The Kindle version is $21.

There are certainly phenomena in nature which exhibit intelligence by design such as photosynthesis although I’m not making the claim for an intelligent designer I’m simply claiming that nature has managed to create wonders which show some kind of intelligence in action. I do not believe this to be blind luck but intelligence. — kindred

Sounds like an implicit false dichotomy: blind luck vs intelligent design. The correct comparison would be: undirected natural selection vs intelligent design.

I’m merely invoking a pre-existing intelligence which was able to self organise, replicate, reproduce and exhibit life. — kindred

You have a regress problem: you're accounting for the "intelligence" of life by assuming another intelligence exists. Why doesn't the same logic apply to that prior (non-bioligical life) intelligence? Do you assume it just happens to exist uncaused?

How is this MORE plausible than my hypothesis: life (which you suggest entails intelligence) develops naturally and gradually over billions of years - iff some narrow set of conditions existed at key points of its development?

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings. — kindred

Is that opinion just a wild guess, or do you believe you can rationally justify it?

Here's my opinion. There are two broad possibilities:
1) Intelligence (which entails a mind) just happens to exist, with neither reason nor cause.
2) Intelligence developed naturally, and gradually, at least once over billions of years in a vast universe.

Possibility 2 seems more plausible. The development of intelligence on any specific planet is very low probability, but the number of planets in the universe is so enormously large that it is a near certainty to occur at least once.

To put this in simple terms, how or why does modality exist? — Shawn

what are the leading theories of causality, nowadays? I ask because if indeterminism is at hand and how intuition grapples with indeterminism, then are we at a limit of how to interpret nature? If the preceding is true, then where do we go on from here? — Shawn

IMO, the most plausible account of causality is law realism:

where a and b are particulars: a causes b iff there is a law such that Type(a) necessarily causes Type(b).

Stated differently: laws are relations between universals.

Regarding quantum indeterminacy, this would be expressed as a probabilistic law:
Type(a) necessarily causes (a probability distribution).

Probabilistic causation accounts for ontological contingency in the world. Ontological contingency grounds statements about what is possible (i.e. modality).

It seems to me that this intelligence which is manifested in nature must be pre-existing and has been expressed through evolution reasons unknown. — kindred

So... you believe nature manifesrs intelligence? If so, please provide your justification for believing that.

There are bigger mysteries too. Something cannot come from nothing which implies that something has always existed ad infinitum in one form or another and whether this something through the aeons of time could produce a God is highly plausible. — kindred

It's trivially true that "something cannot come from nothing", but that does not entail an infinite past.

It's logically impossible for nature to "produce a God" if "God"= a creator.

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists has no logical explanation and certainly giving rise to complex organisms means we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to explanation. — kindred

We may never figure out how life began. That doesn't justify believing it was not natural abiogenesis.

If God wanted to prove to anyone that he exists he could easily do that but he doesn’t and in this way he remains mysterious to his beings who are free to doubt, deny or affirm his existence. — kindred

This implies that IF there is a God, he probably doesn't give a shit whether we believe in him.

existence itself [is] perhaps a manifestation of his being — kindred

That's logically possible. So is solipsism. Possibility (alone) does not justify belief.

D) By continuum I mean a set of distinct points without an abrupt change or gap between points.

A) Assume that continuum exists (assume that D is true)
P1) There is however either a gap between all pairs of points of the continuum or there is no gap
P2) We are dealing with the same point of the continuum if there is no gap between a pair of points
C1) Therefore there is a gap between all pairs of distinct points of the continuum (from P1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, the continuum does not exist (from A and C1) — MoK

Are you suggesting this proves real numbers are logically impossible, or are you arguing that there is no valid 1:1 mapping from the set of real numbers to the actual world? I ask, because it fails to do the former.

Very little can be "proven" in the way mathematical theorems are proven: through deduction based only on axioms that are intuitively true. So neither the existence nor nonexistence of gods can be proven.

Questions that could instead be asked:
-Can you rationally justify your belief in god(s)?
-Can you show it to be more like than not that god(s) exist?
-Can you show that god(s) are the best explanation (among available options) for the uncontroversial facts of the world?

The converse questions to atheists (like me) are equally fair:
-Can you rationally justify your belief that gods don't exist?
-Can you show it to be more like than not that gods don't exist?
-Can you show that an absence of gods best explain the uncontroversial facts of the world?
(The questions could be reworded to apply to those who reserve judgement).

