"your answer"

u9y

Essentially, a simple comparison fails short to capture the relations these - and all other religions - have. Aside from maybe scientology, I don't think there's any religion that hasn't been influenced by some other school of religion.

If you want to get "theologically serious" about this, you'll want to look at a couple different points of origin and track them historically to see how they influenced each other and progressed along the way:

1. Ancient Mesopotamian Culture telling old stories, taking drugs and singing songs (Sumerian Myths), turning to a vast body of Jewish scriptures (Tanach), turning to a cult following of a Guru figure (Jesus), turning to humanitarian doctrine (Christianity).

2. Ancient Indus Valley Civilization telling old stories, taking drugs and singing songs (Vedas),
turning to a vast body of Vedic scriptures (Hinduism), turning to a cult following of a Guru figure (Gautama), turning to humanitarian doctrine (Buddhism).

3. The syncretion of the two in Greco-Roman culture within the context of previous influence by other systems (most prominently; Egyptian)

I’m going to need a stronger argument to be convinced of their compatibility.. Can any of you provide a stronger argument for how someone could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? — tryhard

However, to answer your question, there's no need to become "theologically serious". They are compatible simply by not excluding each other. A practicing Buddhist checks all the boxes of a virtuous Christian, all the while making little to no assumptions or claims about God. Rather than providing a "strong argument" for why they would be compatible, what is a single argument that they wouldn't be?

I feel these discussions usually fail to grasp the scope of "omnipotency".
I don't think we can begin to understand what omnipotency entails, because it would include changing the laws of reality on a whim.

So when saying something along the lines of:

If a being is omnipotent, he can live forever. If he cannot live forever, then he is not omnipotent.
If he kills himself, he stops being omnipotent, so it is impossible thing to do. Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist? — Corvus

My simple answer is: An omnipotent being could just as easily reside in paradoxical states as it can reside in coherent states. The problem here is that human logic is applied. For an omnipotent being, it makes no difference whether something is possible or impossible - in fact it would be the very thing that decides over such things.

the difference here amounts to the difference between a descriptive rule and a prescriptive rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

The differentiation between "descriptive rule" and "prescriptive rule" is fantastic. :ok:

We could also say the difference boils down to epistemological demand as well, which is why one method raises no questions, while another only raises questions.

A descriptive rule faces the typical scrutiny of any epistemological consideration along the lines of subject/object matters. That's the interpretation part. Descriptions require relations, a context in which they can be established. We could say a truly complete description of anything would require us to describe the entire world as context alongside with it.

A prescriptive rule on the other hand doesn't make any demand to knowledge at all. It is a dictation of how things must be. The context - as far as I can think - is always already implied by engaging with the rule itself (context of life, math, games, society, law, language etc)

The difference between these two interpretations of "obeying a rule" is the difference between judging the cause, and judging the effect. Wittgenstein opts for the latter, making "obeying a rule" something which is observed after the fact, rather than something decided prior to the act, in the sense of interpreting a prescriptive rule, and acting accordingly. So the prescriptive rule is not relevant to Wittgenstein's position on rule following, and we must be careful when reading him not to misunderstand. — Metaphysician Undercover

I actually think that's exactly what Wittgenstein himself is trying to get across. To not misunderstand one for the other.

It can be seen that there is a misunderstanding here from the mere fact
that in the course of our argument we give one interpretation after
another;(descriptive rule) but that there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which is exhibited in what we call "obeying the rule" (prescriptive rule) — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein out of context is problematic. There are a bunch of paragraphs leading up to this statement, that are very helpful in understanding what Wittgenstein is on about. Most importantly the paragraph just before that sentence, which gives a practical example:

200. It is, of course, imaginable that two people belonging to a
tribe unacquainted with games should sit at a chess-board and go
through the moves of a game of chess; and even with all the appropriate
mental accompaniments. And if n>e were to see it we should say they
were playing chess. But now imagine a game of chess translated
according to certain rules into a series of actions which we do not
ordinarily associate with a game—say into yells and stamping of feet.
And now suppose those two people to yell and stamp instead of playing the form of chess that we are used to; and this in such a way
that their procedure is translatable by suitable rules into a game of
chess. Should we still be inclined to say they were playing a game?
What right would one have to say so? — Ludwig Wittgenstein

201. This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Do note that Wittgenstein employs the term "was" not "is". This is by no means a coincidence or mistake. The paradox was but is no more, Wittgenstein resolves it in his very next sentence.

The answer was: if everything can be made out
to accord with the rule, then it can also be made out to conflict with it.
And so there would be neither accord nor conflict here.
It can be seen that there is a misunderstanding here from the mere fact
that in the course of our argument we give one interpretation after
another; as if each one contented us at least for a moment, until we
thought of yet another standing behind it. What this shews is that
there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which
is exhibited in what we call "obeying the rule" and "going against it"
in actual cases. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

The entire point of Wittgensteins argumentation was that "interpreting a rule" and "obeying a rule" are two completely different things.

202. And hence also 'obeying a rule' is a practice. And to think one
is obeying a rule is not to obey a rule. Hence it is not possible to obey
a rule 'privately': otherwise thinking one was obeying a rule would be
the same thing as obeying it. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Now, let's take your numerical example:
From a 2, 4, 8 sequence we could interpret all kinds of pattern (rule) that this sequence follows - but as it has been established, our interpretation of the rule has nothing to do wether we're obeying it or not.

But what exactly is our rule then? Where does it come from? How can we confirm it?
The rule, in the case of such a sequence, is determined by the author. They are the ones that write down the numbers partaining to a pattern. The only way for us to know wether our interpretation of such a sequence is truthful to it's rules is to ask the one who made the rules if we are correct or not.

In other simplified words:
The only way to know if you're playing chess or if you're only doing something that looks like playing chess is consulting the rulebook of chess.

No. Because you have no choice but to pay it. Charity is given solely at your own discretion. — Tim3003

And you don't see the similarity between that and introducing any form of social norm pertaining to when, how much and how often we should donate?

So what did you mean here? — Tim3003

Charity as a moral principle, as something that is spoken or unspokenly demanded by humans partaking in society. If you make it a rule, it no longer is at "your own discretion". Even if it isn't a law - there is very much such a thing as social pressure.

1)Really? Do we not all agree - or more to the point 'feel' that we have a responsibility to act in the face of poverty, mistreatment, disability - ie to help those less fortunate than ourselves? — Tim3003

No, I don't think we agree. I think the ideal to make the world a better place is a bittersweet pill. I believe we need to differentiate between supporting those in need, which is certainly noble and wise, and between making others do certain things or act in certain ways. Because the later will always result in problems. In fact, every serious crime against a human being that is set in law could essentially be summed up to "doing something to or making an individual do something they do not want".

I think the most important responsibility in life is to tend to ourselves. And if we do so in a sensible way, we'll nourish our environment just as well. If there is a way to "save the world", I could only imagine it to be tending to the ones closest to us in a loving and caring manner. You can't bring any joy to the world by telling people what to do or what not do. But smiles and laughter are infectious. So we should perhaps take inspiration from good ol' Covid and start by infecting all those around us.

2) Why? Because anyone giving must be doing it to seem charitable, rather than because they are? — Tim3003

No. But that's not what I said.

Surely it's the act that counts; not how it 'seems'. — Tim3003

Yes. But what makes the act count? I mean most states have a social system, which is funded by the money produced from taxes off the people. Is that not charity?

I don't think giving away money could ever solve the problem. Sure, I regularly donate to the beggars in front of my local supermarkets - but there's someone freezing out front not just at my local markets but all across the nation. And not just across the nation but across the globe. This is a structural problem. It's not solved by money, it's caused by money. Bill Gates does a lot of good things. But Bill Gates also pays less taxes by donating to his own foundations.

3) See 1). As we differ over morals, you could say any attempt to codify law is impossible - you could say murder cannot be penalised because some think it deserves the death penalty, some prison, some community service.. Society has to agree a compromise acceptable to voters. Maybe the same is possible for charitable donations? — Tim3003

Personally, I have a problem with a great majority of the laws that are codified as is. Our law books are ridiculous abominations from a history of laws that in large parts were equally as ridiculous. I don't think our society needs more of those rules and obligations.

As I said, I don't think money is a solution to the problems of the world. And I count these monetary charitable donations among those things. No sum of money will fix anything if humanity doesn't change it's mindset.

In fact there are many people that think ethical positions all fall under a form of reciprocal altruism. If you play nice with others, you benefit. — Tom Storm

Yeah, that's the idea I subscribe to.

I think if one is to follow the concept of selfishness through to the extreme, they'll eventually have to come to the conclusion that the best selfish thing one can do is to indeed work with others.

Well that's never going to work: define 'need'.

Do you 'need' your mobile phone? I'd say 'no'. You might say 'yes'. All you 'need' is oxygen, food, warmth, shelter and human contact. Following that ideal we'd all follow St Francis.. — Tim3003

I mean "need" exactly as you understand it. Necessities of life which without, you would die. But again; this is just one of many moral ideals. It's not realistic, I know that as well as you do.

Here's the three vital points I see to this debate:
Morals are individual and differ from person to person.
Charity as a moral principle quickly undermines the moral act in itself.
Social norms for charity as a moral principle is impossible due to the different ideas and interpretations about morals.

Don't we need some sort of agreed social norm by which to gauge and perhaps adjust our individual and very unreliable whims? — Tim3003

I don't think we do. Personally, I'd want less social norm, not more.

From an idealistic viewpoint I think, the appropriate question is not "How much do I give?" but "How much do I need"?
Then proceed to give away everything you don't need - because why would you keep it if you don't need it?

But that's just an idealistic worldview. Realistically, no one does give away everything. Realistically people like possessions and like to have a reserve.

The Unreal: Doesn't exist at all, even in a mind. — hypericin

The Unreal is a bit elusive, isn't it? How do we know something like that exists - as soon as we think about it, it exists in mind, no?

What do you think about this framework?


It's probably the most obvious division but personally I find it more intuitive. Can the categories you describe fit onto that model?

Just listened to the first episode - very intersting podcast, looking forward to listening to more! There's a lot to sink into here. If anyone hasn't guessed by my name, I'm intrigued by Hermeticism myself.

To quote the podcast:

Featuring the thoughts of some of the greatest philosophical and scientific minds of history
alongside the fevered imaginings of highly strung and perhaps slightly unhinged speculative thinkers.

