Yes, the U.S. treated Native Americans horribly. Does that mean that Native American tribes would be justified killing civilians and/or American soldiers in an armed uprising? Suppose Cherokee Nation pulled off an attack similar to 9/11. What should the American response be? — RogueAI

Thats a great point, but the situation is a bit different in that the people responsible with Israel and Palestine are still around. The conflict is so much more recent, living memory for many. That means there is a somewhat more tangible connection to retributive strikes imo.

Do you know any racists? I bet you do. So do I. So does everyone here. That suggests it's systemic, no? — RogueAI

Or that that the term “racist” is being too liberally applied.

No, it would mean that art is subject to misjudgment and misunderstanding just like all other type of human communication. — T Clark

Ok, but then you are saying getting something from art not intended (communicated) by the artist is essentially incorrect.
“Your doing it wrong! Its a happy painting not a calm one you fool!”
This is a very restrictive way to define art isn't it? Im not saying thats bad, just clarifying.

Communication can be and often is a back and forth between people, but it doesn't have to be and often isn't. The user's manual for my new CO meter is a one way communication unless I have questions and contact the customer service line. — T Clark

Fair enough, I retract my suggestion.

My apologies for misinterpreting your post.

I agree with what Angelo Cannata wrote - "The essence of art is human inner experience that is communicated." It's communication from one person to another. What happens when there is no actual experience being communicated? — T Clark

Not sure I can agree with that. Wouldnt that mean that getting a different experience from what the artist is communicating is impossible? That is, if art is only communicating experience of the artist then when someone gets a different experience (a different emotion for example) then we couldn't call it art.
Also, an AI may not have an intent like a human but they can still make art intended to provoke an experience. For example if you ask it to draw something scary it will reference what images scare humans and generate an image based on that. I would argue that there is no real difference other than where the “experience” is coming from. Again, I think if you cannot tell the difference in a blind test between AI art and human art then you can’t rationally say something is missing from the AI generated image.
Also, “communication” might not be the right word. That implies a two way exchange in my mind. Isnt art more provoking a response than communicating something?

Sure, but the whole process is brand new and seems to be changing very fast. What comes next? — T Clark

My guess is AI will keep mastering things, eventually robotics will catch up and we get robot servants who can do everything for us. How that effects our civilization…should be interesting.
As for the kind of AI that kills us? My guess is we will create it by accident, a result of accumulated knowledge and stored information becoming memory before becoming consciousness. We won’t know until the AI does whatever it ends up wanting to do. Best case for us is it just leaves its insignificant creators behind.

This brings up a question that has been discussed previously here on the forum - How important is technical mastery in the production of art. I've gone back and forth about it, but at some level it seems clear to me that the technical limits imposed by the form of art are the framework, the superstructure, that artists work with to communicate with their audience. What happens when technical mastery of any sort is no longer needed? It seems to me we're left with little more than paint-by-numbers. — T Clark

I think sufficiently advanced paint by numbers will be indistinguishable from any art humans can create. Human art will change, my guess is it will blend with science and scientists will be the new artists. Once we can do anything, there will be artistry in the choices in how to do it.

That kind of subjective free for all stains real art, diminishes it imo. A pretentious and self indulgent game of “make believe” that the bored participate in so they feel elite without having to actually earn it. A game of false status. Its why its so easy to trick that world (the wine world is like this too), its easiest to be a poser amongst other posers.
I know thats a bit scathing but setting the bar so low a painting could be “just as good” if it was accidentally hung upside down is just jerking off in public aa far as im concerned. Its a vulgar insult to artists who actually strive for meaning in their work.

I wonder where there will be room for humanity when it's all over. — T Clark

These AI art and writing programs are nowhere close to the kind of AI that would represent a threat to humanity, if thats what you mean.
As for art, I think commercially human art will be a pale shadow to AI commercial art but the human desire to create art will never really die.
Something else to consider is a human artist using AI like any other tool (pencil, straight edges, paint brush, various canvas types etc) to create works of art they could only imagine doing before. The scope and scale of a project skyrockets with a good AI to handle key components of an overall greater work of art, for example adding a microscopic or very small perspective image so that the paintings primary object has less of that hollowness you mentioned. The observer of the art will be experiencing a richness they cannot even detect with their naked eye.

