-"Problem
Vagueness: Fuzziness of meaning [disagreement, no fallacy though]"

-I will be honest, I wasn't aware of it...I just searched it.
https://www.fallacyfiles.org/vaguenes.html
I intuitively use the term "fallacious argument from ....salad bar" on interlocutors who tend to use vague language.

The points that makes yours is:
-"The fallacy of Vagueness comes about when the appearance of cogency of an argument depends upon vagueness in its terms.
The mere fact of vagueness is not sufficient to justify an accusation of fallacy, but it is sometimes a logical boobytrap which can cause the unsuspecting person to fall into fallacious reasoning."

So again we are dealing with a slippery slope.
Either way vagueness renders impossible the evaluation of an arguments as valid or sound. In my opinion its either an indication of dishonesty or inability of expression or fundamental lack of understanding of a concept. All three cases are reasons to reject vague definitions or arguments.

I find your example really useful to explain my objections on how definitions are used.
That said, I don't imply that your definitions are necessary wrong. I am only pointing out that a definition not only has to describe the phenomenon in question, but the descriptions also needs to be practical, meaning that it can not be shared by different phenomena.
This is a quality that I might have forgotten to stress in my previous comments.

So before I address your definition, I will post the current scientific definition on consciousness so that we can contrast yours or any other that might be shared in this thread.
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
I would also add, since this definition only addresses the area that enables this mental property, that the content in those conscious experience is provided through action of the Central Lateral Thalamus (the part responsible for connecting and introducing memory, symbolic language, reasoning, pattern recognition etc in our conscious states from other areas of the brain).
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-brain-area-could-enable-consciousness

So this is our current scientific understand that Mark Solmes includes in his latest Theory of Consciousness(Founder of Neuropsychoanalysi).(For those who are interested on the subject, since we are not going to discuss it anymore in here).

Now before breaking down your definition I will ask for a clarification:
You wrote:"The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart..."
Is that an "or" or an "of" (ability of nature).

Only claims(premises) and arguments can be true or not true in our world.
So a true claim is the one that is in agreement with current facts (describes them accurately).
An implication of this is that a claim may be true according to the current available facts but missing facts might mean it can ultimately be a false claim.
Since we have no access to all facts or Ultimate or Absolute claims...we only can work on what is currently available.
So a claim can never be true or not true at the same time because it is a judgment based on facts at that specific moment.
Hindsight is just a meta analysis of a claim with facts that do not belong at the same temporal point.

-" How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions? — Cartesian trigger-puppets


Easy. It's simply sufficient. Not to be coy or snark but it makes you tilt your head in thought and perhaps smile and nod. Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. Not without valid criticism at least."

-No it isn't sufficient.In all philosophical discussions the first thing the two sides should do is to present their definitions and reach an agreement.
For my limited personal experience on concepts like consciousness, any meaningful conversation is impossible. Everyone holds a different definition that has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon and most of the times definitions are an existential claim on their own, not an actual description of what we are trying to explain.
i.e. I have never met a single interlocutor interested on consciousness that has done his epistemology and is aware of the official scientific definition of the term. So this vague situation with definitions is a catalyst for Pseudo philosophy to parade as actual Philosophy.
In my opinion most people use their definitions to describe their ontological presuppositions....not as a direct and accurate description of the phenomenon they are trying to explain.

My first take on your post is that this is a two-bladed knife.
As Mario Bunge points out in his book "Philosophy in Crisis." and his 10 criticisms of contemporary academic philosophy, definitions are the weak link in the "philosophical" chain.
Philosophers are either Obsessed with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems resulting to Insular Obscurity or they suffer from the Ivory Tower Syndrome(rejection any all inputs from outside experts or departments) resulting to using definitions that have nothing to do with the actual phenomenon.

-"Yes, I have now accepted that we should change our focus to the understanding of what science is about. Start with education."
-We need to admit that this is a real difficult task. Our descriptions about science are still evolving so we have to expect this confusion.
The best description I have ever heard is by , in my opinion, one of the most important modern philosophers of Science,Paul Hoyningen-Huene. His book "Systematicity the Nature of science"(and his free academic lectures ) provide a clear demarcation and explains why the values of scientific epistemology expand in multiple dimensions (at least 9 aspects).

-But the strongest critics of science are those that are against QM and relativity because QM is the gateway to all kinds of "speculative science", if you will. (See my response to Bylaw above). So, what better way to stop the bleeding than to get straight to the source -- which is the QM (and I'm not even knowledgeable of the enormity of the power of QMists to even change the foundation of science).
Heck, I don't understand, period.

-Well, in my opinion, that is NOT science's fault. QM is a probabilistic framework due to the nature of the microscopic world and our limited abilities in observing systems without interfering with them (Observer Objectivity Collapse). On the other hand QM provides the most accurate predictions made by any of our scientific frameworks...(99,9999up to 14 decimal places!).
The problem is with PHILOSOPHY....again.... and with scientists and philosophers who find a chance to promote their personal pseudo metaphysical beliefs without having a adequate understanding of QM.

Should we discard such an instrumentally valuable framework and ignore our counterintuitive observations of the quantum scale just because some pseudo philosophers/scientists invoke the supernatural in their interpretations?
I think not.QM is science. Our observations and our mathematical formulations are of the highest standards.The problem rises with how some attempt to interpret those counter intuitive observations.!

I will insist in saying that the problem is created by people's (philosophers and scientists) ignorance on what Philosophy is and how it should be practiced.
Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all. The dogma of "free inquire" allows pseudo philosophy to pose next to real philosophy and that confuses people who don't know how to demarcate Philosophy from pseudo philosophy. You will ask what philosophy has to do with the misunderstanding of science.
Well the think is that pseudo philosophy trives at the limits of our scientific epistemology. i.e. We have QM and we don't know how to interpret their relation to the classical world. That appears to be a chance for philosophy to offer more than 12 quantum interpretations and many more distorted versions of them.

