Disagree that there is nothing without a mind? :chin:

What if we were talking about North American natives? — Vera Mont

As far as I know you are one. So I would ask you.

I generally use 'civilization' to mean urbanized society arranged in a pyramidal caste system, with power and wealth at the top, drudgery and poverty at the bottom. — Vera Mont

I would leave the second half out of it.

But others have used the word to mean any organized group of people with a distinct social system and culture. In the latter sense, Amerindians, indigenous Australians, African nations were all civilizations before a climate change or bigger empire destroyed them. — Vera Mont

Historiography says the first civilisation was Sumer. Let's think about what things did Sumer have that Australian aboroginals did not have? That should give the definition.

but fails to explain what it considers highly developed, complex or spiritual, nor why it considers complexity a prerequisite. — Vera Mont

That dictionary did not employ a very good lexicographer if it figures nonsense like "highly developed spiritual resources".

individuals are generally said to be civilized if they have self-control and good manners — Vera Mont

That is metaphorical usage.

P Bogart is not a math god. He is just a math teacher. — Corvus

So why did you even quote him?

At Not P --> Not Q, if you were sensible, you would have inspected the content, which was FALSE.
Because it is FALSE the assumption, P->Q must be FALSE. You are guilty of the misuse of Logic. — Corvus

This makes no sense. It is not a coherent thought.

Previously you were arguing that P→Q implies ¬P → ¬Q. That was your argument that the cogito is logically incoherent. The issue is that P→Q is completely unrelated to ¬P→¬Q.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~4(~3p~5~3q)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~5(~3p~5~3q)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~3p~5~3q)~5(p~5q)

It would be rather perception, memories, imagination and sensations as well as reasoning and all the rest of the total mentality which grant one's own existence, I believe. — Corvus

Oh hell nah @flannel jesus

I don't think and I am not is FALSE.
so P -> Q is false at that point. — Corvus

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: So you are disagreeing with P Bogart, who you yourself quoted. That's crazy.

It says, P --> Q is equal to ¬P V Q. — Corvus

I think → I am. P is "I think" and Q is "I am".
P – Q – ¬P∨Q (aka P→Q)
0 – 0 – 1 "I don't think and I am not" holds P → Q
1 – 0 – 0 "I think and I am not" does not hold P → Q
0 – 1 – 1 "I don't think and I am" holds P → Q
1 – 1 – 1 "I think and I am" holds P→Q

But it would also have the benefits I mentioned — Sir2u

The benefits being pleasure.

Only if I ate and drank more that I needed excessively — Sir2u

Or you could take a pill and avoid every downside of eating (bloating, toxins, phytic acid, heavy metals etc).

Does the fact that people live in a tribe necessarily mean that they can be classed as 'uncivilized'? — Beverley

If we are talking about tribes like the Amazonian and Congolese tribes before contact with Europeans, and San tribes today, yes, they are not civilised by any metric.

That, I think, was the noble, but not particularly successul, idea behind Esperanto, although if you wanted to launch a philosophy journal in Esperanto, you should probably borrow my avatar ;-) — Wayfarer

Not only was it not successful, but I would wager that Esperanto was in fact detrimental to the development of a common (European) language. Around and before the time of Esperanto, there were multiple conlangs being developed, Volapük, Latino sine flexione, and others with some extent of success. Come Esperanto, and all those languages essentially die off in favour of it. One hundred years later and Esperanto has not managed to go mainstream. Not that it was Esperanto's creators fault, just a misfortune of history.

:lol:

Post the pictures

you think therefore you are, is the only way for you exist — Corvus

Holy shit. Obviously nobody said that. That doesn't even make sense. "I think therefore I am" is an inference. How can an inference be the only way for something to exist?

"When you don't think, you don't exist is incorrect.
That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect."

"When you don't run, you don't move is incorrect.
That proves, when you run, you move is also logically incorrect"

Obviously, because you can't recall what you said 1 page ago, you will say those two are different. But:

The classic symbolic logic works on the forms only. No contents — Corvus

https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3e|=~3t
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3t|=~3e

You have admitted that When you don't think, you don't exist is incorrect.
That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect. — Corvus

No it doesn't prove that. Your next move is to say "Why not". Because burden of proof is not on me.

The last 5 pagees should be purged by some mod.

This has to be trolling. This is by far the stupidest page on the forum currently.

Nice try, but he doesn't know what the three dots or the arrow mean.

