5AF Philosophy Thread

eddy
Posts: 22309
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am
Location: Emmet's barn loft

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby eddy » Tue May 11, 2021 8:57 am

Been reading this and I don't pretend to understand any of it, but I find it utterly fascinating and thought you guys may enjoy it so check it out


Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby Kraftster » Tue May 11, 2021 4:17 pm

Hey, man. I'm doing OK, at least corporeally. I hope you and yours are doing OK too.

"Something greater than the basics of life"?

Yeah, I suppose so, but, IMO, certainly nothing non-secular. More about our very secular relationships.

I can't see another human being -- in real life, on television, online, even my own wife, or siblings, or whatever, for what he or she truly is. How they see life, what experiences shaped them, how they see me or you or anyone. So I look in the mirror and I see someone. Just someone. Someone that I can't really see. Just another someone.

Meh.

I've been pondering too much Sartre, Camus, and Beckett lately. That's not a bad thing. Just got me ruminating.
my beliefs from '19 carry through precisely to today.

...but hooo boy did things get nihilistic later that year. it was a real energy buzz to feel like you figured something out. but "nothing matters and you have no identity" shockingly wasn't as fun as advertised in the long run.
I feel like I can relate to both what @redwill and @shmenguin are saying, so I think you two good dudes should just find a way to get along. At the end of the day, you're talking past each other a bit. redwill asking a phenomenological question, and shmenguin responding with a materialistic answer.

redwill, have you read Douglas Harding's On Having No Head? I feel like he has a really neat way of getting at the mirror question. Playing around with having a not-head on mountaintops and in meditation is pretty fun stuff, and it definitely detaches you from relating to the thing you see in the mirror.

There's some deep phenomenological itch that something like Sartre in Nausea gets at pretty nicely that the materialist account of the world doesn't really scratch. Even if you can experience the electrical current account of self/lack of free will--which I think you can--it's only in glimpses, and, as Dan Harris likes to say, "you still have to put your pants on in the morning"--or "it" still has to put on its pants in the morning, as it were.

For me, the marriage of the two sorts of accounts of self produces an overwhelming feeling of compassion. I'm not sure what you mean by "humanity," redwill, but to the extent it's in that vein of human compassion, then I definitely know what you mean.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby shmenguin » Tue May 11, 2021 4:31 pm

Kraftster! I replied to your email way back when. Yours went to my junk mail. Mine may have done the same for you.

I'm starting to explore the idea of the universe (and relatively closed loop systems like earth) as internally balanced entities and not random chaos. Viewing things much more in the meta now (outside of the political discussion thread here) and it's starting to click in new ways. There may be a glimmer of hope in the nihilism.

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby Kraftster » Tue May 18, 2021 3:32 pm

Kraftster! I replied to your email way back when. Yours went to my junk mail. Mine may have done the same for you.

I'm starting to explore the idea of the universe (and relatively closed loop systems like earth) as internally balanced entities and not random chaos. Viewing things much more in the meta now (outside of the political discussion thread here) and it's starting to click in new ways. There may be a glimmer of hope in the nihilism.
Just checked. Sure did. Will connect with you soon.

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29201
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Tue May 18, 2021 3:41 pm

How odd. I don't remember posting any of that last night. Haha.

I swear I wasn't high. Maybe drunk. Or maybe just something in the Kansas wind.

The question remains, however. After I read it I looked in the mirror and the same thing came to my mind. Sweet oblivious lucidity, I guess.
Your thoughts last night made me think of the concept that humans are largely incapable of grasping objective reality. Very Bertrand Russell-ish, with a little of Plato's Allegory of the Cave thrown in for good measure.