A couple of thousand years ago, Aristotle organized and systematized Logic and Philosophy. He defined the Philosophical procedure while the etymology of the word informed us of its goal...."the intellectual endeavor of producing wise claims about the world". In order for a claim to be wise, Aristotle knew that it needed to be founded on credible epistemology, so he included Physika(modern science) as an important step in the any Philosophical inquiry.
The 6 essential steps of the Philosophical process according to Aristotle are:
1. Epistemology (what we know and how we know it).
2. Science(evaluate our current epistemology and produce new data)
3. Metaphysics(interpret what all the new data means for our epistemology)
application of the newly produced conclusions to the branches of
4.Aesthetics
5.Ethics
6.Politics
Unfortunately the only Philosophical category that follows Aristotle's blueprint(3 main steps) is that of Natural Philosophy...currently known as science. Its the only category that identifies and tests the epistemic claims, have a set of methodologies to do it and produces hypotheses(metaphysics) on consistent auxiliary principles and with high standards of evidence evaluation.
Most philosophers (Naturalists excluded) ignore the first two steps and jump in metaphysics from the get go or they use arbitrary and epistemically useless philosophical principles to interpret our epistemology (this is the case QM) according to their metaphysical beliefs.

This is a problem that we all personally experience in any philosophical forum (not only science). People believing that they can make meaningful philosophy while they ignore our latest epistemology, while using non naturalistic principles in their speculations(not those of Methodological Naturalism) and by not even bothering about the basic rules and criteria of Logic (Null HYpothesis, Demarcation,Burden etc).
When you point out to them that they are pseudo philosophizing they are surprised learning....that they need to follow rules in order for their philosophy to be real philosophy. So I think we need to reform and demarcate Philosophy if we need to get rid of the fluff and woo that accumulates at the borders of our scientific epistemology.

People understand different things when they talk about science.
So I think we should first define the term and then identify what aspect of science is in decay.
Since science is not a single"method" we need to find out what really is.
Science is a Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) with a set of empirical methodologies that is mainly interested in the evaluation of our knowledge claims.
What people do with those knowledge claims is a separate issue.(politics, economics etc).

In my opinion the only decay related to science is the public understanding of what science is, their inability to distinguish technology from science and what elements make scientific knowledge so important and credible.
This decay is mainly product of the global system of education set to serve other priorities and the idea that knowledge is just an opinion.

-"There is a difference between "publish" and "communicate." You play language games and I'm not interested. "
-lol ok....... at your part of the world....publishing stuff is not an act of communication. Nice to know.:up:

-"There are many things wrong with American government, whatever you call it. I won't argue with that. When I say I am a supporter of democracy, I mean as it is now constituted in the US and in many western countries, imperfect as it is. I don't know what more I can say. "
-I get what you are saying and I am only pointing out that what is constituted in the western world has identical characteristics with the properties of any oligarchic system with some superficial differences in how those who have the actual power get in to office.
Our current democratic systems take advantage of our psychology, our drives and urges. They enforce the illusion of choice, our need to belong to a group as an active member by just being fans.
This is what the sport industry and nation states have being doing for ages.

-"I don't need to assume reality is physical. I only have to assume it is consistent."
-well it depends what you mean by physical. Physical, in science is a label we apply on specific type of Impressions. We need to distinguish "mental" from "physical" impressions....and this is why we use this label.
i.e. You may dream or imagine to be rich, but in our reality you can only be what your physical impressions "dictate". So concepts like existence, emergence, manifestation are valid only within our physical impressions!
-"Sure pragmatically the world has effects on us. It is real in at least a pragmatic sense. But for me, the ultimate goal of philosophy is to arrive at absolute certainty. Otherwise, I will always be riddled with a sense of doubt. Never totally sure about anything. Who wants to live like that?"
-No that was never Philosophy's goal and it can never be. Those are idealistic goals, things to strive torwards but they are unattainable. Even in the most systematic and epistemically successful intellectual we conceived, science, Ultimate and Absolute knowledge or certainty are out of the question. This is why we can only verify/falsify claims in science but we can not Prove anything to be an ultimate truth claim.
Doubt is what drives our efforts to produce more credible methods of evaluation and improve our epistemology. We need to acknowledge our limitations in our empirical nature, logic and methods of investigation.

-"That there are other minds is indeed based on faith, in my case."
-That isn't possible. Faith is the belief that lacks objective empirical evidence. The fact that thinking agents are around you is a verifiable statement. You even act based on those facts...this is why we have this conversation. Sure you can not prove anything to be absolute...but you only have to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt....and the available evidence does that .

-"Example the assumption that the appearance of matter and the sensation of hardness proves there is mind independent matter."
-The existence of matter does not depend on minds. The label of the quality (hardness) does depends on minds to exist, but Hardness as a property has real world implications specially when two material structures happen to interact with each other(a diamond scratching a mirror). We as observers view those implications and we label that property...hardness.

-"I reject certainty of it, that is all. What better place to enquire about it further than on a philosophy forum? "
-Nobody talked about a meta ontological certainty. Again absolute certainty is like chasing windmills or red herrings. Certainty should always be adjusted to the standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt" and we don't have any...or better Pragmatic Necessity doesn't allow us to have that luxury.
You and I know that experiences like thinking a speeding car or a real speeding a car speeding towards us should be treated accordingly to their known ontology. We should not be alerted if we imagine a car running over us...and we should run if we see one racing towards us.
We even have institutions to protect those who are unable to distinguish those different types of impressions!

-"I can ask...why come to a philosophy forum if we aren't going to question such things."
-Because they are thousand of real philosophical questions that can be asked!

