It's a philosophical claim in support of idealism. It is developed in more detail in The Mind-Created World OP and its linked essay. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I'll read it, and respond in that thread.

The review suggests that she doesn't actually make a case for God's existence.
— Relativist

Curious, then, that the title of the book is The Case for God. — Wayfarer

I read some addition reviews. This one says, "Armstrong is not presenting a case for God in the sense most people in our idolatrous world would think of it...Armstrong promises that her kinds of [religious] practice will make us better, wiser, more forgiving, loving, courageous, selfless, hopeful and just. Who can be against that?"

So I surmise that she is making a case for religious practice, or having God in one's life, not an intellectual basis for establishing the alleged fact of God's existence. If you've read the book and see something these reviewers missed, please identify it.

Sure, but that doesn't refute the objectivist claim that at a fundamental level, the objects of scientific analysis are 'just so', independently of any knowledge of them. They are not, in that sense, truly mind-independent. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by"refute"? Do you simply mean the objectivist claim hasn't been proven logically impossible? That would be an unreasonable standard. A better question is: how does an objectivist justify believing what they do?

What we believe ought to be based on evidence and reasoning. So what's the basis for claiming the world is actually mind-dependent? Then we can analyze whether that is a rational belief.

Notice the common thread in all these titles. It says something serious about the limitations of objective science and the conundrums that modern physics throw up. And I don't think Armstrong's style of objectivist materialism has the resources to deal with that. — Wayfarer

It's perfectly reasonable to believe there are aspects of reality we will never figure out, and it's also true that a metaphysical theory can never be verified, but it could be falsified if there's some known aspect of the world that is incompatible with the metaphysical theory.

So...is there something incompatible with Armstorong's theory? If so, then what is it?

...just because we don't understand everything about the way the natural world works does not imply there is something unnatural at play in the world. To argue that would be an argument from ignorance.
— Relativist

No, it's an argument from epistemic humility. — Wayfarer

Are you suggesting remaining agnostic to the existence of the unnatural? What is a reasonable attitude toward something that is merely logically possible?

It is an established fact that the forebrain of h.sapiens evolved explosively ...My claim is that due to this, h.sapiens crossed an evolutionary threshhold that cannot be explained purely in terms of biological theory... — Wayfarer

I don't see how you could justify such a claim. It's true that a retrospective analysis of our evolutionary history tracks with increasing brain size. I imagine the evolutionary history of giraffes tracks increasing neck size. But how can you evaluate how long a feature should take to evolve? Evolution proceeds through such things as genetic mutations, genetic diversity within the populations, changing environmental pressures, population size, and gene flow between populations - all of which would influence the time for adaptive change. We don't have data about these factors to form the basis of a fair judgement. So, again, I see no basis to claim the evolutionary sequence was too fast or "explosive" to be due to natural processes.

I get it, that to a committed theist, God's involvement is always a live possibility - but how can one apply this, in practice, without getting in the way of actual scientific advance? Couldn't God be sufficiently clever to simply get the ball rolling when he created the universe, without needing to intervene along the way? Did he also kill the dinosaurs, who's continued existence would have changed the subsequent paths evolution took? I suggest that the most intellectually honest position to take is to simply assume God is responsible for everything, but in unknown ways- rather than inserting him as the answer to any scientific unknown.

The book I referred to was by Karen Armstrong, published around 2009. To give you an idea, here's a review by philosopher Alain de Botton, and also an OP by Armstrong, Should We Believe in Belief? — Wayfarer

Thanks. The review suggests that she doesn't actually make a case for God's existence. Instead, she criticizes religious fundamentalist and polemical atheists. Good for her. I agree with both sets of criticisms.

↪Relativist

Spontaneous generation" connotes coming into existence after a time at which it did not exist. Rather, an initial state just entails existing uncaused, with no point of time at which it does not exist.

No it doesn't, per your own explanation. There is a state before which there are no prior states. Call it S1. Now you claim that some thing or things had an S1 for no reason at all. They existed in S1 having not existed in any prior states. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This doesn't undercut anything I said.

Now, why can't anything else have an S1, starting to exist when it has existed in no prior state, for "no reason at all?"

The state of affairs didn't "start to exist", because it exists at all points of time. Rather, time begins as the state evolves.

You are trying to read some prior time before S1 back in, which is a strawman. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I'm not. Time begins; the foundation of reality does not begin.

I'll try to make this clearer. I'll assign a label to whatever exists at S1: F (standing for the foundation of existence).

F can have failed to exist only if it exists contingently. But F is contingent IFF there exists something to account for it being contingent. If F were the product of quantum indeterminacy, it would be contingent: F could have failed to obtain, while an alternative F' obtained instead. But this can't be, in our case, because quantum indeterminacy entails a quantum system existing prior to the indeterminate outcome. Nothing precedes F.

F could be a quantum system, such that what follows is the product of quantum indeterminacy. In that case, what follows from F is contingent (F accounts for what follows), but F itself is not contingent.

Let's consider contingency more broadly. Here's a general approach to accounting for contingency*:

x is contingent IFF there exists A, which accounts for x, and A can also account for ~x.

IOW: A accounts for (x or ~x).

But F is uncaused, so there is nothing that accounts for its existence. Therefore there can be no A that accounts for (F or ~F).

You seem to be conflating conceptual possibility with metaphysical possibility: you can conceive of F', so you erroneously assume F' is metaphysically possible. This ignores the need to account for contingency.

Anyhow, you have entirely ignored the question of why any certain thing should begin to exist in S1 rather than any other. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've answered that now. F did not begin to exist, and F does not exist contingently.

This seems to me like a God of the Gaps solve it all to be honest.

Then you haven't followed.

"God of the gaps" is a form of argument from ignorance. I've made no such argument. My position is consistent with both deism and naturalism, and it follows logically from the premises I stated as axioms (first principles). Your error seem to be: 1) conflating conceivability with metaphysical possibility, and 2) ignoring the stated need to account for contingency. I hope I've sufficiently clarified these points.

You can reject the metaphysical axioms I've stated: I haven't claimed they are logically necessary. But I do think they are a better explanation than the alternatives, and I think I've shown that. We can discuss that further, once you accept the coherence of the framework I've stated.

