the planet is not explicitly so. Another way of looking at this is to say that the world is the psychic glove that fits over planet Earth.
  • Being anti-science is counterproductive, techno-optimism is more appropriate
    I don't think being anti-science is treasonous, but I do think that it is the incorrect path for our species.
  • Arguing for an "Information Processing" Definition of Knowledge
    The definition I'd offer is that to know is to process information correctly.
    Process here means/is defined as a computation, which is the reconfiguration of an input to an output.
    Information here means/is defined as any structure (an object, a string of symbols) that can be binary/digitally distinguished.
    Hallucinogen

    In my estimation, this statement gives credence to the notion that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will truly be sentient. Perhaps even possessing a soul and an afterlife. Because as long as truly "knowing" something is a matter of processing information correctly, these computers will be titans of consciousness; which is the bedrock of every reality, here and beyond.

    Your argument may even validate the notion that Narrow Artificial Intelligence is also/already conscious. Implying that anyone's collaboration with ChatGPT is something much grander, more important than "just the amusing mimicry of a chat bot". Thank you for this post and your thoughts.

    641p6zl5qcwszc5t.jpg
  • What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty?
    What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty? Considering that individuals may occasionally engage in falsehoods, how do we conceptualize the mindset of honesty? Is 'honest' a noun or a verb? Can one still be deemed an honest person if they occasionally engage in deception?YiRu Li

    This is an excellent set of thought-provoking prompts. Thank you for the OP.

    In my observations, the mindset (or paradigm) associated with honesty generally includes a combination of the following qualities:

    • Significant, present moment mindfulness (or awareness) of personal and environmental sensations and phenomena
    • Triumph through suffering/trial
    • Willingness to be wrong, and learning from mistakes, errors and/or malice; whether personal or interpersonal
    • Prioritization of harmony as the end goal, as the "prize"

    Therefore, the word "honest" can be a noun, verb and adjective; sometimes simultaneously. And yes, I do believe a person can be considered honest, even if they occasionally engage in deception.

    hujhljbr8ixeqn8g.jpg
  • How Do You Personally Learn?
    This is an interesting question, thank you for asking. If I want to genuinely learn, remember and master a subject, I need to "play with it". This includes the information, content and structure(s) that will lead me to (a) knowing.

    Let's take computer programming as an example. I taught myself to build websites and software for the Web. Beyond the preexisting tutorials and other learning resources that I ingested in my learning process, I playfully put that information into practice with personal projects and late night coding sessions.

    It could be said that I am a hands-on learner, regardless of how I am handling data.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?


    Now I do see what you're saying. Those are excellent points. Thank you for clarifying. I will need to do some reflection on what you're saying here.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    Technology seems to be especially suited for such an unquestioning, mechanicistic, and optimistic approach to religion/spirituality.baker

    That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't considered this issue from that vantage yet. I might agree with you on most of what you're saying here; how technology would enable an unquestioning and optimistic approach to spirituality.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    It is already happening in the Pagan communities.Bret Bernhoft

    In my observations, Technopaganism is a legitimate form of religious practice. Likely with millions of participants; no belief required. The only paradigm shift that is necessary, is an embrace of universal Animism.

    At the center of this underground renaissance are the EDM DJs. Legendary figures. Priests, some might say.

    This spirituality was legitimized in the minds of many tens of millions of people via the international festival scene. We're entering a "stage two" for the emergence of a worldwide, techno-optimistic religion.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    The second quote attempts to explain the first.180 Proof

    I see now. Thank you for clarifying.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities.baker

    I see this happening too. It is already happening in the Pagan communities.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    "I have no idea" because what you describe, Bret, does not make any sense to me.180 Proof

    That's interesting. I don't know what to say to that. I definitely respect your position here, but can you explain more about what I have described that confuses you?

    Post-singularity ubiquitous smart nanotech seems more likely to transform planetary civilization into a Global Experience Machine^ (à la "The Matrix" or wireheading^^) than to enable hedonic beings to somehow "transcend" (or to religiously seek "transcendence from") being hedonic.180 Proof

    This is good. And is (IMO) a major part of what our planet will become. Just as T. McKenna would imply, we will be swallowing our computers whole in the near-future.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    The tone of some cosmism seems to be similar to your modern techno-optimism, though of course the technological focus has changed.Jamal

    Indeed, the technological focus has changed. And with it, the distance between our species and the stars has shortened.

    If I understand correctly, Cosmism directly inspired today's Transhumanist movement. One being the intellectual and spiritual predecessor to the other. What is even more astounding, if true, is that most Transhumanist haven't even heard of Cosmism.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?


    Alright. I will change the subject in future posts.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    Just don't confuse it with anything spiritual.Wayfarer

    That's an interesting perspective, in my opinion. I've heard the same echoed about Gnosticism by a number of reputable sources; that they would not have embraced a techno-optimistic religion.

    I find much about technology to be a form of spiritual experience, or embodiment. I am not a proponent of a religion, or any specific of spirituality. But I know there is a growing community of seekers who are turning almost exclusively to modern technology for answers.

    We live in fascinating times.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    Phase locking is not energy. It is something which occurs in physical processes.wonderer1

    That's not entirely true. Brainwaves are energy, and hearts produce electrical atmospheres that others can detect.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ...do you have any links to support these claims?flannel jesus

    This is a recent example of what I was referring to regarding the synchronization of heart beats and brainwaves among audience members of the same musical experience.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    The US forefathers risked everything for democracy and obviously, life is about more than matter.Athena

    100%. The entirety of what you have said here is important.

    If the stories of the US forefathers are true, they lived exceptionally vivid and important lives. If the stories are true, they were masters and practitioners of a sacred science.

    If the stories about the US founding fathers (and mothers) are true, then I have only caught fleeting glimpses, despite my best efforts, of what they knew to be true. If the stories are true, those individuals are true Saints.

    Truly Blessed, those people and us; regardless. I still hope the stories are true. I truly do.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable


    I appreciate the love. That was a nice surprise.