Posts by Harold Doyle3

mistybison said:A conversation recently broke out on "religion" regarding whether a religious person can truly be considered wise. After a bit of back-and-forth, we reached the consensus that everyone defines wisdom differently, which naturally dictates their view on whether faith and wisdom can coexist.

Since philosophy is fundamentally defined as the love of wisdom, this seems like the perfect venue to pin down what that term actually signifies. 🙂

How would you define wisdom? 🙂

I literally just wrote a post explaining exactly where you *won't* find any wisdom, and yet, here you are looking right there! 🤦

Sandra Murphy33 said:... and just like that, we've identified the limits of science as we currently understand it.
😉

Honestly, hitting those scientific limits is a much smaller evil than realizing we've reached the edge of our own imagination.😉

bluemason3 said:If the math holds up, there's no reason to call him a fraud. We can just treat these things as hypotheses until we have solid proof, which is basically what most theoretical models are until they're proven.

I don't see the issue here. 🤔

So, his book is essentially religious, yet it leans on scientific terminology and personal authority to create an illusion of science. In other words, it's pseudoscience. 🙂

The guy posed a perfectly valid question: does an "algorithm for consciousness" exist?
Where is the pseudoscience in that?
A proponent of strong UI would say yes, while a proponent of weak UI would say no.
Which one of those two is the "pseudoscientist"?

How are we supposed to prove the existence of, say, a specific subatomic particle if proving it requires a particle accelerator the size of our solar system?
Mathematical proof isn't enough; you need empirical evidence for it to be scientifically accepted.
What happens when we reach a point where we simply lack the capacity to empirically prove certain theories or hypotheses?
Does science just stop existing then?

bluemason3 said:Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

You know that Planck was terrified of presenting his "crazy" idea regarding blackbody radiation?
Why do you think that was?
If you ask me, it was because of rigid attitudes like these—the fear of being branded a charlatan.

Roger Penrose actually added a disclaimer about this, noting that his book isn't a formal scientific text, but rather his own subjective musings on consciousness.

He asks more questions than he provides answers, but then again, a well-posed question is half the answer.

Sam Martinez9 said:For those anti-physics types who aren't exactly eager to get their hands dirty with heavy equations but still want to grasp the essence of quantum mechanics and where the catch lies, I’d highly recommend Capra and the era of change. The book is worth the read for more than just the science; he bridges everything from Newtonian mechanics through quantum theory all the way to capitalism, touching on biology and social structures along the way. That said, since his background is in physics, he really shines when discussing the hard sciences—biology included. His take on the social sciences feels a bit less grounded.

I’ve been told that his book Tao physics is actually even better when you're diving into quantum territory, though I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy yet.

Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:@Harold Doyle3 Look, I don't know for sure—I haven't exactly majored in sociology—but I'm betting on it. I just look at the patterns. Think about it: the chaotic movement of free electrons doesn't actually build anything on its own. You only get a computer once you define "on" and "off" as 0 and 1, establish a hierarchy of complex logic gates, and layer in all that hardware. It’s the same thing with people. Someone with a fractured, chaotic personality—like what you see with schizophrenia—usually has such a shallow output of thought that they can't even function in daily life. I honestly believe something similar applies to social chaos.

I highly recommend this book.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:It isn't necessary for freedom.

I honestly think any healthy hierarchy is built on a drive for productivity, efficiency, and the principle of preservation. Look at Buddhism, for instance. Over the last 2,600 years, they gradually introduced hierarchy within their monastic orders. There's no aristocracy there; it’s just members committing to discipline to protect their freedom, which ultimately shuts out those messy, unwanted human impulses. Of course, nothing works perfectly in practice.

Another example would be political hierarchies. Groups with shared interests band together to form political entities, which then establish a hierarchy specifically to protect those group interests.

Chaos is just an unproductive state. Making a collective decision is basically impossible in chaos, even if individual freedom exists (just like it does within a hierarchy).

Could you expand a bit on the bolded part?

I think this gets to the heart of it:

“People fall into two camps, today just as they always have: the enslaved and the free. Anyone who doesn't have two-thirds of their day entirely to themselves is a slave, regardless of whether they're a politician, a CEO, a bureaucrat, or a scholar.”

Nietzsche.

Andrew Booth29 said:Why limit it to them? You could say the exact same thing about religious zealots or pretty much any other group out there... It seems to be a universal human trait, doesn't it?

Regarding these "ideals"—they’re actually quite a burden. The goals a person sets for themselves really ought to be measurable and attainable. Abstract, impossible objectives often serve as nothing more than an excuse for doing absolutely nothing. That said, occasionally it helps to aim for something out of reach; sometimes, you actually manage to hit the mark. 😬

The absolute worst part is when people use those vague, impossible ideals to justify shitty behavior.

