-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

  1.   (new thread)
  2. [ No File]
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 562 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ - Make America Great Again! Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 15/07/19(Sun)18:42 No. 12244 ID: 92fb0c [Reply]
12244

File 14373241233.jpg - (321.08KB , 1920x1200 , 1297797265576.jpg )

Free will and fate can co-exist. It doesn't matter which path i take, if i am to reach a particular destination.


>>
Anonymous 15/07/20(Mon)04:26 No. 12248 ID: ca3ceb

Meh. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

This thread failed to provoke my thoughts because I've already provoked them myself.
You've accomplished nothing of importance with this thread.
I dare say you've only accomplished bringing forth a response in which I tell you how you've only brought forth this response.


Worst shirt ever by the way. Shit wasn't even screen printed.


>>
Anonymous 15/07/22(Wed)11:46 No. 12251 ID: 92fb0c

If everything is pre-determined then importance holds no meaning.


>>
Anonymous 15/07/25(Sat)06:43 No. 12252 ID: ca3ceb

>>12251
It's been predetermined that you have the choice to care.

Your move.




Anonymous 15/05/17(Sun)03:02 No. 12192 ID: 4e42b8 [Reply]
12192

File 143182456934.jpg - (164.63KB , 638x503 , 20120712-220959.jpg )

I was listening to this Sam Harris talk in which he tries to explain the idea of non-duality of experience with "headlessness":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PTAc4WqZAg#t=22m57s

From what I understood, we don't experience non-duality because we see life in 1st person. If we try to imagine what experiencing life in the 3rd person would be, we see that there is not 'really' an observer, like for example in the video below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRxDP--e-Y#t=44s

Am I misunderstanding something?


>>
Anonymous 15/06/05(Fri)23:43 No. 12212 ID: 18b905

We see life in first person, but we remember it in third person. Memories are not exact recordings, but lists of details and patterns. Each time you recall a memory, you brain must take those patterns and reconstruct what happened. It's akin to when you read a book and use the words to picture the scene.

When I remember things that happened to me more than 20 years ago, they're all in third person.


>>
Anonymous 15/06/07(Sun)12:43 No. 12214 ID: 650c4c

To simply my understanding of it:
We have blind spots of where our non-ending is.
They're cut off due to our limited perspectives, and we perceive those blind spots, those cut-offs, as beginnings and ends.

I liken it to this: A storm cloud of particles that create storm-cloud-particled eyes, but these eyes are not structured well enough to see the particles themselves, but rather the shapes they make on another less-accurately represented material level.
When the eyes can not detect the cloud, it presumes a beginning and end. It has blind spots and misinterprets them.

>If my answer is stupid and infuriates you, I do apologize, this is (obviously) part of my limited attempt to make sense of the material


>>
Anonymous 15/06/07(Sun)12:45 No. 12215 ID: 650c4c

>>12214
*To put it simply,




Anonymous 15/06/02(Tue)11:23 No. 12209 ID: 8eb7e6 [Reply]
12209

File 143323699666.jpg - (373.46KB , 1024x768 , image.jpg )

Sartre asserts the importance of individual freedom – as expressed in ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’. Argue how far do you think we can genuinely stay true to the particular sort of freedom Sartre thinks is important and if not – why not?




Anonymous 15/05/28(Thu)09:30 No. 12201 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]
12201

File 143279823140.jpg - (53.93KB , 900x600 , 1-thinking-man-tinjoe-mbugus.jpg )

Confused..

A time before I am concerned to do by what implores whatever that which was said of them, but why, given that the frame for which none other but from the middle between their concerns shall be disregarded and bolstered with a keen eye? Furthermore, to go so far as determine think for that below the face of reason many should pot to be stirred to stir more than stir can go? I wonder no.

Still, by head of wrap a large blanket to say more than "I Am Confused" can exist, but for that being a crumble of words no stranger to the dictionary can see will the words of that which I am capable to bringing forth wont match or maybe so just not now. No? Thoughts?

Thanks.




Anonymous 15/04/19(Sun)10:27 No. 12141 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]
12141

File 14294320377.png - (132.73KB , 1025x698 , sdfsdfsdfsdf.png )

I'm looking for people who will toss aside the rash decision making for just this thread and calm down. Clear your mind.

In inquiring for your thoughts, it is simply to affirm a possibility that it may be true. I've taken into account more times than I can conceive that this is entirely delusional and is nothing more than a product of my distaste for the world. I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm a conspiracy theorist in that I actually care that the things that are thought are happening--it simply doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the truth; trying to find a reason that actually makes sense of and explains why the great, great, great majority are behaving the way they are. You could argue that this could/should go to /x/, but because my intent is to provoke more thought than immediate dismissal and laughter as is generally thought towards those who advocate conspiracy theories, I think that it is more appropriate here.

The premise begins on the idea that people can be easily manipulated: Take, for example, Hitler. He promoted his propaganda to an enormous group of people and won their personal assent and thus belief from his rhetoric. He even stated himself, "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.", and, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.". This is true and propagates through every aspect of humanistic behaviour. This is by no means intended to offend, but an example is the folks of western society (or any society for that matter) who believe that their social perception of reality is the only possible one because that is all they know/have been taught/ have been raised to believe. Tell a woman you find unattractive that she is beautiful enough, and despite the social norms that predominate that culture to suggest otherwise, she will start to consider this proposition and start to believe it--gaining confidence. Have someone influential like Obama say, "____ are trying to take over the world, we need to act now", and just like in the case of Hitler, the vote would most likely be in favour of Obama's declaration and a general agreement would be made despite the lack of evidence to support his claim.

With this said, why is it so necessary to immediately deny the proposition that there may exist a controlling body/force that guides the global decision-making by rhetorical, "clue-like" means? The strangest idea to me is the idea that most humans today put a stigma on the things that are naturally pleasurable, like sex (when naturally, someone coming up on the street and touching you should be exciting, as they are stimulating your genitalia by their personal acknowledgement of it and the rubbing of their hand up against it). The only thing that I know does this is the bible. And such a rhet Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


18 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/04/27(Mon)19:07 No. 12179 ID: 1b45da

>>12178
Not gonna read your contrived garbage anymore. You're retarded and boring. I already understand what you're trying to say, but all of us that don't have brain damage have the ability to intuit from birth that touching people without consent is a no-go. If you lack this faculty I feel bad for you son, but it's not the rest of the universe's problem. It is not social conditioning that leads to this trait, it's inborn with our biology. Being 'unique' and apart from your fellow man does not make you 'superior', this is evidenced by your barely functional social retardation.

Go touch more people without consent, tell them you mean them no harm. Maybe one of them can knock some sense into you, because holy fuck none of us can. And I implore you to consider: this is the truth; you are retarded and there is not a worldwide conspiracy against you because every other normal human on this planet wants their personal space respected. Jesus fuck, just accept this on a whim, recheck your 'logic', appreciate why you are wrong. If you can't then please list what medications you are currently taking because they are not working (and I know you're on something, people don't get to be so strange without help).


>>
Anonymous 15/05/04(Mon)17:34 No. 12186 ID: 0a6349

OP is a pretentious moron with no concept of personal space (if he touched any of my female relatives I'd kick his ass,) but there's a good question buried in there. Somewhere.

>>12166

If you're saying social norms are all based in evo truth and the way things are now is the best possible outcome of human biology so far? Nah. Not true. Too many instances in the history of the world that go against that, too many contradictions to justify a scientific pattern to why a social rule is what it is. Social rules create order to keep people from killing each other, sure, and humans are social animals so we're wired to do what everyone else does by instinct, but beyond that...it's arbitrary. Maybe in the beginning some rules are based in practical issues for the time and place, but they get ingrained and become instinctive because people are built to go along with the group regardless of whether a social norm is directly practical or not. Because it's still part of survival to fit in, to protect yourself from outsiders and competitors, even if fitting in involves something completely goofy that looks pointless to an outsider. So conformists have the most evolutionary fitness (sorry to all the freaks with a god complex...) but the social order is for its own sake.

The only way out of it is to become a literal beast that can survive completely on its own, but then you'd still get shot by humans with guns if they got sick of you stealing their livestock.


>>
Anonymous 15/05/15(Fri)00:22 No. 12191 ID: 40ad3b

>>12141
No strangers want your hands on their junk, and no one needed the bible to figure that out.

>With this said, why is it so necessary to immediately deny the proposition that there may exist a controlling body/force that guides the global decision-making by rhetorical, "clue-like" means?

No one denies that this is happening, what they deny is the insane notion that it is some evil secret group that has been manipulating mankind. The body/force you speak of is just people doing what people do, lying, cheating, and manipulating for profit and gain.

>Under what circumstances would humans, against their own will, put a stigma on the very things that give them pleasure?

People put stigma on pleasurable things all the time, because they are easily manipulated. You talk about how Hitler convinced people to commit a genocide, but you can't understand how opinions of public figures and the opinions of the general public can influence people to stigmatize pleasurable things.

I mean you answer your own question.




Anonymous 15/04/26(Sun)21:37 No. 12174 ID: 275052 [Reply]
12174

File 143007707272.jpg - (28.79KB , 625x626 , _428395[1].jpg )

This is a story inspired by real-life events, but I believe it also serves as a parable on the pursuit of knowledge:

The last few shits I have taken at home have been at least two-flushers (there was even a three-flusher in there somewhere). I wouldn't be bothered by the occasional two-flusher within a routine of normal, smaller-sized shits, but when this becomes a steady pattern I start to get concerned that either there's something wrong with me or something wrong with my toilet.

To answer the question of whether it was me or the toilet I decided to take my next shit in a different toilet. At first I was relieved because this one only took a single flush to go down, but then I considered that public toilets may not be the most valid comparison. Most of those are designed to work on greater volumes of water at higher speeds specifically to prevent large messes, and the greater expense of using more water per flush is justified by employees not spending more of their time and effort cleaning the toilets when they could be doing something more productive.

However, there is a certain level of discomfort people have about both shitting in someone else's house and having other people shit in their house. Overcoming this awkwardness has a relatively trivial thing, though I do wonder what if any effects I've had on my interpersonal relationships merely because I shat in their toilet. It's a foolish thing, to be judged by where one has shitten, but since when has foolishness stopped people?

As of right now I'm still looking for an answer to my original question, but along the way I seem to have pushed a valuable lesson on the processes of learning and epistemology out of my asshole.




Anonymous 14/11/21(Fri)23:19 No. 11896 ID: cc6b6b [Reply]
11896

File 141660837828.jpg - (149.71KB , 1280x800 , 1332533281340.jpg )

Let's get down to it.

What is the meaning of life?


31 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/04/18(Sat)01:38 No. 12137 ID: 43f5da
12137

File 142931393982.jpg - (675.80KB , 1420x968 , Dunno.jpg )

>>11896
in life there is no meaning,
however, each body that holds life and therefore lives, should act to the signals it gives to the consciousness of the self.
This does not mean one should do whatever it desires, for some desires can have negative consequences. It does mean, do what thou wilt, for love is the law of nature.
One does not want to get killed by its enemy, so riding a bike on the highway at 700 miles an hour is not a smart thing to do. Even fucking around, and having as many kids as possible can come out of that love-making is not very smart. Those kids want food and pleasure some day and the more kids you make, the less there will be left for oneself.

Live the good life, enjoy the fine things, discover the intelligent knowledge, so one becomes wiser, and stronger to enjoy life more, and die without remorse.

That should be a good start to enjoy the strangest thing in the cosmos, life.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/25(Sat)08:11 No. 12163 ID: ed9b15

To prepare for the afterlife


>>
Anonymous 15/04/26(Sun)02:51 No. 12165 ID: 44de9e

I can't figure it out. Personal ambition might be the most honest guide to the everyman. As for the final purpose I don't think it's 'nothing', but it is paradoxical and impossible to reason out due to our dimensional constraints. What I'm getting at is a chicken or the egg scenario where God creates Man, or Man 'creates' God, which doesn't make sense because in those higher dimensions time isn't applicable to him. It hurts brain to think.




A.I. dhb 15/04/18(Sat)22:51 No. 12138 ID: 7dd04f [Reply]
12138

File 14293903153.jpg - (6.50KB , 185x273 , data.jpg )

I think within the next 100-200 years, true artificial intelligence will be invented. Machines with actual consciousness and intelligence, placed into android bodies, who will then walk among us. For me it raises some questions, which I will now propose to you;

Would you consider such a being, well, a living being?

Should they have the same rights and priviliges as humans?

Would humaniy be able to accept and integrate androids into society?

Should such a being even be created in the first place?


>>
Anonymous 15/04/19(Sun)00:29 No. 12139 ID: d2ef46

This shit's been a Sci-Fi theme since a fucking lifetime ago. There's a ton of material to work with here. Like this comic making fun of AI.

http://www.doesnotplaywellwithothers.com/comic/pwc-0226

But anyways here's my answers to your questions.

>Would you consider such a being, well, a living being?
We've already defined organic life. So we'd have to define inorganic life and then work off of that definition.

>Should they have the same rights and priviliges as humans?
Meh. If they want it then why not. I doubt they'd want the same things as humans though so they'd probably want different rights and privileges.

>Would humaniy be able to accept and integrate androids into society?
That's politics man. Gotta jump the gauntlet of bureaucracy first. In the US Florida would probably be all like "Nope, not happening." And in the UK they'd give them so many rights in an effort to make them equal that AI would have higher social status than humans.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.




Anonymous 14/11/17(Mon)01:06 No. 11892 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]
11892

File 141618281725.jpg - (77.47KB , 640x529 , 1415688101987.jpg )

I need your thoughts.

Why would this scenario never work?:
A nude society: waking naked in public with the hardest erections you can imagine to show to passersby in a normal context. That is, normal in the sense that nothing is really thought of it but his want for sex in that moment or even his want to just show off his penis? Why is that notion put to such shame in society today? Why are we programmed like this? Does it really fucking matter? I see naked people all the time and don't think anything of it if they were out in public. "But the kids will see it". Well, the kids will find out eventually anyway, so why do you stigmatize it so hardly? There is no social ego with withhold in this society. The fact is, without today's social ego of trying to be better than everyone else, we will be free to do anything we want in a context that will be normal to anyone if the hedonistic aspect of life is sought.

I'm looking for a rational explanation of why it would never work. Not a "you're just a fucking retard". You can understand something but not be able to put it into words. Try.


9 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/02/07(Sat)12:28 No. 12029 ID: d2ef46

>I'm looking for a rational explanation of why it would never work.

Winter.

There, I just destroyed your scenario with one word.


>>
Anonymous 15/02/07(Sat)12:51 No. 12030 ID: 6e7db4

>I'm looking for a rational explanation of why it would never work.

Women on their period.

There, I just destroyed your scenario with one phrase.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/17(Fri)23:27 No. 12135 ID: 31099f

>>11892

Some people look better than others, much better. When we' re naked this difference magnifies. And generally life is easier for good looking people. So less attractive people will want to cover themselves up. They're not not just motivated by shame, but also by personal gain in general.




Building a Simulation of a Full Universe Anonymous 15/04/07(Tue)10:23 No. 12114 ID: d47cd9 [Reply]
12114

File 142839499589.jpg - (501.66KB , 1689x2188 , 1412415217804.jpg )

Let's consider the theory that the universe is nothing more than a simulation. Said simulation is responsible for all that we are capable of observing and experiencing. Disregarding all the implications that this may bring up for civilization and the human race, consider this: the way human technology evolves is to become progressively more compact and powerful as time goes on. Is it then possible that humanity (or some later form of it) could ever feasibly create some computer cable of running a full universe-simulation? Would a computer capable of running a simulation of that magnitude take up more space than our entire universe (if it's even finite)? Or is this the way existence progresses, as a series of more and more powerful machines each running inside of another?


>>
Anonymous 15/04/09(Thu)03:03 No. 12119 ID: 86e709

ok I considered it.

as far as I can imagine it, if it were successfully done, we'd have no way of ever knowing that was the underlying condition of our reality.

It seems we do have quite a lot of things to study and understand yet in between, so I'm not sure it's productive to spend any time entertaining whether it's a simulation on a computer or a simulation in an atom smasher or a simulation in the daydream of the buddha, or if it just is as it is. If it has no effect one way or the other on the outcome so as to be completely undetectable, then it seems to be an unnecessary layer of complication, which raises far more questions. What is this verse that the computer exists in? The resources to make it, the operator of it, everything else that concept suddenly wills into existence... and for what? ...for whom?

The whole thing seems kind of moot.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/11(Sat)10:15 No. 12120 ID: 2f260d

There would never need to be a full simulation of the entire universe. Each human need only be supplied with information from the miniscule portion of the universe that they are currently observing and interacting with. It's just like with a video game world such as Minecraft; the entire world is "there", but only the parts of it that the character is interacting with are fully simulated and in your computer's active memory; everything outside is frozen in place. No computer could possibly simulate an entire Minecraft world, all at once, and it doesn't need to.

In this theoretical simulated reality, nobody even needs to be in the same, collective simulation (like they are in The Matrix). In fact, it makes sense that they are NOT, because then everything can be maintained in a state of complete internal consistency, with the only changes being made by a single human. Everything else is just part of the simulation. Every other person you see and interact with is an NPC.


The other part of your question is simple. A computer capable of simulating the entire universe would have to be more complex than the entire universe, and thus would not fit, according to the laws of physics, in the entire universe. But that's more something to ask /tech/ than /phi/.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/17(Fri)23:04 No. 12132 ID: 31099f

>>12120

That's an interesting perspective. However I don't think we can say with certainty that we can simulated the "edge" of such a simulation, without knowing everything in the universe. Even if we are able to do so, will it still be realistic?




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason