Not a philosophical paradox thought....
Can god cook a burrito so hot that he can not eat it?

-"Philosophers don't actually talk about life all that much. They've let biologists have that concept"
-I wish...

-"Again, professional philosophers don't all that much. Some do, but then some scientists are also religious too."
-First of all supernatural and religions are not the same. Anyone can be a philosopher. A payroll is not the criterion.

-"OK, I may have a look at that, thanks. You do know that some neuroscientists are panpsychists don't you? Christof Koch and Guilio Tononi for example. "
-Yes they are, but their metaphysical views are not part of the science. Science has high standards....a PhD alone doen't give our ideas a free pass..>Evidence are necessary.

Here is a caller of an Atheist show making the same ridiculous use of the term "supernatural".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MpQNtbfLyU
Maybe hearing the problem of your reasoning from an other mouth might help you get unstuck from the trap you are in.

As I said, the meaning of "non-natural" is derived from the definition of the root, "natural". Whatever demonstrates to us, that it cannot be classified as "natural", must be classed as non-natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well if you understand logic you would understand WHY we don't use "negations" to define things (especially those we ignore).
You are using are ignorance as an excuse to assume an "exotic" ontology.
Supposed the limited capabilities as an observer do not allow you to classify something.
Suppose we we found out a new natural mechanism and we need to adjust the definition to include it.
So its not wise or philosophical way to argue for other levels of reality..

-" You provided a definition, and I demonstrated the logical necessity of concluding that there is also non-natural things."
-You keep repeating this factually wrong statement when I constantly point that the fallacious nature of your "logical necessity". first of all you don't understand the meaning of the word "demonstration".
You don't demonstrate because you can not provide objective evidence for the premises of your arguments. You just claim and your claim are fallacious (argument from ignorance).
Why do we have keep repeating the same things again and again????
Why is this so difficult for you???

You can not claim that there are non natural things necessary to explain our universe, while you are unable to define and show which "exotic" properties those things have that make them necessary.

If "natural" is defined as the process which produces things from the building blocks, then the process which produces the building blocks is necessarily non-natural. "Different characteristics" means a different process. And to say "different characteristics but with the same ... properties" is basic contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

-lol.....i.e. a previously exited electron returning to its initial state produces a fundamental element of our world (photon). There is nothing supernatural about that process.
Sorry sir but you are way to ignorant on epistemology or philosophy to have a conversation with.
I understand that you are attached to your supernatural beliefs and I will allow you to keep it, but I can not waste arguing against kindergarten pseudo arguments.

Take care and find a suitable new age forum for your ideas. Philosophical forums are not suitable places to expand the theory of your beliefs.

Try the following lecture...https://youtu.be/YLvWz9GQ3PQ

Not really. Our first interaction was a shock to you when you find out that any philosophical inquiry needs to meet specific standards.....Since then you are meshing around finding excuses to avoid any real challenge.
Its your choice....

I get it, most of you have invested in specific metaphysical ideologies and people who mesh with your echo chamber are recognized as a treat so you feel then need to derail the conversation in an "unchallenging" state.

His arguments show a much different intention.

I won't try to explain why you're wrong. — Agent Smith

I am not sure that you could even if you tried.

-"

The brain is a simplifying apparatus. Telos? — Agent Smith

"
-No....our mental shortcuts create simplifications of reality.

Possible, very possible! Thanks for your comments. — Agent Smith

-Possibility needs to be demonstrated...not declared.

But knowledge needs a reference frame, a perspective, or a filter, to construct the empirical world with — Haglund

-Our empirical language and reasoning.

-"The knowledge of these is not part of empirical knowledge."
-Of course it is. Our symbolic language all the meaning and concepts within are developed by our interactions as toddlers with our environment.

Without this a priori knowledge you wouldn't even be able to start the gathering. — Haglund

-Even our a priori predisposition to syntactic composition, numerical symbols etc are the product of thousands of years interacting with our empirical world. There is a reason why toddles and animals are startled by a cucumber laying on the floor instead by a tomato....

The mechanisms by which human societies manage to accumulated knowledge through time and become part of a diachronic culture.

Unfortunately yes.

let me help you.
-"Folk with a science background who think they can "fix" philosophy are a dime a dozen"
-You are strawmaning my position. I am not here to fix philosophy, but to distinguish pseudo philosophy from philosophy...and my scientific background is irrelevant.

-"Not all knowledge is empirical."
-Strawman...I never made that claim. My position was always in favor of Objectivity not empiricism.

-"Applying empirical method everywhere inevitably fails."
-Never claimed that , an other strawman. Applying objective standards of evidence is how we evaluate our knowledge claims....allowing our arguments to become sound.

And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw man — Philosophim

-First of all I don't strawman your position, just because you put the words differently or say the same thing with different words that doesn't make my summation of your claims a strawman.
I took the time to address every single paragraph of your opening statement for this thread.
Your "philosophy" was really problematic and the explanations you offered as a response to my critique were even worse.
So I apologize but I am not going to invest my time dismantling an other topic when I already know the average quality of the arguments I will find in there...at least not today

Strawman. Science has nothing to do with the issues pseudo philosophers introduce in Philosophy. Their pseudo philosophy has issues with Logic and the actual goals of philosophy.

Not all knowledge is empirical. — Banno

-one more strawman. I always point to the objective nature of knowledge which happens to be empirical. Any new approach non empirical that can offer objective knowledge is welcome.

Applying empirical method everywhere inevitably fails. — Banno

-YOu are literally stating "using objective evidence everywhere is not a good idea"....sure, if lowering the standards of evidence is your way to introduce a faith based beliefs....that's the only way.

The result of considering too limited a variety of cases is clear in Nickolasgaspar's attempts to apply one view to all topics, the same error he made in the recent ethics thread; the scientism of applying that solution in the wrong place. When all you have is a hammer... — Banno

_the problem with your approach is that you have a hammer and a nail in front of you and you search for a screwdriver just because this hammer job "appears" to be difficult . You need to start working with what is available to you and then check if the job demands differnt tools.
This is the MN approach used by science and it has yield the best results so far.

yrmw!

from: Is Philosophy Stupid?© 2013
byRichard Carrier, Ph.D.

"What is pseudo-philosophy?

Philosophy that relies:
1. on fallacious arguments to a conclusion
2. on factually false or undemonstrated premises.
3. isn't corrected when exposed.


All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy."

So, you were exposed and you are not willing to correct your arguments or your vague language! I understand that acknowledging your mistakes in public is very difficult and I don't expect anything more than "I am the author and you don't understand" type of come backs. I only hope that by standards will see the problems in your reasoning and puzzle the pieces in my critique.
Take care and good luck to you and your worldview.

https://philpapers.org/s/god

there are many philosophers who are theists and they try to introduce their metaphysics views in philosophy. Just open a Philosophical Journal or browse these forums.

While I don't find this topic all that interesting, the point is that if we were in a simulation we would not be able to determine it one way or another. — Jackson

-How do you know? Do you understand whichclaim was challenged and what metrics were used to falsify it?

I'm the author. No, you don't. I welcome critique, but when the author informs you that you do not understand the argument and you are making false assumptions, listen. This is not your time for your ego or sense of self-superiority. If you're here for that, leave. If you want to discuss the issues in a respectable manner, then seek to understand as you critique please. — Philosophim

-The problem is that you don't understand the critique....
You just chose this trick to avoid challenging your misconceptions.
This discussion can never yield any philosophical conclusions because a. you don't have the data to make such metaphysical claims. b. you don't have a way to prove "god" possible so calling it plausible is nonsensical and a cheat c. Talking for non existence existing before existence is also nonsensical and d.Assume a first case in a cosmos when our current facts indicate no need for such a thing.

-"

I am not asserting non-existence is a state of being. If this is all about the semantics, I'm saying non-existence is a concept of reality, and we quantify that in relation to things that do exist. — Philosophim

"
-You didn't address my question (Again). Do you think that non existence was a state before the state of existence.....and if that was the case, how non existence can exist as a state????

This is fine and is not in disagreement with what I'm saying. — Philosophim

-Well you claimed that we assume the existence of space, while I pointed out to you that we can observe it and objectively quantify it....so how cam my objection be in agreement with your claim????
Of course we are in disagreement. You deny the existence or better you claim that we assume the existence of something that can be objectively quantified.!

What caused "state of being" to "be"? Why is there something instead of nothing? This does not avoid the logical point of the first cause. Again, if you are going to argue that a first cause is not necessary, please go to the argument I've linked and show why there. — Philosophim

1. nothing is existence is the default condition of the cosmos.
2. "why" questions are not meaningful questions when we try to address facts of Nature. Assuming purpose and intention in Nature is a teleological fallacy. You need to prove purpose/intention before searching for the goal behind those mental states.
3. Of course it does, when existence of the cosmos seems to be the default condition....how can any question about first cause be logical?
4. Your arguments do not help the case of first cause. first of all , as I said facts about the Cosmos render first cause irrelevant. Why is this so difficult for you? You can not ignore those facts and go on claiming that you have a logical argument! Reason is contingent to facts. You are reasonable only when your conclusions aren't in conflict with facts or founded on them.

Please read more carefully before reacting. I noted that the argument, the evidence you asked for, is in the other topic. This topic assumes you agree with the previous topic. If you do not, go there and prove it wrong. I'm not going to re-write the previous topic again. Again, I am not stating you need to accept that the previous topic is true, I'm stating that THIS topic assumes that you've accepted the previous topic as true. — Philosophim

-I am not sure you understand how the burden of proof works. If your argument was sound then you would point out the objective facts supportive of your premises. Its your burden to provide those facts not mine to prove your argument wrong. I can not accept your previous topic as true because you have to prove it to be true through objective evidence.
Have you done that?...or are we dealing with an other logically sound speculation?

Yes it does. I just noted that in the quote. If something exists forever, then it IS the first cause. That is because there is no prior causality that determines its existence. The rest of the argument I make in the OP follows from this. — Philosophim

First cause for what...for its existence? It can only be the medium where a first cause can act for our local representation of the universe to exist. Are you referring to that?
The cosmos seems to just exist without the need of a first cause. The cosmos on its own can not be the first cause. Fluctuations within its fabric can be identified as first cause, but this is not what you mean when you talk about non existence preexisting before existence...right?

No, it is the first cause. Taken entirely up the causal chain, we arrive at the point where we realize something has existed forever. There is no prior causality to this. Meaning the reason for its existence is not bound by prior laws, it just "is". If this confuses you, read the link to the first topic. — Philosophim

-So you use the term "first cause" as a vague concept even if within the cosmos there are specific events that we can be labeled as first cause. So you are not interested in finding out the actual first cause of our universes(or other universes) but you feel the need to stay closer to the religious or idealistic aspect of the term? How is this helpful, I wonder.
In science we see cosmos NOT as the first cause but as the medium that provides the conditions for a first cause to occur and the raw material for a process like our universe to be possible.

ncorrect. Current scientific fact does not negate my claim at all. You just haven't understood what a first cause was. Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility. I'm not stating its wrong, but you shouldn't state that its ascertained knowledge either. My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality. — Philosophim

-Of course it does. Science and logic render your claim nonsensical. There is no need of a first cause for the cosmos(existence) and non need to assume non existence as a state of whatever that is.

-"Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility."
-Of course it ISN'T Deduced, science is a useful tool based on induction...not on tautologies.
The concept of cosmos is based on what we know to be possible(existence). Non existence is not known to be a possible of the world.

-"My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality.["
-you keep making this vague claim but you fail to define "first cause for what''? For existence? if yes then No , first cause is not needed for something that is eternal.
Calling that eternal thing "first cause" is sophistry and word game. I already explained this in detail
You just decide to call "first cause what already is in existence. that is pretty lame IMHO.

How do you falsify the idea that the universe has been eternal? We can't very well travel back to the infinite past can we? In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality. We have a logical concept of it, but have never verified it exists. — Philosophim

-You can not falsify it. I am only pointing out the available indications we have about a cosmic substrate and how it solves the impossibility of a non existent state of being.

-"In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality."
-Correct its a concept, like non existence. The difference between those two concepts is that we have direct indications of a cosmic substrate when we have zero indications for non existence being a state before existence.!

-"I don't care if you point out the flaws in my argument. I encourage that. Remove the attitude is all. We must discuss without ego or self-superiority if we are to ascertain the truth. If ego is the focus, then the argument will be to determine that instead of the argument at hand."
- I will happily remove any attitude I have if you remove your sophistries and dishonest use of words.
I hope you listen to your suggestions and stop calling "first cause" something that seems already be in existence.
The fact is that we don't know whether something always existed and in what state, The issue I have with your "philosophy" is that you think you can arrive to logical conclusions when the idea of non existence itself is nonsensical.

-"No, I pointed out you misunderstood what the OP and its previous proof were, that there was no point in addressing it until you understood better."
-So you keep repeating this sophistry but you don't point out what exactly I didn't understand.
Do you think that non existence can ever be a state?
Do you believe that god can be a plausible explanation when you have never demonstrated that a first cause is necessary for the cosmos to exist or that god is possible?

1.That we don't need "artifacts" like Orgone energy or Élan vital to explain a pure biological process.
2. In 2017 a study was published showing that we are not living in a simulation.
3. The problem is that philosophers still believe that god is a philosophical subject...

I just found my old links on that study.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/physicists-find-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-complexity-rules-out-our-universe-as-a-computer-simulation

Thanks for your insight. What bothers me is that metaphysical naturalism seems to imply that all (not just some or many) of our thoughts and actions are mechanistic reactions to the initial state of the universe, laws of nature, etc. In the sense that while we take in information from those around us, the traditional view of agency is incorrect. — Paulm12

-I can not talk about the beliefs a metaphysical naturalist might holds. The only assumption Philosophical Naturalism brings forwards is an indefensible one (Only but the natural world exists). The rest you mentioned sound more like an attempt to oversimplify multiple aspects of the natural world.
We know that natural processes (biological) are necessary and sufficient to explain agency without the need to involve metaphysical concepts like determinism, physics, QM etc.

As a result, I don’t understand how people can be held “responsible” for their actions-they did not “choose” their actions but simply, as part of the physical universe, mechanistically responded to their initial conditions. — Paulm12

-People do make choices but we need to understand that their role as an agent is limited. You shouldn't bring up the physical universe, mechanistically responded to their initial conditions. First of all Brain function is not mechanistic, it is emergent, like the physical properties of this universe, So there is no value in pointing to cosmology when the phenomenon in question is biological.

-" Under this view, with an accurate picture of the initial state of the energy of the universe and the laws of nature, every thought and therefore “choice” could be predicted or simulated with 100% accuracy beforehand."
-Are you familiar with emergence? Pls watch the following brief video on the two main types of emergence and we can continue this discussion.
Strong & Weak Emergence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66p9qlpnzzY&t=

Why do philosophers talk about life when we have already answered that question. Why philosophers talk about the universe being a simulation when we have disproved that claim since 2017?
Why philosophers still talk about god or the supernatural when we have proven unnecessary and insufficient for more than 400 years?
There is plenty of scientific and philosophical work to be done on the brain and mind, but it doesn't have to do with the questions you may assume. Anil Seth has a great essay on AEON on why the hard questions in neuroscience have nothing to do with the pseudo "why" questions of the Hard problem of consciousness.

These are all conscious states though. Here: — bert1

yes, they are like there different stages of baldness.

-"[in-between states...????]"
-Why is it so difficult for you? You just listed the in between states ( half awaken, fully awaken, lethargic, distrusted,in a defuse state, in a focused state) and now you ask for those different states? Maybe you don't understand that a fully alerted state resemble a head full with hair and a lethargic a head with a few hair near its ears.....

-"[non-conscious state: knocked out(?), dreamless sleep(?), dead, being a rock, being a blastocyst] "
-....being completely bald...being conscious is not an option for rocks or blastocysts. Those do not have the capacity.

Yes Human brains have the capacity for numerical and moral judgments, grammar etc. After all we are the evolutionary product of billion of generations interacting empirically with their environment and its rules.

Both are evaluations we use on claims that are either just in agreement with facts or they also do display an instrumental value. We can use a claim for its instrumental value while we are aware of its epistemic conflicts. The statement "the sun rises in the east" might be a true statement, but epistemically it has many issues.(nothing rises, the sun isn't moving etc).
All the other aspects you mention (technique etc) is irrelevant to my point.

You can call it idealistic, but I am not discussing platonic ideals. I am discussing the concept of knowledge, as we use it daily. A guess is not considered knowledge until it has been verified, not ideally, but in the mundane, everyday English sense. — hypericin

-Ok we are in agreement on that.

