While you are right about how gay men are treated, it is just an example of a more-or-less universal trait among humans: discrimination. Anyone who is different is targeted, and difference can always be found by someone who wishes to discriminate. This is a human problem, and it applies to gay men, and to the whole LGBT community, fat people, thin people, fascists, communists, religious people, non-religious people, people with dark coloured skin, disabled people, foreign people, and so forth.

I don't know how bullying and discrimination can be stopped. We (humans) seem to like doing it too much. I would love to read suggestions to improve matters....

insofar as so-called visible light is electromagnetic radiation, nobody sees light. The so-called visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum is based on the idea that when we see colour on the surface of an object, it is because that surface is reflecting electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength falling within a certain band. [...] Electromagnetic radiation - if it exists as anything other than a theoretical device - exists only in the spaces between us and the things we see. — jkg20

So you do not accept that photons impinging on a human retina give rise to seeing things? :chin:

you would still owe me an argument to show that red nevertheless is a human-dependent property. — jkg20

Yes, well the problem with that is that you have been much cleverer than I first thought. You have crafted an alternative definition for "red" that defines it as an intrinsic property of objects out there in the real world. With this definition in place, you are correct to assert that red is a property of the world, not exclusively that of humans. And there is no way that I know of to demonstrate that what you have done is incorrect. Words are invented and changed by people, and you are people. You have changed the word to suit your needs. Unless I change it back to suit mine, we have reached an impasse.

People are bombarded with advertisements to buy this, do that, or respond this way and not another way. — Posty McPostface

I don't really see this as the fault of psychology. What's annoying you is the manipulation of people for commercial purposes, and I agree with your outrage. But psychology is not to blame. Capitalism is. Psychology may be the gun, but guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ask the NRA. :joke: If the manipulators - let's call them "thieves", for the purposes of this thread :wink: - make use of psychology to commit their atrocities, is it really different from a bank-robbing gang making use of a car to make their getaway? Ford bear no responsibility for the bank having been robbed. :wink:

...targeting a harmless sheep that psychology is — Posty McPostface

I have always felt sorry for psychology and psychologists. Their discipline is significant and important (IMO), but it is disabled by those who would force it into the mould of 'a science'. You cannot treat people as 'impartial observers' when you are investigating their mental/emotional condition. In such a case, the subjects are active participants. They are not impartial, not unbiased and not distanced from what is going on. They're right there doing it. We need the right tool for the job, as the philosopher Bob the Builder sings. :up: And science is not it.

Psychology is a tool for investigating human mental and emotional issues. Whatever makes it more relevant, more useful and more effective is what it needs. Imposing a foreign and incorrect view of its test subjects is not what it needs.

Rant over. [For now...]

The question is interesting, but is it that sort of question that we (humans) cannot answer, — Pattern-chaser


Except by talking to the deaf-blind...
Ableism at work. — Banno

Not quite. I don't know the 'medium of thought' that *I* employ, although I can speculate. Trying to analyse some object, using that object as the tool with which the analysis is carried out, seems fraught with problems to me. Deaf-blind or not.

I mean, when it comes to psychology, no sane or rather undeluded psychologist want's to assert authority over such matters pertaining the human soul or nature, and that's unfortunate... — Posty McPostface

I wonder if you really intend to target psychology in this thread? You seem to be aiming at propagandists? :chin: :wink:

The question is interesting, but is it that sort of question that we (humans) cannot answer, except via unverifiable speculation? I rather think it might be. In which case, perhaps even to attempt an answer is a bit pointless? I'm not sure, and look forward to seeing any answers more informative/useful than my own....

I'm not even sure what the 'medium of thought' is for *me*! ;)

When I genuinely see a red snooker ball, there is an instantiation of the property red right out there in the world - consitutive of the visible surface of the snooker ball - and I see that instantiation of red. — jkg20

An instantiation is created dynamically, which would seem to support the notion of 'red' being a human thing, existing only in human minds. If it is out there in the world, 'red' would not be instantiated, because it would already be there, as a property/attribute of the thing that you see as being red.

electromagnetic radiation is only derivately coloured — jkg20

Yes, because red derives from humans and the way we see and perceive things.