------------------
* I've tried to convey my view of contingency in my own words, as clearly as I can - but if it's still unclear - here's an alternative description, taken directly from Amy Karofsky's book, A Case for Necessitarianism:

"A theory of contingency offers a metaphysical explanation for ways things could have been and for the possibility that some actual thing might have been otherwise than it is by explaining why an entity is such as it is rather than not. Such a metaphysical explanation of contingency describes: that in virtue of which a contingent entity could have failed to have existed (obtained, held, happened, etc.); what it is that provides for the possibility that an entity could have been otherwise than what it is; and that which accounts for the ways in which an entity could—and the ways it could not—have been different.

"Metaphysical explanation is often tied to the concept of grounding. Kit Fine explains that “philosophy is often interested in questions of explanation—of what accounts for what—and it is largely through the employment of the notion of ontological ground that such questions are to be pursued.”… Thus, a metaphysical explanation for a contingent entity provides the reason why the contingency is such as it is, rather than not, by pointing to an ontologically prior entity that is that in virtue of which the contingency could have been otherwise.”

Suppose C is an existing object or past actual event. If C is contingent, this means ~C is a non-actual possibility. What makes ~C truly possible? How do we (metaphysically) account for a non-actual possibility? Here’s how: suppose E is the metaphysical explanation for C. If C is contingent, then E must account for this contingency. So E explains: C & possibly(~C).

Suppose B is a brute fact, meaning that it exists for no reason and therefore lacks any further ontological grounding. B exists, and (trivially) B is therefore possible. But is B necessary or contingent? Contingency implies ~B is possible. But B doesn’t fit the above: there is no explanation for B, and thus no explanation for B & possibly(~B). So if a brute fact exists, it exists out of metaphysical necessity because there’s no ontological basis that accounts for possibly(~B).
.

My point is that the set of properties that emerge are objectively present — Relativist


And mine was that they're not objective until they're measured. And even then, there are experiments which indicate that those measurements will vary for different observers, which again throws their objective status into question. — Wayfarer

That's not entirely true. Consider position and momentum: it is not that they lack a value at all, it is that the they don't have a precise value. Position and momentum are examples of complementary variables. There is a distribution of possible values that the pair will have when a measurement occurs. This distribution constitutes objective information about these particles, and it hints at something weird about fundamental reality that is beyond what we'd expect from our ordinary perspective. My contention is that our perceptions provide a reflection of objective reality, not identical to it, but we can have success at uncovering additional objective truths about reality.

Also, consider that quarks and antiquarks have a color charge, while leptons and antileptons do not have a color charge. Even if the value of the color charge is a complement of another property, it's still an objective fact that color charge is a property that that quarks have, but leptons do not. It's also an objective fact that everything in existence is composed of the elementary particles identified in the standard model (I'm setting aside the fact that the standard model may not be complete, and that it may not actually be the most fundamental basis of reality. I embrace the spirit of structural realism, so that the standard model points to something objectively true about reality, even if not completely accurate).

As we ourselves understand logic, we are able to create systems that perform logical operations. But that doesn't mean that the mechanistic analogies for organism or natural thought, such as those often entertained by materialism, provide an account of the nature of logic. Materialists never tire of telling us that the Universe is devoid of logic and that everything we see is a consequence of the undirected physical 'laws of nature'. So how an organism (if that is indeed what we are) which is purportedly a product of those same undirected forces can come to some degree of understanding the Universe is rather a mystery, isn't it? — Wayfarer

Of course there's more about reality than we truly understand at this time, and I believe it likely that there are aspects of reality that we will never understand. But just because we don't understand everything about the way the natural world works does not imply there is something unnatural at play in the world. To argue that would be an argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance can be corrected by recasting as an abductive case, arguing that the chosen hypothesis is a better explanation than alternatives. But it seems to me that any non-physical account will be at a clear disadvantage, because it will depend on ad hoc assumptions that raise more questions than answered.

What seems more likely?: 1) that intelligent minds would gradually develop in isolated instances (as few as once), somewhere in a vast universe that's evolved in a myriad of ways over the billions of years of its existence, or 2) that an intelligent mind (with a vast store of magical knowledge that just happens to exist without cause) would just happen to exist by brute fact?

I haven't seen a case for the latter, whereas the former is consistent with statistical entropy.

Right. And practically every other species apart from h.sapiens has survived, often for hundreds of millions of years (such as crocodiles) with no capacity for logic whatever. And trying to account for reason in terms of evolutionary theory reduces reason to an adaptation serving the purposes of survival. But if that is what it is, why do we place trust in reason? — Wayfarer

It's not true that homo sapiens are the only organisms that think logically. At its core, logical reasoning entails remembering cause-effect relationships. Many animals exhibit behavior that entails multiple steps to achieve an objective. This is basic logical thinking. Humans differ from most by the fact that they have language and a more fully developed ability to think abstractly, but it's aligned with such behavior.

Why trust reason? Because we each intrinsically trust our sensory perceptions and the inherent reasoning we are born with. Were it not effective, we would not have survived.

I've pointed out a number of times that it's not clear that the 'laws of nature' are themselves physical. We never observe the laws, but only predictable outcomes which indicate that they exist. Physics can be carried out without reference to such laws, which is instrumentalism or pragmatism. Some have used abductive reasoning as evidence for a higher intelligence. So the point is, the existence of laws is not evidence for physicalism. — Wayfarer

The existence of laws of nature can't be deductively proven, but their existence seems the best explanation for what we observe. We could test that if you'd care to offer an alternative.

The existence of laws IS evidence for physicalism, in the general sense. I think you mean that the existence of laws does not entail physicalism, which is true. However, abductive reasoning entails determining the best explanation for a set of facts - the set of facts are "evidence" for any of the proferred explanations. Explanatory scope is one aspect of abductive reasoning, and it entails explaining more facts, so all facts are potentially relevant - they are evidence.

I say that Armstrong's type of philosophy is hanging on to the remnants of the Christian belief in divinely-ordered nature, sans God, which was replaced with the scientist. — Wayfarer

It's not "hanging on" for the sake of hanging on. It wouldn't make sense to deny the existence of laws of nature just because past natural philosophers identified them as laws ordained by God. Alchemists also got some things right. Human endeavors, including science and philosophy, advance by building on - and correcting- past achievements, not by starting afresh.

