If you think this topic is unsuitable for discussion, please say so, and say why. Otherwise.... :roll:

This topic is not about solipsism. It's about how we treat theories when there is no evidence.

If someone is male, but wishes to be treated as a woman, I don't see an issue. If someone is female, but wishes to be treated as a man, no problem.

But if they are male and claim to be female, or if they are female and claim to be male - then there is something worthy of further discussion. — Banno

Why (is it worthy of further discussion)? Do these claims cause harm? No. Do they mislead or deceive? No. Does it matter at all if I, biologically male, ask you to address me as she/her or Ms? No. Not in the slightest. There is no issue to discuss here. How I identify, and how I request that you identify me, are choices that can be safely left to ... me. With no resulting harm to anyone. :up:

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Scientists are people like us... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Yes, they are, and that's the odd thing. We humans live much of our lives in the Conscious World.

Note to scien[ct]ists: that is not a literal statement. Humans have bodies, and they exist in the Physical World, of course. I refer to living as we humans experience it. We live as much (or more?) in the Conscious World of thought, human-created media, art, music, politics, and so on, as we do in the Physical World. Or so it seems to us.

But when a scien[ct]ist enters a philosophy forum, a change comes over them. They become unable to remember their RL experiences. They become able to dismiss the Conscious World as a trivial frippery, with no real existence. Puzzling. :chin:

That's not entirely true. Some scientists talk about multiverse... — Damir Ibrisimovic

And so they may, but the entire multiverse, if there is such a thing, is part of the Physical World. Did you think it literally referred to a single world? :wink:

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin:

I believe we should consider another definition of "God" — Lif3r

Then perhaps we should not try to address Her as though she has 'scientific' existence? God exists; Harry Potter exists; Judi Dench exists. But not all in the same way, and definitely not all in the literal sense of a simple dictionary definition. Words are ambiguous; they carry multiple meanings (sometimes connected; sometimes not). I suggest that a definition of God is not a useful thing to pursue. :chin:

Have you have heard of Karl Popper? This is the scientific method derived from his epistemology and in any form of dialectic this should be the primary method in order to not get biased towards a certain assumed conclusion. — Christoffer

Ooo! :worry: That's a statement of The One and Only Truth, if I ever saw one. :meh:

Interesting how some of the replies try to address the (possible) non-literal meanings the phrases might carry. :up: :smile: Disappointing, but not surprising, how many take them literally, then wonder why they make so little sense.... :wink: :smile: These statements were made by artists. :smile:

:blush:

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser


This world is a physical world. I have introduced it as a contrast to Steve's otherworldly Conscious World... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Ah, OK. :up:

Also, we are talking about assumptions here... :smile: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Yes, we're humans, with no direct access to Objective Reality, and so on, and so forth. :wink: Of course we assume stuff; we can do nothing other. Scientists often make themselves feel better about it by calling them axioms, but they're still assumptions; guesses. :smile:

Generally, in science, the assumption is that all phenomena are of physical world until proven otherwise. — Damir Ibrisimovic

I think not. Science recognises only one world, Steve's Physical World, so they don't have a need to discuss worlds. Like in the sci-fi stories, when they ask the aliens what they call their home, and they say "Earth" or "the world", and look at the strangers oddly. When there's only one world, there's little point in discussing it. :wink:

Steve's Conscious World is non-existent to science. If philosophy is a swiss army knife, science - a highly-successful tool that emerged from a particular school of analytic/objective philosophy - is a stilletto. Science gained its power from optimisation. It has been honed to achieve one of the purposes of a knife better than any other tool can manage, but it has sacrificed its general-purpose nature to do this. So if you want to stab something, science is your tool. But if you want to strip a cable and connect a mains plug, you need philosophy's swiss army knife functionality. :smile:

Steve's Conscious World is discarded by science because it contains no suitable material for it to process. There are no simple binary statements that are falsifiable, and can be treated using logic alone. To science, the Conscious World is quite invisible. To the scientist, it is a mire of chaos and nonsense. This is not something to blame or criticise science for, it is one consequence of the honing and optimisation that was applied to science during its creation. We can't have our cakes and eat them too. :smile:

Otherwise, we may assume that a phenomenon is not of this world and get stuck - with impotence to prove that it is not... :gasp: — Damir Ibrisimovic

What would be so wrong with that? A thing could be of the Conscious World, but not the Physical World, without causing existence to collapse like a Schrodinger-ish wave function. :wink: :smile: What are you worried about, that makes you say these words? [ Actual question, not a rhetorical one. :up: ]

The left is the majority, after all. — Coldlight

I think not. Trump is POTUS, and the 'alt-right' are rising across the world. :fear:

...

