Because it is evident that we can think, feel, fear and so on; if you have to doubt yourself, you would still need a mind to be able to do that. You can't experience the mind directly, but it's clear and obviously that the mind exists. — GreyScorpio

This doesn't follow. Is thinking and feeling not conceptual or experiences one might have or what?

I disagree, we are not sure for certain that material things exist. So it woule thus be foolish to ask why the would. — GreyScorpio

I think one can be relatively certain that material things exist, in whatever capacity - the question is whether or not material things are all that exists. You seem to have taken a fully idealistic position, whereas I'm more in the dualism camp.

I think if you're after a concerted materialist position, whisper Terrapin, as I think he identifies more in that way :)

Quite obviously the instantiations of those two. In the case of Spinoza, the modes - the particular extended things, or thinking things, etc. — Agustino

Okay, I admit to being no expert on this topic, but if there is only mind and the world, what else is there that comes about as a result of A (mind) and B (the world) having formed a relationship together?

If A and B are the basic components of your ontology, then everything else that exists arises out of the two. — Agustino

What else exists?

Which is?

Why must there be material things. — GreyScorpio

I think it's more pertinent to ask, "why are there material things?"

There is no need for material substance to formulate ideas. — GreyScorpio

I'm not necessarily making that claim, but if this is true, then why is there materiality at all? If there is no need, then..?

Why wouldn't there be a distinction between minds and the world? — GreyScorpio

I dunno! Why is there?

The mind is something inexplicable to the human. We can't concieve of the mind, nor can we experience it. However we can be certain that they exist as we are able to think, feel and fear. — GreyScorpio

If the mind is non-conceptual and non-experiential, then how do you know for certain that it exists?

You misread. I mean to ask what is the cause that A and B taken together creates?

Surely but that does nothing except postulate a first cause. For example... A and B mutually depend on each other and constitute the world. That means that A and B - taken together - are the first cause. Indeed you'd end up with one substance and two attributes, à la Spinoza — Agustino

Erm, no I don't think so. What are you suggesting is the cause of A and B taken together? And tell me what A and B are, or at least what you think I find them to be.

So then you suggest they arise together (à la Buddhist interdependent origination)? How is this possible? — Agustino

I'm not sold on going down the rabbit hole of there being a first cause, which seems too linear a causal chain. Infinite regression becomes a logical problem then, in my understanding.

If you continue reading on you will realise that my argument was to remove the wall (world) and support the fact that there are just minds and there cannot be a wall for us to lean on because we wouldn't need one. — GreyScorpio

If there are only minds, then you have to account for material reality somehow. Why is there a distinction between the immaterial mind (let's say ideas, thought, etc.) and the world-proper (galaxies, planets, matter at large)?

What are you having trouble with? — GreyScorpio

You'll prolly help me understand as we go :)

If the world depends on the mind, and the mind depends on the world, which came first? — Agustino

Neither.

PS: Your picture/gif mysteriously disappeared — Agustino

:-d

I disagree, The mind cannot be housed in the world, if we assume that everything that we experience are just ideas. You can't have something 'real' be a product of an idea that is passive in our own minds, could you? — GreyScorpio

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

for us to remain alive we must keep sustained and we can only do so by using the world as a wall to lean on. — GreyScorpio

What sustains us? The wall? What sustains the wall?

The mind requires the world because the world is the body in which the mind houses itself (the brain).

Sometimes I find it more striking and poignant when I read something that I vehemently disagree with, but which makes me pause and admire the beauty that the author presents his or her work.

At a fundamental level, I'd argue that the world needs the mind, and the mind needs the world. Imagine two mirrors reflecting back at each other - the result is one reflection.

What's your opinion, though? Agree with me, disagree?

He's a complete shill. Success doctrine windbag. Just because he agrees with you on a few issues like abortion doesn't mean he's not a dick.

Medicine, yes. Not much else.

He's opinionated but not smart.

Ben Carson is such a boof.

Are you trying to put a joke in somewhere or..?

