of being true (or false). — Michael

Would you delineate between this and "existing"? The phrase "there is gold in them hills" might not be open to the truth/false issue but if there are gold deposits in those hills, then those gold deposits exist, as does the state of affairs in the statement.

Let me know what i'm getting wrong here, as I assume I am.

Ethics requires intent. Evolution has intent the way ethics requires. I can't see my way to thinking this could be even a reasonable starting point.

Any cliff notes that can set me right? The thread is muddled and unhelpful in that regard overall.

The differences across cultures and times make it quite obvious that 'the Good' in the terms you're using is just a group agreement to some moral boundaries. This is not particularly predictable as between groups, or across time. Your syllogism (as such) simply isn't giving what you want it to. — AmadeusD

I am unsure what wasn't 'precise' in this? You can statistically predict anything, even if it's arbitrary. I think what you're trying to get into the discussion is that, given certain aims we can predict what people will say is good. For Muslims, there's predictive power, for Christians there's predictive power - but overall its extremely hard to predict what people will think is 'good', partiicularly if you're going to be anymore fine-grained than calling it 'relative'. Which, i'll say, is totally acceptable, but stepping back from any particularly group which has (from any third party's perspective) arbitrary moral rules based on arbitrarily up-held traditions (arguable, just clarifying my point) it is not possible to predict with any accuracy. Groups agreement to moral boundaries aren't ipso facto reasonable. They can be arbitrary.

So, I don't grant hte premise. If it were true, I still reject the conclusion. That was my point with the first reply. My assent to P1 is irrelevant to the failure of the point, imo.

Too bad, that's the definition of good. — Philosophim

Nah my guy. The definitions of good vary between 'that which is desired', 'that which is required' and ; 'that which is morally right'. Circular, unless restrictive. Which is why it's such a problem, and why threads like this exist. Addressed briefly above, this is the exact cause of the vagueness of 'Good'. It is entirely relative.

Well then what is Dan's problem? He's been fruitlessly working on the same problem for almost ten years. If it isn't the case that he's trying to unite two incompatible principles, so he gets lost in contradiction, then what do you think his problem is? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think at this stage I would be entirely justified in saying "please, stop, for your own sake".
I literally said it is not Dan's problem.

If you could, perhaps, not entirely change the subject to attempt a further pointless and badly-worded impugning of Dan's work... That would be nice. But, it speaks to exactly what i"m saying - that's not his problem. It's yours. He's being a gentleman even giving you the time of day. That this has gone on months baffles me, as it probably does both of you - but for me, its his patience and your density that's baffling.

No, one would not think that AmadeusD; because for anyone who actually read my posts, I took a Moorean position on the nature of goodness which is not circular. Again, you just quoted me out of context when I was talking about how goodness is objective. — Bob Ross

You're beginning to come across genuinely incapable of having this type exchange - the amount of genuinely unreasonable statements you're making is quite distracting from anything of substance you might be sandwiching in there. This response makes absolutely zero sense in the face of what I have said. That makes it close to impossible to respond adequately.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is about God and God’s relation to any objective goodness to demonstrate that God can’t really be the standard for it; and does not provide any reason to believe that an objective morality cannot exist — Bob Ross

This is a prime example. IF you were being charitable, it would be painfully obvious (and, i've checked this by running the set of exchanges by a third party who has no skin in the exchange) that what I have said there is exactly what it says - an example that ab objective Good would need to be circular. As every single thing you have posited shows, clearly. Your assertion to the opposite is simply false.

Suffice to say all my responses stand on their own two feet. You can respond how you want :)

There is no legitimate warrant for determining how good a thing is, re: its goodness, without an a priori sense of good itself. Just as you can’t say of a thing its beauty without that to which its beauty relates. — Mww

b-b-b-bingo.

Of which the phrase "what is good is good" clearly refers to the idea it is objective, and not that I am defining 'good' circularly. — Bob Ross

I have responded to this as presented in several of your posts in this thread. Not the bare quote which I used to represent it. That bare quote would, one would think, cast you back to your entire position. It seems more likely you have someone disingenuous assumed that's all there was to respond to, in my mind which is not the case.

