Yeah I am okay with experts using jargon to expedite communication, I guess where I have an issue is when communication bogs down when one party decides to deliberately complicate their language. Reducing the bandwidth of information transfer between two parties fro arbitrary reasons seems rather useless. — rlclauer

Sure, and that's where cases can help. Especially here where people with some expertise are conversing with others who have little and then others have a lot. What seems like posturing might simply be not realizing what communication is best given the experience of the other person.

But I agree that people can get fancy ass - my wording - for the wrong reasons.

I don't think the link is right.

Well, that too yes. Sometimes fancy ass words actually represent a concept that is not easy to put in other words and/or saves a lot of time. It can be a shorthand between experts, lay or professional. Or someone can be showing off. Or one can be compounding abstractions and ideas so far from experience that it ends up like the most wanky art criticism. you could pretty much say anything like in the Sokol hoax.

makes me think of relationship. Two people are in a relationship, I mean this in the romantic sense of relationship. But each of them are certainly going to have differences in their conception of that relationship. There will likely be overlap, at least in the language used to describe the R, but also differences. In some relationships a lot of differences. The description of the contested border will have some overlap - between mountain chain X and river Y. Like which portions of the countries touch - the NW corner, etc. Differences and overlap. A border between countries is a facet of their relationship with each other and to the area of the border and less so to other countries.

A suggestion: turn the thread into case studies. While reading other threads come back with what you consider obfuscatory language in a quote, plus a link so we can see the context. I doubt we will all agree, but I think specifics will tease out at least the different criteria. And we can actually test out the critieria.

One criterion seems to be: there is a simpler way to say it. We can see if the examples pass this test. For example.

I don't know what you mean by 'rational apprearances' I think it would be good if you define that. And also if you respond to my examples in my previous post. There have been many beliefs held by many that are false. Kim Khardishan is considered important by many, much more important than many scientists, religious leaders, hard working social workers. Is she? People have all sorts of folk beliefs about their own minds that are not true. It seems to me you are appealing to the popularity of an idea, which is a fallacy.

No, it isn't. All cases for anything appeal to rational appearances - to rational intuitions. Not beliefs, note. it is fallacious to think that you can make something true by getting enough people to believe it. — Bartricks

Right that's what I'm saying.

But my claim is that the reason - a faculty - of most people represents it to be true. Which is stunningly good evidence - the best you're ever going to have for anything, for all appeals to evidence are appeals to reason - for anything. — Bartricks

But then you face the problem of saying that set X is based on this faculty and sey Y is not, like the importance of the Khardishan's and the world being flat, at least once upon a time are in that set Y. Which is where actual evidence has to come in. The empirical component.

Otherwise we just have default truths and the sense of the onus changing like fashion.

And one can still want to live as if there is moral responsibility or that it is part of determinsm, as a felt process. Even if I think I am determined, I could still want to regret certain acts, improve my social relations, do things that I consider good to my fellow humans. All those feelings can still continue.

Most people have not reasoned their way to moral responsibility, they have assumed it.

There are a lot of folk beliefs, like folk beliefs in psychology that are not the case, despite their popularity.

when you ask questions like is QM casual...
— Bill Hobba

Causal? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

It's not a coincidence that the discoveries in QM and the steep rise in the divorce rate correlate.

re what you say about premise 1 - yes, but that's not real moral responsibility. Incarcerating someone solely to protect others (and/or the criminal) is quarantine, not punishment. — Bartricks

I agree. That was an aside on my part, but I think an important one, since some people, not that I asssumed you, think that if there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no measures taken without hypocrisy. So, I mention it. Call it a preemptive strike. Even retribution or punishment can happen, though they are hypocritical, since the one who punishes can say they feel compelled to do it, even to legislate it.

Re what you say about premise 2 - it has considerable support. Like I say, the reason of virtually everyone represents it to be true. If that isn't support I don't know what is. — Bartricks

It's support in the sense that it may make the argument interpersonally effective, but other than that this is an ad populum argument, so far.

