The Unbearable Lightness of Being - Philosophy Thread

[MARKakaJIM]

Do Buddhists believe in anything that out there? They don't believe in a god do they?

 

[nimrod]

i can't really speak for anyone engaged wholeheartedly in a religion but i think it's more for identity these days and for some communities/religions probably status. the religious creed itself is secondary if even that. I don't think anyone could legitimately suggest sectarian cathos and prots are observing an acceptable form of christianity, or the nutjob religious right in the US, or even the uk royal family/CofE.

re the point on the bible you'd have to separate out new and old testament for starters. i think it's probably possible to verify the existence of some of the new testament writers - you don't have to believe what they wrote of course. i'd say any literal bible basher is really missing the point of their religion and is likely a little unhinged.

i agree that most religious intent was about control - you say you don't understand the need for it, but the same aspects are being deployed politically. various sane people i know today are happy to believe various lies and conspiracies because they fit in with their skewed or indoctrinated world views.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Do Buddhists believe in anything that out there? They don't believe in a god do they?

They don't believe in a God as such, but they do believe in deities.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

They don't believe in a God as such, but they do believe in deities.

It's not a religion I have any great knowledge of, goes for pretty much all of them to be fair, but I'd always thought it was essentially just some guy when to meditate and got super chilled out so then other people wanted to copy that. Probably glossing over a lot of other fundamental beliefs there.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

It's not a religion I have any great knowledge of, goes for pretty much all of them to be fair, but I'd always thought it was essentially just some guy when to meditate and got super chilled out so then other people wanted to copy that. Probably glossing over a lot of other fundamental beliefs there.

Yeah, i think of all the more mainstream faiths, it's one that appeals more than most!

 

[lemonjelly]

I think the current scientific thinking is leaning against the idea of free will.

They've done experiments where they scan people's brains and shown that the relevant areas light up fractions of a second before the person is consciously aware of what they are going to do.

There's also the element of action and reaction that dictates if you were theoretically able to take account of the motion of every particle in the universe, you'd be able to simulate the past and future, so everything that has happened was always going to happen as it's just cause and effect.

The conscious question is the one that interests me the most, it's called the hard problem in neuroscience, they've worked out alot of how the brain works in mechanical terms, but they've essentially got no idea where or why consicouness arises.

An interesting question for me is how far down does consciousness go, obviously humans have it, pretty sure most people would agree dogs have it, and cats, but do spiders have it, or plants? If they don't, at what point does consciousness stop?

I did my UG degree in Philosophy, and my dissertation was on artificial intelligence. I still read loads of books on mind, and consciousness.
Saw the thread title and initially thought "stay away" (and I will from the religion discussion that crept in).
However, I am not sure that scientific thinking is even close to being against the idea of free will.

On your discussion of how far does consciousness go, it's such a complex area. Over time, I have developed an instinct that consciousness is something that occurs in "degrees" or some other metric. But your post raises some interesting points:
"obviously humans have it" - is it? how is it obvious? it is obvious to you that you are conscious (though you may be being deceived)

"pretty sure most people would agree dogs have it, and cats" again are you sure? what awareness do we have that cats, dogs and other animals aren't merely responding to stimuli? we tend to anthropomorphise a lot of animal behaviour. It might be that we do this, because if we accepted animals are merely automata, then we would have to confront whether we are too.

the following book is totally awesome. Based on your posts I suspect you'd love it:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Minds-Fantasies-Reflections-Self-Soul/dp/0465030912

 

[AndyWolves]

Is this the right thread to bring up meditation?

Something I've dabbled with and really need to pick up again

 

[WolfMan]

Is this the right thread to bring up meditation?

Something I've dabbled with and really need to pick up again

It absolutely is mate. I've dabbled in it myself and the benefits it provides especially from a mental health perspective are great. It's a weird one though, it's so hard to motivate myself to sit there and do nothing.

 

[WolfMan]

I did my UG degree in Philosophy, and my dissertation was on artificial intelligence. I still read loads of books on mind, and consciousness.
Saw the thread title and initially thought "stay away" (and I will from the religion discussion that crept in).
However, I am not sure that scientific thinking is even close to being against the idea of free will.

On your discussion of how far does consciousness go, it's such a complex area. Over time, I have developed an instinct that consciousness is something that occurs in "degrees" or some other metric. But your post raises some interesting points:
"obviously humans have it" - is it? how is it obvious? it is obvious to you that you are conscious (though you may be being deceived)

"pretty sure most people would agree dogs have it, and cats" again are you sure? what awareness do we have that cats, dogs and other animals aren't merely responding to stimuli? we tend to anthropomorphise a lot of animal behaviour. It might be that we do this, because if we accepted animals are merely automata, then we would have to confront whether we are too.

the following book is totally awesome. Based on your posts I suspect you'd love it:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Minds-Fantasies-Reflections-Self-Soul/dp/0465030912

Thanks mate - I've added the book to my list.

This is exactly the sort of reply I had in mind when I started the thread tbh. I've got a very scattergun approach to reading articles/listening to podcasts which form the basis of my 'knowledge' on the subject, so to read the thoughts of someone who's properly studied it is fantastic.

You've given me a bit to think about there and l'll reply more fully at some point but thanks again in the mean time.