This cult is dead — Brendan Golledge

I wish.

One context might have been God merely as the ordering principles of nature (the laws of nature) — Brendan Golledge

There is no such thing as "God as". God has a definition that has to be used. Redefining god to mean something else is a cheap trick that people use when modern knowledge has pulled them away from their faith but still want to run away from the cold pessimism of materialism towards some easy absolute.

I am enlightened and God is actually the fruits lying on my kitchen bowl. The fruits exist. Evidently God exists!

But it is not, therefore why deprive oneself of the pleasures attached to the ritual of eating. — Sir2u

This is what I hoped would be brought up. When does it turn into hedonism? When I said "You can still eat stuff, but it would not give you any needed nourishment and would come with all the negatives of eating", I wanted to imply that you get all the negatives without getting the positives. Wouldn't eating then be like smoking or at least like drinking beer?

https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3t|=~3e
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3e|=~3t

He will never, ever concede :rofl:

https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tables/truth-tables.html

"You suck."
Verbal violence, no destruction.

Planned demolishion of a compromised building. Destruction, no violence.

Some folks said they wouldn't take the pill. I wonder why :chin:

What do you mean? — gadzooks

There are plenty of examples of destruction without violence, violence without destruction. One word does not imply the other.

but there is no destruction without violence — gadzooks

This statement is not true.

I'm curious what you mean by "awareness" though — 013zen

I don't mean much else than what is understood by the word in English. That conscious and aware cannot be replaced one by the other in some contexts is no mystery — some grammarians claim there is no such thing as a perfect synonym —, but generally those two words are synonyms, the thesaurus would show so.

if say, a motion detecting camera spots me, and follows my movements, would that count as awareness, or is it something more complicated for you? — 013zen

Good question. Most people would say sponges are not conscious, but they are "aware" of their surroundings because they react to stimulus. But then again, are they reacting any differently than when a rock reacts when we kick it by flying away into my neighbour Giorgios' window? In a way, a sponge reacts to its environment through a series of chemical reactions in its structure, which are physics-based — in the deep end it is all Newton's third law. We call mechanisms "responsive" too, when we touch a phone's screen but it doesn't register the touch, it is not responsive. Yet in most cases calling the phone "aware" sounds off. You could say the phone is aware of you touching it (touchscreen software is running) but a virus may be blocking the script that opens the app or slides the screen.
All in all, this is barely even philosophy, it is pragmatics of the English language.

One of the marking characteristics of a society evolving into a civilisation is the specialisation of the workforce, aka roles/jobs. It is only in tribal settings (non-civilised societies) where everybody does a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

By the way, it is necessary T in symbolic logic writes □T. Not ¬(¬T) — Corvus

You really should stop.

I think thefore I am.
I think ∴ I am translates to
I think → I am meaning
I am is necessary for I think. — Lionino

¬E → ¬T
¬(¬T → ¬E)
It is all so tiresome.

Sure, but there are no things without a mind. — bert1

Ok, so you are a panpsychists. Most people disagree, so do I. We can leave it at that.

Tim had triple bypass surgery, and Nancy had a full frontal lobotomy. — 013zen

Damn.

But, if I were to ask in the sense of the OP: "Is Tim conscious in the same sense as Nancy?" we would all, I think, answer 'no'. — 013zen

Are lobomites conscious? If yes, they are conscious in the same way; if no, "Nancy is conscious and in the hospital" is an incorrect statement, and should be changed.

The counterargument is that what we mean by "conscious" is in fact an umbrella of related properties. But this is not a point I want to debate so I will just concede.

In any case, it is not like I am not learning anything here, so explaining the same thing over and over becomes a sort of charity — aka unpaid work for the benefit of others.

That is what some of his posts imply. But others, such as the last one, seem unrelated. I feel like not even he knows what his objection is.

Perhaps in these seventeen pages someone has made this same point, but:

To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty

Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness

Well, that is not the point of physicalism. And the issue is:

f ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it

Physical reality is reality as physics could describe it, not as it describes it currently. Perfective and imperfective moods, it is the little things in language.

because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness.

This is true, but if future physics is anything like current physics, it is not an empty claim.

You seem to want to be in this category of rationalising 9/11. — AmadeusD

I am not rationalising 9/11 especially because I don't even know what that could mean. I am sure the jihadi had reasons in their mind to do it, but I don't care about it. There were reasons why 9/11 happened and one of those reasons was the country's involvement in the Middle East. 9/11 did not randomly happen. That much should be obvious, unless one believes in spontaneous generation.

I have no idea what's your fascination with logical necessity, and keep repeating yourself with the term here. The point is that is not relevant to your statements that you know life doesn't exist in Mars, or Cogito. — Corvus

To which I reply I don't understand your fascination with Mars having life, a topic you brought up.

I don't need to read the whole Descartes to know that his main theme in Philosophy is illogical. No one needs to. — Corvus

It is not "the whole", you have not read a single page of it.

This seems the real confusion and linguistic muddle. — Corvus

Ok? So you realise you are misinterpreting what the "therefore" means? I guess not:

If you still insist that "You think therefore you are." is correct, then when you were just born, and was not able to think, does it mean that you didn't exist? — Corvus

No, it is the same mistake over and over and over. The newborn does not think, but it exists, existence does not imply thought. You are confusing explanation with causation.
Obviously you will still not understand that, and then there is clearly nothing I can do. I will simply tell you you are confused and leave you to it. All I can recommend is to read Descartes with a guide, I recommend Emanuela Scribano.

In that case, I need a Newspeak dictionary. — Vera Mont

A French dictionary instead, as those two are French words. Empire is a type of government and also speaks to the make-up of the State, imperialism is foreign policy, one does not imply the other, but the other implies one.

Ask the Islamophobic French nationalist political faction, and they'll say the present ethnic problem in their country was caused by the EU's magnanimity. Ask a historian, and you'd get a very different answer. — Vera Mont

The Muslim issue in France evidently has a strong link to Merkel and the EU. Historians don't tend to get stuff right when it comes to things that are not events far into the past — my history teachers would boast that they can't manipulate fractions, which is 3rd grade mathematics.

Which is why I called the US an empire. — Vera Mont

Imperialism does not imply empire, it implies hegemon, otherwise it is an etymological fallacy. The view of Biden's land as an empire is particularly silly when one considers the fact that an empire's people enjoy some benefits from the supposed empire, while that country's people is completely subject to international corporations and Israel, undermining to some extent the idea that it is sovereign or at least that it is democratic. Also, there is no emperor. A country without a king is not a kingdom. Brazil and Mexico were empires, they had emperors — emperors from European noble houses, by the way.

And they're not complaining about their and their ancerstors' treatment by the current and past European regimes? — Vera Mont

What current European regime? Spain's arrival was a great thing for Mexico, for example, otherwise in a case of isolation from the rest of the world¹, they would not be too far past the Iron Age today and likely still be conducing human sacrifices.

1 – Which we, the so enlightened of the 21st century grant to the North Sentinelese.

Both in the middle and far east, the US took over power in European colonies, just as it did in North America and indirectly in South America. — Vera Mont

That doesn't imply colonialism, at most imperialism.

My reference to plunder was in the context of Mesopotamia in the two world wars. As to the 'peacetime' plunder of Africa, that's been ongoing since c.1650 and will continue yet a while, now China's in the game. — Vera Mont

I don't know enough about the exploitation of resources during imperialism in the Middle East to comment on that.

Were we talking about the plunder, disarrangement and corruption of sub-Saharan Africa? I thought this was about the series of Middle East crises that resulted in the 9/11 attack, and all that insane, costly, ineffective warfare resulting from the US response to that. — Vera Mont

When you said plunder I immediately thought of Africa, not of the Middle East, so never mind it.

The extinct hardly ever complain. — Vera Mont

There are millions of pure Amerindians in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc. Europeans rarely promoted deliberate extermination campaigns, that was something more up Pacific Islanders' and sub-Saharans' alley.

I think thefore I am.
I think ∴ I am translates to
I think → I am meaning
I am is necessary for I think.
It does not mean I am is sufficient for I think, which would be
I am → I think or
I think ← I am, which translates to
I think ∵ I am, in English
I think because I am, which is incorrect, as we know, because, unless you are a panpsychist, you think not because you are but because of many reasons, including that you are.
This is definitive proof that cogitō ergo sum is not inverted. Farewell, さらばだ.

That is ALSO to say, what is morality? — Chet Hawkins

This has no bearing on the conversation, so I stopped reading there. Other than that, that existence implies thought is an obviously incorrect statement unless you are a panpsychist. There are way too many things that exist and yet don't think. That should be a very simple point.

It was a reply to your irrelevant sentence, you know for certain there exist no life in Mars — Corvus

I didn't say for certain. For the fourth time, I said it not logically necessary that there is life in Mars. You need to research what logically necessary means.

t is saying that "Think" is a psychological concept, and "Exist" is an ontological concept. — Corvus

It is gibberish. Think is a psychological concept as much as it is an epistemological, ontological, linguistic concept. Existence is also all of those. Thinking and existence are fundamental concepts of our reason, you are putting them in little boxes like one can put "acid" in the box "chemistry". But it is pointless.

That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No?

Existence comes first. Logically, and ontologically. — Corvus

No, because that is not what the word "therefore" means. You are thinking of "I can only come to think if I exist", which is exactly Descartes' point. The city is wet, therefore is rained. I am sneezing, therefore I have a virus. In X therefore Y, Y is the cause, X is the consequence.
You are simply getting confused with the meaning of words.

Descartes got it wrong, and ↪Lionino is in deep confusion in this Cogito ergo sum muddle. — Corvus

Funny that you say Descartes got something wrong when we both know you have not read Descartes.

I think he's trying to say that perceiving reality pre-supposed reality — AmadeusD

Which is just fine in line with Descartes' argument.

so the Cogito is a step ahead of establishing 'existence'. — AmadeusD

No problem with working retroactively. In fact, Descartes' metaphysics is that God is the cause of his (soul's) existence. He works backwards from the cogito to the thing that causes the soul/cogito, so the cogito is "a step ahead" of establishing God too — Cartesian epistemology and Cartesian metaphysics have different order. One can come up with many more example of retroactive arguments.

Anything that tries to rationalise 9/11 probably shouldn't be taken very seriously.

It was not a rational event, or action to take. — AmadeusD

Right, let's just ignore how the CIA literally trained the members of the al-Qaeda and the rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of Obama's policy. Stuff just happens for no reason.

Britain was there before them, and France and Italy — Vera Mont

If you are talking about colonialism, everybody did that or tried to before the 20th century century, that France or Portugal were so good at it is a point of virtue, not of vice. Yankees didn't, they were colonised instead until the 18th century, so I couldn't possibly be talking about colonialism.

Other than that, I completely agree with all the Britain slander, they are the cause of many of the modern world's problem.

plundering the resources and exploiting the population — Vera Mont

Without Europe's colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa, do you think the countries there would have developed to be able to exploit the Molybdenum mines that are important for refinement of petroleum?
It is always interesting how people say Europe "plundered" Africa's resources and then, after watching a DW documentary on Youtube, they fill up their chest to enlighten us about how France currently has a hidden empire in West Africa. Curious, I thought the resources were plundered.
If anything, it is some American countries that should complain to Spain that their gold was plundered, but yet we don't see them doing so.

Unfortunately there is no good Iberian wine where I am. There is a Greek shop however, where I buy Cretan wine and olives. It is not outworldly, but it is pretty good.

It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. Not much philosophy in it. — AmadeusD

Immediately reminded me of Guenon, whose "Crisis of the modern world" I tried to read recently. I gave up a few pages in.

late teens) get into to Nietzsche — AmadeusD

Well, that is the overwhelming demographic of "Nietzscheans", unfortunately, people who have no clue what he is talking about because their reading comprehension has not matured past middle school.

You are talking about totally something else. — Corvus

I am talking about what I have been always talking about.

"I am still so secure and certain that I think there exists life in Mars. Therefore life exists in Mars." — Corvus

If you can't notice how this is completely different from Descartes' argument, this is beyond my powers.

Now I don't understand here. What do you mean? — Corvus

Think is a verb, psychological is an adjective, exist is a verb, ontological is an adjective. You classified one as the other. Ok, so what? And the classification is faulty, ontology is a field of philosophy, psychology is a (pseudo-)science, you don't classify loose verbs as "psychological", it is gibberish.

Then he should have said, "I exist, therefore I think." — Corvus

:mask: :mask: :mask:

you can't think without existing — Me

Thinking does not happen if there is no existing. Existing happens every time there is thinking. Thinking implies existing. I think therefore I am. Not the other way around.

Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense. — Corvus

No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought.

He obviously misunderstood something.
He put the cart in front of a horse. — Corvus

Moreover, it is a circular statement. How the hell does he know that he exists? He was supposed to doubt everything. — Corvus

Ok, time to sleep.