Is conceptual possibility the same thing as metaphysical possibility?

Kids slow you down. They're resource-intensive. They take up vast amounts of time. It seems the only reasons to mate and have them are emotional reasons: the urge to procreate, the feeling your life won't be complete without them, the anticipation of the joy they'll bring, etc. P-zombies don't have urges or emotions, so why would they reproduce? — RogueAI

This gets to the nub of the debate really well I think. The answer to this question depends brings out the different views.

Someone who thinks the physical is causally closed would presumably say the p-zombies would reproduce. Because the reason we reproduce is just because that's what DNA does - it creates reproduction machines. Feelings, emotions and so on are causal illusions, it seems like we do things because of how we feel, but we don't.

There is also a definition problem. p-zombies must reproduce by definition. They are indistinguishable from humans in terms of their behaviour, their response to stimuli etc. But if we think that p-zombies just wouldn't reproduce, then we have a conceptual incoherence - the p-zombie is in principle impossible in some sense.

Do feelings cause action? It certainly seems like they do. I guess I think that p-zombies are conceivable but metaphysically impossible. They are conceivable, because consciousness is not a function. They are metaphysically impossible because panpsychism is true.

I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force. — Hanover

But Israel is a colony isn't it? Yes, Hamas are horrible, but the cause is just, no? That's why even if all the Hamas assholes are killed, Israel is still going to come under attack while people have a memory. Have I got that right?

Palestinian terrorists — Hanover

Maybe I'm watching the wrong lefty YouTube videos. Are these the stone-throwers?

I should probably read a book before getting involved in these conversations. I'm happy to be educated.

EDIT: if I was a Palestinian, I think there's a pretty good chance I'd want to go and fuck up an Israeli. And I'd want one that would hurt and shock - a woman or a child. And I'd do something to maim and traumatise, and probably leave just about alive. Maybe I'd come to my senses half way through and stop. Dunno. EDIT2: it would be futile and I'd know it. It wouldn't hurt Netenyahu one bit, in fact it would help him further justify military action. But I'd have the fantasy at least.

It's an odd kind of universe. How is it set up in Omelas? Why does the child need to be tortured?

I know thought experiments are supposed to abstract away details to get to the principles involved, but I like to know the practical details anyway. The thing is, there never is an idealised context-free situation, so we never actually have to make such a determination. And it's not as if we have to decide in the abstract before we must decide in the concrete.

Ah, very good. New word for me, thanks. No doubt I heard the sentiment indirectly from Nietzsche somehow and it stuck in my head.

Someone’s been reading Nietzsche. — Joshs

I can't actually cope with Nietzsche! I tried reading him a few times but found it too emotional. I'm vaguely aware it's the sort of thing he says though.

There is only power, interests and negotiation. Morality is a trick of the weak to constrain the strong. Morality is what other people want you to do. Often it's in one's interests to do what others want. Or at least not do what they don't want.

Wealthiest: maybe £10 million, a worthwhile target for greedy wankers to have something to aim at. Keep them busy. But then have a mechanism that redistributes most of that on their death to prevent private dynasties. More charitably, some rich people are just passionate about something and happen to make a load of money on the way.

Poorest: the price of a small flat or house. £100,000 or something. Security of accommodation, and ownership of home.

How are moral facts discovered?

Also, of they contradict ones own values, how does one choose what to do?

I don't think there's a meaningful answer to the question. Some things are simply fundamental, brute facts about the world. Explanations have to come to an end somewhere. — Michael

I half agree with you. A person's values might ultimately be a brute fact (as Hume attempted to demonstrate), and that determines what is good for them.

But the fact that different people have different values means that there is no point-of-view invariant value, as value depends on the point of view. Even if everyone has the same base set of values (if we go with Hume, avoidance of pain (broadly conceived) and pursuit of pleasure (again broadly conceived), the fact that one person's pleasures (bathing in asses milk) entailing another one's pain (slavery) renders an objective account inaccurate. Values can be real (in the sense of not fictions or illusions) and brute, while also being subjective, it seems to me. Unless 'real' is construed to mean 'point of view invariant' or even a view from nowhere. I haven't read the whole thread, sorry if this has been dealt with already.

Interesting comparing Hamas to animals. I suppose all people are animals. But no non-human animals rape and pillage (AFAIK), not to say drop bombs, in quite the same way humans manage to do. I guess dehumanising language has the effect of making the context irrelevant. The actions come out of nowhere, for no reason, a bit like the weather. That's just what they do, there's no explanation.

Do animals have a reason for their behaviour?

Dickheads can still be right sometimes.

I am pretty disturbed by the sheer number of defenses of a terrorist attack targeting civilians throughout the thread. — AmadeusD

Who has defended Hamas actions?

It is absolutely NOT a very big if. Did you look at the studies on hive mind / consciousness of a hive of bees? Scientists now believe a hive of bees IS a singular, intelligent consciousness, not just the imitation of one. So if bees -- not touching, separate creatures, no physical connection, no mass brain -- give rise by being in same group, same hive, to an intelligent, conscious hive mind, how the heck do you claim it is a big "if" to suggest the VERY SAME THING happens to people? — ken2esq

OK, this is an argument from analogy, which is interesting. The difficulty is, how similar do two things have to be to make the argument convincing? Are we similar enough to bees? Is there a default position in arguments from analogy; do we favour similarity and validity, or dissimilarity and invalidity?

For example: If you hit a human with a hammer it makes a noise because it feels pain. Interestingly (or not) if you hit a rock with a hammer is also makes a noise. Can we conclude that the rock also feels pain, by analogy with the human?

