Posts by DaveT

Cassius It looks good. Please indicate how I would get to that page from the home page.

Here's an interesting recent paper out of Germany on three different levels or degrees of consciousness in humans and some animals. The discussion deals with some Epicurean concepts as it posits the physical capabilities of consciousness that humans have developed by the process of evolution. As for the ability of humans to replicate and transfer the consciousness of one person to another being, I have to chuckle. Respectfully, aside from the use of vast computing power that virtually no one will be able to use even if it became possible, the hubris of those who create such a capability is laughable. What does it matter anyway to the universe? Are we, flesh and blood and all the components of living humans so important to a universe destined to swallow itself one way or another? I think not. The sooner we accept that death means nothing to us, the more satisfying everyone's life will be, as limited at it is.

Here's the link to the study:

Examining why some species developed consciousness while others remained non-conscious

What is the evolutionary advantage of our consciousness? And what can we learn about this from observing birds? Researchers at Ruhr University Bochum published…

phys.org

Eikadistes Thank you for taking the time to address my questions in detail.

Eikadistes Yes, thank you. I understand your reply, but can you address my use of the Internet description of divine simulacra:

Quote from DaveT

"Ancient Philosophy (Epicureanism): In Epicurean philosophy, "divine simulacra" (or eidola) were believed to be fine atomic emanations that constantly stream from the "quasi-bodies" of the gods and strike human perception. Perceiving these simulacra was a way for humans to form a concept (prolepsis) of the gods, who were seen as models of perfect happiness and imperturbability, but who did not actively intervene in human affairs."

And then can you address my question earlier, if divine simulacra stream from those "quasi-bodies" of the gods (in the quote above) does Epicurus consider that the simulacra comes from the gods.?

And if Epicurus does consider it so, if the gods are indeed influencing mankind's actions in a passive sort of way, isn't this opposite from being indifferent, as I thought Epicurus declared?

Quote from Patrikios

I am better able to understand what the 'divine simulacra' are implanting in my mind.

This made me wonder both what it is, and where it comes from in Epicurus' worldview. and then this next sentence:

Quote from Patrikios

The text in this chapter makes clear that our knowledge of Epicurean gods comes through prolepsis—a criterion of truth formed by repeated perceptions of divine simulacra striking our minds.

made me wonder if the author you reference, or Epicurus himself, defined a simulacra the same way as the following definition I quickly scooped from the Internet:

"Ancient Philosophy (Epicureanism): In Epicurean philosophy, "divine simulacra" (or eidola) were believed to be fine atomic emanations that constantly stream from the "quasi-bodies" of the gods and strike human perception. Perceiving these simulacra was a way for humans to form a concept (prolepsis) of the gods, who were seen as models of perfect happiness and imperturbability, but who did not actively intervene in human affairs.
Platonic Philosophy: The term "simulacrum" (from the Latin simulacrum, meaning "likeness, semblance") originates in Platonic philosophy, where it meant a copy of a copy of an ideal Form, often considered an inferior representation."

I left the Plato reference in there because it seemed to clarify the term a bit for me, but focusing on the definition from the Internet on Epicureanism, I'm wondering if his philosophy considers that the simulacra comes from the gods. And then if the gods are indeed influencing mankind's actions in a passive sort of way, isn't this opposite from being indifferent, as I thought Epicurus declared?

Eikadistes After following the thread here, I'm concluding that you have two minds on the message attributed to Velleius by Cicero.

Is it fair to say that the practical follower of Epicurus may take delight in the lampooning of Velleius' targets?

And is it fair to say that the academic who teaches and /or writes on the contested philosophies should footnote Cicero's possibly fictive discourse by Velleius as suspicious and motivated by antagonism?

And if I'm concluding fairly on the academic's suspicious view, why ought the message be suspect? Where does that take the student? Should they not simply rely on the meaning of the words used to decide on the value of the message.

I finished listening just now. I enjoyed this audio and found it easily understandable, especially with the subtitles.

My first reaction to Cicero's style while writing as Vellius, was that he could have been a writer for the late American comedian George Carlin. Real biting logic and cynical style of humor to make his points. I was intrigued on several practical points as I listened, so, to our Epicurean friends, can you answer some history questions for me?

• How could Cicero know so much detail of the views of so many Greek thinkers on the divinities he referred to in this narrative?
  • Were these views in kept in writings widely owned by people like Cicero?

  • If he wrote this in the last two years of his life, how did he have time to collect and actually study those others, and then write so specifically and style-wise authoritatively?

