• What the hell are we going to do with all the plastic lying around everywhere?
    ↪Marchesk


    It's possible, I know there's a kind of plastic that can be made using corn. But the thing is, that would just be one kind of plastic, and there are a large number of different plastics used for many different things. So, looking to a single substance as a plastic alternative wouldn't work. If we actually wanted to replace plastic, we would need many different substances of many different kinds. Economically, plastic is by far the best option right now, so that combined with the fact that our "leaders" don't generally care much about the future of the planet since they won't be alive anymore, means we probably won't be replacing plastic. At least not any time soon.

    ↪JJJJS


    Unfortunately I'd have to agree, that seems to be the most likely scenario.
  • What the hell are we going to do with all the plastic lying around everywhere?
    ↪JJJJS


    Recycling isn't all it's cracked up to be. Metal recycling (steel, aluminum, copper, etc.) is very effective, but plastic (and even paper) are a very different story. With plastic the biggest problem is contamination. It also depends on the kind of plastic, because there are many different kinds of plastic with different chemical compositions. This makes it tricky, as well. Really, whether or not we recycle it, plastic is detrimental to the environment. And it's pretty clear that we aren't going to stop producing plastic anytime soon.

    So I guess what I'm saying is that we're screwed.
  • How To Counter a Bad Philosophy - Nicely????
    Yeah, you're right. I have really found a weakness in myself here.

    I just see red and get intolerant.     — Dlaw

    This seems to be a fairly universal trait, in my experience. I know several people who are the same way. They're all very intelligent, but they get offended easily and lose their rationality. I think the only thing we can do is allow less things to offend us. Very few things offend me, and I rarely have this issue, so for what it's worth I would suggest trying to change your outlook so that you don't allow things to offend you as easily.
  • Are you Lonely? Isolated? Humiliated? Stressed out? Feeling worthless? Rejected? Depressed?
    As I read, I was struck by the tone of the discussion. I don't think I've read another thread on this forum where people were more definitive about what they believe and dismissive about what they don't. — T Clark

    I know I'm fairly new here, but in my experience this has been pretty commonplace.

    I especially like Agustino's "Just snap out of it" recommendation. — T Clark

    I take it you're being facetious here? Or did I read that wrong?

    We can only speak to our own experiences when it comes to this sort of thing, and there are those of us (myself included) who have found that mental/emotional/psychological distress doesn't have as much power over us as it often seems. I've have had these realizations where something is upsetting me or causing me anxiety or stress, or I'm feeling very down and hopeless about life or whatever it may be, and I realize that all I have to do is change my attitude. Nothing can harm you unless you allow it to, and everything is a matter of perspective. By changing your perspective, you change your reality.

    This is all a product of my study and love for Stoicism and Taoism, but in practice I have found these things to be extremely helpful and they have contributed to my overall happiness and well-being. I also do believe that, barring severe chemical imbalances (aka clinical depression or other real mental illnesses), everybody can benefit from these concepts just as I have.

    I don't know about others here, but I don't use the terms "depression" and "clinical depression" interchangeably, they are two very different things. We all have experience with depression, but not everyone has experience with clinical depression, and that isn't an easy fix by any means. You cannot will yourself into curing true mental illness, as far as I am aware.
  • Are you Lonely? Isolated? Humiliated? Stressed out? Feeling worthless? Rejected? Depressed?
    ↪Agustino

    I agree! It's funny...the skit is obviously meant as a joke, but in reality it's very good advice in many cases. We have much more control over our own minds than society would have us believe.
  • #MeToo
    Men as a class, not 'as a whole', I would say. — mcdoodle

    I suppose that is more accurate.

    Just as the majority of people in my impoverished town, as a class, know they are hopelessly disempowered compared to, say, bankers, as a class. — mcdoodle

    I don't see how that example is relevant to this issue. When wealthy people disempower the lower class, it isn't through psychological means--they have created a tangible system where it is harder for lower class people to gain wealth. The prevention is due to the wealthy physically having power over the unwealthy. In the case of women being unable to deny unwanted sexual advances, we're talking about something psychological. So are you saying that men are psychologically stronger than women, and this is what allows them to have this power over them?

    My whole point is really just this: how is this supposed system actually enforced?
  • God cannot decide
    So what is the domain of philosophy of religion? — bahman

    We're doing philosophy of religion right now. Philosophy of religion is just a philosophical examination of religious concepts.

