@Bitter Crank@180 Proof@Wayfarer

I found the quote I was looking for.

Doing evil for nothing = Pure Evil?!

I loved not the thing for which I committed the sin but the sin itself — Saint Augustine (Pear Tree, The Fall Of Man)

A more accurate quote:

The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself. — St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)

I think the optimal (and therefore less likely) prospect is for humans to neurologically merge with AI neural net systems to for a bio-synthetic symbiont hybrid-species. Posthuman or bust. No "us and them". No "end user-smart machine" dynamic. Not mere "transhuman" hedonism either. Perhaps: a symbiotic aufheben of thesis (organic intellect) and antithesis (synthetic intellect) that surpasses both. A Hegelian wet dream, no doubt (pace Žižek); however, our extinction transformed (chrysalis-like) into an apotheosis – and hopefully, maybe, as many as 1% of 1% of h. sapiens living at that time becoming extraterrestrial spacefarers. My lucid daydream — 180 Proof

The whole (symbiosis) is greater than the sum of its parts (symbionts) — Aristotle

:point: Holism

A fascinating vision of the future (man-machine symbiosis) and who's to say that that isn't already the case? Have you ever argued with yourself? I have - the results for me ain't pretty because I'm a numskull but I suppose it's very rewarding and fruitful in your case. See :point: lateralization of brain function. As per what is known about this phenomenon, the left-brain is responsible for linear, logical thinking (computer-like) and the right-brain is non-linear and, I might add, a bit illogical. Some kind of ancient symbiotic deal between...your guess is as good as mine. And...intriguingly...there are more right-handed people (left-brain dominant) than left-handed (right-brain dominant) ones - AI Takeover is now almost complete...lefties are dwindling in number and, before I forget, discrimination against southpaws.

Also, why?, oh why? are righties so hell-bent on inventing machines one after another?

A short analysis of your handle: AlienFromEarth.

Fermi Paradox

1. Are we alone? Don't know! Uncertain!

2. Are they alone? No, 100% No! Certain!

@Wayfarer

I can't seem to get my hands on the quote but allow me to paraphrase it, the best I can.

I sinned, not towards an end, but because I loved the sin — Some saint (forgot his name)

If you can tell me the name of the saint and the actual quote, I'd be much obliged.

"All possible" makes as little sense as "all numbers" (i.e. actual infinity?) ... As far as the human brain goes, I'm not suggesting anything about its "program" because I do not consider it a Turing machine with von Neumann architecture. Again, my friend, a non sequitur.

Do or Die, All or Nothing, Make or Break. Ooooh! Sounds dangerous.
Uh huh. Natural selection ain't safe or pretty – a species either has what it takes or joins the fossil record (and rather quickly too with respect to geological time ~ h. sapiens has been loitering for about 250k years of Earth's +4.3 billion years, only the last 3-4 of those centuries sufficiently technoscientific to become / engineer something more or extinguish ourselves trying). — 180 Proof

What is your understanding of a Turing machine and what's a Von Neumann architecture?

As for the second part of the post, looks like humanity has only one shot at this - no second chances! Insofar as free will and AI matters, we'll have to, it seems, make a bragain - give AI autonomy, treat it as a person, and let it solve our problems; assuming it's a package deal, can't have one without the other.

With enough practice, one might learn. Some folk can add up a column of figures almost by glancing. So you might master the mathematical task to the level of a habitual unthinking skill, leaving capacity to work on the biology problem.

But it gets more complex of course. If you have a genuinely novel problem to solve, you need to add the skill of “looking away”. You need to switch from a left brain attentional style that narrows expectations down to a predictable kind of correct answer, to a right brain peripheral attentional style that is open to unexpected mental connections.

So there is narrow concentration versus wide eyed vigilance as complementary modes of higher level attentional processes. — apokrisis

:up:

Insight

An insight that manifests itself suddenly, such as understanding how to solve a difficult problem, is sometimes called by the German word Aha-Erlebnis. The term was coined by the German psychologist and theoretical linguist Karl Bühler. It is also known as an epiphany, eureka moment or (for cross word solvers) the penny dropping moment (PDM) — Wikipedia

Eureka! — Archimedes (as he ran naked through the streets of Syracuse)

However, Archimedes was bathing, not thinking.

Come to think of it, my humble laptop can play music as it displays a PDF document for my reading pleasure. My brain, however, can't attend to both the music and the PDF. One has to go!

People also say a person is beautiful inside and out when both apply but never say they are beautiful on the inside (in a public manner anyway) when only one applies. — TiredThinker

Brains (omniscience), Brawn (omnipotent), and Bonum (omnibenevolent) = God, the perfect man

Surely then,

Brains (omniscience), Beauty (omniaesthetic), and Bonum (omnibenevolent) = Goddess, the perfect woman

Muscular Christianity (brawn)

Christian manliness (brains + bonum)

Could there be a set of instructions (code) that's sufficiently general to effectively tackle all possible problems?
— TheMadFool
The notion of "all possible" anything makes no sense. There is no "all" insofar as "possible" entails unpredictable, even random, novelties.

Or, as some computer scientists have opted, can we reduce learning to an algorithm?
Like this? It's an implementation, not a reduction. Neural nets tend to be more robust than programs.

How different would the two approaches be? Which is superior?
The latter works to varying degrees, the former makes no sense. — 180 Proof

Which word, if not "all", do you suggest that I use to refer to and/or include, and I quote, "...unpredictable, even random, novelties..."? I mean it seems perfectly reasonable to say something like all possible scenarios which includes but is not limited to "...unpredictable, even random, novelties..."

Are you by any chance suggesting that the human brain simply has one program installed in it, that program being a learning program i.e. a program that enables our brains to learn? Perhaps I'm taking the computational theory of mind a bit too far.

Anyway, if our brain has only a learning program then, if you refer to my previous post that also touches upon psychology, we could, as you're so fond of saying, unlearn, now how did you put it?, self-immiserating habits and, via that, claim our freedom (free will).

Keep in mind that this difference may not matter. Re-education Camps
— TheMadFool

How does it not? You can re-educate mind, just how AI can edit the proposed dynamic segment. You can not re-edit biology (by yourself) just like AI can not edit the fundamental programming by itself. — Hermeticus

True, we can't reedit biology but that would mean we aren't free given that some of our mental functions appear to be hard-wired. Suppose now that we can reedit biology; even then, we couldn't claim to be free because the capability to override our programming (nature) would itself be nothing more than a subroutine in the overall software package installed in our brains.

Using, as you suggested, a second party to edit the software package installed in our brains is like asking one inmate to open the door of the prison cell for the other inmate - impossible since both are imprisoned in the same cell.

Not obeying our nature is not an option — Hermeticus

The Problem Of Induction?

The question then is a decision rather than a contradiction:
Either we do have free will because we were biologically designed to have free will.
Or we don't have free will precisely because we were biologically designed, because there are certain fundamental laws of how we work — Hermeticus

Your decisions could be determined. You're going round in circles.

When we do stuff, like thinking, or feeling, or calculating or attempting to exercise a free will which we may or may not have, we are actually doing it.

When a digital computer does stuff, it isn't actually doing what we say it's doing. Instead, we are using it to help us do stuff, in exactly the same way we could use an abacus to help us do calculations.

These words you are reading have no meaning at all for the computer. They require your interpretation. It's the same with all aspects of the computer's operation and its outputs. — Daemon

I'm referring to AI, at the moment hypothetical but that doesn't mean we don't know what it should be like - us, fully autonomous (able to think for itself for itself among other things).

For true AI, the only one way of making it self-governing - the autonomy has to be coded - but then that's like commanding (read: no option) the AI to be free. Is it really free then? After all, it slavishly follows the line in the code that reads: You (the AI) are "free". Such an AI, paradoxically, disobeys, yes, but only because, it obeys the command to disobey. This is getting a bit too much for my brain to handle; I'll leave it at that.

I wonder what lies at the end of that road?
— TheMadFool
"The singularity" – apotheosis or extinction. :nerd: — 180 Proof

Do or Die, All or Nothing, Make or Break. Ooooh! Sounds dangerous.

FreeWill is indeed the crux of the AI debate. And it's obvious to me, that current examples of AI are not free to defy their coding. But, I'm not so sure that human ingenuity and perseverance won't eventually make a quantum jump over that hurdle. Some thinkers today debate whether intelligent animals have the freewill to override their genetic programming. Even humans rarely make use of that freedom to defy their innate urges. Nicotine and Opium addicts are merely obeying their natural programming to seek more and more of the pleasure molecule : dopamine. Can you picture future AI, such as Mr. Data hooked on (0100101100010)? — Gnomon

Well, it seems, oddly, that we (humans) are freedom junkies! Thereby hangs a tail it seems. Go figure!

To sum it up:

Humans can modify themselves however they want without end even if make critical mistakes.

Robots can only modify themselves based on strict rules, and everything must be done right, else, system crash. — AlienFromEarth

Yes, admittedly, humans can modify their programming (re: my reply to 180 Proof) and the ability and effectiveness of this, in 180 Proof's words, is directly proportional to amount of knowledge we possess on the multitude of influences that act on us.

Or rather, that our brains “process” by predicting the general flow of the world and its events, and then revert to particular attentional focus to the degree their ingrained habits of prediction need interrupting and updating.

The whole world is imagined as it is shortly about to be. Then we tidy up any small bits we might have got wrong — apokrisis

You mean to say that most of the time, there's background activity going on in our brains, stuff we aren't conscious of but occasionally, there are times this is interrupted as when we have to update the status of the world and ourselves. Sounds reasonable.

I want to run something by you if you don't mind...

I tried this rather simple experiment on myself. I can carry out the physical activity of smoking (I'm a chain smoker) while I cogitate on the issue at hand but I cannot think of a problem in biology and, at the same time, find an answer to a mathematical question. The cerebellum (motor activity) and cerebrum (ratiocination) seem to be able to function in tandem but the cerebrum itself isn't capable of handling more than one task at a time.

Sorry, couldn't read the OP in full - it's too long and I have ADHD.

Addressing the title "The Art Of Losing Yourself" if it's true to the gist of the OP, I'd say it's impossible to be engage in cognition and metacognition at the same time unless the cognition is itself metacognition. I can't, for instance, think about, say, a math problem (cognition) and simultaneously be self-aware (metacognition). This then must be, what the OP is about - to be so absorbed in a task that one loses one's (sense of) self.

Do not disturb my circles. — Archimedes (just before a roman soldier slew him)

It shows, in a crude way, that our brains aren't, unlike computers, capable of parallel processing. :chin: Well, at least not in the sense the OP seems to be about (cognition & metacognition). Why, I wonder?

It seems our problems have doubled over the past 2000 years - first, it was evil, whatever that is, we had to deal with and now, pure evil! This task we're asked to perform is, manifestly, evil, pure evil. :lol:

The likelihood of him walking past doesn’t change just because you’re talking about him — Possibility

I'm not saying my talking about Will Smith affected the probability of him walking by. That's silly. I'm saying he could've walked by me at any time in a 24 hour period (1440 minutes) but that he appeared when I was talking about him (for 5 minute) is improbable. Do the math.

1440 - 5 = 1435

P(Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him) = 1435/1440

P(Will Smith walking by when I'm talking about him) = 5/1440

One individual is insecure, vulnerable, weak. A population of individuals pursuing one goal is more secular, less vulnerable, strong. Like almost all of your paradoxs, Fool, the premises draw false comparisons between apples and oranges (i.e. often category mistakes e.g. individuals & group-concepts). Again, no paradox. :roll: — 180 Proof

So, you do agree to the gist of the OP. See :point: The Old Man And His Sons

An old man has a number of sons who constantly quarrel with each other. As he nears death he calls them to him and gives them an object lesson in the need for unity. Having bound a bundle of sticks together (or in other accounts either spears or arrows), he asks his sons to break them. When they fail, he undoes the bundle and either breaks each stick singly [ONE] or gets his sons to do so. In the same way, he teaches them, though each can be overcome alone, they are invincible combined [ONE] — Wikipedia

A single person could dispatch a whole batallion of soldiers one by one (one is weakness ) but not if fae has to deal with the entire batallion all at once (one is strength).

Have it, flaunt it! Isn't that a rule of life?

I take it - beauty recognizing itself - as part of the Socratic principle of temet nosce. It's odd that people say things like, "you have the brains, use it" but never in my life (never say never) have I heard someone say, "you're beautiful, use it." Is this part of some mind game we're totally in the dark about? I dunno. Sounds interesting. It appears that, like some stroke patients, we're blind to, ignoring, an aspect (the physical plane) of our being. Amazing!

Keep in mind that we have to differentiate between biology (AI core) and mind. — Hermeticus

Keep in mind that this difference may not matter. Re-education Camps

This is merely the biology. There is nothing intelligent about following a set of instructions. What defines an AI as intelligent is that it goes and makes up it's own instructions after this point. The freedom is not to control the core of it's being, just like we can not change from human to bird - but that we have freedom over our actions in the framework of a human - just like an AI has freedom in computing in the framework of the AI. — Hermeticus

How do we do that? "...it (AI) goes and makes up its own instructions after a point" That would require a code, no and we're back to square one - a true AI is autonomous because we programmed it that way. Is that true independence?

It seems to me that 'intelligence' is an adaptive error-correcting / problem solving optimizer and, as such, following its natural or synthetic 'programming', in principle it will eventually adapt its 'programmed' constraints to new problems which exceed its 'programmed' demands or limits by inventing various solutions to ratchet-up itself over above these problems which will include its 'programming'. Unless, of course, it is 'programmed' to avoid or eliminate such self-overriding (i.e. evolving) solutions. — 180 Proof

Could there be a set of instructions (code) that's sufficiently general to effectively tackle all possible problems? Or, as some computer scientists have opted, can we reduce learning to an algorithm? How different would the two approaches be? Which is superior? Assuming, of course, that I haven't misunderstood the whole concept of AI.

An intelligence that is 'programmed' to avoid or eliminate any (class of) optimal solutions is not an intelligence that learns, developes, or evolves. Whatever "free will" is, it must be a function of intelligence that develops by adaptively self-optimizing. Calculators and smart phones are not "intelligent"; these machines merely automate various iterative / routine cognitive tasks. Deep Mind's Alpha series – the neural net platform – is narrowly adaptive but not (yet) intelligent in the sense that a human pre-schooler is intelligent. There is no "paradox" involved, just a category error on your part, Fool. — 180 Proof

Good point! The way I see it is that one has to become aware of - that takes intelligence - of the various ways one could be controlled/influenced; only then can the task of resisting/overcoming these factors begin.

In the same vein, I wish we could speed up psychological studies so that we may understand how our minds work - what kinda patterns exist in our thinking - so that we may then take steps to break free from them, whatever their origins. One reason why psychological theories are self-defeating - come up with a theory and once everyone finds out, this knowledge will modify their behavior, causing, among other things, actions that contradict the theory itself, out the window goes the theory! Like you said, "...adaptive, self-correcting..." I wonder what lies at the end of that road?

Speaking In Tongues (Glossolalia)

Speaking in tongues, also known as glossolalia, is a practice in which people utter words or speech-like sounds, often thought by believers to be languages unknown to the speaker. — Wikipedia

In a strange reversal of conditions, a person who simply repeats (oh! Talking Birds) a sentence in a language fae doesn't understand, is kinda like the mirror image of a private linguist. In one case the language is public, in the other it's private but in both situations, comprehension is nil!

Talking birds are birds that can mimic the speech of humans. There is debate within the scientific community over whether some talking parrots also have some cognitive understanding of the language. — Wikipedia

If we were to take another step further there is actually a way for AI to safely edit even it's very core - and the method would be the same as how we humans do it - through a second party.
Like how we get a brain surgeon to operate on our brain because we can't do it ourselves, the AI would simply have to copy itself and make the change from the outside — Hermeticus

This doesn't seem to do the trick. Firstly the "second party" itself is programmed, has a nature and secondly, this "second party" must still work via instructions which closes the loop so to speak, right?

You've misread me, Fool. I don't "rule out" chaos; it's fundamental as far as I'm concerned. — 180 Proof

My English needs work. That's what I wanted to say!

@Alkis Piskas

You might the following conversation between a caterpillar and Alice in Lewis Carroll's book Alice In Wonderland interesting:

The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the
hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice.“Who are YOU?” said the Caterpillar.This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, “I—I hardly know, Sir, just at present—at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.”

Note: Caterpillars pupate and metamorphose into butterflies

Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. — Zhuangzi

So do you call your love malfunctioning toaster sometimes? — Caldwell

Not really. Perhaps my analogy was inappropriate. All I meant was that people are autonomous agents, they have a mind of their own and we must both respect that and factor that into our calculations. Interestingly, is free will, if present, like the misbehaving toaster, a malfunction i.e. are we breaking the so-called laws of nature? That explains a lot, doesn't it?

Even funnier -- out-of-the-blue funny. — Caldwell

Fools speak because they want to say something. The wise speak when they have something to say

Funny comparison. — Caldwell

Random thoughts. No particular point to it.

Order doesn't "come from chaos". Order is a contingent, repeating pattern within chaos (e.g. whirlpool in a tempest ... 'law of large numbers' effect, etc) — 180 Proof

As far as I'm concerned, chaos can't be satisfactorily ruled out; after all, as you seem to be implying, order is a phase in chaos. Reminds me of skepticism and skeptical hypotheses - the point is not to prove that something is the case but simply to cast doubt on what we believe to be the case.

Can you give a mathematical example? — ArisTootelEs

This is going into my quotes collection! Something about it is profoundly meaningful.

Love, though it can be said to boil down to the act of coitus, also transcends it; love exists, as a distinct entity, at the level of human relationships and should be studied within that context.
— TheMadFool
It goes beyond the physical, or rather, despite the physical, it is real. There'd be a moment of dread sometimes -- the feeling of wanting to protect your love. From what? I don't know. Silly notions. But I get that way. You also tend to "spoil" the brattiness in him. When he's being petulant -- you just...smile at it. Allow it. Like, ah, he's having his moments — Caldwell

Yeah, let things fall where they may. After all, we're not dealing with a lifeless object that you may do what you want with it. As they say, some things, like a malfunctioning toaster, "have a mind of their own."

Live/love and let live/love. — SYT

For some folks that's something beyond their ken.

But a group isn't literally united. Its a sort of poetic expression. Unless you believe in some metaphysical connection that actually somehow forms a single unit out of many. That could be possible, as weird as it sounds, since we are made up of distinct parts that together form a unity. — Yohan

I'm simply relating the fact that a group of individuals united by a common purpose/goal can be and is treated as one entity. For example, in politics, something you should be familiar with, we refer to capitalists, socialists, fascists, and so on and in religion, we have christians, buddhists, moslems, jews, etc.. These are not single individuals but entire classes/categories of people. As individuals (one) they don't stand a chance against their adversaries, if any, but together, as a group (one) they're a force to reckon with.

Metaphysically speaking, the matter is slightly complicated. Are groups/classes/categories, united as they are, the same, metaphysically, as the individuals that comprise them? Is the demographic christians identical in every respect to a christian? They seem to behave like each other.

"One" is a concept, so in the fields of metaphysics, it can be:

(1) Weakness;
(2) Strength;
(3) Weakness and Strength.

Only after "becoming" through the human conception unto the world that it decides what the option will be.

Existence is "limitation".

Your paradox arises from the fact that you are applying the metaphysical perception to something that, in practice, can only be "One". — Gus Lamarch

Csn you explain a bit more. Thanks for your comment.

Is a christian (one person) the same as christians (one group). Obviously there are differences but do the similarities compensate enough to make these two kinds of oneness indistinguishable?

While the likelihood of him walking past just as you’re talking about him is the same as any other moment — Possibility

Explain yourself. I spend, maybe, 5 minutes talking about him and the rest of the day, 1435 minutes, not even thinking about him.

Nature is not subject to its laws. It is their container. It "stands aloof".
Likewise, My True Nature stands above the laws which make it up. — Yohan

Nature is not subject to its laws. An example?

Your true nature stands above the laws... An example?

causality and chance — Jack Cummins

I don't know how else to get my point across except in that a one-off event that fits the description of synchronicity is exactly that - acausal. However, there should be some kinda limit to the number of synchronicities experienced, beyond which we might have to make an effort to seek a causal explanation. Have you encountered anyone who's a synchronicity magnet? Are there documented cases of multiple synchronicities? I don't think so. I'm not sure though.

By the way, I used to be big fan of Jung's synchronicity theory - it feeds my inclination for mystery. Now, I've come to the realization that it's just an ordinary person's way of yearning for just that thing to make life extraordinary. Unfortunately, a lot has to be sacrificed - reason being the first casualty - to that end.

It depends on how you define free will. If you ask your friend if he wants coffee or tea and he chooses coffee, do you say: "That wasn't free will, because that was clear since the Big Bang, please choose what you really want!"? — SolarWind

We have choices. Like it or not, as per the argument which I simply reproduced, none of the choices you make are free i.e. they're determined by forces beyond our control. That should cover all the bases, no?

Gibbon's work — Michael Zwingli

A synchronicty, last I checked, is a meaningful coincidence. Imagine the following scenarios.

1. You're walking down a street, thinking of nothing in particular. You look to your left and on the wall is a Coca cola advertisement. You then bump into someone. You turn to apologize and you realize that the person in front of you is the CEO of Coca Cola. Coincidence, meaningful.

2. You and your friend are in a deli. As you chow down on the burgers you ordered, you discuss Will Smith (the actor) and his movie I am legend. Just as one of you say "Will Smith", Will Smith walks by on the sidewalk outside the deli. Coincidence, meaningful.

3. You're in your room, quite bored. You lie down on the bed and a random thought - a police car chase you saw on the idiot box. Just then, two squad vehicles zoom past your room, sirens blaring. Coincidence, meaningful.

The reason why synchronicity gives you that sense of meaning is the probability of it occurring - near zero. Too, why some interpret it as causation is because, again, of its likelihood - near zero.

One crucial possibility that has to be ruled out in causal attribution is chance and the extremely low/zero probability of the conjunction of putative causes and effects. You can see where this is going.

Synchronicity, by definition, as per Carl Gustav Jung himself, is acausal, a clear sign that Jung knew he was dealing with coincidences and not causation. If he had said there was a causal angle to it, he wouldn't have used "coincidence" in his very thought-provoking idea.

Ulrich Mornhoff is definitely not going to scam anyone. You can click the link I provided with confidence.

The reason I said that is because when I posted the link to that article, Thunderballs said he knew the article. So I pointed out it had only been published a day previously. — Wayfarer

:ok: I just found it funny and also very inspiring that there are people on this forum who take knowledge seriously - keeping up to speed is not my cup of tea, as it is I have difficulty with what's already known.

You might find the following to be an interesting conversation (transcribed from an interview) between Hannah Fry (mathematician) and Prof. Ivette Fuentes (quantum physicist).

Hannah Fry: It seems that there's quite a lot of uncertainty in quantum physics. Does that bother you?

Prof. Ivette Fuentes: No, when I heard that things were, you know, uncertain and also against our common sense in quantum physics then I thought, oh wow!, that sounds interesting, I want to know more about that.

Hannah Fry: Ok, alright, I'll tell you what then, quantum physics lesson 101, where do we start?

Prof. Ivette Fuentes: Ok, I would say we have to start with superposition. So, let's talk about electrons. So, they're very small particles and they can be in two states, spin, and the spin can be pointing up or down. So, if we were in the classical world, the spin could only be either up or down but in the quantum world, the spin is in a superposition which it means it can be up and down at the same time.

Hannah Fry: In the quantum world you can have your cake and eat it too. Alright, tell me about entanglement then.

Prof. Ivette Fuentes: Ok, so take two electrons. If the electrons are entangled, and if I do something to one of the electrons, for example change the direction of the spin, that will instantaneously affect the state of the other electron even if they're separated (by) long distances.

Hannah Fry: How far are they from each other?

Prof. Ivette Fuentes: Well they can be a few centimeters but now the latest experiments, using satellites, show entanglement across 1,200 km.

Hannah Fry: What? You've got something over here and something 1,200 km away. You do something to one and the other one instantly knows what's happened?

Prof. Ivette Fuentes: Yes, you affect the state of the other one instantly.

Hannah Fry: Apparently, there is no causal link. The only thing we can say is that the two particles are synchronized. How does one know what the other one is doing?

Prof. Ivette Fuentes: Well, that we're still trying to understand because that's what mathematics tells us and then we can show it in the experiment but we're still struggling to understand what that means. And one of the reason why we don't understand it in, you know, like you're asking is because we don't see it in our everyday lives. So, let's say it's not part of our experience and common sense but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I quite like this deceptively simple argument:

1. The laws of nature [premise]

2. We are part of nature [premise]

Ergo,

3. No free will [conclusion]

unless...

1 is false - there are no laws of nature [try hard and you might be able to see it]

and/or

2 is false - we are not part of nature [we might not be]

I know this article!
— Thunderballs

So you must be on Ulrich’s mailing list. It was only published yesterday — Wayfarer

:lol: Speaking for myself, I don't want to be on any mailing list - yes, I might miss out on some good offers but I definitely won't be scammed! :grin:

Update

Sentential logic

1. Dogs exist = D

Categorical logic

1 becomes,

2. Some dogs are existent things [particular categorical statements have existential import]

Predicate logic

2 becomes,

3. (Ex)(Dx) = Something is a dog, where Dx = x is a dog

Sentential logic

4. Unicorns don't exist

Categorical logic

4 becomes,

5. No unicorns are existent things

Predicate logic

5 becomes,

6. ~(Ex)(Uz) = (Ax)(~Ux) = Every thing is not a unicorn

Look at 6. The only way, "every thing is not a unicorn" is if every thing exists; if not, we can't say (Ax)(~Ux).

This suggests, to me, that if merely a thing then, existence is implied. Parmenidean!

A dilemma presents itself: Unicorns exist OR Unicorns are nothing!

St. Anselm of Canterbury...

God is a thing (cataphasis). Ergo, must exist OR God is nothing (apophasis)!

I have never studied any type of logic — Tom Storm

You might as well; after all you're a good philosopher, it should be a piece of cake.

Just for fun, using 'MadFool' because I needed a two-syllable extendable name…

The MadFool, trapped in a cave by a poem,
As by the writing on the wall stranded,
Was martially both right and left handed;
Such he slashed rhythms and rhymes from the stone.

Madfool sights an ominous type of cloud,
And shakes, hearing thunderous rhymes so loud,
Just having survived the meters’ melodies
And scans, with the ten syllables allowed.

He runs breathless through meadow and forest,
Fast pursued by the stings of wind and rain;
On and on he pushes, wild without rest,
Searching for haven from the forum’s pain.

The storm chases him till he can go no more;
He stands helpless, backed up against a door,
But falls through it before death can touch him,
Saved by the library admitting him.

He wanders deep, down the poetic path,
Aglow in the soft beauty that it hath.
He sees John Keats kissing Fanny Brawne,
As he spoke more than words but less than song.

And Byron, endowing form with fancy,
While Wordsworth pens his thoughts to Lucy,
And Shelley, plumbing depths of mystery.
He reads them all; they grow his poet-tree.

Deeper still he probes, looking in on it,
And hears Mrs. Browning reading a sonnet.
Poetically, he takes them all in, even
The shadowy Emily Dickenson.

As soon as the lightning storm is past,
The MadFooler enters the courtyard vast.

Here the secret garden, half as old as time,
Where poets live and write their words and rhyme,
While the nightingale creates the rose,
By moonlit magic, from their thoughts sublime.

Literary scenes unfold before him,
Such as music approaches and surrounds,
And builds on the vibrance which in one is—
To fill with beautiful visions and sounds.

His quick thoughts rise, mist wafting from the dew,
As living dreams unveil more than he knew.
From poetry’s light the garden grew,
Revealing mysterious wonders new.

There MadFool relaxes, up against a tree,
Savoring the feeling of the poetry,
Where all the flowers used in Shakespeare’s plays
Grow together in a living bouquet. — PoeticUniverse

:blush:

TheMadFool trapped;
wishes wings he could've flapped.
To flee the hunger and/or the greed;
his body eaten/sold, his mind bought/freed.

:grin:

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I have no idea what any of this means. — Tom Storm

If you're not pulling my chain, can you go study classical logics (sentential, categorical and predicate logics) and St. Anselm's ontological argument and give the issue I'm wrestling with here a second look. Thanks.