Recent comments in /f/philosophy
Gmroo OP t1_j3l04cz wrote
Reply to comment by Responsible_Cloud137 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
I suppose you could put it like that!
Gmroo OP t1_j3l009u wrote
Reply to comment by magvadis 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
With all due respect, this is not the topic...did you even read it?
It's about the introduction of new mind architectures with new subjectivity and the consequences of that. It answers the question: "What happens to civilizaiton when we can actually augment our minds and create all sorts of AIs?"
agent_wolfe t1_j3kzjfc wrote
Reply to comment by shcorpio 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
I know I speak the same language as Americans, but it’s like we’re speaking two different languages. It’s not just the regional dialects… there’s just this barrier that prevents clear communication. Of course it’s not all Americans…. Just most of them.
agent_wolfe t1_j3kz813 wrote
Reply to comment by Dry_Turnover_6068 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
All Bow Our Heads And Pray to the New God:
Manos!! The Hands of Fate!!!
Gmroo OP t1_j3kz20v wrote
Reply to comment by cannaeinvictus 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
Yes, vastly was supposed to precede "different",.. which didn't fit..changed one word, forgot to change the other one... mind fart.
Gmroo OP t1_j3kyy6m wrote
Reply to comment by Archelon_ischyros 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
Sorry, I tried to put it in one sentence with just 270 characters. Once we will augment minds and create new minds with AI, we will have catastrophic communication issues due to diverging subjectivity of these minds.
gettym t1_j3ky1md 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
The way out is in
shcorpio t1_j3ktq34 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
Fascinating. I believe we are at the very early stages of this collapse in intersubjectivity the author is predicting. Our current use of computers, the internet and social media to expand the human mind's abilities are leading to nascent differences that can only spread further apart from here.
I just wanted to add OP, It's amazing to me how many people accused you of being verbose because they were too lazy to read your post yet had no trouble spouting off in the comments. Opinions are like assholes so the saying goes... Kind of argues your point.
True_Inevitable_2910 t1_j3kt7sz 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
In English please.
Striking-Ad-837 t1_j3ks594 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
Kind of!
_Zirath_ OP t1_j3kr67f wrote
Reply to comment by OMKensey in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
It seems like you value life highly. A couple questions in light of this:
Do you see loss of life as a bad thing?
Do you hope there is an afterlife?
b4d_b0y t1_j3kpwob 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
Anna Alxandrova should read 'Solve For Happy' by Mo Gawdat.
It's the best book I've read that tries to science it out effectively.
b4d_b0y t1_j3kppbk wrote
Reply to comment by Ma3Ke4Li3 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
"Solve for Happy... " by Mo Gawdat.
Works for me.
OMKensey t1_j3kpkc6 wrote
Reply to comment by _Zirath_ in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
I'm not horrified at all. The way I see it, I'm astronomically lucky to have the life I have so I should make the most of it. When I die that's fine. It will or will probably be like the time before I was born, and that certainly doesn't stress me out. The universe has given me much and owes me nothing.
Also, there might be an afterlife. I don't know there isn't.
EarthTrash t1_j3kowoa wrote
Reply to comment by magvadis 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
The latest generation is destroying civilization? Never heard that one before.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j3kol7o wrote
Reply to comment by OMKensey in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
I think people will believe what makes sense to them- I certainly don't think you should stop believing naturalism for no reason. The core thought I would like to propose is this: the naturalist should hope naturalism is wrong (motivation) and keep seeking to prove it wrong (action). Why? Because naturalism, if true, is existentially horrifying. Specifically: it entails a lack of objective purpose and meaning to life, a loss of everything labored for in this life, and an eventual loss of the universe itself to heat death.
[deleted] t1_j3km6t8 wrote
Reply to comment by lilemphazyma 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
[removed]
AwfulChief78 t1_j3klpvb 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
But my Utils
OMKensey t1_j3klgur wrote
Reply to comment by _Zirath_ in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
Naturalism seems correct based on using my mind to the best of my ability. I don't believe in naturalist-rewarding God.
But if I'm wrong, a good and just God will deal with my honest mistake in accordance with justice and kindness. Thus, a belief in naturalism potentially provides infinite reward (in the event that naturalism is not true).
You posit reward for theism belief if naturalism is not true. I posit reward for naturalism belief (or really for any belief that results from someone doing the best they can) if naturalism is not true.
I agree with your final point. Many theists will also have nothing to fear if there is a good and just God because they did their best. (Really eventual universalism is the only ultimately good or just outcome given how long infinity is compared to our finite lives.)
cannaeinvictus t1_j3kkhmy wrote
Reply to comment by magvadis 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
“Due to the introduction of vastly new minds” that doesn’t make sense at at. Vastly and new Sony go together like the writer is forcing them to.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j3kk610 wrote
Reply to comment by OMKensey in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
I'm sorry, I think this is confused for a number of reasons:
1.) This post isn't discussing the veracity of abrahamic theism or the veracity of theism at all. This post is about considering Naturalism on its own terms and prompting people to abandon it.
2.) If you believed in this naturalist-rewarding God, you would cease to be a naturalist. If you didn't believe in this God, then we're back to square one on the post's main consideration: why settle on naturalism?
3.) I doubt most theists would accept your characterization of faith as reasonless. Most theists, including myself, have reasons they can articulate why they believe. The strength of those reasons is another matter, though there are a large number of theists who do use their rational faculties to make the best judgement they can and at least try to defend their beliefs with good reasons.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j3kjg9t 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 think we should focus on tech, as in transhumanism or transanimalism, because no matter how much we try to philosophize about it, the body and mind will react to pain and suffering in a negative way, unless we tech up and make our body and mind resilient, just like a robot cant feel pain and can easily repair or replace damaged parts.
We could at least get rid of the physical aspect of pain and suffering, our minds could greatly improve with AI integration too (brain chips), making it far better at processing stimuli than what nature could do.
Become as strong and as durable as machines but as smart and wise as humans.
Johnny Depp Transcendence.
lizzolz t1_j3kgw9m wrote
Reply to comment by Archelon_ischyros 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
I wholeheartedly agree.
Please, just ELI5!
lizzolz t1_j3kgomt wrote
Reply to comment by Dry_Turnover_6068 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
> Someone needs to invent a new religion. The ones we have today are boring.
You've never read scripture, clearly.
encompassingchaos t1_j3l0fjm 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
This might also happen with changes in brain functioning such as with neurodivergent minds creating changes in a neurotypical system, and not with just AGI and mechanical brain modification. It seems as though the use of hormone mimicking chemicals and the like are doing their own organic brain modifications.