General Philosophy

As has been well documented by now, our bodies respond positively to acts of kindness. As noted in the linked article, seratonin, dopamine, and endorphins are released when we are kind, giving us a pleasant feeling when we do something nice for another party. In other words, our bodies provide positive feedback for altruistic behavior. On the other side of the spectrum, we have shame. I will cite a brief excerpt from Building Self Esteem by Joseph Burgo, Ph.D , pg 14/15. As the book further goes on to explain, this provides negative feedback for bad deeds to promote better social behaviors. Taken in aggregate, combined with our capacity to learn and develo…

Freedom of speech is absolutely essential. Everywhere. Even at "private" forums who obviously found a loophole around the cornerstone of the most fundamental and important human right of all. FREEDOM OF SPEECH!. But don't take my word for it. Consider what these people of note had to say on the matter.

I wanna that if there is no concrete definition or widely agreed upon definition of an abstract concept then what do you do with those that are given by various philosophers throughout time. Do you choose which one to use? For example the terms Philosophy, Environment, Love, Justice, and Equality. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't work in a way like "Oh I think I'll use Plato's definition of Philosophy cause I want to," which in this case is very arbitrary? In a way, it kinda led me to the question of what is real and what is not for all these concepts which only made me more confused.

This may come across as a self-answering question, but here goes: if a robot was able to "convincingly" pass the mirror test, does this prove it has self-awareness? Or would it be simply down to clever programming? In other words, are there limits to the mirror test as it applies to robots? (I've restricted this query to free-standing robots because I'm uncertain how a mainframe computer or AI system could be tested in this corporeal sense). Thanks for reading this post. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.

Being a science forum, I would think that there are educated people around here. Being that, in theory, there should be people around here who are interested in the truth. "IF" you are one of those people, this isn't the forum to get it. From what I see, this forum is as much about censorship as most other forums out there are. Your utter and complete ignorance outside the realm of science seems to be what this forum is all about. If you don't have the freedom to think, then you are just a slave. If these things don't set well with you, I will tell you one of the things that your masters probably won't allow me to say to you. After all, my username is Disobey. Com…

Not that logic is hell. But I have found that the average political forum views logical thought as hell. And will ban you for using it. For example, let's take a logical look at the topic of "racism." If racism is wrong, what is wrong about it should be easy enough to point out. So that if anybody came along and said something racist, what is wrong with that point of view could be pointed out. Therefore settling the matter. But the vast majority of forums won't let you say racist things. The only logical conclusion as to why is because there is nothing wrong about such statements to be pointed out. So if it isn't wrong, that must mean it is good. While I'm…

I have been to many other forums. Mostly what i run up against is stunning stupidity. I hope things will be different around here. Seeing how this is a science forum. But being good in scientific matters doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't things that even you are wrong about. For one thing, if you are well educated, that means that you have a lot invested in your education. Your education isn't much use without a "stable" society in which to practice it. With that being the case, you are probably more prone to not want to "rock the boat." Even if the boat of society needs rocking. So instead, apart from science, you may choose ignorance. After all, they …

Nietzsche, Goethe, Schopenhauer thought everything is one whole (e.g. consciousness/god): Also that there is no distinction between object-subject, even it is unprovable as Schopenhauer said in his book The World as Will and its representation. Also music is thought to be direct representation to will, as it is a priory to objects of mind, not abstract but thoroughly determinate like universal language and it allows us to get meaning of e.g. dramatic scenes, or what is going on in any given situation. Birth of Tragedy 17. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51356/51356-h/51356-h.htm I had divine mania like Nietzsche I was everything from homeless man to empe…

This is a serious question. I'd like to know how you would answer this in a few words. My answer to the question is the purpose of life is to get better, in a few words. "To get better" is evolution, adaption, and survival. If you get sick, your purpose is to get better. If you do well in anything, the purpose is to get better.

The main questions of this thread are: 1. Is it logically possible for the totality of an infinite number of objects to exist? 2. Can infinity end? (such as an infinitely long line or an infinite row of objects) When I think about it logically, the full extent of an infinitely long line or all of an infinite amount of objects should not be able to exist. I come to this conclusion simply due to the idea that in an infinite row of objects there is no last object. However, that is just where I am at right now; I may be persuaded otherwise. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has three definitions of infinity here, Let's use…

I understand we can't say which might apply. If one was ,or was shown to be the case and the other was not ,would it make any practical or philosophical (or any other sort of) difference? For instance would it make any difference to how we understand our own "place in the world" ? (and is that a weighty question?)