Sums up pretty nicely why so much shade is being thrown on the subject of esotericism by many. It's a largely misunderstood area of knowledge, which suffers from being corrupted by many iterations of different historical periods of thought.

Magic in itself, to my understanding was once more like a principle rather than a practice. The understanding that the universe operates under certain laws, that there is cause and effect, and that operating these principles in a certain way may lead to a certain desired outcome. But the aspects of philosophical principle and practiced ritual, which followed an entirely different purpose, were eventually merged and resulted in that kind of ritual-magic practiced by Aleister Crowley and alike.

Part of the significance that I want to look at or for in the thread discussion is how the perennial new-age spiritual revival relates to recent, particularly right wing, history, from The Nazis to to QAnon. — unenlightened

I think this in part also explains the popularity of the occult amongst authoritive figures. They bought into the idea and believed it to be a potential way to secure their desires and more power. Who knows how deep Hitler himself dove into the occult? The only thing that is clear are the reasons why he did it. He wanted to exploit any possibility that could lead him to his goals.


I think there is much to be gained from inspecting the long culture of esotericism. But as Hermes himself may put it: It is vital to separate the subtle from the gross. Personally I believe, albeit picturesque, works like the Corpus Hermeticum remain surprisingly accurate in their metaphysical descriptions even with the modern insights of science.

Why do you think Aristotle made humanity too dependent on magnanimous men from-which one would derive some privileged status over your brothers and sisters, as seen in the form of master-slave relations or slavery to state it explicitly (according to Russell)? — Shawn

Well, the worldview of Aristotle, when it comes to political order, boils down to a question that in modern society is virtually overasked - are you left or right?

Because these are the defining characteristics of these political world views, are they not? The Right firmly believing that an authoritive body of government is necessary and a rule of the people would result in chaos. The Left firmly believing that the people should be the ones ruling and that an authoritive body of government will only be abused.

Both of these worldviews have merit in their own right if you ask me. Both raise points that are very valid. But at least in recorded history, I don't think there ever was a culture that was organized in a complete leftist fashion. I think we can consider all the actual democracies were not inclusive enough to count as being without central authoritive body. In all of modern democracy, the requirements seem inclusive at glance but realistically the only way to run a succesful government campaign is to either have a rich political party behind you or being rich yourself.

Ruling class only ever changed in form, not function. And it has been with us for a long time. Long before the Greeks, probably long before written history. When has humanity ever been without a king? Aristotle can hardly be blamed. There seems to be something inherently enticing in inequality from the stance of power. A sensation that likely has been accompanying humanity since the age of monkey.

In the world abroad from online boards, I am a somewhat passionate artist too. I don't earn any money with it but some years ago me and some buddies officially registered an art association and we occassionally do street art projects and such.

Now while I essentially take this as a serious hobby, some of my friends decided they want to make art their carreer choice and enrolled in art university. The consensus among them became pretty clear pretty soon: They universally hate the economic world that is art. It is full of pretentious elitism and hardly makes any sense at all. The only thing that matters in that world is the people you know.

Unfortunately, they still view it as necessary to take part in this silly play if they "want to make a living from art." and I'm afraid with cheap mass-produced art available out of printers and discounter stores, they are right in believing that most of them wouldn't be capable to cover their living expenses outside of this artificial economic system.

The technology that is being used for this tool is commonly refered to as "machine vision". It's a vital part in many production companies.

The principle behind it is very simple - an algorithm compares any given image with set patterns and shapes that are saved in a database (filling this database with information is the "machine learning" part). In this case, the program compares the shapes you draw with a database of shapes that are equally as rudimentary as the ones you draw. This database of shapes in turn are linked to a database with real life references, which are used by an algorithm to fill out the exact shapes you drew.

It's cool as a tool - but I don't find the principle behind it particularly impressive. If anything, it showcases how simple function can lead to impressive results.

I've never had any difficulties like that. I engage in philosophical topics with friends, colleagues and strangers quite frequently.

Philosophy practiced as a field of study and considered as a whole is quite convoluted - but human experience is relatively similar, so even if they haven't read all the books and haven't contemplated all the thoughts, by formulating the right words in the right order to an individual, any level of understanding can be achieved - even in the most "lazy" mind.

It depends on the Ayes Bees and Seas being defined as substances or properties, right. — Tobias

Not quite. It's just that the logical statement
"All seas are bees",
on it's own doesn't allow the conclusion that the two things are equivalent. It doesn't explain their relation any further than "All seas are bees" - we don't know whether:
"All seas are bees and all bees are seas." or "All seas are bees but not all bees are seas."

I don't think there's anything inherently special about humans - in another world, some other primate could have just as easily be that funky cognitive monkey that became dominant on the planet.

Ultimately our current progress and position in the natural hierachy is due to our tool sets and amassed knowledge, provided by our complex communication in the form of language. That was made possible by the lifestyle enabled through agriculture, which in the long run happened due to another time-saver; fire.

The question for me is how much luck was involved in those two discoveries/inventions. Was it inevitable due to some natural sense of scientific curiosity? Or were the greatest breakthroughs of mankind a fluke, which in the end gave birth to that very curiosity we do seem to possess?

Seeing how the universe spawns humans and humans spawn language, shouldn't it be that "language behaves like universe" rather than the other way around?

On more reflection after 7 years revisiting this topic to update my spreadsheets, it appears to me the only rational justification for killing in self defense should be that one is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self defense. — ernest

The greatest issue I see in regard to self-defense and arms is the factor of escalating threat.

A practical case by case demonstration to display what I mean:

Someone attacks me verbally. This is the lowest level of threat and I do not even have to react to it.

Someone attacks me physically with their fists. This is a somewhat mild level of threat. The damage the fist blows cause is relatively harmless and I have adequate possibility to fight back with my bare hands.

Someone attacks me with a knife. This is the point, the adaption of tools, where threat levels start to really escalate. There is a strong imbalance between me and my assailant if I do not have a tool of equal magnitude. Fighting back with bare hands is not adequate at all and will lead to serious injury that may end up fatal.

Then we reach the threat level of a gun which is off the chart even compared to a knife. Essentially what we have at hand is a tool that is capable of delivering instantenous and remote fatality. The only adequate possibility to counter such a threat level is having a gun yourself. That's not the entire problem though; Where melee weapons do have this window for me to react whether a potential threat will actually attack or not; guns do not. With a gun, if I do not act first, it's usually too late to re-act.

A liberal gun law in this sense is just a feedback loop. If everyone can get a gun, everyone needs a gun to protect themselves. If someone shows up with a gun, I need to shoot them with a gun if I don't want to be shot myself.

This basic principle of threat escalation does work on a larger level as well. It's essentially what led to the cold war.

The framework I've adopted to resolve the duality between objective truth and relativism is one of "layered context".

Essentially, for every subjective layer of context, there is one objective truth. The same layer of context can never contradict itself - but individual layers may contradict each other to any degree.

This framework doesn't really help in determining if there is some objective truth at all - but it does allow to see eye-to-eye with any individual and engage in meaningful discussion regardless of the given statement and it's implications.

A theory of mine in correspondence to "Similarity":

If we are to recognize evolution as progressive and self-improving, we must realize that even if a species is on a dying branch of the tree, it is connected to what is the essential pillar of life, a stem that leads all the way down to the most basic principle of life.

At the bottom of this evolutional history, we theoretically must find what is the transition between inanimate matter and living organisms. Of course, the details of this transitions are a mistery - but I propose that before "unliving" can go to "living", inanimate must first become animate.

How can something inanimate become animate? By outside force. And these forces that do animate are a fundamental part of the universe; gravity, electromagnetism, strong force and weak force. What happens when these forces do their work is that the object that is being worked on inevitably has to react. As per the fundamental laws of the universe, the energy radiating from the universe does not get lost, instead it transforms the objects it interacts with in one way or the other.

If we inspect the interval at which this work occurs, we realize it is cyclical in nature due to the makeup of the universe (think orbitals). This means that the reaction, the transformation that occurs due to the laws of physics, occurs cyclical as well - a feature apparently inherent in life. This continuous process eventually leads to higher "energy levels" which result in ever more complex life-forms.

With such an understanding, phrases like
"As above, so below" or even "God created man in his own image" may display a great deal of profound understanding.

Man:God = Life:Cosmos

While what you say of sophistry in general appears agreeable to me, your general stance on theism ignores many of the details concerning the topic of religion.

For instance the idea of god itself.

I know there are no gods because if they ever existed they would be in our midst, physically. — universeness

You deny the existence of god on the basis of not existing physical - yet many religious systems do make no claims of any such entity existing. Many of the eastern doctrines view god more akin to a concept - a mysterious force that pervades all beings that makes no claim to an identity of it's own. It's only due to the talking god of the abrahamic tradition that we're so used to "god as an entity".

If there were gods why are they not helping that which they created and therefore would be responsible for. — universeness

Who ever said that god cares about humans?
The problem with anti-theists is that almost none of them ever read the source material they are trying to refute. They take the most mainstream understanding that can be found among the common populace - who to the largest degree have no idea about the material as well.

In the Bible it's not humanity as a whole that is favoured by god but the sons of Israel.
Everyone who wasn't a child of israel, when the occassion allowed it, was brutally annihilated by that very same god. Reading and understanding the Torah let's us ponder whether any cruelty in the name of religion was much more inspired by tribalism and kinship, rather than divinity itself.

The wrath of god(s) appears to be a more common topic than their mercy.
But here's the thing: In most if not all of these occassions, the blame is put on the humans.
It's one of the central themes in religion; if humans act in a harmful and moraly question way, they get punished by god. And if a society acts in a harmful and moraly questionable way for an extened time, their whole civilization gets wiped out.

This alone should be reason to question the idea that religion itself is at fault here. If the scriptures that are the basis for the belief do not condone such behaviour, how can the scriptures be the basis of that very behaviour?

It's only ever the rotten individual that searches for a disguise to his abuse of power. Religion is an easy excuse - but we need not look beyond men to find "something greater than men". A group identity suffices to justify any kind of cruelty, which is perfectly evident in nationalism. A common religion then is merely used as an additional element to cement the idea of "us" versus "them" - but it's by no means a requirement.

