Everytime I check this thread I am impressed by how much you read. Do you have a special technique? How many pages a day do you read (fiction and non-fiction)? How much of a book would you say you retain in % ((fiction and non-fiction)?

Thank you for the Q&A.

I'm not sure exactly what a "nonce-word" — Ludwig V

I got it from the website I read about "dystheism", which I had never seen before. A nonce-word is a word that is made for that specific reason and abandoned after. Maltheism is a word that was made for a game, if I recall it properly from yesterday.

On the other hand, where would you put someone who thought that the concept of God, at least in Christianity, is incoherent, so that either assertion or denial are inappropriate? Or, I saw a translation of a Buddhist text that had the Buddha saying that the question was "undetermined"? Neither of those is suspending judgement. — Ludwig V

If a concept is incoherent, I think that denial is quite appropriate. But if you refer to something such as "This sentence is wrong", we might have to work with paraconsistent logic — a third truth-value or dialetheia. There is no word for someone who believes something to be a third truth-value or dialetheia, "dialeuthic about" perhaps.
As to undefined, it depends on what it means. Something undefined can be like 1/0 or infinity/infinity, which then undefined has a targeted meaning towards which we can believe or disbelieve. Or it can be something that is yet to be known, which suspending judgement is appropriate.

↪Leontiskos Welcome!

What do you think of Trump? — RogueAI

What do you think of Jeffrey Epstein.

In France and Sweden — Ludwig V

If you are referring to Royal Academies of language, the same is the case for Castillian. Also to some extent Portuguese and Galician. English indeed does not have that in any country afaik.

dystheism and maltheism — Ludwig V

Those are more like nonce-words, like misotheism; antitheism is more established, though not as much as atheism admittedly.

there is at least one religion (legally established as such in the USA) that is atheist - Scientology - and Buddhism is agnostic - or at least the Buddha was. — Ludwig V

Add Jainism to the mix in case someone wants to reject that Buddhism is a religion.

I can't see any mileage in arguing about what the words mean. The best one could do in a situation like the one we are in is to make an agreement about how to use the words and then deal with any substantial issues. — Ludwig V

Agreed. I am sure any reasonable person would grant either of the two definitions in order to go forward in a debate. The discussion over the meaning of 'atheism' started in this thread a few pages ago I think, but it did not seem to lead anywhere, just a debate on semantics.

The obvious etymology is clearly in favour of the latter meaning — Ludwig V

Both I would say, ἀντί can mean 'face-to-face' among other things.

I'm also wondering who might want to insist that agnosticism is a variety of atheism, rather than being a distinct position. Where does this idea come from? How does it affect the eternal debate? — Ludwig V

I defend a similar position in this thread on this post, reserving the third position to not an epistemic position but a declarative one, of suspending judgement.

By "solipsism" I understand – ontologically, not epistemologically – that only one mind exists and that all else are merely thoughts, ideas or dreams in that one mind — 180 Proof

I see now.

I see what you mean now. Yes, that is true. I am sure there is an intuitive explanation for how that arrives (without defaulting to statistics); I got no brain cells left for today or tomorrow, so let me know if you find one.

In hearing why you think it is the case that mind is not dependent on non-mind if solipsism is the case. It is an interesting argument to me so I'd like to know more about it.

The interesting thing is that the distribution gets more uniform the more random events you add to it. — mentos987

Example?

Unless solipsism obtains, mind is dependent on (ergo, inseparable from) More/Other-than-mind, no? — 180 Proof

Could you please elaborate on the relationship between the two parts of the sentence? I am interested in hearing why.

What are the odds of me getting hit by a lightning strike twice in the same day?

50%, it either happens or it doesn't.

The larger the pool of random choices, the more uniform the results will become. — mentos987

You mean a normal distribution aka bell curve?

You are right that in Ancient Greek atheos - I'm sorry that I don't have an Ancient Greek keyboard - didn't mean exactly what it means now. Though, on a closer look, Plato does, it seems, use that word to mean "denying the gods" (in the Apology). But otherwise, it seems to mean "godless" or "ungodly" (in Pindar, Sophocles and Lysias) and "abandoned by the gods" (in Sophocles). The meaning in your quotation from Bacchylides does seem to be "ungodly". — Ludwig V

:up:

Perhaps the most relevant change is the invention of the term "agnostic" by T.H. Huxley in 1869. Before that "atheist" could comfortably cover both agnosticism (no assertion or denial) and atheism (denial). Huxley's point was precisely to draw that distinction and once it is drawn, "atheism" needs to move over. People seem to have found this distinction important, and so Huxley's coinage has taken root in the language. (Yes, of course you can check that claim in a dictionary!) — Ludwig V

This is a good addition to the debate. Then what happens when there is "antitheism"? Should "atheism" move over as well? If yes, where? If no, what happens with "antitheism"?

But I don't think ancient Greek usage is, or should be, a final authority on what a word means now. For me, the meaning of a word is what it is used to mean and the users of a language may not know or care how the ancient Greeks used it. — Ludwig V

I agree with this. But, and this is a completely different topic, I believe that when we loan a word from another language, the usage of the word should keep its origin in consideration, lest we commit a barbarism; whereas a word that is our own may be changed in meaning as much as the people will it — whether that is good practice is up to debate.

I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

Even though I have not read half of the thread, I will chime in. If you subvocalise a text that has assonance, rhymes, alliteration, and strategical uses of punctuation [, ; ! —], you can surely say it has musicality.

Contrary to some posts, reaction to the environment as mediated by metabolism (chemistry) is not consciousness. That is at best called responsiveness. After all, throw water on a pile of salt. The salt is (chemically) responding to its environment by disappearing!
Consciousness is a cognitive process, so while it is debatable whether some beings with really primitive nervous systems such as worms are conscious, single-celled organism and even sponges are surely not conscious — we are not panpsychists, are we?
I think the ability to problem-solve can be helpful to determine consciousness. A plant may solve a labyrinth by following the path that has greatest brightness, but we know it will always choose that path because the growth pattern of a plant is estimulated by light. We may give a geometric puzzle to a raven and each raven may try to solve it a different way, we don't know how they will try first; possibility of error and the ability to randomly choose a method may indicate that some thinking is going on.

I think some of the current favourites are undersea vents, where complex chemicals are subjected to a big range of conditions, although I'm hazy on the detail. — Wayfarer

Chemiosynthetic theory, where the first living beings were thermophilic procrarionta who dwelt in volcanic ridges.
Half of the scientific terms above may have been misspelt.

I think there is. — Wayfarer

Typically metabolism with self-replication is used to separate life from non-life.

I mean it makes sense to say "the dog was knocked unconscious" — goremand

This sentence might be surprisingly helpful. Can we knock a sponge unconscious? Killing it does not count.

If you look up this quote online, something very strange will appear:

By facts do you mean propositions or the state of affairs?

As a curiosity, I decided to find what the earliest ocurrences of the word ἄθεος were. I was pleasantly surprised that the earliest seems to be from Bacchylides, from the 6th century BC. Great, earlier than that we would be in the Dark Ages of generalised illiteracy (the use of alphabets died out):

...δʼ Ἥραν
παῦσεν καλυκοστεφάνους
κούρας μανιᾶν ἀθέων·

I don't speak Ancient Ancient Greek, but it seems to say "However [she] convinced Hera to stop the flower-crowned maiden's godless frenzy". The earliest usage of it seems to refer to the absence of gods, not the denial of them.

The uncommon word ἀντίθεος can have two meanings: like the gods, or against god(s).

Someone presented a Reddit post (lol) where the SEP and IEP are misused as sources, but it is true that the SEP claims that the standard definition in philosophy of religion is "denial of God".

Here is the thing: why should philosophers of religion be able to redefine a word that is at least 2000 years older than their field? A word that many people identify and have identified with while not implying the meaning the SEP claims is standard. It may be fair to say we should use the standard definition here since we are technically talking about phil of rel, but why use atheism when the meaning is better encapsulated in 'antitheism', which the IEP calls "positive atheism"?

In any case, I am very skeptical of the SEP's claims of "standard" or "consensus". Sometimes I fail to confirm the existence of those consensuses when I look into the topic myself.

And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"? — Hallucinogen

Antitheist.

Z ^ Znot cannot be determined, without clarifying the underlying metaphysical theory N being used — Bob Ross

I agree. You said previously that the underlying metaphysical theory is Znot, so I simply stuck to your choice of terminology:

Let’s take metaphysical theory, Znot, which posits that philosophical zombies are metaphysically impossible — Bob Ross

I knew the use of Znot would be confused with proposition not-Z but decided to stick to it anyway :razz:

By ‘relative to M’, I mean that this mode of modality is relative to the underlying metaphysical theory, M, being used — Bob Ross

With the terms we are using here (I have thrown out "In M, P" in favour of "P and M"), I don't think that P relative to M means anything other than P and M.

Z being metaphysically impossible is that we posit Znot and that is incoherent, at the least, with Z — Bob Ross

Now I don't know whether you are using Znot as a theory or a proposition. But that does seem like what my point is. Though my point is stated clearly here:

P is a metaphysically possible statement — indeed it is, in the dualist doctrines of epiphenomenalism and interactivism.

So where is the metaphysical impossibility? Well, it can only arrive if we state M ∧ P, I don't see any other way. But because M→(A∧B) and (A→T)∧(B→U) and T→¬P entail M→¬P, M ∧ P is a logical impossibility too. — Lionino

---

You represent this as Z ^ Znot, but this is not accurate because you are conflating the proposition which is metaphysically impossible with the justification for it being such. Z is metaphysically impossible, and the justification is that !(Z ^ Znot) ^ Znot → {metaphysically impossible} . Saying ‘Z ^ Znot’ is metaphysically impossible shifts the focus to a different proposition, X, which would have to be evaluated relative to a specified metaphysical theory, N. — Bob Ross

I will approach this section later when I have more time to think and once I have a reply of whether Znot is a metaphysical theory or a proposition.

Thread is not a philosophical topic.

Fair, but that still seems to me like you bend the word "I" to fit — mentos987

Indeed I do. I am mostly replying to the arguments that state only "thoughts exist". By equating the thought "I think therefore I am" with "I", I am showing them that if thoughts exist, something else exists too besides just that thought. It is as fair to equate that something else with my personal identity as it is to equate my body with my personal identity.

I do not think this is happening correctly with "I think, therefore I am". — mentos987

Well I did use Google translate on an already confusing text. I will rework it eventually.

And I do not think that the general population defines "I" like you do, thus leaving room for misunderstanding. — mentos987

I don't think the general population even thinks at all, especially in the English speaking world.

I'd say a more common definition of "I" refers to the body, mind and potentially the soul of someone, not to the source of their thinking. — mentos987

Here, the body is discarded, as we do not know whether our perception of our body reflects reality or not. Mind and soul are considered to be synonymous with the source of thinking.

Honestly there are many things about that text's format that bother me, the semi-colon thing was the only one that I saw that would not be justified by stylistic choice.

Scenario 2: You and I are conversing. I say that I think and therefore am. The problem is that I am a figment of your imagination. I am only a small part of you. Would it not, in that case, work just as well to say, "I am, therefore you are". Since I am just a small part of you. If "you" and "I" can be mixed into the same being, does that not dilute the meaning of "I"? — mentos987

In that case it is just words inside my head. Just because my head is hallucinating someone saying "tree" it does not mean I am experiencing the concept of a tree. If I am in fact conceptualising "I think thus you are", the sentence is meaningless if there is nothing to which "you" refers, and there isn't when we start with solipsism.

However, normally when a person would use the word "I" it entails a lot more than just "something that is subjectively experiencing thought". — mentos987

Does it though? I would say that that is pretty much the definition of "I".

There are generally two big responses to save reduction. One is that we just lack the computational abilities to get to the reduction. I am sympathetic to this one. However, it is a problem that this is an argument advanced for almost all cases of apparent emergence, and has been for decades. But since the 1980s computational capabilities have exploded. How far must they advance before this idea loses currency? In theory, you could make this argument no matter how far computational abilities advance. However, we'd then have to ask, "does every last molecule require these vast computational resources to do its thing? How does that work?" This is the intuition that leads pancomputationalist physicists to be surprisingly friendly to the idea of strong emergence. There doesn't seem to be any physical "stuff" that could accommodate this amount of computation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is interesting for sure. I am also sympathetic to it and it is something I tried to express when I brought up biology. I mean, what else is there? If the visible universe is made of matter and the four forces, it follows that material things would behave based fundamentally on the most fundamental laws of physics, describing that matter and its four fources, otherwise we have laws surfacing ex nihilo.

As a side note, despite the SEP being the highest reference for general philosophy in the West, I don't trust them when it comes to science. Their articles that involve anthropology, for example, are full of perceived consensuses that don't actually exist.

Do you agree that you and I could both share the source of thought? A dreaming super consciousness? — mentos987

For me, subjective experience is undeniable — the intuition passed by "I am here" or "I exist" is a brute fact —; we have to start with that phenomenological fact, which is the "I think". But it could be "I feel", "I seethe", "I see". "I think" is used because it is from there that we can fall into a circular argument that cannot be denied 'I doubt that I doubt'. It is the analysis of that argument, put in words, metaphors of thought, that starts the issues of rationality, while the subjective experience itself is undeniable.
I don't think the brute fact intuition "has a source" because ascribing cause or consequence to it would be rationalising it.
The thing about something thinking me is under the idea of identifying "I" with the thought "I think" that shows up in "I think therefore I am". Like thoughts are attributes of a mind (substance), and attributes are how we perceive substances, it is not problematic to make that identity. If I am a thought however, something must have thought me. That thing is either the outside structure or another thought that caused this thought. The possibility of being thought by another being (or by another thought) would have to imply that thoughts can exist and continue by themselves as a substance outside of a mind — which is what the "there are thoughts" people defend unavoidably.

In this scenario you have broadened "I" so much that it equates the entirety of existence (I = existence) — mentos987

The "I" equates the entirety of existence because we are starting with solipsism, so "I" has not been broadened, "existence" has been constricted to "I".

At that stage, there would be no point in the term "I" at all, as it is normally used to separate yourself from someone else. — mentos987

The "I" is used exactly to name the thing that has a subject experience.

There is no space before a semi-colon or a comma.

That is amazing.

one of the most important chemical trends, the length of periods in the Periodic Table

Really not sure what they mean by this.

In your reasoning, I belive you describe an alternative where both "you" and "I" have the same source, same thinker (like a dreaming god with a split mind) — mentos987

I don't say it in those terms, but you could put it that way.

I have to go back to the text written in my language and go over it once again, there are some things missing and pieces not connected. Then I will be able to translate it properly to English. I will come back to this thread once that is done.

"One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking"!" — mentos987

Russel also raises a similar criticism.

And another poster here on TPF raises it here too, which I answer here.

I believe in the outside world because Carmen is just too damn cute to not believe in! : — Vaskane

Damn, do you take care of this squirrel?

This is not my experience of the Catholic view. They are Catholics-in-waiting — AmadeusD

Right, officially they are still Catholics, but in practice we know it is bullshit. If they believe it truly they would have done the other sacraments; they don't do so 99% because they don't believe it or don't care.

Thanks but I already know stuff such as higher order differential equations for movement, no need for middle school Khan Academy.

If the wheel has a circumference of 2 meters, the car will advance 2 meters for each rotation if there is no slippage — Sir2u

Right.

No part of the wheel can advance fast than the car — Sir2u

It can and it does. The wheel makes the car move AND its points on the top half move from a position closer to the back of the car to closer to the front. Therefore it is moving faster than the car.

The linear speed of a point on the circumference of the wheel is given by ω*r where ω is the angular speed and r the radius of the wheel, the linear speed is always equal to the car's speed as long as it does not slip. For a car moving to the right, the horizontal component of the linear speed of that point on the wheel in reference to the ground is ω*r*sinθ where θ is the angle the point makes with the floor and θ=0 being the left corner of the wheel. Due to the oscillation of sinθ, the horizontal component of the speed can be anything from -ω*r to ω*r. Adding those two to the car's speed ω*r, we get 0 or 2*ω*r.

I am not going to be arguing about physics unless you show a system of equations that refutes what I said.

What's the criteria? — AmadeusD

Baptism. I don't know how it is for converts. But for people baptised as a baby, just that is not enough, you must go through catechism to receive the eucharisty and then confirmation — otherwise you are just a non-practicing Catholic which might as well be apostate. Baptism and eucharisty however are the two most important sacraments, confirmation is not the most important and the other 4, like marriage, are good but not required — one of them is healing, so it is better if you never need it.

Cogito, ergo, sum. LOL — AmadeusD

Well in that case you become by thinking, not by saying; non sum quia dico, sed quia cogito. :^)

Already skipped after this. — Mikie

I will do you one better. I skipped after that and gave my take on the topic anyway :strong: :cool: :up:

Claiming to be Catholic is not enough to be Catholic.
Speaking of, is there a single thing that is true in virtue of stating it? I can't think of anything where "I am X" is proof of being X.

From his posts, he is not actually Catholic.

Why does it matter if someone calls itself "atheist". If by "atheist" they don't mean someone who denies the existence of God, so what? If they explain what they mean by it, why the fixation? So you can go and say "Well so you are not an actual atheist!"? It is childish and unproductive.
Moreover, I don't see the point of debate when "denies God" is well encapsulated in the word antitheist.
I think the original purpose of the thread has been twisted.

I'm new to Reddit. — Tom Storm

You should soon see that it is the butthole of the internet.

I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist. — Leontiskos

Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places?

Plenty of debatable claims there.

metaphysically impossible relative to Znot — Bob Ross

When you say relative to Znot, are you not stating Znot?
As in, is it really metaphysically impossible that Z, or only that (Z∧nZnot)?
There is an ambiguity in phrases such as "in Znot" and "relating to Znot".

My point is exactly that Z is both logically and metaphysically possible. It is only when we state Z∧Znot that we end up with a metaphysically impossibility.

P is a metaphysically possible statement — indeed it is, in the dualist doctrines of epiphenomenalism and interactivism.

So where is the metaphysical impossibility? Well, it can only arrive if we state M ∧ P, I don't see any other way. — Lionino

And A, for me, has to be ¬Z.