That does not mean that premise 2 is true beyond all doubt, but the burden of proof is squarely on those who would deny it to provide countervailing evidence. — Bartricks

You haven't provided any evidence, you have said that people believe it, or think that way. IOW if this was strong evidence than it means theism is the default and even is evidence though less, that Kim Khardishan has important things to say.

for a complex whole that is made wholly of necessarily existing things is not a material object. — Bartricks

My tack is to argue that the term material object, or the adjectives material and physical, no longer have any meaning. They used to mean things, like stones and chairs, but now the refer to massless particles, fields, things that have more than one in the same place, particles in superposition, neutrinos passing as we speak in their trillions right through the earth and so on. Whatever scientists consider real, they will call physical or material, regardless of the qualities. It is a set that is expanding not just in what it contains but in the types of things it contains, regardless of qualities or the lack thereof. So to me the whole debate about material/immaterial has a problematic ground since one of the two categories's criteria are expanding and are not fixed and has become synonymous with real. I think medieval theologians on hearing the characteristics of neurtrinos, let alone even less physicallike 'things' now considered physical, might very well have said 'oh, well with your use of the term, perhaps angels are physical, it's just they can fly right through the earth also.'

I don't see any non-omnipotent alternatives to the mythology of a divine creator of all things. — Artemis

Not aware of any of the polytheisms and what their gods are like: look into the Greeks or see what Odin has to deal with. Or even the God of the old testament - getting pissed off or competing with lucifer - or even Jesus feeling forsaken on the cross, or the complexities of the HIndu deities, on indigenous versions of God or gods, that can have all sorts of versions of deities and creators? Never heard of the demiurge? I've met plenty of theists from all sorts of religions who do not believe in mathematical and infinity type perfections that must lead to paradoxes, and that includes even Christians. I'm not going to walk you through the variety of versions of God or gods out there. Especially since you couldn't even bother to read the original post but decided to get triggered by part of a single sentence in it.

Also, it remains that pointing out that omnipotence is silly (as atheists do) is not embarrassing. — Artemis

The debate is, as I said, in the way it is framed and tends to be considered by both sides (and by omni I meant the range of omnis, not just omnipotence, especially given that they often are using in conjunction in the debates.)

Or, if it is, then you should be embarrassed right now, because all your argument comes down to is siding with the atheists as far as that argument goes (omni-potence as an illogical and useless concept). — Artemis

I didn't argue that. I didn't come down on the side of atheists, I judge those who who think they are disproving God or theism in general when they play with the theists around the omni words. And yes, I think those theists who play that game are being silly too. Which I said in the orginal post. But you seemed to only manage to see the word atheists and couldn't bother to read the post. What is it with theists and atheists like you just playing these smug little games?

What, are you a child?

Coben was asserting something along those lines actually. — Artemis

No, don't speak for me. It should be obvious that if it takes five or six posts, and only when I repeat myself that you actually notice a portion of what I wrote, you're not the right person to represent me to third parties.

I don't respect the way you post or fail to read or decide to represent me and then in that post smugly imply you have a better way of thinking about something when making up my position. May you find and debate or snark with theists as silly as you are. You're not interested in discussion, just points and jabs.

I won't read you or respond to you again.

It's in the post where I talked about people attributing mathematically infinite and perfect qualities to God- rather than expressively using superlatives to refer to something incredible say. Both atheists and theists should be embarrassed by that discussion around omni- qualities. Because nothing in scriptures need be taken in these mathematically infinite terms. Because the atheist theist discussion like this tends to presume an Abrahamist God. Because there are better interpretations of the descriptions of God's powers, nature. It's like an agreement between boht sides to follow the odd turning of some Christian theologians in the Middle Ages or whenever the omni qualites started getting banded about. Both sides acting as if there arguments about omni this and omni that defended or proved theism or atheism when in fact they are simply arguments about 1 interpretation of biblical scriptures intended meanings and what those would entail. So only one interpretation or one religions theology. Not theism in general. IOW not all theists and atheists should be embarrassed but many of those who get into those omni X means this or doesn't debates, should be I think.

Are we entitled to sex with willing partners and obligated to use birth control`? If yes, and no that we would seem to be entitled to have children.

At what point did entitlement, rights, obligations, lack of any of these arise in the evolution of animals that ended up being humans?

The god doesn't want anything to do with us. Not cowardice, but contempt.
— Bartricks

...or maybe She's just busy looking after the rest of the Universe? It's a big place...? — Pattern-chaser

And then there is the age old, maybe what we think we can deduce is not correct. That our limited intelligence/knowledge/perspective can make us judge actions/facets in ways that are fallible. Like children can judge adult policies incorrect given their, in relation, limited knowledge. And animals can certain get frustrated with their owners choices. The god moves in mysterious ways thingie.

I do think this argument/position has been used horrifically. On the other hand, it is also hard to rule out. So if some bunch of humans want to foist it on me, I am resistant. But I also balk when skeptics say they know it is not the case. They know they can judge and draw correct conclusions. Well, I doubt that too.

1. If everything I think, desire and do is the causal product of prior causes and/or indeterministic chance, then I am not morally responsible for anything I think, desire and do. — Bartricks

Yes, not morally responsible, however, it would still make sense, for example, for others to note your behavior and, avoid or incarcerate you, for example. IOW one is still the entity that kills women, or whatever. You can't help it - though perhaps certain new causes could change the behavior. You are a product, only of past causes, yes. So saying you are bad with a wagging finger as if you could have been otherwise, is confused - though also determined - but responding with certain measures that look like moral responses still makes sense.

2. I am morally responsible for some of what I think, desire and do.

Or not. This would need support. It is a good argument for cornering determinists who don't want to grant this as false.

If they do grant both then, yes, three follow.

3. Therefore (from 1 and 2), not everything I think, desire and do is the causal product of prior causes and/or indeterministic chance.

4. If I am a material object, then everything I think, desire and do is the causal product of prior causes and/or indeterministic chance

that seems true but there needs to be more put in. I don't think there is any clear definition of material or physical anymore. So we would need a definition of material. If one is arguing with most determinists, they will merely grant this, of course.

5. Therefore (from 3 and 4), I am not a material object

If I am not a material object, then I must be an immaterial one, for that's the only alternative.

Or you are a mixed object, it would seem, unless you are arguing that humans are not material in any way. Now you may have meant 'I' is mind or soul, in this last sentence. But still if we go back to 3 it is 'not everthing is determined' which seems to indicate a potential mix of being partially determined or determined on occasion. Like when the doctor taps your reflex points, say. Unless that isn't you moving your leg in response. And then we need to wonder about the interactin between this immaterial self and the body. If bodies are material, which they seem to be. Two also needs to show what morally responsible means, unless it is granted by the opposition. If i choose to do X, not caused by love, empathy, hatred or rationality. Not caused by anything, I am not sure that is moral behavior. I don't know what it is. It seems to me moral behavior would either come from feelings or have certain goals, so these become causal.

It is implicit in the argument that moral choosing exists. I don't know what that would be if it is not caused by wanting to do good or by values that create motivations, the motivations to live up to values being again causes and determining choices.

It seems to me there is a lot to unravel, though ti might be an effective argument in relation to people who want to just accept two and one, and find themselves in a bind to avoid the rest.

I brought Up Patricia Churchland specifically because she is a philosopher. There seemed to be some suggestion that the 'thoughtful' philosophers could see beyond the short-sighteded and narrow views of the scientists. — Isaac

Not on my part. I do think the other perspective/field will catch things, sometimes, that other scientists might not. I have no position on what most philosophers think in relation to science, thoughful ones or otherwise.

I don't understand what this has to do with the issue I raised. You understand how peer-review works, right? Scientists do not get to publish just any old crap that they 'reckon' might be true. Their papers are subjected to stringent peer-review, so what Susan Greenfield may have said in other areas does not affect her work in consciousness because her work in consciousness has passed peer-review, ie her conclusion are indeed related to her evidence buy a statistically significant margin. If you don't like Susan Greenfield, you could try Anil Seth, Bruce Hood, Vilynor Ramachandran... — Isaac

We seem to be talking past each other. I like her very much and agreed with the work that got lambasted. I had another point entirely, that seemed ironic in context, but I'll skip going over it again.

Drug companies have a huge financial interest in promoting their drug, it's not the same thing as research scientists who have no interest other than knowledge acquisition. Notwithsatnding that, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the fact that scientists are biased. I'd go even further and say that the vast majority are seeking evidence to support a personal world-view. I bolded that because there seems to be some degree of ignoring my comments in this regard so that I fit better into the 'rampant materialist' caricature that's been painted for me — Isaac

Yeah, I just don't think I am treating you like a rampant materialist. The point of my story was that as a lay person I could see things that the relevent scientists - the researchers who developed the drugs were scientists and the relevent experts (psychiatrists) either could not see or would not admit to seeing. IOW that a philosophical approach can come to useful conclusions in other fields.

