Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen 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.

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.

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.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may 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.

Hedonism often ends very miserable and unhappy. Happiness should be cultivated not farmed.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.

[removed]

[removed]

There's almost a reasonable point here among the ridiculous writing: philosophers become "great" not because they were necessarily right about everything, but because of their influence. That's not particularly in dispute; I don't think even the most ardent fans of these three philosophers think they were literally 100% correct or that every argument they made was equally unassailable. I don't think anyone thinks that about the intellectual giants in any field.

However, the examples Huemer picks on here aren't particularly good ones, and all of these deserve vastly more serious treatment than he gives them. Imagine deriding Kant's ethical theory, much less the entirety of Kant's work, based on one formulation of the categorical imperative and one quote from the Groundwork! Imagine critiquing Hume's "bundle of perceptions" theory of the self, without noting how it set the stage for Kant's unity of apperception.

That last example is significant, because where this article is absurdly incorrect is in further saying these were bad philosophers, bad thinkers, or that their "greatness" is entirely due to the provocative nature of their ideas. These people are great because of the groundwork they laid for the further development of philosophy, not because "whoa, dude".

Probably more like hedonistic. The original concept of happiness as the penultimate goal of life comes from Aristotle's 'Eudaimonia,' which more accurately is translated as "flourishing" and connotes harmony. Happiness is not the goal... but it's a pretty good thermometer.

How about both? Happy and meaningful life.

Starting a paper with “My introduction to philosophy was largely through…” is like starting novel with “Sarah woke up in her bed in her bedroom and…”

What we are, who we are, what they are... Hard to put to words without spoiling, but I enjoyed that exploration that had me questioning things.

The definition of consciousness in the article is lacking. The distinction between human and AI consciousness presented is dubious. Claims of AI achieving consciousness is questionnable and AI advancements in various fields remain in development but yes, this is a very exciting time to be alive.

> A meaningful life on the other hand can embrace more of life including struggles and suffering because it is oriented towards a higher ideal

An arbitrary and randomly chosen higher ideal?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

If this is true, it contradicts OP’s thesis that we can rule out happiness as meaningful.

Also, do we really believe this about meaning being entirely subjective? I forget the name of the philosopher, but I remember from intro to philosophy the counter-example of a man who finds meaning in eating his own shit and watching paint dry and torturing babies. There is a big difference between “I can’t prove an objective, universal meaning” and “baby torture is literally identically meaningful as striving to cure cancer.”

[removed]

[removed]

I think the hard problem is more about being unable to prove or disprove someone else’s phenomenological experience of being conscious (at least how I understand it). I think that’s quite relevant to the discussion about whether or not the AI is “conscious”. Unlike humans and animals the AI isn’t constantly processing and thinking and feeling, just when it’s tasked with something.

If consciousness is an emergent property then it’s possible for the AI to be conscious in its own way while its “thinking”. But the point stands that it’s not possible to access someone or something’s subjective experience, so we can only ever speculate.

Expecting a conscious to arise from a language model is like expecting a submarine to win awards for swimming.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying tech.

[removed]

It is subjective whether a life devoted to wealth and power is meaningful or not, as meaning can vary from person to person. Some may find meaning in using their resources and influence to create positive change and better society, while others may view it as shallow and lacking deeper purpose. Ultimately, what defines a meaningful life is a personal and individual choice.