Even if a robot doesn't feel, you're, as the creator, foisting plain, vanilla existence on it, oui? It didn't choose to exist and that's wrong, no?

:smile:

@schopenhauer1

Even if we could, as transhumanists wish & propose, abolish suffering, the imposition problem would still make reproduction unethical is what I mean.

I see! Is your argument for antinatalism from imposition still dependent/predicated on dukkha? Odd that! I would think not!

we can do better — universeness

I hope you're right!

Through language, its ability to transmit lessons learned, we've transcended the limitations of biology; DNA is not the only information game in town now and in the process we've been able to do mind-blowing stuff like sending men to the moon, develop & manufacture antibiotics, and so on.

We then survey Momma Nature and what do we find? We're simply just another cog in the great wheel of life - a gorgeous flower no doubt but a dispensable one. :snicker:

That's a fresh perspective - I don't recall coming across it till date. Awesome!

Truth tends to be, fortunately/not, very mundane. Oh well, c'est la vie, mon ami.

How sad! My heart goes out to all, not just hindus, moslems & sikhs, who were hurt/killed/worse during the 200k years humans have been around. We really need to get our act together lest we make the same silly mistakes our ancestors made. Easy to say, hard to do and therein lies the rub, oui mon ami?

I, for better or worse, lack the qualifications necessary to grasp the full import of your post.

I can tell you this though, quantum physics to my reckoning is in dire need of philosophical nuance; something like that. Warning; pure speculation on my part.

too Polyann — Athena

Pleonasms, you gotta love 'em!

As for the tragic bloodbath during India's partition, I'd say it was actually a memeplex war in the ideaverse that spilled over into the physical dimension. We're unable to distinguish man from meme and that's, going by all the wars we've endured, is a fatal flaw.

Truth is simply a property of propositions: If a proposition describes reality, it is true and if it does not, it is false. This is, I believe, the correspondence theory of truth.

However, what about mathematical truths? There is nothing (in reality) that corresponds to $\infty$. Oui, mes amies?

Descartes' cogito argument uses a well-known, time-tested, method of proof viz. reductio ad absurdum. I wonder if his argument makes any sense in paraconsistent logic or within a dialetheistic framework. :chin:

Agreed — javi2541997

:grin:

Interesting position — Hello Human

:up:

Interesting text. Romani people is also called gypsy. In my country there are a lot of them and I have to be honest. There are some prejudices against them in the same sense the text you quoted previously.
If you check the etymology of the word gypsy, gitano, tsigane, etc... you would find pejorative meanings according to each country, for example:

English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam.
German: it comes from the word "zigeuner" which means thief
Spanish: it comes from the word "gitano" which means liar
Hungarian: it comes from the word "szégany" which means poor

Well the last year I started an OP related to this: The etymological prejudice of the word gypsy. — javi2541997

Attribution bias: When someone from an in-group errs, the mistake is chalked up to the individual, as a personal failing; when someone from an out-group goofs up, it's the entire group that's blamed. Sic vita est

An observation is sometimes a measurement itself (quasi-mathematical) and at other times, it's becoming aware of a measurement (by an instrument).

While it seems hard to determine whether measurement (the first sense, vide supra) alone causes the so-called collapse of the wave function, it doesn't seem impossible to do so. Oui?

What I mean is: sometimes we have to use lies to help others because it is right despite the fact that we are avoiding to them the truth.
Sometimes the truth could be painful. — javi2541997

Are we ready to live on the truth? — javi2541997

:up:

:blush: Not exactly the kinda research I was hopin' for.

Anyway, CO₂ is gonna hurt us animals more than plants?! Am I right?

I think not. Correctness depends on a way of functional ethics which leads some dilemmas. For example: the "correct" way of helping a kid who passed through a trauma is avoiding him from it even with lies. I am acting so correctly but... I am not telling to that kid the "truth" right? — javi2541997

I have no idea what you're talking about! Nevertheless, it exudes verissimilitude/truthiness. Perhaps me too dumb to understand mon ami! Gracias even so, muchas gracias.

Oh! Interesting stuff, eh?

Speculative physics trying hardta keep it real! I like that! Heads up in the clouds, yeah, but feet firmly planted on the ground. Way to go, science guys & gals! These are privliged times we live in, oui mon ami?

But most of the Earth’s animals are domestic - pigs, cows, chickens. Likewise the Earth’s vegetation is largely cultivated fields and managed forestry tracts.

So it’s all under human thumb. Vaclav Smil can provide you with the numbers. Plants are either dependent on us for their growing conditions or are shivering in the corner as rainforest is converted into beef pattie pasture.

It would be funny if it weren’t so literally true. — apokrisis

I dunno! I guess no one's done studies/conducted research on how plants have responded (genetically/physiologically) to increasing CO₂ level in the atmosphere. They should, right? Perhaps the timespan of the greenhouse effect is just too short for plants to mount an appropriate response evolutionarily speaking that is. It's happening too fast for 99% of living organisms except for certain microbes that have very high reproductive rates. Are we all doomed?