Religion then is merely a tool that the tyrant may misuse to his advantage.
But if we are to say that this makes religion a bad thing, then we must curse science as well - as it gave the tyrant a much greater set of tools than religion ever did.

I don't see science answering these questions anytime soon, so I think the continued failure of science to say whether machine x is conscious or not is catastrophic to the question of whether science will ultimately explain how unconscious matter can produce conscious states. — RogueAI

Relative on human time line, the current level of scientific sophistication has been around for a second and has already produced compelling evidence and insights. Philosophy and religion on the other hand, have been revolving around this very topic for some time now - but to this day we're circling around the topic with no definitive answers.

The main issue shared between both science and philosophy is that objectively, we can not get past our subjectivity. We can't put our finger exactly on our subjectivity either though. The sciences are meticulous in trying to circumvent this by collecting quantifiable data. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. Ultimately, I don't think there's a way around employing smoke and mirror to see past the self. Philosophy in common dialogue form is not unlike this at all - but ultimately philosophy relies on personal insights rather than reproducable measurements.

There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience — Thomas Nagel, the Core of Mind and Cosmos

Indeed, there can not be a physical description of consciousness itself because it's not a thing with physical properties. But it can be described from the perspective of function. Now here we do have physical processes that can be described with physical properties.

But ultimately I think the reason that the "subjective essence of experience" can not be captured by descriptions is the same why you can't see my thoughts directly in the brain as I've elaborated to Harry Hindu - consciousness consists of experience and in order to know consciousness, you must experience it.

The argument then goes if we do learn everything that is to be physically known about mind, body and process, we can take these electrical and chemical signals, emulate them and have a second person experience the exact same thing as we. This goes beyond simple impression of senses as all the function of cognition takes place here. So not just can we tell the individual that he is looking at grass when he's not - we can artificially trigger all kinds of association, from the smell of grass to nostalgic childhood feelings of things that never happened - in the end re-constructing exactly what it's like to be someone else.

Would such reproduction, in the eyes of the advocates of a hard problem of consciousness, suffice to disprove this very problem? Or would there be any concerns left?

What things, besides us, are conscious? — RogueAI

This is a very good question!

Just how elusive consciousness is unfolds in the debate of consciousness in animals. Our only own evidence for consciousness really is our self-experience, plus the accounts of others, communicated by means of a common language.

Many animals show obvious signs of consciousness and the physical process behind these signs is evidently much the same as in humans. But unfortunately they can not confirm their own consciousness to us themselves and so we are left in the dark.

I'm afraid to precisely determine what and what isn't conscious, we'd have to precisely know what consciousness is. But as even the topic of what the defining characteristics of consciousness are has no universally accepted answers, we'll have to be satisfied with not knowing for certain if anything other than humans is conscious.

This doesn't explain why I don't see the experience itself when looking at your brain. — Harry Hindu

What happens when we look?
Electromagnetic radiation (light) meets our photoreceptor cells within the eye, translating what are physical properties of this radiation (wavelength) into an electrical signal. This part is well understood because it is such a common occurance on the cellular level - you could consider it one of the most basic reactions that happens in organisms.

The electrical signal then moves on and is processed in the brain. This is where we have all of the complexity that leaves us so incredibly baffled - but as even Chalmer admits, these are merely "soft problems" which we may figure out as we broaden our knowledge of how these things work.

However, even if we don't know how the process works exactly, we now know fairly well what these singular experiences we experience are. They are electrical patterns in the brain and if you want to experience my experiences, it doesn't suffice to look, you have to have the exact same electrical pattern in your brain to experience the same thing I experience.

And that's where we have our evidence speaking for this argument and against "the hard problem of consciousness". Science has repeatedly demonstrated that experiences are reproducable through these electrical patterns. This is a major emerging field in tech and neurology.

Here is Michio Kaku, one of the most renown scientists in the world on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjcgT_oj3jQ

This video shows a reconstruction of the visual experience from brain patterns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo

Science article about mind-reading algorithm:
https://www.science.org/content/article/mind-reading-algorithm-can-decode-pictures-your-head

Mandatory wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-reading

In this experiment neuroscientists fitted photosensitive proteins to neurons in mice, so they could fire the neurons with light and produce false sensations in the mice:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/04/30/editing-brain-activity-with-holography/

And the last source I'll present to you is, what ironically comes from Chalmers University of Technology, a feeling prothesis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldCRjfTcQXA

Perhaps your opinion is that we only need to solve the 'easy' problem of consciousness, and that we don't need to take the 'hard' problem seriously. I don't mind that. It sounds pragmatic. — pfirefry

Not quite. In my opinion, the hard problem of consciousness simply doesn't exist.

Chalmer does not present any reasonable arguments to the existence of such a hard problem. His entire theory appears to me based on a gut feeling. His main concern seems well summed up in this quote:

"Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

Do note, at no point ever does Chalmer elaborate in which way and why this would be "unreasonable" and how it is "objectively" so. Quite the contrary I believe this to be a deeply subjective insight. "I can not wrap my head around the idea that I, this sentient human being, became sentient from something that isn't sentient."

And once you simply refuse to accept this as a possibility, as Chalmer does, suddenly everything becomes an "easy problem" because no answer will ever suffice to a problem that doesn't exist.