First test would be to see if you can tell the difference between AI art and human art. If you cannot, that would imply the “hollowness” exists in your mind and not the artwork.
Also the lack of pornography is built in. There are ways around it but the programs mostly resist nudity. AI sucks at drawing humans touching as well.
The reason it ignores portions of the prompt used is usually because the latter portions of the prompt are pre-empted by the random generation of previous portions of the prompt.
Lastly, it is only a matter of time (short time) before most commercial art is AI generated. Book covers and the like are getting easier and easier for AI to get right.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's logically unsound. — Moliere

Well, it’s circular. Thats a fallacy if logic so i think logically unsound fits unless Im missing something.

Dialogue is a part of philosophy because there's always been this call and response, or back and forth, between those we consider philosophers. — Moliere

I’m desperate to understand what I’m missing here.
Im not saying dialogue isnt a part of philosophy, Im saying that it isnt a necessary part of philosophy. I could even agree that dialogue is necessary for the best philosophy but to me its very clear that some philosophizing can and does happen without dialogue.
Look above for the absurdities that come with the position that philosophy requires dialogue. And what do we gain in return for this concession to absurdity? I don’t see a single thing, and I do not mean we gain nothing from dialogue I mean we gain nothing by making dialogue a prerequisite to philosophy.

Whether you buy it or not is completely irrelevant. — Tobias

Not if your are trying to convince me. You aren’t making an argument, you are asserting something about philosophy: that its defined by dialogue. So that would mean that no matter the philosophical brilliance a solitary person has they aren’t doing philosophy if no ones there to dialogue with. That doesnt make sense.

My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue but not that every dialogue is philosophy. Your objection is logically unsound. Your apology is conceited because it is not meant. — Tobias

Logically unsound in what way. Not wrong, you arent saying Im wrong you are saying what I said is not logically sound. Point out to me where ive been logically unsound.
Also, get your head out of your ass, youre not a mind reader. Me saying “sorry” was a sincere way of trying to tell you I was not convinced. And what do you think “conceited” means? Please explain this bizarre relation between conceit and insincerity.

This is a good example. In this particular example both are not yet philosophy, because just asking a philosophical question does not make you engage in the discipline of philosophy. However the first sentence is at least on the way. Roger will give an answer, something in the vein of "hey I do not know, what do you think?" Then the person asking the question must make her position explicit and articulate the reasons and arguments for taking that position. Since philosophy is an argumentative practice we are at least getting somewhere. Ruminations that just run around in someone's mind are not philosophy, only arguments are because they can be countered by other arguments. — Tobias

You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.
You can ask yourself questions, and answer them.

Ok, let me try one last time.
Larry contemplates the matter of free will and comes up with some really interesting answers, his answers consider angles no one else on earth thought of.
Not philosophy.
Some clueless moron walks in and makes a bunch of bad arguments and asks Larry questions and dialogues with him. Now it’s philosophy?
Or even just some guy comes in and dialogues with Larry and Larry just keeps saying “I know, I thought of that already, I wrote it down, see?” Over and over and over again thats philosophy but it wasnt when Larry came up with the stuff on his own?
These are the absurdities you commit yourself to when you have the position that philosophy requires dialogue.
And again, all you have done is describe dialogue and call it philosophy as an argument that philosophy requires dialogue. That is a pretty basic breach of logic, you must have come up with it all by your lonesome cuz its surely not philosophy. :wink:
Larry the brilliant thinker comes out of his cave with a treatise on ethics and runs into Bob who has the exact same treatise (it can even be vastly inferior in your mad world) and so Larry gets excited and exclaims
“neat, we both philosophized the same thing! What are the odds?!”
And Bob says
“oh no Larry you knucklehead, what you did isnt philosophy. I did philosophy, not you”
So Larry says
“…but they are the exact same…?”
And Bob says
“Yes they are, but I talked to Ralph about mine.”

That last line of Bobs is a punchline, because the claim dialogue is necessary to do philosophy is a joke.

If you respond to anything in this post, please start with this:

“You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.”

If you can’t address this then I don’t think anything else needs be discussed. Thank you for your time though, and thats a sincere thank you just in vase you're tempted to use your unreliable mind reading powers again.

Ya and if someone else comes in and starts dialogue it becomes philosophy instead? Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Not buying it.

Ok, so you are saying its necessary now. So if I am sitting in a cave by myself contemplating whether or not I have free will…im not doing philosophy? Sorry, I just don’t buy that. Its the exact same thing but just by yourself.
It seems like a totally unnecessary distinction to make and I don’t understand what purpose is served by restricting philosophy to its social aspects. Thanks for taking the time though.

