Let's just make the car stop, and kill no one.

Or kill the people in the road, they shouldn't have been there anyway.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Make the car leap over them like KITT.

This. All self driving cars should also have the AI/voice of an ageing, snippy, aloof homosexual.

Another age-old philosophy debate solved by a child:



http://boingboing.net/2016/09/01/two-year-old-solves-the-classi.html

Ahahaha.

Ah, pragmatic population control. Kid's a genius.

Maybe it's all a dream...

https://youtu.be/c2PAajlHbnU

So this could go in miso thread, but it's more the acting out of the specific philosophical/moral conundrum that impresses me.

I think he leaves some pretty big gaps in what he references, and makes some declarations I wouldn't think follow, but it's still a good little vid.

You keep linking to Carroll and I have in my podcast subs and I never get around to him, even though I know he's done lots of good stuff and is always interesting.

Meanwhile, this is great.

https://sootyempiric.blogspot.com/2019/11/truth-in-culture-war.html?m=1

2 of the authors of the sokal hoax have gone down a full on IDW path of dumb shit. For peak irony, they also wrote a book about how to argue/disagree better.

They've then gone on to Tweet and write articles that are so easily memeable and contradictory that its shooting fish in a barrel.

As with all the IDW guys, when folks dive in with substantive criticism, their shtick falls apart.

Anyhoo, the above article is from a blog from a guy who writes very clearly and there's lots of interesting stuff in here, IMO on truth and how we might know it or not.

"So first a terminological point, perhaps not intrinsically all that important but which is nonetheless worth being clear about. The thing Boghossian identifies as the correspondence theory of truth is not that which philosophers typically discuss under that name. To understand why not, it will be worth having to hand a distinction. We may separate out claims about what it means for something to be true (we'll call questions about what it means to be true "alethic claims") from claims about how we could know something is true ("epistemic claims"). Suppose I say "there are 9 rocks in this bucket", pointing to a bucket in front of me. What it means for this to be true presumably has something to do with buckets, numbers of rocks, and the relationship of being inside of. How I would know it is true, what sort of observations I would make or whether I can in fact come to know as much, are quite distinct from this. To see that, one could suppose that our bucket with (perhaps) 9 rocks in it were located on some far away exoplanet - now what I would have to do to come to know the truth of my claim, and indeed whether I can know it at all, are very difficult questions, whose answers may well be different from when I said that of a bucket in front of me. Yet, what would make the claim true (or false) does not seem to have changed: the bucket and the number of rocks therein being the only thing that matters for that. This is a general distinction that some philosophers find useful, and we shall return to it often - alethic and epistemic claims can be distinguished."

I spose this is the philosophy thread.


(skip to 4:47)

TBH I was mainly interested in Joscha Bach's ideas in that video, I didn't get from Vervaeke's contributions. Bach is the clearest and most brilliant thinker I've come across yet, he makes most Philosophers look confused in comparison, lost in their own jargon.

This is an hour long talk from 2015 which is an absolute tour de force -



I very much recommend watching it.