A Stoic work of art? Most of the teachings we have from the ancient Stoics are from three Romans: Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. As the Stoics were primarily concerned with the development of virtue, art (or aesthetics) was not a frequent or well-developed topic (at least in the writings we have). Seneca does briefly describe art as the “imitation of nature.” He also makes clear in his letters to Lucilius (88) that the liberal arts can have some value in preparing our minds for the cultivation of character. In fact, he compares it to art: “For nature does not give a man virtue: the process of becoming a good man is an art.” Good character is not inborn. That is the proper job of education, and especially, philosophy. (In fact, Plato is famous for his admonition that we need to censor poets and storytellers unless their works contain positive role models for young people.) For the Stoics—and for Plato-- virtue is paramount. We are all in the business of crafting our characters. … (Stoicism for Humans)
On pigeon chess and debating. This famous quote is by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer, who wrote it as an Amazon.com review for Eugenie Scott’s book Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. It raises an important question: When and how should we debate people who hold to opinions that we consider entirely unscientific and either ideologically or religiously motivated? When I first encountered the notion of creationism, as a young assistant professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee in the mid-1990s, I was astounded that there were creationists around so close to the end of the twentieth century. The mythical year 2000 was looming over the horizon. Not only were the much-promised flying cars nowhere to be seen, but now I had to deal with these nutcases! That, of course, tells you just how naive I was at the time. So naive, in fact, that I eagerly volunteered to debate all sorts of strange types passing through campus, from theologian William Lane Craig to Institute for Creation Research associate Duane Gish to preacher-turned-federal convict Kent Hovind. I can readily confirm the correctness of Weitzenhoffer’s observation: debating these people really is like playing pigeon chess. So, should we do it? … (Skeptical Inquirer)
Want to make a change? Conjure your ‘possible selves.’ Years ago, as a young business reporter, I interviewed an advertising executive who ran a fast-food chain account. I was there to ask about the latest campaign. But when I sat down, he wanted to talk about writing fiction. He spent hours meeting with clients and crafting slogans, but he dreamed of being a novelist instead. I remember thinking: Sure, you and everybody else. A decade or so later, however, I was surprised to see the adman on TV, holding up his new book. James Patterson had morphed from advertising executive into best-selling author. He has since published more than 100 New York Times best sellers and co-authored books with the likes of Bill Clinton and Dolly Parton. … (New York Times)
The six core virtues. The notion of virtue was central to much ancient discourse in ethics, most obviously in the ‘virtue ethics’ tradition we usually associate with Greco-Roman philosophies such as Stoicism, Epicureanism, Aristotelianism and Skepticism. But some scholars have made the point that the ethics of at least three of the big Eastern traditions, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism, also share a family resemblance with virtue ethics. The word ‘virtue’ has nowadays fallen into disuse, perhaps because it reminds people of decidedly old-fashioned Christian virtues such as chastity and purity. Yet, ‘virtue’ comes from the Latin vir, which was in turn the translation of the Greek arete, and arete means excellence in the broadest sense, not limited to the moral realm. For example, not long ago I bought an arete bread knife, which cuts bread both cleanly and easily. Excellence, in other words, applies to anything or anyone that carries out its proper function well. Aristotle, as well as the Stoics, thought that the proper function of a human being is to use reason and live in harmony with other people, because those are the fundamental characteristics that distinguish our species. But who wouldn’t want to be excellent at reasoning and at carrying out harmonious interactions with fellow human beings? … (Philosophy Now)
If AI becomes conscious, how will we know? In 2021, Google engineer Blake Lemoine made headlines—and got himself fired—when he claimed that LaMDA, the chatbot he’d been testing, was sentient. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially so-called large language models such as LaMDA and ChatGPT, can certainly seem conscious. But they’re trained on vast amounts of text to imitate human responses. So how can we really know? Now, a group of 19 computer scientists, neuroscientists, and philosophers has come up with an approach: not a single definitive test, but a lengthy checklist of attributes that, together, could suggest but not prove an AI is conscious. In a 120-page discussion paper posted as a preprint this week, the researchers draw on theories of human consciousness to propose 14 criteria, and then apply them to existing AI architectures, including the type of model that powers ChatGPT. None is likely to be conscious, they conclude. But the work offers a framework for evaluating increasingly humanlike AIs, says co-author Robert Long of the San Francisco–based nonprofit Center for AI Safety. “We’re introducing a systematic methodology previously lacking.” … (Science)
Massimo, this is a little off topic, but I'm wondering if you have come across a new book called "Free Agents: How evolution gave us free will" by Kevin J. Mitchell. He's a genetic neurologist and evolutionary biologist. I found the book extremely informative, mind-expanding, exhilarating. I think you'd like it too. Much of what he says resonates so much with ideas you've discussed in your conversations with Dan Kaufman and others. Surprisingly, he rejects compatibilism, but instead argues for a view that future outcomes are not completely predetermined, while still holding to an entirely materialist view of the universe. Toward the end he talks about a process philosophy of biology which I've heard you mention as well. Apologies if you've already talked about this book; I may have missed it.
Ah, creationism, physical materialism, astrology, divination, black magic…. haven’t quite taken their last breath. But there is hope:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die…
Thus science moves forward, funeral by funeral.” (Max Planck)