r/badphilosophy

[supprimé]

When you strip out circumstances, physics, material neural structure, complexity too difficult to fully map out and randomness what's left? Is there any kind of proper definition?

It is vital what you have, not what you do not.
Some birds cannot fly, though wings they have got.
Happiness comes on its own; no one can bring it close.
It’s a hidden throne behind a beautiful rose.
What is good, and what is bad?
For centuries, humanity has struggled to understand.
Humans arrive with a tear and go with a fear.
They just live in fog which looks too clear.
Is not the light of heaven and hell the same?
It is only a matter of where it is placed.
Everything is duality wearing a single face.
Without the darkness of night, we cannot know the moon’s grace.
Justice and law are not entirely a lie.
Yet who is pure enough to punish another till they die?
Is not justice itself an offender,
When it permits one person to become another’s revenger?
Crime is a crime, whether direct or indirect.
Those who pass judgment—who grants them that intellect?
Do those books decide justice, the ones taught in law schools?
Written by fools who researched among fools?
They too may see the world with only one eye.
Can such vision truly be fair?
They believe they are players in the game;
Unfortunately, they are merely spares.
Is a brain without knowledge not a day without the sun?
Is it not like a soldier fighting a war without a gun?

Roblox is the Platonic Academy in 21st century .

I read the Wikipedia entry for Phenomenal Conservatism and was relieved to find out that I am right about everything.

Also it seems to me like everyone is morally obliged to give me $100. Therefore you all must give me $100.

“On the Despisers of the Body” from Thus Spoke Zarathustra is great for this purpose. It’s all about the body as the great reason.

What else?

My posts get deleted on real numbertheory and similar subs but also here. I get the no learns rule but It seems like every sub moderates to delete ideas that are truly ground-breaking on the grounds that … well that’s the thing they never say they just delete. So it seems arbitrary

Is it because I link to my own work? Because there’s no no-self promotion rule.

That would make it more entertaining. We could also have philosophical weight classes like MMA to make it more fun.

Debate.

There are more than one logical system, such as predicate logic, and propositional logic, etc. And in order to be logical, that is, subjecting yourself under one of the logical systems, you have to make an arbitrary choice. This is illogical exactly because it precedes the logical system you yourself intends to be subject to and is not contained in that logical system since it is not made in accordance to that system yet.

It would be very efficient and also anti-racist because Esperanto, unlike English, was not spoken in Nazi Germany.

The best way to fight ignorance is with more ignorance.
The best way to fights intellectual dishonesty is with a even greater level of dishonesty
The best way to fight stupidity is to become stupid to a point when a stupid person could recognize it

what surprises me the most about Jung's work is the discovery of the shadow archetype; it's impressive how he described what he did. I still have to read the "Red Book" I'm sure it will be a real revelation

When it got stuck, my wife admonished him and asked, "WTH did you think would happen?" He didn't respond.

As an understanding father, I sat him down and explained that, if he finds himself in that position again, he should be clear that he's a strong Humean skeptic and that it doesn't really matter what he thought would happen because he couldn't actually know without perceiving it empirically.

Frankenstein is a philosophy built on the idea that everything in the world is fundamentally inconsistent. Because humans and systems are full of contradictions, you shouldn't follow one rigid set of rules. Instead, you stitch together your own flexible, custom worldview from different pieces of logic. if someone points out a contradiction in your logic, it just proves your point that everything is inconsistent. Every system works perfectly on paper but falls apart in reality because humans are messy and full of contradictions.Therefore, sticking rigidly to just one traditional belief system (like a political party or strict grammar rules) forces you to live a lie. Because people are consistently inconsistent saying that u believe in one thing would be wrong because ur actions uhh contradict it. But if its consistently inconsistent that's also consistent so it's fake too. But it's not so.

I think that i am the inly real human and everyone else are robots and npcs. And my only friend from school, one time i asked her a question and she said yes but when i asked her again hours later she said no which makes me think she is a robot. And it's scary to think that if i am the onlu human

.

Exhibit 1: Chemical/atomic technology.

Good things and bad things have been made. We have stove-top ovens which are really good, then we have lead gasoline which is not so good. The caveat is that both are possible from the potential of chemical/atomic technology

Exhibit 2: nuclear technology.

Good things and bad things have been made. We have nuclear energy which is really good, then we have nuclear bombs which are not so good. The caveat is that both are possible from the potential of nuclear technology

Exhibit 3: AI technology

Good things and bad things have been made. We have llms that contribute to frontier mathematics which is really good, then we have deep learning algos which are really good at making CSAM which is not so good. The caveat is both are possible from the potential of AI technology.

-----

Those are my exhibits, I suppose I will explain the theme of my message.

Meta-analysis: all tools all innovations all technology have the capacity to be used for good and evil.

"How can math be used for evil?" Great question. Answer: casinos, eugenics, artificial intelligence.

"How can imagery of CSAM be used for good" Great question. Answer: anti-SA rhetoric campaigns, a good fictional story that has a good moral theme.

Try this exercise at home, think of the most blatantly obviously good thing ever and try to conjure a situation in your mind where it can be used for evil, and vice versa.

"How can kindness be used for evil?" Answer: people can make themselves appear kind and trick you.

It doesn't have to be the most profound thing ever, it's just a thought exercise, I'm doing this because I want the readers to think.

--------

Meta-meta-narrative

"I think we should be focusing on technology that has a greater possibility of being used for good or contributes a net positivity in our community, how can we as a society make the world better without risking making it worse" nice comment, and great question. My answer: good and evil are fundamental to humans and even without the existence of any technology, good and evil would persists. If technology were to exist, it would serve the collective consciousness or ego of humanity, meaning that technology will be used for good and evil no matter what the technology is.

I italicized that answer to make it extra salient that that's just my opinion. At the end of the day that's all we got in ethics/morality: rhetoric, narrative, and opinion; there is no fact of the matter.

--------

My closing thoughts.

I hope that covers every argument used by pros and antis whose rhetorics are based on morality, or societal utility ^.^ . I hope we can move on from these type of rhetorics in the future because it's soooooo boring, and would like to see more scientific, or mathematical, or philosophical (excluding ethics) aspects AI debate! Personally I find that the largest communities in regards to discussing AI, overly discuss AI ethics and not even in an interesting way (for example AI rights or sentience and morality in that aspect seem more interesting, but a lot of AI ethics is boringly anthropocentric. AI ethics is boring, Anthropocentric AI Ethical rhetoric that I've commonly seen are double boring zzz.) personally I'm interested in topics like AI capacity, AI architecture, AI consciousness/machine life.

I hope I'm not seeming morally or in anyway, superior to others. I simply am voicing my opinion on what I've seen across several reddits. I am simply bored of the way we interact with AI in our dialogues. I don't represent the whole of the community who browse AI subreddits, I don't represent the majority, maybe not even half, possibly less than a quarter..... But I represent myself atleast, and I too partake in these spaces a lot.

-------

Thanks for reading it means a lot to me.

(I used AI in the making of this post. I used a speech to text algorithm because I was too tired and jaded to type, I hope my use of AI hasn't revoked the validity of what I said here)