why are you talking about aggregates? So well developed just means more "conformed" as a group, why are you talking about it like it's a virtue? And talking about it like it's obvious this whole time, why in the world would it be obvious that well developed means "more conformed"?

Your entire approach to this conversation has been nothing short of bonkers.

if that's not true knowledge, then nothing is

What I am questioning is how we can make claims of knowledge about it. — boundless

We can only do our best to figure out the stuff we have access to. If that's not knowledge then nothing is.

I think, yes, of course we could in the end be brains in vats, but I don't think that level of Skepticism is worth thinking about much (at best it's worth occasionally acknowledging), and then we just move on with the human endeavour of trying to figure out what we can about our world.

Part of what I sense is that there's a reluctance to allow for "knowledge" of non-fundamental things. Can I have knowledge that water is made of H2O even though I know that neither water nor H2O are fundamental? I think I can.

One might still assume that our cognitive functions are useful, i.e. have a pragmatic goal. — boundless

You think it can be useful without having any correspondence to reality at all? Note that correspondence isn't like direct realism (naive realism?). You can say "my experience corresponds to things in reality" without saying "I'm experiencing reality raw, as it truly is, without any intermediary processing".

For example the experience of hearing music. The emotions I feel in response aren't out there in reality, but when I hear sounds they correspond to real frequencies and amplitudes in differential air pressure. You're suggesting that not even that kind of correspondence exists?

"Surely, that ambiguous of a question isn't being asked?" — AmadeusD

You really think it's ambiguous? You say something is obviously true, I want it detailed why it's true, and asking "why do you think that's true" is ambiguous? I don't get it.

think one aspect that strikes me as clear rather than esoteric as most are, is the incredibly widely shared nature of Conservative morality — AmadeusD

So they're more conformist as a group, sure, I did anticipate that in a prior post, but that doesn't mean as individuals they have more well developed morality, does it? Two lefties could have very different senses of mortality from each other, but each individually have a well developed idea about what is and is not morally acceptable. You know what I mean?

This is what I see in Conservative morality. Those aspects come out when I speak to a conservative about their moral positions, despite disagreeing with a large proportion of the actual moral statements they would make (or, have, in the conversations I have had). — AmadeusD

But you still aren't saying why. What about conservative morality matches those aspects specifically? What about non-conservative morality doen't match those aspects specifically?

If you define kindness as "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate", I still don't know why you think saxophonists are 'obviously more kind than flutists', right? I know what you think kindness means, but I don't know why you think it applies more to one group than another. Same thing is going on here. I know what you MEAN by 'more developed', but I don't know why you think that's true of that group, and it's certainly not obvious, any more than it should be obvious why saxophonists are more kind. Right? Is it obvious to you why I think saxophonists are more kind?

you just quoted yourself describing 'well developed' again, and once again NOT explaining which aspects of conservative morality make it more well developed than more lefty / liberal ideals.

That's like saying "saxophone players are obviously more kind than flute players", and I ask, "why do you think that? How is that obvious?" and you just keep replying with a definition of kindness, "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate"

Good, I get kindness is "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate", so WHY DO YOU THINK SAXOPHONE PLAYERS ARE MORE OF THAT!?!?!?!??! Don't keep repeating what kindness means, tell me why you think saxophone players are more kind than flutists. Repeating the definition doesn't explain why you think that. It's only the beginning of the explanation, you still have the entire rest of it to go.

I think I was pretty clear. Youre just saying it's obvious that it's well developed and everyone should agree, that's not good enough. That's just begging the question. Why do you think that? So far you've described what you mean by "well developed" twice, but have dedicated next to 0 words specifying what about conservative morality matches that description.

So I know what you mean by well developed, fantastic, I still don't know why you think conservative morality is more well developed. It's not obvious, I don't take it for granted like you do, so talking about it like it's an obvious fact anybody should agree with just doesn't make sense.

you are describing "well developed" in general, not saying why conservatives match that description. You're taking it for granted that your point of view is obvious, and not even attempting a justification.

You've said what well developed means, you've insisted that conservatives match it, but you haven't shown why you think that. Don't keep telling me what well developed means to you, show why conservatives match it and others don't.

Yes, you can. Are they coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking.
Again, you can disagree with the positions, but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument. If you don't think well-developed arguments are possible, then I concede. — AmadeusD

None of this is specific about why the group you're saying is "more developed" is more developed. It honestly just looks to me like, rather than them individually having "more developed mortality", you're getting the illusion of consistency because as a group they have a much more conforming, uniform morality.