The first and most obvious response that occurs to me is: if all humans are completely removed from the Physical Universe, does 'red' remain? I.e. is 'red' human-independent? It doesn't seem so to me. And, if I am a non-human intelligence, whose senses respond to different things than yours, maybe I 'see' all of what you call "light" as having just one 'colour'. In which case, to me there is no colour in the world; it's just something you (humans) invented. :chin: Or maybe I don't sense what you call light at all. Maybe I can only 'see' (what you call) X-rays and gamma rays. Where is 'red' for me? [It looks like it's inside your head....] So, in your words:

Furthermore, as a non-human person, my concept of "the world out there" is grounded precisely on the basis of seeing only (what you call) X-rays and gamma rays. Where in the world is 'red', human? :chin:

According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful". — Samuel Lacrampe

I just read back, looking for this quote, or words that reflect it, and found nothing. Did Banno really say this, or did you make it up? :chin:

@Pattern-chaser You talk about the "world out there" - how do you think you arrived at that concept other than seeing things "out there", and how would you see things out there if they did not have colour? A colourless world cannot be compared to a blank screen. — jkg20

Let's begin by saying that my answer is given as a human. I.e. I am not considering how another sentient but non-human being might 'see' the world.

Of course I have seen things, and heard from other humans of things they have seen, and so on. And in this way, I learned of the world and its contents. I see those things as having colour, because "colour" is the label we use to refer to that range of electromagnetic radiation we also label as "visible light". And most of the things I see either reflect or emit visible light, which my eyes can detect. Which is why I can 'see' them, of course. But is 'colour' an attribute of the things I see, or is it an artefact of human sight/perception? (Just to be clear, I do not refer to the presence of the human label "colour" in the Physical Universe. I refer to that which the label "colour" refers to, which I think is your intention.)

Am I on the track you wish to consider, or have I deviated without knowing it?

(And yes, you are right to observe I have not yet offered any justification for my belief that colour is a human creation, and has no (human-independent) existence in the world. I will attempt that if/when you confirm that this is the (sub-)topic you wish to discuss.)

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ah. <light-bulb emoji> You are trying to make the point that colour is a property of an object out there in the world, and not a consequence of looking at that object with human eyes. With that I must disagree. Red does not exist in the Physical Universe. That which gives rise to red being seen by a human definitely does exist in the real world. I believe that beauty (or red, in this case :wink:) is in the eye of the beholder; you believe it is part of the thing you are looking at. It would've been easier if you'd just said that. :up: :grin: — Pattern-chaser

↪Pattern-chaser

I think jkg20's point is that whilst you might disagree with it, neither you nor Steve Klinko have given an argument that he/she is wrong about this. We might be able to get an argument on the basis of @jkg20's reply to my last question about whether he thinks there is representation going on in the case of veridical vision, but we'll have to wait and see. Just saying that it is wrong and that physics proves it won't cut the mustard because as far as I understand it, @jkg20's position is that modern physics is contaminated by conceptual confusion about what colour is and so proves nothing. — MetaphysicsNow

OK, that seems fair enough. ... But ... I'm still not quite sure what the (sub-)topic of conversation is. :chin: So,

What is the (sub-)topic you wish to discuss? Is it whether colour exists out there in the Physical Universe, or is it the distinction between red and redness (i.e. the human experience of perceiving something red), or something else? :chin:

my point was a little off topic. — Marcus de Brun

Damn! So was my response to you, then. :blush:

I am always a bit sensitive when capitalism appears to be getting off the hook. — Marcus de Brun

Yes! Me too. :up: :grin:

Consumption particularly by white westerners is an example of an externally influenced or engineered activity.

Most white western consumption in respect of needs beyond the philosophically valid: food warmth sustenance, education etc... are programmed or inculcated into the herd via the psychology of the herd itself and external manipulations of herd psychology vis media and corporate entities.

The consumptive act is an act of great violence and yet the violence, vis the consequence of consumption is not 'owned' by the consumer. Both the consumption, and the avoidance of ownership of the consequence, have been removed from the reality of the consumer by external forces. The violence that is consequenced by consumption is therefore removed by the magic of the contemporary church of capitalism. — Marcus de Brun

This is something I agree with, but I've never seen anyone else express such views. The poisonous influence of capitalism has become so familiar that we no longer question it. Just like we say that a river "runs", and never realise this is a metaphor. [Rivers don't have legs, so cannot run in the literal sense.] Or we talk of the Crucifixion (if we happen to be Christians), without appreciating the true horror of the image we are offering.

What is fashion? Is it art? Is it culture? Or is it something intended to get us to buy more new stuff when the old stuff still has plenty of life left in it?

"Your red coat is still beautiful!"

"Yes, but yellow is this season's colour, so I will throw it away and buy a yellow one."