I don't find it attractive or culturally appropriate when (heterosexual) women take male roles (soldier, firefighter, steel construction. philosopher) and fill them in an "as-if-they-were-male" style that amounts to caricature. The same goes for (heterosexual) men in typical female roles who ape women's styles of job performance. Waiters don't have to act like waitresses, so to speak. — Bitter Crank

This is some dumb shit right here, >:O

Pure rubbish.

I thought of Ayn Rand first, and then laughed.

But seriously, I'd argue that women doing philosophy has historically been more tied with a religious affiliation, such as the many female Christian mystics in the European medieval period, of whom there was a great number. I'd also suggest that women tend more toward poetry than philosophy straight-out. This could be extended out toward literature in general, though I think this trend has diminished significantly in modern times.

This is quite sensible. Where'd you get this from?

'Facts' are neither true nor false - statements or propositions are true or false. — Wayfarer

I'd probably agree.

Although, if something is said to be truthful, is it, therefore, also the truth?

Error correction? You're assuming there's such a thing as progress firstly, and secondly, that uncovering facts = discovering truth.

Falsifying and refuting doesn't leave the truth left over.

I think he means that there's no other realm, no supernatural realm, that the world exists by itself... — mew

Perhaps this is why he feels the need to remove causation, otherwise he'd have to explain how exactly the world came to be.

“Life” and “consciousness” do not denote essences distinct from matter; they are ways of talking about phenomena that emerge from the interplay of extraordinarily complex systems.

>:O

-There are many ways of talking about the world.
-All good ways of talking must be consistent with one another and with the world.
-Our purposes in the moment determine the best way of talking.

Wait, wait, wait, you just quoted him as saying...

There is no separate realm of the supernatural, spiritual, or divine; nor is there any cosmic teleology or transcendent purpose inherent in the nature of the universe or in human life.

So, our purpose is to determine the best way of talking about the world without there, however, being a transcendentally true purpose...So, how exactly, can one determine what is "best" if there is no end purpose?

I’m going to argue for a different view: our fundamental ontology, the best way we have of talking about the world at the deepest level, is extremely sparse. But many concepts that are part of non-fundamental ways we have of talking about the world—useful ideas describing higher-level, macroscopic reality—deserve to be called “real.” The key word there is “useful.” There are certainly non-useful ways of talking about the world. In scientific contexts, we refer to such non-useful ways as “wrong” or “false.” A way of talking isn’t just a list of concepts; it will generally include a set of rules for using them, and relationships among them. Every scientific theory is a way of talking about the world... Today, we would say that Kepler’s theory is fairly useful in certain circumstances, but it’s not as useful as Newton’s, which in turn isn’t as broadly useful as Einstein’s general theory of relativity

Carroll seems to be more interested in whether something is useful or not rather than if something contains the truth. For example, x, y, or z scientific theory may not be true, but if it's regarded as useful, then that's all that matters, Carroll might argue...right?

If usefulness determines the reality of things, then doesn't it follow that different people who find different things useful (in order "to get along in the world") will talk about the world differently? After all, talking about causes at the fundamental level, does not make predictions less accurate. Am I wrong? — mew

Okay, let's run with that. If usefulness determines reality, what else, besides reality, can determine what is useful? To write another way, what is x in the following?

x > usefulness > reality

How might Carroll answer that, or you?

It's hard to judge foreign policy in the moment, so unless it's an obvious blunder..?

Things could be okay if Trump channels his narcissism into actually being effective.

I have religious prejudices?

Because the idea of the first cause is a toilsome one.

Neither...or both? Night and day exist in a relationship. When one goes, the other goes.

Quoting Carroll, here...

The world is what exists and what happens

Does he ever fully explain what he means by this? This reads super vaguely.

but we gain enormous insight by talking about it—telling its story—in different ways

Yet, the same man who just wrote the above is also vehemently against the many religious traditions that, unfortunately for him, tell a similar story in a multitude of different ways! Not to mention that he's glossed over idealist philosophy, and even poetry, art, etc. It seems he has, rather predictably, tried to pigeon-hole science into being the "story" which alone grounds our understanding of material reality, and causality is but a construct which which humans use in order to facilitate said story.