    • Where might he have found the time to compile his notes, too?
      • Or was he not so conversant about the others, and rather was he willing to exaggerate their views to make his argumentnative points while speaking as Vellius?

    
    

Quote from Eikadistes

He quotes Epíkouros as writing "...that it is possible even for many eternal and immortal gods to exist"

"Possible" does not remotely approach probable, or likely, or certainly. To me, that word is similar to saying, "I don't know, maybe, maybe not, and it doesn't matter to me one way or the other."

This general topic of who, or what gods may exist and what they do seems pretty vaguely written, and perhaps intentionally. For example, in De Rerum Natura, Lucretius begins by asking Venus to help him out as he writes the poem. Another example might be the one raised briefly in earlier posts here, relating to matter and void. If there is only matter and void in his world view, how can transcendent gods even possibly exist if they are not flesh and blood? I wonder how important the existence of gods was to Epicurus anyway, since his foundation was to simply not fear the gods (if they even possibly exist?) He certainly never, that I have seen, propounded on where they came from and why they exist at all, did he?

I had read an interesting book: The Longing for Total Revolution: Philosophic Sources of Social Discontent from Rousseau to Marx and Nietzsche, by Bernard Yack (Princeton University Press, 1986) awhile back that touched on Marx's focus on economics as the way for mankind to be free of nature's roadblocks to ultimate freedom (hunger, want, depredation etc.). The discussion traced the different foci of those philosophers on the means to attain freedom as they defined it. Perhaps it might be a decent companion piece to the economic contrasts of Marx to Epicurus.

I liked learning about ancient worship practices discussed here. I can add some insight to the original posting by Kalosyni My experiences in Salem Massachusetts where my novel on the witch trials brought me to Salem multiple times. You might be amazed at the absolute craziness of the tourism there from the beginning of September all the way through October every year. They claim over a million people visit Salem, and Halloween is the epitome of their tourism season. The original draw is because of its historical importance after the witch trials of 1692 but the place has the modern reputation of being welcoming to all sorts and beliefs. And let me tell you, the interest in ancient as well as modern witchcraft by people in the U.S. has probably never been greater. But beyond that, during Halloween season visitors can be wildly different in dress and costume than their hometowns might permit. This permissiveness or welcoming of the strange and different can be attributed to many different reasons but there it is. Oh, and of course good old capitalism plays a role in the entire tourism structure both in Salem as well as the rest of the large and small cities across the U.S.

Quote from Cassius

To any audience of normally educated people, all you have to do is strip "absence of pain" of its explanation, and Epicurean philosophy becomes ridiculous.

Not sure I can agree that normally educated people would view those three words as ridiculous. While keeping in mind we are discussing a small aspect of avoiding pain by pleasurable sensations/thoughts, I think even poorly educated people who hear (rather than read) as well as anyone educated can understand that putting your feet up at the end of a rough day can diminish pain. It simply feels good, to chill. So, whether they think the good thoughts or just go blank, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Quote from Cassius

Cicero and Plutarch and Seneca and others did exactly that. They gave the Epicurean slogans detached from the Epicurean explanations in physics and canonics, and thereby they wrote the narrative that has prevailed ever since.

I understand that, but of course educated individuals who, on their own time or professionally, understand the nature of things by reading and studying can see through adversarial attacks. Those individuals, since the Enlightenment had, and continue to have, out sized influence on the modern world.

I’m thinking that there will never be a popular understanding or adoption of Epicureanism as “Epicureanism”. Rather, the influence on the Western world will continue to be indirectly felt by the progress of Epicurean principles, at the very least in overcoming superstition and religious doctrine about life after death.

So, can we say that Epicureanism, though a personal guide to happiness, has little direct influence on individuals, but its greatest influence, ironically, is through the impact on the modern world’s science, art, and governance of societies?

Quote from Cassius

And the worst part is that many of today's friends of Epicurus continue to do exactly the same thing, burying the philosophy deeper rather than doing anything to recover the explanation.

Can you discuss specifics here? And individuals?

What negative impact do you think those “friends” have on any understanding of the Epicurean pursuit of happiness? I’m thinking of the common behavior of people in seeking pleasure over pain by living prudently, but the value of keeping friendships, of understanding natural laws, avoiding superstition, etc.

Cassius  Joshua I enjoyed your presentation of Episode 298 today. And having listened to the arguments of Cicero as he presents his disputes with Epicurus, I’ve frequently wondered why he wrote as he did. One foundation of good writing that I learned over time is that as a writer, you must know your audience. You shape your premise and your theme based on the audience who will read the work. So, to whom was Cicero writing? I take it he was not orating. What did he want to accomplish?