My main reaction was in the binary presentation of go with what scientists are saying or allow for anyone to just say anything. That's not how you worded it, but I reacted both times to it as a false dilemma. There is a range of being informed amongst philosophers and other non-scientists. It's not binary, it's a spectrum. I hadn't drawn any conclusions about you as a materialist. I did react to those binary presentations. And there is also a range of being informed by those who think they are supported scientific positions. Here, these are generally also lay people.

But that's not what's happened here. Read the posts. Have the posts from the non-physicalists been speculative? Have they presented their position as a possible alternative story? Have they referred at all, even erroneously, to the actual empirical evidence, in an attempt to ensure their thoeries are not overwhelmingly contradicted by it? No, they have consisted almost entirely of a long-winded version of "David Chalmers says its a hard problem, so it is" — Isaac

Well, you're talking to me. I am not going to go back and read the other exchanges. It seems like you are saying it is binary. Well, I don't think I fit your binary chart. Maybe some others do. If you think it is the binary set up you mention perhaps you will see it only in extremes and even if they are doing some of the things you are saying, they still fall somewhere in the middle. Honestly it feels like you have a bone to pick. Perhaps this is response to them, but it seems to bleed into your response to me. Now I could go and read, for example, you interaction with Wayfarer, to see if that interaction fits your binary chart. But that's a morass I want to avoid.

And now I have Janus telling me that informed speculation is better than empty speculation.

Of course.
But in the context of my remark to someone else, my point was 'what is the risk?' I was responding to someone who couched the options in utterly binary terms.

So what is the best way to ensure this caution. Is it to have a series of peer-reviewed controlled trials testing each aspect with strictly defined correlates to see which show some statistically significant link? Or is it for a group of complete lay people who may know as little as nothing whatsoever about the physical brain write entire books about what they reckon consciousness is, and we sit here and discuss it as if it were fact.

Yes, probably so, but if peer-reviewed, controlled, statistically constrained investigations are going to be taken with a pinch of salt because of their potential paradigmatic bias (something I agree with entirely), then the uninformed ramblings of some philosopher are somewhere between gossip and fairy-tale in the order of how much salt to take them with.

There is a lot of middle ground between those options and that middle ground actually occurs here and elsewhere.

i point out why I think there is middle ground from personal experience. They Wayfarer makes a point in support of this, and then I, basically say, and what is the big threat if we do have some mere speculation?

Now you are coming in and saying mere speculation is not as good as informated speculation. Well, sure. I haven't said anything otherwise.

I just don't understand why the issue has to be couched in binary terms, what the great threat is of mere speculation, since, for example here, there are people who will critically work on that when others post it.

There seems to be some underlying panic that may be correct when looking at the world as a whole, but is being used here, it seems to me to paint view critical of mainstream science or even potentially so, or exploratory

as something dangerous.

As Wayfarer pointed out there are science forums.

And also, here, we can deal with individual posts that show varying degrees of being informed and that includes many of the posts that are posted in support of mainstream science. IOW these are often speculative and misinformed and certainly not using the latest research.

Some mere speculation here will not end peer-reviewed journals. Now I know you are not saying that it will, but that might give an indication of what it feels like when you tell me that informed speculation is better than mere speculation.

There is speculation and then there is empty speculation. Any speculation which does not take into account the latest scientific results and understanding is empty speculation. — Janus

Sure. But then even that is ok. Especially in the context of the post I was responding to and the one it was.

I'll elaborate. The end of this analysis is very depressing. — Wallows

make sure this is not the only place you give this information out to. Family, friends, a professional, face to face. You may need to protect yourself from the idea that things cannot be the way you want or get better or fulfilling. There may be times when that idea adds to the pain. However, no one knows where you can get to. Keep that door open, when you can.