Regarding a case for God, I'd be interested in hearing more. I've examined traditional arguments for God, and found none of them at all compelling. They invariably depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions (which seem carefully contrived), and often make the unjustified assumption that magical knowledge is plausible (i.e. knowing things without developing the knowledge, and having this knowledge exist without being encoded - it's just there).Perhaps worse, none of them make a case for a God of religion. Even if sound, they only make a case for deism- a potentially indifferent creator.

First of all, it is incorrect to suggest that an initial state entails "spontaneous generation". "Spontaneous generation" connotes coming into existence after a time at which it did not exist. Rather, an initial state just entails existing uncaused, with no point of time at which it does not exist.

The initial state of reality necessarily exists uncaused, because causes temporally precede their effects*, and it is logically impossible to temporally precede an initial point of time.

Could this brute fact of an initial state be contingent? No, and here's why.

Classical (non-quantum) physics entails strict determinism: a specific type of cause will necessarily produce a specific effect. If all laws of nature were of this sort, there would be no contingent things in the universe.

Contingency in the universe arises only with quantum systems when the wave-function collapses (i.e. quantum indeterminacy). This is the only known source of contingency in the world. The initial state of the universe is not temporally preceded by a quantum system that collapses, hence there is no source of contingency for the initial state. Therefore it exists out of necessity. This is not strict logical necessity; it is metaphysical necessity because it is the logical consequence of the metaphysical principle that contingency requires a source of contingency*.

If there is a divine creator, the initial state of reality consists solely of this divine creator, existing uncaused, and with no temporally prior state. Therefore it exists as a necessary brute fact (brute fact, because there's no explanation for the specific, actual creator existing rather than not). This creator is a source of contingency for whatever it creates, and it implies everything, other than itself, exists contingently (at the will of this creator).

If there is no divine creator, then there is no source of contingency for the universe, so the universe (the totality of reality) itself exists out of metaphysical necessity. So my analysis doesn't preclude a divine creator, but it clearly shows that a creator is not entailed. It simply implies that something exists uncaused, and that its existence is metaphysically necessary.
---------------------
* Notice that I have stipulated two metaphysical axioms:

1) causation is temporal (causes temporally precede effects). This is not an arbitrary first principle, it is consistent with everything we know about reality.
2) Contingency requires a source of contingency. Also not arbitrary: the only known contingency in the world is a consequence of quantum indeterminacy.

The many-worlds interpretation of QM entails no contingency at all: all possible outcomes of a (seemingly) indeterminate quantum effect are actualized. It could entail an initial state of a quantum system, that is comprised of a multitude of eigenstates- each of which evolves into a "universe" (a system of stars, galaxies, etc), causally isolated from each other, except they share a common initial, quantum state.

The properties of particles are not defined until they are measured. That is the central philosophical problem of modern physics. — Wayfarer

My point is that the set of properties that emerge are objectively present, as is the fact that they emerge when measured, and that the set of measureable properties is unique to each type of elementary particle. This isn't a matter of phenomenology giving us a questionable view of objective reality- which is what I was addressing.

Computers don’t come into existence de novo. They are artefacts built by humans according to human aims and purposes. In other words, whatever purposes they pursue are extrinsic. — Wayfarer

My point is that there's nothing about the application of logic that is inconsistent with physical mechanism, so the mere fact that we can apply logic doesn't falsify physicalism. How we evolved the capacity to do this is a different matter and a different discussion.

I don't think physicalism can explain how semantic properties emerge from, or are identical to, these physical states without appealing to, or assuming, non-physicalist explanations of meaning. — Wayfarer

We interact with the world to survive. Successful interaction is dependent on our pattern-recognition capacity which enables us to distinguish types of objects and activities. We also have the physical capacity to make and hear various sounds also fitting recognizable patterns. Relating a recognizable sound (a word) to a type of object or activity doesn't seem at all problematic. The word then "means" the object or activity.

What is that 'something ontological', and how can it be described as physical, when it's not described by physics? — Wayfarer

A universal exists immanently- in its instantiations, so the "something ontological" is the instantiations of a law of nature.

I may have made Armstrong's metaphysics sound more detached from physics than it really is. A law of physics that is actually identical to a true law of nature, has no detachment at all. I was simply trying to convey that the metaphysics is not dependent on the current state of physics, which is never 100% correct.

But, he says, this assumption of natural order is itself a metaphysical commitment, one that exceeds the bounds of empiricism — Wayfarer

I disagree that this exceeds the bounds of empiricism. Empiricism in science leads to theories, established by abductive reasoning. By extension, we can abductively conclude there are laws of nature, on the basis that this best explains the success of science.

I agree, no definition of "individual human being" works to make a public policy based on that definition, because its fuzzy and no one agrees on the less fuzzy parts even. But if we were to all agree that abortion would remain legal forever, even up to the moment of birth, carve the law in stone and make it a constitutional amendment, is anyone still interested in being a philosopher and answering the question of when my life or his life or her life actually begins? Just for curiosity sake? Anyone?

Seems just weird for someone to say he didn't always exist (which he didn't) but that he won't even conjecture on which point or time period in history when he'd have to say he started existing. — Fire Ologist

You acknowledge the concept is fuzzy, and yet you think it should be possible to identify a point at which a human life begins.

Consider another fuzzy concept (with no pun intended): having a beard vs being clean-shaven. What's the point at which whisker growth constitutes a beard? Even after shaving there are follicles present. Shall we say, 1mm of growth? 1cm? Any point we identify is arbitrary.

A human life is something that gradually emerges, similarly a beard gradually emerges. There is no objective point of demarcation. That's what it means to be a fuzzy concept. Fuzzy doesn't mean it's a mystery to be solved- it means there is no fact of the matter that determines a boundary.

Here's an article that discusses the problem of vague concepts, which is exactly what I'm referring to.

We could figure out exceptions to the rule. But we need a rule first. Is anything a human being? — Fire Ologist

Exceptions demonstrate the problem with a rule. Suppose we establish the rule (as a law) that a 6-month fetus is a human being. There are instances where the carrying to term of a (damaged) 6-month fetus will kill the mother. The rule would necessitate killing the mother.

No rule, no definition of "individual human being" can work universally because "individual human being" is fundamentally a fuzzy concept. Any definition will have exceptions - and that was the point I was trying to make. Establishing a definition in the law (if that's what you're after) is therefore pointless. Rather, the law ought to be based on the reality that it IS a fuzzy concept. This permits individuals to make their own decisions in their own circumstances.

I think some religious people think that the reason human beings are valuable is because they have a soul, and souls come from God at conception. Great. Wonderful for them. But there is nothing to argue about there, nothing to talk about, nothing to measure and no explanatory power. — Fire Ologist

Actually, there is indeed something important to argue about: public policy. It is understandable that the sort of religious person you described would want to stop people from killing zygotes, and there's no reason why they can't try to influence public policy.

Regarding the core matter that we're discussing, I'd just say that "individual human being" is a fuzzy concept, so there is no objectively correct answer as to when a developing entity is a full-fledged human being.

When I saw you quoting someone saying that a "human has a head...", I thought of Abby and Brittany Hensel, conjoined twins that share a single body (one torso, one set of arms and legs)- so (by every definition I've seen) they comprise a single organism , but it wouldn't make sense to treat them as a single person.

My argument is everything is arbitrary after you have a living organism with 46 chromosomes. — Fire Ologist

Even that doesn't work. People with Klinefelter syndrome have 47 chromosomes, and there is also a condition where a person has 48 chromosomes.

You also haven't addressed my evidence that thsoe who have the latter NDEs don't really believe in them. — Clearbury

I don't think that follows. We have a natural inclination to keep on living, so this could get in the way of suicide. In addition, those who are religious may also believe that suicide would "kill" their chances of a happy afterlife. So I can accept that at least some of the people who've had these vivid dreams, in circumstances in which they are near death, actually believe these illusions are real.

The unique vividness of a near-death dream may be related to "terminal lucidity" that Alzheimer's often experience as they near death. In their case, it is a sudden, brief burst of lucidity as they near death. The physical changes that take place in a brain nearing death cause both.

I think the only thing that a physicalist framework struggles with is theory of mind. — Relativist


I think its failure on that score is beyond reasonable doubt. The crux of that issue is logic itself, reason itself. I don't see how can there be any plausible physicalist account of the nature of reason, which inheres in the relationship of ideas, 'if-then' statements. — Wayfarer

Logic is semantics, and entails meaningful relations between statements. Computers demonstrate that logic can be mechanized, so I don't understand what you see as a problem.

If physicists can't unequivocally demonstrate which interpretation is true, then certainly a philosopher isn't well-positioned to figure it out for them — Relativist


Nor can philosophers then appeal to physics in support of what they describe as 'physicalism'. And if their physicalism is not supported by physics, then why does it deserve that designation. — Wayfarer

What's the problem with the way Armstrong appeals to physics? (i.e. the basis for believing there exist laws of nature).

Your objection was based on interpretations of QM - and an interpretation isn't really physics, it's metaphysics - ontology. It would be physics if it were testable and falsifiable, but by all accounts I've seen, it is neither.

The proffering up of brute fact claims strikes me as primarily a manifestation of the inability to acknowledge mystery. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think that's the case for my claim, because I argue that reality there is a brute fact by logical necessity. Here's my reasoning:

If (1) each temporal state of the universe was caused by the temporally prior states, AND (2) the past is finite, then there is necessarily an initial, uncaused state that exists by brute fact. (A metaphysically necessary brute fact, not a contingent one).

Where's the flaw in this reasoning? How can there be a reason for an initial state? The desire for a reason is not grounds for believing there is necessarily a reason.

↪Relativist


Yes. If they [laws of nature] weren't [natural], then all forms of naturalism would be false.


I am not sure of this. The Physics, from which we get the term "nature" and other early forms of naturalism focus on "things acting the way they do because of what they are, i.e. because of their 'nature.'" So there are no extrinsic laws governing things and their behaviors, there is merely the natures of beings, — Count Timothy von Icarus

I defined "laws of nature" as extrinsic relations between universals, but intrinsic to the natural world. It indeed entails "things acting the way they do because of what they are". If there were unnatural laws of nature, then it would mean there exists something unnatural - thus falsifying naturalism.

Representationalism wed to physicalism makes it such that phenomenal awareness is mere appearance, whereas reality is the "objective," requiring a "view from nowhere." — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Mere appearance"? I'll grant that our perceptions don't necessarily reveal the world exactly as it is, but I'd argue that they do present us with a reflection of reality. It also appears to me that we are indeed able to discern many aspects of reality, both directly through our senses, and indirectly through scientific investigation. How we discern and describe this is intellectually and semantically grounded in our own nature (this is inescapable), but that doesn't make it either invalid or untrue. If you are suggesting objective reality is completely indiscernible to us if physicalism is true, I don't agree. If you mean something else, then please elucidate.

Regarding a "view from nowhere": the best available description of the fundamental layer of material reality is the standard model of particle physics. Objects are made of these particles, and each particle has a well-defined set of properties. The existence of these particles were deduced, not perceived by the faculties of our "phenomenal awareness", but over time - their existence has been confirmed through measurements in particle accelerators. So tell me in what sense is this NOT objective reality.

And third, if Armstrong’s metaphysics is founded on the idea of scientific laws as real and necessary features of the world, then one would expect it to appeal to scientifically established theories. — Wayfarer

Armstrong appeals to scientifically established theory as justification for his hypothesis that there are actually laws of nature, and he does agree that it is in science's court to determine what the laws are, but science makes mistakes - the laws of textbook physics may very well change over time. Let's assume General Relativity is 100% true - if so, it is a law of nature that was also true during Newton's time. The same thing could happen with other laws of textbook physics - so if his system were tied to current physics, his metaphysics would be falsified as soon some current law is falsified.

Sure, Armstrong's physicalist metaphysics could be wrong (perhaps the mind isn't physical, or perhaps there are no actual laws of nature), but the same is true of any metaphysical system that has been, or ever will be, proposed. My primary points are that his system appears to me to be the best physicalist system available, and that consequently, when we're discussing physicalism (as some of us have done in this thread) - it's appropriate to bring up his system. I believe it's coherent and that it accounts for most things in the world quite well.

You wonder why, then, Schrödinger published his notorious thought-experiment on the not-dead-or-alive cat. He sought to illustrate the fundamental indeterminacy that characterises the so-called 'fundamental particles' of physics by providing a hypothetical example of their absurd implications were they to manifest on the level of everyday experience. The fact that the equation is accurate is not at issue, as it is firmly established that the accuracy of the predictions of quantum mechanics exceeds anything previously discovered in history. It's what they say, or don't say, about the so-called fundamental constituents of reality that is the philosophical point at issue. In other words, it's the ontological implications that are at issue, not the practical effectiveness. The fact that Armstrong can blithely wave these away says something about his theories, in my view. — Wayfarer

Each interpretation of quantum mechanics corresponds to a hypothesis about the an important aspect of reality. It's interesting to discuss these, and their implications (as did Schroedinger), but I don't see any reason to hold this against Armstrong. If physicists can't unequivocally demonstrate which interpretation is true, then certainly a philosopher isn't well-positioned to figure it out for them. So I really don't understand why you'd hold this against him. If one were to embrace his more generalized theory, it wouldn't preclude augmenting it with his favorite ontological basis for QM.

I'm not completely committed to Armstrong's theory, and I also don't think anyone ought to commit to any particular theory - because they are untestable. But in my opinion, physicalism is an appropriate starting point - because it's pretty clear that the physical world actually exists, and I also agree with Armstrong, Tooley, and Sosa that there are laws of nature in the world and these are a better account of causality than the alternatives I'm aware of.

I think the only thing that a physicalist framework struggles with is theory of mind. The struggles don't seem fatal. Non-physical theories of mind also have issues. But as far as I'm concerned, this is the area where the most interesting discussions are.

I would disagree about which work is Armstrong's magnum opus. His life's work was his comprehensive metaphysical system, so I'd vote for "Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics", which outlines his comprehensive system, as does his earlier "A World of States of Affairs". Both of these books subsume his theory of mind and most of his other various writings. It's rare for a philosopher to be as comprehensive as he was.

The system is so fundamentally broken that it needs to collapse so that all can examine the individual pieces, throw away the bad and rebuild with the working parts. — Christoffer

If our society collapsed, I doubt the population would be any better at examining and judging the individual pieces than they are at choosing leaders today. I'd expect that the situation would be more likely than ever to search for simple solutions to the complex problems.

Having one of the speakers of the MSG rally held last night joke that Puerto Rico is garbage is going to piss off people on both sides of the political divide. The campaign seems to have forgotten where the hell they were. — Paine

Maybe, but they don't call him "Teflon Don" for no reason.

Some of Trump's supporters agree with the sentiment that Puerto Rico is garbage (they were the one's fired up by Trump's assertions that immigrants are "poisoning our blood"). This fires them up. These are the "deplorables" that Hillary correctly mentioned (although her math was wrong; it's probably less than half). Others will simply point to the fact that it wasn't Trump himself who made the "garbage" statement, and his campaign disavowed it. But maybe it will turn off some who are on the fence. We'll know next week.

They can't vote in general estados unidos elections, — javi2541997

Puerto Ricans who have moved to one of the fifty states can vote. 8% of the population of Pennsylvania is Puerto Rican. Pennsylvania is a must-win state for Harris, so maybe this will help.

I agree with a much of what you say. The populace is to blame because they elect the leaders, and the populace is (by and large) ill-informed and easily misled. I don't agree that a total collapse of the nations is either needed or is likely. What is needed is better education.

Trump is an opportunist, and the opportunity he takes advantage of is the disconnect between detailed policy and political rhetoric. Candidates can't win an election by presenting detailed policies; they need to dumb it down into slogans and soundbites. So the vast majority makes their decision on these soundbites, not by carefully examining the pros/cons of competing detailed policy positions. In many cases with Trump, he just has the soundbites that appeal to many - with little or no details.

If Trump is elected, I expect he will endeavor to do everything he promises. And there will be both positive and negative consequences. This will be a learning opportunity for the American public.

But if they're not the laws described by physics, then in what sense are those relations physical? — Wayfarer

I'll try to explain with an example.

Consider two specific electrons in close proximity. They each have a -1 electric charge, which results in there existing a repulsive force between them. This force is a physical relation between these two specfic electrons.

The electron is a universal- all individual electrons have the exact same set of intrinsic properties. Similarly, any pair of electrons in the same proximity to each other will necessarily have the exact same repulsive force between them - the physical relation. This is what it means to be a law (under Armstrong's account): the physical relation necessarily exists in the instantiations of the universals. He describes this as a relation between the universal: electron-electron.

I question that declaring everything to be physical, without any reference to physics itself, is even meaningful. — Wayfarer

What Armstrong is doing is acknowledging a distinction between the actual laws of nature and the academic discipline of physics. Physicists endeavors to uncover laws of nature, and is likely correct in many cases, but ontology is not dependent on them getting everything exactly correct. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation seemed to be a law of nature for quite a long time, but in fact - it had an error, one that was corrected by Einstein's theory. The law of nature didn't change, but the law of physics did change.

But that is not true. Scientific realists, including Sir Roger Penrose and Albert Einstein, both criticize quantum physics precisely on the grounds that they provide no description of specification of what the 'state of affairs' of a quantum system is, prior to it being measured. This is why they both insist that quantum physics must be in some sense incomplete. Yet it has withstood every test that has been set for it. (I've published a Medium essay on this topic.) — Wayfarer

The state of affairs of a quantum system is perfectly describable as a Schroedinger equation. In that respect, the quantum system evolves in a strictly deterministic way over time. A state of affairs exists at each temporal point of its evolution, and a relation exists between any two such temporal points. This is the case under all interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Where so-called indeterminism comes in is when we consider interactions between a quantum system and the classical world. An interaction results in a physical collapse of the wave function. Repeated measurements (each measurement is such an interaction) will produce a range of results corresponding to a probability distribution. Armstrong describes this as "probabilistic determinism": the "law" results in an interaction measurement that fits this probability distribution. So Armstrong's model fits.

It could be that the world is strictly deterministic. One way it could be strictly deterministic is if the actual world is a quantum system and so-called interactions result in "world-branching" such that all possibilities are actualized (a "many worlds interpretation"). Not a problem for Armstrong. It could be deterministic is if there is a "pilot wave" of the universe, or if there are othewise some remote, hidden variables that results in a specific outcome when the wave function collapses. Again, none are a problem for Armstrong's model.

There are many interpretations of QM, and a scientific realist could embrace any specific interpretation based on their own analyses of the physics, and they could still account for it in Armstrong's model. Armstrong is careful to avoid making scientific judgements, while also endeavoring to fit everything we do know about the physics.