    Could God make 1+1=3? — bahman

    If the God we are referring to is omnipotent, then yes. If God is all-powerful, he can restructure reality in any way he wants to. That's what omnipotent means.
  • Are you Lonely? Isolated? Humiliated? Stressed out? Feeling worthless? Rejected? Depressed?
    just STOP IT! — Agustino
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BjKS1-vjPs
  • Theism, some say, is a mental illness
    who knows and who cares honestly. life sucks and then you die. if god exists we won't know it cause he obviously doesnt give a damn about any one of us. — darthbarracuda

    You are in desperate need of Stoicism, my friend.

    edit; dont ban me mods luv u bless u be well etc etc etc — darthbarracuda

    Made me laugh.

    I like that - use the term anti-theists to differentiate them from atheists. I can't be the first to think of that. — T Clark

    I discovered the term around the time of the "new atheism" movement, around ten years ago or so. Someone on a forum used it, and I found it very fitting. I'm surprised it isn't used more often, since in my experience many self-identifying atheists are, in fact, anti-theists. (I, myself, don't identify as a theist or an atheist, precisely because of the baggage that comes along with those terms)
  • #MeToo
    I'm very surprised to see the number of irrational people in this discussion. Looking over the last few pages, Pseudonym seems to be the only one here who actually understands the issue. The things we're discussing are all completely subjective. There are no universal rules about what is and is not appropriate behavior. There have been times in the past when it was perfectly appropriate for men to have sex with women without their consent. It happens in nature all the time.

    It baffles me that anybody on this forum could fail to see the subjectivity of the issue.

    The trouble is, many people, mostly women, have long felt they couldn't object, even if they didn't like the last bodily or linguistic move in the language-game. So they conceded permissibility ground against their own wishes. — mcdoodle

    This is a ridiculous argument. It's basically saying women haven't been able to think for themselves up until now. If somebody is making unwanted advances and you don't make it clear that they are unwanted, that is your fault and nobody else's. If women have honestly felt unable to object, I would ask why they felt that way. Who made them feel that way? Because the implication in this entire movement is that men, as a whole, made them feel that way. And what does that even mean? How would a man make you feel as though you could not object to his sexual advances? What would the consequences be if you "disobeyed" this apparently implicit requirement? Something worse than having sexual interaction with someone you don't want to have sexual interaction with? I really don't see how this line of reasoning can result in anything coherent or logical.
  • How To Counter a Bad Philosophy - Nicely????
    Honestly, I don't know where to start.

    I'm not being facetious.

    I feel like Calvinism starts out as a misguided attempt to solve a conundrum that doesn't need solving and then blossoms into destructive nonsense that ultimately leads to Rand and the Alt-Right.

    It's kind of like a foil to my beliefs.     — Dlaw

    So your problem is that you don't actually have any counter-argument for what you are trying to argue against. You're basically saying "I think this is wrong but have no real reason, so give me reason." When you have a specific belief as your end-goal, that is extremely detrimental to actual learning.

    I don't mean to be disparaging or insulting or anything, I'm just saying I don't think your current approach is going to be effective or helpful to you in any significant way. You seem to just be looking for a quick fix--you want other people to argue for you. If you had a real understanding of your own beliefs and the beliefs you disagree with, you would easily be able to argue for/against them yourself.

    It seems to me what you should be focusing on first and foremost is why you believe what you believe. Learn all you can about the positions you espouse, to make sure you do in fact agree with them and (more importantly) understand them. Then once you have sufficient understanding of your own beliefs, learn all you can about the beliefs you claim to disagree with. You cannot argue against something that you don't understand.
  • Theism, some say, is a mental illness
    ↪Cuthbert


    So anything that is believed to be true, and then later shown to be false, is retroactively mental illness? I don't think the ridiculous implications of that need to be pointed out. But even without the implications, that doesn't make any sense. It is perfectly rational to believe something is the case when it actually isn't, so long as the evidence one possesses can reasonably be seen as supporting that said thing is the case. If I have never seen a narwhal and have very little evidence of them existing, so I do not believe they exist, does that make me mentally ill?

