News from tnmurti
The search for universal meaning in an absurd world is pointless. Camus argues meaning must be forged from personal passions.
Prayers up for the blessed. Gives %{coin_symbol}100 Coins to both the author and the community.
- By - IAI_Admin
Nietzsche's Three Metamorphoses in Thus Spoke Zarathustra charts the process by which new values are birthed in times of nihilism. The camel follows some code of ethics but finding them insufficient (a crisis of nihilism) the lion rebels so that the child can create a new value system
- By - thelivingphilosophy
Nietzsche held pain and struggle to be central to the meaning of life. Terminally ill philosopher Havi Carel argues physical pain is irredeemably life destroying.
Shows the Silver Award... and that's it.
- By - IAI_Admin
A framework wherein Nihilism Is viewed as the word used for the realization that 'Meaning' is a phenomena of mind. Being precedes Meaning.
Thank you stranger. Shows the award.
- By - Oof-Argonia
A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked
Shows the Silver Award... and that's it.
- By - simpleslingblade13
To be creative, Chinese philosophy teaches us to abandon 'originality'
Thank you stranger. Shows the award.
When you come across a feel-good thing.
Everything is better with a good hug
- By - ADefiniteDescription
From moment to moment I identify myself with a different "ME".
We can also have this idea of self:
Maybe for some adults and a smaller number of adolescents. But this isn't as small of a deal as you make it out. Growing up believing that your life is ultimately meaningless in the long run and nothing you do actually matters is an extremely easy way into existential crisis. With surface-level happiness and pleasure-chasing being ways that help the keep the ultimate meaninglessness at bay.
Yes. To value the ultimate (even if it is meaningful ) over and above the present necessities or fancies appears meaningless.
We wish to see the same outputs from AI as well as from any IDEAL human intelligence.The ideal intelligence will have incorporated within it moral values and compassion towards human condition.
Yes,births of new value systems happen like that.yet one can imagine an end to these cycles when one discovers
Hoffman's argument is that "This perceptive process guarantees an objective image in its faithfulness to external object" is an unsupported assumption. In fact, the argument is that such a process will probably fail to be an objective image.
Now we have two arguments before us,namely 1.evolutionary fitness and 2.predictive perception.
I don't think you understand Hoffman's argument. You say
We are talking here about evolution of cognitive algorithms related to perception.They seek a
It only takes a second or two to think of cases where only doing what you can universally suggest is proper in all cases hits a brick wall, or becomes so flexible as to be useless.
"Doing what you can universally suggest"should be your background thinking alltimes.Yet one must be sensitive in applying generalities to particular situations.Dignity of a general rule is not
The bigger problem is that it is silent on most questions.
The question here is appropriate application of general rule to particular situation.It involves
Referring to humans :
Exististential anxieties create unavoidable human condition ( unavoidable suffering ).People generally do not notice this suffering.But some sensitive people respond by deeply thinking about life.They are likely to discover (or learn) meaning,if any of life.No such opportunities exist in other kinds of suffering.
Assuming self-improvement feature is made available to p-zombies :
The problems of the world are related more with peoples` conflicting interests.By making people
Personally, I disagree, on the grounds that arguments for what is 'natural' are highly biased.
I understand the development of inbuilt cognitive mechanisms is a natural development.We know
but, if you are a BIV and you perceive eyes, they are being simulated. If your brain tells those eyes to shut even the experience of them shutting is simulated. The things you will "see" as a BIV are entirely up to who or what is piping information into your brain. For instance if you tried to send the command to close your eyes and your simulated eyes refused to listen to you and then you continued to be sent visual information you would likely conclude that you had lost control over your eyelids. the whole point of the BIV is that you are being presented with a false version of reality that is completely and totally indistinguishable from actual reality and you would have no way of telling the difference.
This is all a thought experiment.All outcomes depend on how we visualise BIV.I have nothing to add.
Could you tell me about brain in a vat as you understand it? I think it is clear you and I have different takes on it and I would be interested in both how you define BIV or how you see it working and also what you derive from the thought experiment as you understand it.
Brain in a skull gets its information through its sense organs. BIV has no sense organs but it
Mind can be viewed as a cluster of mental phenomena.
I think for a virtuous person,his empathy for the vicious is very short-lived.He regains his natural virtuous stance quickly.
I think this article makes a very strong argument against panpsychism.
When a light ray gets reflected from a surface,the reflected photons carry information of the
No. The idea that a photon or subatomic particle can have consciousness is absurd. This argument just proves it for people who refuse to acknowledge the absurdity of consciousness particles...
Yes,thank you.We normally attribute consciousness to living matter of neurons only.
I love the free will debate, so I'd like to hear such an instance.
The agent and his motivation are born simultaniously.The motivation is his will.As long as his will
But if an agent can't control the will it has, it is just following a will that was given or grown on him. Being able to act according to one's will might feel like it is free will, but realistically it's only following, predictable, innate, uncontrollable and learned preferences. That is not free will, only retroactive rationalisation and individual personalization of decision making.
But the agent and his will are inseperable .They are born,they live and they disappear together.
I have this model of understanding:
It is well known that the decision making mechanisms of humans are erratic and unpredictable.
You are confusing different levels of description.
"humans are unpredictable so determinism is false"
Let the mind avoid engaging itself in its experiences of the past and its imagined expectations for the future.Then automatically it is in the present with greater attention.The mind can forget itself to discover later that it was happy.
We have set ways of thinking.Each of us has his own uniquely set way of thinking.That unique set
Any moral theory should aim at upliftment of moral sense in society,generally speaking.In
We have to view networks consisting of individuals who are simultaneously sources and sinks of
I believe in the reality of the brain activity and in the illusion of the mental activity.Still sometimes we may feel like illusions originating real activities.For example when we mistake a rope for a snake in dim light and jump-- even here the jump is originated by the rope activity of the brain.The doubt is whether this jump is conscious or unconscious decision?
Rational conclusions are based on axiomatic beliefs and beliefs partly constitute ego.
I guess biological evolution is a creative process.Creativity first discovers several possibilities and