If your harshness is borne out of what's there in the full post i've quoted above, that is a misunderstanding on your part. I have adequately responded to your position. Your notion of 'objective good' is circular. I have made that much clear about my position, whether you agree with it or not. Unless you're actually obfuscating, in which case, maybe take a bit of time before replying (but i assume this is not hte case)

I should say, the two elements don't seem mutually exclusive - which is why i've been saying unhelpful rather htan unreasonable. It could be objective and circular, as Euthyphro shows is almost certainly the case, if an objective good were to obtain.

I really can't figure out what you're getting at.

I don't quite grant your premise, anyway. The differences across cultures and times make it quite obvious that 'the Good' in the terms you're using is just a group agreement to some moral boundaries. This is not particularly predictable as between groups, or across time. Your syllogism (as such) simply isn't giving what you want it to.

What people deem to be good is predictable.
What is predictable is not arbitrary.
Therefore what people deem to be good is not arbitrary. — Leontiskos

Which people? Predictable by whom, to what degree, and under what circumstances? Is this simpyl a statistical reading of past attitudes? None of this helps... "what people deem to be good" is insufficiently specific, anyway. This is a hodge-podge at best, giving nothing reasonably helpful.

Those boundaries are arbitrary. The collective agreement to them doesn't touch that. To be non-arbitrary you need to be pointing to something which has informed them, which is universally recognized. I see nothing of the kind, until we move into religion. But then, non-arbitrariness is baked in there exactly to get around this problem. Both issues seem to support my contention.

None of this is true. No idea where you're getting this from. I literally quoted you and responded to it. My comment is in line with all of your responses to a similar thing. Your view is that the Good, is the Good.

I would recommend not immediately getting defensive and difficult because someone has put you to something.

I don't care what you find interesting.

The study (non-replicated - extremely good reason to be sceptical) doesn't give us any empirical facts at all. It makes assumptions, infers certain reason for an, assumed, innate fear or reaction, without actually confirming that this is the case. I don't know how you read papers, but this one isn't particularly sound for the reasons above, and hte obvious reason: There is no such thing as a snake before you are born. It would require some form of magic for a baby (who can't even recognize colours) to recognize an organism, all that entails, particularly given the statistically vanishing likelihood of being hurt by a snake.

The workers conclude that they think there may be an evolutionary reason for the reaction. That is bare. It's not conclusive. You seem to have read an abstract and just run with it.

Aside from this, it's probably unbecoming of someone trying to support a point to literally not engage and hten call someone's opinion 'boring' without any inquiry. That's, to put it bluntly, childish crap.

Is one able to predict with some level of accuracy what others will deem good? If so, how could the good be arbitrary or disconnected from "extrinsic facts"? — Leontiskos

Lets grant the proposition.

How would that connect with any extrinsic facts? That people have opinions has nothing to do with fact-finding, or defining Good. This simply isn't relevant to the question. It is arbitrary - it might just be shared by groups of affinity. Nothing interesting going on there in my view.

it is nothing but contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

It clearly, patently isn't, and you're just digging your feet in. That's not Dan's problem. He's being an absolute gentleman trying to walk you through this. Your refusal doesn't reflect anything on he or his arguments. All of my comments about your posts stand, entirely. Your responses are just re-assertions of the same tired cop-outs at this stage.

What is good is good — Bob Ross

This is tautological. This is unhelpful. This is not an answer to any of the questions. What's good is *insert definition* is the correct form of this statement. Everyone has their own. And that's absolutely fine.

I define good as that which elicits feelings of contentment within me. That's an extremely broad, and changing concept. That's why it works (for me).

I can't see a way to 'defining' good as anything other than a personal subjective concept. OR some teleological thing - i.e, "Good in order to achieve..." or "good in order to avoid.." in whatever scenario.

I call moral anti-realism only ethics insofar as it is its negation. — Bob Ross

That's an interesting point, but i think is entirely inapt. Moral anti-realism is literally a species of ethical thought as to "what one ought to do". It just doesn't demand a universal answer.

I primarily use my phone to blue-tooth music to my stereo. I never answer it and make about 1 call a month. I do return texts from friends but even that is only about 10 a month. — Arne

I use my phone for plenty - but Unless there is already something to use it for (i.e as a tool) why would I pick it up? There is hay to be made.

Sure, someone can use "square" in a way which does not exclude a circle from being a type of square, and assert "this is the way I choose to use that term", insisting that the other person in the discussion must accept such incoherency if they want to continue discussion, but what's the point? How could this be conducive to understanding? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is, I think, a pretty clear indicator you're either not connecting with what's being said, or are simply avoiding it.

