Instead, "by nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid.
— 180 Proof
Trsnslation (almost word for word) :roll: –

As a species, one of h. sapiens' basic cognitive defects is that our 'volition is weak enough for us to recognize the better course of action and yet to take the worse' (usually because it requires less / least effort) and as a consequence this entails 'failing to learn from failures not to repeat our failures', by which we also often inadvertantly (blindly) harm ourselves or others (or both). — 180 Proof

By the way, I want to pick your brain on something that I just realized which is that being immoral, even in the worst possible sense, even though it breaks moral laws does not violate a law of nature. What's up with that? 180 Proof, care to take a stab?

I mean, I could torture someone in an unimaginably horrific way but at no point in the process will I actually violate the so-called laws of nature. Nature, it seems, permits, if not that at least doesn't prohibit, evil.

On the other hand, being good is in almost all cases an uphill task, almost as if a good guy/gal/child is on the verge of transgressing a law of nature. — TheMadFool

To continue, miracles (violations of the laws of nature) are, on the whole, performed/experienced by the...er...GOOD guys!

:chin:

$Data \rightarrow Information \rightarrow Knowledge \rightarrow Wisdom$ — Neil deGrasse Tyson

What do the arrows represent? Anyone?

When you ask for an explanation, or a reason, you’re not asking for a visual impression. If you asked me, I don’t know, to show you a design or a picture, you’re asking for something visual. When you say ‘why is this different from that’ then you’re appealing to a faculty which is completely different from the visual faculty or from any sensory faculty.

It interests me that this is something that has to be explained, I would have thought it self-evident. — Wayfarer

Well, I attempted, as best as any math-illiterate person can, to mathematize an argument form like, say, modus ponens, but no success there and it seems to do this to hold the wrong end of the stick, have it backwards so to speak :point: Logicism.

The only numbers I see in modus ponens are the ordinal numbers used as references for the premises and the conclusion:

1. $P \rightarrow Q$

2. $P$

Ergo,

3. $Q$

In the philosophy of mathematics, logicism is a programme comprising one or more of the theses that — for some coherent meaning of 'logic' — mathematics is an extension of logic, some or all of mathematics is reducible to logic, or some or all of mathematics may be modelled in logic. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead championed this programme, initiated by Gottlob Frege and subsequently developed by Richard Dedekind and Giuseppe Peano. — Wikipedia

We must also not forget that all thoughts are, as per existing scientific paradigms, bioelectricity and electricity is physics and physics is math. Paradoxically, the hardcore nonphysicalist should be happy about physicalist reduction of psychological states to brain states (bioelectricity) because then, fae only needs to continue along that same trajectory and reduce brain states to mathematics. As you can see, we've managed to, with only a little effort, remove physicalism from the equation.

I dunno!

Being able to count and see rational relations is different in kind from sensory perception. — Wayfarer

How? Why? Please explain. Thanks

@Wayfarer

By the way, Roger Penrose has made a name for himself in tesselation mathematics (tiling) and receptor-agonist theory of how smell and taste work, to my reckoning, is a step in the direction of 3D tesselations/tilings. A meaningful coincidence (Jung's synchronicity).

smell and taste can be rendered as a geometric interaction between differently shaped molecules
— TheMadFool

This doesn't do justice to the difference between sensory and rational faculties. Being able to count and see rational relations is different in kind from sensory perception. — Wayfarer

Mathematics Anxiety (Mathemaphobia)

Mark H. Ashcraft defines math anxiety as "a feeling of tension, apprehension, or fear that interferes with math performance" (2002, p. 1). The academic study of math anxiety originates as early as the 1950s, where Mary Fides Gough introduced the term mathemaphobia to describe the phobia-like feelings of many towards mathematics. — Wikipedia

Watch the video below, a conversation between astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on why most people are bad at math?



Notice how logic and math are like Siamese twins - we can't seem to be able to talk about one without talking about the other.

If we're bad at math & logic, what does that mean for the belief that our universe is mathematical? It's like a person who's hard of hearing feeling ecstatic about music. What's the use? Fae can't hear it.

@Wayfarer

The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine — Sir James Jeans

:fire:

But the fact that it is in part discovered, and not wholly invented, tends to favour mathematical realism. — Wayfarer

Yep! I don't think The Unreasonable Effectiveness Of Math In The Natural Sciences is just a coincidence. Coincidences are one-off events and don't display such consistency.

One reason I wished to discuss the senses, specifically taste and smell, was they appeared to be qualitative (nonmathematical) instead of quantitative (mathematical) and that made me question Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis and Eugene Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics In The Natural Sciences.