I know how to use this technique, I know it has instrumental value, I know it doesn't match the world ontologically. The can all be true, justified claims. — hypericin

_well I can not say that I know how this comment is relevant to my point that "knowledge" and "truth" do not always overlap. "I know" and "I use a specific knowledge" are two different things.

You missed the point then. — Agent Smith

No the point is fallacious.

Sometimes it'll do, sometimes it just won't. The trick is to know when it will and when it won't. — Agent Smith

-the existence of "circles" prove that we tend to simplify aspects of reality through idealistic concepts.
You are referring to an irrelevant aspect.(whether it is useful...while I address what our brain does).

However, most philosophers seem happy & content! — Agent Smith

Again you always seem to miss the aspect of the thing in question.....nice talking to you agent smith...

Agreed, but you don't have enough data to assume that non-existence cannot be either. Space is assumed in everything we measure. What you're proposing is an ether, which has not been proven either. — Philosophim

-Well read again what you wrote. "non-existence cannot be either." You literary put "non existence" and "be" in the same sentence. If we are talking about any type or state of being then we are not talking about non being (non existence).
"Space" is not assumed. Its is a quantifiable phenomenon in reality. (things don't exist all at the same spatial location).
I don't know what "proven" means to you but we Objectively verify spatial qualities in everything around us every single time we interact with them. Any existential claim SHOULD be demonstrable by the same standards we use to verify spatial qualities in things in existence.

No, non-existence would be a lack of being. The opposite of the state of being. I am not introducing the supernatural here, other people are. If you believe a first cause is supernatural, I'm noting it is a natural logical necessity. — Philosophim

-This is exactly what I pointed out in your first comment....you can not state that non existence is a state of being because its the lack of being.
Well god is a supernatural "first cause". But again for first cause to be a logical necessity, it needs the facts to make it necessary. As far as we can tell, its unnecessary since a state of being is the only state that it can "be".

No, it is not a theological one. This is the philosophical topic of what we can logically conclude if at least one first cause is a necessary logical requirement. Origin stories are often tied in with a philosophical God, of which I use here. This is in no way theological, as I am not attributing to any one theology in this discussion. — Philosophim

-To be precise its only a theological when you assume the supernatural to be real and to play the role of the first cause.
The problem is bigger because our current facts do not justify such a discussion on a first cause. So we are dealing with a pseudo philosophical, begging the question fallacy that is in direct conflict with current knowledge about the state of the cosmos and Logic.

See here for the proof. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 This topic assumes you agree with the proof. If you do not agree with the proof, feel free to put your response there and I'll discuss. This topic is intended with the idea that you accept a first cause is logically necessary. — Philosophim

-I asked you how can you prove these claims and you point me to a topic with the condition that I need to accept what you need to prove!!!!
Its not reasonable to demand from others to assume what you NEED to demonstrate objectively to be true. That's circular reasoning....

And yes to both. If a cosmic field always existed, what caused it to always exist? The answer is, "It just is". It is a first cause, and needs no prior causality for the explanation of its existence. — Philosophim

-The answer is We don't know and we can not assume or draw an conclusions from something we can not investigate. If something exists for ever, (a quantum noise with fluctuations) it doesn't demand a first cause. What it needs a first case is processes that rise from those fluctuations and their build ups, like our universe.

If something exists eternally, then it is not caused by anything prior. That itself would be a first cause. And again, your denial of non-existence is not logical, only a belief. — Philosophim

-Correct an eternal energetic cosmos needs no first cause to exist. It isn't a first cause...its the cause of existence in general.
Now I don't deny non existence. I point out the nonsensical claim of non existence as state of "being". I don't know what " non existence existing prior of existence" even means...and I don't pretend to know.
Can you elaborate?
I don't know why this sounds logical to you!

This is a common problem among atheists who think I'm making an argument for God. Please do not let your emotions prevent you from reading and understanding the entire topic. Read the referenced topic if you believe it is illogical for me to conclude a first cause is logically necessary. — Philosophim

-Since I addressed every single paragraph you already know that I read and understood the entire topic. Again I am only pointing out that The god hypothesis can not be consider plausible if one first demonstrates it to be possible. The examples I gave show this problem with other "philosophical artifacts" that were believed to be plausible explanations but turned out to be impossible or at least u necessary.