-"This isn't a science forum. "
-that is not an excuse. by saying this isn't a science forum you just stated "this isn't a Natural Philosophy's forum" .People forget that science's philosophical aspect is central to this philosophical category. Science is not what we do in the lab, but it is also our metaphysics on naturalistic principles when we try to understand what on earth those new data means to our verified epistemology.

-"I can go to a science forum if I want to learn about what popular science has to say."
-This is a common confusion. Everyone should be coming from a science forum BEFORE deciding to form and address ANY philosophical question! How one can ever be capable of doing meaningful metaphysics without using verified epistemology as his foundation.
Its like trying to hypothesize the trajectory of a pen I just threw....without knowing the planet and the acceleration of its gravity I am on!
Wise claims can only be produced from Knowledge claims. Philosophy is the intellectual endeavor of "producing wise claims in order to understand the world"....its not making up claims without knowing if the foundations of my hypotheses were epistemically correct.

data or methods that can inform us about alternative assumptions? Not sure I get you. I mean I don't get you. Anything that can be questioned is probably not foundational. I can't question foundational axioms like the law of non-contradiction. However, I can question at least some of the general assumptions of naturalistic science. — Yohan

-Sorry for my sloppy language. I meant that you are making an assumption about the nature of an ultimate level of reality. I understand that we can not prove in an absolute degree and that includes our current narratives about reality....but what are your evidence that guided your conclusions and the details in them? At least the reality we have access we can objectively verify and identify regularities and limitations in every aspect of what we call physical.
What quality(objectivity, testability etc) governs your conclusions so that anyone can use to it to evaluate your evidence(if you have any) and arrive to the same conclusion?
If you doubt a reality that limits your daily life according to its specific rules...what one should do with a reality you propose that no one can verify, test or agree on. We have more than 4.300 religious dogmas and 160+ Spiritual worldviews..so agreement is an issue for any meta ontological narrative.

In order for an intellectual endeavor to philosophical, it really needs to be based (start) on accessible epistemology. Doubts and demands of absolute proofs fall in the category of Argument from ignorance fallacies.

-"I think the only way democracy is a failure is if you redefine "failure" as success."
-No, success should always be evaluated by the goals we set. The Democratic "goals" are far from being achieved.

-"Nevertheless, I do concede that it's the least worst option we have."
-I can agree with that statement. Currently is the least worst system but historically we have applications that were far better(Athenian democracy).

-"Nice! I didn't think of that. We would then need some kind of method à la the scientific method. Any ideas? "
-Sure a set of empirical methodologies(scientific process) that designs solutions based on goals set by a "constitution".The acknowledgment of the failure to meet any goal as data that can be used to inform our next improved solution.
This implies the removal of all our philosophical ideologies and practical applications (economical and political) and the introduction of a bill of commitments that will serve the well being of humans of current and future generations(this imply the consideration of the ecological impact of our solutions).

-I still do not find an argument. And I call you out on usage. You go from laws to "rules", then from "rules" to rules.
-OUr laws are official rules of an establishment. The label "law" only informs us about the enforcer of the rule and the consequences for disobey them.


-''And "designed to inform" and "communicate." And "implications" for those who "decide" to "ignore" them. Why the waffle language? Is there substance here you're either afraid of or feel you do not know well enough to speak simply and plainly about? Do you think it's all a feel-good board game the creators of which are trying to sell?
-Why do you have an issue with words that describe facts. If you go to court for a violation the court will tell you that you are OBLIGATED to be INFORMED of your STATE's laws. So the laws are designed to communicate what your state expects from you. They can only enforce it by the threat of "violence"(take part of your wealth or your freedom).

"Rules designed to inform people"?
-Yes they are...they inform people of what behavior is unacceptable in their societies. Have you ever talked to an accountant or layer etc....Why do you think they go to college? lol

-"You have not read much law, have you."
-that sounds like a self critique ......

-"Nor is the informing or communication central."
-lol "central" why do you feel the need to use this qualifier...does your objection fall apart? Nobody talked on which characteristic of our rules are central of not. I am pointing out the general role of making up rules and publishing them.

In the US at least, and likely the world around, there is no need of communication of law for it to have effect. , is not exculpatory.
-So you are making my point now..... States publish their rules in order for their citizens to have no excuses. So by reading those publications you are informed of what you are ought not to do...or else.

The second part of your reply I couldn't understand because of a syntax problem. I infer that where you're from, there's a cooperative aspect to social life: one is expected to do some things and not do others, yes? And that controlled in part by technologies in use that simply prevent the possibility of civil malfeasance. And I read that as your living in very polite society, one in which the iron fist can be wrapped in layers of velvet.
-Sorry but you don't understand the role of a society and why humans prefer it than remaining at the mercy of nature. SUre from what I see, the American society is a hybrid where uncertainty and risk are part of it....those exact elements human societies were designed to remove from people's lives.

I think we are done here....right.
If we have to debate the reason why authorities publish their rules and Ignorance of the law is not an excuse...lol there is no reason to keep this up.
take care.

To the extent that I'm aware democracy didn't fail. Monarchy failed because of inherent flaws in such a mode of governance (tryanny-prone). D — TheMadFool

-It depends from the standards we use to define failure and success. MY standards are always high and I consider failure when a system doesn't meet its goals set by its Theory.
i.e. we never had a political system where all the people decided for themselves and their community and I can not see how this can be done within our large and diverse modern societies.
So to start this conversation, we don't really have a real world democracy in principle like we never had any real world application of any political or economical system. We have oligarchic hybrids that pose as democracies.

-"Democracy, on the other hand, has no innate flaws that could cause its own downfall."
-The only flaw of democracy that it is inapplicable. As a philosophical ideology it ignores basic scientific knowledge...that is, all social species tend to organize their members under hierarchies and individuals have a tendency to accumulate privileged. If we add the fact that psychopaths are driven to position with power....Democracy is theoretically impossible.
Our history verifies that conclusion.