This is obscene, and yet most people don't see anything here to worry them. This is how we humans have destroyed our own world. The world itself will survive, of course, and some forms of life will surely (?) survive too. But it seems unlikely that humans will, and they will be baffled. Baffled because they (even as they become extinct) have no idea how it was caused, or that it was them (i.e. us) that caused it. :roll:

So thank you, Marcus de Brun, for posting this. :up:

I may email Mr Chomsky again and point him to this discussion. — Gary McKinnon

Noam reads your emails? :wink: :gasp: :chin:

From here:

The soul was always understood as separable from the body, even following Aristotle's definition, designating it as the form of the body... — Metaphysician Undercover


To here:

As I understand, the soul is not the form of the body. — Metaphysician Undercover


If your understanding is not contradictory, your explanations certainly are. — Galuchat

In the first quote, it is someone else's ideas that are being described. The second quote is a declaration of personal belief. In this case the two of them contradict, as you say. Because they are the views (beliefs) of different people; people who disagree. :wink:

↪Pattern-chaser

Pattern-chaser said: "Redness is being used to describe the human experience of seeing something that is red."


In this statement lies the crux of the issue: At one and the same time you imply that "something is red" (i.e. the something I might see in the world around me) and on the other that the experience (of seeing something that is red) is red. Presumably you are using "red" in two distinct senses here... — jkg20

No! I'm pretty sure the words you're replying to say this quite clearly. I remarked that the term "redness" is being used to label/represent the human experience of seeing something red. So I did not say that "the experience (of seeing something that is red) is red", I explicitly said that "Redness is being used to describe the human experience of seeing something that is red".

1) Having a mental image of a red snooker ball.
2) Having a dream of a red snooker ball.
3) Seeing a red snooker ball.
I am in no way shape or form denying that such phenomena as these exist: people engage in mental imagery, people dream and people see. The specific assumption (and an assumption is all that it is at the moment) I am bringing into the spotlight and challenging is that those three phenomena share a common factor over and above the bare fact that they are about a red snooker ball. You and Pattern-chaser appear to believe that there is such a common factor, but have provided no arguments for agreeing with you. — jkg20

The common factor the three share is the one you mention: they all concern a red snooker ball. But they also share the involvement of a human mind, that is (for one of three different reasons) thinking about something coloured red. In this case, only option 3 involves the human experience of seeing something that is red. The other two rely on human memory (1) or imagination (2).

↪Pattern-chaser

Pattern-chaser said: "I've been trying to understand this sub-thread by adopting the (scientific) perspective of an objectivist philosopher."

That is the source of your confusion I think - the scientific perspective you are trying to adopt is incoherent. It requires on the one hand that red actually be a visible surface property of objects in the world that provide the basis for all empirical evidence (how would a world of colourless objects provide us with any visual evidence for any scientific hypothesis?) and on the other that red is only a feature of electromagnetic radiation (and thus something that is not a visible feature of surfaces of objects). — jkg20

Ah. <light-bulb emoji> You are trying to make the point that colour is a property of an object out there in the world, and not a consequence of looking at that object with human eyes. With that I must disagree. Red does not exist in the Physical Universe. That which gives rise to red being seen by a human definitely does exist in the real world. I believe that beauty (or red, in this case :wink:) is in the eye of the beholder; you believe it is part of the thing you are looking at. It would've been easier if you'd just said that. :up: :grin:

The points you make about human beings having a metaphorical use for the word "red" may well be true, but when I make a purely visual observation that a snooker ball is red, I'm not being metaphorical, and I am not talking about the frequency of electromagnetic radiation either. — jkg20

I know that you aren't being metaphorical. I wasn't either. I was commenting on the ambiguity of the word "red". This is not metaphor. Metaphor is something quite different.

But when you observe that something is red, you are talking about the frequency of electromagnetic radiation. That is the one and only thing that registers to human eyes as being red. Nothing else can give rise to that visual observation. [Ignoring iridescence and the like.]

↪Pattern-chaser

Could you give a case example where a person rightfully "knows" something, but that knowledge is either unjustified, untrue, or unbelieved?

Granted, when we say "I know this person", we are here using the word ambiguously. We do not mean here that we believe any truth about this person, but merely that we have met them. Now we are not talking about this type of knowledge, but the type that is about a statement, like "I know x is y". — Samuel Lacrampe

A person who "rightfully knows something", in your terms, is someone who has factual, maybe even Objective, knowledge of something, I think. So no, I cannot offer an example of an Objective truth being incorrect, because that isn't possible. But that doesn't detract from the point I made, which had nothing at all to do with challenging Objective Truth (a stupid and impossible thing to do). Here is what I said.