I think Banno is right in that there is something social to philosophy. "Inherent" is good enough for me, but I wouldn't say "necessary at all times". There are times we aren't together, that we think thoughts -- but to make it philosophy I think I'm still on the "gotta present it to others" track. Or, maybe there are some who are just that good, but there is definitely a huge benefit to being a part of a community for growth and knowledge.

Take @Tobias point that eventually you should find a mentor. Isn't that a social relationships there? I don't know if it's necessary, but I can say I've had more than one mentor with respect to philosophy and it's always helped me. That community part of philosophy is a big part of growth, though of course we're supposed to be able to think on our own too. — Moliere

I agree that it is highly useful, perhaps the best way to do philosophy and of course exposure to the ideas of others is invaluable but it seems very strange to say those things are necessary for philosophy. Like, “hey Roger, do you think we have free will” is philosophy, but “hmmm, I wonder if we have free will” isnt? Huh?
I understand that was Bannos claim not yours, but we kind of started there so…ya.

Ok, I see. You agree with my conclusion but not my example? Is that right?

Spirituality. — Moliere

Nope, you added to what I said in order to apply spirituality. I didnt specify “within their respective religious practices”, you added that after the fact as an ad hoc support for your “spirituality” answer.
To repeat my question:

Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then? — DingoJones

Make it just a guy instead of yogis and gurus if its easier, that way your not tempted to reference the “spirituality” those folk practice in addition to any philosophizing they might do. [

quote="Moliere;831440"]That is -- there's the public side of philosophy that would bring back our worshipers and spiritual reveries to the people we live around who we then would engage in dialogue about the answers we might have found to those questions.[/quote]

The “public side”? Whats the other side, the not public one? Isnt that exactly what Im talking about re the guy in a cave contemplating life and the universe?

You think Descartes lived in a cave? He corresponded with the greatest minds out there. I agree with Banno that philosophy is social. All those ruminations of Descartes drinking his cognac in front of the fireplace starting to doubt stuff i — Tobias

I thought he did his meditations alone in a cave. I blame Trump for my mistake.
The point being, one can engage in philosophy alone. Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then?

Sure, it’s both imo. If it’s both, neither can be inherent to philosophy since the two are mutually exclusive. Obviously there are different ideas about what philosophy is but one that says its defined by (inherent) talking or not talking to people is very strange.

Speaking alone is still speaking. Philosophy might differ when its in solitude but I dont see how it would cease to exist.

Not what I said at all, but you know that. Is there just no more chance of you and i having an actual exchange? Remember? Im a human being? In your world doesnt that at least deserve the courtesy of telling me to *insert Banno speak for fuckoff*? I mean, I would respect your wishes and leave you be. If not, engage. Maybe it’ll be worthwhile.

Oh come on. Lol
Is sociality really inherent to philosophy if it can be done alone? Maybe we are using “inherent” differently?

Reading is a form of dialogue. — Quixodian

Its by definition not a form of dialogue, not in the sense of a philosophical dialogue anyway.

Philosophy involves dialogue. It's inherently social in a way not captured by your four points. — Banno

Descarte wasnt doing philosophy in his solitary meditations? When you say “inherent”, wouldnt that make it a pre requisite for philosophy? So what was Decarte doing in his cave, if not some kind of philosophy?

Which banned member?

A rare feat, thank you sir. Sadly, worth only an eye roll from he whom it was directed at. Whatya gonna do? *shrug*

A sadist, or a fiction…or an impartial force of nature, or is aware of and protecting us from a much wider range of horror and misery than we can comprehend or is part of a pantheon…hardly just the two possibilities you mention.
I mean, its all made up so a decent exercise of ones imagination is all thats needed to show its not just sadist or bust.

It’s rare perhaps, but not as rare as you’d think. Tradition and identity go a long way. What’s so great about belief? — Mikie

Asking the wrong guy, I have no idea.

Anyway— I’m surprised you didn’t ask whether it’s impossible to be a believer and do philosophy; i.e., whether a Christian philosophy is possible. I’d have answered in the negative. — Mikie

Why would that surprise you? It would depend on how strictly one defines philosophy, I dont buy into a strict definition of philosophy. Save that for strict academic settings. To do philosophy is simple, wonder about something and maybe mention it to some others and see if they have anything to say about it. Philosophy. So yes, a theist reflecting on god and the possibilities of the concept is philosophy. Call it bad philosophy if you like but it’s still an attempt at knowledge and answering difficult questions. That’s philosophy in my books.