-"I guess you're offering us a variation of Socrates' idea of philosopher kings. There are risks in such a political system, no? How can we be certain that a scientific dictatorship won't devolve into just dictatorship with all the abuses of power that come with it? "
-Nice to hear that you are familiar of that concept. But no because I acknowledge the same risk you are seeing in such a system.
I am talking about removing any human"king" from the system and substituting them with a Process....as we have done with Science.
Scientist's do not decide what is the correct theory or the most suitable and efficient solution...its the process with its Standards of evaluation that provides those decisions.

-"Never mind. To me you are just making assertions based on a belief in science."
-on a belief in science??? what belief is that?
My "assertions" are Pragmatic Necessities that everyone needs to accept and act in relation to their Limitations and Regularities or else we endanger our existence. Even you bother to get up, earn money, answer my comments.....because its a Necessity that you need to play along. Our Cataleptic Impressions and everything that is verified objectively is all that we have to work with sir!
-" For me, I don't even know if I am awake or dreaming,"
-Well you sound like you are misusing the word "know". If you stated that you can not provide an absolute proof I would be with you on that.....but knowledge is based on the available facts within our Raw Impressions...so yes you know that you are awaken and you act according to that condition.

-"yet alone if there are other minds"
-What do you mean....do you act on a faith based belief when you respond to a comment, kiss your wife, enjoy listening to your children, watch your favorite players on tv.
I would only point out that worldviews have value ONLY when people "act" as if they believe in them.(practice what you preach...or what you doubt).

-"and yet alone that any of these minds have verified the existence of "matter"."
-We can both easily verify the existence of matter objectively...right this moment lets stand up and try run through the wall of our rooms. The objective experience we will share will be an objective empirical verification of a specific property of matter (electromagnetic cohesion of molecules).

-"So we can quit this discussion, I think, unless you want to question foundational assumptions."
-What are those foundational assumptions...do you mean to make an argument based on a begging the question fallacy.
So you are here talking with others while rejecting that we all share some kind of reality with a limited access to it??????? So why on earth are you in a philosophical forum?
Are you here because reality is so harsh on you and you need to reinforce some kind of an echo chamber of a magical realm?
How on earth can we question "foundational assumptions" without data or methods that can inform us about alternative assumptions? Are we going to play the game...here is how I want reality to be?
Are you asking from other people..who question their existence to pseudo philosophize with you ?
I don't get what you are asking.

-"Is this a metaphysical claim, or an empirical claim?"
-Its a description. Matter that "organizes" in to structures displays mental, energetic or physical properties. So I guess it falls in to the category of empirical observations

-"Deductive or inductive? "
-Well it is an ascertainment based of objective facts product of a Systematic Methodology, not a logical conclusion that struggled between two or more possible ontologies. We don't have verified competing ontologies that forces us to have a justified logical dilemma. We only have one available realm that we can investigate and many possible mechanisms and types of emergence.

-" Can you provide a syllogism or a way in which I can empirically test this claim?"
-Well Science has proven the Necessary and Sufficient role of the responsible causal mechanism(brain functions). There is a constant stream of publications of empirical studies that verify the role of matter and the brain specifically, in the emergence of mental properties. On the other hand we don't have any other type of non material mechanism verified or available to be evaluated plus our current understanding doesn't leave any room for non material explanations to be acknowledged either Necessary or Sufficient on its own.
To empirically test our current Working Hypothesis will mean to find a condition under which it is falsified. So theverification of mind properties manifesting independent of a functioning biological brain would be an weak indication of a non material causal mechanism. An other would be the complete deprivation of the brain from any metabolic molecule, while still being able to detect, identify and verify specific mental properties.

-"How do we logically deduce or induce such a thing exists? "
-Well that is a description and any opposite conclusion should also be able to point to descriptions based on Objective observations!
Causality by any agency or mechanism that defies natural rules needs to be demonstrated not assumed at equal terms. Any suggestion of a causal agent/mechanism needs to be demonstrated as possible (one objectively verified example needed) and only then it can be accepted it as probable and included in our competing hypotheses.

-" Or empirically verify that what we observe and measure exists independently of our observation of it?"
-As I stated before we study the Necessary and Sufficient role of a proposed mechanism to be the causing a specific phenomenon/property. Both of those qualities are evaluated by Systematic empirical methodologies by relevant disciplines of science, not independent philosophical endeavors.
We need the latest verified epistemology and facts to beconsidered for our philosophy to be credible and relevant. Unfortunately, expect from some few cases, academic philosophy tends to ignore the second most important step of the Philosophical procedure(defined by Aristotle) and that is the objective evaluation and expansion of our available epistemology(science).

-"Additionally, can we observe and measure the mind?"
-FIrst of all the term "Mind" is an abstract concept that represents all the mental properties of our brain functions. So by definition we don't observe and measure any abstract concept!
i.e. we don't measure "constipation" or "photosynthesis", or "mitosis" or" digestion" . Those are labels (abstract concepts) of the quality produced by the properties of a specific system and its functions!
What we observe measure and quantify are the individual low level biological mechanisms responsible for the emergence of any high level feature of a system....that we call with the label of an abstract concept.
i.e. we can quantify constipation(one parameter) by measuring the volume of water absorption by the bowels.
Anil Seth has a great lecture on how we quantify mind properties like a conscious state.
Marcel Just, the D.O. Hebb University Professor of Psychology in the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences has published a paper on a technology that allows us to not only quantify brain patterns responsible for specific mental properties but also identify their quality (decode the content of conscious thoughts) in high accuracy (+85%).
So we observe and measure processes that our abstract concepts represent.