However, it turns out I was wrong, smell and taste can be rendered as a geometric interaction between differently shaped molecules, these shapes themselves reducible in soms sense to arithmetic (charge, force, etc.).

To All Interested

It looks like red is the number 650 nm (wavelength).

Redness, is in philosophy of mind, a subjective experience and yet, as we see here, redness is an objective truth in that it's light with a wavelength 650 nm.

Mary's Room (Knowledge argument) [Physicalism/Nonphysicalism]

Well then, I'm in good company! — 180 Proof

Indeed! :grin:

Start with a bit more modernity than Aristotle's 5 senses.

https://www.press.jhu.edu/news/blog/how-many-senses-do-we-have — unenlightened

An eye-opener, thanks! It doesn't seem to vitiate my point though which is we can mathematize sense perception. Right?

the Sixth Sense of Reason is also a sort of mathematical discrimination. — Gnomon

To the extent that math is defined as the analysis of patterns, yes. Argument forms (modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, etc. in logic) are patterns in reasoning.

The senses of taste and smell which I, thanks to you, realized are geometric i.e. mathematical in nature (the receptor-agnoist theory claiming that the agonist fits like a jigsaw piece with the receptor, the matching other piece).

Can we somehow translate thoughts (logic and others) into geometry and arithmetic like we can with the senses (see OP)? The bottom line is that from a physicalist point of view, thoughts are bioelectricity, amenable to mathematization (physics) which raises interesting questions about physicalism.

All of the senses have a physical aspect but it's much too far a stretch to say that they therefore 'fall within the domain of physics'. Physics has many crises on its hand with the things it is meant to explain, namely, matter and energy, without even glancing at the various conundrums that are involved in accounting for the nature of sensory experience. Even given that sounds and colours have definite wavelengths and frequencies, electromagnetic or atmospheric, their assimilation into a cohesive meaningful cognitive act is not 'explained by physics'. — Wayfarer

Methinks a nonphysicalist has nothing to worry about when it comes to physics as, from what I've read and heard, physics is well on its way to becoming a branch of mathematics - mathematical models being some kinda primary resource for physical hypotheses/theories (the theory of relativity, for instance, is 4 dimensional geomtery). In other words, when we're discussing physics what we're actually dealing with is math (numbers, shapes, etc.) and therein lies the rub - are numbers (immaterisl abstractions) real?

I've long been interested in that Eugene Wigner paper, in fact it was one of the first things I ecountered on the philosophy forum that preceded this one. But it doesn't have much bearing on what you have written. The meaning of Wigner's paper is not regarding whether the universe or things in it can be represented mathematically, but why it is that mathematical reasoning is so uncannily predictive and explanatory in the natural sciences. In other words, the amazing thing about mathematical reasoning is the mathematical faculty itself, and what it says about the nature of reason and the universe. (Einstein said 'the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible'.) — Wayfarer

I included Wigner's paper for discussion because the fact that "...mathematical reasoning is so uncannily predictive and explanatory in natural sciences" might be the smoking gun that the universe itself is fundamentally, at its core, mathematical and that begs the question, "is all that's real just numbers?" Numbers, we're certain, are immaterial abstractions. What does that lead to?

I've had a go at you in the past for dropping pointless youtubes into threads but this particular one, Roger Penrose on whether maths is invented or discovered, is directly on target. — Wayfarer

:grin: I watched that video (again). Interesting to say the least. His opinion, from what I gathered, is that math is both invented and discovered.

This excellent read might be helpful:
The Number Sense, Stanislas Dehaene
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

:ok: Thanks.

My two bits – pure mathematics is discovered, applied mathematics is invented. A spinozist (à la Tegmark) rather than platonist (à la Gödel) bias. — 180 Proof

A transcript of an interview by Hannah Fry (mathematician):

Hannah Fry: Is math invented or discovered?

Hiranya Peiris (Professor of Astrophysics, University College London): Invented!

Dr. Eleanor Knox (Philosopher of Physics, King's College London): Discovered!

Sylvester James Gates (Professor of Physics & Mathematics, Brown University): Both!

Brian Greene (Professor of Physics & Mathematics, Columbia University): I have no idea!

Yes, of course. I am mistaken. — Merkwurdichliebe

:grin: It's a complicated argument for me. Sorry if my volte-face offends you. Not intentional.

Is that the pc term for carnivore? — Merkwurdichliebe

Non-vegetarians could be omnivores (not meat only). Carnivores feed exclusively on meat. I dunno!