Do you think that the human evolution in terms of civilization & technology and also social evolution would be exponential ? and we would be exploring the galaxys an the universe in the future ? and like curing all types of diseases and these king of stuff ? Or like me do you think our advance & evolution has limits and its limited by our own nature and it would have a peak and after that everything would start to fall apart ? And our civilization would start to gradually collapse In my opinion we have past the peak and started to downfall for about a decade or so

who can i win money in internet ?

Psyche and Beyond Center offers counselling services in the community through well-trained registered professional counsellors.

Practical Explanation ( For Example ) :- `1st of all can you tell me every single seconds detail from that time when you born ?? ( i need every seconds detail ?? that what- what you have thought and done on every single second ) can you tell me every single detail of your `1 cheapest Minute Or your whole hour, day, week, month, year or your whole life ?? if you are not able to tell me about this life then what proof do you have that you didn't forget your past ? and that you will not forget this present life in the future ? that is Fact that Supreme Lord Krishna exists but we posses no such intelligence to understand him. there is also next life. and i al…

In geometry class, when we draw a general triangle, we're bound to draw a triangle that's either right, or acute, or obtuse, but cannot draw general one.In that case, in what form does the general triangle exist?

I'd like to preface this with the fact that I will be studying philosophy in parallel at university, this reading list might be a grandiose pipe dream, and that I expect with quite strong plausibility that I'll get through only a fraction of this list, hence the tier-system. Additionally, I'm already financially secure. Yes, I'm somewhat of a shallow pseudointellectual and my reasoning behind why these philosophers isn't particularly deep, as well as not being bothered with attaining actual truth or rigorous, because I love and like the diverse qualia reading philosophy provides for me, so whether such qualia is fallacious, "fake", or a false illusion or not is not my con…

Imagine you were given 3 wishes, everything within the laws of physics are possible, the wishes have to be specific (you can't just wish for everyone to be happy or rich or etc.). How could we specify the first two wishes, so we don't have to spend the third cancelling the first two? It's not as straightforward as it might appear, if looked at scientifically.

For anything to exist in the observable universe, it must be real and not real. Why is this true but not (true and false)? The observable universe is real and not real because of quantum entanglement and the waveform. The universe is not applying values to it's particles unless an observer is perceiving that part of the universe. The observer makes the universe real from their perception of the universe. Quantum entanglement is the universe's way of creating new information. When particles are entangled in waveform, this allows for the function of creating new information when the waveform collapses. What is a subjective truth? A subjective truth is real to…

I was thinking the other day about QM, uncertainty principle, superposition the multiverse theory, destiny and so forth. I then started to consider what the philosophical implications of infinite multiverses may present. The main one I considered was what this means for a person regarding their "soul", their destiny and so forth... I started to imagine such a scenario where we have the idea of infinite parallel multiverses where every quantum change creates a new universe that branches off. This sounds so far out there but is considered by some physicist as a plausible idea that can be used to explain many phenomena. So in this scenario everything that coul…

There are some critical differences between how traditional AI works and machine learning/ neural networked AIs work. For this argument I am defining sentience and consciousness as how humans have sentience and consciousness (whatever that is, which is why I don't like creating logic using consciousness but please bear with me none the less). There is a defined difference between truth and reality. Our realities are most likely the way in how we perceive the truth, because the truth could be beyond our current comprehension. The best system we have for defining truth is through logic. Much of the way we perceive the truth isn't logical, it's most likely emotional. There i…

I always think my work is an headache but one day when i was walking on the street and see some people starving at the side of street i decided to them (because i was bored and have free time) i ask them why don't they work and earn money they tell me that they want to work but because of lack of education they can not get work. Then i ask them why they not study when they were young. They tell me that they want to study but can not get tution fee . I ask them why not work to earn tution fee and what about your parents they told me they are orphan and they work hard day and night but can not earn enough for tution fee other person say that by working very hard he have e…

Life is an test where someone gets easy question and someone gets hard question but only those pass who prepared well for test. it is not necessary easy one will pass and hard one will fail but those who give up on little possibility of success will fail. I always think my work is an headache but one day when i was walking on the street and see some people starving at the side of street i decided to talk to them (because i was bored and have free time) i ask them why don't they work and earn money they tell me that they want to work but because of lack of education they can not get work. Then i ask them why they not study when they were young. They tell me that the…

I watched a Youtube video tonight that pulled together a few lines of thought that I'd been pondering over without linking them together. What really grabbed me was the contrast between the fragility and improbability of complex civilisation with the indestructability of quantum information. Why such a visceral reaction to this? Well I've not taken part in any democratic process for over 25 years on the grounds of too much hassle; I don't live in the country where I could vote; my vote probably wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. And yet those decisions not to act, via the indestructabilty of quantum information, must have measurable consequence…