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

I did my UG degree in Philosophy, and my dissertation was on artificial intelligence. I still read loads of books on mind, and consciousness.
Saw the thread title and initially thought "stay away" (and I will from the religion discussion that crept in).
However, I am not sure that scientific thinking is even close to being against the idea of free will.

On your discussion of how far does consciousness go, it's such a complex area. Over time, I have developed an instinct that consciousness is something that occurs in "degrees" or some other metric. But your post raises some interesting points:
"obviously humans have it" - is it? how is it obvious? it is obvious to you that you are conscious (though you may be being deceived)

"pretty sure most people would agree dogs have it, and cats" again are you sure? what awareness do we have that cats, dogs and other animals aren't merely responding to stimuli? we tend to anthropomorphise a lot of animal behaviour. It might be that we do this, because if we accepted animals are merely automata, then we would have to confront whether we are too.

the following book is totally awesome. Based on your posts I suspect you'd love it:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Minds-Fantasies-Reflections-Self-Soul/dp/0465030912

I did an a level in evenings, it was something I was into, twisted my mind. From your comments you are much more lucid in conveying your points. For what it worth I'm on the side of we hold an illusion of free will to maintain our sanity, consciousness is a happy side effect of a complicated brain.

I was all Kiergegaard and Nietzsche but I never really understand either of them if I'm honest. Of the more practical I found Mill and the idea of morals interesting.

I draw parallels to the sceptic philosophy and the modern trend for ignorance, arguing against science and information almost for the sake of it. Although if Descartes existed now (if indeed he ever did exist) he would be drowned out by the crowd.

I try not to think too much these days as I just end up down logical wormholes and I'm happier as a person not over thinking.

Sophie world is a decent enough book to get an overview of the main trends in Philosophy over the past 2000 years for anyone interested. It's a novel so not particularly onerous.

 

[lemonjelly]

Sophies World is a phenomenally good book! I loved it when I read it, and there is so much in it, and so many ideas conveyed in such a brilliant way.

I've never tied myself to individual writers/theorists tbh. I prefer exploring the ideas. Much of the time I merely find out it's a bit more complicated than I first thought.

I enjoy reading a wide range on consciousness, behaviour, what makes a person etc. I occasionally like some of the ethics aspects. Quite enjoyed some of the philosophy of science too, including Popper and Schopenhauer. Went through a stage of reading a fair amount of Wittgenstein, and read Montaignes complete essays in the last year. Have to say I usually enjoy Alain de Bottons books too.

I have to say @Newbridge Wolf I was surprised, and flattered I appear lucid. I don't usually feel I explain myself very well, so it's interesting to see someone suggest the opposite. Thanks!

 

[nimrod]

Sophies World is a phenomenally good book! I loved it when I read it, and there is so much in it, and so many ideas conveyed in such a brilliant way.

I've never tied myself to individual writers/theorists tbh. I prefer exploring the ideas. Much of the time I merely find out it's a bit more complicated than I first thought.

I enjoy reading a wide range on consciousness, behaviour, what makes a person etc. I occasionally like some of the ethics aspects. Quite enjoyed some of the philosophy of science too, including Popper and Schopenhauer. Went through a stage of reading a fair amount of Wittgenstein, and read Montaignes complete essays in the last year. Have to say I usually enjoy Alain de Bottons books too.

I have to say @Newbridge Wolf I was surprised, and flattered I appear lucid. I don't usually feel I explain myself very well, so it's interesting to see someone suggest the opposite. Thanks!

have you read any vernor vinge. although a sci fi writer he’s written a lot about AI and has an interesting paper on the technological singularity. It reflects a little in his novels. His novel fire upon the deep is based on a world with telepathic dog like creatures which when in a pack form a singular consciousness. So the greater the pack the more intelligent. Great book.

 

[lemonjelly]

have you read any vernor vinge. although a sci fi writer he’s written a lot about AI and has an interesting paper on the technological singularity. It reflects a little in his novels. His novel fire upon the deep is based on a world with telepathic dog like creatures which when in a pack form a singular consciousness. So the greater the pack the more intelligent. Great book.

had never heard of him, however will add his name onto the list of "one day" books.
read a couple of ray bradbury books this year(incl farenheit 451) based on your recommendations. will be updating the jolly good read thread imminently.

 

[nimrod]

had never heard of him, however will add his name onto the list of "one day" books.
read a couple of ray bradbury books this year(incl farenheit 451) based on your recommendations. will be updating the jolly good read thread imminently.

I should mention he’s a professor of computer science first and foremost. His novels were a secondary career.

 

[WolfMan]

The fact the ancient Greeks were capable of designing and building this mechanism is mind blowing to me.

It was another 1400 years before any similar devices were constructed which raises some very interesting questions about the nature of scientific and technological progress and our assumption that it is linear.

An Ancient Greek Astronomical Calculation Machine Reveals New Secrets

Scientists have a new understanding of the mysterious Antikythera mechanism that challenges assumptions about ancient technology

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[WolfMan]

"Life is the universe developing a memory"

Fascinating long form discussion with an esteemed chemist, if you're interested.

Lex Fridman Podcast

Podcast · Lex Fridman · Conversations about science, technology, history, philosophy and the nature of intelligence, consciousness, love, and power. Lex is an AI researcher at MIT and beyond. Link to AI voice translated show in Spanish.

open.spotify.com