Beautiful quote from the Upanishad.

> I'm skeptical about whether moral judgments are even truth-apt at all, but the strength of a line of reasoning or argument is equal to that of its weakest link....

Mostly agree. As I see it, the problem isn't so much that answers to moral questions are hard to discern, but that with few exceptions I can think of (including literal murder), do not have a correct answer at all.

> ...so your confidence in your conclusion- assuming your inference is logically valid- is going to boil down to your confidence in your (normative) premises. Which will obviously vary from person to person, and subjective confidence is no guarantor of objective certainty in any case.

Right - so put error correction into the system, so when participants minds wander into fantasy and, provide them with gentle course correction back to reality, which is filled with non-visible (for now at least) mystery.

> So I'm fine with the idea that logic or mathematics could help solve moral dilemmas or problems, in at least some instances (e.g. utilitarian calculations/quantifications of pleasure/happiness vs pain/suffering) but it seems to me that some basic moral values or an ethical framework is a necessary prerequisite... which is usually the tricky part, so I'm somewhat dubious of the overall utility of such a strategy (it seems like it only helps solve what is already the easiest part of the problem).

"Solving" things can only be done in deterministic problem spaces, like physics. Society is metaphysical, and non-deterministic. It appears to be deterministic, but that is an illusion. Just as the average human 200 years ago was ~dumb by our standards (as a consequence of education and progress) and little aware of it, so too are we. This could be realized, but like many things humanity has accomplished, first you have to actually try to accomplish it.

I live in a forest, if you observe forests you can see how they are co-operative rather than competitive systems. Co-operation allows better utilisation of resources, so that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Humans can't separate themselves from the natural world, we rely too much on the resources it provides. My local authority recently removed some mature trees to pave several acres for a carpark for a sports ground. They didn't see any problem doing that, the trees were in the way, but future generations will pay as the expanse of paving heats up the whole area.

I agree with what looks like the general consensus here that the use of "parasite" is at best uncharitable.

And it goes against any view which suggests that people generally desire to live well and to thrive at some fundamental level. In my opinion, thriving can require work, and yes it's true that hard work can help us to be happy, but that's where the industrialized protestant work ethic seems to want us to stop to suit capitalism's interests. In reality, when work starts to look like slavery, there is a point where thriving begins to end, and sometimes workers even die. Thriving may not always look like productivity, nor is it always a constant. In fact I'd go so far as to say that so-called "parasites" don't fail to thrive because they don't desire to thrive, but because they are denied the opportunity to do so thanks to an antiquated ideology which deliberately limits their capacity to thrive and seeks to use said "parasites" as a motivator to push everyone else to work harder.

But, to be a little more business-minded and less emotive, this still doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider that innovation, creative works, etc, as a driving force that pushes a healthy economy beyond mere industry, relies heavily on people who sacrifice their time for little to no pay, and so to motivate these people to stop what they're doing and to work harder has got to be one of the most nonsensical anti-capitalist ideas that capitalism promotes.

Meanwhile, the priveleged few, infants really, have the red carpet rolled out for them to receive billions to run fraudulent pyramid schemes, revealing that it isn't very much about hard work at all. Our sacred system is not only broken, it's gangrenous and needs massive amputations. Is there any point where we may correctly conclude that we need something better, or are we effectively locked into going down with the ship by our sacred dogma?

Consciousness both perceives the parts and integrates them. In that sense it appears self emergent. Some might say that reality only exists within consciousness.

Its hard to say what something is if you can never be outside of it.

I'm skeptical about whether moral judgments are even truth-apt at all, but the strength of a line of reasoning or argument is equal to that of its weakest link, so your confidence in your conclusion- assuming your inference is logically valid- is going to boil down to your confidence in your (normative) premises. Which will obviously vary from person to person, and subjective confidence is no guarantor of objective certainty in any case.

So I'm fine with the idea that logic or mathematics could help solve moral dilemmas or problems, in at least some instances (e.g. utilitarian calculations/quantifications of pleasure/happiness vs pain/suffering) but it seems to me that some basic moral values or an ethical framework is a necessary prerequisite... which is usually the tricky part, so I'm somewhat dubious of the overall utility of such a strategy (it seems like it only helps solve what is already the easiest part of the problem).

Consciousness emerges through integration of its parts

Oh, I'm not claiming that necessarily correct answers can be reached ("whether it is valid or makes any fucking sense is a secondary matter"), I don't think any framework can provide that for this sort of problem space.

Well, simple math is pretty common, and I've seen several examples online where it gets elementary school math wrong.

Based on what I've read about it, its behavior seems extremely similar to human cognition, I can't even imagine what the next version is going to be like, let alone 2-3 years from now. I think we are in a new era, this might be similarly disrupting as the internet was, maybe even more.

>I don't disagree, but this seems a bit flawed - you've provided one example of a scenario where someone has done it, but this in no way proves that it must be done this way.

I don't think it must be done, I don't think logic or mathematics is going to be relevant to most forms of moral reasoning. But consequentialism is the most obvious case where it would work, since consequentialism often involves quantifying pleasure and pain and so would be a natural fit.

But if what you mean is that we could sometimes use logic or mathematics to answer moral questions without first presupposing a set of moral values or an ethical framework, I think it is close to self-evident that this is impossible: when it comes to reasoning or argument, you can't get out more than you put in, and so if you want to reach a normative conclusion, you need normative premises else your reasoning would necessarily be (logically) invalid.

[deleted]

You can live your phases in a random order so that it makes a comedy atleast.

ChatGPT is rolling over what people have said on the internet. Then regurgitating it using statistics on steroids. Lots and lots of steroids.

You're going to get an amalgam of what people in the training data have said.

To add an example, if you ask it go provide a recipe for chocolate chip cookies it's going to do a pretty good job with common information like this. If you have familiarity with what chocolate chip cookie recipes usually look like, you'll catch the error if it recommends adding large quantities of ginger and cardamom to the recipe. You need to have some basic understanding of what results should look like. The credibility of outputs provided is greatest for common information, becoming less credible or unavailable in the underlying training sets the more novel your request (you're not going to get great overview of how the Helion nuclear fusion reactor works).

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.

So nominalism? Doesn’t interconnectedness erase relations altogether?

[deleted]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

>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.