...or are you making a joke, and I took it literally? :blush:

I would be pretty concerned, however, if he were suddenly in charge of the Fed and felt inspired to make decisions about monetary policy based on his exclusive dedication to Pirsig's philosophy. — John Doe

More concerned than you are about the people who currently make such decisions? :fear: :smile: :wink:

It is, by its nature, in conflict with reason, else it wouldn't be a matter of faith.

Faith is believing something when there is insufficient evidence for a more formal conclusion. Sometimes when there is no evidence at all. Much of the time, this is reasonable. Faith that actually contradicts the evidence is, er, more difficult, though. :wink:

I'm using the terms as used in the dictionary. — Harry Hindu

But this is a topic where opinions are changing. Therefore the terms we use to describe it are changing too. The language belongs to the people, and all that. :wink: So dictionary definitions aren't necessarily helpful, as they necessarily lag the dynamic usage of terms. :chin:

Why don't you provide me the same courtesy I have shown you and try to address my points and answer my questions. — Harry Hindu

You have asked questions? I noticed only assertions, and corrections of others' views. :chin:

To be scientific - I would put it differently: "Consciousness World" is of this world - until proven otherwise. — Damir Ibrisimovic

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else?

My main feeling when I read the original comment was that many (most?) of the philosophers I admire aren't generally accepted or known as philosophers at all. Pirsig is just one of them, although I was thinking more of Lila and MoQ than Zen..., but there we go. :smile: To me, anyone that offers anything useful about thinking, learning or understanding is a philosopher. Maybe I'm too cuddly and inclusive? :yikes: :blush:

...a scientific and analytical approach of noting causes and effects and looking for patterns... — 0 thru 9

Oh, I'm all for looking for patterns! :wink: But seriously, there are some things that require considered thought if we are to learn about them. There are others for which no amount of thought will do, e.g. learning to ride a bike. And there are still others for which a wholly scientific approach yields the most useful results. Horses for courses, and all that. :wink: :up:

As regards disidentification, my guess is that nothing beyond considered thought will achieve anything useful. Disidentification seems to be a vague and (dare I mention the word? :chin: :wink:) subjective thing. Formal reasoning seems too, well, formal. IMO, of course. :up:

one would not be almost scientifically sizing up the situation — 0 thru 9

You think science is an appropriate tool to investigate disidentification? :chin:

I think that Rand's philosophy is largely ignored for the same reason that L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy is ignored: both wrote a bunch of novels and expressed a bunch of philosophical musings, both did so in a way that convinced a few folks that they're super geniuses with the keys to life answers, but ultimately there's nothing valuable, profound, or interesting to it — John Doe

[ My highlighting. ] I would agree, but what about Pirsig, a novelist and philosopher, who had some worthwhile things to say? Not everyone agrees with his approach, of course, but that's par for the course, for just about everyone, including philosophers. :wink:

I know it smells of Eastern philosophy; and meditation... But, whatever works, I guess. — Posty McPostface

Wow! Eastern philosophy, or even being associated with it, is a negative thing? :fear:

P.S. I found this short article, which seems to give a reasonable impression of what disidentification is, and why we should do it. It definitely has a flavour of Eastern philosophy. :up: :smile:

So you having those appliances isn't irresponsible, but some African having them would be? And what is so irresponsible in having them in the first place? After all, for you and me to discuss this thing here on the Philosophy Forum means that both have a device to enter the internet. What is irresponsible in that? We'd be better off without Computers, the net, cars etc? — ssu

[My highlighting.] No, but the planet, and all the living things that live here, would be. Better off, that is. It's humans that are the problem. Both in terms of our rapacious demands on the resources of our Earth, and the sheer number of us making those demands.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - “May we live long and die out”

unemployment is caused either by people not trying to get employed or by firms not employing them — Heiko

Sort of, but your list is incomplete. Sometimes there are more people needing jobs than there are jobs for them. At other times, there are jobs, but they just don't pay enough to meet the needs of the prospective employee. And so on.

People don't get jobs because they love work. They get jobs because they need a means of supporting themselves and their families. And it is soul-destroying for them to see the owners of companies sporting ocean-going yachts when their employees, the people who earn their money for them, need to claim benefits to subsidise their piss-poor wages.

When it comes to employment, and the lack of it, the main problem is inequality. When the Earth has finite resources, as the topic informs us, it seems silly of us all to allow such inequality. :chin: Jeff Bezos has close to a million million dollars, while the poorest of us own less than a dollar. We need to fix that. It's not that everyone MUST have the same, but that such gross inequalities are moderated. Drastically. :up:

You asked us to "direct your ire at those who deserve it." And that's exactly what I'm doing. — Jake

Fair enough. :up: I am only concerned that blame is assigned where it is due.

Some priests raped a LOT of children. — Jake

Some PAEDOPHILES raped a lot of children. Quite a few people knew it was going on, and turned a blind eye. Blame where it's due. And an appropriate response too. Blame alone is pointless. :up:

We are in agreement. :up:

How would you define what the labour is worth? — Heiko


I don't have to define it, the employers do. They are the ones who have to weigh up the costs and benefits to them, of employing such people. — gurugeorge

The employees do too. They offer their labour in return for a wage. And they too must "weigh up the costs and benefits to them, of" being employed by "such people". There are (at least) two parties to every contract. :up:

The Pennsylvania investigation showed that there was a longstanding systematic effort by the Church to coverup these crimes and protect the rapists — Jake

Yes, now that you have been clear about your accusations. The church is not responsible for paedophiles. They are responsible for covering up instead of prevention. :rage: :fear:

a science of the mind would allow for an engineering of the mind. We're just not there yet. — Moliere

Let's hope we never get there, then. :chin:

gender is a social construct, and that means it isn't set by sexual characteristics or by what they feel, but by what we (society) feel. — unenlightened

Seriously? So those with gender dysphoria are actually just making a lifestyle choice, based on what society thinks about gender? You don't put yourself through gender reassignment surgery unless you're really serious. Really, personally serious. :chin:

In the news recently,300 Catholic priests molested 1000 children in one state alone.

Philosophers are folks who might at worst cheat on their wives, or drink or smoke a little sumpin' sumpin'. They don't usually commit acts of violence or molestation. — 3rdClassCitizen

This is uncalled-for! It isn't the fault of the Catholic church, or any church, or gym teachers, choir masters or sports coaches - and so on, and on... - that their professions give access to children. It's the paedophiles that cheat and lie their way into these professions for nefarious purposes. These caring professions, all of them, are not responsible for that, and not to blame for it. Their only responsibility in this is the one we all have, to protect our children from abuse. Please do not attack these carers for the sins of paedophiles. Direct your ire at those who deserve it. Thanks. :up:

Then how is it that the gender of an individual is set by what they feel, and not their sexual characteristics? — Banno

Perhaps it is that the gender of an individual is set by their mental and emotional characteristics, while their sexual characteristics are physical, 'set' by biology?

just as the evil demon, brain in a vat, and dreaming butterfly thought experiments can be brushed off — Sapientia

This isn't really the right place to discuss this - it's way off topic - but I just can't let this go. This is the main lesson that philosophy, via logic, passes to humans: that these theories can't be brushed off.

No theory which accounts for all the evidence - especially when there's little evidence, or none at all - can be dismissed. We can only chose between them on the basis of utility; of how useful they are. You could be a brain in a vat. There is no way you can tell. To dismiss this possibility leaves you in a state of (philosophical) sin. It means you only believe stuff that you like, and feel free to dismiss that which you don't. If you do that, philosophers will mock you, and call you names in the playground. :joke:

I can't see how any of this waffle explains the creation of Loa loa filariasis. God remains culpable. — Banno

I assume this is a joke. :smile: :smile: :smile:

So the so-called 'problem of evil' is a purely Christian problem? — Pattern-chaser

It is a problem of any set of beliefs that asserts that its god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. — andrewk

I don't remember "omnibenevolence" being on the list of God's qualities, but I wonder if the main issue isn't the obvious and direct one: that what is 'good' for humans can be 'evil' for other living creatures. And vice versa. Only a God who promotes human domination and oppression in the world gives rise, eventually, to this 'problem' of 'evil'. It's due to humans screaming "Me! Me! Me!", as children are wont to do. :roll: :fear:

What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down — Jim Morrison and the Doors - When the music's over

Pointing being, heavily taxing the rich sounds great, until we realize that we are the rich. — Jake

Yes, I rather think that's why this issue has never been satisfactorily addressed, because those who have the power to do so are those who would lose out the most. A thorny problem.... :chin: :yikes:

I would argue that while, yes, perception occurs outside of conscious Awareness, it does not occur outside of the conscious mind. I would in fact state that perception is the very first rung of he conscious mind, because everything that consciousness is, is built off of it. — Lucid

Sorry, I meant to respond to this bit, but forgot. :blush: As far as I know, there is no 'map' of the human mind. We gives names to parts of it based on observed function. For example, we know that our minds have memory. The term "conscious mind" is given to those parts of our minds of whose operation we are aware. We could have assigned a name for any number of reasons, but we chose to focus on awareness.

So when you claim that perception is "outside of consciousness", and also that "it does not occur outside of the conscious mind", you introduce a contradiction. Nothing that is outside of our awareness can form part of the conscious mind, which covers the mind-parts of which we are aware, by definition.

Consciousness is surely built on perception, as you say (and perhaps some other elements too). But perception takes place outside the conscious mind, which receives the result(s) of perception 'as if from nowhere'. It's not really nowhere, of course, we're just using those words to communicate that we are unaware of perception taking place.

If you seek to place perception in the 'conscious mind', please can you redefine 'conscious mind' to mean something other than 'that part of our minds of which we are aware'? :wink: I wonder what your definition will be...? :chin: And I wonder too how perception will fit with the definition you offer.

But now back to the topic in hand. — Pattern-chaser


You mean our commentary on HZ's current view on consciousness? That's what I tried to do ... in a tangential kind of way, by suggesting another way of looking at the same(ish) thing. Not directly OT-related enough? — rachMiel

:smile: No, I simply meant to acknowledge that the nature of God is not the primary topic here. :smile:

Another way to look at it is that there is one consciousness that flows through a vast multitude of individual brain-body-minds, like sunlight refracting through a set of different prisms. — rachMiel

Yes, and that "one consciousness" is God, whom I know as Gaia. :up: :smile: But now back to the topic in hand. :wink:

If you think that it's acceptable to interpret an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough in his or her loving mother's arms as a gift, then there's something wrong with you. — Sapientia

The God I worship is the God of humans and Bordetella pertussis, and everything else too. — Pattern-chaser

Okay. Have fun worshiping an imaginary God. — Sapientia

I do, and I will, thank you. :razz: But your unnecessary emotional outburst - "an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough" - ignores the needs and wants of another of God's creatures: Bordetella pertussis. Should vampire bats be exterminated because they feed off cows? Should bears be exterminated because humans have stolen their lands, and seek to prevent them from moving elsewhere? And so on, and on.... Humans are only one species; there are many other species who live here.

Early Christianity assimilated a great deal. — Ciceronianus the White

"Assimilated" is a ... good word for it.... :wink:

If you are grass, a rabbit is a curse inflicted by an Evil God.
If you are a wolf, rabbits are a gift from a Good God.

Is God only the God of Humans? — Pattern-chaser

If we are talking about the God of the Bible, which is the god that is almost always the one under discussion when this topic of theodicy comes up, then Yes, because the story of that god, and all the theories of its nature, is written by humans. — andrewk

So the so-called 'problem of evil' is a purely Christian problem? :wink:

The god that forms part of my worldview from time to time is not the god of the bible. She is the god of all things, and she is not omnipotent. So the problem of evil does not arise. — andrewk

:up: :smile:

When someone's feelings are not a true representation of reality - that is when we have a responsibility to question the claims of people. — Harry Hindu

And yet, when someone questions your claims, you complain (unreasonably) of ad hominem attacks.

Oh, and how do you know what reality is, that you are able to determine that the feelings of others contradict it? How do you know it's not your feelings that "are not a true representation of reality"? Please share your evidence...