-
Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?Is there an ontological relation between mind and world? — Harry Hindu
No, there isn't. There is an (embodied brain)-world correlation, instead of a mind-world correlation. And I say that in a Meillassouxian way. And I would add: the nature of the correlation in question is ontological.
Is there an ontological relation between different thoughts? — Harry Hindu
No, because thoughts are fictions, which exist as brain processes. They do not exist as fictions, because being and existence are not identical to each other. We've been over this point. Ontological relations do not hold, or obtain, between fictional objects (i.e., between thoughts).
Is each letter the cause of the following letter you typed — Harry Hindu
No, it is not, for the same reason that the number 1 is not the cause of the number 2.
or each word the cause of the following word in each sentence? — Harry Hindu
Again, no, that is not the case. Feel free to disagree, I'm not trying to deny you the basic human right to have thoughts. -
2025: 50th anniversary of Franco's death...Yeah, but Kant wasn't a poet. He doesn't speak to me. He doesn't stir my irrational emotions like a populist politician does. Kant is like an Alien in that sense. There's no poetry to his words, it's just literal prose. And I'm a literalist myself, but Kantian prose is just Legalese. I prefer Ontologese myself as far as made-up languages go.
Kant would have been really good at Esperanto, for example. I'm sure that he would have been passionate about it (to the extent that an Alien like Kant can be passionate about anything).
Politics is a game of passions, friend. It's not a game of thrones, nor is it a game of money. There's no strategy to it, and there are no tactics to it. It's not warfare, unless you militarize it. -
What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
-
Philosopher Roger Scruton Has Been Sacked for Islamophobia and AntisemitismPopulist using AI rules... over the traditional populist. — ssu
I prefer the traditional populist, because then it's my natural intelligence versus the populist's natural intelligence. If the populist uses artificial intelligence and I don't, then the game of politics is rigged (even more so than it already is). -
Philosopher Roger Scruton Has Been Sacked for Islamophobia and AntisemitismNow everything can be done by computer!!! — ssu
Well, not everything. As a member of the crowd, I'd rather have a populist stir my unthinking feelings, rather than have a computer flatter my mistaken beliefs. -
What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?Nice! Are you familiar with the work of Coven? Their album "Witchcraft Destroys Minds and Reaps Souls" is in the same league as the stuf by Big Brother and the Holding Company. In fact, Coven is arguably the first Heavy Metal band, since their album was published before Black Sabbath's. They even have a song called "Black Sabbath", and that was before the band Black Sabbath even had that name! And one of their members is called Oz Osborne! Not to be confused with Ozzy Osbourne!
Coven is the best kept secret in the world of Heavy Metal, just as Los Saicos from Peru is the best kept secret in the world of Punk Rock.
-
Philosopher Roger Scruton Has Been Sacked for Islamophobia and AntisemitismAnd for this reason, they are not democrats but demagogues—not politicians who guide and govern by appeal to arguments, but agitators who stir the unthinking feelings of the crowd.
Good thing that Artificial Intelligence will eventually take over the task of guiding and governing by appeal to arguments instead of stirring the unthinking feelings of the crowd. -
What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?Type O Negative is awesome. They're Toxic Chads. Only Toxic Virgins hate them (as in, metalheads in general).
[ -
Tao follows Nature
All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace
I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace. — Richard Brautigan -
What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?BTW, here's a cool take on Slayer: — Arcane Sandwich
And here's the song that they're talking about (kick-ass song BTW)
-
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceA good rule of thumb for everyone is to keep in mind that, during a conversation, if it just so happens that good common sense needs to be praised, then something about the conversation has gone terribly wrong. At least that's my admittedly ignorant opinion on such matters.
(Edited for clarity) -
Can we record human experience?Are there two "things" in the brain replacement scenario? — RogueAI
There is no brain/mind duality in that scenario, as if it were a duality between a res extensa (the brain) and a res cogitans (the mind), because the mind is not a thing (it's not a res), it's instead something that the brain does (the act of minding is a process that the brain undergoes, just as the act of digestion is a process that the gut undergoes, just as the act of walking is a process that the legs undergo).
But there are two brains in the hypothetical case of a brain transplant. In that sense, yes, there are two things. Does one of them turn into the other one, if we proceed with a small step-by-step replacement of cells, or even atoms? I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I'm not sure that I would describe such an operation as a "brain transplant". When someone gets a kidney transplant, this doesn't occur partially, it occurs fully, one thing replaces another thing, one brain replaces another brain. It's not the step-by-step incremental replacement of one and the same brain by small incremental changes of its parts.
If my brain is slowly replaced while I'm conscious the whole time, do I "become" some other person at some point? — RogueAI
Here's the thing: this has actually happened already. Eventually, all of the cells of our bodies, even all of our atoms, get replaced by new ones. In that sense, we're like the Ship of Theseus. Your brain is not composed of the same atoms that it was composed when you were a child. It's an entirely different brain. So, are you still the same person? Or are you a different person? I think that you're still the same person, just as I am still the same person. If someone has Alzheimer, and they lose brain mass because of it, do they turn into a different person? I don't think so.
