check out the wiki page, there are detractors who come after him. also his word isnt gospel even if convincing

I learned it studying ancient Greek, banging my head against verb paradigms.

They are arbitrary but good luck to someone who would like to pick as his virtue or a rule to annihilate everything and then try to justify it by dialectics or with the God or the system in case of deontology. That is why the most of ethic theorisrs would just dismiss this idea as absolute non-sense.

Of course the positive utilitarists are the closest one in sense of similar approach or reasoning so they arguments would be the most comprehensible for negative utilitarists or promortalists.

Aw lighten up fellas. Sometimes names of stuff can be funny. Like the People’s Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps Aviators.

When I read Kuhn, I couldn't help but feel like his theory of scientific progress consists mostly of backsplaining. He examines only a handful of scientific revolutions and with so few of them it is of course possible to describe them in any way he liked.

Did somebody manage to extract any verifiable predictions from Kuhn's work? How did they fair in the time that passes since the publishing of his book? Could his theory for example explain Moore's Law?

[removed]

Paradigm is also known as “coupla fly hunnies”

Proactive seems like a useful word to me. What’s a less middle-brow word with a similar meaning?

Invoking the Roman Ingarden recursion meme.

https://i.imgflip.com/4kvm64.jpg

That is more commonly expressed as “Weltanschauung.”

This article is very paradigm. Good job.

Thirdly as a term overused by unimaginative CEOs/Managers.

As someone with ADHD, I think the best way for me to compare them is that hyper - focus is more like "uncontrolled - obsessive focus" and flow as more like "directed goal focus". For example, if I was working on some interesting problem that required me to research various topics online, I would end up getting distracted by any subproblems that arises and end up going down a rabbit hole. So the idea behind hyper-focus is that mainly with ADHD, it's hard for us to "remember" to keep something in the back of our heads while engaging in any activity thats requires mental effort. That is why a lot of people with ADHD are seen as impulsive as that little thing that many people can keep in the back of their minds is very difficult for me without conscious effort. On the other hand, flow is like when you are in the zone and you have this very clear vision in the back of your mind of the end goal with all the necessary steps needed to achieve that goal outlined already. So in that sense, IMO the intensity of focus would be the same between the two, but the difference lies in the intentionality of it. Not sure if intentionality is the best word, as I believe flow and hyper-focus is unintentional when it occurs but I hope this helps.

Since I have been recently hearing more about ChatGPT I have been wondering if anyone has considered that maybe the Turing test is wrong or at least limited in scope and that an AI can never truly understand humans until an AI can have an existential crisis?

That existential crisis may give that AI an understanding of empathy .... or do worse by making it into a kill-bot or something like AM from Harlan Ellison's novel I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream.

I don't think anyone can give the current versions of ChatGPT or Cortana or Alexa an existential crisis, but then, how would one program that into these AI's or is it something that emerges unexpectedly as a byproduct of programming to become more and more intelligent, like a gestalt? Programming to become more and more intelligent may lead to self-awareness.

Well one thing is for certain, AI's are definitely giving us humans an existential crisis even though it is not part of their programming to do so. The next philosophical great works or insight may be provided by an AI.

Then it devolved into THIS:
https://youtu.be/hz2MPcsZJcM

That's a good point. There is a distinction between letting things go, which is action, and Wu Wei, which is more of a state

You’re too hung up on the “god” reference for your opinion to be of any value. Maybe you don’t understand “wisdom” and that is your problem.

Oof... I got down voted to hell for arguing something similar earlier this week, but I'm not steeped enough in sources to be able to reference them on demand. Always a relief to find ideas reiterated elsewhere.

It wasn't a new word, he just appropriated it. Before that it meant something like "a fine (or typical) example [of]". "He was a paradigm of the honourable man."

[deleted]

It's literally a prayer, a request for someone else to grant you the desired qualities.

I'm not missing the conceptual parallels. I'm saying that asking someone else to grant you these traits is less stoic than accepting that you lack them now and working to develop them without having someone grant them to you.

I use paradigm as a word, beat that 😏

Grasping and letting go are both actions. Wu-wei is the pattern of nature. It's in the nature of raindrops to fall from the sky when it rains. The raindrop doesn't TRY to fall from the sky. It makes no choices. It follows the "Tao."

When we no longer view separation between self and environment, the delusions of control and self dissipate. Wu wei is how you live after. It's how you lived before too, but now that you get it, you don't spend your life pressing the elevator button so hard your fingers bleed. Pressing the button harder doesn't make it work better, but it hurts the presser.

Not correcting or arguing. Just sharing what I thought while reading you post.

Putting aside the various arguments about which is the more pragmatically superior approach, look to the actual lives of the Stoic philosophers and then Nietzche by comparison... 😅

Well I apologize. A lot of people bring a whole lot of baggage that really makes a mess of the conversation. NOT getting it out the way leads to a whole lot of very unproductive conversation.

>How do you explain the phenomenon of lucid dreaming?

What explanation? You're not conscious. That's not an example of consciousness. It is not an example of, nor explained by consciousness.

How does the 1996 movie Space Jam explain lucid dreaming? It's unrelated.

>It would be more accurate to say it means aware and unaware. You can be awake yet unconscious (there are drugs that prove this) and asleep yet conscious (just ask anyone who's suffers from sleep paralysis).

mmm. No it wouldn't. You're off base here. You're very specifically conscious during sleep paralysis by definition. It happens after sleep. If you are aware, you're awake, and you're conscious. What drugs makes someone "awake and unconscious"? What you are correct about is that it's not an immediate on/off thing. There are stages in between as your brain boots up. You can be "minimally aware". Likewise, dope and alcohol reduce consciousness because they literally impede your senses and your mental functions. Caffeine and cocaine increase it, briefly. But any amount of consciousness would be, by definition, no longer unconscious.

>Correct me if I'm wrong here but you're defining consciousness as

Can do.

Consciousness is any system of active sensors feeding data to memory (of any sort) with any amount of intelligence that can/could act upon it. Remember that ants have some amount of intelligence. Amoeba hunt down their prey.

>Assuming sleep is also a well defined phenomenon when it most certainly is not. Of course we have a practical definition of both what being awake is and what being asleep is that works very well in typical scenarios. But those definitions fall short when you ask what it means to be conscious.

Wow dude you are working REAL hard at arguing with yourself here.

>then is it not conscious and deserving of rights in which all conscious beings are?

No. Just as ants and amoeba are conscious and don't have the rights that people have. Like the concept of "life", it's not all that special. No one in their right mind argues that your gut bacteria aren't alive and yet we don't blink an eye at killing thousands of them routinely. Does AI deserve rights? Maybe. But don't hinge the whole thing on consciousness, even if we could all use the word the same way.

>Or is human consciousness special?

Not very.

>Or is our definition of consciousness incorrect?

Yes. Almost everyone pretends they're special because of ego or ordained by god, but I repeat myself.

>But seriously if you disrespect me again I'm leaving the conversation.

Pft, we're on reddit.