Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2017, 08:31 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(13-04-2017 06:34 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 11:56 PM)whateverist Wrote:  Welcome. I also majored in philosophy as an undergraduate. I've always been interested in philosophy of mind and consciousness. I was fortunate in being able to take a very interesting graduate class from John Searle as a senior. But I found my biggest influence in the field of psychology, James Hillman. Just a great writer (especially Re-Visioning Psychology) and I find he makes depth psychology much more accessible than Jung.

To my mind, it isn't whether or not religion is true that matters but whether or not we've understood what it has contributed to what and how we are. William James was interesting for the distinction he made between passive religious experience and direct religious experience.

Oh well I should just offer you some cookies and tea rather than talk your ear off. Hope you like it here.
Searle's famous Chinese room nails the problem with AI and consciousness. I think three big blows to AI are the Chinese room, frank Jackson's Mary problem (qualia), and Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box metaphor on social language. I had a lecture series by Searle but i trailed off.

Now you mentioned "depth psychology". I love depth psychology. I find Jung's attempt at the shadow so appealing as a narrative we all have. We all have a backside, just like we all have a frontside, so too we all have a shadow. Now, I find the greatest depth psychologists inside the Greek tragedies. We find it in little Antigone standing up to a king in order to give her beloved brother a burial. We see it in Medea being driven to kill her children. There something brooding and chthonic in her actions. Its Nietzsche who we must call the first modern depth psychologist. He's good friction for thought. I can't wait to read more from you!


I should warn you that in my experience among online atheists, philosophy is not a highly respected branch of academia to hail from. Fortunately most students of philosophy will not have much use for arguments from authority, as no one is likely to grant you any based on that degree. Not universally despised but the majority have no idea what exactly it adds to any conversation and so tend not to trust it (or us). Personally, I don't find its content of much practical application but the acquired ability to say just as much as you mean to say with as little unintended implication as possible is always useful. My wife knew me before and after, and says my thinking had been way more metaphorical before. I imagine that is true.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like whateverist's post
13-04-2017, 08:44 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(13-04-2017 06:34 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  Searle's famous Chinese room nails the problem with AI and consciousness. I think three big blows to AI are the Chinese room, frank Jackson's Mary problem (qualia), and Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box metaphor on social language. I had a lecture series by Searle but i trailed off.

Loved the Chinese room argument. That settles it for me, AI has just the capacity to perform actions as ingenious as the persons who program the machines. How any of that ever amounts to 'consciousness' .. just no.


(13-04-2017 06:34 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  Now you mentioned "depth psychology". I love depth psychology. I find Jung's attempt at the shadow so appealing as a narrative we all have. We all have a backside, just like we all have a frontside, so too we all have a shadow. Now, I find the greatest depth psychologists inside the Greek tragedies. We find it in little Antigone standing up to a king in order to give her beloved brother a burial. We see it in Medea being driven to kill her children. There something brooding and chthonic in her actions. Its Nietzsche who we must call the first modern depth psychologist. He's good friction for thought. I can't wait to read more from you!

Big take aways from reading Hillman:

1- That all psychology (aside from the lab variety) is confessional, all any theoretician can ever do is confess how things stand from their own point of view. Freud did it. Jung did it. And anyone after Hillman has to realize the relative nature of their own efforts, logical positivism and scientism generally are rendered naive. Logic can only ever be a servant.

2- Thinking in an "as-if" manner as a way of grocking meanings in a non-logical way. It allows you to develop feeling and intuition as modes of knowledge without falling into literalism and going off the deep end. Meanings can be profoundly important in purely personal ways which require no justification.

3- Literature, dreams, pathology, religion, mythology .. all of it, can be explored in an as-if manner, giving it enough liberty to penetrate below your conscious mind without driving you off the deep end in the process.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like whateverist's post
15-04-2017, 12:52 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(12-04-2017 07:54 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  Hello everyone,

A hot friend of mine referred me to this site, Phoenix31. Hopefully there are more hot women who like glazed donuts on here.

Don't for a second believe any woman who tells you she's hot. Hotness is in the eye of the observer, not the observee.

(12-04-2017 07:54 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  Welp, here's to meeting people and hoping to gain a little friction to warm the brain cells!

You describe yourself as an "optomistic" agnostic. I assume that's opposed to a "pessimistic" agnostic, yes? But for clarification, what, exactly do you mean by "agnostic"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rachel's post
15-04-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(13-04-2017 06:34 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  ...
Searle's famous Chinese room nails the problem with AI and consciousness. I think three big blows to AI are the Chinese room, frank Jackson's Mary problem (qualia), and Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box metaphor on social language. I had a lecture series by Searle but i trailed off.
...