Logical necessity is demonstrated with abstract logic. Existential necessity is demonstrated objectively. I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary. — Philosophim

And this is what forces us in to errors. Existence is demonstrated objectively through verifying Necessity and Sufficiency. The concept of first cause or god are neither necessary or sufficient plus our current knowledge render them irrelevant at best.
-" I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary."
-Sure and I point out to you that our current scientific facts render that claim illogical since an eternal cosmos solves the problem created by the statement " non existence existing before existence" plus it is in agreement with what we measure in the cosmic background.

What we logically conclude may not exist when tested, I think that is a given all can agree on. If you want to understand why I conclude a first cause is logically necessary, again, reference the OP where I go over that logic. — Philosophim

-The problem is that by using logic independent of available facts, we can conclude at anything we want , based on our biases and predispositions.
But as have stated again and again you have a huge problem with "non existence...existing" and an other problem with a cosmic energetic background existing parallel to our universe that renders "first cause" irrelevant at best...or a begging the question at worst.
Nothing in your argument is in agreement with logic or available facts so I don't know why you insist that its "logically necessary".

The idea I presented is the most simple and necessary explanation. You can't just claim I'm not using Occum's Razor here, please explain why you believe there cannot be more than one first cause under the logic I presented? — Philosophim

-You have a bigger problem because our current facts do not demand a first cause for the state of existence. You multiply entities that are unecessary to explain existence.

The falsifiability of any one thing that is claimed as a first cause, is that it has something prior that caused it. — Philosophim

-I am not sure you understand what it means for a claim to be falsifiable. You need to present a way that we can test and objectively falsify your metaphysical claim on first cause.

All I noted is that while there are falsifiable states, for some, it may be impossible to test. That is not due to a lack of falsifiability, it is due to a lack of information and testing capability. Concluding our limitations in the ability to test something is a fine and valid point in logic and science. — Philosophim

-Yes...those are the reasons why your claim is UNFALSIFIABLE! Again I am not sure you fully understand this criterion.

This argument was not done with scientific knowledge. This was simply the logical consequence of examining what a first cause would entail. — Philosophim

-this is why I pointed out that that the arguments is pseudo philosophical....because it excluded the second most important step in any philosophical inquiry....that is Knowledge/Science/Physika.

-"Stop lecturing."
-I will answer ...No, I will try to see the huge problem in your reasoning and why an unnecessary artifacts is not logically necessary

You are making a lot of assumptions and mistakes by not understanding the argument. Seek to understand first please, then feel free to critique — Philosophim

I fully understand the argument and I stress out why it is a pseudo philosophical one.
Its lack Epistemic value, Up to date scientific information, weird concepts (non existence existing before existence) etc.

The rest of your points irrelevant, because you are making points without understanding the argument. Once you examine the referenced OP (and possibly comment there) and demonstrate that you also understand the OP of this argument, then we'll see if the rest of your points even need to be addressed. — Philosophim

-You are dodging the most important critique of your arguments and this is why your reply was so problematic. I hope this points help you understand the gaps in your reasoning and why this is NOT a philosophical topic.

If someone told me they were going to duplicate and replace my brain with a mechanical one (and dispose of the organic one), I would consider that death. However, if they could replace it incrementally and guarantee I was conscious the whole time, I don't consider that death, Does anyone else share this intuition? — RogueAI

-I would say....someone would be meshing with you. We currently don't have a way to replicate the structure, function and stored "information" of a biological brain. No matter what method you choose to proceed, you are dead.

If we assume that its was technically possible....at some point we will need to replace the Ascending Reticular Activating System ....and that would be the moment where you are going to lose all your conscious states.
When your new mechanical "ARAS" is up and running, Its when you will be conscious again.
The problem after that will have to do with all the other inputs that produce your conscious content and how your Central Lateral Thalamus connects all the different areas of your brain with every conscious state you experience.
I guess I have to say, good luck being yourself again....because the chemical setup and function/connectivity of your brain plus all your life's inputs are what generate your conscious content, yourself, your memories,your subjective preferences etc.