    Truth and reality have nothing to do with it; only evidence and reason. None of us possesses proof, none of us knows anything for certain (except that "I exist"). All of our knowledge is based on evidence and reason, and every single bit of it could potentially be shown to be wrong at some point.
  • God cannot decide
    ↪bahman


    Of course. Logic is something we created to help us explain and understand the world, and it is a very good tool, but why would God be bound by something we created? Logic doesn't even apply to the entire physical world. Quantum mechanics has shown us that something can essentially be both true and false at the same time.
  • Theism, some say, is a mental illness
    ↪Noble Dust


    No, you seem to have interpreted it correctly. Pseudonym apparently isolated one small bit of what I said and ignored the context which caused him/her to misunderstand the meaning.
  • Theism, some say, is a mental illness
    It's the fact that the beliefs theists hold are held onto because it ultimately makes them feel good — Harry Hindu

    We are not emotionless, unfeeling computers. We are human animals with sometimes irrational, emotional, imperfect brains. Acting as though holding a belief that brings one joy or peace in this world full of suffering and pain is a mental illness shows both ignorance and a lack of maturity.

    To be honest, though, you're misrepresenting theists in the first place. Who are you to say why all theists hold their theistic beliefs? That's an extremely egotistical claim to make, that you know why all of these people believe this silly thing (which you, of course, don't believe because you, of course, are not silly like they are). This, again, shows ignorance and a lack of maturity.

    So we're not allowed to think other people are wrong now? That's going to make it quite hard to fight of the next Hitler or Stalin. I'm sure they both had everyone's best interests at heart and should have been treated with a bit more tolerance. Damn those interfering allies with their dogmatic beliefs in freedom, equality and justice! — Pseudonym

    Vehemently believing they are wrong to espouse their religion is something I strongly defend my right to do without being accused of darkening the future of humanity. — Pseudonym

    You seem to have had an irrational and emotional response to what I said that caused you to severely misinterpret it. The point I was making was that more and more people view ideas or beliefs as mental illness or evil or wrong for the soul reason that they do not agree. That any idea or belief they themselves do not share is automatically wrong or evil or insane. Nowhere did I state or even imply that we aren't allowed to disagree with each other. The point was that simply disagreeing with something does not render it wrong.
  • Theism, some say, is a mental illness
    It seems more and more people all the time are coming to think that any idea or belief that they themselves do not hold is a mental illness or evil or just plain wrong. The near future of western civilization doesn't look to be very bright.
  • God cannot decide
    ↪SonJnana

    I completely agree. I remember when I first learned about relativity, it absolutely blew my mind. But that itself is a perfect example of how careful we need to be about things we think we know or understand. Before learning about relativity, nobody would think that things worked in such a way based only on their perception and experience of the world. And yet it has been well-documented and firmly established. The nature of reality is such a mystery, and I find it so wonderful and exciting.
  • God cannot decide
    ↪bahman

    You're talking about mysticism. We're supposed to be talking about science and philosophy. "Eternal now" isn't a logical term; its not meant to be taken literally. It's meaningless in the context of science and philosophy.
  • God cannot decide
    To me, it would make way more sense for nothing to have ever existed. But here we are — CasKev

    I know what you mean. Trying to understand why there is anything rather than nothing is the ultimate mindfuck.
  • God cannot decide
    ↪CasKev


    Exactly.

    To be clear, though, I'm not trying to say that my assertions are objectively true, only that they are what I believe the case is. This issue isn't settled, as far as I am aware. I remember learning about it in college, so unless there has been a big breakthrough recently I'll assume what I learned it still true. You and I are essentially representing the two schools of thought on this, and there have been various arguments for each side throughout the centuries.
    Here's a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry about it:
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#RedPlaResTim

    The relevant sections is "Reductionism and Platonism with Respect to Time"

    Basically, if what I'm saying is the case, then this scenario you described where one universe died and another was born would have no time in between, they would be immediately successive events.