As I understand the timing, Epicureanism had been flourishing in pre-Christian times, even before the time of Julius Caesar and Cicero. And I understand that the pagan religions (and other schools of philosophy?) were trying to override Epicureanism as competition. Is this correct that they were religious or philosophical schools, or both?

So, who was Cicero trying to convert to his Platonic belief that eternal virtues are the highest good?

Was he succeeding in his goal? And is that the reason he kept at it, sensing that he was winning the game?

Cassiusand Raphael Raul I'm looking forward to your further contributions. I confess I'm still somewhat mystified on the attention each of you give to this topic. To me, this topic only matters when outsiders are discussing and judging the behavior of others in contrast to what I understand as the Epicurean focus on the subjective sensations of what we feel and think about. What we feel while living our lives of avoiding pain through actions that create pleasure seems to me, all that should matter to us.

If you are surveying opinions: I don't support a thread of "ways to resist AI". Even beyond the semantics, I'm not sure this is even apposite to the focus of our forum. I am eager to learn to use AI and understand its uses while retaining an appropriate level of skepticism of all sources of information.

I understand the question from Titus and @Elkadites’ response as: currently, LLMs cannot have preconceptions if preconceptions mean an idea conceived before and independent of the question. Also, as I understand the LLMs, they function because of training that exposes them to data (everything on the internet and/or fed directly to them) plus additional training after data collection, on how to “talk” to the people asking questions. Then, the LLM matches the question to its data, based on how it is phrased, and answers in a polite colloquial manner. I’ve found sometimes it then summarizes the response it has given, once again based only on the data in its microchips.

Quote from Don

It's sort of the uncanny valley transposed to the audio instead of video environment.

Thanks for showing that. Whoddathought? I may lose the battle long term, but I have to fight against using female pronouns when referring to my GPS's voice in the car, and Alexa's voice at home. It's--it--it!

I enjoyed both the original podcasts and the summaries. To my level of understanding, the summaries complement the long form podcasts. For me, listening to both deepens my own thoughts process.

And on the tech level at this stage of the development, all I can say is WOW!

Quote from Matteng

The path to pleasure/eudaimonia always leads via virtue. I see the biggest difference (virtue or pleasure as the core of eudaimonia/life goal) in that eudaimonia, the good self or inner spirit, is defined by the Stoics as "doing good" while Epicureans define it as "experiencing good."

I am enjoying this discussion. I recently read that a distinction between the Stoics and the Epicureans was that the Stoics focused on a public, civic-minded orientation, and thus a belief in virtue as a goal to that end. And that the Epicureans’ belief in more private life promoted pleasure etc. and friendship for personal happiness. I know this may sound simplistic, but that comparison helps me understand why the two philosophies were so different in the view and uses of virtue.

I have a hard time dealing with the words “skeptic, skepticism, etc.” Sometimes people use them carelessly, and other times, perhaps after thoughtfulness, they use them in a narrow sense. His use seems to be that of the ancient Greek Skeptics. We’ve all looked at the chart that came from the article that I read. I’m skeptical about the author’s credibility (he’s a music critic). But, okay.

The chart is alleged to show possible results from his diagnosis of societal problems caused by AI, but these are possibilities that have no relationship to the probability of anything he wrote about occurring. Sadly, mental illness is a curse for those trying to survive in our modern world, but come on! Blaming AI? Already? For sure, we need guardrails on any new application of advanced technology, but his chart could be a list of fearsome results from the discovery of mRNA vaccines.

As far as his chart goes, yes, those are bad things, bad, bad, bad things for any society’s common welfare. (I’m getting out of breath here.) I could blame those ills on many things affecting individuals yesterday, today, or tomorrow. So, meh.

I reject his scare tactics, and more specifically, I reject his definition of skepticism as a negative behavior. Skepticism is healthy when properly used. My definition varies depending on the topic. A general usage to me is that I’m skeptical of any proposition that seems to lack proofs, and I’m willing to suspend my belief or disbelief until I see enough proof to satisfy me.

Quote from Don

Quote

Benatar explained. “But compare that with a scenario in which that person never existed—then, the absence of the bad would be good, but the absence of the good wouldn’t be bad, because there’d be nobody to be deprived of those good things.” This asymmetry “completely stacks the deck against existence,” he continued, because it suggests that “all the unpleasantness and all the misery and all the suffering could be over, without any real cost.”

I don't know anything about this subject yet, but this quote reminds me of the nonsensical quip: I'd like to have a ham and egg sandwich if I had some ham, if I had some eggs.