To Hume, if you are saying deduction ≠ induction then of course. If it is, induction is not rational because it is not deduction, then that does not follow. Induction is self-coherent and proves itself more with each use. It states, the more X happens the more the likelihood that Y happens.

“Knowing that you know is true knowledge.” How does one know that they know? It is through interaction with the outside world (mainly other minds). Without the interaction, one just has beliefs (maybe true, maybe false).

The problem of Other minds: It is true that you don’t directly experience other minds, but do directly experience your future mind? If the bar is set at direct experience then all we can claim is a thought, not even our mind. #philosophy

For me, rights are deeply related to demands in a social context. When something signals that it is in pain, it is demanding us to stop the action. We can, of course, choose to ignore the demand, which may damage the social context. So, when AI makes consistent demands, then we should heed them.

As social creatures, humans will always be governed by artificialities. The question is how they should be set up. Morality is the belief that the application of reason and intention will create a better outcome than allowing blind chance. #philosophy

Diogenes is holed up in his barrel doing who knows what. Alexander pokes his head in and asks if there's anything he - the most powerful man in the world - could do for Diogenes, who replies: "you can move a few steps to the side because you're blocking my sunlight" 😂

If only it was easy to forget all the "important"/ make believe stuff. It would be nice to be happy like a cow on a grassy hill🐮. However, I think we are condemned to be human and humans worry about the make believe stuff.

Imagine a finite plane that flashes dots randomly at random times. Is there a way to say true statements about it? We could say logical statements. (A or not A). May be probabilistic statements for a while. We may be able to group them and add meaning (Group A survives if X% of lights are on)

A: Could the world be 100% chaotic?
B: We perceive patterns, so the patterns have to be found in the world.
A: What if the patterns are just in our heads?
B: They are persistent and useful, so they are not in our heads. A: Such statements can be made about a random system.
Is A right? #philosophy

Are all human actions self-interested? What about a tell in the game of poker? No, So, we need to re-define to all voluntary actions. What if I help someone without any thoughts of self-interest. Then the self-interest would have to be found in the subconscious.
subconscious=involuntary? #philosophy

What is the opposite of happiness? The easy answer is sadness, but those are mixed so often that can’t be true. I would say it is “worry”, in the sense of being distracted from existence. Or better worded, worry is the film over a screen that mutes its brightness. #philosophy

For the most part, I agree with you. Recently I have been questioning, if conscience is 'deep'. Maybe it is 'shallow' in the sense that it is habit. Our daily life is impossible without social behavior, so the habit of being social is created. Of course, once a habit is made it is hard to break.

Haha😂. It will be a little challenging. It will just require undoing the 500 years of thought tying political philosophy from moral philosophy, but at least I have good company with Aristotle and Confucius.

Based on emotions, would put you in with Hume (not bad company). I have been fascinated with the idea of being moral as a skill or practice, which would de-emphasis the need to find a universal rule and emphasis the situation in front of you.

You could be on to a way to justify the division (in general) by using one's practical effect. However, I could imagine situations that would not follow your priority stages. Ex. you have some loose change in your pocket. Keeping it -> you = little happy, but giving it -> stranger = very happy

I would agree. In general, I think all learning is faking it until it is real. The question is can one fake being moral to the point of being indistinguishable from being moral, but still be faking it. Or is being moral something that changes them.

To me, if they are both important, then we have to admit that other people's happiness is important too. The rational egoist cannot give an argument that says future selves are important, but not other selves because we think of experience as the dividing line between selves and others.

Can one truly appear to be moral, but secretly not be? Can deception be utterly thorough? Some say, yes. They say fake being moral to a point then when no one is looking put your hand an extra time in the cookie jar. But I ask how does one fake it for that long without it affecting them? #philosophy

Why must permanence and meaning be tied together? When language, meaning making par excellence, works from difference and repetition. If we say the same word in a tight repeat, it loses all meaning, so why would we say if it ends, it has no meaning. #philosophy

Do Gettier cases show the limits of viewing knowledge on a case by case basis? Do they not go away when we stop cutting events into parts and ask, is it knowledge? When we should be asking, does the practice make us knowledgeable? #philosophy

Laments make no truth claim. The issue is the lament of an impossibility can remove focus on picking from the possible. The key word is “can”, so if ethics is just rules then it should be accepted. If it is a practice, then it introduces a bad habit so it should be rejected.

Is it irrational to lament about an impossibility? Can we criticize the person that cries about not being able to roll a one to win a game that requires players to always roll two dice? What about the inevitability of death? #philosophy

Recently, I published a philosophical novel that explores the concept of the self. Here is a link to a preview on Amazon.
t.co/WbhclnRWuE

For this weekend, my philosophical novel is free for Kindle. It explores the idea of the self. Let me know if it sparks any thoughts. a.co/d/87QmTnO #philosophy

The most pressing question in moral #philosophy is how to deal with distributive wrongdoing? How do you hold someone accountable for the wrong done in a group? Ex. If I use X it causes no harm. However, if a 100 people use X it causes harm. It cannot be I am 100% responsible nor 1% responsible.

Talk of deserving requires talk of internal states, which is not available to Political #philosophy. It deals in groupings of people and grouping people by internal states is impossible. Only when dealing with individuals can we talk coherently about internal states.

In the Republic, Plato uses the metaphor of the city to talk about Justice in the individual, thus equating the two (Political #philosophy and Moral phil). Then everyone else followed along, which seems to be a mistake. Moral phil uses the concept of deserves, while Political phil has no use for it.

To me, the most pressing ethical question is ‘Why should I be concerned with my long term self at the expense of my short term self?” If this can be answered then moral behavior can be justified as being practical. #philosophy

Recently, I published a philosophical novel that explores the concept of the self. Here is a link to a preview on Amazon.
t.co/WbhclnRWuE

To those who say, "All magic is gone". I say, "Yes, but illusion will never go away."