Have you read the CPR or any Kant? (Rhetoric question.) :roll: — 180 Proof

Yeah I did .Both of them. And that's why I asked you. Have you? Kant makes possible explanations about space time and also explanations about human a priori abilities. Are these full of shit for you?I will wait.

Philosophy, dimo, isn't theoretical and doesn't consist of propositions (truths) about the physical world or nature (like e.g. logic, mathematics, theology, etc). — 180 Proof

Philosophy isn't theoretical? I can't understand that. What else is? Practical?
So for example Kant who made suggestions and propositions about space and time was full of shit for you??

Cause that's what humanity always did. Not my stuff. It's our a priori thirst for answers.

Philosophy was always trying to find possible explanations for things that couldn't yet be understood. And in many cases it was ideas of possible explanations that were put in scientific trial and then proved to be right.

As long as someone isn't dogmatic about it and claims to hold the absolute truth (which of course I don't) I see no problem in making suggestions. Otherwise you can name all philosophical theories throughout history which aren't(or at least weren't at their time) proven scientifically as shit. I don't though.

Explain how we/you know this to be true. — 180 Proof

My statement is based on the fact that science hasn't been able to find a physical form to describe the essence of thoughts, ideas etc. At least not yet.

Can we examine for example thoughts? Can we "see" them and consider them as something material? As other elements in universe that we can observe even with technological science tools?
For me it sounds extremely weird how someone can consider mind, thoughts etc as something material.
So either it's something non physical that as to exist presupposes brain (material) and interacts with it or what we consider as physical is something more than we already know but we haven't discovered it yet. At least that's how my mind tries to wrap about this issue.

First we have to know what makes something science — but leaving that aside: we don’t observe photons — are they not physical? What about forces? They’re identified, certainly — but so is the mind, and love, and morality. All “identified” as such. — Xtrix

Photons are identified with technological scientific means and exist on their own in nature(even without human existence). So of course are physical. Love and morality are human aspects of human behavior.So of course non physical. I don't see any connection here. The difference is obvious.

So we can talk in everyday terms, or we can talk in technical terms about things. The former gets us nowhere, in this case, and the latter doesn’t exist.

So there is no problem, and the question is meaningless — Xtrix

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays.

Again with your way of thinking we can't talk about anything at all.Even if the definitions aren't crystal clear in some cases and we still discover things, that doesn't mean that we can't talk about them.This definition game that some members play here in TPF is outrageous.
Throughout history in some cases even analyzing everyday terms and finding new ideas about them is what leaded humanity to technical terms.

Physical world is whatever exists in universe and we have scientific observed and verified. Mind is something that we are sure that exists from our internal empirical observation of ourselves but still science hasn't observed its form. Its essence. So of course we can talk about that distinction.

First we have to know what physical means. Which we don’t. So the statement is meaningless. — Xtrix

By physical we mean what science have identified and observed so far. We define physical and material according to what science taught us so far. If and when we discover more about it then we can re-define what physical and material is.

Or else playing that definition game won't allow us to talk about anything at all! At the end which exact statement is not meaningless and what exactly is it that we know for sure what exactly is?! Can we define exactly what a tree is? Or only what our senses perceive?We can play that definition game endlessly but if that was the case then philosophy couldn't deal or say anything at all. It doesn't work that way.

My question is to you and any other member who knows better.

Does Space actually exists? I mean out of human experience that we understand it, does it actually exist "on its own"? Or it's only an a priori human non empirical thing which allows us to form all of our experiences as Kant suggested?

In fact are there any scientific final answers for that supporting or rejecting Space definition of Kant? Or is it still an open issue?
I might did poorly research on the Internet but I didn't find any convincing scientific answer in favor or against that. I haven't been able to form an opinion about it yet.

Being here and now. Living inside the moment! So simple but so damn difficult.

No, it isn’t. The question of whether the mind reduces to the activity of the brain is a variant, and it presumes we know what we’re talking about when we discuss the “physical.” But we don’t. — Xtrix

The thing is that mind is clearly something non physical. So either "physical" and "material"(brain) , as we define it according to the known existing nature elements, generates and interacts with something non material, something different. Either we still have a narrow perspective of what physical/material is. And what we consider as physical is much more complicated than what we already know and observe.

We have no idea what “material” or “physical” or “body” mean.

So there is no problem. — Xtrix

In fact that's the real problem.And the root question of mind-body problem also.

why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality — I like sushi

I think the answer you are looking for is our Ego.
The closest the issue is to our core beliefs the angrier we get defending our opinions about it, indeed.
From the dreadful fear that we will have afterwards to question-face our own selves and beliefs.
And yeah that fear is more than enough to make us go irrational and totally ignore logic.

Your opinion.

What is not good though is offending others. Rephrasing their objections about mods decision by calling them "misogynist apologists". As if anyone supported that view.
Sorry my friend but I don't find that so lovely.

A bunch of condensed cowards whining is shameful. — StreetlightX

What exactly is so shameful? Many members here who disagree with the specific ban support their opinion with reasonable arguments, which are about that he was banned for a specific post . And that his general attitude wasn't fanatic. Also the main objection was that he didn't have a chance to explain himself.

Not even one single member supported his views of misogynism, they just found the banning too much for the specific person.
So what exactly should they be shamed about and you use such heavy, offending words? That they just have some objections on mods decision? Is Democracy a shame??

And as to close, it's not that I will miss MZ, not even considering him as a high quality poster as to be honest. But I just found the banning too much.
Yeah of course is under the mods judgement and you can't accuse them since even one post can send you out. But give the rest of us the chance to express our objections. Should we kneel down to Mods and kiss their ring, even if we disagree with them? That is what would make us "brave" and not "cowards"?

The only shameful thing here in my opinion is the way that some attack with such offensive words to other members, who just have different opinion and NOT supporting misogynism of course. Is that how you "support" equality? Anyway. So be.

So for the love of Oprah and for the sake of baby jesus would you fucking morons quiet you stupid fingers and shut up about it already?!
I cant believe you idiots are STILL arguing about this.
So so dumb. — DingoJones

And now with that post you think yourself better than a racist. Nice.
Take it easy you little babe dictator, or just take your pills.

Idealism is a broad church. But if you mean idealism in terms of some synonym of soul, spirit or consciousness as a monistic substance - one that stands opposed to matter as the other candidate monistic substance underlying reality - then no way am I making any argument in that direction. — apokrisis

Well idealism is a broad church indeed. If I could be more specific I meant mostly about the issue about the material or not nature of the mind.

I stand with the non material nature of the mind, which for sure as to exist requires material (brain) but on its own it's not something material also. Like material creates something non material. Interacting together. That's why I was so curious about.

Triadic logic says there is an interaction. And then two distinct realms are what develop out of this fundamental connection. — apokrisis

Interesting. So it makes a distinction indeed and supports the interaction.

They can complain that the surprise a human feels is nothing like the surprisal - the free energy metric – that Friston's formalism minimises. — apokrisis

Well I also complain about that as to be honest. Wasn't very convinced but as I wrote it does have interesting things.And well your response was really useful.

. It gets neuroscience off computation - the Universal Turing Machine formalism - as the general theory of everything it has been employing. It underwrites the whole shift back to an embodied, enactive and semiotic approach to mind science. — apokrisis

Yeah I read that in your previous post also.
So in general, if I get it right. For example in the "mind/ body problem" (physical /no psychical) you would use that theory as an argument in favor of the idealistic no physical nature of the mind. Right?

Not that it demonstrates or proves that, but I hope you get my point.

You didn't get the point. As usual.

Boringly, we mods are not in the business of reforming anyone. Just enforcing the rules. — Baden

It would be good though if a forum like that could be in such use for some people.Even unintentionally. Not as that to be forum's goal of course . Just by not being that "technocratic".

Rules as laws should be forced and read under their general spirit not by the book. But anyway it's only my approach.

But this "darkened room problem" is a tedious misrepresentation of the maths. And as I say, if this is the best you have got, you ain't got nothing. — apokrisis

So if I get it straight, your main objection is the way Banno presented Friston’s idea here on this thread? Using the "dark room problem"? You find it misleading?

this is huge because it allows neuroscience to finally kick computationalism and Cartesian representationalism out the door. — apokrisis

So in your opinion, and in a few lines what exactly this theory tell us about consciousness? Or what it implies at least as to rephrase it. Why you find it so huge?

It's not an ironic tone, my knowledge about this is only the article Banno linked. But as I read it I didn't get very enthusiastic about it and I wrote my objections above. I guess I just act lazy and I want you to give me the juice(hmm.. That sounded weird....).

Not that I will miss him, but I don't think his general attitude was against forum rules,or expressing such extremist beliefs. If the rules means that even one single post referring to such issues can cause ban. Then ok.

In general though, I think that treating racists like that is one big cause that we keep having them all around us in societies. Of course not the only one, but it's like we "spill water to the ride" , making it keep turning.

When you close the door in such way to a person like that, you just make him more "angry" and so more vulnerable to his idiot beliefs as to keep supporting them.
Maybe some people just need a push as to change and maybe in some cases (maybe not many but still some), reasonable conservation (as for example in such forums) is that push as to help them change their attitude.

I would not mention that, if from his general posts had that kind of rhetoric and seemed like a fanatic. But it didn't seem that way with him.

Anyway it's only my opinion. Not a judgement as to tell you "how to do your job".

Not sure this is the right word. It seems to me that the very sophistication of the approach leads some to over-applying it. — Banno

Yeah probably isn't the right word indeed.But the meaning it's the same. Just couldn't find an appropriate word to summarize what you wrote above.

So yes, there is one general story to be had - a semiotic theory of everything. That is implied in Friston’s approach, but not mathematically expressed in direct fashion — apokrisis

But that's the exact base that he builds his argument on.Even if not expressed in mathematics,he uses mathematics to serve that initial premise he makes.

I don't dismiss the idea of free energy principles totally. It sure has some food for thought, maybe in different fields also. But, imo, the way it is presented make people not to take it seriously and dismiss it all together.

Maybe if it was presented differently would be much more helpful as people to take notice on it . And be serious about it. Somehow, in that way, I think it underestimates its own self.

So the question becomes one of how successful it is at doing so. It might be - indeed it seems likely - that this approach will lead to a better understanding of the function of various neural bits and pieces. — Banno

Well as I wrote before, sure it has to offer some useful thoughts. And maybe it also become a step for a better idea. Who knows.
But it's not the idea that troubles me mostly, it's the supposed purpose that this idea tries to serve. To explain human behavior like that. I find it naive and that's where my biggest objection is.

If the only line of attack on an idea relies on a fundamental misrepresentation of the idea, then it’s critics are doing a mighty poor job. — apokrisis

The thing is that this idea is based on the most significant fundamental error. It tries to oversimplify human behavior, which is wayyyy more complex,with a naive way. Connecting it with one only aspect.
Well sorry but the idea itself is misrepresented on its own from the very beginning.

Not that of course this theory can't attribute useful thoughts, but that's all.

The explanatory power of surprise avoidance will take years, and much subtle empirical evidence, to evaluate. — Banno

Probably won't ever achieve it though.

I don't believe you have examined that large number of highly intelligent people, Dimosthenis9. Therefore your answer is arbitrary, and unreliable. — god must be atheist

I notice it in everyday life. I m sure you do also. And I find it pretty reliable.
Intelligence doesn't go hand to hand with sense of obligation. Many intelligent people end up criminals or have racist beliefs or are selfish or whatever. We see it nowadays, we saw it throughout history also. That's what I mean with empirical observation. And it is crystal clear,that you can't make a rule out of it.
No need for any survey examination as to identify that.

but it uses logic and reason to figure out the answer; — god must be atheist

No it doesn't. It's just a speculation and not even based solidly.
Following the logical path, sense of obligation entails much more psychological aspects (not to mention the environmental aspects also) as to connect it only with intelligence. Idiots can easily have a sense of obligation also. It just depends on each individual person and its unique characteristics. That's the only logical conclusion.

minimising surprise involves seeking out surprise, aka novelty, in order to familiarise oneself with it. I think this is known as "learning|". — unenlightened

Well said.

If biological systems, including ourselves, act so as to minimise surprise, — Banno

But we obviously don't, animals neither. Empirical observation makes it crystal clear to us. Somehow the article seems to alters "surprise" common definition as to make it sound similar to "danger". Not all surprises are bad. And especially we humans are by nature curious creatures. So we mostly seek for surprises instead of avoiding them.

But why is minimising surprise the very same as living longest? — Banno

It isn't.

For me it is just one more example of how many people love "problems" and "paradoxes". Creating them out of nowhere,complicating things unnecessarily only as to come as "savors" later to suggest the "solution"? Or maybe just to give their name to a" problem" or "paradox"? Who knows.
I'm not talking about you here, but for the author of the article.

Sorry but I see no " dark room problem" at all here.

I think your question is very easily answered by empirical observation. And the answer is No.

My problem is that I see almost everything as completely pointless and this has profoundly affected my happiness. — Nicholas Mihaila

You wrote a lot but I think the key issue is this. Everything in fact is completely pointless indeed! Right about that.
But this is exactly what should make us free and should be considered as a leverage for happiness, not an obstacle. That free us from all the idiot unnecessary social stress we have. Life itself is nothing but a joke. We humans just take it too serious.

Imo, you face the moon but you look at it from the dark side. I don't ask you to look the bright side of it.Just look at it straight. How it actually really is! It might help you, I don't know. Not that I fully achieve it but I try to do the same when my dark self visits me.

If you can never freely will your next thought, then you can’t freely will any of them, since all thoughts are your next thought at some point in time. Your thoughts initiate your deliberate actions, whether the thoughts be fully conscious or subconscious. If you can’t freely will any of your thoughts, how can you freely will any of your actions which are based on and initiated by your thoughts? — Paul Michael

Even If I can't choose what my next thought would be, I have always the ability to filter them via Logic. And then filter my actions also. That works fine for Free Will, imo.

Well in fact Will can never be fully free indeed, I believe that also.But yes there is some part of our decisions (life) that we can actually have "a say" on. That is "free will" or as to be more specific that's the part of the Will that is free.

To argue that the West is behind everything that happens simply isn't the case. You can do something, assist, have fair trade policies, but inevitably the countries and people have to solve the issues themselves. And when you look at the list, some countries have solved their problems. — ssu

Well of course it is not only the West which caused all the harm. It would be more appropriate to say the developed-wealth countries in general.

Despite wars, most wealthy countries take full advantage of the natural sources of poor countries. And we, the citizens of those countries, know all these things but we just say "oh what a shame" and that's it. We just go on our lives, buying products from these companies etc etc. We take benefits also from this situation maybe not directly (like politicians or big companies) but still indirect.
We just chose all these years to close our eyes but now the problem has reached to our doors,and we only blame the "bad migrants" who threaten our way of life.

Yeah the countries should solve their problems mostly on their own. But when you have someone with his hands tied you can't just expect him to untie himself on his own. You do need to help him.

Migration is the inevitable cost that West should pay for fucking up the other countries throughout recent history(and I don't only mean via wars of course). It's its "personal responsibility" that should take over.

If they don't want migrants the best "policy" for West countries is to try make their countries living conditions better (economical, health systems etc etc) . As less people in the future to migrate. It's the only logical solution that I can think of.

Till that happens, a way should be found as these migrants, that are already here, to become useful members of our societies. Well I see that already happening in some countries and I find it right.

Intrinsically actions are habits' way of reinforcing old habits or creating new habits. — 180 Proof

True. But habits are nothing else at the very end than just "repeatedly actions". It's a circle for me. Change habits and your actions will change too, change actions and your habits transform also. My theory don't really distinguish them as to be honest.

dimo, rather logic comes before/after living in the moment and not during, that is, logical judgment ought to be like muscle memory, habitualized — 180 Proof

Then we agree.

Same with morality. My understanding is that we are our habits (Aristotle) and not the mere "sum of our actions" (Sartre) — 180 Proof

I would say we are both. At the end aren't our habits lead to actions? And vice versa?

Those ephemerae are the most sublime of all. "Ecstasies" I call them. I stopped chasing them (via drugs, etc) decades ago when I'd finally realized that all I have to do is, like Beckett's hobos, wait lucidly (i.e. philosophically, aesthetically, erotically ...) and keep on waiting and let the waiting itself become ecstatic. Anyway, for me at least, waiting is still thirsty work. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I guess you mean the moments when you feel the blood spinning in your veins, your heart beating like a bass and you feel all of yourself becoming a "life fireball" with every cell of your body smiling.

Damn drugs help for those kind of Epiphany moments. But yes, the real deal is waiting and just being. The epiphanies might be even greater then.

Waiting is being patient. And patience is a hell of a virtue.

Though I disagree that you don't need logic for living in the present. Maybe when you reach to that point you might not need it anymore. But as to get there you do need the "Logical hand" to lead you in front of the "door".

Imo, It's the most reliable way as to make yourself understand, in first place, that this is where you need to put all your effort on. To try "set your mind - self" behaving like that. When you do it well then it's very possible not to need logic anymore.

The tough part of this argument actually takes place before you get to assembling proof of a god's moral failings. — Tom Storm

Indeed.

Hey, it wasn't I who advocated "living as much time (seconds from your whole life) with pleasant feelings" - that was your good self. — Banno

And when you hear "pleasant feelings", wanking is the only source that comes to your mind getting them. Cool. I don't judge.

Nothing wrong with a bit of hedonism, of course — Banno

Sure not.

So a truly fulfilling life would be to spend all one's time wanking. — Banno

If you have the ability to wank all day and you get so much happiness from it, then none of my business. You better do that indeed.

Not all of us though have "wanking value" so high in our priority ranking. Whatever suits you better though.