First off what are traits that matter to the issue? A trait, insofar as the name a trait argument is concerned, is either a quality possessed by animals which if present in a human would justify the killing of that human or a quality absent in animals which if absent in a human would be reason enough to kill that human. For simplicity, let's refer to this trait as X.

The name the trait argument asks what is X? Clearly, offing a human is a no-go area i.e. X doesn't exist (set aside for the moment that humans do kill each other and consider only the fact that no person, save some deranged individuals, ever really wants to kill another person).

What does that mean?

Examine closely what trait X is. Trait X is:

1. A trait either present in animals and absent in humans or absent in animals and present in humans. (implied is a trait difference)

2. This trait when carried over to within the human family gives us a reason to kill humans.

There are two components to the definition of trait X (vide supra).

Non-vegetarians can now claim that the nonexistence of X (1 + 2) in no way affects their reason for eating meat (1).

:chin: :chin: :chin:

The antonym of fact is not false, it's hypothetical/fiction.

In other words, facts are non-imaginary, true propositions (about this world we're denizens of).

Propositions can be:

1. True & imaginary (unicorns have a horn)
2. True & non-imaginary (facts)
3. False & imaginary (unicorns are dogs)
5. False & non-imaginary (NY is in Guatamela)

Clarification

Some here are of the view that good and bad (morality) is an issue of definition. This, in my opinion, implies that if I were to swap the meanings of the words "good" and "evil", stealing, raping, and murdering, other acts presently considered evil would become good. However, someone who claims this is merely equivocating: First, let's take murder as the type specimen, such a person claims murder is good (meaning has changed) and second, this same person asserts that murder is good in the original sense of the word "good" (meaning hasn't changed)

Maybe all that I have to say is nonsense... — Michael Zwingli

Possible but not necessary.

Yes, loyalty to our group is good. — Athena

So, a group of genocidal maniacs who are loyal to each other are good? Why the hell then are they put on trial and sometimes sent to the gallows?

Something's off. You need to rethink your idea of good & bad. Looks like it might get really interesting very fast.

Update

I don't know if this is correct but last I checked odor and flavor (chemical) work like jigsaw puzzles - the agonist (scent/flavor) physically fits with the receptor (olfactory/gustatory). Geometry (shapes & space), a bona fide branch of mathematics.

:ok:

You’re misunderstanding. Firstly, you’re applying it to individuals rather than species. I’m not saying any individual without morality is ok to kill. Secondly, being immoral isn’t the same thing as lacking the capacity to understand moral concepts, which is what I’m concerned with. Thirdly, were you to apply this to the entire species, it wouldn’t feel wrong to you. How could it? — Pinprick

You're, I'm afraid, mistaken. There are two issues at stake:

1. The difference between animals and humans (interspecies). [The Name A Trait Argument]

2. The difference between one person and another (intraspecies).

Why do we not or, at the very least, are reluctant to kill each other?

The answer to that should aid you in understanding what I said.

Precisely. Masochists do exactly that, associating pleasure with pain. — Hermeticus

In sadomasochism, the experience of pleasure/pain, no matter how weird, doesn't change because you changed the meaning of a word. It should if we could define away the experience. For instance, if I redefine the word "pain" as the feeling you get when you're not being whipped, it doesn't now make the masochist feel pain when he's not being whipped.

Yes. More accurately, the person is unhappy because they knew happiness before. You've actually inquired about this just earlier. — Hermeticus

Dukkha arises from desire and expectation - the oughts. — Hermeticus

So, how is that this happiness before (an is) make a person who's being tortured unhappy? Fae wishes fae ought to be in that previous state of happiness. No?

I don't understand how anyone wouldn't be "in the is". "Ises" as you say, that what is, is simply reality - or do I misunderstand something about the words you use? — Hermeticus

Some of us aren't stuck in the ises - they've managed to actualize some oughts to their great satisfaction I might add.

I'm not saying my claim is not objective. I'm saying objectively, good and evil are subjective. — Hermeticus

If good and evil are subjective, how can you be objective about them? :chin:

We'll see who's first to become enlightened! — baker

Are you issuing a challenge to me?

Gender Nirvana is a race in which some all of the runners compete only for the bronze medal. — Yuval Noah Harari

Good luck! :grin:

No, you can not define my joy and suffering away because my joy and suffering depend on my definition.
You can however, define your own joy and suffering away. — Hermeticus

So, I define my joy as the feeling that I get when someone punches me in the face, that punch on the face will magically transform in terms of the accompanying sensation into something else? Remember, snow doesn't change color if I decide to describe it as black.