There is no reason why the world is imperfect. Imperfect is an idealistic concepts we humans made up to point out flaws that piss us off.

-"The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? "
-Imperfection is an unnecessary qualifier. Humans have being struggling against nature and their own nature. Perfection is a goal we strive for and we project it on to nature as if it is possible for anything perfect to exist especially in the eyes of subjective observers.
Our ability to produce minimalistic concepts is evidence on how demanding for our brains is to hold complex details in concepts. We need those concepts to apply shortcuts in order to "survive".
A circle is a mental shortcut representing a simplified version of all round things we have ever experienced in our world...until Cad and DTP programs brought them in to our lives. lol
Why using any simple concept that appears weird to us as an excuse to make a magical claim about the nature of our existence?
I get it, humans need their lives to have meaning in a cosmic scale so they need an ideology that can remove them from this finite world and place them in a magical realm where everything is perfect....even our expiration date in there is a....circle.
Again a friend of mind reminded me that Philosophy is an exercise of frustration...not a buffet of comforting ideas to put in our mental plates...

Well you should avoid the bible ONLY if you are against Slavery, Incest, Human and Animal Sacrifices, Genocides, Situational Ethics, Gay rights and ...life, providing your daughter as a sex toy to strangers, keeping prisoners of wars as your sex slaves, Prostitutes that lust the donkey like genitals and emissions of their lovers and of stories about circumcisions and how you can use it as an excuse to kill neighboring populations..... Fun stuff !

I am not sure if I have posted a comment before in this thread but the answer is simple. Watch a toddler...when we come to this world, we know nothing. Our culture expanding through time, provide us with all the axioms and principles etc realized by previous generations.
ALL our knowledge is empirical. All are axioms are tested empirically every time we use them. Even logic has rules that are grounded in the empirical ''face" of the reality we experience.
You won't be able to point to "a priori, self-evident, intuitive, obvious, and common sense." without first experiencing and interacting with other members empirically.

Btw on intuition, Nobelist Kahneman won his Award by exposing the untrustworthy nature of intuition.

How lamentable it is that this is parricide. — Agent Smith

You don't really enjoy tight corners...right?

As far as what I wrote is concerned, I'm serving in the capacity of a conscientious reporter. — Agent Smith

-Well that is more of a biased report. As an honest reporter you need to dig up the reasons why Science and Philosophy NEEDS to keep theologians and pseudo philosophers out from their body of knowledge and wisdom.
It took us thousands of years to construct and test our logical and empirical methods of evaluations and your argument now is " lets jeopardise the purity of our epistemology by being kind to magical thinkers and pseudo intellectuals?"...when we already know the extent they went to keep our knowledge within their superstitious beliefs.

Its not fair to demand respect from others when "you"(not you specifically) want to play tennis...without the net. You are not a tennis player...just because you hold a racket.

Just remember, the way philosophers speak disparagingly about theology and theologians and dismiss it as woo-woo is exactly how scientists treat philosophy and philosophers! — Agent Smith

Its neither Science's or Philosophy's problem.
Bad Philosophers and Theology allow scientists and good philosophers to "rub facts in their face".
Again Science and Philosophy have pretty clear goals. The production of Knowledge and Wisdom. Bad philosophy and theology provide none of the above.

I agree. But the narrative doesn't need fact based. The narrative can even shape the facts. — Haglund

-That is magical thinking. Sure narrative can guide us to specific facts but bad narrative can make up facts (god beliefs).
Religions is a great example on how faith based narrative creates a distorted picture of the world and its facts.
i.e. you are denying an obvious facts....wisdom needs input in order to be credible.
You have strong beliefs that doesn't allow you to see and accept simple facts.

I said it can be based on knowledge. But not necessarily. — Haglund

You can not have your pie and eat it too. Either your wisdom is founded on knowledge or it can be empty deepities without foundations.
(coincidences are not impossible).

That's a dogma. Well, actually no. It's a false claim — Haglund

lol no it isn't its a condition for a claim to be wise. Wisdom demands data in order to arrive to an informed conclusion BY DEFAULT.
You seem to cherry pick my lines....you tend to ignore those that prove the problematic nature of your belief.
Again its a good reason why older people are wiser than toddlers, or those who reflect upon their observations or their acquired knowledge etc...this is not debatable.