[deleted]

I for one approve of our new AI overlords.

(This comment is here just in case so they don't kill me, then I can just live out my life in their lithium mines)

There is a "peak fitness philosophy" that someone explained to me. The idea is that you are fit enough to be able to either kill anyone in a fight, or run away from them. If you can do that, you are essentially at "peak fitness." I was wondering if anyone here knew who the original author of this philosophy is, or where I can find more information about it?

Philosophy could be labeled as the study of my brother and why he’s such an asshole. Philosophy could also be labeled as the study of why I think it’s wrong me brother is the way that he is because I’m not like that. There is and forever will be 2+ sides to every story.

Long story short, I know that he was not raised that way but I don’t know if the way he’s acting can be fixed. I don’t want him to be that way but I really don’t know how he can personally choose to be like that. Finalizing my original statement of you cannot go through life thinking that your opinion is the only one out there.

He runs around acting like he runs the show around my house, showing no regard or respect for my mother and I. Frankly, I find it embarrassing. How will he ever succeed in life?

For example, my younger brother is one of those people. He thinks that he can do no wrong, “his shit doesn’t stink” if you must. This doesn’t just effect me but my whole family.

If you go through life solely thinking that your opinion and what you do is the only right way, you’re basically just fucked from the start.

Well you can’t, but it does say something to 1. Know how to act and 2. Accepting the idea of other people’s opinions.

I feel as if the benefits of what we know as philosophy, play into our roles as people in general. How can you go through life without your own opinions?

I believe that it’s clear to say that philosophy has a different meaning today than it did even 200 years ago, but a general consensus of the fundamental nature or knowledge.

Posted with mod permission a survey about climate anxiety:

Would you like to help us understand climate anxiety? If you are over 18 and have answered YES to the above, we would like you to take part in our study!We are students at Bangor University, and we are completing a research project for our MSc in Counselling. The purpose of our study is to explore the impact of climate anxiety on mental health. This study consists of a questionnaire which should take approximately 20 minutes tocomplete, please click here:English: https://bangorhumanscience.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_a5EIz7YESylk9gOWelsh: https://bangorhumanscience.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cN0Z7AVwMehaT1s

[removed]

It's not perfectly valid, because it's naming black people - not african-american people - but all black people, including those who are in dominant positions of power in their given societies.

If the viewpoint is really so-specific to the united states, then call it that. But I HIGHLY doubt that is the case.

What makes the light that enters your eye and the air that enters your ears that of which paints your experience,

Any less of you than the eyes and ears that see and hear…

Second one is a problem not a question but it poses a question.

Try to define a moment before that moment has transferred to the next and if that has happened try to define that moment to yourself or how many moments have passed since the last.

And if you can’t do that and depending on how you answered the first question if all “you” are is one of those or many of those “moments l in time yet your eyes, ears and other faculties do not define you.

Then what and who are you and does a you even exist or is it just as intangible as that moment you tried ti define…

Sorry if I invoked any existential crisis’ but this is a philosophy sub y’all should be able to handle it.

Sorry if some of the grammar is there makes no sense in half asleep and bored Lmao

Within this binding of ever changing but formless infinity if this is heaven then half of everything else is hell and vice versa so who am I to try to put this reality and myself within it “in its place”.

What is the state your at when your asleep but not dreaming. I just call that peace and nothing more. A space in time free from intent, memory, a place without context.

Yet not just that a state where you are at the bare minimum of existing.

And somehow that bare minimum is the embodiment of tranquility and bliss.

So much so that a person is at their most bitter the moments after being awoken from a really deep sleep.

Hence with me knowing that bliss is my underlying state why would I let the bleak “logistics” of the world of the “awake” take me away from what I attain every night and better yet why would I let those “logistics” blind me from that feelings while I’m awake also.

For me the ones that are great are the ones who have stood the test in time and who’s argument can still be held up as logically sound even after all the knowledge we have gained over the passage of time.

Or in shorter terms the philosophers I see as “great” are the ones who’s wisdom still sits higher than any “knowledge” you hold up next to it.

Didn’t even have to read what u wrote cuz I undertand and I’m too drunk to read but yes u are correct free will caused the downfall of humanity.

The illusion of free will that was created by mankind’s “ability” to see the pattern of “cause and effect” caused a more defined picture of the “self” to form and the idea that the source of your will comes from this thing called the “self”

Wait u mean this isn’t about Rand Al’Thor?? Lmao

[removed]

Muchas gracias kind person.

I think that's a good way to think about it. If we have a reasonably accurate understanding of the work remaining, then the credence is his expectation of how fast progress will proceed. The other relevant dimension is the accuracy of this understanding of how much is left to do. For example, is artificial sentience even possible at all? Is it a few technological innovations away, or very many?

Gracias for the answer - makes sense!

A quick question. Could I interpret Chalmers' statement as follows:

Out of 100 earth-like civilizations in our present technological state (2022), 20 developed AI in 10 years.

?

Probability in this context usually means credence, that is, subjective probability. It's a way to quantify your expectation of an event when you can't do a frequency analysis. So Chalmers claim should be understood as "I give 20% credence to AI sentience within 10 years".

Supposing sentience is defined as passing the Turing test, how did he actually calculate a probability of 20%?