Your analogy is entirely inapt, to the point of ridiculousness.

"the way it is" simply has no static restriction. Plain and simple.

The matter of what the user of the phrase is demanding is not relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

This explains the entire exchange. So be it.

In a lot of ethical thought, it is "good for you" to be good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Surely you can see the circularity? No further seems to clarify this. It seems to me, the biggest reason ethical thinking is so muddled and hard to reconcile as between differing views. It is always recourse to a subjective "good" which is, in turn, supported by the notion that its "good to be good". ?????? LOL.

Here is the analogy Boethius draws in the later parts of the Consolation for this situation. Flourishing is like trying to climb a mountain. At the top is the highest good, which is good per se, but also good for us. You'll be happiest if you make it to the top, but you'll also be happier if you make it higher up the mountain. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is relatively incoherent. I like the Consolation, and I think Boethius is undoubtedly one of the better medieval writers (particularly the lack of inherent divinity despite his obvious leanings). It is quite easy to read the above conceptualisation as nonsense. It's a nice metaphor, if you already know what "good" means, but here we don't. There's no reason to be climbing, other than accepting an assertion.

The vice addled — Count Timothy von Icarus

Quite different to 'non-good' or somehow 'bad'.

Socrates gets sentenced to death and quips that "nothing bad can happen to a good man; — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which appears, on it's face, ridiculous. There's no reason to think Socrates was good, other than his assertion.

I appreciate this response, but I do not think it has addressed any of the issue. The question remains moot, in the absence of a non-circular, or at least non-self-referential concept of 'good'. The above amounts to "good is conceptualised as that which it is good to do".

This isn't particularly convincing... I've had a look at the lit on this several times. I was wondering whether you had an answer beyond relying on this. Apologies if that's not open to you, perhaps the question was misplaced.

fear of snakes, for instance, is innate. — Benkei

This isn't really challenge (though, i probably would choose to challenge the use of innate here) but do you propose a reason many (significant numbers) of people are naturally not predisposed to be fearful of snakes? I'm one, so i'm genuinely curious here.

Everywhere I look I see zombies wondering around chained to their phones. It is scary! Sometimes I feel like I am the only normal person in a never ending freak show. — I like sushi

I own a phone (smart phone), but I have this same experience. I chuckle constantly to and from the bus in my city watching for people walking into things, and each other.

In my experience, this (bolded part) is not how ethics is usually taught. Instead, teaching ethics goes something like this:

"You don't know what is good and right and so you need to be told so.
X is good and right.
You should do X."


If anything, the direct answer to "Why ought one do that which is good?" is "Because one is bad" and perhaps with the addition "so that by doing good, one may become good as well." — baker

Sure, and I understand (roughly) how Ethics is taught. But this literally foregoes any meaningful answer to the question, and returns to circularity. I'm not particularly intending to further some philosophical position but to address why I think the question itself is a bit moot. "X is good" requires my bolded to be sorted through. "You should do X" requires the previous sentence to be adequately addressed. So, I think this is prima facie a pretty unhelpful way to think about what to do in life.

Ignoring that "good" and "right" can come apart readily, I can't see how this conceptualisation is anything more than paternalism, rather than learning how to think and assess claims. Have I maybe missed something in what you've presented? It's likely.

Again, you want "the way the world is" to mean more than it does. And, again, the condition of changing is a claim about the way something is, because "the way something is" does not imply that the thing is not changing. — Dan

It seems this is a hang up in the last couple of pages.

Fwiw, this (Dan's description) is patently true. Reducing "the way X is" to only ever apply to static description is not reasonable - particularly in the face of the user of the phrase telling you that's not baked in.

I can't understand hte question, really.

If something is Good, it's because you have personally understood/decided it is good. You couldn't support that with any extrinsic facts.

The 'right' action is to do with achieving something. That something must be arbitrary, at base. So, i don't get hte question.

Iam not sure why anyone needs to read ad hominem filled with the groundless accusatory blames. — Corvus

If you could be conscious of your writing style avoiding to sound like court or legal document, or a frustrated grumpy old folk telling off someone insisting the points are wrong or not supported without providing any reasons or ground, — Corvus

I am a legal professional. You will not be policing my 'style'. I am not going to engage further, because the underlined is utterly ridiculous. The bold, further, is both hypocritical, and an obviously bad-faith reading to detract from the fact I have actually made entirely substantial poitns that you have plainly missed. I even ran them back for you, in great detail, with direct links to your own words. Your ignorance abounds, in that regard. That is simply not my problem. It is yours, squarely. Take care.