I know that the parallel between ‛X exists/doesn’t exist’ and ‛p is true/false’ is a familiar one, but I can’t find a focused discussion of it in the literature — J

Truthmaker theory identifies truth as a relation between what exists (a truthmaker) and a proposition. See: D. M. Armstrong's "Truth and Truthmakers".

Where Do You Stand? — Cadet John Kervensley

None of the above.

I embrace truthmaker theory: for any proposition that is "true", there is a state of affairs in the world (the truthmaker) that accounts for it being true.

The "truth" is objective, but does not have some transcendent existence. (Your definition of "objective" seemed to entail it existing "out there").

"True" is actually a relation between the proposition (a mental object) and the truthmaker.

They passed the tax relief act during covid. — L'éléphant

Bipartisan support for COVID relief, during the crisis, doesn't imply there would be bipartisan support to increase taxes on corporations and the rich.

The causes of increases in national debt have half to do with the government services for the general public; the other half being the tax cuts (less revenue) passed under both the democratic and republican government starting over 2 decades ago. — L'éléphant

Of course, but I was focusing on the negative aspect of the tax cut, an effect that is long term. This was to support my overarching point that it makes no sense to judge any President on the state of the economy during his term. Both tax cuts and spending programs marginally stimulate the economy to some degree, but it takes economic modeling to estimate the net effect on employment, wages, and GDP growth. That modeling would try to take into account everything that affects the economy.

But the fact that he didn't fuck it up, is what I meant. And as we speak, his policies on taxation are still in place until 2025? -- I mean, come one, why didn't the other party reverse those policies? — L'éléphant

Changing taxation requires legislation passed by both houses of Congress. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass controversial bills because of the filibuster rules. So politically, it made more sense to do something when backs are against the wall in 2025.

The tax cuts passed under Trump (that he signed, but had nothing to do with the design) had pluses and minusses. On the plus side: corporate taxes were too high - corporations were reincorporating in other countries with lower corporate taxes. But the minus was big: it increased the national debt- which resulted in the annual interest on the national debt currently being on an unsustainable trajectory -IOW, you can't judge the effect of Trump's policies on the statevof the economy during his term.

The current issue in the election pertains to what to do about this debt (and deficit). Harris wants to raise corporate taxes and to indirectly tax wealth (for people worth more than $100M). I guarantee Congress will moderate this, if anthing is to pass. On the other hand, Trump wants to address the problem with even LOWER Corporate taxes- which aren't needed, but may moderated to get legislation passed. But he's also pledged across the board 10% tarriffs on all imports. He can do this unilaterally (no new legislation needed), and it will raise prices on imported goods and start a trade war. It's a horrible idea.

That sounds very plausible.

By extension, it seems to me that it's (in a sense) painful to be wrong, and it feels better to be right. This pushes us to irrationality.

Does he suggest strategy to avoid the pitfalls?

How useful is this area of brain research to the debate between free will and determinism? I am interested in research and also the nature of personal change and self mastery? — Jack Cummins

Dispensa's work sounds consistent with Peter Tse, in his book. "The Neural Basis of Free Will".

It seems reasonable to believe we truly make choices, whether by impluse or after hours of deliberation. No one made the choice for us, and self-reflection assures us that we actually developed the choice.

However, each choice is the product of our prior knowledge, applying thinking skills we've learned to the facts we have accepted, and to the exclusion of those we've rejected. Every part of this, including the physical apparatus of our brains, was caused. So the process is still consistent with determinism.

The mere fact that every part of our thinking apparatus was caused doesn't erase the fact that we went through the mental process. Suppose the choice entailed moving a rock from point A to point B. Had we not made the choice, the rock would have remained at A. We are agents that affect the world, irrespective of the fact we were caused by prior circumstances. Our choices can matter. That's why I think compatibilism is reasonable, and doesn't entail fatalism

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president. — L'éléphant

...until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement).

I made no attempt to even intimate 'belief' in what I was trying to say. Apologies if this post comes off combative - I feel words were put in my mouth. — AmadeusD

I was simply asking for clarification of what you meant, because I had not drawn the "clear inference" you thought I should. I think I understand now. Sorry to bother you.