I put it just fine, and you responded with unconstructive worries. "Ooh, but what if the wording isn't quite right?", "Ooh, but what if someone interprets it all funny like?", "Ooooooh...". :scream: — S

Hopefully you'll one day be able to use the quote function so you don't have to make up so much bullshit. I know you find it hard to believe, but application of abstract ideas is part of what makes things less simple then your aggressiveanyone who disagrees with me is an asshole approach to a philosophical discussion. I mentioned some the problems I had experienced with similar laws and rules and what happens over time. But you avoided that. Might have taken a few too many emoticons to make you think you actually made a point or dominated me or whatever your goal is.

Writing laws is best left to professionals, not members of a philosophy forum. — S

Great, when I suggest writing laws, rather than discussing issues related to law, I'll think back to how prescient you were.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, if you're arrogant enough to think that you can do better, then be my guest. But there's no way that I'd trust that responsibility to you over the actual professionals whose job it is to come up with this sort of legislation. — S

And more strawman stuff to get you to posture more. You are precisely the kind of person who probably thinks they are doing noble things, but via all the snarkiness, oversimplification, shifting of focus and irrelevant crap makes any tensions over an issue even worse.

You probably think you are making things better, but you actually just love the hate, keep it all us them and harsh. And the irony is lost on you.

I'll ignore you from here on out.

I am not sure anyone thinks Jabberowockies have any abilities. But, the main issue with your earlier post is that no one is debating the kinds of mathematically perfect abilities that theists and atheists sometimes do in relation to God about Jabberwockies. Your post seemed to think atheists or theists should be embarrassed for being in their categories, rather than for engaging in the debate which was the topic of my post.

If what's not my point?

Are there people who believe Jabberwockies are omnicient and the like and a-jabborwokiests have been arguing that omnicient Jabborwockies lead to paradoxes? Jeez I either missed that debate or your pithy comment is irrelevant.

It doesn't need to be foolproof. — S

Sure. I believe what I said was it was not so simple. You couched the issue in utterly simplistic binary terms.

What's the alternative? Have nothing in place because it isn't perfect? — S

The alternative is when discussing the issue to not make it all simple and binary.

I found a definition Isaac relayed, I don't know if it the main one. It didn't seem to include discrimination around sexuality or sexism, so perhaps there is a more general one somewhere.

"forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism,discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin"

The courts specifically state " authorities should, in particular, give careful consideration to the suspect's right to freedom of expression given that the imposition of criminal sanctions generally constitutes a serious interference with that freedom. The competent courts should, when imposing criminal sanctions on persons convicted of hate speech offences, ensure strict respect for the principle of proportionality" and, "the standards applied by national authorities for assessing the necessity of restricting freedom of expression must be in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10". Article 10 is the right to freedom of expression.

I would want to see what is considered inciting hatred. With a stress on that verb and also to see how the courts would or would not let the law slide or expand over time before couching the options we have in such simplistic terms you did. I have seen the way, for example, criticism of Israel gets turned into hate speech as anti-semitism and I have seen policies at universities that shut out vast swathes of potential and actual dialogue. I have seen people with economic concerns about immigration labelled racists, including immigrants who had those concerns, and seen them lose jobs. (I am in a European country right now though ex pat american.)

I worked in an organization that had a similar policy, though broader, including gender and sexuality and religion. I was appointed the person to deal with complaints. It certainly did help in some situations, but it became clear that almost everything was open season and I was pressured to censor and censure people who, I felt, were not inciting hatred against groups, but one could interpret the rule to include their speech acts.

Just to be preemtive: just because I say these things does not mean there should be no law. This is all in response to your simplistic version of the options.

I thought you might know where, thanks for the charitable interpretation of my question not request and the sweet message, role modeling future discourse for us all.

Oh, sorry. what page is it on?

The crux of the matter is whether or not you're in favour of the major benefit of preventing terrorist attacks and other serious crimes, at the minor "cost" of not being free to spread condemnable hate speech. — S

I don't think it's so simple. You gotta word that law and then the courts wil interpret it and it will change over time and interpretations will vary. Why doesn't the pro-limitation side come up with a version of the law and we can see what that might lead to.

Right. It is precisely to explore ideas and even up to and including speculating is and should be a part of what we do. In that context or course things may get utterly silly. I am not sure what the downside to that is, actually. If someone wants hard ass philosophy grounded in the latest science and monitored by experts, well they should look around at the nearest universities or try to start some kind of interdisciplinary book club and invite scientists.