Oh piss, I see. Sorry, definitely misapprehended.

Nb: is that a. R. Fripp reference or something else I'm not aware of?

we ought to do what is good just because it is good. What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

You're not seriously suggesting this is an actual position are you? This is tautological and unworkable.

You've responded in bad faith. That's to an extremely unfair version of what I've done/said. I pointed out to you that I see a need to communicate in a certain way because you are not understanding certain things (by your own admission), and that I don't actually think this reflects on you, and apologised ahead of time for how that may come across. I reject entirely your statement there and it seems to me that perhaps you are playing the man. Onward..

Here again, you fail to explain why the examples don't support my point — Corvus

You should probably read an entire post before responding. This looks, sorry to say, utterly preposterous now, given the below failures.

I was not demanding impossible tasks from you. — Corvus

Onerous tasks. Again, please stick with what's being said.

I am still not seeing your argument, — Corvus

I cannot understand how that has happened. Let me attempt to make this even clearer for you:

You do not 'perceive time' by being hungry. You then claimed you could go on to a plethora of examples (if they're similar, please don't). But then did not give any at all... So, patently nothing here supports your contention that there are 'different types' of perception, or that 'time' is perceived by the stomach. It isn't. At all. In any way. Even on your point (which I said, I got) this makes no sense whatsoever. You need to perceive sensory data from your stomach. You perceive hunger pangs. You infer it must be lunch time (based on several other, very important, connected perceptions). That is not a perception, or a form of perception. You are leapfrogging and pretending the gap isn't there, best I can tell. — AmadeusD

This is an assertion to the contrary of your supporting point. That is an argument in response to a bare assertion that was obviously wrong. I then explain directly that the rest of the point can't even begin to support your point because you didn't provide anything (this, I hope, is not controversial. You literaaly refrained from giving anything further). Clear so far? So let's do even more grunt work.. As tied to the first bold, is the second and third bold. These are arguments. If you don't like them, that's fine and you're open to responding to them, but all three of these points directly go against your assertion. Given that you did not provide anything whatsoever to support the assertion beyond a bare claim that somehow hunger pangs are a perception of time (which I have directly addressed.. please do not ignore it). That assertion has no merit, and I've still addressed it directly. I am unsure what is being missed here, but it isn't on my part. I've provided a sound explanation for why what you've asserted isn't the case. Albeit, the three bolds are only coherent in their surrounding context - they represent nubs.

because it is not the case when one reflects on the workings and the various different types of objects in the world we perceive. — Corvus

It is, and your assertion otherwise is not credible. YOU need to do the work to give it credibility. That isn't my job in responding to you.

So, no you are still not even one step closer to offering me a worthwhile counter argument against my point. As before you just repeated the groundless negations on my point with the ad hominem. I thought there might be some interesting counter arguments from your end this time, but it didn't take me even a minute to find out it is not the case. — Corvus

It seems you're just ignoring most of what's being said. I am sorry if I have been genuinely unclear, but having used my own words without any addition to clarify in the above passages, I am extremely reticent to think that is the case.

just because something "seems" wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. — Hyper

Sure, but there is no tie-breaker so that makes it very hard to come to any other statement about it. It seems, on the facts, wrong. I can't understand another avenue to get to a different conclusion.. .so we go head-to-head, it seems :P

With this reasoning, I would say it is more immoral to kill the baby inside the womb than killing an adult who has lived for 18 years. This is for the same reason that it would be less immoral to kill a person in a nursing home at the end of their life than it would be to kill an infant. — Hyper

Hmm, interesting. This seems, to me, understandable, but ridiculous. The fetus doesn't have anything to live for. On some conceptions, it is not yet 'living'. I fail to understand how ending the life of something unaware it exists is more immoral than killing an existing deliberative entity which understands its mortality, and has (assumably) several extremely strong interests in living, as do those around them. Can that be parsed out a bit?

The bold: I can grok this one, but its for entirely different reasons. A person who has lived for say 80 years and has fulfilled their impulse to procreate (let's assume) has far, far less interest in existing than does an infant (though, the difference between and infant and a fetus is stark and important too, so maybe we should be looking at apples and apples). BUT unless the geriatric has requested to end their life, neither is permissible without necessity.

Would this mean (this question is out of the blue. I have no thoughts on it) that an anti-realist is in some sense committed to foregoing any truly divine cosmological concepts?

I see him doing this elsewhere too, so I assume that's the case.

Makes for some strange reading..

I don't really think there is a question of obligation or 'owe' at play.

I think if you brought this down to a specific issue, liek telling a child their parent is dying, you could come to those concepts. But on your version above, I think either you decide to, or your decide not to, and this reflects on you not others. I don't think 'not knowing' carries any right. You fail to 'not knowing' millions of things every day. You don't have a choice, anyway.

I am sorry if this comes off rude, but It feels like I have to explain this like you're a child (i really do not feel that you are, I just can't figure out what's being missed).

You read time from your watch or clocks, but you also perceive time via your stomach when you feel hungry in the mid afternoon, you know it is lunch time etc. Anyhow, I could go on with a plethora of examples, but I hope you get the point. — Corvus

I said this, particular argument, does not support your point. You claimed somehow the onus was on me to show that. It isn't. But neverhteless..

You then extended the charge to your entire post (which is silly, because I responded to other parts of it discreetly). I pointed out that I don't have to explain myself in pointing out your passage does not support your point. I see you to be now probably understand this could be the case, and want to know what you've missed. That's fair. But the onus isn't on me. I hope the below helps..

You do not 'perceive time' by being hungry. You then claimed you could go on to a plethora of examples (if they're similar, please don't). But then did not give any at all... So, patently nothing here supports your contention that there are 'different types' of perception, or that 'time' is perceived by the stomach. It isn't. At all. In any way. Even on your point (which I said, I got) this makes no sense whatsoever. You need to perceive sensory data from your stomach. You perceive hunger pangs. You infer it must be lunch time (based on several other, very important, connected perceptions). That is not a perception, or a form of perception. You are leapfrogging and pretending the gap isn't there, best I can tell.

Further in support of why the above (your passage) might make sense, you're maintaining that because we have 'different types' of perception, that some are direct and some indirect. Unfortunately, this is really hard to respond to because it is, on it's face, ridiculous, and on inspection risible. Given that hte only example you have provided is obviously wrong, I don't think there's any space to push this back on me. There is a huge amount of work to be done, and I'm not seeing any of it. The distinction, theoretically, between IRists and DRists is clear, and not something that can be read-across by just assigning labels to things that don't come under those descriptions.

The implosion continues.

You are single handedly stopping a person from living a full life when you are pregnant and kill yourself. — Hyper

Two people. But again, this would come down to personhood.

It seems completely, and patently wrong to equivocate between a mother and her fetus. That seems plainly wrong. So we need to figure out how to not do that, while maintaining some delineation between "killing a person" and "killing a fetus", even if we can't neatly package each.

I would still maintain your criticisms of Clearbury are pretty on-point, but I think it is wrong to analogise in the way you have. Killing hte adult passenger in your car cannot be equivalent to killing your pregnant self, on my view.

you need to supply good arguments with reasoning and evidence supporting your disapproval — Corvus

I really don't, though. You have an argument which, on my view, does not support your point. You're asking me to 'prove a negative' as it were. That wont be doable, even if you want it to be.

Your arguments did not go toward supporting your point. You need to do the work to connect htem, if you wish to.

You need to give out your counter arguments on my points with some reasoning and evidence with your claims. If not, I cannot accept your claims as legitimate philosophical arguments. — Corvus

This isn't my problem. If you utter something in defense of a position, and it does nothing for hte position, I have naught to do but point that out, if it is how I see it.
Maybe that is unsatisfying, but if your initial point was unsatisfying to me, we are at the same impasse. It is not for one of us to take a higher ground.

If the mind is material, then slowly transferring the bits of material constituting it to another place would move the mind. That's a premise. It says 'if P, then Q' — Clearbury

BUt this is a mere assertion. It is not 'a case' other than a case to be discussed, not a case for the outcome you posit. I have made a case for why this might not be true. If that was missed, that's fine.

it is self-evident that the mind remains where it is. — Clearbury

Only tautologically. That is not making a case or presenting a premise, in the proper sense.

The conclusion that follows is "not P", or "the mind is NOT material". — Clearbury

It is not. It is an assertion on the back of two assertions. If that's your style, so be it.

'Intuitions' are what all cases appeal to. — Clearbury

In some sense - but some are presenting empirical difficulties. But this is an equivocation. "a case" (the way i've mentioned above) is about the same as a thought experiment. It doesn't "make a case" for one or other outcome, until the discussion is had. That didn't quite happen here. Anyway, this is not very interesting stuff.

that we are aware that arguments are valid, for instance. — Clearbury

No, not quite. Intuitions tease out our blindspots, along with where our reason is running well. It is not an indication of well-reasoned thinking that something is an intuition.

So, if you reject intuitions then you're rejecting the one and only source of evidence. Nothing else can possibly qualify as evidence unless we 'intuit' it to count as evidence, which just goes to show that all appeals to evidence are appeals to intuition. — Clearbury

Well that certainly explains your comportment.

A person is entitled to take the exit if they really want to. — Clearbury

Not in the vast, vast majority of countries and jurisdictions - not according to the vast majority of religions. If this is your intuition, it is an empirical nonsense in the way you're using it. It doesn't apply to others.

If our reason tells us that a pregnant person is entitled to kill themselves, then it is thereby telling us that the fetus is not a person. — Clearbury

No. Not at all. This is just an instance of confused, un-examined reasoning.

So we have a duty to bring about uniquely bad lives? — Leontiskos

I think his point is that if the only option is incest, you might. I disagree, and think you'd be obliged not to. But htere we go..

I think two sterilized adults should be able to do whatever they want.

I think you've misunderstood what I've said. But I would also say no you didn't. You made some assertions, none of which seem borne out.

No, that's just plain untrue. There are lots of arguments for the soul - philosophy is full of them - and no good one against the view. — Clearbury

This was the totality of your 'case'. That asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I'm also not massive interested in that debate.
The concept of the soul, to me, is nonsensical and metaphysically bereft of any real meaning. It's a gap-filler. Nothing describes the soul, or how it could function in any literature i've seen. So, I have no reason to take it seriously. Your claim to plenty of proofs is simply an empty claim, in that regard. You are certainly free to present any you want me to consider, though.

I also take hte point that you're kind of worked up over it, which gives me the sense you're not even relying on those points, but your intuitions. Which is fine, but I don't need to take those seriously without more.

I get how it could represent things as a jumble and highly inaccurately. — Bob Ross

Then you understand how the concepts of space and time being absent would cause this?

By my lights, if one is affirming that a baby has experience — Bob Ross

I....didn't....affirm this? I actively gave the potential that a baby has no experience. You simply rejected that, on grounds that you don't like PZs are possible. This is a confusing approach...

husly, you would have to explain NOT why the baby’s incoherent experience renders outside of time and space but, rather, why we should believe that a baby’s brain is too underdeveloped to render objects in space and time but it does have the capacity to render it in different pure forms of sensibility. — Bob Ross

This seems to be a new position you've plucked out of nowhere. The preceding section of your reply doesn't help me get there...

In short, you would seem to need to argue that the baby just doesn’t have pure forms of sensibility—no? At that point, though, the baby has no experience. Which, again, we can be certain that is false: babies react to some degree to their environment. — Bob Ross

I did allow for that, and no, that doesn't preclude it. The fact they react has nothing to do with experience. But this goes back to the PZ thing. Amoebas react and I think that's significant here (though, I take hte point if you assert they also have qualia - seems unresolvable)

So, there would be no experience in the case that a baby were a PZ, but that baby would still be, to some degree, aware; and this distinction has not surfaced in your view yet (as we have discussed it). — Bob Ross

Hmm, don't think so. I have said quite clearly that it's open to us to posit babies don't experience. That was required by my position too, so figured it was inferred naturally. If not, that is, in fact, the (possible) position I would take on this. That was probably a subconscious utility in bringing up PZs.

but of course I will entertain the hypothetical despite that. — Bob Ross

Fair - seemed a much stronger response on its face, than this gives me. Thanks for that!

Awareness is the bare ability to gather information about your environment; whereas, experience is a qualitative, subjective ‘having’ of that gathered and interpreted information. E.g., the brain is aware that this block is the color green because it interpreted the light that reflected off of it as green, but the (qualitative) experience, of which there is something to be you experiencing it, is over-and-beyond that bare awareness that it is green. — Bob Ross

This fairly well explains what I'm talking about with a Baby, but yeah, goes deeper than we probably wanted to. But to be extremely clear: It would be utterly insane to assert babies could 'behave' without any access to data on which they could base behaviour. I just assert they don't 'know' about it, because no experience to speak of (this raises a similar issue as with some other concepts as to when or how that experience, eventually, arises and as noted earlier, I have no good answer to that).

I understand that to a certain degree; but it’s the ultimate cop-out. I can’t contend with your view that they are experiencing somehow with different pure forms of sensibility if you just blanketly assert it. — Bob Ross

That isn't my view. Please, please, PLEASE stop putting views in my words that simply aren't there. Either ask me, or just don't. It's extremely frustrating, confuses the exchanges and wastes a lot of time.

It isn't a cop out. IT is the fact of hte matter. If there is a possible 'experience' outside time and space, there are no ways within time and space to convey it. If you don't accept that, we have nothing to go on. This has been all for naught. You not being satisfied is, sorry to say, irrelevant.

this is inherently spatia — Bob Ross

No. No it isn't. You have quite inadequately described what that experience is like. It is akin to the 'view from nowhere'. Its literally not accessible through normal consciousness. Again, if you simply cannot accept ineffability as an indicator, so be it. But the fact that it cannot be adequately conveyed should give you pause.

2, 3 and 5 have nothing to do with my claim, per se (so, I agree). They are interesting, but have nothing to do with the concepts of time and space. No idea why you responded to them. I, in fact, highlighted the bit that mattered in that passage (I would add though, I have always found the 'sacredness' aspect of these scales a bit boring and unhelpful. It seems to do more for assigning gravity to one's existing cosmologic views that anything to do witht eh experiences in the trials).

5 can help support the claim by way of giving you a fact of hte matter which precludes the view that they are experiences of 'the normal kind' (i,e of time and space). Doesn't mean they are that, but the fact that this is an extremely anomalous fact which has had to be inculcated into the way scientists assess the reports is telling. Not particularly strong, but figured this was worth noting.

but you have to be able to explain what those forms are, which are not space and time — Bob Ross

I don't think so, no. That's just something you want, and understandable. These experiences, if outside the scope of your a prioris, are not available for the same conveyance techniques we use for those within the scope of them. If there is no temporal or spatial aspects to those experiences then there are no words available, because words are dimensional. The experiences can't be conveyed if I'm right. They simply couldn't be. You are literally expecting a square peg to fit in a round hole. It wont. You either accept that ineffability is a quality of hte experiences in question, or you reject that the experiences are possible. You can't cross-reference those things. If I'm right, there is nothing I can do to explain it you, in the aesthetic sense you want a description for. If I'm wrong, then its moot. To bring this back to the first thing I said, no, one does not 'need to' other than to described them as ineffable, if that's the case. And it is, on my view, and the view of those who've had the experiences. Its almost distressing trying to put them into words because of how far away from words the experiences seem (i say seem, because I don't know whether what i'm saying is true - i just think its risible to write them off in the way you are, so doing my best to advocate).

I would need to hear what evidence you have for this, and how it works. I have a feeling you are just going to say you can’t describe it; but what forms are the experience in when not in space and time (on drugs)? — Bob Ross

Yeah, good, This is a decent approach imo. I understand you want evidence, but by it's very nature having the experience is the only thing that amounts to 'evidence' and clearly that wouldn't come under the descriptor we all know as 'evidence'. So, I take the point in your next line... But, that's the case. There are no words. The 'forms' are whatever they are. We don't have a science, or anything remotely close to being able to investigate these states adequately. Which is a real shame, and it may be that sometime soon, everything I've said will become obviously false based on some new development in neuroscience or imaging studies or what have you. I accept that, entirely. But as it stands, the evidence you want isn't available IFF i am right. If i'm not, you'll get the 'evidence' and be able to pick it apart and reduce to a misapprehension. Which I suspect is partially true, given the only psychedelic experience that could lead to what I'm saying is the Unitive one, rather than the others. I would also add the point that it seems to me no combination of words would move you on this. But that's speculation..

I realise this is a really disappointing place to leave that, and it is for me too - but believe me, for those who have had those experiences, its not just disappointing, its distressing. Imaging having the solution to some global problem. and being unable to convey it? That's how it feels (while that wording is dramatic as heck LOL).

Really appreciate your time and effort on this exchange, Bob. Thank you!