Pointless philosophical debates

[Orcus The Vile]

What is fun?

[Eldan]

If you get right down to it, isn't all debate meaningless? In fact, what is meaning? What is "a point"?

[Closet_Skeleton]

What isn't fun?

[enderlord99]

What is "what?" What is "is?" Will Will Smith smith?

[Jay R]

Mark Twain gave the final answer.

Tom said to himself that it was not such a hollow world, after all. He had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it – namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain. If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. And this would help him to understand why constructing artificial flowers or performing on a tread-mill is work, while rolling ten-pins or climbing Mont Blanc is only amusement. There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line, in the summer, because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work and then they would resign.

[Gnomvid]

Fun is amusing, enjoyable and entertaining among other things.

[GolemsVoice]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

[Jay R]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

"That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown."

[Tanuki Tales]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

This?

This right here?

This is why I usually enjoy seeing anything GolemsVoice has to write.

[veti]

Mark Twain gave the final answer.

This. Or as Scott Adams put it (paraphrased): "The one thing above all others that everyone hates doing, and will avoid to the maximum extent possible, is their own job."

[SiuiS]

This?

This right here?

This is why I usually enjoy seeing anything GolemsVoice has to write.

You like GolemsVoice for the Conan the barbarian quotes?

[golentan]

Fun is the right mix of neurotransmitters.

[Asta Kask]

Fun is the right mix of neurotransmitters.

Not only. You need a specific brain set-up as well.

[golentan]

Not only. You need a specific brain set-up as well.

Well, yeah. Technically, with the write brain set up, you don't need neurotransmitters at all. But I stand by my definition.

[Asta Kask]

The brain setup is fairly important. And I think it's a bit reductionist - emotions are more of emergent phenomena.

[Razanir]

F is for Fire that burns down the whole town. U is for Uranium... bombs. N is for No survivors when you-

[Hiro Protagonest]

It is in the eye of the beholder.

*goes off to find a Beholder*

[SiuiS]

The brain setup is fairly important. And I think it's a bit reductionist - emotions are more of emergent phenomena.

Are they? If so they were optimized towards the system's goals pretty quickly. I don't think human thought could be as dynamic or as deep without them.

[Asta Kask]

They're emergent phenomena of whole arrays of neurons. And if we lose our emotions, we lose our rationality - there's plenty of examples of that. Phineas Gage is the classic example. No book on the frontal lobes can be written without refernce to him. There's a whole host of false dichotomies involved in much neuropsychology - emotion vs. reason and brain vs. body are probably the most important, but sensory vs. motory is another one.

[Hiro Protagonest]

F is for Fire that burns down the whole town. U is for Uranium... bombs. N is for No survivors when you-

Frikkin' Uranium Nukes.

[enderlord99]

F is for Fire that burns down the whole town. U is for Uranium... bombs. N is for No survivors when you-

That isn't "philosophical." The following is:

What can we do? When will this crime wave end? How can we defeat the EVIL*? Why am I asking you all these questions?


*Every Villain Is Lemons

[Hiro Protagonest]

*Every Villain Is Lemons

I thought it was Eggs, Vitamin, Ice, Leeks. Wait, no, I think that's the recipe for EVIL.

[Razanir]

It is in the eye of the beholder.

*goes off to find a Beholder*

Yes, but beholders themselves aren't particularly fun. They keep using their stupid eye rays to kill me.

[Jay R]

That isn't "philosophical." The following is:

What can we do? When will this crime wave end? How can we defeat the EVIL*? Why am I asking you all these questions?

We can continue to have fun. It ends when crime is no longer fun. By making EVIL not fun. Because it's fun.

[Orcus The Vile]

We can continue to have fun. It ends when crime is no longer fun. By making EVIL not fun. Because it's fun.

But wouldn't that be evil?

[Tvtyrant]

Yes, but beholders themselves aren't particularly fun. They keep using their stupid eye rays to kill me.

Sounds like they have lots of fun to me.

[(Un)Inspired]

Not only. You need a specific brain set-up as well.

Well, yeah. Technically, with the write brain set up, you don't need neurotransmitters at all. But I stand by my definition.

The brain setup is fairly important. And I think it's a bit reductionist - emotions are more of emergent phenomena.

Pardon me for backtracking a little bit in the conversation but is a brain, or shall we say a functioning brain, necessary for fun? Is fun an activity one participates in or a state of mind?

If it's an activity then it could be one in which a p-zombie could potentially be a participant, no? Thus the state of mind of the participant would be unimportant? This would seem to indicate that the state of the brain is unimportant for the activity "fun" to take place. Of course this is making a few leaps between brain and mind.

If it's a state of mind then a consciousness that isn't based about a brain such as a Chinese room (if the chinese room has consciousness) could potentially participate in "fun", right? Woildn't that mean the the state of the brain is not what's important in "fun"?

[Jak]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Nay. Truly it is hot water, good dentistry, and soft lavatory paper.

[Devils_Advocate]

Fun Theory is the field of knowledge that deals in questions such as "How much fun is there in the universe?", "Will we ever run out of fun?", "Are we having fun yet?" and "Could we be having more fun?"

Fun Theory is serious business.

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky

Is fun an activity one participates in or a state of mind?

Fun is a mental activity, like cognition. To have fun is to enjoy oneself, and vice versa; the phrases have the same meaning.

If it's a state of mind then a consciousness that isn't based about a brain ... could potentially participate in "fun", right?

Theoretically, yes. Although one could argue that there's some sort of one-to-one correspondence between physical processes and subjective experiences, such that the same program has different qualia depending on what hardware it's run on, for example. I see no basis for such a claim and no good reason to make it, but philosophers as a group never seem to let such things stop them.

(I must say, it's rather odd seeing someone discussing the behavior of p-zombies and conscious Chinese rooms in the same post like that. I think I'm gonna tentatively assume that you intended them as separate theoretical possibilities.)

[(Un)Inspired]

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky


Fun is a mental activity, like cognition. To have fun is to enjoy oneself, and vice versa; the phrases have the same meaning.


Theoretically, yes. Although one could argue that there's some sort of one-to-one correspondence between physical processes and subjective experiences, such that the same program has different qualia depending on what hardware it's run on, for example. I see no basis for such a claim and no good reason to make it, but philosophers as a group never seem to let such things stop them.

(I must say, it's rather odd seeing someone discussing the behavior of p-zombies and conscious Chinese rooms in the same post like that. I think I'm gonna tentatively assume that you intended them as separate theoretical possibilities.)

Hehe yes I was considering them independently of one another.

What would the argument look like for the claim that a certain physcial setup would be essential for specific qualia?