That's the same false dilemma.

and let's go back to the two experts you brought up: Patricia Churchland and Susan Greenfield. The first is a philosopher. You can imagine how her ideas would be listened to where they do not line up, or seem not to, with scientific consensus, because to them she is a lay person. Then with Susan Greenfield, a scientist, she got lambasted for her work on cellphones. And why? because money didn't like her conclusions. She got treated by some experts in her field, some no doubt brought in by the affected industries, and by experts or at least public talker types in other fields, as if she was a biased non-scientific idiot.

I can remember as a teenager trying to understand the psychiatric and medical treatement of a relative with emotional challenges. I did lay research into the physchiatric approach, found what I thought were philosophical biases and problematic ones.

One simple one was that the drug this person was given was given to this person in the context of 'this person has a chemical imbalance which leads to what I am calling here emotional challenges. I actually researched the tests they did to find this drug. Tests on both animals and humans. The testing presumed post-traumatic stress. The animals were tortured in a Pavlovian way, so that the trigger could be used to test the effectiveness of the drug. And it lowered anxiety. Ironically it also reduced the animals avoidance of the torture - which was no longer used in that stage of the testing. It would have hopped off the electified floor without the drug even though only the bell sounded.

Imagine what poor consequences that might lead to in a woman who had been raped. But that's a digression.

The drug was intended as a long term solution, not as, say, a stop gap, where the trauma was dealt with and the need for the drug might be eliminated.

I presented this via the relative to the psychiatrist and even contacted the scientists who developed the drug. (I was a precocious curmudgeon).

Needless to say my input was not respected. And yes, I understand that chemical imbalances and PTSD are not mutually exclusive, however given the treatment was as if the issue was all nature and we knew there was a nurture issue, and the drug was marketed as a treatment for nature problems, but was tested on a nurture problem and in the case of my relative it was definitely at least also a nurture issue, there were problems. And not only would different framings of the problem have different effects, but also treatments themselves should probably include different approaches.

Sure, there are people who leap to all sorts of conclusions online. But there are biases out there that intelligent people from outside a field can sometimes see. Hopefully they have some caution around being sure, unless they have stumbled upon some smoking philosophical gun.

But, no, I really don't give a rat's ass about their expertise. I tend to presume that peer reviewed results that are found to be the results in other peer reviewed research stand up just peachy. But I have often seen how the steps from the results to conclusions are often quite faulty, or fit with current models, or even outdated models.

And then when they filter into philosophy forums, people who relay 'what science shows us' add another layer that can include biases.

We are generally not communicating here with neuroscientists, say, but with people who have read some neuroscience, think they have a good sense of it and then relay that as if that must have the weight of authority.

Another example, here from physics is people who will use materialism or physicalism to rule out what gets called supernatual phenomena. IOW deduction eliminating the possilbility of certain phenomena because they are not physical. But then the word physical is a word that covers an expanding set of qualities and lacks thereof. It is not some stable set of things that are physical, nor is the quality stable, in the history of science. So what they present as deductive and to them a simple one includes for me speculation and also a lack of a perspective within the history of science. Hence I am wary of lay people's appeals to authority in relation to me another lay person, especially if it is a field I have done a lot of lay research in AND spent time mulling philosophically.

I think too often there is an undercurrent of, we must stop the barbarians who want to overthrow science or make up a bunch of poop and swing us back to the Dark Ages. Here's what science says. For me that instance when two lay people meet, and even when a scientist or other expert meets a lay person,is vastly more complicated - in part, but not only because scientists are generally not philosophers - but also because what I called a false dilemma on you part above actually can be a wide range of possible scenarios.

man I do go on these days, apologies.

I think that's a false dilemma. And one thing that can be done is for people to take with a huge grain of salt assumptions, even amongst scientists, that fit with biases we have known to be there for a while in science. Paradigmatic biases. If these did not have such a strong unraveling history, acknowledged even within science, it might be another matter.

If you have a theory of existence like the Big Bang that does have evidence, and another theory that has none and is absurd on the face of it like God, then the only rational conclusion is to follow the former and forget about the latter. — Artemis

These are not mutually exclusive arguments. Further the Big Bang, often, or, really it used to often include the idea of a beginning which was part of what was thought silly, by the then steady state cosmologists, about Creation via God.

This ties into my 2. point: I specifically said that God is illogical/impossible. The attributes he is supposed to possess are contradictory, such as omnipotence. — Artemis

Which would be an example of what some Abrahamists focus on: the onmi traits, interpreting them as mathematically perfect qualities, rather than expressive comparative qualities. That is compared to us God is unbelievably X, rather than infinitely X setting up paradoxes. Now those theists who can't let go of a rather odd turn by certain theologians certainly bear half of the responsibility for the importance all the omni discussions between atheists and theists. But the whole thing should embarrass both sides.

Not without having tested all things. — Isaac

Despite the convenient shorthand, we don't really have a 'memory' like a hard drive part of our brain, but rather memory is like the strengthening or weakening of neural networks, such that certain inputs are more likely to trigger certain responses next time. We usually experience this as recollection.

Let me throw out a couple of cautions in response to the above, not that I fully understand logging. First I'll start off with a specific. I find most people talk about neural networks and it seems to be at least a lay assumption that it is in these that consciousness arises or that consciousness is a facet of these. In the 90s and then more in the 2000s neuroscientists began to find that glial cells were more than structural and now seem to play a role in intelligence. A kind of slower parallel system to the neurons. Perhaps consciousness arises there. Who knows. Perhaps the patterns in the neural networks affect content, part of content, cognitive functions, but it's glial cells or glial cells, or, well, something else that causes or is consciousness.

I think there is often a conflation of cognitive functions and consciousness. Sometimes it is thought that consciousness is one function of brains (often neuronal networks). But perhaps it is not a function.

Humans have a history of granting consciousness (and various functions) to life forms that are like is, and this only after great resistence. Up to the 70s granting animals consciousness was actually dangerous for your career in science. We had it and for all we knew animals were machines. Then slowly - and I have wondered if perhaps having more women in science was a factor - the default position shifted to where it ought to have been, that they were conscious - perhaps not to the same degree (I think it might be a category error to think of consciousness in terms of degree) or kind. If one looks into the research into plant intelligence you can see that there is a cusp phenomenon, that some scientists are starting to think plants may be or are conscious - they should nerve system like responses, they learn, they adapt, they communicate with each other, they make choices (or they 'make choices') but all at rather complicated levels, though often, but not always, slower than us. (note much of this would be cognitive functions, if they are, but might have nothing to with consciousness. Intelligence and consciousness might not even correlate.)

Given that we know about the huge bias we have had and of course it is easier to study consciousness in creatures that can give verbal feedback I think we should be cautious about assuming we know where consciousness arises and does not, cautious about the conflate of cognitive functions and consciousness, and cautious about assuming that complexity is necessary for consciousness. That it is necessary for cogntive functions seems a much stronger conclusion. For example consciousness could simply be a quality of matter, but organizsations of matter and certain kinds of complexity give rise to cognitive functions, and so some matter acts in the world, has goals and reactions, memory, rationality, learning processes, etc.

So despite not yet getting your logging based explanation, I am poised (lol) to throw out my cautions.

Psychosis can be temporary. Some people move in and out of psychosis their whole lives. Some people got there once.

Schizophrenics actually do better in places where psychiatry and big Pharma have not arrived. Where families take care of their own and where people can move in and out of functioning as they can. But they start to do worse once the pharma model enters the country.

And people who consider the USA is a democracy are not generally considerd deluded.

It is a bit, but not why this leads to awareness. It seems to me this doesn't need consciousness. And it's not consciousness - or? - that drives the groove making in the neurons. It seems to me this could simply be like a very complicated version of drops on window turning into little streamlets. It happens, where does the awareness pop out from?

That's fine.

OK, so why is ok to have an arbritrary law about sound levels? but not one around threats? (covered in my long post)

lol not what I was getting at. But touche in the context you experienced, which was not the one I intended.

Ok, it had seemed earlier like abritrary functioned as a critique in itself in your responses to me.

Sure as a pejorative. If it was merely an observation out of context and not critical. Sure, they are, as I said, longer than your posts. I don't think they are long for what they were trying to do.

Not being able to stay asleep isn't subjective, for example. It's clearly, objectively observable. — Terrapin Station

But different decibels and durations and upbrinings and cultural backgrounds and expectations will lead to not being able to stay asleep with noise. It will be an arbritrary set of criteria and we can't have arbritrary. Of course my long post went into this.