You've got it the wrong way around, Fool! There is no dukkha in what is. Dukkha arises from desire and expectation - the oughts. — Hermeticus

So, a person who's being tortured severely is unhappy because he can conceive of a world in which he isn't tortured? :chin:

We're all stuck in the ises. Ises is what is. Oughts is dreamland. It doesn't exist. Ises is what is important. If I can't run an ought through any given scenario, what's the point of having an ought? — Hermeticus

Some of us aren't. The world has changed all because of the oughts our ancestors and contemporaries have thought up in their minds.

You're just demonstrating the subjectivity of good and evil. Of course the devil thinks God is evil and of course the thieves think that their mates are good. — Hermeticus

But, are they? if your claims are not objective then why are you trying to convince me of your views.

That's it! Our discussion is over. Thank you and good luck..

Have you even read the Daodejing? What "opposites"? The yin-yang are complementaries entwined with each and not separate, discrete, "opposites". Imbalance is the diagnosis – rigidly fixating on one complementary and neglecting the other; seeking balance (via effortless (fluid, flowing) activity) is the treatment.

When imbalance is absent balance is present. When balance is absence, imbalance is present.

(Imbalance : illness :: balance : good health & diet :: seeking balance : medicine.)

Still not clear? Read Laozi, Fool. :sweat: — 180 Proof

:ok:

Compare what the Buddha has actually said (or at least what is generally accepted in Buddhism to be the word of the Buddha):

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html


The popular rendition of this is like this (similar to what you've been saying):

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”

Clearly, a lot has been lost in translation/transition. — baker

:fire:

You think that's funny??????? — baker

It's absolutely ridiculous because you're treating Buddhist scriptures like the Koran/Bible - a, as Christopher Hitchens puts it, final solution. That's not what the Buddha, a very reasonable man, would've wanted.

Let me recount to you a personal experience of mine.

I recall having seen a video of a supposedly very erudite buddhist master. People asked him questions and what he would do was recite verbatim the contents of the relevant excerpt from buddhist scripture.

Then I met a buddhist monk who, when I asked him questions, would tell me what the scriptures say and also add his own personal commentary to that.

See the difference?

You give me the credit you think I deserve, obviously. — baker

You're welcome.

:rofl:

Q. Does the Buddha argue his position or not?

A. He argues his position.

Q. Why, may I ask?

A. Simple, the Buddha respects rationality.

Q. Does the Buddha think we're rational?

A. Yes, why else would he resort to arguments?

Q. Then, as per the Buddha, I can conduct my own rational analysis?

A. Yes.

Q.E.D.

That's simply due to how we define good and evil. — Hermeticus

So, I could then define your joy and suffering away?

The other view is that death is a part of life just like anything else and there is nothing inherently evil about it. — Hermeticus

A variation of the naturalistic fallacy. Remember, morality is about oughts and not ises, the latter is a cause of much dissatisfaction (dukkha).

Furthermore, I believe morals fail immediately once we take them to the extreme. — Hermeticus

Again, you're flip-flopping between oughts and ises. Because you're stuck in the ises, the oughts appear extreme.

This is good and evil:
Good, someone who I can trust. Bad, someone who is a threat to me.

Everything else, the varied aspects of morals and ethics simply evolved from there. — Hermeticus

This doesn't make sense. God is a threat to the devil. So, is God bad? A gang of thieves can trust each other, are they good?

Indeed, it isn't. But that doesn't make it a DIY hobby either.

If you say that the Buddha claimed something, you need to provide a canonical reference. — baker

I never implied that Buddhism is a DIY hobby. Straw man.

The Buddha doesn't have to to, like some people, spell out everything he wished to convey. You have to, like a rational person, infer some things from what he did say.

For example, take this excerpt from the book, History Of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny:

About the gods, I cannot be sure whether they exist or not, or what they are like to see; for many things stand in the way of knowledge of them, both the opacity of the subject and the shortness of human life. — Protagoras

From the above statement made by Protagoras, Anthony Kenny (the author) concludes/infers that Protagoras was an agnostic. Now, Protagoras never explicitly claims that he's an agnostic. The Buddha's philosophy too, some aspects of it, is amenable to such a treatment.

Don't forget the daoist 'yin-yang'. Imbalances cause oppositions-reversals (i.e. complementary effects ... not unlike Hegelian/Marxist dialectics). Laozi's "harmony" (balance, wu wei) is analogous to Aristotle's "golden mean" (arete). — 180 Proof

Yep. I want your opinion on something that's bothering me for as long as I can remember. The Taoist harmony principle between opposites (hot-cold, good-bad, and so on), to my reckoning, implies the existence and, shockingly, the necessity for disharmony (the counterbalancing force of harmony). This, as far as I can tell, means there should be discord/strife/struggle/chaos in the universe. If so, what's the point at all of seeking balance/equilibrium?