-"If not, what does that mean about truth?
-"Truth" is an evaluation term. We use it to evaluate statements and claims that are in agreement with current available facts. So if a hypothetical cause of a specific abstract concepts is supported by facts then the framework is true.

-"It seems to me there are many things we cannot directly observe and measure."
-that sounds possible...but do you have a specific example?

-"I would go so far as to say the observable, and quantifiable aspects of life make up a fraction of life."
-It depends on what aspects you are referring to and whether they are intrinsically quantifiable or its just an observer's irrational demand to quantify them(i.e. we can argue that abstract concept are part of our life but it is irrational to demand any quantification attempt on them)!

-"Then we should be able to observe and measure logic?"
-Again, logic is an abstract concept that refers to a list of rules for Logical reasoning. So we don't observe the abstract concept of logic, but we can observe the logical rules used by someone's attempts to reason. So yes we can evaluate/measure how logical or fallacious one's reasoning is by using those rules.

-"Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. There can be metaphysical theories, ethical theories, economic theories etc. Theories are not the sole tool of the physics"
-I am referring to scientific theories..they are defined differently. Scientific theories are descriptive frameworks that include Objective verified observations(facts/evidence), law-like generalizations and mathematical formulations.
Science doesn't really use "suppositions" but a basic acknowledgement of our epistemic and methodical limitations within a realm with specific characteristics and properties.

-"My question was how does one (including a methodological naturalist) verify ontological truth?"
-well that is really straight forward. We evaluate whether our candidate description agrees with observable facts and the logical implications(induction) that sprang from those facts.

-"Is ontology any way related to matter?"
-Ontology is a specific philosophical and scientific study of what exists and how. Since we have verified matter's existence and observe it , we can study its ontology!

-" How is it in the domain of methodological naturalism to tell us what the nature of what is observed is?"
-MN provides the principles (to science) that keeps our descriptions within our methods of observations and investigation. MN can only inform us for the ontology of ''things'' that we already have verified their existence. MN doesn't deal with Meta Ontological affairs and neither should philosophy.
Meta Ontology is a field that should only interest Pseudo Philosophy since any conclusion doesn't originate form an epistemological foundation and the suggested ideas are beyond any means of evaluation.

-"It seems to tell us how the observed appears to us, or what it appears to be doing."
-IT tries to describe all the observable underlying mechanisms that display a sufficient and necessary role for the emergence of a phenomenon/entity/process.


-"I don't see how observing the observed has any means of telling us that what we observe has ultimate existence independent of us. "
-Correct it doesn't address red herrings like "Ultimate" or ''Absolute" concepts. Again that is the job of Pseudo Philosophy, not philosophy or science.
ITs not honest to assume anything Ultimate beyond the level of our Cataleptic Impressions and the Reality we register not to mention claiming specific details about the nature of a meta ontological speculation.
Even if we do assume we need to speculate about the "Ultimate".... that can only qualify as a "what if" late night conversation after a couple of beers..in a bar.... or an idea in a script of a SciFi movie, not the content of a serious academic discussion.
The Philosophical procedure is well defined and so are its goals. Speculating based on unverified ideals without any means of evaluation doesn't server them or us as intellectual interlocutors!

As an artist (in real life) I can contribute really well is an "what if" conversation,since I daily exercise my imagination ...but I will never pretend to be having a philosophical discussion on such auxiliary assumptions !
I hope I made my points clear.

-"You are the one who is refusing to participate in this discussion under the standard meanings of the words we have been using.

If you're going to change the rules, I don't want to play. "
-I am pointing out that your the label of the system or the punch line you presented (government of the people....etc) may have a fresh definition but that definition and the system's real life characteristics , match the characteristics and outcomes of an other system (oligarchy)!
The only difference is that in oligarchy, people with economical power become part of the ruling class without the need to influence voters... while in our modern current democracies people with economical power who can fund their election campaign influence voters.
This is why Socrates stressed the issue of economical power and election campaigns and why the most popular participants should all be put in the lottery so any differences in influence could be leveled.

-"I'm not arguing against your position. As I've said, you are trying to participate in a different discussion than I am. For me, this is not the place to have the discussion you want to have. "
-I can not really argue against that. The only point I can see to be related to my point is your answer to Down The Rabbit Hole's statement
-" I'm no cheerleader for democracy. "
you:"I am. "

I only pointed out that you are a supporter of a system with oligarchic qualities that is labeled "Democracy". Its qualities are oligarchic because as the etymology of the word states "ολίγοι άρχουν/διοικούν" - only few govern.
That is true for all western regimes. Most voters elect an individual of an other class because they agree on a vague position of the political spectrum.(left right, conservative , democratic ....fluff ).
No one really participates and affects any of the decisions made by "elected" members of a different class.

-"That's not the way language works. Words "drift from the meaning and etymology of the word" all the time. You may not like it, but "democracy" means something different now and it meant something different when the US Constitution was written. If you won't accept the standard meaning of the word and the meaning we are applying in this discussion, there's not much we can talk about."
-I never said how language works or how it should work.
I am only pointing out that the original system described by that word was in agreement with the meanings of both synthetics.
The current systems are in direct conflict with the meanings of the synthetic words that have not changed.
Its not about what I like or don't like. Its about the moral foundations of a systems and how true it is to its modern empty deepities! i.e Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
a Government of a specific class, voted by people who are brain washed and turned in to fans by big dollar campaigns, experiencing political decisions that ignore their interests.
Its about a system capitalizing euphemisms and blurring definitions and using them as punchlines.