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories... — AmadeusD

This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. That may not be what you meant, because you followed with:

...They just shouldn't take precedence.

What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence?

My view: a theory can only be rationally held if it is arguably the "best explanation" -i.e. the product of abductive reasoning. Even so, that is often too low a bar to compel belief in it (and the sort of abductive reasoning we do will be unavoidably subjective).

Tibetan monks might have their politico-cultural reasons for objecting to the Chinese government choosing the next Dalai Lama, but do they really have a metaphysical leg to stand on? — sime

The monks are standing on the leg of their own metaphysical theory, aren't they?

Still, if less and less workers put money into the fund, and more and more recipients seek to benefit from it, exhaustion of the fund is inevitable. The aging population and lower birth rates make this reality an increasing concern. — NOS4A2

Absolutely, and that's exactly why a comprehensive plan is needed- and it will have to include more revenue (i.e. taxes). If Trump removes the income tax on SS benefits, it means even higher taxes on those who are working to pay for the higher outlays.

Another element of perceived unfairness is the Government Pension Offset - which eliminates the spousal SS benefits for many retired teachers and others. If my wife had never worked, she'd be entitled to receive a benefit 50% of my own, and when I die- it bumps up to 100%. But my wife worked as a teacher in Texas, and paid into their pension system and not SS. So she gets nothing, either before or after I die. It pisses her off. I accept it. We always knew about this, and planned accordingly.

Periodically, there are bills proposed to eliminate the problem in whole or in part, but the problem is always the same: paying for it. There's no free lunch (modern monetary policy theory nonwithstanding).

Yes, and I have a lot of respect for him. Tell me what he's said.

Raising the cap on taxable social security income levels would more than fix the problem. Only those who benefit the most would see a SS tax increase. Somewhere around 175K yearly. — creativesoul

It might offset this particular (effective) benefit increase, but I don't think it would completely solve the overall funding problem. I feel strongly that reform ought to be comprehensive, rather than helping out one or another interest group.

I'm not being self-serving here. I started receiving SS benefits when I turned 70, and get almost the maximum benefit. This would be net me a good bit of extra money.

The taxes on SS benefits go into the Social Security Trust fund. I verified that here:

"Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the 1983 Amendments....

... The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983."

:up: :up: Profound comments from you both.

It makes no sense to me. The money in the fund has already been confiscated as taxes, for example, via payroll taxes, and added to the fund. That is money that has already been taken from you. How does confiscating that money a second time help you any? — NOS4A2

I have no problem with your philosophical point of view here, but you're ignoring the practical problems I brought up.

I've encountered theists who are "proposition-realists" - meaning that they believe all true propositions that could possibly be articulated, exist timelessly in the mind of God. This would include any idea that a person might develop and articulate. This seems coherent, but it depends on the premise that such a God exists.

It would be reckless to pass it because it would exhaust the SS trust fund sooner. Per current law, when the trust fund is exhausted, benefits will have to be reduced to match current contributions. So as an isolated promise, it's simplistic and dumb. I also think it has no chance of passing because enough members of Congress will understand everything I just said.

A more reasonable campaign promise, which unfortunately no one is making, is to fix the SS funding problem with a comprehensive overhaul. Even in such an overhaul, I can't see eliminating the tax on benefits, because it would have to be traded off with more revenue.

It's fine to have a philosophical opposition to taxes, but practical considerations can't be ignored. SS started being taxed under Reagan. It was a back-door method of reducing benefits for the more well-off, in order to extend the life of SS.

Ok.

Unrelated question, more related to our exchange in the other thread.

Trump recently said that social security recipients shouldn't have to pay taxes on their benefits. How do you suggest we treat that statement? Promised policy?; whistful rift to be ignored?

Full disclosure: I started receiving SS this year, when I turned 70.

Fair points.

The view that ideas 'a product of the mind' is open to question, as it is hard to where they come from...
..themes exist as universal constructs, possibly as independent ideas in themselves, — Jack Cummins

No one has had an idea that isn't tethered to his perception, beliefs, and experiences. We can't give a scientific account of the process of creating an idea, but it seems a product of abstract reasoning and pattern recognition. Even seeing a simple pattern is an idea.