But if course a group being more uniform doesn't mean the morality of the individuals in that group are more developed.

what does this even mean? "more developed"? You're talking about it like it's some objective fact, like you can measure how developed a set of political values are... I don't think so mate.-

as opposed to real things which are not implemented at all. — noAxioms

Is that so? I don't think I would say that. Is a real steak not implemented in the physics of the situation?

If an apple didn't have objective existence it wouldn’t be an apple. Without descending into abysmal nonsense, we must grant that for a thing to be give a name presupposes at least that there is a thing, or at the very least a possible thing, to which a name can be given. — Mww

We can meaningfully talk about experiences of "things" and the possible reality in which those "things" don't "exist".

The bald white guy eats a steak in the matrix, and talks about how he knows it's not "real". So most people can conceptually distinguish between real things, and experiences that seem like they're experiences of real things but in fact aren't. Right?

How, then, do you hope to persuade a listener? — Wayfarer

What he's saying is kind of why it's so hard to persuade people.

Like I think back to how much trouble Corvus had (and still has) understanding why denying the antecedent doesn't work as a logical operation. In his mind, no doubt, it makes perfect sense, because the meaning he's assigning to logical operations themselves are not the meanings everyone else is assigning.

And even though the meanings everyone else is assigning are more in tune with each other, they are still not identical.

Yes, I can.

There can be countless factors that I may consider and take into account.

My point is, that every factor refers to what I like the most. I like good feelings and dislike bad feelings. — Quk

Ah okay well that makes sense then, have a good day

In my understanding, a physical language per se is purely a communication protocol for coordinating human actions, that is to say physical languages per-se do not transmit information about the world from the mind of the speaker to the mind of the listener. — sime

With this start, I didn't think I was going to be impressed with where you were going with this. You surprised me though, and I'm now a step towards agreeing with you. Extremely interesting perspective.

you can't imagine a scenario where it's rational to choose Bach when you like his music less? I can...

Where is your line? What puts something on your list of 'probably doesn't exist' besides human fictions? — noAxioms

I don't understand what that has to do with anything

I found not one contributor that put forth something that wasn't essentially 'what exists is what we see', which is too close to 'because we see it'. — noAxioms

What we see an emergent artifact of what exists, not *actually* the same thing as what exists. But even if it was what we see, it seems like YOU are making the logical leap of "because we see it", not the people who you are talking to.

The title of this thread is irksome. So you disagree with some idea, and that means *no one* really believes it? Come the fuck on.

Growing up, I heard so many Christians insist "nobody is really an atheist". I even once heard an atheist say "nobody really believes in any gods". Both of those statements are equally absurd.

Yes, people out there really believe in a reality that isn't dependent on minds. Yes, other people out there disagree with that. Yes, people really do disagree with each other. The question shouldn't be, "do people really disagree with me?", obviously they do, the question should be "why do they?"

Don't be so arrogant to think only your beliefs are the ones that anybody truly believes. People believe all sorts of things.

let's just see what chat gpt has to say about that...

How many people seeking to read, research, find voice in self and others will turn to AI when writing e.g. a philosophy essay? — Amity

It's already happening a lot. Human creativity is undergoing a huge change. It might even be on the path to disappearing...

they think the flash came before they pressed the button. — Patterner

Absolutely bonkers

I suspect AI needs to do things in order to be like us. Maybe it can't understand like we do if it it only has theoretical understanding. — Patterner

Well yes, and it does. I'm pretty sure the process of training is involves a whole lot of asking the ai for an output given some input, and giving rewards as they give more of the right kinds of outputs.

I'm not completely sure I agree that a person born locked in wouldn't ever be able to make sense of their sensory inputs, but his reasoning makes complete sense and I wouldn't be massively surprised if he were right.

I've experienced a lot of things in my life, but I really can't say that I know what it's like to experience time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if time isn't the thing we experience, so much as it is one of the things that must exist to facilitate experience. Whatever you experience, you experience in and through time. I don't think you can have an experience in just a snapshot of existence. Things must change in order for experiences to happen.

And if the properties we know of cannot explain subjective experiences — Patterner

But what if it's not the properties alone that explain it, but instead the processes that the properties enable?

Properties alone should, I think, not be seen as the place for all explanations.

I'm surprised mr Craig's opionion matters at all to anybody in this thread. Who cares what some random religious apologist thinks about time? I wouldn't consider him to be a relevant expert.

honestly the rest of the forum should be ashamed of themselves.