Another quote from Chalmer:

The critical common trait among these easy problems is that they all concern how a cognitive or behavioral function is performed. All are ultimately questions about how the brain carries out some task-how it discriminates stimuli, integrates information, produces reports and so on. Once neurobiology specifies appropriate neural mechanisms, showing how the functions are performed, the easy problems are solved. The hard problem of consciousness, in contrast, goes beyond problems about how functions are performed. Even if every behavioral and cognitive function related to consciousness were explained, there would still remain a further mystery: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by conscious experience? It is this additional conundrum that makes the hard problem hard.

Here in bold, we have the big conceptual mistake. Chalmer thinks these functions are accompanied by experience. The "easy problems" that Chalmer refutes essentially claim something different: These functions are experience in itself.

We can see this most readily in microorganisms. They possess no brain, no cognitive abilities, no central nervous system - and yet most of them are capable of receiving sensory stimuli in some forms and accordingly react to their environment. These are simple chemical and electrical mechanisms - but these simple mechanisms are enough to make a microorganism come to "life", starting to act and react in all kinds of ways - sustaining itself, avoiding threats, reproducing.

Now we jump a couple billion years in the future and realize we consist of trillions of these cells, some more sophisticated than others, working together to sustain the entire cluster of cells. In this regard, it's no surprise that Chalmer can't wrap his head around this process. Who of us can? It's been developing and refining itself for billions and billions of years, unparalleled in complexity.

While science has brought a pletora of evidence to the table that thoughts and consciousness corrospond to physical (electromagnetic) processes, the idea of "a hard problem of consciousness" has produced nothing except "Uh... I don't know. We got a problem."

MRI (magnetic resonance imagining) has given us major breakthroughs in this regard. We can extract all kinds of mental information with brain-reading already - from imagined visuals and sound, to the patterns and objects of our thought, our current focus and intention and even our emotional state. Everything that the hard problem of consciousness claims, that mental activity can not be reduced to physicality, has essentially be disproven.

:down:

An action (seeing) can observe itself maybe but it isn't an entity (eye), it's a phenomenon/a process. When these two are confused, we have on our hands one big mess. — Agent Smith

One big mess indeed. Far too convoluted.

Let's be concise - what can the entity itself - the subject, observe and what can't it observe?

Subject can observe an object.
Subject can observe an action or process(including it's own actions).
Subject can not observe subject (itself).

This is universally true for any subject/object relation. Any reflection of the subjection happens through another object.

the brain isn't capable of making itself the object of its own study like it can with other things — Agent Smith

Indeed, this is logical. The subject can not observe itself.

Then however, we have this claim.

Metacognition: The mind forms and image of itself. This image, last I checked, is definitely not a brain. — Agent Smith

Something ain't right about this. The subject observing itself is not logical.

It is not the mind that observes the mind. There's a far more logical explanation, which is simply that the brain observes the mind.

This way, our logic is not broken.
Subject (brain) observes object (mind)
Though even more accurately is
Subject (brain) observes process (thought)

Because the mind as an object is a concept and nothing more.
It doesn't exist as any form of entity. It is a process run by the brain and when the system shuts down, so does the mind.

Anyone can easily reproduce this by holding their breath for anywhere from approximately 2-5 minutes. Pass out and see what happens to your mind. Maybe don't actually try but if you've never passed out before, let me tell you the sensation is seriously fascinating.

To understand this fully, let's clarify that this kind of fainting I'm talking about is caused due to a lack of oxygen in the brain - other forms of fainting can and will be very different. At this point our brain triggers a form of emergency mechanism and shuts down all unnecessary function - including movement. The body collapses and goes on energy saving mode in an attempt to bring oxygen levels in the brain back to stable. This state is very unlike sleep, where we know the process of mind continues to some degree.

And a process it is; which becomes blatantly obvious when you experience this waking up after the brain shutting down due to lack of oxygen. You come to your senses and you have no idea what's going on. The processing of the brain works fine auditory and visualy, you can respond to people and all - but the mind is just dragging behind - as if it needs a bit to reboot and regather all it's data. Get enough perceptions until it can piece the picture back together - because the picture, along with the mind, have just been dumped in the bin by the brain.

Still, Buddhists also believe that the human birth is probably the best shot one has at transcendence. — DA671

I can't quite remember which exact scripture it was, but I remember a passage describing how only humans can attain enlightenment and become Buddha. While the Asura and Deva are basically all-powerful, the Asura are addicted to their desires - and while the Deva show more moderation, they're essentially in a divine state of extasic bliss at all times, preventing them from the middle way.


Regarding the maintopic "Antinatalism & Masochism".

As Socrates once said: "That's what philosophy is: a practice for death".
While I don't agree with the ideas of antinatalism at all, I can easily imagine it is an attempt, like many others, to console with death. Suppose you were a true masochist - would you not revel at the suffering that life has to offer? Rather, antinatalism seems to be soothing to the antinatalist: As long as I cling to the believe that everything is terrible, death itself is not so terrible.

I like to draw up the comparison between the Christian trinity and the Hinduistic Trimurti. It seems very apparent that the abrahamic religions took much inspiration from vedic tradition - increasingly so with the catholic new testament, stemming from a time where Greece and India had already firmly established their relations - both in terms of trade and exchanging knowledge.