You may be interested in Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools For Thinking where he successfully unnails Searle's Chinese Room pp319-29 and Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument (Mary problem) pp347-51.

Have fun.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
15-04-2017, 03:14 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
I don't believe that—in the foreseeable future at least—any computer will possess the property of logic. Logic is the singular property of the human mind that separates us from all other animals—which rely on innate instincts for their survival.

Consider a hypothetical...

I'm in rough seas, cast off from a sinking ship and wearing a life-jacket. Next to me is a little boy, unknown to me previously, and whose parents have already drowned. He can't swim, has no life-jacket and is close to drowning.

Pure logic tells me to keep the life-jacket and save myself (as self-preservation is possibly the strongest of human instincts) and it'd be illogical to give the boy my life-jacket, and probably end up drowned myself.

What answer would a supposedly logical (and appropriately programmed) computer give me? Save myself, or save the boy? Would it solely utilise logic, and/or would it consider human emotive responses? Would it make any difference to the computer's advice if the boy was my own son?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2017, 04:36 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
*optimistic
Lamo

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-04-2017, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2017 03:21 AM by Stephen Pedersen.)
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(15-04-2017 12:52 PM)Rachel Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 07:54 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  Hello everyone,

A hot friend of mine referred me to this site, Phoenix31. Hopefully there are more hot women who like glazed donuts on here.

Don't for a second believe any woman who tells you she's hot. Hotness is in the eye of the observer, not the observee.

(12-04-2017 07:54 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  Welp, here's to meeting people and hoping to gain a little friction to warm the brain cells!

You describe yourself as an "optomistic" agnostic. I assume that's opposed to a "pessimistic" agnostic, yes? But for clarification, what, exactly do you mean by "agnostic"?

When I say I'm an optimistic agnostic it means I have no justified true belief. I lean towards theism only on pragmatic grounds. I don't follow a religion because I feel as though that takes away from individual flavor and authenticity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stephen Pedersen's post
15-04-2017, 07:09 PM
Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(15-04-2017 05:12 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  
(15-04-2017 12:52 PM)Rachel Wrote:  Don't for a second believe any woman who tells you she's hot. Hotness is in the eye of the observer, not the observee.


You describe yourself as an "optomistic" agnostic. I assume that's opposed to a "pessimistic" agnostic, yes? But for clarification, what, exactly do you mean by "agnostic"?

When I say I'm an optimistic agnostic it means I have no justified true belief. I lean towards theism only on pragmatic grounds. To stress that, I mean that I have no good reason other than the consequences of not forfeiting a spiritual life that I find the majority of people yearn for. Me included in that group. I don't follow a religion because I feel as though that takes away from individual flavor and authenticity.


I know what "optimistic" and "agnostic" mean. Neither word, either singly or in combination, maps onto "one lacking justified true belief." It's been my experience that people who write word salad are those who have muddled thinking and murky ideas. Your embracing of Paley's watchmaker argument is more evidence of a theist in search if a god and NOT an agnostic.

You might try just coming out of the closet and say that you think Pascal's wager is really convincing. I would accept that over the gobbledygook you normally write. Argument by obfuscation is never convincing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rachel's post
15-04-2017, 07:18 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(15-04-2017 05:12 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  
(15-04-2017 12:52 PM)Rachel Wrote:  Don't for a second believe any woman who tells you she's hot. Hotness is in the eye of the observer, not the observee.


You describe yourself as an "optomistic" agnostic. I assume that's opposed to a "pessimistic" agnostic, yes? But for clarification, what, exactly do you mean by "agnostic"?

When I say I'm an optimistic agnostic it means I have no justified true belief. I lean towards theism only on pragmatic grounds. To stress that, I mean that I have no good reason other than the consequences of not forfeiting a spiritual life that I find the majority of people yearn for. Me included in that group. I don't follow a religion because I feel as though that takes away from individual flavor and authenticity.

What I've seen is an argument from consequence, which isn't really a pragmatic position to hold. My only contention here.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
15-04-2017, 07:51 PM
RE: Optomistic Agnostic looking for lively debate
(15-04-2017 01:59 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 06:34 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  ...
Searle's famous Chinese room nails the problem with AI and consciousness. I think three big blows to AI are the Chinese room, frank Jackson's Mary problem (qualia), and Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box metaphor on social language. I had a lecture series by Searle but i trailed off.
...

You may be interested in Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools For Thinking where he successfully unnails Searle's Chinese Room pp319-29 and Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument (Mary problem) pp347-51.

Have fun.

Thumbsup

I remember this from like 3 decades ago at school. We had a lot of fun with these in class. Now I gotta go reread it. Thanks!

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: