I guess that means you're going to ban me. All I can say is that I really didn't understand why.

Likely. I will generally interpret someone telling me my perspective is "cold and brutal", without invitation or further comment, negatively. Perhaps if you used more words, I would have understood you. — fdrake

I've been practicing that lately. I find myself saying the same thing over and over in different ways, hoping that the meaning will get through somehow.

Have you said something about yourself and I missed it? — unenlightened

I didn't. I had a dreamlike childhood during which I saw the sights and sounds around me as a kind of veil with something more real behind it.

I think this was probably a childish translation of the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses I grew up around. They rejected this world and expected it to all be replaced by a perfect world. To me, my only access to the real world was down in the woods playing in the creek. Unfortunately, I couldn't stay there and I became suicidal in my teens.

It's like a gorge opened up between the real me and the me who deals with the world of people and the dramas they create. For me, philosophy is part of my quest to find the bottom.

Just out of curiosity - is this some kind of accusation that I'm "cold and uncaring" because I "don't believe in minds" and "don't care how individuals are treated"? — fdrake

Not at all. It was an invitation to talk about the psychological dimensions of eliminativism. The way you reacted struck me as defensive, as if you're emotionally unstable. Or maybe we don't understand one another at all.

don't think so. But that's off topic. So I'll leave it. — fdrake

Eliminative materialism is obviously a kind of nihilism. It's psychologically precarious. That appears to me to be on topic, but I agree we should leave it. :grimace:

Why does it sound that way to you? — fdrake

Eliminative materialism and methodological behaviorism? It's a kind of nihilism, isn't it?

Nah — fdrake

It does sound that way to me. I take it you don't experience it that way.

That all sounds kind of cold and brutal.

Funny thing is: it doesn't make sense to call a world "external" unless you think there's an "internal" somewhere. :razz: :razz: :razz:

So a woman is raped in a nation where the positive law permits it because she is the possession of the man who has committed this act.

Was this "act" a violation? If it was a violation, what was it a violation of? — Hanover

The people in that nation might be appalled that Americans let women with children languish in poverty, working multiple jobs trying to make ends meet until they end up in the emergency room with pneumonia, panicking because they can't stay home in bed. Is this neglect a violation?

The question ends up depending on what sort of foundation you put under your morality. How do you look at that?

That is an irrelevant example.
Albert's thought experiments ARE NOT claims about facts of reality....the keyword is "thought experiments"
His work was not on QM and the Nobel awarded model of Quantum fluctuations came much later.
Absolute void is NOT possible (according to our current data) in our universe. Quantum foam is everywhere. — Nickolasgaspar

What you're doing is using scientific theory to lay out what we mean by words like "existence." Wouldn't it be better to just look to how we actually use the words? Einstein's thought experiment depends on it being at least logically possible for a person (or one dimensional point if that helps) to exist in a void.

Logical and metaphysical possibility often informs the way we use words. This means that as long as there is no logical contradiction in the idea of a void, it's going to make sense to talk about it. You know what I mean by "void" whether you agree that there is such a thing or not.

The fact that we can meaningfully talk about a thing existing in a void (in spite of believing that there is no such thing) means that "existence" means more than an interaction between items. See what I mean?

(absolute)void has not been proven possible within our universe. (Quantum Fluctuations). So we constantly observe interactions in every scale of the universe. — Nickolasgaspar

You, alone in the void. That's the beginning of one of Einstein's thought experiments. Did he make a mistake?

This is what defines existence....interactions between elements and entities — Nickolasgaspar

How does that work if you're in a void?

first heard about it in a great book by Carolyn Merchant "Autonomous Nature - Problems of Prediction and Control from Ancient Times to the Scientific Revolution".
Theories like "Chaos Theory", Scientific Emergence, Quantum Biology, Mechanics, Chemistry and many methodologies that use statistical probabilities are part of Complexity Science. — Nickolasgaspar

That sounds fascinating. Thanks!

I expect it will be two or three more Presidential elections before "Republican primary voters" throw up a nominee – man or woman – who will have an even chance to win enough of Independents and former-GOP voters to get back into the WH. — 180 Proof

I think it just depends on who looks the best on tv. The reason I'm keeping my eye on Haley is that she managed to be elected governor of SC, but at the same time doesn't show up as a complete sycophant or psycho.

I'll admit that it's also because DeSantis makes my stomach turn, he's such a slug, and Biden definitely looks weak.

Makes sense.

The first female president will be a Republican. People can't handle liberal and female at the same time. Think Margaret Thatcher.

We could get chat-gpt to tell us what he said.

:up:

I could be wrong (happens on a regular basis) but I don't see any scenario in which Haley can win in the primaries. — EricH

Famous last words, though. If you're thinking that just because of racism, I think you might be mistaken. I don't think the average Republican is racist.

One cannot be through with Marx until human emancipation is achieved. — Jamal

I guess my identity thread is a long way off then.

:up:

Thus, if I'm to be taken as saying anything at all about ontology, I'm saying that the historical and conventional ontological frameworks are fatally flawed in that they are inherently inadequate as a result of being incapable of taking meaningful experience into account. — creativesoul

You're probably right.

but in smaller scales we prefer other tools like Complexity Science and Emergence. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not familiar with complexity science. Do you know of a good resource?

The second meaning of the term is more of a failed philosophical attempt to oversimplify the above "success story of science" but that has nothing to do with the goals of science or the emergent characteristics found in Nature. — Nickolasgaspar

One of the things I quickly noticed about this topic is that a person would really need to be a scientist to make any pronouncements, and scientists are usually busy doing other things.

think identity is a rich concept. I'm not following how decision making marks off the natural from the supernatural. — Moliere

We know the amoeba made a decision because it's not just flowing along with the current. That's what volition is: going against wind, so to speak. Id like to do a thread on identity one day. Maybe after you're through with Marx

So it looks as if we expect knowledge to be proof against changes in context. That's a tall order. — Ludwig V

It's the measurement problem. Looking at it changes it.

Suppose I asked Al whether he is aware that there is a non-zero probability that his car will be hit by a falling meteorite. Do you think he would change his mind then? — Ludwig V

If it was me, I'd say that I'm VERY aware of it and glare at you knowingly. I don't know what Al would do.

But Ann Coulter is an idiot. I think Haley will appeal to swing voters because she seems to have a moral center. DeSantis comes across as a slug after what he did with shipping immigrants all over the place.

MAGAs won't give her the nomination. Most GOP donors don't back her candidacy. — 180 Proof

Oh. I didn't realize that. Who are they backing?

Really? Why do you say that?

Because we're the tallest hog in the trough. — BC

I don't think you're supposed to get in the trough. You just eat out of it.

So, the simplest hypothesis is not guaranteed to be true, but it is more likely to be true — Xanatos

Why?

Consciousness is meaningful experience. — creativesoul

Meaning is neither physical nor non physical, internal nor external, etc. — creativesoul

Consciousness is neither physical nor nonphysical? Are you saying ontology doesn't apply to consciousness?

Are you asking me to present possible candidates for an argument I am not making? I was not asking a rhetorical question of Ludwig V. I don't know the answer. I am genuinely interested in any reply. — Paine

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood.

I am not the one who expressed dissatisfaction with the dialogue. Do you have an opinion on the matter? — Paine

Cryptic. :chin:

Do you think Socrates playing a mid-wife is withholding something from us? — Paine

Like what?

Which reinforces the view that I'm developing, that many of these problems are created by the bad habit of saying more than we need to. If I say I know where it is, I'm making assumptions that I'm not making if I say I know where I parked it. — Ludwig V

Right. There's a thing where a news broadcaster asks if you know where your children are. The point is to suggest you might not. So if the issue of knowledge is spoken of, it's likely that said knowledge is in question, right?

My intent in using the metabolism example is to say, hey, yes, we can already map the chemical pathways of these things. But that chemical map doesn't explain why the animal eats. Why does an animal make decisions at all? In what way are even single-celled organism's decisions to respond to sugar gradients predicated upon any physical law? (or is the observation that they respond to sugar gradients a physical law? are all observations observations of physical laws?) — Moliere

I don't think it's that we observe physical laws. We use physics to explain what we observe. Do we really observe acts of volition? Or is volition a theory to explain observations? In other words, is there a clash of explanations when we try to reconcile decision making with physics? I would be one who says there's no bridge between the two.