What I mean by that is...we all agree the sky is blue, right? But...is it *really* blue, or is that just how *we* perceive it?
perception of the universe is weird because it's seemingly different for all organisms. like animals that can't see colors we can see or animals that CAN see colors that we can't. Or I was watching this video that showed what cats' whiskers are for: to help them sense prey that's close to their faces. The whiskers are highly sensitive to pressure changes in the air and can track movements in a way that their eyes can't

this can be expanded to human perception. what I say is blue might be different than what you say is blue. Color blindness or blindness altogether might impact someone's interpret the world

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29201
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:43 pm

something I’ve been thinking about recently. This will probably come off as a fedora-tip post but I want to preface it with that I genuinely understand how personal beliefs are and that mine aren’t more right and or wrong than anyone else’s


for those that follow a particular religion; how much do you subscribe to it?

I grew up Catholic and the idea of someone devoutly believe in the ideas the church promotes is…difficult for me to understand. And with this there’s two parts: the teachings and the organization


firstly, the teachings of both Catholicism and, honestly, most religions, are…old-fashioned. Most of the stuff in the Old Testament are extraordinarily archaic (regarding slave-ownership, male dominance of society, etc) or wayyy too simplified (god creating the universe in 7 days). Of course for the latter, there’s a logical leap that it’s a metaphor…ok, I guess I get it, but if we’re willing to call some of it a metaphor, how do we pick and choose? to me, it’s kind of proof by counter-example. If one thing in the Bible is “up for interpretation”, then shouldn’t all of it? should Jesus’ resurrection be considered a metaphor considering how ascientific it is?


the second part of it is the organization itself which for the Catholic Church is very easy to point out the flaws of it. Priests abusing children and the ensuing cover ups, the torturing of people who refuse to convert, etc. at what point do you think “well the organization is so corrupt, there’s no way that I’ll trust them; especially when they’re trying to dictate morality and sinfulness”?


My sister, as an example, is a very devout Catholic. But I find it very intriguing because she’s tremendously intelligent; she just about heads up the neurology department at a major university. To me it’s almost paradoxical at how someone can be so smart yet subscribe to an organized religion; especially one as flawed as the Catholic Church

note that while I feel this way about religion, I don’t feel like this about spirituality. Believing in “a god” is different than believing in the one as defined by the catholic church which has such a specific and, arguably oxymoronic, definition (see the Epicurean paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus# ... an_paradox).


And it’s tough because I absolutely see the desire to believe in something. I still haven’t gotten over my atheistic fear of death (eternal nothingness). But I don’t think I could ever subscribe to an organized religion because it’ll feel like I’d be deceiving myself. Religions, to me, are a form of control and define an oversimplified supernatural belief system to assuage peoples fear of not being able to know what life is all about

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11556
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:50 am

for those that follow a particular religion; how much do you subscribe to it?
I grew up Catholic
note that while I feel this way about religion, I don’t feel like this about spirituality. Believing in “a god” is different than believing in the one as defined by the catholic church which has such a specific and, arguably oxymoronic, definition (see the Epicurean paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus# ... an_paradox).
I'll take a shot here, as I think you bring up some good points and valid arguments for your case. I've quoted the parts that seem like the easiest to address.

First off, I think there's a difference between religion and belief. Religion is (or at least is portrayed as) the organization of those that believe in a particular spiritual cause. From there, you have the various denominations. In Christianity, Catholicism is just one sect. When any of those sects are adamant that they are the only true sect that matters, that can receive salvation, you end up with some really whacky results. This is something I could dive into a little more (not as much as somebody like Freddy could), but I'll digress to keep this shorter. I will say that although the Catholic church to me can promote some very dangerous thoughts and beliefs, there are Catholics out there that I have grown to admire, plus some of their teachings and ways can be inspirational.

I can't say I know how the Catholic church's beliefs apply to the Epicurean paradox you linked to (not familiar with that paradox myself), but reading the wiki on it, it's a completely flawed misunderstanding of the Bible. According to Biblical teaching, human nature was damaged from the time of Adam and Eve, and will continue to be damaged until the time of the second coming of Christ. God himself is not the one that brought this calamity, it was man. God is perfectly righteous and just, therefore what he set in motion at the beginning of time continues to be true through all eternity. Therefore, if he said that sin must be punished, that is true for all eternity - He can't change His nature or His mind.

However, God is also merciful, and has always allowed for forgiveness of these sins. Pre-Jesus, that was done through animal sacrifice. Obviously, Jesus took the place of all those sacrifices so that man, if he accepts it, will be forgiven of all his sins because of this one man's sacrifice.

That still doesn't quite answer the question of why God hasn't "fixed" all the bad things that are happening. The best way I've seen this explained was with an analogy to WW2. On D-Day, the Allied forces stormed Normandy, won the battle, and turned the tide of the war. For all intents and purposes, the war was over. But the war didn't officially end for almost another year after that. D-Day is akin to Jesus' death and resurrection. The war is still going on. However, we are promised that the war will end with God the victor. At that time, God will have "fixed" all that is wrong with the world. This is where the tenant of faith comes in - belief in what was promised, even though it cannot be seen.

All that is just a long-winded way to say God is willing and able to fix all evil - debunking the Epicurean paradox.

LeopardLetang
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:27 pm

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby LeopardLetang » Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:44 am

no one has a good answer to the questions mimh asks. if someone wants to hold to the bible being infallable they can't use logic or talk it through. they would have to use some variation of an ants view (we're incapable of understanding). others might say the bible was written by man and didn't necessarily have God's perfection behind them. that would be like a herodotus view where you have some clearly wrong information but without the bible we'd have nothing so you take the good with the bad. i haven't heard a good explanation for the all is written/free will argument. there's pain because of free will but God is all knowing and knows what you will do. this goes back to the ants view.

someone who accepts that they can't understand or explain the logical problems but still believes completely is understandable to me. that is where faith comes in for me. they choose to believe. there are great benefits of community that they experience and great spiritual benefits that truthfully would come with any spiritual discipline. but if someone is unable to explain clearly why they believe I also understand them. they may see the evils pointed out to them but they also know they are not a philosopher and they know many smarter than them still believe and they know that things they've believed in the past turned out to be false and they fear the consequences of not believing.

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11556
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:28 am

I'm not well versed on the ants view but that seems like a good logical explanation to some of the issues.

I think a lot about the separation between spirituality and science. Science is very objective and leaves no room for the unknown. It can only be something observable, which in itself leaves out any possibility for the supernatural. So using science to debunk spirituality is a setting up a strawman. I'm don't think anybody here does that specifically, but I have seen people use science to doubt the existence of the Christian God.

Sciences only exist because we as humans are able to understand them. What if there are other "sciences" out there that are unobservable by humans because we are incapable of observing? I'm not even talking about spiritual things; anything. What about the POV of an ant, a tree, a drop of water? We think they have no POV, but what if they do? What do they see? I tend to think of these things as other dimensions, not in the physical sense, but in the sense that they exist but are unobservable.

I just started reading Braiding Sweetgrass which my wife was reading based on her sister's recommendation. It's written by a botanist who's also native American. She intertwines her knowledge of science with her upbringing, and it really shows how shallow our understanding is of the universe. I'm not native American so I don't subscribe to her beliefs, but it kind of explains what I was saying above. Westerners (re: scientists) see things in a very individualistic way where native Americans see everything as intertwined. It's basically what Avatar is all about.

My beliefs are leaning more and more towards the whole intertwining of nature. God set it up this way since the beginning, and I don't think we truly understand how it all works. We've found ways to make things work to our benefit, but that's about it. Humans are just a part of that nature. But I also believe that God set us apart from it all as a step above. We are His chosen species. Forget all that other crap in religion...that's the basis of it all. "For God so loved the world (people)..." We messed up, but He loved us enough to repair that broken relationship.

Beveridge
Posts: 5357
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:17 pm
Location: 8-8-1

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby Beveridge » Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:39 am

Organized religion can and is dangerous just like anything else. The biggest enemy for Jesus himself were religious leaders. I'm not a fan of religion in what mankind has gone with it. I am a fan of Jesus and what he stands for.

Without going in a million different directions with the questions you asked and typing for a good bit, I'll leave it at this: Jesus is the new covenant and he made a simple statement (paraphrasing): Love God and Love Others. I may not agree with things (abortion, same sex marriage, etc.), but I'm going to love those people regardless. If everyone loved like Jesus, it would be simple. We don't live in simple and I'm guilty of it not being that way just like anyone else. I think this is where organized religion gets it really wrong: they prop up Jesus, in ways, to be something he wasn't.

The faith part (among other things) is believing that Jesus died for our sins, resurrected, and will return again. Yes it goes against anything we understand and see with our own eyes, but that's where faith begins. I'm not one to argue with someone who wants to say I'm stupid or crazy. Maybe I am, but "pushing" my beliefs on someone, to me, is no different than the other way around.

Sam's Drunk Dog
Posts: 6707
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:10 pm
Location: Less Coronavirus; More Donnie Iris
Contact:

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby Sam's Drunk Dog » Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:55 pm

Not sure if this is the right topic, but I found this interesting.

People differ widely in their understanding of even a simple concept such as the word penguin.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -penguin1/

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29201
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Fri Sep 29, 2023 5:55 pm

if you listened to a song and loved it but then later learned it was written and totally produced (like all the sounds, instruments, vocals, etc) entirely by an AI, do you think that would change your appreciation of the art?

like, let’s say it was a long song with a female vocalist with a chorus and verses like any typical pop song. But no human was involved with it other than initiating the request with the AI.

Nuge
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:56 pm

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby Nuge » Fri Sep 29, 2023 6:03 pm

if you listened to a song and loved it but then later learned it was written and totally produced (like all the sounds, instruments, vocals, etc) entirely by an AI, do you think that would change your appreciation of the art?

like, let’s say it was a long song with a female vocalist with a chorus and verses like any typical pop song. But no human was involved with it other than initiating the request with the AI.
I wouldn’t care. I like any song that’s catchy.

LeopardLetang
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:27 pm

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby LeopardLetang » Sat Sep 30, 2023 10:19 am

if you listened to a song and loved it but then later learned it was written and totally produced (like all the sounds, instruments, vocals, etc) entirely by an AI, do you think that would change your appreciation of the art?

like, let’s say it was a long song with a female vocalist with a chorus and verses like any typical pop song. But no human was involved with it other than initiating the request with the AI.
it wouldn't bother me from a one hit wonder sense. with a band or singer-songwriter that i enjoyed specifically it could bother me if it was random and didn't fit them but not if they curated the AI version to fit with their style and philosophy you know. if they jive with it then i can respect it as if they wrote it. so you said no human involved but the request but realistically the selecting process would have to be involved too since they wouldn't pick the first random thing but something they liked. later i could be cool with a band that only played songs totally produced by AI with just the input "huge hit" or something and the band could be known for being able to pull off whatever the algorithm thought the current market wanted to hear.


Edit: obviously I skimmed the post and missed the point. I'd still like the song like in a star warsy way or like elevator music but it couldn't hit me the same. More of like vs love. But eventually if I associated the song with life events I could end up loving it still
Last edited by LeopardLetang on Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

genoscoif
Posts: 1955
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:04 pm
Location: Suspiciously looking around...

5AF Philosophy Thread

Postby genoscoif » Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:12 am

if you listened to a song and loved it but then later learned it was written and totally produced (like all the sounds, instruments, vocals, etc) entirely by an AI, do you think that would change your appreciation of the art?

like, let’s say it was a long song with a female vocalist with a chorus and verses like any typical pop song. But no human was involved with it other than initiating the request with the AI.
Having a very good friend that makes his living as an independent graphic artist has admittedly shaped my view of AI produced art, but I'm in the camp that the subjective concept of 'art' is uniquely human. As I understand it (without really deep dive into it), AI basically mimics or outright steals the results of humans' talents. It can certainly produce an image, song, or story, but it's more compilation than creativity.

It would absolutely, for me, change the appreciation of the art because I wouldn't consider it art at all. Doesn't mean I wouldn't listen to it, but it would be something different in my mind's eye.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 136 guests