I see. I still feel plants have a card or two up their sleeve. Given the rising CO₂ levels, if it harms them too, they should be reacting/responding but all sensors show that they're, well, suspiciously ok with it all.

plant — apokrisis

Except for angiosperms (flowering plants), the older plants (the gymnosperms) don't actually need animals (for pollination/seed dispersal via fruits). Furthermore, plants also respire i.e. they use O₂, completeing the CO₂-O₂ cycle. In short plants don't need us animals but we sure do need 'em! Fascinating!

attempts to define truth. — Tate

Do you suppose we need justifications for definitions i.e. can we ask why, as herein relevant, one defines truth in the way we have/will? There are many theories of truth (correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, etc.) and all of 'em are reasoned-to theories.

In short does the notion of correctness apply to the definition of truth?

Read, read, read! — Metaphysician Undercover

Best piece of advice I've heard in a long, long time!

:up:

Are we ready to live on the truth? — javi2541997

And the question of the year award goes to javi2541997.

the limits of the mechanistic worldview — Tzeentch

Yeah, that's where all the action is, at the limits, oui? It's a trope we often see in movies and novels - machiness, people, animals are stretched to breaking point and only those that/who survive are considered worthy (of love, respect, whathaveyou).

As far as I can tell, science has been by and large an enterprise in thinking to the exclusion of feeling. That in a nutshell is the nub of the issue (ref. Xin aka heart-mind).

Clearly, if Einstein is correct, light speed/faster than light speed travel is impossible (set aside worm holes for the moment). All we can hope for and should expect from aliens is their consciousness/minds - encoded in powerful lasers - to do all the travelling across the vast distances of space (vide Michio Kaku). What's interesting about this theory is that it might've already happened/is happening as we speak. :snicker:

So you’re talking of Will.
Even if it isn't a true metaphysics, the idea of desiring/craving that is never satisfied, remains true. For all intents and purposes, life works on this principle. From a scientistic/mechanistic point of view, you can point to evolutionary variation/mutation/population statistics, but it just informs more about this principle. It doesn't replace this viewpoint. Entropy/enthalpy, the organism's metabolic needs and environmental fit.. The organism being is the organism dissatisfied. — schopenhauer1

Aye, but I was actually referring to how, even though we have an awesome life, it's still an imposition. The point is that it really doesn't matter whether one's life is utterly miserable or absolutely amazing; life is still an imposition and that right there is the immorality of procreation.

Mr/Ms. Happy: Life's fun! Ima really enjoyin' it!
Antintatalist: Yes, yes, but did you choose this life?
Mr/Ms. Happy: Nope! :grin:

I got it all made up — Changeling

:up:

How do you mean? — TiredThinker

Logic/Rationality/Reason is the heart/nub/crux of wisdom.

If only. I wouldnt even compare computer intelligence favorably to a virus — Joshs

Did a quick google search. There's no consensus on what the IQ of a computer is. Some even say it's 0. I wonder what Garry Kasparov (lost to Deep Blue) and Lee Sedol (lost to AlphaGo) have to say about this. :chin:

What you say is true of course - computers are, to put it bluntly, dumb but do remember they're showcased as the ultimate human invention. Odd that, oui monsieur? In short, that computers have an IQ comparable to a bumble bee says more about us than computers themselves.

Anyway, do Wittgenstein's language games have any bearing on the issue? On such a view, playing a different language game (meaning is use) could be conflated with stupidity.

Interesting combo!



I see!

Life's purpose is to create Artificial General Intelligence. — OP

You mean like we're supposed to pass on the baton to a better version of ourselves?

:cool:

Philosophy means love for 'sophia', which we translate as 'wisdom'. — Yohan

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

So, that means, yipee!, to be a philosopher all you havta do is love wisdom (Sophia); you don't actually have to possess Sophia (virgin love à la Laila & Majnun).

Eudaimonia = Beautitudo (happiness) +/-/×/÷ ?

Virtue is about deeds, the toughest aspect of living the so-called good life. It just dawned on me that the set of actions is a proper subset of the set of thoughts. Let's leave it that way?

Well, not really. Aristotle on Nichomachean Ethics proposed that one of the aim of wisdom was happiness — javi2541997

Eudaimonia?

Virtue is a mode of behaviour; wisdom is a mode of knowledge. — god must be atheist

Nice! :up:

Delusions - can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. We're in a tight spot aren't we? Like this SWA triad I discovered just the other day:

There's stuff

1. We Should do.
2. We Want to do.
3. We Actually do.

When 1 = 2 = 3, we're good.

When 1 $\neq$ 2 $\neq$ 3, we're in trouble.