General Philosophy

What If You Shape the Universe? Have you ever wondered if the universe is watching us—or if we’re actually shaping it just by being here?

Hello my name is Miguel Vega I want to start this by saying if anyone knows of any literature or further evidence of this theory being asked before please let me know it's been something I've thought of for a long time let the record show I also don't fancy myself a Genius or anything of that nature, but I've always wondered that if you were to forget something doesn't it almost seem (objectively of course to the person who's forgot) that the experience didn't happen at all of course I know that sounds dumb but hear me out, if let's say hypothetically you were to get blackout drunk and not remember any second of the time you had while intoxicated (which I've heard of happ…

I came to the incredible conclusion that we might all be the same person. I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous, but I promise you that conclusion is based in logic. 1 The apartments thought experiment. I am going to start with this thought experiment since it best visualizes the overall theory. It does not ‘proof’ the theory in any immediate way. However in the short chapters that follow, I will try to show that there might be no difference between this thought experiment, and how conscious life in universe works. The apartments thought experiment We have a drug which is capable to regulate to which part of the brain a person can read/write memory. …

Imagine the soul as a curious traveler who needs a vehicle (your body) to explore and experience the universe. Your body's cells are like a sophisticated vehicle ; functional, complex, and capable of interacting with the environment. The soul doesn't "operate" these cells, but uses them as a means to perceive and interact with the universe. Without functional cells, the soul(mysterious energy) is like a traveler without a vehicle present but unable to move, see, or experience anything. When cells become dysfunctional or die, the soul loses its ability to interact with the physical world. Think of it like this: Cells are the car …

Hi All, I'm Nilesh Parab. I'm not related to philosophy, but I have stumbled upon this interesting pattern in different aspects of our lives. I'm sharing the link to the website where I have described this pattern as it is a bit big to be posted here: Link removed by moderator Please do check it out and let me know your thoughts. It's not too complex and can probably be read in 5-10 minutes. Thank you for your help. PS: I read the rules related to posting links to outside websites here but I feel the link is relevant here, so I'm posting it. But if it's against the rules do let me know and I will delete this post.

Cause it's boring

This is an idea I have been mulling around in my head for a while.

I call it the machine hierarchy. It's designed so that each concept stacks on top of the other to be used to express the next concept above it. I do not know that it is right. 1 identity (0th order) // generator // equal sign // identity matrix // tensor product // nuclear space // M-order 0 space || \/ 2 geometry (1st order) // operator // mass // schwartz space // M-order 1 space (pronoun formed, the order in which an intelligence developed) || \/ 3 space (2nd order) // tensor // // metric // acceleration // real coordinate space // M-order n space (antecedent formed) life || \/ 1 action (3rd order) // energy // homomorp…

Can you use models to define rules to define new simulated actions?

Is there a direct correlation between concepts and problem-solving?

As the title says, are cognitive rules and concepts somehow related for referencing itself?

When viewing meta cognition you need to look at a cognition recursively viewing its cognition. Instead of doing it this way, one cognition can simply create a cognition, a definitive concept, and then have the first conceptual cognition relate to the second.

As the title reads can you rebuild a cognitive system using concepts alone?

For those who don't believe in free will, like me, do you feel guilty sometimes, do you drag some guilty feelings since long time? That was my case before yesterday, i realized i don't believe in free will, so why should i feel guilty That don't mean i don't feel sad anymore, and i wish some stuff would have gone differently And that don't mean you can become a monster either i guess thinking like that, can make that you don't have to feel guilty anymore, but if you don't want to feel sad anymore/counter this at least a bit for short times, you still have to try to do what you think is good

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up? I ask because my mother once remarked that this world would be a better place without male and female. She said this in response to my remark that male and female is a beautiful thing of nature. As times progress onward, the differences between male and female seem to becoming more and more confused. There are certain societal and political biases that seem to put one or the other sex at a disadvantage. Men are often given harsher sentences for the same types of crimes because judges view men as naturally more menacing than women perhaps because of the perceived muscular strength of men and that women ar…

Hi First i'm not sure to understand if here we are allowed to share what we feel, what we think/believe, to discuss and discover established concepts, to go deeper and learn If not then sorry i will find some other forum, and will come here only to ask what was this and what was that, to obtain some Wikipedia links, and will keep the thinking part for somewhere else So, we are in the Philosophy category, seems to me it's related to thinking, sorry again if i didn't read the definition of philosophy before opening this thread I wanted to share this idea, which seems to me to be philosophical, and maybe adapted to discussion To decide …

Hey all, I hope this is a cool place to discuss ideas. Sorry, my very first post is just such a big ... thingy.... I hope you like it It goes like this, we look at a certain playfield arrangement. Then we start the simulation. We start with a 1x1 playing field, and simulate all permutations. Booring. We start with a 1x2 playing field, and simulate all permutations. Boooring. Now, what I would like to do is to look at all permutations of a given playfield size. It's exhausting, I know, but not too bad. We keep increasing the field. We will see the following objects appearing: Oscillator, glider. Although, the glider will quickly leave our…

Was being able to travel to the moon worth the invention of nuclear weapons? What checks are there on scientific and technological advancement leading to dangerous scenarios.

I would also like to hear others' thoughts on whether or not science provides a path to living a meaningful life in the same vein as religion. I suppose that people can derive ethical values from scientific information, but others' thoughts on the matter is appreciated.

I would like to hear how others reconcile with the problem of evil.

A premise is offered, and then an argument follows without establishing the veracity of the premise. If the premise is false the conclusion is invalid, but the poster is proceeding as if it were true. Such as an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, and concluding the moon landings were faked because they would have noticed the cheese if they’d landed there. (the conclusion is not being used to support the premise, so it’s not begging the question/circular logic) Seems like this happens a fair amount, and it’s a failure of logic, but is there a recognized name for it?

I consider this a reducto ad absurdum, and I think that concepts such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs do a good job of addressing these (e.x. purely material needs such as procreation are at the lowest end of the hierarchy). Nevertheless, I think it does a good job debunking the conventional wisdom that the only purpose of life is procreation. Basically, if someone believes the only purpose of life is procreation, then science is useless to humans unless it somehow aids them at procreating. And for most of human history, people lived as hunter-gatherers without modern science or technology (which presumably took off with the advent of agriculture) and still met their …

Science and Objectivity Note: I have consulted forum guidelines and believe the following to be compliant! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Does true objectivity exist in science? Apparently, the pure form of it does not, certainly not in the form of 2+2=4 as would some have us believe. I have tried to be as objective as possible on this topic by consulting many references on the matter. To my surprise, none seem to claim that “view from nowhere” objectivity truly exists. Even in physics, it is not pure. But, is objectivity sufficiently objective to give us a general appreciation of reality, m…

I'm curious how others would attempt to define evil. I think that some particularly abominable acts are commonsensically evil, however defining evil in more complicated terms (e.x. such as whether evil is an "entity" or sorts, or simply destructive behavior done by humans) is more difficult.

In recent news here in blighty, A Banksy has been defiled by a tagger in a mask caught on camera; the Twittersphere is all of a twitter, which could have added value if it hadn't been bought by someone who didn't understand the art...