Now lets agree with you and say the word democracy describes accurately our modern oligarchies.
So lets assume that a new system arises where the citizens elect a representative. His/her job is to represent them and their decisions. So he/she never proposes his opinion, but he is forced to present the most popular opinion of a referendum hold by his voters.
How are you going to call this system. Representative democracy?
Can you understand that words, beyond the fact that their meaning changes they also NEED TO REMAIN PRACTICAL and ABLE to distinguish closely related concepts????
The establishment we are in has forced his characteristics under a definition of a glorified system of the past. What happens when that glorified system reemerges?

Let me clarify my position.
As a Greek speaking citizen, those words have a specific agreed meaning and the Political system they describe specific premises and characteristics. When you use them to describe something that has nothing to do with the meaning of those words that is frustrating and confusing.
I am not denying that the meaning has drifted and now also describes current oligarchic regimes. I am only pointing out that people make evaluations based on the "ad" not the experience they have "using the product".
Authority figures are telling to Americans that they are free and the greatest nation in the world, but they don't present them marks that are crucial for this evaluation and most importantly they don't compare them to other countries.

A study in Namibia showed that our language shapes our experiences....and this is what the political establishment is achieving by calling our oligarchical regimes democratic.
enjoy the video on the study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgxyfqHRPoE

-"Simple majority rule is not "the main premise of the system."
-Correct. The current political systems that are "self-declared" as Democratic piss on the main premise set by the etymology of the word!

-"I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy!"
_ I am sure I have provided the definition of that system already!Its the political system that allows any member of the "Demos" to participate directly and influence public decisions.

-"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
-Those are empty words without any ties to real life events, a euphemism and a marketing scam.
Goverment of a specific class of people, voted by people who have interests, ignoring most people's interests.

-"Notice - it doesn't say anything about majority rule or disallowing representative democracy."
-Yes...after all "representative democracy" is an ectroma on its own. IF people accept it as a meaningful linguistic morphoma, they got what they deserve!

-"As I noted before, your usage of the word "democracy" is not consistent with its currently accepted meaning or its meaning when the Constitution was written. "
-Yes you did note that, but the meaning of those currently accepted definitions is in direct conflict with the etymology and the label of what that etymology described.
So its exactly like i.e. having a word like "morning shift Job"...and use it to describe a night UNPAID shift.
Here is a more closer example.
The term used to describe Sparta's political system was Oligarch(with two kings a senate and 5 curators)! The surprising fact is that Sparta's system is far closer to our modern systems than the Athenian democracy, something that many modern leaders admitted (Hitler, Jefferson).
So we need to be very careful with Political "Marketing".

-"Here are a some definitions of "democracy" from the web:

A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").
A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."
-I happen to be a Greek citizen and I am aware of the etymology of the word and the original system it described.
The following systems that those definitions describes drifted from the meaning and etymology of the word. They are NO longer described by this label.
"representative democracy" is an oxymoron...its like saying virgin prostitute (forgive my example).

So we need a word that describes the qualities and characteristics of every new system...or else we are dealing with a marketing label.

-"It doesn't matter what the original meaning of the word was or how the Athenian system worked."
-Agreed common usages of words DO matter. This is how we convey accurate meaning!
Demo and cracy refer to specific qualities and standards that aren't met by the following regimes.

-"Back then, only male citizens could vote.Generally that meant men who owned property."
-Correct! Similarly today we exclude individuals under a specific age, people with felony convictions, foreigners even if they are living in a country for decades,Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents,Some people who are mentally incapacitated.
So we have improved our ethics and we include women and in some countries foreigners in what we define as "Demos".
But you need to understand that the percentage of the participants back then was smaller but 100% of those PARTICIPATED in the procedure of decision making.
Now the percentage of participants has increased....but how many participate DIRECTLY in any decision?

[Are you suggesting we go back to that?
-Seriously...are the extremes the only choice here? lol Are we...five year olds or its just our arguments!


It also says nothing about majority ruling.
Of course it does....those who were consider part of "Demos" all voted for their preferred solution.
The solution of choice was that of the majority of votes.

Independent of what Democracy should really look like, its a obsolete political solution that is inapplicable and easily manipulated.
Its like trying to sail through the Atlantic with Iron age marine technology.

-" The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole


I disagree.

I'm no cheerleader for democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole


I am. "

This is an interesting conversation! You declare yourself a "cheerleader for democracy" but you reject the main premise of the system?
I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy!

Yes, I was lucky to hear Fresco's ideas before he died. Even if I was influenced by more practicals examples(space missions) but I found his ideas on spot and amazing to find out that these ideas were around for many decades ago!

-"The US system does place ultimate authority in the voter, so that does make it democratic, but the control of the masses is fairly tight."
-Your statement is in direct conflict with what Democracy really means. The system SHOULD place ultimate authority to the public(voter) and access to the center of decision making.
I am not saying that system is wise or ideal or good...I am just pointing what Democracy means and how a system should look like if it is labeled "democratic"!
Words have common usages and if the system they "describe" doesn't agree with the accepted meaning then we should either change the system( if we want it) or the label.

-"Jurgen Habermas views constitutions as transformational documents aimed at addressing and redressing the most significant defects and deficiencies in the society that frames it."
-Great point. Human needs to understand that our knowledge and wisdom evolves along with new facts that changes create.(larger societies, evolution of morality, modern problems from older "solutions").
So any document that attempts to address basic rules has to be in connection with an update picture of our social issues and technical problems.

-"As I noted, that fact that a system is not strictly majority rule does not mean it is not democratic."
-Well by definition Δήμος=demo=commune & κρατία=cracy=ruling means that the members of a community rule(take decisions). So the majority should rule in a democratic system and voting should always take place at taking decisions...not electing representatives.
Later....those in charge, changed the meaning of the term to :"everybody has the right to be heard"(how nice of them!).
So from Democracy we ended up with something like Righttospeak(acy) ....then to Iwillspeakforyou(acy)...which really means I will speak for my class's interests and my sponsors...and you can blame yourself for the 4 following years for your choice.