What do you think? — NotAristotle

I think if Bob2 spontaneously likes something different from Bob1, then... that's random. That like doesn't seem to have come from anywhere. There's no tangible reason why Bob1 didn't like it.

Straight up presentism is 3D, but other forms like growing block and moving spotlight are 4D models. — noAxioms

"moving spotlight" may have a 4d view of the universe as a whole, but still a 3d view of the present moment, just like presentism, right?

I consider 'moving spotlight' to be a form of presentism - maybe you could call it "weak presentism", because instead of it saying "the present is the only thing that exists", it's saying "every time 'exists' in some sense, but the present ESPECIALLY exists, exists in some unique elevated way".

ah the plant chapter, that was honestly fascinating.

Oh, okay, so they DO posit a universal aether reference frame, got it. Yeah I agree. Presentism would require there to be a singularly true reference frame.

I thought you said they don't have to resort to supposing a universal Aether frame. Your answer to why they do't have to suppose that, is because... idk what you're saying. It sounds directly contradictory. It sounds like you're saying they don't have to suppose it, but it's required for their stance to be true.

but the opposing position doesn't have to resort to this by supposing a universal Aether frame that can be seen as an objective present or a 'physical' absolute simultaneity marker. — substantivalism

Why don't they?

cool, glad you're enjoying it. What's the cliff notes for that convo with chamovitz?

Presentism in the most intuitive but thin variety does not allow for this so the notion of motion itself becomes illusory. Only things exist in the paper thin present. — substantivalism

I don't think this is the most intuitive form of presentism at all. The intuitive form of presentism, it seems to me, is one that acknowledges that the present that exists NOW will soon change into a new present. Motion is, of course, a type of change. Any form of presentism that disregards change seems remarkably intuitive to me.

Sure.

I thought about that from just the basic observation that our own experiences are rooted in variables changing that we're sensitive to. When I decided to humor the idea of fundamental consciousness, it seemed to me like a viable path to go.

Still have my questions about what proto-experience or else proto-consciousness might be — javra

I've had the idea (and I'm still partial to it, but it's only a speculation and I'm by no means convinced it's true) that it's about sensitivity.

A thing (a process) has an "experience" of the things that it's sensitive to.

So protons are sensitive to the presence of nearby protons and nearby electrons, so their "what it's like to be" involves an experience of being sensitive to those charged fields. It feels different for a proton to be in one situation, with maybe a balanced field where it doesn't feel pushed/pulled in any direction, compared to an unbalanced field where there's a bunch of negative charge to the left and positive charge to the right.

But the what-it's-like-to-be doesn't involve what we would think of as memories, complex thoughts, boredom, etc, because they aren't sensitive to the sorts of things that could generate those experiences.

So that's one take on proto experience, it might not be true but hopefully it makes enough sense.

Neither Hart nor Tillich are working with new ideas. What they are expressing has been Christian orthodoxy for pretty much all of (well-recorded) Church history. It's the official theology of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, encompassing a pretty large majority of all current and historical Christians (and many Protestants hold to this tradition to). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not convinced that "being itself" is the complete idea of god in these conceptions. I believe it's PART of how God is conceived, but it must have additional stuff to it, in order for god to be the god of the bible. God is being itself, AND did this or that in history (including incarnating himself / his son at a human), AND has future plans on what he will do.

So just defining god as being itself probably isn't the whole truth for these people, just a (very important) part of the truth. He is being itself, AND a whole bunch of other things (some of which more closely resemble the naive view of gods)

As an example, Aquinas clearly thought Jesus was truly divine, and not just a man or just a myth. So if God is defined simply as "being itself", then what the fuck is Jesus? A human being, and "being itself" at the same time? There's clearly got to be a whole lot more to God than just being itself, in order to account for many of the important literal truths that Aquinas believes in. When he says he believes in the Christian god, he's clearly not just saying "I believe in being itself", he's saying a whole lot more than that.

I believe it's in chapter 11, they discuss a block type view of the universe where causality and space time both are emergent features, emerging from a deeper structure. Tell me what you think when you get there.

But then we could also suggest that mass is a pervasive, fundamental field, and that's why all particles have mass. — Patterner

Yes, so if mass is a fundamental part of our universe, you wouldn't immediately can that non-physicalism, so I guess for Annaka the same is true of experience.

Although as you get later (spoiler alert), you discover that she DOESN'T think mass is fundamental, primarily because she doesn't think space-time itself is fundamental (and mass is itself defined in relation to space time)

So I guess she calls herself a physicalist because she believes there's the physical world, and experience is a part of that physical world, not a separate thing