As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories. — Mikie

Yes, my point being that that criteria doesnt apply to anyone. If a believer thought their religion was just a bunch of stories they wouldnt be a believer. You are petitioning the wind sir.

With that being said, the question stands— is this easier to ignore than other claims? I say it is for a simple enough reason: it’s completely made up by me. I think you must agree with this somehow. You wouldn’t really waste time on any of my questions, because it’s just fabricated nonsense. Right? — Mikie

Correct, if all someone has is a story then their idea shouldnt be treated any differently than any other story. Also, we should treat those criminals over there like criminals, and those yonder cows? Lets mix it up and treat them like cows.
Im not seeing the philosophy here.
You say you want theists to lay down their delusional beliefs but theists do not consider them delusional so again, who is it that you are directing this at? Not theists obviously, surely not atheists either since they would be compelled by their atheist position to include all the religion/god myths the same.
So what’s your point? All you have done is petition believers to lay down delusions they do not believe they possess. (I of course concede you made an argument, you just might as well have made it to a rock) You don’t seem to have any takers and I’m finding it hard to believe you are surprised to be honest.

No he’s not, that better describes you. Fuck off.

But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed? — Mikie

I didnt say “think they have good reasons, evidence and sound arguments”. I said “since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments.” and I said that because YOU said “Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments.”. You didnt say “think they have good evidence” or any such caveat. Your question was sloppily phrased.
I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean.

To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre. — Mikie

I didnt make that claim, as explained above this is your misunderstanding of my response to the question YOU framed.
So your question is, including the delusional caveat, is something like this:
“Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of delusional reasons and evidence and arguments.“
Is that right? You want to know if all delusional belief should be considered delusional? Who could this request for a distinction possibly be directed at? Not theists, the delusional themselves but surely not atheists because by definition they hold all religions/gods to be in the same category of delusion.
Bizarre indeed.

In a similar spirit to the OP: how do people end up on a philosophy forum without knowing anything about their own ideological heritage? — frank

Im not sure what your point is. I suppose people could end up on a philosophy forum without knowing much at all.

For the reasons already presented in this thread. Essential features of your worldview emerged from Christianity, things like the emphasis on ultimate truth, and progress toward a better world. You just can't swing a dead cat in the philosophical realm without smashing into elements of Christianity or its roots. — frank

From history, not Christianity. Religion once dominated man-kinds worldview, so its only natural the further back you go the more religiosity you must account for. Christianity being present in the past doesnt grant merit to Christianity and ideas that took root at a time when Christianity was dominant doesn’t mean Christianity was essential to the idea. If you want to claim it was then you need to provide good reasons why that is the case. Good luck with that.

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore? — Mikie

It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. The perception (or delusion if you prefer) of having evidence, reasons and arguments is why certain cults/religions are taken more seriously by those who believe in them.
It’s pretty simple, not sure what the merit is in your inquiry.

Pattern recognition. Thats a huge part of what the brain does and it’s so dedicated to finding patterns that it will even see patterns that aren’t there, optical illusions etc
This feature of the brain is how we differentiate objects from the rest of it, or any perceived thing really.

Doesnt that show that its the people, not Trump? It tracks for Trump to merely be a mouthpiece for the real enemy, the cynical exploiter. Maybe its the movement thats revered, not Graham or Trump?

While it may be that it's not human nature to perceive without also interpreting, I think the two are distinct. I would say a camera is an example of perception without interpretation in the sense I mean. — goremand

The camera is recording, not perceiving. When humans perceive something they are not just detecting it with their eyes, there is a whole perceptual apparatus attached to the act of seeing that just isnt present in a camera, yet.
I think that you are anthropomorphizing here, rather that making a real distinction. Simple recordings like from a camera are distinct from human perception but are not a distinction of the word/act of perceiving. Apples and oranges.

That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all. — Torus34

It means that “knowing” is on a spectrum, with absolute certainty at one end and no certainty at all on the other. You are using “to know” as “to be certain”, which is false.

It has recently been shown, rather convincingly [for me, at least,] that we cannot distinguish between living in a simulation and living in a 'real' universe. — Torus34

Only if the simulation is perfect and seamless. I dont think perfect is a real thing. A single flaw would be testable, repeatable and therefore detectable.

I do not believe you. You wanted to provoke a response so you can go low hanging fruit picking. The idea that you posted that in jest is implausible to me. Who exactly did you think would respond with something like “good one Nos!”??
Lol, nobody. Nice try though…sorta.