Ethan Gomez82 said:That was back when you’d just toss a bone over your shoulder. Then someone suddenly decided it actually needed to be put in a bin out front. 😁

I don't think it's about some stray bone. Honestly? I think someone just decided to take a dump anywhere instead of using the designated spot—you know, the old "nature calls wherever" philosophy. And then, predictably, someone stepped in it. That's where the real mess starts. It's basically the prehistoric version of asking, "Who's going to clean up this crap?"

Ethan Gomez82 said:Not happening in my case. I’m strictly against that idea. 😁

Total rebel!

Sam Martinez9 said:To those who lived 500 or even 1,000 years ago—we are nothing more than a utopian dream.

No, that's not it at all... From their point of view, the actual utopia existed maybe 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, but we got kicked out because we completely botched the dirty work.

Carol Jackson2 said:Most people end up stuck in jobs that are either mind-numbing from day one or just get boring over time.

That’s why you need to constantly pivot and shift things up on your resume.

Criminals can always find work in the worst sectors; it’s a reality.

Some people actually gravitate toward mining, even though it’s incredibly dangerous.

Men do the laundry at home too.😉

In some perfect utopia, the most grueling, terrible jobs would be handled by enthusiasts.
They'd set an example that makes everyone else feel guilty... eventually, you'd probably have a line of people waiting to take the worst shifts.

Joseph Bailey41 said:If Joe Biden's only skill is cleaning toilets, I'm starting to doubt his mental state.

Maybe we should just crack him open to see where the short circuit happened? 🤔

Hands off!!
Who’s going to handle the plumbing if you go and fix him? You?

Andrew Booth29 said:And why on earth would you be performing brain surgery on someone who is perfectly healthy? 🤷
That’s a hell of a trade-off.

There we go—step by step, we’ve arrived at a brand new concept: a double coincidence of wants.

Or if they're sick... tell the patient to scrub your toilet before you even think about touching them with a scalpel.
It’d be a nice little safety net if Flying had a massive reserve—you know, some sort of capital made up of clean toilets to save for a "rainy day."

gentlerider7 said:But honestly, why bother with the reality check? It’s not like anyone here is actually out there trying to force some perfect paradise onto the world anyway.

I guess I was thinking about Icarus, and I just got a bit carried away with my own dramatics.

gentlerider7 said:Look, even if it all falls apart, isn't the whole point of dreaming up these perfect worlds just to kickstart the imagination? That's how you actually get new ideas to work with, right?

To me, utopian thinking just looks like an overactive imagination hitting a brick wall of reality.

I mean, I'll give you this much—imagination can certainly do a lot of things.

ruggedraven36 said:It’s fair because it follows the basic principle that no one should be stuck doing jobs they hate forever. From where I'm sitting, NOBODY has actually offered a single decent argument against the rotation principle proposed by the roadworker. All we get are pathetic anecdotes like yours. Anecdotes aren't arguments. They aren't even typical cases—they're just extreme outliers pulled from current reality, whereas we're talking about how a future society *should* function. We need to speak in terms of PRINCIPLES, at an Abstract level, especially when discussing a society that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, any principle can have exceptions if it serves the greater good—it’s just stupid to debate those specifics now, since we aren't anywhere near building that kind of society and we can't possibly see every tiny detail right this second.

I'll give you this: predicting how society evolves and what kind of future awaits us is a tall order.
But one thing is certain—if we actually want societal progress, we have to manage our resources more efficiently and economically. And I mean everything: intellectual, creative, material, spiritual... you name it. If someone is highly intelligent, it’s a total waste to have them performing manual labor where they can't contribute anything compared to their intellectual potential. On the flip side, someone with a frail build isn't going to tackle heavy lifting as effectively as an athlete.
Technological advancement will eventually solve the issue: the dirty, monotonous, mind-numbing, dangerous, and unappealing jobs.
In our pursuit of fairness, we shouldn't be unfair ourselves, and indiscriminate rotation? That’s just an unfair approach.
A much more humane and equitable solution would be something like specialized benefits or adjusted hours. For instance, someone cleaning up lead waste could work one month and then take eleven months of paid leave... personally, I’d sign up for that job in a heartbeat.

As for all that talk regarding freedom, justice, fairness, and society... I'll leave the Abstract stuff to the Abstract man, since my own examples might be a bit meager.

gentlerider7 said:Look, I said "less stress," not "zero stress." Even a utopia needs some kind of actual foundation in reality, otherwise, it's just an endless, mindless daydream.

The practical foundation of any utopia is right there in the name—you'd all end up drowning in filth.

gentlerider7 said:I mean, look, maybe it’s just less work and more downtime, right? Who knows? Maybe one day some pilot is just gonna wake up, realize the grind isn't worth it, and decide to head out to some quiet ranch in Montana to live off the land—it’s not like being a pilot is exactly easy work anyway, is it?

I can easily picture a pilot volunteering to go dig up a vineyard for the greater good, but if a philosopher tried that? Those farmers would probably beat him senseless with a shovel.