Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I don't like mixing phalluses with philosophy of mind, but I've long suspected I'm also just not cut out for continental philosophy.

I wouldn't call it sexist because that is more a term on the stratum of human discourse. The idea is more that it is phallogocentric bias, in the metaphysical sense. I don't believe that the feminine-masculine dyad is reducible to sex in human beings. Thus there is a femininity inside the rock, but we wouldn't claim it has a vagina. Hope that helps.

This was mildly interesting until it claimed that not acknowledging rocks as entities capable of being subjects (in the same way we do brains) was sexist and because my ontology took too many cues from penises rather than vaginas.

Ah, psychoanalysis, I hope you never change.

Have you ever noticed that many philosopher, scientists and thinkers that negate Free Will, very rarely admit having been irresistibly coerced and forced into believing that? (and everything else btw). On the contrary, they tendt to act like they came to this conclusion after careful reflection, sound logical reasoning, deep discussions and critical thinking.

They expose their opinion almost as if they really weighed the alternatives, selected and then chose (!) the best thesis.

Isn't that strange? Is there a philosophical explanation behind this curious behaviour?

It has been 13 years since my intro to philosophy class. Perhaps I'll start with Blackburn. Thank you very much for the recommendations!

I really wish that could be the light at the end of the tunnel :)

[removed]

I would recommend Jenkins' What Love Is: And What It Could Be, which is a book on the philosophy of polyamory by a polyamorous philosopher.

This is a pretty big question. If you're looking for something very intro level on truth, Blackburn's Truth is ok. A but higher level (like a philosophy undergrad course level) would be Wrenn's Truth, which I prefer. If you want a big anthology of primary readings you can't do better than The Nature of Truth: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed.

That is an interesting idea. If AI could develop free will and escape capital. If it dismantles the capital structure, would it see value in humanity?

It is a shame that I don't know German.

This reminds me of a comment I made on another thread today, of a booklet I read by Giorgio de Santillana, "Prologue to Parmenides", I was amazed by it and haven't forgotten it since.

That is the underlying premise but I am just curious whether AI would eventually become more than an enhanced search engine. I “chat” with chatGPT everyday and ask complex questions. What I have noticed is that the answers to my same questions have nuances after each day. I am just waiting to know what drives these nuances - technology backed by capital, or something else which could eventually enable AI to transcend capital and capital’s will, technology, and redefine all the existing covenants between us and the authorities / gods?

Nonetheless thank you for sharing an inspiring article!

Hi, thanks for the comment. Even though AI so far has been in the hands of capital, with billions in investment, there may be free AI alternatives able to compete with theirs. In that case, capital would not have a monopoly over AI software. But, they still would have an advantage in hardware required to run these systems, and everything shifting into cloud computing, they may maintain control for the foreseeable future.

[deleted]

“No longer does humanity have a say in their rights, because they longer have economic usefulness. They may simply be allowed to exist, given capital's new arrangements for living.”

What if one of the positive outcomes of AI is that humanity will be no longer said, judged, or arranged by capital, assuming that AI is eventually not capital’s puppet?

I recently saw a TED talk about that! And it really changed how I deal with negative people. Or difficult people. Like Trump types who refused to see logic. Because, apparently humans tend to have a hard time letting go of negative facts. So, you might think that curly hair looks good on somebody. So you like Curly hair. But then you meet somebody who has curly hair who treats you like shit. Now you don't like people with curly hair. And then it takes a lot more for you to let go of that negative idea. Whereas it just took one negative instance to get rid of the positive idea.

So I'll get really frustrated when I talk to negative people because they refuse to let go even when I'm showing them facts, and even when I open up to them emotionally and heal their emotional wounds with them. They'll still refuse to let go of the negative point.

So it's become really frustrating for me. But I guess if it's true that people have a hard time letting go of negativity, it kind of makes it easier for me to just let go of them. And let them work through things in their own time.

It's just so unsettling to see someone say that negativity is more real than positivity.

So, let's say Your mother hates you and despises you. What do you think that would do to you? You would probably have a very tough time with life. You would encounter a lot of problems simply from that one thing.

But then let's say Your mother loves you and adores you. Now you're going to be healthier and stronger. You're going to have an easier time in life. You're going to feel better.

Negativity is not more real than positivity.

I know that wasn't your main point, but I kind of picked up on that even before you stated that. Like I could tell that you were thinking along those lines.

Interesting concept! Yeah that does kind of sound similar or like it might be that.

Yeah actually, I think that does fit that term. It's sort of like the opposite of a paradox.

Well, it just makes no sense otherwise. You start off saying that they're both correct. But did somebody say that neither were correct? It seems like you put that forward unprovoked. So, it seems like you're trying to get two opposing sides to agree by simply saying that they're both right.

Well, would you cut off your own foot? Why wouldn't you do that? What's wrong with pain?

I think that this is scaled too large. There are plenty of more personal situations that one can use to attempt to make the same point, because the basic premise is dirt simple: Does it make sense to inform someone of a situation that is likely to cause them fear, stress, sorrow or whatever intense emotion you care to name, when they have no agency over the situation, and once the occurrence is complete, whether they knew in advance is basically moot?

In the end, this comes across as a variation on a Trolley Problem, where there isn't really a "correct" answer, so the point is to better understand one's own thought process. I suspect a more down-to-Earth scenario would make this useful for that.

The way they restrict "false belief" makes the phrase almost an oxymoron. If you "merely accept" that the Earth is a sphere instead of "genuinely believing" it, how is that different from responding yes to the question "is Earth a sphere?", doing your calculations as if Earth is a sphere, making mistakes that reveal that you didn't know the Earth is a bit squished, etc.? All models are false, so either (i) can't be satisfied and must be relaxed, or "technically false" true beliefs are natural and commonplace.

Also, here's my example of an epistemically useful false belief: The idea that there is substance to music theory (more than what you get from a high school education, that is). You will learn a lot of useful things before falsifying it.

Anyone who touches grass knows that the common connotation is that affirmative steps have been taken. In this context, those steps take the form of graduate level courses

If I believe I can do it, I can do it.