Watch the video at the top on collective intelligence — ken2esq

This is an example of what not to do in a group you have only just joined. Demand they do what you say.

Ken, chill out. We're people, not receptacles for you to dump your ideas in. Meet us half way. This is a society. Take an interest in us first, then we might take an interest in you. You're lucky to have got the engagement you have in this thread.

Some people here are even panpsychists who may be naturally sympathetic to your views. There's one guy on here who thinks that any randomly defined object has its own unitary consciousness, say three and a half marbles in a jar of 100, because he thinks it solves the combination problem. He is tolerated because he has arguments, despite being insane. You are clearly less insane and you may even be right, but you haven't shown why yet.

The solution to a might-is-right free for all is to have global rule of law, no?

This is all a bit context-free isn't it?

It is a true statement that one ought not kick puppies for fun — Banno

Why is it wrong to do that?

Explain how that works. Hamas attacks and you pick up the phone and call their leadership and you discuss how they ought stop raping concert goers?

Are you under any illusion that had Israel not responded as they did that the Hamas attack would not have ended? — Hanover

The attacks won't stop until Israel ceases to exist in its current form it seems to me. And it shouldn't exist in its current form. It's a colony isn't it? And not just an imposition of political power, but also a displacement of existing established population. Military action by Israel is just going to create more terrorists, no? A political solution is the only serious option. In terms of the phone call, informing whatever leadership Palestine has of Israel's intention to dismantle their colony and then actually doing it might help stop the violence, if it is believed.

If you say it doesn't, again I ask, what does? — Hanover

A political solution.

In fact, what if the Jews in Israel just let them keep attacking and go on with their lives? — schopenhauer1

But 'going on with their lives' isn't an innocent desire to live peacefully. It is colonising another country.

I have evidence of a secret network of Hamas tunnels under GB News headquarters.

So Hamas gets to commit civilian atrocities, but when Israel starts bombing them while they hide behind human shields, — RogueAI

Would it change your view if instead Hamas was hiding in Israel using civilians as human shields there? Should the IDF kill its own citizens to get at Hamas?

What if Hamas was hiding in New York?

As part of the process of signing up to this forum, we should all sign a document saying "I confess I'm a pretentious twat and I pretend to believe what I don't believe because I am weak and self-deceiving." Then we can all move on and do some philosophy.

Haven't read that one.

Bertrand Russell "Problems of philosophy" is a nice short intro. It's old but philosophy doesn't change much so it doesn't matter.

Also academic papers are much better than books on the whole

One option is to stay on this forum and engage with topics you find interesting. There's room here for a wide range of knowledge. And when you get stuck in a bit of jargon you can look it up. I've progressed a lot on here. And I've seen others grow hugely.

Do not go to the elves for advice

Our consciousness is at the very least especially unique, because it is causal. I think it's causal. — flannel jesus

I think it is causal too, but not just in humans. One way to solve the problem of overdetermination (psychological causes compete with physical causes as the explanation for human behaviour) is to suggest that all causation is fundamentally psychological. But I think you are right to point out the problem of when to introduce consciousness-as-cause, as this is as much as an issue for panpsychists as anyone else. A thoroughgoing panpsychist might take the line that if matter was not conscious, it wouldn't do anything. All the behaviour we see around us in the physical world is only doing what it is doing because of how it feels.

okay well panpsychism still requires some emergence to get to human consciousness — flannel jesus

Sure, I'm not criticising the concept of emergence in all contexts, just in the context of the move from non-conscious systems to conscious ones.

Can you articulate the alternative to emergence here? — flannel jesus

Either panpsychism or eliminativism I think. Those plus emergence are mutually exhaustive of the possibilities it seems to me.

There is a big difference however, in that instances of emergence are observed all over the place, whereas omniscient minds existing for no reason aren't. — wonderer1

But sometimes (not always) the appeal to emergence is just as much of a non-explanation as appealing to a notion of God. In both cases, we need convincing details.

It's not reasonable to say "I think consciousness emerges from brain activity but I don't know how"? — flannel jesus

Somewhat, yes. I'd want to know why someone thinks consciousness emerges from brain activity. The usual answer is that changes in brain activity result in changes in experience. It's also hard to make sense of the claim. If consciousness just is brain activity it seems odd to say it emerges from that brain activity. If it isn't brain activity, what exactly is it and how does it connect with the brain activity?

Same with god-did-it. I want details. Why do you think that? What is God and why is it an explanation that out-competes other explanations?

The fact you call the idea of emergence a "ad hoc gap filler" is profoundly ignorant. — Restitutor

Well some times emergence-of-the-gaps is used a bit like a God-of-the-gaps. Of course, lots of instances of novel properties emerging from systems is entirely reasonable and comprehensible. But sometimes people come pretty close to saying "emergence-did-it" without offering convincing details, most obviously when arguing that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity.

What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? How can there be a fundamental difference in what is happening if all we are is mechanistic?
What is the implication of this for the idea that computers are just too mechanical to be, conscious, to love, to generate or understand meaning, to have a self or to have free will? How would changing notions of consciousness, meaning, morality, free will and self to make them fit with bodies as mechanical as any robot change these psychologically important notions? — Restitutor

You have a strong mechanistic intuition, which is fair enough. So we take that as axiomatic, which is as good a starting point as any. So what happens when we come across a concept that doesn't easily fit the model? Do we change the concept or the model? We should try both, no? And see which is more fruitful? What if the concept seems just as axiomatic as the model?

Wow, I bet Wayfarer has never heard any of that. You must have really opened his eyes. He should be grateful.

Yeah looks like it. EDIT: Netanyahu's pretty much explicitly saying it