So... If I believe you will experience pain by stubbing your toe then I'm not a relativist — khaled

I didn’t say that, you may or you may not be. If you think it’s the Truth that I will experience pain by stubbing my toe then you’re not a relativist. If you think it’s possible that I will not experience pain by stubbing my toe, and if you think there is no Truth that applies to everything everywhere, then you’re a relativist.

One can believe in something without claiming that it’s Truth, so simply believing something doesn’t make one a relativist or not a relativist in itself.

Agree so far

Now how does this transition to: If I believe there is a McDonald's around the corner I am not a relativist or If I believe one can experience pain by stubbing one's toes I am not a relativist — khaled

As above, simply believing doesn’t make you a relativist or not a relativist, you may be either. If you claim there is no Truth you’re a relativist, if you claim there are Truths you’re not a relativist.

Oh ok. Now what makes you think Buddhism isn't doing just that. The Buddha made no mention of objective/subjective, he simply explained how he reached Nirvana and based on the reasonable belief that others can reach it too (since they're also humans) told people how to do so. — khaled

Well when they talk about the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path which are to be followed in order to reach Nirvana, it doesn’t seem like they consider these truths and this path to be relative, they’re not saying “maybe there are other ways to reach Nirvana”, and they’re not saying either “maybe for some people nirvana cannot be reached by following these truths and this path, maybe for some people it doesn’t exist”. So it seems to me they do speak of absolute Truths and not mere relative truths.

I think we need to flesh out the difference between "Know something is True beyond oneself" and "Believe something is True beyond oneself" — khaled

I wouldn’t say there is a difference between the two, in both cases you believe there is a Truth, so in both cases you’re not a relativist. If you believe there is no Truth then you’re a relativist.

A relativist would say, I believe other people exist beyond my experiences but I can’t claim it’s Truth, maybe they only exist in my mind, but I can believe it and say that it is true to me that they exist beyond me. Then he would say, if these people exist and have their own experiences, I can’t claim to know the Truth of what they experience, but I can believe that they experience such and such thing and that would be true to me, while other people could believe different things and these different things would be true to them. And then he would say, maybe some of these people know Truths, but I can’t claim to know that they are wrong because then I would know a Truth but I don’t believe in Truth, so even if it is true to them that there are Truths it is still true to me that there is no Truth, and it is true to me that neither them nor me is Right in an absolute sense, if they exist they have their truths and I have my truths, which again is my own truth and not Truth.

Basically a relativist believes in personal truth but not in absolute Truth, so while he may have beliefs as to what other people experience or will experience, he knows that he may be mistaken, he would say maybe these other people don’t experience what I believe they experience, and maybe they don’t even exist beyond me, but I believe they do.

And so I don’t see how a relativist could talk of Noble Truths and Noble Path to reach Nirvana, he wouldn’t give such a status to his personal truths, that’s why I don’t see Buddhism as relativist.

When it comes to scientific matters who better to listen to than the experts, just as with any other profession? — Janus

That’s the thing, scientists who study the motion of tiny particles are not experts on the nature of existence, they haven’t shown that we are solely made of these tiny particles, so when they arbitrarily assume that we are solely made of these tiny particles and then reach all kinds of grand conclusions about the nature of existence and attempt to force them down everyone’s throat because it’s “science” and “science works”, they’re proselytizing, their observations do not lead to their conclusions, they aren’t experts on the nature of existence, no more than other religious people or the man on the street who ponders about existence or the adventurer who explores existence with the help of psychedelics. We all see a part of the whole story, being an expert on a tiny part doesn’t imply it’s valid to generalize that tiny part to the whole of existence, that tiny part has to be combined with other parts, not trample on all the other parts as if they didn’t exist. Listen to the experts on how tiny particles move to have a good idea of how tiny particles move, do not expect that they are also experts on the rest of existence that they barely explore.

The problem is never with science or scientists, it’s with treating science as a religion, by the likes of Dawkins. — Wayfarer

Yes, and many scientists do that, like Dawkins, so many scientists are part of the problem...

I explicitly said that the problem is not with the endeavor to understand the world and ourselves (mainstream science is one example of such endeavor), and I explicitly said that not all scientists are like that so the problem is inherently not the scientists themselves either, the problem is people who attempt to impose their beliefs onto others, and many scientists do that, like Dawkins, what’s wrong with pointing it out?