    The reason I tend to believe the Reductionism argument (aside from the simple fact that it makes the most sense to me, logically) is because of what I know about Einstein's relativity and his joining of space and time into "spacetime". Space and time are a single "thing" essentially, inseparable and interdependent. But I definitely don't claim to be an expert, this is all just based on my own study and the things I learned in a few relativity and metaphysics classes back in college.
  • God cannot decide
    I think time can measure how long something stays the same too. Imagine the entire universe perished into nothingness, in some sort of reverse big bang. Then at some point, a new big bang occurred, out of which something emerged from nothingness. Surely, time could be said to be passing between those two events, even though nothing existed for a certain duration (i.e. non-changing nothingness existed for 2 years)? — CasKev

    I don't think it could. Time can only measure how long something stays the same if there are other things changing. Time is really relational.
  • God cannot decide
    In fact, time would continue to exist even if absolutely no change was occurring. — CasKev

    This doesn't seem right to me. Time is really a measurement of change, isn't it? Without any change, time would essentially be standing still.
  • God cannot decide
    Think of one instant. It is just a point. There is no before and after in it. — bahman

    The very definition of the term "instant" is "a precise moment of time". How is "a moment of time" the same as "no time"? It clearly isn't.
  • The Illusion of Freedom
    Chain links are objects, not events. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Exactly, and as you pointed out we're talking about events; not objects.

    It sounds tautological, or something like that. It sounds like "This effect was caused by that cause because effects are caused by causes". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    That's not at all what I said, you seem to be reading into things what you want to see. The claim was that one event was caused by another event because "one leads directly to the other through various biological and physiological processes and reactions." Like dominoes, one "thing" causes a chain reaction which results in another "thing". Are you saying that the final domino falling down after being hit by the domino before it--and that one before that one, and so on, all the way back to the initial domino--is not a direct result of the initial domino falling down?

    I think you misunderstand the concept of cause and effect. If you want to claim that we can't know one thing truly causes another because there could be an omnipotent being intervening and tricking us, be prepared to be taken about as seriously as Descartes when he claimed that an evil demon could be deceiving us about the nature of reality. You're essentially saying the exact same thing. And if you actually took your own claim seriously, you would be completely and totally unable to function in the world. It would mean that humanity should give up on doing science, and throw everything we think we understand out the window, because who's to say that an omnipotent being hasn't been deceiving us this whole time? Why are you typing things on your computer? None of the users here are real. This forum isn't real. Your computer isn't real. It's all just the deception of an omnipotent being.
  • God cannot decide
    I think we can understand timeless. — bahman

    Why do you think this? Don't just make a claim, provide your reasoning.

    I don't think it makes sense for us to be able to understand something that we have zero experience of. Our brains aren't capable of comprehending a lack of time, just like they aren't capable of understanding infinity.
  • Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
    ↪curiosity in action

    He has since been banned for evangelism, but "OP" can stand for either "original post" or "original poster"--meaning either the first comment in a discussion or the person who makes that comment.
  • God cannot decide
    ↪bahman

    We cannot possibly comprehend anything outside of the limitations of our own perception. If something were to be "outside" of time or the universe, we could not understand it or say anything about it whatsoever. This is not to say that it's not possible, only that trying to apply our own universal laws and constraints to it is nonsensical. To talk of an entity outside of time being unable to decide isn't logical because the concept of decision itself is a product of the universe we live in and how it operates. Even thinking of God having a mind doesn't make sense if He is outside of time. It seems to me, if you believe in a creator God who is separate from the universe, you cannot say a single thing about what He is like. If you want to be able to say anything about God, any of His characteristics, He must be part of our universe. But that would mean He did not create our universe. The only other option is something like Spinoza's God, which is the universe. Everything that exists, mind and matter, is an extension of God, a part of Him, like cells in a body. I recommend reading his Ethics if this sounds interesting to you, or at the very least finding a good summary of it online.
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    part of the site's diversity initiative — apokrisis

    That made me chuckle.

    You think this is some grade school class where you the teacher are going to keep asking me the same question until you get the answer you want? — Rich

    Well in that scenario you're a grade school child, so I suppose it isn't entirely inaccurate.

    Jokes aside, though, I already explained myself. This is a forum for discussing for philosophy, and that's not what you're doing. I'm very open to discussing things that are illogical and without scientific or philosophical basis, but this is not the place to do so.
  • The Illusion of Freedom
    There is space between chain links, yet they are connected.

    And we are talking about events, happenings, occurrences, etc., not about objects. That means we are talking about gaps in and/or between events, happenings, occurrences, not space between objects.     — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Your initial statement is rendered irrelevant by the proceeding paragraph, so I'm not sure why you included it.