As Spinoza does, think geometrically
(re: 'ground & horizon' ... encompassed & encompassing, respectively.) — 180 Proof

Copy that!

The Real – the ineluctable, encompassing horizon (that exhausts – exceeds – categories, concepts, symbolic systems (e.g. randomness, void)).

Reality – the ground, including logical / phase-spaces (i.e. reason), encompassed [by the encompassing horizon (i.e. the real)]. — 180 Proof

I'll work on that. Looks too complicated but I'll give it my best shot. Thanks.

Correct. Consequences (extrinsic as well as intrinsic) follow decisions (conduct) just as effects follows causes. The ancient Vedic dharma calls this "karma". — 180 Proof

Right, Buddhism & Hinduism take a page out of nature's book, specifically the part that's about the laws of nature. I suppose whoever the person was who discovered/invented karma simply drew from natural causality. Fae must've reasoned, causality is an inherent aspect of nature and so, why shouldn't moral actions have moral effects? It seems to fit right in with everything else. The moral universe/dimension has its own version of causality (what goes around comes around; as you sow, so shall you reap; karma).

You realize that species normality is a trait, right? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I see, so that's how you want to wiggle out of my trap. :grin:

Here's a variation of the Name The Trait Argument: Name the species-specific trait that makes one human killing another human being impermissible? You can't say being human because we've already seen from the original Name The Trait argument that there's nothing special about being human that serves as a reason to not kill them. In other words, the reason for not killing a human has nothing to do with the species h. sapiens. I'm not sure but it appears that you're begging the question.

Ok, so we should stop breathing, eating, drinking water, brushing our teeth, occupying space, and in other words, just stop living? You must be an antinatalist. Bacteria, viruses (kinda), insects, parasites, plants… we kill them in the trillions of trillions. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Certum est, quia impossibile (It is certain, because it is impossible).

Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). — Tertullian

God is great! He asks us to do the absurd and the impossible!

Reality (ground) =/= the real (horizon). — 180 Proof

Explain...please.

Clarification

1. No trait absent/present in animals which if absent/present in humans would justify the killing of humans.

Ergo,

2. Killing animals (if based on the absence/presence of some putative trait) is completely unjustified.

3. The Name The Trait argument assumes that differences result in differential treatment.

Ergo,

4. We don't kill each other because humans are like each other.

In what way are we like each other that makes us reluctant/unwilling to kill each other?

5. The only shared trait that seems to matter is life itself.

Ergo,

6. Humans hesitate/refuse to kill each other because we're alive.

7. Animals and plants too are alive.

Ergo,

8. We should not kill any living organism (plant, animal or otherwise).

Clarification

1. No trait absent/present in animals which if absent/present in humans would justify the killing of humans.

Ergo,

2. Killing animals (if based on the absence/presence of some putative trait) is completely unjustified.

3. The Name The Trait argument assumes that differences result in differential treatment.

Ergo,

4. We don't kill each other because humans are like each other.

In what way are we like each other that makes us reluctant/unwilling to kill each other?

5. The only shared trait that seems to matter is life itself.

Ergo,

6. Humans hesitate/refuse to kill each other because we're alive.

7. Animals and plants too are alive.

Ergo,

8. We should not kill any living organism (plant, animal or otherwise).

It also works the other way around: The first step to creating a problem is thinking there is a problem. All was well in Garden of Eden until humans got too cognitive. — Hermeticus

Nice! However, I fail to see how a death match, which life is, can be thought of as "...all was well in the Garden of Eden..."?

Morals are an entirely human concept. There are no morals in nature. Again - this is only a problem if you make it one. Either all is just or all is unjust. It's our complicated set of morals that we made up which puts us somewhere inbetween. — Hermeticus

I recall @jorndoe had a thread on rats/mice and proto-morality and let's not forget, we're part of nature and if nature somehow made us think of morals, the idea that "morals are an entirely human concept" doesn't make sense.

That said, in my reply to Wayfarer, I made a mention of how immorality seems to be perfectly compatible with the laws of nature which suggests, to some extent, that morality isn't a feature inherent to how our world works. Maybe humans, some aspects of us (minds?) at least, maybe from a different world. I dunno!

I don't think this is true. Nature was respected, revered but also feared. Primarily, nature was seen as the enabler of life. All of the first Gods of mankind were aspects of nature deified. — Hermeticus

Opinions vary but you can't deny the simple fact that morality is, at the end of the day, about oughts that arise from ises that are a rich source of dissatisfaction (dukkha).