I think there are many scientists who do not speak about patterns at all, they speak about causes and why shouldn't they? If how we talk about things is based on what is useful, then for a modern atheist scientist like Mr. Carroll talking about patterns is the most useful way but that does not mean that this is the only way a scientist can talk about things. Other scientists might find it more useful to talk about causes. — mew

I'd argue that patterns indicate causes, and vice versa. Neither patterns, nor causes, exist in a microcosm. Though, does Carroll provide a measure for what constitutes greater and lesser degrees of usefulness? Perhaps I've glazed over that, but unless there's some sort of ethic, let's say, then who's to say whether Carroll's story of scientific inquiry is, in fact, useful, and not useless?

Somebody needs to make the distinction between colonial slavery and the slavery of antiquity.

Welcome to the forum, mew O:)

~

I'm not sold on slavery being regarded as a basic institution. I don't think Marquez would think so, either.

No, I assume you've been circumcised. But you're still a dick, though.

I wouldn't be too worried about the class, Mary. If you're okay with analyzing the way you already think and view the world, then you should be fine. If, however, you don't want to have an open mind, like some of the dickflaps in this thread, then you might feel uncomfortable. Regardless, I'm more glad of the fact that you're required to take a philosophy class for your nursing program. That's heartening to hear, O:)

Cheers.

Because it's drivel. Special snowflake education programs are a sham and an embarrassment.

So present evidence to the contrary. — Banno

Google is your friend, friend.

I'm not blaming the teachers, I'm questioning whether the way the system is setup makes sense, if the goal really is education. — Marchesk

Well, historically speaking, education has always had a philosophical component, which goes into my lamenting that ethics are not taught, even at a factual level, in schooling - public schooling, at least. Once you strip the ethics away, you're not left with much. It's just a poorly constructed capitalist assembly line of bad to mediocre to good resume competitions between people that usually don't even know what they want to do in life.

It isn't always the teachers' faults, though. Lots of factors go into why most kids arrive at the high school level dumb as rocks.

Ponderous number crunching that says not a thing.

Even if the schools are substitutes for absent parenting, it won't help. Some children's parents are sufficiently incompetent at parenting that their children arrive at school with significant language deficits that are already difficult to overcome. By 3rd grade (8 years of age) some of the unremediated deficiencies will be permanent, and will be passed on (in vivo, not genetically) to the next generation. — Bitter Crank

Well, I'd agree. Schools may not be effective substitutes for parenting, but schools are, nonetheless, forced into trying to be.

We live in a crazy society, so many people (among the successful as well as the failures) are going to be at least somewhat crazy. It's a given. Craziness is a bigger problem for the poor than it is for the well-off. The well off get help. The poor get nothing - or maybe a zombie drug to keep them quiet. — Bitter Crank

Not sold on this at all.

In high school, the class that garnered the most enthusiasm was driver's education. That one had obvious real life benefit. I can't tell you how many times someone has asked what benefit geometry or algebra was. It's interesting that the answer given is that it teaches you to think, yet there was no critical think or statistics class, not at my high school. A stats class seems to have a lot more obvious real world benefits that could be explained to students. — Marchesk

Kids ask this because career planning is nonexistent. Few students know what they want to do, or more importantly, what they can do, until maybe high school. But by then, it's already too late, which is why colleges are now glorified high schools because they have to pick up the slack that wasn't quite so pernicious in the culture in past decades.

It would be naive to assume that successful school children didn't have "potholes" along the way. I've yet to come in contact with any of these "successful young people" that weren't also as low-key fucked in the head as those that are strapped down in shoddy home lives and how no way up and out of any of it.

This is why I mentioned that schools are increasingly forced into being a parental apparatus because modern children are little shits, by and large.