The Trimurti then, is actually pretty straight forward about it's meaning: The three deities represent the three aspects of cosmic existence.

Brahman the Creator
Vishnu the Maintainer
Shiva the Destroyer

The Father as Brahman being the Creator is obvious.

The other two, we may have to elaborate a bit.

The word that is used for the Holy Spirit in greek is "Pneuma" which can be translated to "breath". Same goes for the latin word "spiritus" which lend it's name to the holy spirit. Pneuma for the stoics was essentially the force that drove life - "the breath of life" - air being believed to be the primal element from where everything else originated. This is also in alignment with hinduistic tradition, where control, monitoring and training of breath makes up an essential part of yogic practice. The act of breathing in itself could be said to be considered divine. Ultimately, we can equate the Holy Spirit to Vishnu - whose very role, like breath, is to maintain life.

Last but not least Shiva. In order to understand Shiva as the son, we must first understand what "destruction" signifies in Hinduism. The Hindus believe that everything is one great cosmic cycle - and Shiva, more than the idea of annihilation itself, represents the end of a cycle but also the beginning of a new one. Does that sound familiar in any way? It is the concept of rebirth that has been so prominently captured with the biblical son Jesus. The relation from father to son is one of succesion - the Father creates the world but finally relinquishes it to his son. The son in turn ushers in a new age, essentially creating the cycle of creation, life and death anew.

How? All ELEs boil down to famine-conditions; flight capability (enhanced mobility) would be a big asset, would mean the difference between life ans death. — Agent Smith

Famine is a consequence, not what it "boils down" too. Ecosystems are generally stable - until they are not. Why is there famine to begin with? Some catastrophic natural event? A disease? Changing climate? Changing environment? An invasive species that competes for resources?

Does this mean that one (of many) solutions to another extinction level event (ELE) is to improve flight technology [vide The Vulture (Spiderman) or Falcon (Avengers)]? — Agent Smith

Entirely depends on the type of ELE. Avians as predators have one big advantage; they can see their prey for miles away. So in a case of mass extinction, where prey gets scarce, a flying creatue has the best odds of still sustaining itself.

Altitude isn't necessarily a huge benefit though. In the case of gas for instance, while CO2 is indeed heavier than oxygen, it is so neatly diffused throughout our atmosphere that you'll still find it everywhere. So in the end it becomes a question of total concentration, globally and regionally.

since something can't be borne by its very own self — god must be atheist

Ways things birth themselves in biology:
- Fission
- Budding
- Fragmentation
- Parthenogenesis (Unfertilized egg birth)
- Hermaphroditism (Self-Fertilization)

Self-reproduction at some point was the standard. It still is in many aspects of our own physiology. Evolutionary, sexual reproduction has the benefit because it provides a larger genepool. More building blocks, more tools.

The idea of consciousness, or rather, the idea of a "self", of a "soul" seems to be so enticing to people, that many a philosopher seems downright repulsed by the idea that their mental realm might just be put on for a show.

With a passion for biology I can quite easily accept the idea that anything conscious may arise from the material world. I think people are too invested in themselves and in their lifes that they tend to not consider themselves anything "less than human" - for instance a walking living power plant. From a biological perspective that's essentially what we are. A constant chemical reaction that requires fuel to be added regularly to keep running.

Most cells in fact match the basic criteria for life: they sustain themselves (through proteins), they reproduce, they die. There's no real consensus in the scientific community where we should draw a line between "life" and "matter". Now if we do consider those smallest units of life as living themselves, there's suddenly not one of me but there's roughly 37 trillion of me.

Time for a quick detour to dualism and sex.

Even so, I do not think that this is sufficient to explain why we developed dualism in the first place. — Brock Harding

I think the concept of dualism arose quite naturally through observation. Personally, I am a fan of it, of the essential message it transposes: One can not be without the other.

The first obvious instance of such a thing is biological sex. Long before we learned of self-reproducing organisms, people saw the male and the female coming together to create something new. Duality is basically used to draw up the contrasts of life - and it's the constrasts that are so noticeable; male-female, night-day, cold-warm, life-death. It's something our brain does all the time anyway. Comparing and categorizing. Dualism holds importance to this principle because often we will define things through what they are not: Cold is not warm. Warm is not cold. Dry is not wet. Wet is not dry. Etc.

Let's stay on the topic of sex though, because that's what's most relevant to this topic here. While we consist of over 37 trillion cells now, our very beginning consisted of only two cells; a sperm cell and an egg cell. Everything that we are grew from those two; the genetic replicators of our parents. A curious question is, supposing consciousness comes first, how exactly does it tie into this? Are the cells what is conscious and does that mean we originally consisted of two consciousness that became one? Or is the very process our consciousness, making us, so to say, our parents sexual desire?

Or perhaps consciousness is not quite there yet at the beginning? Perhaps it lingers around a bit and waits for that clump of flesh to develop before inhibiting it. Week 5 would be a good candidate because that's roughly when the fetus starts forming it's brain. Gives the consciousness something to do. Existence without a central nervous system might be quite dull afterall.

