Recent comments in /f/philosophy

misterdgwilliams t1_j3jf8wy wrote

Reply to The intersubjectivity collapse: a collapse of the network of unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of minds that have created it, due to introduction of vastly new minds that lead to unpredictability of agents amongst each other. by Gmroo

Deglobalization has been happening for a while now, and for those of us who grew up in the late 20th century - during that short, optimistic period of hyperglobalization - it can certainly feel like an apocalyptic collapse of civilization. But for the most part, we are just disconnecting from a dream state. I'm actually interested to see what sticks to the sand when the tide goes back out; and whether we actually succeeded in changing the foundations of what it means to be human. Because if we didn't, we are still stuck at Step One in creating AGI: understanding and altering human psychology. And there are plenty more steps to go before we can claim to know anything about these AGI mindgames you speak of.

1

Excellent_Fig3662 t1_j3j9o6f wrote

Reply to comment by Gmroo in The intersubjectivity collapse: a collapse of the network of unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of minds that have created it, due to introduction of vastly new minds that lead to unpredictability of agents amongst each other. by Gmroo

Let me simplify. The biggest problem we face is not from sensationalized computers but human psychology sabotaging our species, more specifically, individuals in power using weapons of mass destruction.

1

saturn_since_day1 t1_j3j43qn wrote

Reply to Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I feel like dwarf fortress taught me a lot about this with the simple system of "unmet need: be extravagant, unmet need: spend time with family". It's a great approach that gets to the meat of it instantly, and is really healthy introspection that can actually be utilized.

2

Gloomy_Promise_0830 t1_j3j3g7r wrote

Reply to The Tyranny Of Time | NOEMA by Chiquye

I wish I could remember who it was by but I watched a lecture not long ago that explained how time isn't what we perceive it to be. In it he pointed out that clocks have tricked us into thinking we can measure time, when in reality one cannot. Part of his point was that if you have two identical clocks, but you hold them in two different spots, you will read two different times, despite them being completely synchronized before movement.

2

rvkevin t1_j3j12ev wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in The Utility Coach Thought Experiment by contractualist

> It shouldn't be forced because people would reasonably reject giving up their freedom of conscious for welfare

According to the hypothetical, the bolded part is false. According to the hypothetical, every time you offer it to a reasonable person, that person would choose welfare over freedom of conscious. That's what it means for the utility coach to increase their utility, it means that the person prefers the utility coach over freedom of conscious.

>But because their freedom of conscience wouldn't be given up in the social contract, it would be immoral to take this freedom away.

When you say "No value is ever so sacred that it can never be exchanged for another value," that also applies to valuing any sort of social contract. Why would anyone care about the social contract in the hypothetical since it comes with a severe cost to society?

1

TommyDeeTheGreat t1_j3iuloq wrote

Reply to comment by Chiquye in The Tyranny Of Time | NOEMA by Chiquye

I'm asking if time is a construct of observers. Quantum positioning may well operate outside of time as we, the only known observers, understand it.

The presence of the Sun is not the query here.

Edit: I don't think pasting the article here for relevance is allowed but the heading “They have been trapped by their own inventiveness and audacity. And they must pay with their lives.”, the last paragraph of the OP's link, begs the very question I posed - the source of their anger - the observer trapped in time.

4

fingin t1_j3itqrr wrote

Reply to comment by TheAxiomOfTruth in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Yeah I think it's better to focus on minimizing unwanted outcomes, is in line with some of the more compelling versions of Utilitarianism

10

SecondAlibi t1_j3itcyo wrote

Reply to The Tyranny Of Time | NOEMA by Chiquye

I’ve been thinking about the passage of time a lot - and how much it seems to warp and bend like this article mentions. It seems like some months last a year, and others an hour. It’s also jarring how every moment that has defined or impacted me as a human - the moment of my birth, my first kiss, my first true love, every moment of defeat, triumph, joy, despair - carries a time stamp with it even if I’m not personally aware of it exactly. The timeless moments that seem to slip out of this realm can, in actuality, be lodged within their respective minutes somewhere out there in endless ledger of time.

3

TheAxiomOfTruth t1_j3isfcl wrote

Reply to comment by fingin in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Good point. You can have food, money and good health and still be unhappy! However I stand by my point that on average measuring unhappiness is much easier. And, in general what makes us unhappy is much more universal. For example, going to a Taylor swift concert might make some people (including me) pretty happy, but others would be indifferent. But being starving universally makes people unhappy.

18

contractualist OP t1_j3ipvbd wrote

Reply to comment by rvkevin in The Utility Coach Thought Experiment by contractualist

No, the hypothetical hasn't changed. If people prefer the utility coach, then they have the right to choose for themselves. But because their freedom of conscience wouldn't be given up in the social contract, it would be immoral to take this freedom away. The argument is that people shouldn't be forced to be happy.

1

fingin t1_j3immki wrote

Reply to comment by TheAxiomOfTruth in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I feel like it's the same issue, just using different words. For example, the concept of suffering extends well beyond things like physical and economic needs. It's like happiness in how difficult it is to actually assess it as its own quality. But I do see the value in minimizing these associated things rather than trying to maximize things like "life satisfaction rates"!

29

Helios992 t1_j3ilxes wrote

Reply to comment by Excellent_Fig3662 in The intersubjectivity collapse: a collapse of the network of unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of minds that have created it, due to introduction of vastly new minds that lead to unpredictability of agents amongst each other. by Gmroo

İ think it's about how social structure changes over time that not only knowladge about it becomes history also "experience" related to it becomes invalid as well

2

Diogenic_Seer t1_j3iizc9 wrote

Reply to comment by sticklebat in For the émigré philosopher Imre Lakatos, science degenerates unless it is theoretically and experimentally progressive by ADefiniteDescription

I don’t disagree. Outside of maybe the standard model, or Dirac’s equation, I don’t pretend I understand Quantum Mechanics. I tend to use visual models as a crutch when performing mathematics.

I’d just rather we not narrow learning paths. Workshops and essays still give a way to communicate with a teacher. As does interning. My own disdain for classes comes more from not wanting to deal with other students.

The 100-200 hours mark was meant to be ‘loose.’

Old knowledge can apply to newly researched fields. Pottery skills can translate to sculpting skills.

The soft sciences are still filled with holes. Holes that will not be filled for centuries.

I wouldn’t say it’s impossible for a neuroscientist to successfully breakdown a psychology theory with very little research placed in the field of psychology.

2

rr_cricut t1_j3ihqt6 wrote

Reply to comment by ArmchairJedi in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

We may argue what size the steps should be, but better too big or small than none at all...

this analogy has reached its end.

3