When Armstrong refers to "laws of nature", he's not pointing to scientific theories and equations in textbooks. He's referring to something ontological. Physics may approximate the law, or describe it in terms meaningful to us, but those descriptions and equations are not the law. The law is the physical relations that exist between (or among) types of things (a type of thing is a universal).

So when I said that laws of nature are necessarily natural, if naturalism is true, I was specifically referring to laws as something ontological, not descriptive.

Furthermore appealing to the entities of sub-atomic physics presents difficulties for Armstrong's style of physicalism. — Wayfarer

No, it doesn't. The standard model of particles physics is trivially consistent with his "states of affairs". The essential element of his ontology is that every thing that exists is a state of affairs (a particular with its attached properties and relations). Even quantum fields, or strings, fit this framework.

. I don't know if Armstrong ever touches on the thorny question of interpretation in quantum physics, but I'm not sure it would support his overall approach. — Wayfarer

He's agnostic to interpretations of QM, but I doubt there's an interpretation that isn't consistent with his model. Armstrong defers such matters to physicists.

observing subjects" are only 'objects' to other observing subjects who, it is hoped, will be sufficiently perceptive to recognise them as subjects, rather than regarding them as objects. — Wayfarer

From an Armstrong perspective, this is semantics, not ontology.

Ha! Isn't 'the observing subject who stipulates the axioms upon which it rests' another brute fact? — Tom Storm

No, because "observing subjects" are objects that exist as a consequence of the way the world is and the specific history that it has.

This just strikes me as mapping the common presuppositions of physicalism onto "what a complete metaphysical theory should be." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course. But What's wrong with that?

It seems to presuppose the subject - object dualism that a great deal of 20th and 21st century explicitly targets as the cardinal sin of early modern philosophy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What makes you think that? I'm referring to David Armstrong's ontology- which accounts for everything that (unarguaby) objectively exists.

Such a definition surely defines subjective idealism out of contention from the get-go, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes and no. Subjective idealism is not consistent with physicalism, and vice versa. What is in contention are complete metaphysical systems, and we can each judge which system a a better, or more compelling, description of reality.

But of course, probably the number one critique of (mainstream representationalist) physicalism is precisely that it axiomatically assumes an unresolvable dualism that makes skepticism insurmountable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Please elaborate. I don't see how any sort of dualism fits into physicalism.

Are laws of nature natural? They’re never actually observed, only their effects can be discerned by measurement and observation. But the question why nature is lawful or what natural laws comprise, is not itself a question that naturalism has answers for. Naturalism assumes an order in nature, but it doesn’t explain it, nor does it need to explain it. That, I suppose, is what you’re getting at by saying that the existence of the world is ‘brute fact’ - which effectively forecloses any attempt to understand why things are the way they are, whether they are as they seem, and so on. — Wayfarer

I am representing David Armstrong's metaphysics, which I believe is the most comprehensive physicalist metaphysics out there.

"Are laws of nature natural? "
Yes. If they weren't, then all forms of naturalism would be false.

"Naturalism assumes an order in nature, but it doesn’t explain it, nor does it need to explain it."
The order in nature needs to be accounted for- and this theory does account for them: as relations between universals*. This portion of the theory is called "law realism" (Law realism was independently proposed by Armstrong, Tooley, and Sosa). Universals*, and the relations between them, are indeed part of the physical world. This as axiomatic to Armstrong's metaphysical system, but it's
(arguably) the best explanation for what we observe and measure.

"Why is nature lawful?" That's easy: it's because laws of nature exist, and a law is a necessitation (i.e. an effect follows necessarily, not contingently). If you're asking, "why do laws of nature exist?" It's brute fact that they exist: it happens to be the way the world is.
----------
* A universal is anything that exists in multiple instantiations. Examples: proton and electron are universals. The attractive force between them is a relation between these universals.

They politicized the justice system. Biden’s DOJ went after him. Attorney Generals campaigned on going after him and they cooked up frivolous cases. They locked up at least two of his advisors. — NOS4A2

Trump's efforts to steal the election, and his obstruction of justice (and other aggravating issues) in his classified documents case, were hardly frivolous. When a public figure blatantly breaks the law in plain sight, I see nothing wrong with campaigning on prosecuting the crimes. I'll also point out there's no evidence Biden had any involvement in investigations of Trump, by contrast - during his Presidency, Trump tried to push the DOJ into going after people.

If a Trump DOJ goes after Democrats, I'd be fine if it was based on investigating crimes. However, Trump (and many GOP pundits) propose investigating PEOPLE to look for crimes - and that's indisputably improper.

The main issue with physicalism, as with many other broad philosophical and ideological categorizations, is that it is hard to define and articulate with any precision and consistency, while avoiding circularity. — SophistiCat

How's this (as a start):
Naturalism is a metaphysical system that assumes the totality of reality is natural. The "natural" is anything that exists* that is causally connected to the actual physical world through laws of nature.
Physicalism=a form of naturalism that adds the assumption that every existing object is physical.

Help me understand what is imprecise or circular.

Whereas physicalism seems to me to generally focus primarily on questions of "how." We have observable phenomena, but how do they come to be and how are they best predicted and forecast? (Dawkins for instance defines "reality" in terms of prediction). The "physical" is just that which is required for this "how" explanation. But the physical itself is often said to lack any "why." It simply is, a brute fact. Intelligibility is a "construct" of minds and need not be sought in nature or the physical, or might even be said to be mere appearance (and quiddity/phenoenology is usually demoted to mere appearance as set over and against objective physical reality). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting points, which I'd like to respond to.

Physicalism focuses on both what exists and how things happen (i.e. causation). Everything that exists is physical (this is axiomatic, but it can be defended epistemically), and causation is accounted for through laws of nature - and this explains how things come to be. It does depend on the physical world existing by brute fact (a metaphysically necessary brute fact), but AFAIK, every metaphysical theory depends on some metaphysically necessary brute fact.

Intelligibility and quiddity strikes me as related to theories of mind and of truth. Something is "intelligible" if it is understood (i.e. it is describable by propositions that are known). Quiddity seems a subset of intelligibility. A complete metaphysical theory (whether physicalist or anything else) is a description of the way things actually are objectively (not merely what we perceive), albeit that we learn about the world phenomenologically.

I don't think physicalism re philosophy of mind has all that much to do with physicalism as an ontology. It seems perfectly possible to accept the former while rejecting the latter. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with your latter statement, but I'll state the obvious: a committed physicalist will necessarily believe in a physicalist theory of mind.

Elite Hollywood pedophiles, to be precise. — NOS4A2

This caught my attention. Please educate me on this - which Hollywood elites are pedophiles, and how do you know they are?

This will be an opportunity for you to explain how you learn what is going on in the world (at least this one allegation), given the fact that you distrust the mainstream media.

there seems to be a consensus there that he did try to overturn the election results (rather than just the soft-ball wording of NOS4 that he was merely contesting the results), and that his actions throughout this ordeal were illegal. — flannel jesus

Raffensberger certainly believed he was being pressured, and even hired a lawyer because he feared Trump would push a wrongful prosecution against him (source).

There are two kinds of judgements that can be considered:

1) the threshold for a criminal prosecution

I'm not sure, but NOS4A2 may be trying to argue that there's reasonable doubt about whether Trump's intent was to pressure Georgia officials. The prosecution will have the burden to prove this. I think they CAN, but that will be decided in a courtroom. I also think this is moot at this point. This will only go to trial if Trump loses the election.

2) the reasoned judgement of an objective voter
I suggest that a voter can, and should, judge this for himself. I don't think NOS4A2 can make a case that it's MORE likely Trump was merely encouraging an investigation rather than actually applying pressure. I'm aware of no exculpatory evidence - and there's an abundance of evidence that Trump had been disabused of the notions that any of the fraud claims were valid. So IMO, the most benign interpretation is that Trump is exceedingly stupid or pathologically incapable of accepting a reality he does not like. No reasonable person should vote for someone who is either exceedingly stupid or incapable of accepting reality - much less if he actually broke the law.

That’s false. He explicitly asked them to investigate illegal voting. You keep repeating the one phrase his enemies do, but leave out the rest of the call. The elector scheme wasn’t to “overturn the election”, but to force a recount. You have problems with recounts? You don’t like to investigate illegal voting? Fine, but lying about it turns people away from your cause. One of these days your comrades are going to say “I’m tired of being lied to”. — NOS4A2

Be specific: what exactly did I say that was false?

I have not repeated the "one phrase". In fact, I a knowledged the irrelevance of that one phrase.

You claim Trump "asked them to investigate illegal voting". Provide a quote of Trump's where he explicitly asks for this.

It is an unequivocal fact that Trump was asserting he won the state, and was repeating allegations that had been investigated and debunked directly to him. This includes the allegations against Dominion and the "ballots pulled from under the table" at State Farm Arena.

That's because you haven't read the transcript of that call. That's the going rate, and you're in good company, but it's wrong. It's been misconstrued that he is pressuring the governor to magically come up with votes, not that he wants to find the illegal votes he's been speaking about the whole call. — NOS4A2

As I've discussed before, the mere fact that he stated the number of votes he needed is not relevant. What IS relevant is that he was pressuring the state officials to change the result using lies (here's a list of lies he told on the call).

"It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election," he said following his November 2020 defeat, according to a witness who overheard the remark. "You still have to fight like hell." (as noted in Smith's filing).

“The details don’t matter,” Trump said, when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn’t be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.

There are two fundamental issues:
1) should individual human beings be protected by government policy?
2) what constitutes an individual human being?

The answer to #1 is: yes, of course. I don't think anyone disagrees.
#2 is the source of disagreement.

There are religions (e.g. Roman Catholicism) that teach that zygotes are individual human beings. For them, this is non-negotiable. However, their religious view should not be imposed on everyone else. There's a rock-solid reason to think zygotes are not individual human beings: monozygotic twins. If a zygote is an individual human being, then monozygotic twins are a single human being, which is non-sensical.

There is no well-defined set of necessary and sufficient properties that unequivocally delineates when something is an IHB. Everyone would probably agree that a newborn infant is an IHB, and this implies an IHB is something that emerges gradually during fetal development. But there is no right answer regarding when the fetus constitutes an IHB: it's a fuzzy concept, not a well-defined one. Any definition we create would be arbitrary

What gap? — Wayfarer

That the core principle of scientism (that the scientific method is the only way to render truth about the world and reality) cannot be established with the scientific method. This implies the core principle is an unjustified belief- that's the gap.

The point here is that the metaphysics involved in physicalism and the metaphysics that I would argue is present in methodological naturalism are adjudicable and non-arbitrary, and therefore they do not succumb to the critiques of metaphysics that many have leveraged. We don't need to be afraid of metaphysics, or believe that it represents some kind of unadjudicable free for all. — Leontiskos

100% agree.

I don't think this argument holds water. — T Clark

The author's argument against scientism doesn't claim to show science is irrational, but rather that it's core principle (that the scientific method is the only way to render truth about the world and reality) cannot be established with the scientific method - which he asserts makes it self-defeating.

The author of the paper I linked is Ed Feser, a proponent of Thomist metaphysics (the theistic metaphysics developed by Thomas Aquinas). Feser is basically trying to claim is system is superior to scientism because it has no such gap. My point is that metaphysical naturalism provides a similarly complete metaphysical system, one in which science fits perfectly - with no gap.

But it doesn't sound like you treat physicalism as unfalsifiable. In fact it seems like you believe physicalism would be falsified insofar as you encounter things which are not explainable within the physicalist framework. — Leontiskos

Interesting observation - it is falsifiable in one sense. But I don't think it's falsifiable in the scientific sense:

"Falsifiability (or refutability) is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test."

2. Physicalism is unscientific.
The core metaphysical assumptions of most metaphysically naturalist / physicalist positions may be summarized as follows:

A. All known and all potentially knowable phenomena can be considered physical [Edited to properly distinguish vs materialism]
B. The universe is deterministic. [Correction: Only applies to some versions of physicalism, not most]
C. The universe is comprehensively and ultimately law-given and law-abiding.

None of these are falsifiable. They can better be described as articles of faith consistent with the observable universe, but not derivable from it.

This might seem obvious, but I'm not convinced it is to all physicalists.

3. Physicalism’s close association with methodological naturalism and the confusion there engendered risks denigrating the latter.