All in all I'm not really here to say that consciousness is or isn't an "illusion". Though I do think it's perfectly reasonable that consciousness may "just" be an expression of electrical currents darting through our brain. Personally I don't see why this wouldn't be consolidatable with many of the concepts about consciousness - the idea that consciousness is an expression of energy even spiritually seems satisfying to me.

Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? — john27

Sometimes!

I'm pretty sure we're already in what some would describe as the "technological singularity". That is the point in where technology advances so quickly that no one really has any idea what is going on.

When you look at a computer, it's an incredibly complex system. It's an accumulation of many different fields, both in terms of knowledge and labour. Many of these systems will work together to form a fundamental layer, where upon this layer another system is built and so forth.

Now due to the complexity of these systems, you can spend a lifetime gaining knowledge on one layer and still know very little about the other. This is generally true for life. But even among these seemingly connected fields, there is so much to know between the fundamentals of electricity and the various branches of software engineering that it's probably far too much to know in one life time.

It's not inherently bad to not know everything though. As long as you have some expert in that field available to consult and assist you if needed, there is no problem at all. Cooperation has always been key for societies to function - and with increasingly complex societies, the need for cooperation only grows.

I do see one major detriment in our technological advancement though. Something most people are awefully unaware of. In system engineering, there is described the concept of Emergence.

Emergence refers to how collective properties of a system arise from the properties of it's parts. How behavior at a larger scale arises from the detailed structure and the relationships between the system's building components at a finer scale.

Everything we do and think collectively shapes our society. But in turn, society shapes us. In Hermeticism there is the principle of corrospondence. "As above, so below. As below, so above."
"It ascends from the earth to the heaven and again it descends to the earth
and receives the force of things superior and inferior."

So presume, someone comes across this new thing to do; you can download an app on your phone and watch random people post videos about their life. Someone tries it out, finds it quite enjoyable and tells their friends about it. They in turn try it too. If enough people take interest in it and make it a part of their life, it will become relevant in society. If society cares about it, that in turn motivates more people to engage with the app. We can witness the same effect with individual people. That's how celebrities are born.

We're already at a point where technology vastly dictates our life. No matter which generation you look at, you'll find people addicted to their phone or their television or computer screen. And it's only going to get more and more relevant. Phones and the media they bring are all across the world now, even in some of the poorest and most remote regions. In fact if you've ever been to Asia, in many parts you'll notice the smartphone being even more important to their culture than to ours.

I think this is the real pitfall here. It's less about not knowing everything about technology and more about being unaware what technology does to us as a whole. And let's not forget that everything comes at a price. In our global society, we're far from equal - and there's certain, in fact quite many, actors that only care about making money in any way possible - because money is so monumentally important to our society and us as individuals. Money gives power and possibility within society. And so the media we consume comes at a price too. Be it a subscription, our data, some subtle manipulation or the cost of our precious time. We get invested. Society gets invested. And the way individuals and society relates, we'll only ever get more invested in our technology, in our media - in the things they are trying to sell.

And ultimately, this pitfall just leads to another one. That is, our first premise failing.

As long as you have some expert in that field available to consult and assist you if needed, there is no problem at all. Cooperation has always been key for societies to function

If we fail to cooperate, our technology may very well collapse on itself or cause some other form of disaster. It does happen occasionally as it is - but miraculously, our complex global system seems to be holding out just yet. But the technology and media we consume hardly encourages us to work together more. Rather, it encourages us to spend more and more time in that virtual world. For many it is an alternative to facing their problems. They can isolate themselves here, or find some safe spaces of like-minded individuals. All fair - but ultimately, as we spend time in virtual worlds, we surrender partaking in the real world.

Sacred stems from the latin word "sacer". It essentially means "Belonging to god". You make something belong to god by the act of consecration - you devote the something entirely to god.

In that sense all places of worship are sacred by definition. Their entire purpose is the devotion to god. In fact, there is an opposite to the sacred - the profound, stemming from profanum which roughly translates to "outside the temple".

The question then is, can a digital space be dedicated to god? I think yes. However, I think it actually needs to be the purpose of that space in order to be considered sacred. It's not enough to watch a video on Youtube, have a mildly enlightening experience and then consider the site to be sacred. It's very purpose must be to be a sort of "virtual temple".

There are of course those, that believe these ancient texts and stories hold a prophetic vision. In a way, they might - if only recognizing the nature of humanity and the driving factors that lead to the downfall of a civilization.

Because the fact is many a civilization has collapsed before us. Of course it doesn't look like much to us because over the course of a few thousand years it does look like humanity is doing perfectly fine - when in reality, every lifetime somewhere there is a society on the brink of collapse.

And often the reasons for those falls of empires are the same. There is the inevitable, gods wrath in the form of natural catastrophes. But then there is also man, giving in to sins. The seven deadly sins as a popculture trope might be overused - but I think they very well capture the driving forces that cause problems in a society. If enough people give into living their life like that, as virtue gets lost, it encourages more people towards a selfish nature. The outcome likely is as inevitable as the natural catastrophe: Without coorperation, a society of many can not operate and will fail.

The "exciting" thing about our current "empire" is that it's never been this big before. It spans all over the world, entailing billions of people more or less participating in it. It might seem almost too big to fail - but in how interdependent and connected it all is our scientific society, like the Tower of Babel, might collapse too, as we reach for the heights of god.