    Something could have, for example, been spontaneously generated. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Give me a real-world example of this; an event occurring spontaneously, without cause. The only time this could possibly have happened was the universe coming into existence.

    If we can't isolate two things then we can't say that one caused the other. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    If there are no gaps between events, how can one be an antecedent cause of another? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    When I consume food, my hunger is satiated. Whether you believe these are actually two separate events or not is irrelevant. This is a clear, demonstrable case of cause and effect. And there are no gaps between them. One leads directly to the other through various biological and physiological processes and reactions.
    This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    I answered your question. — Rich

    You have, inadvertently.

    How does a cell do all of the things you claim it can do? What's the theory that explains these exceptional capabilities such as optimization? I suppose you have some powerful logic ready. You can start with your proposition — Rich

    I haven't made any claims about the capability of cells, so I have no idea why you're asking me that. Regardless, I'm done engaging with you. I've given you many opportunities to have a rational conversation, and you have denied every one of them. I'm here to discuss philosophy, and you apparently have no interest in that.
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    It's like waves in an ocean. Entangled forms.

    To understand life one must jettison logic and imagine patterns. Art brings one much closer to understand nature am be life. Logic is only symbolic and this intrinsically incapable of grasping the whole.     — Rich

    Then go post on an art forum. This is a philosophy forum. Logic is the foundation of philosophy. You yourself just admitted that you aren't using logic, which means you aren't doing philosophy, which means you shouldn't be posting any of this here.

    Please answer the perfectly valid question I have asked you multiple times. If you don't answer this time,I will take that as an indication that you don't know what you're taking about and stop asking.
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    No such thing. Everything is well entangled — Rich

    The statement you just made implies that there are multiple "things", aka entities. You're being logically inconsistent.

    Can you stop trying to distract from the original question, though?

    What is taking action, and what is becoming aware of the action? Since you don't like the term entity, yet you yourself used the term "thing", I'll use your term. Logically, there must be two different things in this scenario. What are these two things?
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    I just told you — Rich

    No, you didn't.

    define entity? — Rich

    Entity: a thing with distinct and independent existence

    This is a very simple question, and your dancing around it makes you seem dishonest.

    You said "action comes before awareness". If this is the case, logically there must be one entity acting, and another entity becoming aware of the action. Two entities. All I'm asking you to do is confirm that this is what you are claiming, and make explicit what these two entities are.
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    ↪Rich

    That doesn't answer my question. Are they the same entity?
  • Poll: out of body and near death experiences
    I'm surprised to see that so many otherwise seemingly fairly intelligent people believe in NDEs and OOBEs — CasKev

    I was surprised, as well, but I try to remind myself that we are all biased by our own experiences. When people have experienced something like this, it is much more likely that they will believe it was legitimate than it would be for someone who hasn't experienced it.

    It's interesting when you think about it. We are told things by other people, and whether or not we believe these things is based on many factors (what we know about the person saying it, how many other people have said it, how many other people believe what the person says, etc.), but most likely the biggest factor is our own experience of the world. If something lines up well with what you yourself have experienced, you are much more likely to believe it than if it doesn't. Paranormal phenomena don't line up with my own experience because I have never experienced anything that is seemingly paranormal, and that makes me just as biased as the people who have experienced it. We are all slaves to our own perspective.

    But of course, it's always good to remember--as you said--anything is possible.
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    ↪Rich


    So the mind and the brain are two different entities?
  • The Illusion of Freedom
    ↪Rich
    No, that determinism is false.
  • Why does evolution allow a trait which feels that we have free will?
    Action comes before awareness. Someone's I decide which way to move and then I move. Both most times it is formed habit. The brain is nothing more than a central receiving/transmission network. — Rich

    Who is taking action and who is becoming aware of action?
  • The Illusion of Freedom
    ↪tom


    Not only did your rephrasing of the comment fail to alter its tone, but there is very clearly nothing wrong with the tone of the comment in the first place. If you took offense to what T Clark said there, that's your own fault, not T Clark's.

    You want some help understanding one of the most important mathematical results of C21? — tom

    So, you're not really interested are you. — tom

    You seem to have a very fragile ego.
  • The Illusion of Freedom
    ↪T Clark


    I was agreeing with you and addressing tom. I feel like that was made perfectly clear.
Home » JustSomeGuy