To say that the significance of silence is space or opportunity seems more like psychology. The seeming lack of stimulation in silence is used for stimulating one's imagination. — jkop

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

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

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

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

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

// 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}`);

• 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.

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

...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

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

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

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

...which people hadn't realized yet. — ChatteringMonkey

• "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

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

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

• 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"

Technology seems to be especially suited for such an unquestioning, mechanicistic, and optimistic approach to religion/spirituality. — baker

It is already happening in the Pagan communities. — Bret Bernhoft

The second quote attempts to explain the first. — 180 Proof

If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities. — baker

"I have no idea" because what you describe, Bret, does not make any sense to me. — 180 Proof

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

The tone of some cosmism seems to be similar to your modern techno-optimism, though of course the technological focus has changed. — Jamal

Just don't confuse it with anything spiritual. — Wayfarer

Phase locking is not energy. It is something which occurs in physical processes. — wonderer1

...do you have any links to support these claims? — flannel jesus