Methodological naturalism stands as a respectable framework for the employment of the scientific method. It has nothing necessarily to say about whether the universe contains supernatural elements or not, only that it may be investigated as if it were entirely natural. — Baden

It appears to me that you miss the point. Physicalism is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific theory. All coherent metaphysical theories are unfalsifiable. It's certainly reasonable to remain agnostic to metaphysical theories, but it's not UNreasonable to treat some metaphysical theory as a working hypothesis to see if it can account for everything we know about the world. Personally, I treat physicalism is the most reasonable default position- my working hypothesis, so I label myself a physicalist. I haven't encountered anything that isn't explainable from this framework, and it gives me a basis for discussions with supernaturalists (particularly theists). Metaphysical naturalism/physicalism is a counter to the epistemological problem posed by scientism, which is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. Here's an excerpt from an article exposing the flaw in scientism:

"... scientism...is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle. And if it cannot even establish that it is a reliable form of inquiry, it can hardly establish that it is the only reliable form. Both tasks would require “getting outside” science altogether and discovering from that extra-scientific vantage point that science conveys an accurate picture of reality—and in the case of scientism, that only science does so.-' source.

Metaphysical naturalism (or physicalism) fills in the gap that scientism leaves. Of course, it's not necessarily true, but it does defeat the claim (of some theists) that we "need" supernaturalism to account for aspects of the world.

Do you believe that since something is a necessary condition it therefor contributed to the act? — NOS4A2

My impression is that you're narrowly focusing on the immediate cause of an act, and ignoring the fuller context.

A necessary condition is both a contributing cause and a necessary cause of the act.
Necessary causes
If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the prior occurrence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Contributory causes
For some specific effect, in a singular case, a factor that is a contributory cause is one among several co-occurrent causes. It is implicit that all of them are contributory. For the specific effect, in general, there is no implication that a contributory cause is necessary, though it may be so. In general, a factor that is a contributory cause is not sufficient, because it is by definition accompanied by other causes, which would not count as causes if it were sufficient.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Sassy Justice is satire, not a fraud. — NOS4A2

Adding a watermark does not hinder satire. Even if satire is evident in its original context, a video can be copied, truncated, and distributed on social media without the context.

vandalizing someone’s work violates their free speech.

Does a person not have the right to control the use of one's image? Using someone's image without permission to convey a falsehood is fraud, and if it casts a negative light on the person, it constitutes slander. The alternative to a watermark would be more draconian fraud and slander laws and/or laws against using a person's image without permission.

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

So why not get better at discerning what is true than giving some people the power to be the final word on truth? — NOS4A2

You completely ignored my point. Deepfakes can make it harder to discern the truth, and this is a case of unequivocal truth. It does not entail empowering some person or group to make a judgement- it entails exposing an unequivocal falsehood at its source.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Misinformation cannot control a motor cortext. It did not plan the attack or load the weapon. Information cannot act. It did not contribute to the act because it is incapable of contributing. — NOS4A2

You agreed the disinformation was a necessary condition to the bad act. That logically implies that in the absence of the disinformation, the act would not have occurred. In your defense of your position, you're coflating "necessary and sufficient" with "necessary". I haven't suggested that the disinformation alone caused the bad act, but you keep treating it that way- so you aren't confronting the issue I brought up.

who's harmed by such a requirement?

I did answer this question. — NOS4A2

I can only find you falsely asserting it's a violation of free speech. This doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want, nor does it prevent them creating fake videos- so no rights are being infringed. (There's no right to commit fraud).

deep fakes are not "unequivocal lies", — NOS4A2

That's utter nonsense. They depict a person saying/doing things they did not do - and they appear real. It's fraud. It's fine to parody, and watermaking wouldn't prevent that.

for us to figure out on our own accord what is true or false without a third party such as yourself. — NOS4A2

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

This has been addressed already. Do you believe that playing violent video games leads one to shoot up schools? Should we ban violent video games, or sue the developers? Not everyone that plays violent video games goes and shoots up a school. Why? — Harry Hindu

False equivalence. Deep fakes are inherently falsehoods, whereas videogames are inherently fictional. I haven't suggested banning them - I just proposed identifying what they are. Video games are clearly identified as GAMES; no one is being deceived.

So are you saying that we should depend on the person who knows he is faking it to add watermarks to their own video? — Harry Hindu

Software is used to create them, and these software tools could automatically add a watermark. If someone removed the watermark, hacked the software, or developed their own, they would be criminally liable.

If not, who decides what is a deep face video and what isn't if not logic and reason?

Deepfake can entail faking a voice and image of a public figure. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Logic and reason can't identify it, if it's sufficiently sophisticated- and the sophistication is getting increasingly better.

In the absence of deepfakes, logic and reason would dictate treating videos as among the best evidence for determining what a person has said or done. If we can't even trust videos, our ability to discern truth is severely hampered.

Doesn't the deep fake video need to be released so that it is exposed to public criticism - to logic and reason. If it isn't released and circulates among a private group, how are we suppose to stop that? Your proposals to solve the problem do not seem to fit with the way these things work.

If sufficiently sophisticated, they will become impossible to distinguish from actual videos. Further, their existence provides an excuse for a public figure to deny incriminating video evidence of wrongdoing. No longer will we be able to say "seeing is believing".

Understand that we aren't quite at the point where deepfakes are indistinguishable from real videos. But we're heading in that direction, so now is the time to get out ahead of the projected future problem.

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate?
— Relativist
But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about misinformation. Who gets to define what misinformation is, if not logic and reason? — Harry Hindu

I've personally been discussing DISinformation: lies. Disinformation that is repeated becomes misinformation - a tougher problem to deal with. But knowingly spouting falsehoods isn't so fuzzy. Fox knew they were telling falsehoods, and were appropriately held to account.

The person who creates a deepfake video knows he's faking it - lying. That's not a matter of alternative opinions, it's an unequivical fact. That's worth addressing, and entails no ambiguity.

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith. — NOS4A2

You didn't answer these specific questions:

Regarding Edgar shooting up the Pizzaria: you agreed the disinformation he received was a necessary condition to his action, but then you (bizarrely) claimed the disinformation did no "contribute" to his bad act. I asked, and you did not answer: "So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Regarding my proposal to require watermarks on deepfaked videos, I asked (and you did not answer): who's harmed by such a requirement?
In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?"

What questions of yours did I fail to answer?