-"These bodies seem to be relics of the past. Back when democracy was born (508 BC, Cleisthenes) the population of Athens was small, plus only a certain section of the citizenry were enfranchised. In a sense every person had a say in government."
-Correct, the Athenian democracy had the purest in relation to the section of the population that had the right to participate!
Our modern democracies may allow a bigger part of the population to "participate"....but they never really do since we have the oxymoron "technicality" to use "representatives"!
Representatives of a different class will never represent your class or its interests....and the struggle within all societies was always among classes and keeping in check the competition within the upper class.

-"When democracy returned to the political scene - after our experiment with monarchy apparently failed - there were just too many people and to get every person involved in all decisions of a country was nigh impossible. "
-You are partly right. First of all democracy never returned after the fall of Athens city state. Electing representatives is not what democracy was or what it represents. Secondly monarchy came before democracy and BOTH FAILED.
But you are right we are to many people(and ignorant) for a democratic system to be applied and to function.
My objection is why are we so in to democracy when our most successful tool to solve problems (science) is far from a democratic process! We don't allow people without objective evidence to have a "word" in our epistemology.
So we don't really need democracy or any other political(or economical system) to solve the problems in organizing functioning societies!
We only need Philosophy (Ethics) to define the goals a human society should serve (constitution) and scientific type of methodologies to design our solutions!
A scientific "dictatorship" should be all we need AS LONG as our "constitution" is based on moral foundations serving current and future human populations!
That is not difficult...I think the American constitution is almost there!
With a scientific "dictatorship" we will remove fallible,corruptible and biased humans from decision making positions and we will leave the data (like in science) to point to the best available solution based on our current facts and strive systematically and objectively towards those goals.

Again I find it silly to see people trapped in a "philosophical box" of politics and economics and not figuring out why those "tools" don't work. Those are 2000 years old tools designed on Philosophical ideologies...not Solutions designed on true knowledge and they are not applied in their full potential due to personal interests(politics).
Humanity's problems are Technical....not philosophical.
We know what we have to provide to a population in order to affect their behavior for the better and what do for not destroying the ecosystem and depleting our resources.
Human behavior is affected by its environment. Change the environment and you change behavior. Change the environment in a way that promotes positive behavior and you don't need "philosophical" excuses on why capitalism or communism or socialism or democracy are "good for us" while some people are victims of the systems and other more lucky become victims of the former's revengeful behavior.

-"The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically."
-Politics is a 2300 years old philosophical solution that we insist on using to address advanced problems of modern societies. Its like having dentists still using chisels and hammers...
Social organization of populations and their economies are Technical problems and they need technical solutions...not "philosophical".
In order to design those technical solutions we first need to understand the real problems set clear goals , record and manage our resources and more crucially understanding human behavior and psychology.
The execution of this task is NOT a Philosophical affair but a Scientific one!
ITs sad to see people unable to grasp this dissonance in our modern societies.
We use science to solve every single problem...but for a weird reason....philosophy is the tool for organizing complex organisms in an fluctuating open economical system (our environment)????
Einstein said something on stupidity and repeatability....

Sure. Laws are "rules" designed to inform people of "unaccepted" behavior and communicate the implications for those who "decide" to ignore them.
So in every aspect of our lives we have rules that we need to follow (either in the form of laws, policies or directions).
Now if we look how private sectors work we see that companies "force" specific rules and limit the fluctuations in human behavior by technology.
i.e. In Airline industry we have been reducing the rules people need to "obey" by removing the "freedom" to cut corners or make an honest mistake. We do that by installing
In Northern Europe's countries our "technologies" in social organization have been reducing unwanted behavior (steeling, scamming etc) for years!
Our "rules" ask people to be polite enough to follow them. Those in distress or speculators or powerful enough will always ignore in the absence of a technological "guard".

-"It seems to me explanations are mental constructs. Mental constructs are immaterial.
Therefor there are only mental explanations, not material explanations."
-That is a really weird syllogism. Mental constructs are the product of mental properties.
Mental properties are properties of matter. Mental properties might not have physical qualities but they are properties of the physical world(matter).

-"Is the theory of gravity natural? If we called it a supernatural theory, would it change anything about the basic theory? If we say gravity is physical or non-physical would it change anything about the basic theory?"

-Now you have a fundamental misconception on what is natural and what supernatural.
Properties of matter are all Natural Phenomena(Mental or physical or Energetic).
Definitions:
Natural(phenomenon) is any observable measurable event that occurs without the intervention of an thinking agent and without breaking established laws of nature.

Supernatural is the claim (because we haven't verified such type of event yet) suggesting that a specific event has occurred due to the innervation of a thinking agent or by breaking certain established laws of nature.

So, descriptive frameworks of Human beings are not Supernatural events.

-"Is time natural or supernatural?"
-The physical phenomenon of events and processes NOT happening All at once and on a different pace (time) is by definition a Natural phenomenon. The scale that humans use to quantify the above phenomenon is by definition part of nature.


-"Is math natural, unnatural, supernatural?"
-All human languages of logic are part of nature.



-"All that matters is if a theory or modal makes sense and works. While 'natural' doesn't add anything. And 'supernatural' adds even less, giving an unnecessary mystical air."
-Theories describe Natural processes. By knowing what theories work and the Verified Established Paradigm of Science we are able to distinguish a Natural from a Supernatural claim.

-"Experiment.
How do we test if what we are observing is natural, unnatural, or supernatural? Hold something, such as a leaf. And ask yourself...is this a natural object or a supernatural object?"
-As I said we need to know the current verified paradigm of science and the process by which an object came to be.
So when an "object" owes its existence to a process that is verified by science's paradigm...that is a natural object.
When a statement claims that an object or an advance property manifests in reality independent of a natural mechanism or the intervention of a hypothetical thinking agent ...that is a Supernatural claim!