Or is there only just "me": me at the beginning of the process and me at the end. — RogueAI
I don't know, you tell me. I think it's still you. -
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceNow you're getting it. — Banno
Oh, so I didn't get it before, but now I do? It's not possible that I got it, and I just happened to disagree with some of the premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument in question? Ok. Sure, you can believe that. You can believe whatever you want, everyone has the basic human right to have mistaken beliefs. -
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceFruit flies and so does time. The old man the boat. The horse raced past the barn fell.
-
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceYou use tools, and you use words. — Banno
I use fire to cook my food. Doesn't mean that fire is a tool, or a word. -
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Referencewords are the tools of philosophers — Banno
Are they, though? From the POV of ordinary language, a word is not a tool. A hammer is a tool. A word isn't. -
Is mathematics the empress of science? An article.I'm not sure how to interpret this statement. If math is an exercise in pure logic and pure logic is a human construct, then so is math. So, is pure logic not a human construct? — jgill
Yes, but please hold on a second here, look closely at what the first sentence of that quote is saying:
My position is first that mathematics is an exercise in pure logic.
This is, in a nutshell, the main goal of the logicist program, and it has never been reached. Not to my mind, anyways. Simply put, some parts of math can be reduced to logic. Some other parts can't. No one has demonstrated that mathematics can be entirely reduced to logic. To believe that such a thing is achievable is no different than believing that some other unfulfilled goal is achievable. Shorter: it's like believing that we can bring back extinct species from the dead. My own take on that is: show me that it's possible, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, there's no reason for me to believe you. -
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceIt's just crazy nonsense to say that there were no divisions before humans, but divisions existed afterwards. — frank
Yup, I agree. But some philosophers would still argue with you, for theoretical reasons (i.e., mereological universalists, who also happen to be metaphysical permissivists). -
2025: 50th anniversary of Franco's death...I hardly believe that some would confront you for being anti-español. — javi2541997
It doesn't start like that, but that's how it ends. It starts as a general "Left vs Right" thing, then the conversation progressively degenerates until someone dares to accuse the other of being anti-Spanish, and at that point it just turns into a fist fight, unless someone steps in and stops the discussion before it ends in a fight.
EDIT: Even if another Argentine tells me something like "¿Qué te pasa, anti-español pelotudo?", we're no longer talking about politics, like, you're telling me that you're willing to physically fight me, just to impose your mistaken beliefs on me. And I'm not gonna have that. I'm not going to ignore what you just said in that situation, and I'm not going to de-escalate the situation either. We're far past that point if you, as an Argentine, say that to me in person, to my face. Like, if you say it on the Internet, on a Web Forum for example, I don't care. -
Can we record human experience?What if you do it slowly? Suppose that 1% of my brain is replaced with someone else's and I'm awake for the whole thing. And then another percent...At what point do I stop being me? — RogueAI
That's a brutal question, and it's more or less the same question that arises in the paradox of material constitution (i.e., the case of a piece of clay and the clay statue that it constitutes). But it's even worse when you ask it about a brain, because there is arguably an ontological difference between inorganic objects (such as a statue) and an organism (such as a human being). I have no answer to your question, it's an extremely tough thing to even think about. -
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceThe section in the link ↪Arcane Sandwich provided on eliminativism covers some of the theories I am talking about. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Right, but eliminativism in this sense is a metaphysical thesis, while mereological nihilism is a thesis about the part-whole relation (hence, van Inwagen's SCQ: when do two objects A and B compose a third object C? The nihilist answer is "never", hence there are no cats, no mats, no trees no dogs, etc. So, nihilism in the mereological sense arguably entails eliminativism in the metaphysical sense, though some nihilists have attempted to resist this entailment).
Van Inwagen himself was an eliminativist in the metaphysical sense, but he was a particularist in a mereological sense. He believe that the only case in which composition occurs is when there is a plurality of objects (a plurality of "x"s, he called them) such that their activities constitute a life (understood as the composition of an event, rather than the composition of an object), in which that life, as an event (it would be more like a process, really) imposes sufficient unity on the parts that compose it as an event, and in such a sense, that life as an event constitutes a new object, a whole, which would be an organism (a living being).
So, according to van Inwagen, only two kinds of objects exist, in a metaphysical, ontological sense: fundamental particles, and organisms. Stones don't exist, neither do tables. It's just "quarks and animals" to use a metonymy.
Personally, I don't agree with such metaphysical views, nor with such a restricted answer to the Special Composition Question. I'm a particularist about composition, but I think that it occurs in far more cases than just organisms. I think that stones and tables exist just as much as quarks and animals do. -
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceTo me, many of these conclusions seem like the conclusions of a reductio argument. — Count Timothy von Icarus
That could well be the case. (BTW the Problem of the Many is absolutely brutal form a purely intellectual standpoint, it's like the problem of material constitution, i.e. the case of the clay statue and the piece of clay that it co-incides with). -
What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of ReferenceAnd you can subdivide these into positive and skeptical theses. So, mereological nihilism is not a super uncommon position. This is the position that, at the metaphysical or physical level, there are no proper wholes, no substances/things. Certainly "something exists" prior to humans, but it isn't inclusive of organic wholes that one can be right or wrong about delimiting — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, but there are two other options, for answering van Inwagen's Special Composition Question: mereological particularism, and mereological universalism.
The former says that composition occurs sometimes, and sometimes it does not.
The latter says that composition always occurs. This view is far crazier than mereological nihilism, because it leads straight to the related metaphysical view on ordinary objects, which says that in addition to ordinary objects, there are extra-ordinary objects, such as a trog (a mereological fusion of a tree and a dog), an incar (a car that ceases to exist when it leaves a garage), a curltpillar (a caterpillar-like object that begins to exist when an ordinary caterpillar rolls up into a ball), etc. It gets really crazy. (EDIT: the view in question is called "metaphysical permissivism". It's not identical to mereological universalism, but the two are closely related, and it's an open question whether or not universalism in the mereological sense entails permissivism in the metaphysical sense).
In case anyone is interested, you can find more information about these ideas in the SEP entry on Ordinary Objects. -
The artists and AIFor art is boundless, vast, and free,
A testament to what could be.
And whether born of hands or steel,
Its purpose stays to make us feel. — RogueAI
"Us" who? Humans and machines? Do machines feel? If they don't, then art has no purpose for machines, because that purpose, as stated in the quoted verse, is to make "us" feel (us, who?).
-
Can we record human experience?It fits tho right? I like the idea of phriends, at least in philosophy -- peeps you like to hear from even though you know there's something different in your respective beliefs. — Moliere
But every human being is in that club, matey :death:
There is no human being that does not philosophize
Or at least that's what the curricula says that we have to say in the first class of Philosophy 101
And I take exception at that
Why would everyone philosophize?
Is Philosophy a disease?
Is it a Sin?
Is it "a Good Thing"?
Is it "a Bad Thing"?
Philosophy has many ugly qualities, and I say that objectively, because it is a fact.
And yes, I like controversial penultimate lines in my verses.
-
The artists and AIAll Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace
I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace. — Richard Brautigan -
2025: 50th anniversary of Franco's death...¿Que os pasa, anti-Español hijo de puta? — Arcane Sandwich
Finally, imagine a "white" Castilian (as in, someone with beige skin, black hair, and black eyes) say this to a "white" Andalucian (as in, someone with beige skin, black hair, black eyes). What do you think is gonna happen? They'll try to kill each other, it is what it is. Visigoths vs Moors, that's what this particular instance of the conflict boils down to. Unless, of course, you wanna make it about Christianity vs Islam, or Europe vs Africa. Or, "Westerner" vs "Easterner". It just makes no sense if it can be all of that at the same time. Hence, the technical term here is fratricide. There's just no other way (to my mind) to describe it.
EDIT: And, obviously, the conflict doesn't end there, either. Imagine a Spaniard (like Javi, for example) saying this:
¿Que os pasa, anti-Español hijo de puta? — Arcane Sandwich
to an Argentine like me. It's like, we're going to try to kill each other. Good thing that we're on an Internet Forum, because if Javi or another Spaniard says that to me in the same physical room, then, it's like, you're not leaving this room alive, mate. Nah just kidding, I would never kill Javi (unless there are circumstances in which I find it Ethical to do so). Otherwise, if he says that to me, I'll just say the same thing back, only with a slight Rioplatense variation:
"¿Qué os pasa, Peninsular hijo de puta?"
And that sort of mentality is what the Spanish-born Patriots had when they fought the Argentine War of Independence against the Spanish Empire. You see, it's an endless conflict, and it's idiotic, it doesn't make sense. So, at the end of the day, instead of saying an insult like that, I would say to someone like Javi: Here's a song that I like that talks about that, and I like the song, because I would rather listen to a song with you, than try to kill you, if I have the choice.
Con adorno del buen escolazo
En tus manos
dejo Flor de Espadas
Para que tengas
Sepa el boncha que la va de liso:
Yo soy dueño de la mano brava
Dioses del abismo
Guardarán mi marca
Para sí
O para aquel
Como vos
Y como nosotros tres
Que viajando
En el sonido
Lo soñamos ayer
Y lo cumplimos hoy
Con adorno de buen escolazo
En tus manos dejo flor de espadas
Dioses del abismo
Guardarán mi marca
Para sí
O para aquel
Como vos
Y como nosotros tres
Que viajando
En el sonido
Lo soñamos ayer
Y lo cumplimos hoy — Almafuerte
Arcane Sandwich
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum