Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:00 am
How about allcaps?

PhilX

-1- wrote:"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:59 am

-1- wrote:"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.

I won't compete with the number of verys (veries?) but philosophical thought often brings me tears of joy, especially seeing or hearing about great kindness and mercy shown across different races, cultures and species. Also, the cosmos can either bring a childlike "wow!" reaction or my favourite, the "brain melt" when considering some of its more humongous, intense and bizarre aspects. Ditto the BB and abiogenesis.

I'm not doing "philosophy" for any reason but enjoyment and buzz of nature's* "black boxes" becoming ever less opaque.


* including humans and their stuff.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:08 am Yes, ideally emotions will drive our inquiries rather than overly shape the answers we find.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:37 am

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:59 am

-1- wrote:"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.

I won't compete with the number of verys (veries?) but philosophical thought often brings me tears of joy, especially seeing or hearing about great kindness and mercy shown across different races, cultures and species. Also, the cosmos can either bring a childlike "wow!" reaction or my favourite, the "brain melt" when considering some of its more humongous, intense and bizarre aspects. Ditto the BB and abiogenesis.

I'm not doing "philosophy" for any reason but enjoyment and buzz of nature's* "black boxes" becoming ever less opaque.


* including humans and their stuff.

That's nice. But we are talking about wanting to maim, mutilate or murder our debating opponents by "emotionality".

d-:

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:35 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:37 am
That's nice. But we are talking about wanting to maim, mutilate or murder our debating opponents by "emotionality".

d-:

Would you like to?

-1- wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:18 am

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:35 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:37 am
That's nice. But we are talking about wanting to maim, mutilate or murder our debating opponents by "emotionality".

d-:

Would you like to?

Well, no... yes... no, unless there is some sex involved as well.

That begs the (answerable) question: do philosophers have sex? Other than with older teenaged boys.

I suspectt that you, Greta, have an unfair advantage in that over the bulk of us heterosexual male philosophers that loiter around here.

(khee-hee-hee)

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:15 am -1-, once the teeth are long, the advantage goes.

I expect that many philosophers' sex lives would metaphorically resemble the Bootes Void.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:27 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:39 am Well, emotions are real and ideally we are interested in reality. Further, emotions provide motivation and are required to conduct, not only philosophical thinking, but anything. Those with disorders or injury that inhibit emotion tend to, as a consequence, motivation.

Emotion may be observed as the summation of rational faculties, ie the senses, into intuition. In these respects emotion is a form of reasoning in itself and not only provides the foundations for objective observation but can be objective in the respect is summates sensory experience. ....if that makes any sense at all.

Emotions are like subroutines consisting of a suite of behaviours. If you are in sudden danger, rather than analysing the situation and devising optimal responses, you shift to a fight-or-flight state which carries a whole suite of responses including heart and blood flow, hormones, the writhe response and so on. AI won't need this because, rather than rely on pre-determined generalised "blunt instrument" responses they will be fast enough to calculate optimal responses in the same time.

These calculations are based upon sensory experience, however the question of sensory experience is one of the places A.I will struggle for the immediate future. This is considering the senses inherently observe different dimensions of a reality, and what we may know of something such as "intuitioin" may not only be a culmination of the senses but may be linked to another dimension such as a theoretical ether, where things are not only observed ahead of their time but are observed as existing simultaneously for what they are irrespective of the movement of space itself.

A.I. will not work on its own but will need to be merged with a synthetic organism.

I remember one study, where two AI were playing chess. Both A.I won an even number of times. Then a person was added to one A.I. and the second A.I. played on its own. The A.I. and person won every time. Why? Well there are a number of reasons, but one of them breaks down to "choice". An AI cannot choose anything, while a person can as a person can choose by applying not a measurement (like the AI) but a measurement standard. In these respects the process of applying a measurement standard is a form of causality, extending from choice, while applying measurement is following a deterministic degree of movement.

While reason, with intuition through the emotions, may be part of a rational process the manifestations of a standard of measurement in turn causes reason to exist. In these respects all rational processes, to be truly rational, must reflect back to their origins as these origins in turn determine the standard. The methodology of logic and reason must have a self-reflective capability for the process of manifesting not only measurements but measurement standards.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:42 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:39 amWell, emotions are real and ideally we are interested in reality. Further, emotions provide motivation and are required to conduct, not only philosophical thinking, but anything. Those with disorders or injury that inhibit emotion tend to, as a consequence, motivation.

Your statements are absolutely correct. I would just add that one's arguments need not be emotional in philosophy.

Yes, ideally emotions will drive our inquiries rather than overly shape the answers we find.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:19 pmThese calculations are based upon sensory experience, however the question of sensory experience is one of the places A.I will struggle for the immediate future. This is considering the senses inherently observe different dimensions of a reality, and what we may know of something such as "intuitioin" may not only be a culmination of the senses but may be linked to another dimension ...

A.I. will not work on its own but will need to be merged with a synthetic organism.

I remember one study, where two AI were playing chess. Both A.I won an even number of times. Then a person was added to one A.I. and the second A.I. played on its own. The A.I. and person won every time. Why? Well there are a number of reasons, but one of them breaks down to "choice". An AI cannot choose anything, while a person can as a person can choose by applying not a measurement (like the AI) but a measurement standard. In these respects the process of applying a measurement standard is a form of causality, extending from choice, while applying measurement is following a deterministic degree of movement.

While reason, with intuition through the emotions, may be part of a rational process the manifestations of a standard of measurement in turn causes reason to exist. In these respects all rational processes, to be truly rational, must reflect back to their origins as these origins in turn determine the standard. The methodology of logic and reason must have a self-reflective capability for the process of manifesting not only measurements but measurement standards.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:19 pmThese calculations are based upon sensory experience, however the question of sensory experience is one of the places A.I will struggle for the immediate future. This is considering the senses inherently observe different dimensions of a reality, and what we may know of something such as "intuitioin" may not only be a culmination of the senses but may be linked to another dimension ...

A.I. will not work on its own but will need to be merged with a synthetic organism.

I remember one study, where two AI were playing chess. Both A.I won an even number of times. Then a person was added to one A.I. and the second A.I. played on its own. The A.I. and person won every time. Why? Well there are a number of reasons, but one of them breaks down to "choice". An AI cannot choose anything, while a person can as a person can choose by applying not a measurement (like the AI) but a measurement standard. In these respects the process of applying a measurement standard is a form of causality, extending from choice, while applying measurement is following a deterministic degree of movement.

While reason, with intuition through the emotions, may be part of a rational process the manifestations of a standard of measurement in turn causes reason to exist. In these respects all rational processes, to be truly rational, must reflect back to their origins as these origins in turn determine the standard. The methodology of logic and reason must have a self-reflective capability for the process of manifesting not only measurements but measurement standards.

Interesting and you may yet be right.

Was it the human's emotion that won the day or flexibility and creativity?