-"It seems to me 'natural' is a negative term. It means: Not-magical. Or, not brought about intentionally.Otherwise, its meaningless, because everything has a nature."
-OF course it isn't meaningless. Humans always tried to explain the world around them by cutting corners and most of their explanations included agency, intention and purpose since they themselves are agents with intention and purpose. This approached was challenged only by Natural PHilosophy (Modern science). This is the first time we as a species Systematically studied and tried to understand Natural processes with objective methods. That enabled the run away success of our Epistemology for more than 500 years.
Still today, we have to "fight" with lazy intellectual attempts to introduce principles that are unfounded and in conflict with verified laws .
From the Scientific view, the supernatural resembles a huge bin where lazy intellectuals "through in" any phenomenon with an unknown ontology.

But again. Science(Methodological Naturalism) doesn't exclude the supernatural from being an actual realm. It only excludes it from its Frameworks because we currently don't have any tools or methods to verify and investigate that type of ontology.
The moment we verify our first event with a supernatural ontology Science's philosophical backbone will change from Methodological Naturalism to Methodological Supernaturalism.

-"The question is not 'Is this natural', but 'What is this thing's true nature' or 'What is this things essential nature, if it has one?'"
_-I think my above definitions and Science's current paradigm provide an excellent explanation of what is natural...and what is not.

Laws are our primitive made up solution to deal with problems(created by older "solutions") that we don't currently have a technological solution.

-"Is this undemocratic? Can this be justified in that it protects people and actions that are unpopular? "
-No, if we mean the same thing with the word democracy.
A constitution is "a set of rules" that protect peoples rights. Democracy is essentially a right which is "protected" by the constitution....but ignored by the undemocratic political systems.

-""That which..."?
Reality includes many "that which"!
Reality is a label of an abstract concept...not a label of a thing.
Reality as a concept accomodates every entity, process or property that manifest and interact in the realm we experience.
It has nothing to do with concepts like "absolute reality" or "ulitmate reality".
Its practical value is to distinquish things that are real within a known empirical system opposed to proposed imaginary entities.

I guess people accept their wives ....by force these days....

nice talking to you Corvus....

Logic and language have value only when we as users follow their "rules".
You are demanding to play tennis without the net...so I don't find any real value in this.
Thanks for your time. Cheers.

-"Sorry, all I can see is meaningless accusations keep insisting saying "you are wrong" " you are wrong"."
-Cognitive dissonance is known for "selective blindness".
You stated that you BELIEVE that "acceptance" is a forceful act while all those dictionary inputs show you that you are not using a common usage of that word. So you are factually wrong on how this word is used. That aside, I have already explained to you how I use the word "accept" in relation to belief so I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept.

-"I doubt if you have read a single philosophical books. Philosophy is not about blindly following what Google and those common dictionaries say."
-Let me help you a bit with this misconception of yours. In order to be a good philosopher you need to study Logic and the available epistemology...Being good in Chronicling only makes you propose other people's metaphysical beliefs and that is an argument from false authority fallacy. You need to be able to define your terms and to use definitions that are commonly accepted. Making up your own subjective definitions will never help you communicate your ideas.


-"Philosophy is not about blindly following what Google and those common dictionaries say."
-Sure philosophy is all about using logic on our current epistemology and science in order to understand what the available knowledge means about our understanding of the world.
Knowing how a word is used will help your statements carry some meaning.
Unfortunately you are bending and stretching words to mean something that isn't commonly accepted.
You render words meaningless...

-"If Google and those commoners' dictionaries are your bible, so be it. I don't see a point to continue any philosophical argument against the pseudo religious chantings. "
-You sound confused. I only point out that those dictionaries record HOW words are used by people.
Your definition of accept and belief is a subjective, isolated and useless without attaching your definition. A word's job is to communicate an agreed meaning so it can render our communication more easy. When a personal definition ads conflicting elements to an accepted common usage..then that definition is "wrong" or at best useless!

You are committing a classic trickery that many "pseudo" philosophers do and it has being highlighted by Mario Bunge in his book "Philosophy in Crisis".
Mario in his ten criticisms on bad philosophy identifies the Insular Obscurity as the main problem of the disconnection between ideas and real world facts. The main cause of it is his 10th point that he identifies it as the "Ivory Tower Syndrome". This can be seen in your writings by insisting in rejecting the importance of dictionaries and agreed common usages, by promoting unknown subjective definitions and by implying that a good philosopher is one who knows his "Chronicling" well (reads philosophical books) not the one who knows his epistemology,the rules of logic and shows respect to the common tools of language.

You keep denying a specific usage of the word accept in relation of a belief...while I am keep posting common usages of the word by many online dictionaries.
I quote.
Google
Accept
1.consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
"he accepted a pen as a present"
2.believe or come to recognize (a proposition) as valid or correct.
"this tentative explanation came to be accepted by the men"

Merriam Webster
Definition of accept
1a : to receive (something offered) willingly
b : to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added)

2: to give admittance or approval to accept her as one of the group
to recognize as true : believe or refused to accept the explanation

collinsdictionary
1.If you accept something that you have been offered, you say yes to it or agree to take it.
2.If you accept an idea, statement, or fact, you believe that it is true or valid.

macmillandictionary
1 take something offered
2 agree to a suggestion
3 believe something is true/right
4 recognize a bad situation
5 let someone join/be part of something
6 consider good enough
7 take a form of payment

So your insistence of rejecting this common usage is a factually wrong act.

-"Physically saying the other poster is "wrong", is not philosophical argument. "
-Its not a philosophical argument. Its an acknowledgement based on objective facts. Objective facts can be used directly to refute a claim....No philosophical argument is needed.