Justified true belief. Does anyone dispute any of these properties as being essential? — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes. None of them is necessarily essential. As ever, it depends on context. For lightweight everyday social chit-chat, none of them need intrude. In a philosophy forum, a little more rigour might be expected. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

In everyday use, we all (appear to) claim justified knowledge when we are actually just exaggerating for effect, to bolster the apparent authority of what we're saying. It's just something people do. Having made that observation, there's little more to say or do. This isn't something that will gain us much if we dissect it thoroughly. It's just something humans do, even if they are wrong to do so. :up:

We all think in the form that our sensory impressions take. — Harry Hindu

You keep expressing yourself absolutely, as though your assertions have been proven correct by someone. This one hasn't, although it could well be accurate. We don't know. It might help (you) if you confine yourself to absolute statements when they're about known and proven facts. :wink:

To me, belief is synonymous with understanding. The claim, "I believe in such and such," is just that, a claim or a statement. Usually without proper reference to the truth behind it. — BrianW

To me, something I believe is something I hold to be true. This carries with it the clear understanding that I may be wrong, and it may not be true. It's just that I believe it to be. I use this understanding often, saying mostly "I believe" to emphasise my own fallibility. Rarely, I say "I know", if/when I feel that I have justified and justifiable knowledge of something. [This doesn't happen often.] Careful use of "believe" and "know" contribute much to clarity of thought, IMO. YMMV. :wink:

Justified true belief. Does anyone dispute any of these properties as being essential? — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes. None of them is necessarily essential. As ever, it depends on context. For lightweight everyday social chit-chat, none of them need intrude. In a philosophy forum, a little more rigour might be expected. :wink:

At one and the same time you imply that "something is red" (i.e. the something I might see in the world around me) and on the other that the experience (of seeing something that is red) is red. — jkg20

I'm fairly sure this is not the case. And it's nothing to do with mistaking the label for the thing it describes either. The experience of seeing something red is not itself "red"; I don't think anyone has said or implied this.

I've been trying to understand this sub-thread by adopting the (scientific) perspective of an objectivist philosopher. [This is new to me, but I'm sure you will correct my misapprehensions, if any.] To a scientist, "red" has only a single, simple, meaning. It refers to light of wavelength around 700 nm. "Red" is a convenient synonym for the (slightly) longer scientific description. So there is no reason not to use it, and every reason to see that "red" demonstrably exists in the Physical Universe. After all, electromagnetic radiation of wavelength around 700 nm does exist there, so red exists out there in the real physical world, and so (by extension) does "colour".

Furthermore, science places humans in the role of 'impartial observer'. An impartial observer adds nothing to - and subtracts nothing from - their observations; they simply report what they have seen, without bias or interpretation. They report the facts - the empirical data - with nothing added, and nothing taken away. Seen this way, the human experience of redness (seeing something that is red) is not qualitatively different from that of a measuring machine, or a robot. Any 'mystical' aspects of redness simply are not there. ... From the scientific/objective perspective.

A more broadly-focused perspective sees things differently. "Red" remains a synonym for "electromagnetic radiation of wavelength ~700 nm", but it has other meanings too, as most of our words do. Red means embarrassment or danger, it is an alarm, and it represents anger. It refers to a negative financial balance, and quite a few other things too. When we see something, and recognise it as being red, we draw all of these meanings from our memories. All of the things associated with "red" are drawn into our act of perception, even those that may not be relevant to the particular observation we have made. These are the differences between an impartial observer and an active participant. For the latter, redness (seeing something that is red) is quite different from the experience of the former. It is broader and deeper, and generally more nuanced. There is (even) more to it than I have described, but I have said enough to illustrate my point, I think. :chin:

According to this more nuanced description of redness, the human experience of seeing something that is red is much more than reporting the observed data. As part of the human perceptual experience, this data is observed, then understood (as best we can), considered, and interpreted, in our uniquely human way. This redness, and the above (multi-faceted) description of "red", do not exist in the Physical Universe. They exist only in the minds of humans.

It's remarkable how much difference perspective - and context, etc - can make. :wink: :up:

The issue is what do I, as a human being, see when I see an instance of redness. I certainly do not see electromagnetic radiation. — jkg20

Agreed. :up:

You earlier equated redness with a kind of reflectance property of the surface of objects — jkg20

I hope I didn't. I was trying to emphasise the difference between those two things.

...redness is right out there in the world, not inside my head. At least, no one has yet provided any argument on this thread to establish otherwise, just a bunch of assumptions. — jkg20

Redness is being used to describe the human experience of seeing something that is red. That experience has no existence - none at all - outside of your own head. The thing that reflects light whose frequency is around 700nm is part of the real world; your experience of seeing it is not.

This is not an assumption, or even an inference. It is a simple deduction based on observation of the real world. The thing that emits or reflects red light is physically real. Your experience of seeing it is not. Your experience takes place in your mind; it exists in your mind; it has no existence outside of your mind. If it does exist in the real, physical, world, point to it! :razz:

Colour is not an illusion or an hallucination. It is real, but not in the sense that it exists in the real, physical, world. It is a real part of the Conscious Universe. It is not existent in the Physical Universe. We can prove this is so by observing that colour does not exist in the Physical Universe. We can measure all we want; we will not and cannot detect colour. We can detect electromagnetic radiation of the form we call light, but we cannot detect colour. We can label particular frequencies of light with the names of colours, but we simply refer to our own experience of seeing when we do, and we do it for our own convenience. Why wouldn't we? :wink:

Our mental creations are so intimate that we overlay them onto the world, where we find them meaningful. They attach (in our minds), if you like, to things out there. But they remain our creations. If all humans disappeared today, colour, and the experience of seeing something red, will be gone forever.

↪Pattern-chaser
, hello.
Because we can prove that all meaningful words have essential properties. Then the fact that we are able to use all words in a meaningful sentence shows that we have some knowledge of their meanings. We just need to uncover the definition by separating the essential properties from the non-essential ones; which is done through the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe

I rather think that we sift the intended meaning from the words of another by context, as we have always done. It isn't a detective story, and the Socratic method doesn't apply because it isn't used. If you think it should apply, that's a different matter. But it is not normally used by humans in the way you describe. I wonder if you are talking about ought instead of is? :chin:

What both extremes don't seem to realize is that philosophy is a science and that you have to integrate all information from all domains of knowledge in order to have a more objective and consistent worldview. — Harry Hindu

I think science is a philosophy, to use your terminology. Science is actually a tool developed under the auspices of the analytic/objectivist/logical-positivist disciplines of philosophy. And it's a great tool. Its successes are well-known and obvious to all. But it isn't the only tool we need, and it shouldn't be used when another tool is more useful or appropriate. So I would say this:

What both extremes don't seem to realize is that science is a philosophy and that you have to integrate all information from all domains of knowledge in order to have a more objective and consistent worldview.

And even then, I would wonder whether an objective worldview is a good thing to aim for. :chin:

...it is not the experience of seeing colour that the kind of account of vision SteveKlinko sketches threatens to remove from the world, but colour itself. Help yourself to whatever surface feature of objects you want to identify with colour - in your post you identify it as a certain kind of reflectiveness - if I insist that experiencing an instance of the colour red and experiencing an instance of that kind of reflectiveness are one and the same thing, any argument that removes instances of the colour red from the world removes instances of that kind of reflectiveness from the world as well, and the blog post I linked to argues - at least as I understand it - that that would be an incoherent idea. — jkg20

You are missing a distinction. A human can experience seeing the colour red. A machine or a robot can measure the presence or absence of electromagnetic radiation of a particular frequency, but it cannot experience redness as a human can.

You could argue, if you wanted to, that a robot or machine has its own experience of redness as a result of taking measurements and detecting the appropriate frequency radiation to be present. But the robot/machine experience and the human experience are two different things. Both experiences are based on the presence of electromagnetic radiation, but that's all they have in common.

So the human experience of redness is unique. Part of that experience is something we call "colour". And in that sense, colour is not part of the Physical World, nor has it ever been. Colour is something humans experience that machines and robots cannot. So colour is correctly considered not to be part of the Physical Universe. It's part of the Conscious Universe, and is a human creation.

N.B. that which gives rise to colour is very definitely part of the Physical Universe. Colour itself is part of the Conscious Universe, and can only be perceived or experienced by humans.