Physics, especially when viewed as an all-encompassing body of explanations, is essentially a deterministic domain, right? The area of decision making is about identity (who makes the ATP? who shot down the balloon?) Decision making marks off the natural from the supernatural (per the literal meaning of that word.) And ultimately, it's the engine of emotion we call morality. I suspect that reduction is never going to happen here. Any attempt to reduce is going to give way to eliminativism. Do you agree with that?

One of the things I want to mention, though it could throw us too far off course so I'm separating it off -- something that threw me off of thinking reductionism could take place is the fact that we cannot analytically solve any Schrödinger equation other than the one which represents the system of one proton and one electron -- the hydrogen system.

But the physical systems which comprise life are much more complicated than that system. We don't have analytic, logical access to that at this point in time in terms of scientific knowledge. So I think this thought is also causing some of my doubts. — Moliere

Yes. It's a bad time in history to be reductive because the foundation of physics is unfinished. We could make bridge laws to what we've got, only to find out tomorrow that it's all completely different from what we thought.

Mitochondria have a number of functions, including producing ATP.
— frank

Right! So this is a statement which seems to link a name and two biological concepts (Name,concept,concept: Mitochondria,functions,producing) with one chemical name (which, sure, I'll count that as a concept).

Is this now a bridge law? Is it enough to find a harmonious example between two disciplines? — Moliere

We would start with chemistry and bridge up to the biological function as a category of processes required for the endurance of the system. All chemistry has to do is explain cell respiration, digestion, metabolism, etc. We enter the bridge when we collect those explanations and serve them up as to how the organism endures?

I would say the sciences are independent of one another, and their harmony is something sought after by us because we like it. And sometimes we find it, which is nice! But that's not the same thing as to say everything will, or could be, reduced to physics. — Moliere

Gotcha.

I think it can go too far. For instance the amount of time spent peering into dust, and smashing bits of it together to see what falls from them, has been time wasted, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

If you're talking about the Hadron collider, I kind of lean in that direction as well. That was a lot of money spent, for what exactly?

But what I do not see is a reduction of the functions of the cell to the physical level. The functions of the cell are still an important part of understanding the phenomena of life, even if understanding the molecular interpretation of life further elucidates and deepens our understanding of why life is behaving in accord with such and such a function.

But the way biologists use "function" -- you won't find an extension for that in the physics textbook, nor will you find anything but metaphoric talk in the chemistry textbooks about function. So on page 109 of the above pdf biology book: "Organelles are cell structures with specialized functions that will be discussed in section 4.4" -- this is my intended meaning of "function" — Moliere

Mitochondria have a number of functions, including producing ATP. Obviously this is a cherrypicked example because we know mitochondria were originally independent critters which were eaten by bigger cells who then started using them as metabolic regulators. It's not too hard to see functionality in this case as the result of a happy accident (happy for us, since we're the result of those ancient events).

It's true that once we start explaining function in this way (that it's stuff that happens accidently), the line between life and non-life fades. But I think that's the point of reduction?

This is the problem. A complete justification would consider every possibility (except, perhaps, the purely imaginary ones), including the possibility that it might be struck by a meteorite. Theoretically doubtful, practically impossible. So the question is, what possibilities can he not cover and still count as knowing? — Ludwig V

I think we can just rely on cultural norms here. If common sense says I was justified, I was.

I'm justified in believing there are satellites orbiting the earth, even though I have no way of checking on that. My justification is that experts tell me so and I have no good reason to doubt it.

Do I have good reasons to doubt the location of my car? I do, but maybe others don't?

I mean, if you parked your car somewhere, would you say you know where it is? Or just that you know where you parked it?

It seems clear enough to me that meaningful thought and belief(experience or consciousness, if you like) are reducible to neither physical events nor physics, similar to Davidson's anomalous monism(without 'mental' events).

How does one reduce meaningful correlations drawn between different things to physics? — creativesoul

I don't know the answer to your question. Could it be it's as if you're asking a person from 50 CE: "how does one get to the moon?"

"One day" is the answer I think a reductionist would give.

Would you argue that it isn't possible to reduce our theories of consciousness to physics?