But he said, specifically, non-humans ancestors — javi2541997

You are right. I forgot about ancestors!
Well, I tried to make the poster undestand the mistakes he did --in fact, almost everything in this OP has no sense and is full of contradictions, unfounded statements, confused thoughts and inexistent or wrong facts-- but in return I only received more of them! A total waste of time. So, I stopped caring about this OP.

Why post to a philosophy forum if you are not looking for criticism? — Banno

You are rtight to say that. But see, usually, and in everyday life, esp. in personal relationships, criticism is viewed in a negative sense; mainly as an effort to find only faults in someone's words, behaviour, etc., i.e. trying to see only negative things in something or someone. And this was the case in this OP: I found only faults. And it's not the first time. That's why sometimes my comments have a bad reception from the other side, even I give good and a lot of reasons why a term, statement, argument is wrong of wrongly used. So, I call sometimes this as "constructive criticism".

On the other hand, in philosophy critical thinking is vital, and it must be used in discussions. But this is a much richer and important concept than "criticism".

Is the "non-human" part the only strange thing that hit you in this topic? :smile:
Well, from what I indestood from his answer, he refers to animals (not aliens as I thought) ... That is, Shamanism in animals! Well, I would prefer he meant aliens! :grin:

Thank you for the taking the time to post that long a reply.
And here's my equally long reply.
Please don't see it as criticism. I'm only looking for answers and trying to fill in the puzzle created in me by this subject and its description. However, after this, I see that instead of filling in the missing pieces, new pieces are added. So, I'm afraid I'm dealing here with a Sisyphean task or the heads of Lernaean Hydra! :grin:

There is plenty of documentation, the evidence is all around you. — Bret Bernhoft

Where is that plenty of documentation? Where is this evidence around me?

And if you have a difficult time connecting the dots between Shamanism and ancient human philosophy, I would encourage you to investigate Divination, Hermeticism and Gnosis — Bret Bernhoft

Let's see what Wikipedia says:

- Divination (from Latin divinare, 'to foresee, to foretell, to predict, to prophesy') is the attempt to gain insight into a question or situation by way of an occultic, standardized process or ritual. Used in various forms throughout history, diviners ascertain their interpretations of how a querent should proceed by reading signs, events, or omens, or through alleged contact with a supernatural agency."
So, this has nothing to do whith philosophy.

- "Hermeticism, or Hermetism, is a label used to designate a philosophical system that is primarily based on the purported teachings of Hermes Trismegistus (a legendary Hellenistic combination of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth). These teachings are contained in the various writings attributed to Hermes (the Hermetica), which were produced over a period spanning many centuries (c. 300 BCE – 1200 CE), and may be very different in content and scope."
So, this is indeed a philosophical system, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Shamanism. Besides, look at the dates ...

- "Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (gnosis, f.). The term was used among various Hellenistic religions and philosophies in the Greco-Roman world. It is best known for its implication within Gnosticism, where it signifies a spiritual knowledge or insight into humanity's real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence."
So, this has indeed something to do with philosophy, but in a very vague way.
Well, about a month ago you had posted a topic/poll "Gnosis is underappreciated and (often) slandered against as a legitimate form of spirituality", in which you didn't offer a definition either, and I had to do it for you, as in this topic! Yet, I would really prefer to offer yourself definitions or descriptions of the key terms in the subjects you are posting, like "Gnosis", "Shamanism". )
Anyway, I have explained the reasons why "Gnosis" is "underappreciated". (See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/721553)

Shamanism is timeless — Bret Bernhoft

So, there no documentation about the 100,000 years you mentioned and it was just a figure of speech. meaning that Shamanism existed from the beginning of times, right? That is, before humans or even life appeared in the Universe?

Every entity, any entity (from living animals to eternal tulpas) utilize elements of Shamanism. — Bret Bernhoft

Ah, I see. You meant animals. OK. I couldn't think of that ...
But let me udestand this, I mean how animals could or can use a kind of Shamanism ...Certainly, there's no shaman wolf in a pack of wolves who communicates with the spirits of powerful volves that have died, etc. OK, but even if used in a metaphorical sense, how could something that resembles Shamanism work in a pack of wolves?

If you're referring to the first video I shared, then my answer is "Yes". You probably don't appreciate what you're looking at there. — Bret Bernhoft

OK. I admit I can't.

Learn to code. And ascend. — Bret Bernhoft

OK. this is too much! :angry: You have just killed my patience and goodwill in responding to you about this fiction you have posted and total lack of logic you are demonstrating.

You are not in a position to ask from people to learn --anything-- neither to ascend --in any way--, after all this fictional and unfounded things you keep talking about, and the low level of logic and knowledge you are demonstrating.

***

This is all from me. I won't come back to this thread or respond to any other post from you.

I believe that you should give a definition or description of "shamanism", first thing, before anything else. So, I will do that for you, even if it's a little late ....

"Shamanism is a religious practice that involves a practitioner (shaman) interacting with what they believe to be a spirit world through altered states of consciousness, such as trance. The goal of this is usually to direct spirits or spiritual energies into the physical world for the purpose of healing, divination, or to aid human beings in some other way." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism)
(Anyone is welcome to present another description, from a standard source. However, I believe that its essence and main elements, esp. the necessity of the existence of a shaman and (powerful) spirits are all here.)

Shamanism is the root of all religious, spiritual and philosophical systems. — Bret Bernhoft

Is this a personal belief or is there an evidence/documentation about that?
Because I have a difficulty connecting Shamanism to ancient philosophy --Egyptian, Greek, Chinese or other.

Our human (and non-human) ancestors have practiced Shamanism as far back as 100,000 years, all around the planet — Bret Bernhoft

Again what is the reference you are using regarding time? Not that it is important per se, of course, but it has to do with the validity of the history of Shamanism, which you are bringing in.
Here's a reference, again from Wiki:
"Sanskrit scholar and comparative mythologist Michael Wetzel proposes that all of the world's mythologies, and also the concepts and practices of shamans, can be traced to the migrations of two prehistoric populations: the "Gondwana" type (of circa 65,000 years ago) and the "Laurasian" type (of circa 40,000 years ago)."

Then, what do you mean by "and non-human"? Someone like this: :naughty: ?
:grin:

Technoshamanism — Bret Bernhoft

Do you really believe that such a video or what the people do in it, can heal? Or that it can offer useful and important knowledge about life and existence, i.e. philosophical ideas, education, etc. ... (Besides what one should avoid doing?)

I make the claim that Shamanism is more quintessential than all other religious, spiritual and philosophical systems. — Bret Bernhoft

Just to make sure: Do you mean that Shamanism is more refined, of higher quality and class than philosophy as a system and quest for wisdom?
(Of course you don't. But you make it sound like this!)

And that science (itself) is a shamanic practice; — Bret Bernhoft

...

Bret, were you under drugs when you posted this? :smile:

OK. It was fun too talking with you. And with you too, @dimosthenis9.

I was just talking about relativity ...

I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. — universeness

It helps, it helps a lot. :smile: Because it doesn't say anything about "absolute truth". That is, it doesn't follow that there is or there is no "absolute truth". And if one brings up such a thing, it means that he assumes it. In which case, he adds something to it. He adds something arbitrary. Moreover, if he brings up the possibility of an absolute or objective truth, he must be able to prove it. Which he can't.
BTW, the word "always" is superfluous. I used it only for emphasis. You can remove it.

Reality is subjective. If you claim that reality is objective or absolute, that would be also subjective, except maybe if you are able to prove it beyond doubt. But doubt is also something subjective. Also, if you are able to do that, then anyone could. Which it doesn't happen.
See the impass we are led to by trying to introduce objectivity? The only way out is to get back to subjectivity! :smile:

I agree with your points on paradox. — universeness

I know. You, yourself, talked about that before me, only with different words. :smile:

I concur with everything except 'The universe contains only absolute truths.' — universeness

Yes, I thought so! :smile: (I only tried to connect the subject of "concepts" with that of the topic, i.e. "absolute truths", before it goes out of sight, as it is usually is the case in these discussions! :grin:)

I think we can always get more and more accurate. — universeness

This is certain. But then, even if we arrive at a perfect measurement, we must not forget the "Relativity Theory". If this still holds --I'm ignorant as far as developments in Physics are concerned!-- then any precision of measurement and talk about absolute values have no much meaning anymore, do they?

As for the subject of quanta, I plead innocent. I have nothing to do with it! :grin:

hat does not mean an absolute value does not exist, it just means we will never be able to measure it. — universeness

Exactly. Showing that something is relative, doesn't mean that there is no absolute. That's why I re-phrased the self-contradictory, self-refuting "There are no absolute truths" to "Truth is always subjective", which also agrees with itself, since it is itself a subjective statement, Buut it does not mean that there is an absolute truth.

As for the term "paradox", I agree that it is quite overrated, but it still serves a good purpose as a reference point covering cases of arguments, statements, descriptions, problems --e.g. "Bertrand's Paradox", which is also a problem-- etc., containing or consisting of logical inconsistencies --like self-contradition and self-refutal-- as well as cases that are inconsistent with facts or physical laws, etc. Inconsistencies that most of the times can be very easily detected. A classic example are the famous Zeno's paradoxes "Achilles and the Tortoise" and "Arrow paradox". They are based on a fallacy: that time and space are discontinuous, and thus (infinitesimal) divisible, whareas they are continuous (in nature). So, they are only "apparent" paradoxes, since their inconsistency can be easily detected. Yet, the word "paradox" seems to always create some magical attraction. :smile:
(As a lot of ancient Greek words do ... In this case, "paradox" comes from "paradoxos" = "para-" (= distinct from or contrary to or parallel to) + "doxa" (= opinion).)

That's an interesting and quite scientific viewpoint. (I'm not good though in Physics to judge.)
So, according to this viewpoint, and if I undestood well, since humans belong to the Universe, or better, since humans and the Universe are One, human concepts belong to the Universe and the Universe contains only absolute truths, right? OK.

Interesting. I personally don't see how the word 'absolute' placed in front of some words does anything useful. It's often a way of rhetorically exaggerating or reinforcing something. — Tom Storm

Exactly. :ok:

I think I can say I am not 'absolutely certain' about something because in this context absolute is a way of describing a continuum of certainty and doubt. — Tom Storm

Yet, "certain" implies "absolutely". Otherwise, we would say "almost certain", which lies somewhere on the continuum that you mention. But that continuum has "certain" at one end. We can't go past it.

But there is no continuum of zero. — Tom Storm

No, there certainly isn't. Although, zero can be considered an "absolute" only if we take into consideration the conditions under which temperature is measured and only under these circumstances. E.g. the precision of and therefore the indications on the thermometer with which we measure a temperature may differ from those of another thermometer. Or the themometer itself might not function well. And so on.

But there may be a continuum of 'empty'. E.g., the box was mostly empty vs the box was absolutely/completely empty. — Tom Storm

In the box example you mentioned, I consider the word "empty" as an absolute. "Mostly empty", which you mention, is relative, and certainly different from just "empty". Besides, what does "emptiness" mean, other than a state of containing nothing?
Yet, there are other occasions where we use the word "empty" in a relative sense, or figuratively, if you like. E.g. We say "This place is empty (in a party, with some disappointment)" to mean too few people in it, not what we expected and wished to be the case. Or "My glass is empty (calling for a refill)", although there's still some liquid in it.

1. There are no Absolute Truths
2. There are no Absolute Truths
— Alkis Piskas
So you're saying these are absolute truths? — Tom Storm

Are you insinuating that this is a self-contradiction? Because it you do, you are right! :grin:
(OK. I have already talked about that in two previous posts. You can check the first one if you like, at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727595)

That's why I ask for each person's individual truths cause of the exact uncertain nature of the search for absolute truths. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I see this. And you did well. It is very interesting and something valuable to know!

But still except for humans it must represent something from the bigger picture also, no? Even a tiny percentage of it if you want. — dimosthenis9

Yes, it does.

But don't stick so much to the word itself. Just wanted to emphasize things that someone thinks that are undeniable facts about the function of universe. — dimosthenis9

Yes, unfortunately I have this habit, sticking to words! :grin:
So, maybe we can agree on using the word/term "belief" or "opinion" instead of "absolute truth"?
Besides, all philosophy is made of, is opinions! So, I think that "strong beliefs" can be considered as "undeniable facts", that you mentioned and are the closest to "absolute truths" for a person.
There. I now got unstuck from "absolute truths"! And I can also walk safely, without mines around! :grin:

But humans are of the universe, we are an aspect of the universe made manifest, what we think, invent, debate, kill, save, disassemble, assemble is all in and of the universe. — universeness

Life forms (microbes) appeared in the Universe a billion of years ago. And from that primitive life animals and humans have been developed. In that sense, life may be said to be part of the Universe.
At the same time, however, we are separate units, independent of the Universe. And the Universe is independent of us. (It existed before us and if we never existed, it would still exist. And it will most probably continue to exist, even if the human race or even all the life in it is extinct.)

But the essential point here is that we are "thinking" units, with a mind. And we create concepts, which exist only for us. The Universe, as we know it, and independently of us, doesn't "think" and doesn't have or care about concepts. It is what it is and does what it does. That's all.

Yeah but despite human existence or not,universe has to have a function no? Well that function has to work in some way. Right? Not necessarily have purpose at all, but there must be still a function. — dimosthenis9

Certainly.

That function remains the same despite if there are humans or any kind of thinking existence as to observe it . It was there even before human species appear to Earth.
That is what I would call the absolute truth for universe. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I undestand what you mean. You could also call that an "absolute reality". But see, discussions like these, based on concepts like "truth" and "reality", are like walking in a mine field. There are a lot of traps. Or like walking on ice, where you can easlily slip.

These terms, and the concepts they represent, like any other term, are created by humans. They do not exist in and have no meaning for the Universe. The Universe is what it is and does what it does. It is Man who creates "truths" and "realities" by trying to undestand, explain and describe how it functions and what it consists of, since the beginning of civilization. And the proof that this knowledge is subjective --i.e. there's no absolute knowledge-- is that during all that time until today and for the days to come, this knowledge has changed, is chamging and will change: new theories are added and old ones are modified or even vanish.

human mind has the ability to form some crisis that can be absolute ideed. — dimosthenis9

Absolute means unchangeable and unqualified. It cannot even be measured or determined exactly, "exact" being also an attribute of "absolute".We say "absolute zero". Can we really measure such a thing with certainty? Absolute is unmeasurable. Like eternity. I don't think that "absolute" even exists at all. We can only use the word in figures of speech like "I'm absolute on that", "with absolute certainty", "I have absolute faith on him" and so on. The more examples come to my mind, the more silly they sound to me! :grin:

:pray:

A truth, if it ever existed, needs to be objectively. But, paradoxically, the nature and sense of truths depend on humans's perspective and consensus.
So, a truth would need to be subjective to exist. — javi2541997

Nice! Yet, the paradox I was referring to is a little more simple. It's a self-contradiction: The statement "There are no Absolute Truths" is used as an absolute truth itself! :smile:

(See my reply to @dimosthenis9 at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727595 for how to "remedy" this.)

Right! You almost got it! :smile: It's a paradox. Or, a self-contradiction, if you prefer. Of the kind, "I'm lying" (Liar's paradox) :grin:

Moreover, it cannot stand for another reason: How you can prove that someting does not exist --an "absolute truth"-- if it doesn't? It's like trying to prove that God does not exist! Well, you can. By reductio ad absurdum. My favorite way is by asking: "If there were an absosute reality, who will be out there to tell?" Whoever would claim that, it would be an opinion, something subjective --not objective, i.e. absolute.

So, we can restate "There are no Absolute Truths" so that it does not contain a self-contradition, as follows: "Truth is always subjective". Which also applies to and agrees with the statement itself. The statement is subjective, alright, but it does not mean that there is an absolute truth! :wink:

Are you really sure? — javi2541997

Would I have claimed it otherwise? :grin:

I think death is an absolute truth. — javi2541997

Right. You think. Isn't that subjective? An "absolute truth" --if it existed-- would be objective, wouldn't it? "Truths" are created by humans. Hence they are always subjective. Even if most people agree to something, i.e. there is a consensus, a common agreement abiut it, this something will still be subjective, simply because it has been created someone.

Yet, there's a paradox in my previous reply. Can you find what? (It's easy now that I have pointed it out,)

Everything has parts. Even an atom, which in the old times was supposed to be indivisible. (Ancient Greek: a- (= not) + tomi (= cut).)
Then, asking if something is a single thing or it has parts is not a valid question because one does not exclude the other. My body is a single object but it also has parts. This reply consists of a single message which however has parts. .
Then, you have to clarify the kind of parts you are looking for. A sentence consists of words (one kind), letters (another kind), symbols (another kind), syntax parts (another kind). All these have a different function and belong to a different linguistic field.

So, mind too consists of a lot of things, of a totally different nature: memory, feelings, thoughts, etc., as well as functions: perception, thinking, imagining, reasoning, etc. Yet, it is referred to as a single thing.

1. There are no Absolute Truths
2. There are no Absolute Truths

(re your optical illusion). Something doesn't add up — Agent Smith

Can you be a little more specific?

What is "rubbish"?
1) The circularity in the definition (Re: "The mind is the set of faculties responsible for mental phenomena") ? Do you really can't see it? But even if you disagree, shouldn't you tell me why?
2) That the main sentence/verb is missing --Re: "So, mental processes, mental faculties, mental phenomena - emotion, thought, memory, perception, learning, imagination, instinct, attention, pain, motivation, language, action, decision making, maintaining bodily processes."-- and therefore the whole statement or point is invalid or makes no sense? Again, If you disagree, shouldn't you tell me what/where is that sentence and what is actually your statement or point ?
3) That neither experience nor consciousness are mental processes? Again, if you disagree, after all the explanations I gave you, shouldn't you tell me why?

Do you really think that choosing to respond to all of the above with just using the word "rubbish", and without providing a single why, makes you a wiser person than me?

The mind is the set of faculties responsible for mental phenomena.
-- Wikipedia — T Clark

I also like to use Wikipedia as a reference. But as it happens with dictionaries too, sometimes they give us circularity. Here, mind -> mental -> mind. Because what you get from any dictionary and from Wiki itself when you look for the term "mental" is "of or relating to the mind"!
I wonder how these things escape so easily the minds of people who are posting them!
Anyway, they are also a sign and the result of an inability to understand and define a subject. In this case: mind.

So, mental processes, mental faculties, mental phenomena - emotion, thought, memory, perception, learning, imagination, instinct, attention, pain, motivation, language, action, decision making, maintaining bodily processes. — T Clark

Main sentence/verb is missing ...

One mental process I intentionally left off the list is experience/consciousness. — T Clark

Neither experience nor consciousness are mental processes. They are not "phenomena", as the definition, you, yourself, have brought says (Re: "The mind is the set of faculties responsible for mental phenomena.")
"Experience" has to do with immediate contact with and observation of something. And "consciousness" has to do with a state and an ability to perceive and be responsive to something. Neither of them is a phenomenon. Indeed, the mind is involved in both of them as an intermediate (nouns. It's a communication system between the person and the environment as well as with his own thoughts, feelings, bodily functions, etc.

Mind and consciousness are two of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted (misexplained) concepts and subjects in philosophy. Maybe the main responsible are Science, and by extension scientists, who insist that they are both bodily "functions", of a purely physical nature. And, although Philosophy, and by extension philosophers, should not be affected and misled by such an unfounded position, an unproved fact, a fallacy, a fiction, a lie, etc. yet it does. This is the power that Science has over us. We take for granted things it says which are out of its jurisdiction. Like mind and consciousness.

The problem with this lies with "at some point." — Constance

You missed it again. "At some point" is a descriptive expression, not an absolute or a name or a term, used for space and time. We are using it to refer to the past --sometimes to the future too. It's not a substitute for the word "time". It does not even represent time.

I sense a language problem here. Maybe you read too much Wittgenstein! :smile: (Oh boy, did he have a problem with language!)

My advice, based on my own experience: Put aside all these guys. Start using your own thoughts and ideas, applying your own reasoning and using your own experiences in life. This needs a long practice. Don't read. You have already read enough from what I can see. Now write, write, write, and then write more. Your own thoughts. Your own experiences. Your own examples.

The trouble with this kind of thinking — Constance

What kind is this?
My thinking is simple, rational and practical. I'm not lost in all kinds of concepts and quotes from various sources as it is usually the case in here and what people love to hear.

assumes a time when there was no word/concept there for time — Constance

I'm afraid you missed the point. Nothing was assumed. I talked about phenomena that "were giving them [people] a sense, an idea of continuous change and movement, which is very similar to that of time." The word "time" is used here as a reference to what we are using today to refer to such phenomena.

My whole point was that concepts exist as ideas in our mind before we give them names!

You totally missed it. And it took me some time to explain all that. Pity! :sad:

without the concept, time is no longer time at all. — Constance

I would rather say, "without a concept ot time, we cannot talk about 'time' at all; the word 'time' has no meaning". Without the concept of freedom, the word "freedom" means nothing.

Now, unlike concrete, material objects, which can exist and perceived in the external world through our senses, abstract ideas, i.e. concepts, can only be created and exist in our mind. Time is one of them.

This is how I can see concepts are created: We first have an abstract idea, i.e. a concept, about something and then we give it a name. Ancient people, where watching a river flowing, seing the sun rising and setting every day --an illusion of course, since it's the earth that is rotating and orbiting-- etc., and these observations, penomena were giving them a sense, an idea of continuous change and movement, which is very similar to that of time, but they didn't have a name for them. At some point, they had to invent words for them for description and communication purposes. One of them was "time".
But these abstract ideas are not confined in the description of phenomena in the external world, which we perceive through our senses. They can refer to things that exist only in our mind. For example, how has the concept of freedom been created? From the idea of getting liberated from a state of being imprisoned into something or enslaved by someone. The sense of relief and the idea of being released, at some point gets "materialized" in the word "freedom" (or whatever came before it).

So there's no word "time", until we get the concept of time into a word. That is, until we give a name to the idea of constant change and movment. Yet, it still doen't exist in the way a river exists, but only as an idea in our mind.

The thought of time IS time — Constance

The thought of myself is not myself. The thought of a tree is not a tree.

But it is not independent of language, because to behold it at all with your intelligence is to bring whatever something is, INTO language. — Constance

I described avove the relation of concepts to language, using the word "word" :smile:

See Derrida's Khora, the Violence of Existence — Constance

Don't talk to me about more reading, pleeeease! :grin:

I don't take issue with the assumption of an unconscious to the extent that it yields an understanding of the dynamics of a conscious set of affairs. — Constance

Agree.
I also agree thet Freud was a pioneer and his work opened a the road to a lot of things, besides psychology. These persons and their work have been and are absolutely necessary in the advancement of knowledge, in every kind of field.

When thinking of objects or mechanisms consciousness forms a gestalt of them, that is a object or a mechanism is a whole with parts or properties. Simple, right? — Josh Alfred

No, Not at all simple for me.

First of all, there's no main verb and therefore no main sentence. ("When" introduces a secondary sentence and "that is" introduces an explanatory sentence.)

Then, you say that objects or mechanisms form a whole (gestalt), that is,they are parts of a whole, and then you say an object or a mechanism is a whole with parts. That is, an object/mechanism is both a part and a whole. Except if you are talking about an ad infinitum kind of situation, like a fractal, which is not at all evident and certainly not something one says en passant!

What do events reduce to? — Josh Alfred

An event is determined mainly by time, place and form. These must be all known and mentioned to call something an event. They are all needed to verify the truthfulness of an event, i.e. to prove that something has actually occurred. And this is the problem with a lot of articles in newspapers and magazines: they often omit to mention the time element! And you ask, "Well, when has that happened?" or "When is this article written?" etc.

1. For every rule there is an exception (premise).
Ergo,
2. The rule for every rule there is an exception itself must have an exception (subconclusion). — Agent Smith

Easy!
(1) Is said to be a premise, not a rule. Then (2) calls it and treats it as a rule! So (2) is invalid or not applicable.

Have you something more difficult? :smile:

Time and the unconscious are always already conceptual, are they not? — Constance

Right. This is about what I said. Time itself cannot be fragile; it's concept only can be. So, are you agreeing with that but just don't want to accept it directly? :smile:

As I make reference to, say, the future, I deploy, in the act of reference itself, the past which informs the reference regarding language and habits of experience ... — Constance

You lost me. Too complicated for me to get involved in! The space in my mind will be distorted! And I'm afraid that my mind might even be exploded! :grin:

Indeed, how can you perform all that thinking? What I can only get are complicated optical illusions, like this one:

:grin:

Not so much a mind inside a mind, but "something" — Constance

I don't know what that "something can be. But I thought later that "a mind inside a mind" might not be the case, but rather a different "mind", i.e two minds working parallely, which anyway, doesn't make sense either. So it's useless to speak about any of them. That's why I use to say "a part of my mind", refering to what is customarily called "unconscious". This at least makes more sense.

Wittgensteinian problem: try to say what logic is, and the very best you can do is give a logical answer! — Constance

Indeed, this guy was quite problematic! :grin: I can only find problems and emptyness in his "sayings", like the above position you mentioned, which for me means absolutely nothing. Giving a logical answer has nothing to do with defining logic! You give dozens of logical answers everyday about a dozen different subjects. Godssake, man. Enough! There. Because you have ignited a wick in me that started a fire! :grin:

I thought you said Freudian theory, theory of the unconscious, was merely an invention. — Constance

No, I didn't say that. I didn't speak about any theory. I just mentioned that the word "unconcious" was invented by Freud.

I stopped being interested in and talk about the "unconscious (mind)" since a long time ago. I'm only interested in and talk about the conscious mind and consciousness! :smile:

You are chasing your tail.

Probably because, being alive, I have something dead people do not have: a responsibility and duty, which I can either fulfill or shirk. The dead can neither fulfill nor shirk their non-existent duty. — Yohan

No! It's much much simpler than that. A living, eligible to vote, person has the option to vote or not. A dead person has no option at all.

Regarding your remaining comments-questions, they seem to belong to the ethical aspect of non-voting, which is another fish to fry.

That means that dead people indirectly support sides in a confrontation. — Yohan

I'm certain that you can think better than that. Even if I don't know you. So, think better about this invalid argument --maybe also check, if needed, what I said about those who don't vote (examples, etc.)-- and tell me yourself why it is invalid.

Hey, why don't you ask a political analyst? He/she will know better than me!

The fragility of time and the unconscious — Constance

Do you maybe mean "The fragility of the concepts of time and the unconscious"?
Because neither time nor unconscious does actually exist to be fragile or strong.

About time: As you said, we use the terms "past", "present" and "future" conventionally. They are points of reference. We use them mainly for description purposes, and they are indeed very useful. But it is very easy to see that neither of them exists: past is long gone, it' not here, it's nowhere. Future has not come yet, so it's nowhere either. Present --which we usually call "Now"-- is the most controversial concept of the three. For one thing, it cannot be "grasped" because from the moment we refer to it, it has already passed by. But we can define it in a context, as a period of time, e.g. "At present" or "At the present time" or "Presently", refers to a period of time existing "as we talk". (Note: all the references to the word "exist" are figurative, since time does not actually exist.)

About unconscious: It doesn't actually exist either. It's a term invented by Freud and it is rejected by a lot of psychologists today. If there were an unconscious mind, it would have to be inside mind, i.e. a mind inside a mind. We use the term conventionally, as we do with the terms mentioned above regarding time, to mean whatever is inside our mind that we are not aware of, i.e. it is "hidden". It is also very useful. We say, "I did that unconsciously", meaning without thinking or being aware of it.

ANY talk at all about the unconscious is self contradictory, for to speak of it is to bring it to consciousness, — Constance

I can't see where does the contradiction lie. Psychotherapy (and other techniques) is based on exactly that process: bringing things that lie in out "unconscious" to our consciousness. This helps us to understand problems that lie hidden inside us and affects us and out behavior negatively, But in general, this is a very natural process that occurs with us every day: I have a name in my mind that I cannot remember, however hard I try. Suddenly, it pops up in my head: "I remembered it!". I don't know how much percent, but the very larger part of our is hidden from us at any given moment. We can say that it lies in our "unconscious", but only for description purposes.

Then of course, we have another kind of "unconsciousness", which belongs to the medical field. It is when we lose consciousness, i.e. we lose our senses and are no more aware of our environment. But this does not concern this topic I think.

is your argument that we should all vote for either the strongest or the second strongest party, and no others? — Isaac

Elections are almost always a confronation between the two strongest parties. Yet, I have mentioned about the effect of voting for smaller (lesst strong) parties has, in my first example at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/723152.
As for the confrontation between the two stronger parties, I gave another example in may recent post at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/723152.

Two politicians, Alice and Bob, are running for city mayor. I refuse to vote. Which one am I indirectly supporting, Alice or Bob? — NOS4A2

Suppose Alice is ahead of Bob by one vote. If I don't vote, and nothing changes until the end of the electoral race, Alice will win. Now, if I decide to vote at this point, even at random, there are 50% chances that I vote for Bob, and this would result in a tie. And I can always make this tie certainly happen if I vote for Bob, of course.

You could answer that yourself if you had tested your example by asking "What could happen if I vote and what if I don't?" and taking different cases and all possibilities into consideration.

I wonder what am I still doing here! :grin:

Not voting is quite the opposite. Zero support is given — NOS4A2

Has my example been wasted? And imagine, I thought of deleting it, because the math is so simple and the reason too evident!

The word "support" I mention is meant NUMBER-WISE, indirectly and unintentionally, not directly, as when voting intentionally in favor of someone!

OK, leave math aside.

If I don't go to a football match in which my favorite team competes with another one, I will indirectly and unintentionally support the other team, because I will not be among the fans who support my team, by wearing hats, t-shirts, etc. and cheering. And we know that such a support influences a lot the outcome in all kinds of matches.

Not supporting directly one side in a confrontation, you are indiretly supporting the other.

OK, that's it for me. I can't help more. I already did too much.

Is refusing to vote a viable political position? — NOS4A2

No, I don't consider it a viable position. Here's why:

At least in my country, abstention helps the stronger party. (E.g. if a party wins the elections with 45% against 43% of the runner-up and 20% percent have abstained from voting --usually it's more-- if a significant part of them had voted any party, and esp. for the runner-up, but even for smaller parties, then the second could achieve a larger percentage than the now declared first one.)

Unfortunately, in my country, blank ballots (showing no preference) are considered invalid, and as such they are ignored! It's as if you didn't vote at all! As if you weren't present in the election center/station! I once did that, casting a blank ballot as a disagreement/protest against both the strongest parties. It was then that I found that it didn't count as a vote!! In my opinion, it is a legitimate vote. Well, next time that I wanted my vote to have the same effect, I voted for an unimportant party.

So, in essence, by not voting, one supports the strongest party, whether this is known beforehand or not.