Are you suggesting all ideas exist as "universal constructs" before they appear in a human mind? How then, do they get in the mind? Doesn't this mean they existed 100 years after the big bang, and they would have existed even if evolution hadn't taken the accidental course that led to our existence? Suppose there exist intelligent beings (e.g.Tralfamadorians) elsewhere in the universe; do the Tralfamadorians capture the same set of ideas as do we? IMO, this raises more issues than the alternative.

...why hasn’t she done so? — NOS4A2

That's political nonsense. You know as well as I that a VP doesn't have the power to implement policy. For that matter, there are limits to what a President can do.

I wasn't trying to debate policies or candidates, I just wanted to point out that it may, or may not, make sense to assume policy-promises are likely to become policy. For example, executive orders are easy, but transient; laws are long term, but need 60 votes in the Senate. Willingness to compromise matters, and you can have a positive or negative view of that.

Luckily the past can give us a hint. Both were heavily involved in past and current administrations. No predictions required. — NOS4A2

Give us a hint on what? The future? Then you are essentially making a vague, general prediction of the future.

The Trump campaign was hacked and the data given to the press, but they won’t report it because publishing emails is now verboten for them. Are you all upset? — NOS4A2

It's an opportunity for Harris to take the high road and decry foreign intervention. Has Donald ("I love Wikileaks") Trump said anything about it? I'm curious what your view is, considering what you've said about foreign interference in the past. Do you think it would be appropriate to release it at politically strategic times, like Wikileaks did (working with Roger Stone)?

You can find by searching youtube for "Mark Halperin 2-way". Named as such because there's a degree of audience participation. Here's one:

https://www.youtube.com/live/alKit5q7iVU?si=-80UJ08luJm5v1Y0

It's typical of the ones labelled "morning meeting" that discuss what I was talking about. Other episodes have different sorts of topics, all related to some aspects of politics.

This one features a Jordan Peterson interview: https://www.youtube.com/live/Tgy4bsS3tM8?si=GnvRCOefpTF9WQAK
Peterson makes a ton of debatable claims, but still much food for thought.

Here's one featuring a panel discussion of media bias: https://www.youtube.com/live/k0xCB1J0SOk?si=s2xyYWlfjwklM9fj
Very interesting.

It’s not about policy at all, is it? — NOS4A2

Policy ought to be a big part of it, but it doesn't capture everything. Better: we predict a future that is entailed by each candidate, and choose the candidate that we believe will deliver the better future.

Are ideas mind-dependent, subjective, objective or intersubjective constructs in human semantics? — Jack Cummins

Ideas are the product of mind, so I see no compelling reason to think they have some sort of independent existence.

Suppose I induce you to accept as true, some idea I've had - through description and argument. Does that mean there is a singe idea and we both share it, or does it mean our minds now independently contain an idea that could be represented with identical semantics? I think the latter, and this can be considered intersubjective. If the idea is novel, and only you and I share it - then when we both die, this idea exists nowhere (at least nowhere in the present).

If the idea has objective existence, where does this idea exist? Platonic heaven? That seems to entail an unparsimonious ontology.

Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. — AmadeusD

So true. Campaigns are about "messaging", consisting of (distorted) narratives, and "defining" themselves (in an appealing way) and the opponent (in a negative way). It's show business.

I sometimes watch a daily show/zoom-call on youtube called "2-way". Mark Halperin hosts, and he usually has both a Democratic and Republican campaign strategist (Sean Spicer is on there frequently) with him. They evaluate the previous day's campaign action like a sports talk-show: what's working and not working, and opining about what each campaign should be doing. It helps give me perspective on the game that it is.

Does a thin particular exist? If so, it is an SOA. — Metaphysician Undercover

Non sequiter. Consider that "-1" electric charge exists, but it doesn't exist as an independent entity. It exists only in states of affairs, like electrons. The same is true for a thin particular: it exists, but only as a constituent in a SOA.

If it is not further decomposable it is not an SOA, therefore not something which exists in the world, — Metaphysician Undercover

Another non-sequitur. I haven't actually described the way lower order states of affairs form into higher order (more complex) states of affairs. Lets's stick with the lowest order: the atomic states of affairs. They are the simplest possible objects that exist in the world. They are not decomposible.

The wave is not an entity though. By accepted theories, there is no medium (ether), therefore no real wave, just particles without any location, and a mathematical abstraction (wave function) which describes the particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

In his book, "Quanta and Fields", Sean Carroll says, "the wave function is how we describe reality...According to our current best understanding, quantum fields are the bare stuff of reality....For a field, locality means that how it evolves at any one point in spacetime only depends on the value of that field and other fields at that same point, as well as the immediate neighborhood of that point."

Do you accept this description?

So, how does Armstrong avoid the infinite regress I referred to? A particular (SOA) is made up of thin particulars. A thin particular, having intrinsic properties, is made up of thinner particulars. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not correct. Thin particulars do not have properties. Rather, a "thin particular" is a constituent of a state of affairs. Everything that exists in the world(as opposed to mental abstractions) is a SOA. Every SOA has 3 constituents (thin particular, a set of intrinsic properties, a set of relations).

Thin particulars are not composed of thinner particulars. Refer back to the mental exercise of conceptualizing the term: ignore the properties and relations and consider what remains. What remains is not further decomposable.

I suppose it may be a matter of interpretation, but according to The Copenhagen Interpretation, quantum mechanics is indeterministic, meaning that elementary particles have no determinable location — Metaphysician Undercover

That doesn't imply particles don't have a location. That article links to an article on complementarity:
"The complementarity principle holds that certain pairs of complementary properties cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously. For example, position and momentum..."
A position could theoretically be measured to any degree of precision, but this would result in increasingly less certainty about its momentum (and vice versa). Position and location aren't be independent properties. In terms of an SOA, the property would correspond to the wave function that described the relationship between position and momentum.

A "quantum field" does not represent particulars with intrinsic and extrinsic properties, it represent probabilities of particulars. — Metaphysician Undercover

The probabilities are a consequence of a wave function. The wave itself is an entity that actually exists at every point in space:

"a quantum field isn’t only present where you have a source (like a mass or a charge), but rather is omnipresent: everywhere....
...“empty space” as we understand it, with no charges, masses, or other sources of the field in it, isn’t exactly empty, but still has these quantum fields present within it." -- source

So fundamentally, each quantum field is a SOA (a particular). But it's impractical to analyze (say) the quark field as a whole, encompassing all of space.

The purpose of a metaphysical model is not to replace, or guide, physics. Rather, it is a framework that needs to be consistent with physics.

This doesn't make sense, because you said an SOA is made of (thin) particulars, their intrinsic properties and their extrinsic properties. Now you say that I have to subtract those properties to understand what a thin particular is. A particular without any intrinsic or extrinsic properties is not a particular at all, nor is it a constituent of an SOA, which is made up of thin particulars which have intrinsic and extrinsic properties. It's not a real thing. So your description makes no sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was trying to clear up your confusion about what a "true particular" (your term) is, and how a SOA could both BE a particular, and yet have a (thin) particular as a constituent in a SOA.

You said, "A particular without any intrinsic or extrinsic properties is not a particular at all,..." This is true, and it's because in the real world, particulars necessarily have properties and relations (per this metaphysical theory).

But it's also part of.this theory that a particular (i.e. an SOA) has 3 types of constuents: thin particular, intrinsic properties, and relations (AKA extrinsic properties). None of these constituents exist in the real world independently of the others.

For example "-1 electric charge" exists as a property of electrons (and other objects) but it ONLY exists as "attached to" some such objects as electrons. We can nevertheless conceptualize about the property" -1 electric charge" through our mental powers of abstraction.

Similarly, I described how you could conceptualize about a "thin particular" - analogous to how we can conceptualize about a property: in both cases, we just mentally ignore the other constituents. A thin particular doesn't exist in the world independent of a complete SOA just as a "-1 charge" doesn't exist independently in the real world

The reason Armstrong defines a SOA as including a "thin particular" as a constituent is because the alternative would be to have objects that are nothing more than a bundle of 1 or more properties. This would imply "-1 electric charge" could exist as a real-world entity, unattatched to anything, located in spacetime. (Alternative metaphysical theories treat properties as particulars; Armstrong's does not).

But quantum physics shows that elementary particles do not exist at any specific spatio-temporal coordinates. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that's true. Can you point me at a source that says this?

The SOA model could be applied to quantum fields, directly. Each field exists at every point in space, so each point could be treated as an SOA.

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

It seems to me, the same thing applies to the Christian conception of heaven.