What you said confirmed that we cannot rid the world of evil, and I agreed. There is no point beyond that (in this sub-sub-thread). :wink:

Take visible features like colour and shape out of the world in which objects like brains and retinas and snooker balls exist and it becomes impossible to say anything coherent about that world at all. — jkg20

To take the experience of seeing colour out of the world, and into the viewer's mind (where it belongs) is not the same as taking colour out of the world. Reflectivity of certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation is part of the world. A human viewer's reaction to them is inside the viewer's mind. The parts that belong in our minds are just labels and explanations that we create for our own convenience and use. Note: they are labels for external features, and for our internal experiences of them. Labels are just vocabulary, when it comes down to it, aren't they? :chin:

were you refering to rape when yoy said "life made free of evil" ? — Aleksander Kvam

No:

some believe that not believing in god is evil, and not caring about the vast majority of people is evil. so... — Aleksander Kvam

...life cannot be made free of evil? — Pattern-chaser

child-birth through rape is evil — Aleksander Kvam

As an absolute statement - "...is evil" --- this cannot be correct. Because it cannot be justified/proven. I accept that you consider it evil, but to state with no context that it is goes too far, I think.

so... — Aleksander Kvam

...life cannot be made free of evil? :wink:

OK, so not only Abrahamic religions define casual sex as immoral. This has no effect at all on what I said, as far as I can see...?

The only 100% method of contraception is abstinence. Therefore, any casual sex risks the possibility of unplanned pregnancy. Under current gynocentric laws in America, women have complete authority on what to do with the baby growing inside them. They can even legally kill the baby. Let's assume that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.

If you have casual sex as a man, you are risking pregnancy. If pregnancy happens, there is a chance that the woman will abort (legally murder) your baby or give birth to it and abuse it/raise it poorly. After all, what kind of good mother would have casual sex? Therefore, by having casual sex, you are risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for pleasure. I argue that risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for sexual pleasure is immoral. — Ronin3000

It looks like you are seeking to add justification to a view you already hold. :chin: My view is that all consensual sex between adults is morally acceptable. Any consequences of such an act, however, are the responsibility of both partners, as must always be the case. So breeding unwanted children is immoral, specifically because they are unwanted. Morally, it should therefore be avoided. But this still does not make casual sex immoral. You need an Abrahamic religion for that. :wink:

elements involved with conscious experiences, are measurable and evident to occur regardless of consciousness — Tyler

Doesn't this presuppose knowledge of consciousness that we do not currently have? :chin:

...and exactly what are these "elements" that are measurable and evident, and have they actually been measured, and found to be evident? :chin: Just asking. :wink:

I'd argue that correlation does imply cause. It doesn't prove cause, but correlation implies a higher probability that it is also a cause. — Tyler

I don't think it does. In scientific phraseology, correlation does not disprove the existence of causation. We cannot safely go beyond this, without going beyond the evidence of the real world. You are contradicting a long-held piece of wisdom here. See what wikipedia has to say.

This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy. — wikipedia

Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko

> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it. — Tyler

And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. Science is the (valuable and useful) perspective you get when you reduce humans to impartial observers. The study of experience and experiencers requires that humans be considered as active participants. This requires a tool that is science's complement. Science cannot extend itself to cover what it explicitly and deliberately rejects. Those rejections, as well as what is included, define science, and make it what it is.

To investigate experience and experiencers, a tool other than science is needed. :chin:

Perfection is life made free of evil. — EnPassant

but what is evil? — Aleksander Kvam

Exactly. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. What is evil for you and me - say the mosquitos that spread malaria - is just living your life to those mosquitos. Sexually abusing children is considered evil by the vast majority of humans, but most birds are quite OK with it.

No, I'm not just inventing stupid examples, but observing that (good and) evil depend on your point of view. Thus life cannot be made "free of evil". :chin:

I would like to ask if you can imagine a technologically advanced society that is not a disaster. — VagabondSpectre

Not a human society, no. :fear:

Some words are sometimes easy to define. Other times, and in other contexts, defining terms is next to impossible. And all human languages are stuffed with ambiguity and vagueness. Why would we even think we could define terms precisely, except in unusual circumstances? :chin:

Has "Western civilization" been a disaster? — Srap Tasmaner

On the whole, yes. Western civilisation is an imperial and xenophobic movement, responsible for capitalism and continuous-growth economics, and the use of science in places where other tools would serve us better. It has lead us to use the world, when we should be sharing it, so now (for example) three out of every four species of flying insects that lived when I was born are extinct; gone forever. Non-Western learning of all sorts is actively ignored; the history of non-Western civilisations is denied or demeaned. Philosophy is treated very similarly.

Yes, an unmitigated disaster for all the living creatures who live here on Earth.