u/Legitimate-Paper3271

Idk the official terminology, but I consider there to be lesser and greater platonists. Lesser would be to believe math objects exist in some sense, and greater would be and that they exist and humans tap into this existence directly. I consider myself somewhere between a nominalist or lesser platonist.

Lesser platonists would seem to be okay if ai could do math, but greater platonists seem as though would have a live challenge, at least in that that direct access would clearly not be necessary.

Honestly even if it could do .5 of what humans could do these questions would start to form in my mind.

Seriously from the most mystical to the most materialistic, from being entirely free to having no free will.

There are a dizzying amount of ideas of what consciousness is out there and I often feel like there’s no way what I think would be right.

Anyone else?

I’m pretty much a nihilist and sometimes an optimistic nihilist, but what if there is a will at play that we can either be in line with or misaligned? Or something else

I think for a large portion of my life I felt as though I was holding the rational position being an atheist. Some life events and digging in to philosophy more has led me to feel that I cannot rationally justify theism or atheism, yet I still feel like an atheist.

Is there good work about handling such a position? I no longer think that I have the superior position, but also feel less assured since I don’t think I can rationalize my position over the other(s).

I love Camus, and found a guy saying I have no idea what’s going on in reality and I think no one else does either refreshing

Has anyone built on these ideas? If so what do those systems look like? I find “rebelling” against the absurd to be a somewhat random response to the absurd.

Another way to phrase my intent would be “is there anything in the hard problem that isn’t already covered by the mind body problem?”

If so, what is the distinction?