Self-serving bias: people "demonize" those they disagree with and "worship" those they agree with especially when the social or political stakes are high enough.Why then are we demonized/worshipped for our beliefs? We shouldn't be, right? — TheMadFool
Well, the post you replied toSo, I am really suggesting the importance of critical examination, alongside recognition of personal bias and values. — Jack Cummins
You said "stand back from beliefs critically" which seems like "avoid examining them" to me. CBT (though not philosophy itself) certainly engages "beliefs critically". What do you mean by "critically" if not by examination? Your point is inconsistent and thereby is lost on me.When I said 'stand back from beliefs, I did not mean that examining them is to be avoided ... — Jack Cummins
What would be the point of us "to stand back from beliefs critically?" How are we to live an examined life (Socrates) if we "stand back from beliefs critically"? Philosophy that does not reflect on "beliefs critically" it seems is not (western / modern) philosophy but more like sophistry or pastoral ministry or self-help therapy.You speak of the way in which beliefs 'may be avowals (ie. subjective appeals, or emotional declarations of trust)' and this may be where philosophy is needed to stand back from beliefs critically — Jack Cummins
Everybody had a hard year
Everybody had a good time
Everybody had a wet dream
Everybody saw the sunshine
Oh yeah, (oh yeah)
Everybody had a good year
Everybody let their hair down
Everybody pulled their socks up
Everybody put their foot down
Oh yeah ...
:up:Mary cannot tell she's seeing red without first learning that what she is seeing is red. — InPitzotl
One has nothing to do with the other, so of course not for me either.Is an orgasm a more complete, more data rich, description if the physical system of human reproduction? Not for me. — frank
And there's the fly in the ointment: the knowledge of color was not complete without (before) seeing color. Jackson's thought-experiment fails because of this incoherent premise and therefore implies nothing about physicalism.The idea is that if you know everything about the physical aspects of sight, there's something extra you learn from actually seeing. — frank
I Dig a Pygmy
by Charles Hawtrey and the Deaf Aids ...
Phase One in which Doris gets her oats
Oh, dirty Maggie Mae
they have taken her away
And she'll never walk down Lime Street anymore
Oh, the judge, he guilty found her
For robbin' the homeward bounder
That dirty, no good, robbin'
'Tis the part of Liverpool
They returned me to
ten a week,
that was my pay. — a Scouser fave from their skiffle days
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cxjzrfXMkaoThe Queen says no to pot-smoking FBI members ...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AbNFLI720_UThat was 'Can You Dig It' by Georgie Wood, and now we'd like to do 'Hark, the Angels Come'.
:up: :cool:... and I hope we've passed the audition. — 30 January 1969, a rooftop, London, UK
The thought-experiment does not imply anything about physicalism per se but does imply that before she ventured "outside", Mary's "knowledge" was, in fact, incomplete as a physical description (and explanation) of color.This is the Mary's room thought experiment:
[ ... ]
What's your answer? And what does it imply for physicalism? — frank
That does not follow. Mary experiences "new knowledge" (i.e. a more complete, more data-rich, description of the physical system of (human) color-perception) which now includes her own particular physical sensorium: Mary's eyes are (visual cortex is) receptive of stimuli that trigger subtly differentiated neural-systemic affects which are strongly correlated to (i.e. adaptively selected for) specific, or discrete, light frequencies. Mary experiencing 'seeing color' is simply a particular instantiation (deducible experimental prediction) of her generic model (knowledge) of color itself.The argument is that Mary's experience is new knowledge.
She has knowledge of something that isn't physical. — frank
:up:I wonder how they got that way. But I'm glad they did. I think they should be paid for it, too. That way they can keep doing it. Apparently it makes them happy and they are doing good. Win-win for everyone. — James Riley
:up:Does your mechanic need to care for you to do a good job on your car? I'd settle for non-judgemental professional skill over emotive caring most days.
Human kindness is overrated. — Tom Storm
(Re: belief that) If one has a proposition attitude with respect to "God" or "life after death", then one has corroborable (public) evidence which are truth-makers of such truth-claims; where evidence is lacking and/or makes-true the negations of said truth-claims, holding such a propositional attitude is delusional. (NB: Churches, etc pimp such delusions as (apologetic) dogmas e.g. "the Nicene Creed", "the Sh'ma Yisrael", "the Šahādah", etc; and "new age" / conspiracy theoreticians (bs artists, propagandists, political paranoids, Woo-nuts, schizoids-in-general (Žižek re: "ideology")); and ...)... belief in God and life after death. — Jack Cummins
I'm sure this is why I've never put much stock in his 'philosophical' jingles.I am still not convinced that it is equal to the 'end' of history which Baudrillard spoke about, although his ideas are fairly vague and ambiguous. — Jack Cummins
Pedantic note: In the introduction to the 2nd edition of the PM, Russell acknowledges that in the TLP 1919 Witty had challenged its "foundations" before Gödel. According to this article, Witty 1919 & 1939, then Gödel 1944 significantly called into question the PM's "completeness" claim (among others).That may have been his goal in writing the Principia Mathematica with A, N. Whitehead. However, " the book was initially a success in that no one challenged its "completeness"… until Gödel came along with his incompleteness theorem." — Gnomon
The USA began as a Roman patrician-like slave republic that forcibly surrendered slavery in order to remain a republic. A century of racial apartheid followed. (Then I was born.) Now a half-century or so later, about half the population wants slavery back or, at a minimum, apartheid again – at any intellectual or moral or civilizational cost! These folks are heavily armed, many are radicalized, and would rather destroy the USA in order to save the USA from any prospect of a multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan, and prosperous future.Before I used to believe the USA is a great nation with exemplary democracy, politics, strong economy and power. However with the recent event of Corona pandemics and the government changes, my beliefs on the USA have changed a lot. — Corvus
This post should do. And this post too. Lastly, Fool, this post on mysticism to aufheben (i.e. sublimate) the other two.Ego-death? Ah, but you don't buy into that idea,
believing[proposing] instead in Ego- transcendence[suspension] or something like that. Do you mind jogging my memory too? — TheMadFool
Great scene, great cast, great movie. My little brother and I had nightmares all summer long after seeing Jaws at Long Island drive-in with my (crazy) uncle when it first came out. :monkey: :up::fire: Moral of the story: I'm gonna need a bigger boat. — TheMadFool
??? No idea what this reply has to do with my previous post.By the way, very Buddhist (anattā).
What I mean by 'atavistic ... metacognitive bottleneck of self-awareness' is an intelligent system which develops a "theory of mind" as humans do based on a binary "self-other" model wherein classes of non-selves are otherized to varying degrees (re: 'self-serving' (i.e. confabulation-of-the-gaps) biases, prejudices, ... tribalism, etc). — 180 Proof
:smirk:But then you're using ordinary language! Are you saying you're spewing nonsense? — TheMadFool
I have seen very little effort from you, sir, to summarily explain the 'theory' that would recommend anything more than cursory interest by anyone reasonably well-acquainted with physical sciences or philosophy. :shade:I have seen very little effort from those who claim the theory is wrong, to first understand the theory. — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay
I didn't say that.Humanoid descendants without "self-awareness"??? — Gnomon
I disagree with this.Artificial Intelligence (1) without a self-image would also (2) lack free-will. Because it would (3) not be able to distinguish Self from Non-self.
:ok: ... very Hegel and Bergson, Whitehead and Heidegger, and perhaps David Bohm too, which seems, IMO, an idealist analogue for the epicurean-spinozist pandeism I've proposed (mostly woo-free) above.My own worldview is also based on the axiom of an eternal creative force. but remains agnostic about the deity's specific intentions . I label that model as "PanEnDeism" because our current understanding of physics is information-centric. In that case, both the Creator (Enformer) and the Creation (Enformed) are essentially the same stuff : infinite Potential-to-Be. And Evolution is the creative work of enforming, as performed by EnFormAction. In other words, it's all Information from Energy to Matter to Mind, and from Alpha to Omega.
That said, I still must label myself as Agnostic, because my personal worldview is just an educated guess, not a revealed prophecy. And it's not beholden to any religious tradition. So, this rather abstract model of Reality does not provide any of the emotionally appealing mythical elements, that would serve as a popular religion. It's more along the lines of Plato's LOGOS, and Lao Tse's TAO :meh: — Gnomon
For our descendants' sakes, let's hope not. I think 'human-level artificial intelligence' without any unnecessary atavistic, evolutionary-baggage like that metacognitive bottleneck "self-awareness" would be optimal.... 'mysterians' ... who believe that no computer, of the kind we know how to build, will ever become self-aware and acquire the creative powers of the human mind.
Thanks for sharing this interview about David Bohm. :up:
... If I was dead they wouldn't get angry with me. If I had conveniently died in the mid-seventies after the Rock'n'Roll album or Walls and Bridges, they'd all be writing this worshipful stuff about what a great guy [ ... ] It's alright when you're dead, you see [ ... ] But I didn't die and that infuriated everybody that I lived and did what I wanted to do, y'know – which is look after me and the family. That was the central concern – to be a family and not lose that – which was more important [to me] than ... — 24 September 1980, NYC
Somehow I've not heard (or do not remembering hearing) Dinah Washington's version of this song. Aretha Franklin's version (below) I've loved for decades, even more so if that's possible now realizing young Aretha sang it in honor of Ms. Washington just a couple of months after her passing. Thanks, Amity. :cool:*virtual hugs to music lovers everywhere *
:love: :flower: :heart: — Amity
:up: To the degree we thrive (i.e. flourish – optimize agency), not only in spite of but because of suffering (i.e. by pro-actively reducing suffering), I think we give our individual and/or collective lives value.I don't agree that suffering 'gives life value', though, even if suffering seems inevitable. — Wayfarer
:100: :up:"The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil," wrote Bertrand Russell in Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. He went on with this admonition: "Let us leave them to others and proceed with our honest toil."
The author^^ liberally helps himself to any postulates and implied assumptions that he believes he needs for his constructions, but bizarrely insists on misrepresenting his exercises as proof from first principles (coincidentally, the same "first principles" that one finds in physics textbooks). — SophistiCat