It’s important to point out precisely because many people blindly believe what renowned scientists say about the nature of existence, about what we are, about what’s possible and what’s not possible, about what will happen and what will not happen, about what to believe and what not to believe, all of which dictate the whole of our lives. Scientists have a strong influence in society, that’s why the scientists who attempt to impose their beliefs onto others are a great part of that problem.

You say that, and I might agree, but I’m sure most scientific realists would not. As far as they’re concerned, the first person perspective is completely bracketed off. — Wayfarer

Indeed, but we aren’t going to say they truly are objective simply because they believe they are, if they don’t realize the subjectivity involved in their reasonings that lack of awareness does not make their conclusions objective. History of science shows how scientific realism is problematic.

Furthermore, I think scientists themselves are generally very tolerant of alternative points of view. However the culture which puts science into the place formerly assigned to religion, as ‘arbiter of what is real’, is intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share its assumptions. But that is not the fault of science. — Wayfarer

That culture of intolerance is spread in great part by many scientists themselves, not all do that fortunately but many do. Obviously the problem doesn’t lie in the endeavor to understand the world and ourselves, it lies in how people treat ideas that contradict their own, scientists are people and many of them see themselves or the methods they employ or the theories they idolize as the sole or best arbiters of truth and consider that everyone should see it that way.

How do you know they’re pretending? — Wayfarer

That’s what it looks like from my vantage point, they pretend to know something that is True beyond themselves. When I say that I’m not implying that they are wrong or are lying, and I’m not implying either that they are right, I’m simply saying that they pretend to have reached a Truth that extends beyond themselves and as such that they are not relativists.

Also I don’t see how what I say is particularly controversial, here is what the wikipedia article on relativism says regarding Buddhism:

“Madhyamaka Buddhism, which forms the basis for many Mahayana Buddhist schools and was founded by Nagarjuna, discerns two levels of truth, absolute and relative. The two truths doctrine states that there is Relative or common-sense truth, which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and Ultimate truth, which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics. The conventional truth may be interpreted as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result. It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.”

That presumed absolute or ‘Ultimate’ truth is not relativistic.

Ok sure, I agree with you using that definition but by that definition one is either a solipsist or believes in objective reality. There is no room for anything else. — khaled

Yes, but there are plenty of positions within “believe in objective reality”, depending on what one believes can be known or is known about that reality.

Why would believing others can share the same experience mean one is not a relativist? I don't see the points as related. So if I believe that if you stub your toe you will experience pain that automatically means I'm not a relativist — khaled

I didn’t say that. I said believing others can share the same experience means believing in an objective reality.

If you believe that others can share the same experience you can still be a relativist. But if you say it’s the Truth that others can share the same experience, or it’s the Truth that others will have such experience if they follow such practice, then you’re not a relativist, because that would mean you would have somehow accessed a Truth beyond your own experiences which applies to others.

How does this relate to what I asked? — khaled

I don’t get why you don’t see how it relates.

You asked: “in order for someone to be a relativist he has to believe in some kind of objective reality?”.

I said yes, a relativist believes that other beings exist besides himself, and that these beings have their own point of view, so if you agree with the earlier definition of objective reality then you should agree that a relativist believes in some kind of objective reality.

And a relativist can believe that some other people do not believe in an objective reality, but then these other people wouldn’t be relativists they would be solipsists. The relativist himself does believe that these other people exist even when he doesn’t perceive them.

A relativist believes things exist beyond himself, but he cannot claim to know that it is True otherwise he contradicts himself. He isn’t certain that there is an objective reality but he believes in one.

Why would thinking that there is no point of view more true than any other amount to not being able to say "You can feel x by doing y" — khaled

You can say it, you can believe it, but you cannot say that it is True beyond yourself. Well if you say it you contradict yourself (if one thinks there is no Truth one cannot then pretend to know a Truth).

Again, I have no idea why you think this is the case — khaled

Hopefully you understand now.

Buddhism never says "You should attain Nirvana" so it's not a common goal, it offers a solution to suffering if you want to take it in the same way that a doctor may write a book about how to improve eyesight but that doesn't mean everyone must have 20/20 vision. — khaled

Sure, I didn’t say that Buddhism says that, I didn’t say that Buddhism tells people what they should do, but the point still remains, Buddhists pretend to know something that is True beyond themselves, so they cannot be relativists.

without law there is no incentive to "stay woke" if you will. — Lif3r

But precisely there is, once you’re woke you see why it is important to remain woke, why it is important to keep preserving what you’ve been preserving, why it is better than going back to the old way of only caring about oneself. When you see why caring for others and yourself is better than only caring about yourself, you don’t want to go back to only caring about yourself.

At the moment not enough people understand that, so if tomorrow all laws were abolished the result wouldn’t be pretty, though I think it would be less bad than you imagine. But the more people understand, the more laws will come to be seen as unnecessary and even as part of the problem.

First as regards to Buddhism: there are many canonical statements in Buddhist texts to the effect that 'those dharmas which I [the Buddha] see are profound, deep, difficult to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'. So the reason I say they're not "objective" is because anything of that nature requires, in some sense, a first-person commitment or insight, which is not amenable to the arms-length, third-party methods of 'the objective sciences'. — Wayfarer

Yes, however the methods of the “objective sciences” fundamentally involve only first-person observations, and it takes first-person commitment or insight to gain wisdom about the world that way, so I wouldn’t say this is a fundamental difference between a Buddhist and a good scientist. One might say that a Buddhist and a good scientist focus on different aspects of reality. And maybe each of them only moves towards one part of the truth.

But the point about Buddhism and other forms of contemplative spirituality, is that they emphasise the 'path of practice' i.e. the cultivation of practices that give rise to the insight, that enable the practitioner to validate the truth which they teach. And in that sense they are sometimes called 'the sacred sciences' (scientia sacra), as it is understood that practitioners will indeed discover the same states and insights as those who have traversed that path before them. So in a sense they're 'objective', but in a very qualified sense. — Wayfarer

Something similar could be said about a scientist, that a scientist needs to cultivate specific practices which give rise to insight and enable him to become wiser.

Platonism made an explicit distinction between 'true knowledge' and 'mere opinion' - but the grounds for that distinction is barely visible in Western culture today. Or rather - the form it has taken is that 'true knowledge' is really only afforded by science, hence the emphasis on 'objectivity'. — Wayfarer

Yes, I will soon make a thread about that, today it is the distinction between ‘science’ and ‘pseudoscience’, where supposedly ‘science’ gives ‘true knowledge’ and ‘pseudoscience’ gives ‘fake knowledge’, but that distinction is not warranted, the ‘objectivity’ of science as it is practiced today is an illusion, it has plenty of subjective elements which are arbitrarily elevated to an objective status.

But the scientific method brackets out the first-person perspective and many qualitative issues - issues of value. That is what results in 'relativism', which is that what is true is only 'true for me', or 'true for you', or 'true according to Western culture’ - along with the absence of any sense of there being an over-arching truth, a capital-T Truth. — Wayfarer

Well scientists usually do not believe in relativism (despite relativity and quantum mechanics), rather they believe in their supposed Truth that everything that happens is solely determined by laws, that we are simply biological machines and as such that the will and morals are illusions, fictions. If they actually were relativists they would be much more tolerant of alternative points of view :wink:

Ok I'll go with the literal interpretaion for this paragraph. Now your saying x PLACE = Objective Reality. Still I don't think those are the same type of thing. If I told you "If you climb the top of this mountain you will be safe from the predators that roam the bottom" you wouldn't say "So the top of the mountain is objective reality". I just don't get how you are relating "objective reality" to any of this — khaled

Can we at least agree on this: if we are part of an objective reality, then our experiences are part of the objective reality, but there are things that exist beyond these experiences.

If you agree with this characterization of objective reality, then as soon as you consider that there are other beings besides you who have their own experiences, you consider that there are things that exist beyond your experiences, so you consider that there is an objective reality. The alternative is to think that other beings reduce to your experiences, that they don’t have experiences of their own and don’t exist when you don’t have experiences of them, which is solipsism.

So if you believe that I am a being with my own experiences who exists even when you are not perceiving me or thinking about me, then you believe in an objective reality. The “top of the mountain” would be an experience you’ve had, but if you believe other beings can experience it then you believe in an objective reality.

So... Did you just say that in order for someone to be a realtivist he has to believe in some kind of objective reality? — khaled

Yes, otherwise how can there be relativism if there aren’t other points of view beyond our own?

If that means they believe in objective reality to you then how can one ever be a relativist? — khaled

A relativist believes that there exists other beings who see things from their own point of view (otherwise again he would simply be a solipsist), so a relativist believes in some objective reality, but he doesn’t believe that any point of view is inherently more true than any other. So for instance a relativist wouldn’t say that there exists a state (Nirvana) that everyone can access, the relativist would say I’ve seen that I can access this state but I don’t know whether others can. Whereas a Buddhist says that in principle anyone can attain this state.

Both the relativist and the Buddhist believe in some objective reality, but the Buddhist claims to have more knowledge about that objective reality as he talks of a state that everyone can attain while presumably a relativist would claim no such thing.

Just saying "The case is X" doesn't automatically disqualify you form being a relativist. Saying Nirvana exists doesn't disqualify you from being a relativist. — khaled

Yes, it doesn’t disqualify you from being a solipsist either. A solipsist might say Nirvana exists and only me can experience it as there is only me. A relativist might say Nirvana exists but I don’t know whether other beings can attain it. A Buddhist might say Nirvana exists and everyone can attain it.

If in Buddhism everyone can attain Nirvana in principle then this can be a common goal of all people, so this isn’t relativism in which no such common goal exists.

The "not beyond death" part is a literal reading of karma. Another one is "death and rebirth" from moment to moment, just refers to change. — khaled

Is there evidence that they didn't mean it literally?

But other than that, it still makes no sense to me to say x MENTAL STATE = Objective reality. They're not the same type of thing. It's a type mismatch like saying "the color red is the objective reality". — khaled

See it that way: if as long as you haven't reached Nirvana you keep getting reincarnated when you die, but once you reach Nirvana you stay there and stop getting reincarnated, then Nirvana does not reduce to a mental state, it's a place beyond the material world.

Are you saying that the state of mind exists despite us acquiring it or not? — khaled

I'm saying that according to Buddhists (or at least according to my interpretation of them), Nirvana is not simply a state of mind (as in a brain state of a physical body), it is a state that transcends the material world and exists beyond, so indeed that state would exist whether we acquire it or not.

I mean if we assume that some people have reached Nirvana, then they are there now, I don't think that according to Buddhists Nirvana ends when the body dies. Well I'm looking at the wikipedia page now and it seems there is controversy on whether Nirvana is a place or not, so ...

I don't think this is true. I think relativism is more like "you can't tell if there is something beyond the shadows so you only have the shadows to work with" — khaled

Indeed I was incorrect, otherwise relativism would reduce to solipsism. But in order to be relativists I believe they necessarily assume that there is something beyond the shadows (otherwise again they would be solipsists, believing that other humans don't experience anything).

So if they believe there is something beyond the shadows, don't they have to believe in some objective reality (as in things existing beyond their own mind)?

So relativism would be more like "there is an objective reality but we can't tell what it is, we can't tell what others think or see or experience".

But then Buddhism cannot be characterized as relativist, otherwise it wouldn't claim that there exists a state (Nirvana) that people can reach, no? If Buddhism was relativist it couldn't even claim that, it would say "this a state I've reached, here is how I have reached it, but I make no guarantee that this state exists for you or that you can reach it". As soon as Buddhism assumes there exists a state that various people can reach, it makes a claim about objective reality.

I still don't get what this means — khaled

It could be that everything we see is an illusion, that we only see shadows because some powerful entity is deceiving us, but it can't be an illusion that "something exists", that "there is change" or however you want to phrase it, this is true, this is a fact regardless of appearances, regardless of the shadows we see.

that's the problem. The whole system is contingent on upholding moral values without regulation. The exploitation of which results in those who are forceful taking the upper hand. — Lif3r

Same with the law, those who create the laws force them on those who don't want to follow them.

Yes if you remove laws some will try to take power by force and to impose their own will onto others. But other people won't like that and will fight that power, then eventually there will be a revolution of some sort and so on. So how do we break out of that cycle?

I believe it's possible to break out of it, but we have to do things differently, we have to learn to see things differently, if we keep behaving the same way we'll keep getting the same results. People have to understand that they're all in the same boat. That their survival and happiness depends on that of others. People have to learn to understand that fighting fire with fire doesn't kill fire, fighting fear with fear doesn't stop fear, fighting hate with hate doesn't stop hate, fighting oppression with oppression doesn't stop oppression. Cause that's what we do and have been doing for a long time now, and it simply doesn't work. Jesus and John Lennon and so on were more than hippies, they understood important things that most people still don't understand. So people have to wake up. In order for things to change people have to wake up. So let's work on helping people wake up, instead of forcing others to do what we want them to do, cause that never worked and that will never work.

Nirvana isn't a reality it's a state of mind so idk what this is supposed to mean. If I told you "do this to cure coughing" I don't think it makes sense to say "so the medicine is the objective reality" or "so the state without coughing is the objective reality". There is nothing objective or holy about the medicine, it just works. — khaled

Nirvana is defined for instance as "a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism."

Reaching that state can be seen as reaching some absolute place that exists beyond death, so it's more than a temporary subjective state of mind provoked by some medicine.

What does "beyond appearances" mean? I was using it to mean: "Is the case no matter what the human mind thinks of it" in other words: "is a fact" — khaled

Then we seem to mean a similar thing. I mean for instance the idea that "something exists" is true regardless of appearances. Or think of the allegory of the cave, we see shadows but there are real things beyond which are provoking these shadows. Whereas in relativism there is nothing beyond the shadows.

Ok, it seems like you have a different, more specific idea of what suffering is.
You said suffering is what makes people want to kill themselves. That seems pretty stringent. As I said, there are certain kinds of suffering, you are just describing the most extreme kind. Would “extreme suffering” or something like that perhaps be more accurate for your purposes? — DingoJones

You can call it extreme suffering if you like, but it can take years or decades before someone decides to kill themselves because of accumulated suffering, so I'm not only referring to the kind of extreme suffering that makes people kill themselves right away. Regardless of how we call it, I still believe that if we could prevent or overcome the sources of suffering I mentioned then the world would be a much better place.

Your response to my points about 2 and 3 are about the truth of determinism, basically.
It could be that the body doesnt reduce to physical laws or something, that there is some unknown or supernatural part of living things but just because its possible doesnt mean we can build anything on that idea. I have no good reasons to think that is the case, so Im not going to accept it as a premiss for anything else I believe. — DingoJones

Indeed for now we don't have to believe it is true (that there is something about life that doesn't reduce to physical laws), but if it is true then that would change a lot of things and would overcome a lot of suffering. And then might as well try to find out whether it is true, rather than simply take the pessimistic view as truth and not look further than that. As I mentioned our physical laws are tested accurately in situations where living beings are not involved, for instance when we look at the motion of celestial bodies or at the motion of tiny particles/objects, and most people don't seem to realize that. We simply assume that we are entirely made of these tiny particles, but we have no evidence of that, simply assuming it doesn't make it evidence. Whereas for instance we have first-hand evidence of being in control of our body, and no real evidence of that being an illusion.

What about viruses and pests who's main concern is to leach off of humans for survival/ kill us out? — Lif3r

It isn't clear whether viruses count as life. If their behavior is solely determined by laws then they do not try to kill us any more than an asteroid tries to kill us.

From some point of view humans could be seen as a pest spreading on the planet and destroying other forms of life. A few humans do try to live in harmony with their environment, but if you look at the whole that's not what it looks like. So are other life forms a pest, are we a pest, or neither? Life wants to live, and life does what it believes it needs to do to survive. If we are so much more evolved and advanced than a pest then why are we destroying the planet? I believe it should be possible to live in harmony with so-called pests, if both them and us realize that we don't need to destroy one another to live. Plenty of insects live in harmony with their environment, maybe they aren't as dumb as we think they are. And again, if we can manage to synthesize food from non-living matter that will change a lot of things.

Here's how relativism is characterized: "There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism; rather each point of view has its own truth".

You say "if it were objective science could discover it", but even scientific laws cannot be said to be universal truth because of the problem of induction.

So what's your definition of objective? And why would you consider for instance dharma to not be objective?

Anarchy can turn into hell if everyone only thinks about themselves. If people care about one another because that's what they want and not because some law forces them to, anarchy can work well.

"Right" in the way they use it means "gets you closer to Nirvana" not "morally right" — khaled

Yes and then Nirvana would be that objective reality, if there is a "right" way, an objectively "true" way, there is something objective.

Not ‘objective’. If it were objective science could discover it. — Wayfarer

I'm using "objective" in the sense what really exists beyond appearances, are you guys simply referring to "what people agree on"?

I believe that there is an objective reality in Buddhism, considering for instance that they talk about following the "Noble Eightfold Path" which involves following eight "right" practices, there would be no such thing as a "right" practice if they didn't assume an underlying objective reality, even if that reality isn't the one that is directly accessed through the senses.

Well first of all I don’t think a world without suffering would be better, so I disagree with your metric for a better world. Some suffering is necessary, adversity is needed for growth, catharsis etc. Rather I think its just certain kinds of suffering that leads to a bad/worse world. — DingoJones

Suffering is what makes people kill themselves, is the reason why people seek medical treatment to relieve it, is the reason why antinatalists want people to stop procreating, do you not seek to relieve your suffering when you suffer?

Note that suffering is not pain, one can experience pain without suffering and suffering without pain. Suffering is the experience that by definition we want to avoid or overcome, while some people do enjoy pain and some do not mind pain to some extent.

There can also be adversity without suffering. When people are eager to push their physical limits they are willing to go through some level of pain, it's not an experience they want to avoid and they feel better afterwards, so I wouldn't call that suffering. There can be competition without suffering, when participants compete to improve themselves and elevate one another rather than to prove that they are "better than" and that the others are inferior.

You might say there would be no catharsis without suffering as catharsis is some sort of release from suffering, but then precisely one overcomes suffering and that's why it makes one feel better. It's not the suffering that made one feel better, it's overcoming it, without the suffering one wouldn't have had to feel better in the first place because one would have already felt good.

Suffering is personal, not all people suffer from the same situation, but we know what it's like, it's an experience that we want to stop and we don't know how to make it stop. I don't see how overcoming that wouldn't make people feel better, and based on the above you still have to show that some suffering is necessary.

Your #1 cause of suffering, competition of life, is very broad so I couldnt agree with it. Some things about competing life could or should be eliminated and others cannot or shouldnt be prevented. I think you’d have to break this down a bit more for it to be a good metric. — DingoJones

If other animals were chasing you and hurting you to kill and eat you, I think you would have some idea of how that leads to immense suffering. In modern society we are disconnected from that because we don't have predators and most of us don't do the killing ourselves, but if you go to a slaughterhouse or a factory farm and watch what happens you would see the suffering, or just watch some videos of it. When you observe animals in the wild you can see that often they have a family, and that they too suffer from the loss of a loved one. They aren't things that don't feel anything. If one believes that animals don't suffer then why believe that humans suffer? They have a lot in common with us.

#2 - i do not understand how this causes suffering except in the sense that someone suffers because things are not the way they want them to be. The truth hurting is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated. — DingoJones

Well how would you know it's the truth? If everything was determined by these laws, then every thing you think and you want would be determined by these laws as well, you couldn't choose what you want, you would have the illusion of choice, you couldn't change anything, everything that happens would be dictated by these laws. Yet we don't feel like we aren't in control of our body, sometimes we aren't in control and we see the difference. As you say that idea hurts, it leaves people depressed, lost, yet as I explained there can be ways to show that this idea isn't truth.

#3 - same thing as 2. This is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated. If the truth is we do not somehow live on through the sorcery of a soul or somesuch, then so be it. Not being comfortable with the truth is not the kind of suffering we could or should get rid of. Depending on how this “afterlife” works, it could very well lead to more suffering and of a kind much, much worse than the mere suffering of the truth about life. — DingoJones

Again is that really the truth? It could be, but as I explained if we can show that a living being doesn't reduce to laws, that there is something more, then why believe that the 'more' ends when the body dies? The idea of existence ending with death of the body leads to enormous existential suffering, that makes people depressed and/or makes them kill themselves. I think people who don't suffer from it are those who try not to really think about it.

I'm not saying we should believe what makes us feel good even if it's false, but I'm saying we have plenty of beliefs that aren't necessarily true and that cause enormous suffering, so if we can show that they are false then we would both get better and get closer to truth. It might also be that when one has found truth there is no suffering anymore.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Yes we all deserve happiness, that doesn't mean we can just do nothing and expect to have it.

A child can be happy when his parents take good care of him, if no one takes care of him and he can't take care of himself he won't be happy.

It's possible to be temporarily happy while having no one caring for us, but often we're still relying on things others have built such as technology, so indirectly we're still relying on others. It's possible to be temporarily happy while being alone and relying on absolutely nothing others have built (for instance living on your own in nature with nothing brought from civilization, not even clothes), but even then you're still indirectly relying on ideas that others taught you and that are helping you.

And I believe you can't be happy on the long run by being completely alone, even living in complete isolation far from civilization at some point we need connection with other life, other animals, plants, you take care of them and they take care of you.

We deserve happiness, but we have to rely on ourselves and on others to get it, we can't just expect it to come to us independently of what we and others do.

This is my feelings on the matter too. I feel the universe has it's own dichotomy of control. Determinism is one side of that dichotomy. Will of Life seems to play by different rules in my opinion. — Mark Dennis

Yep I think so too :up:

I'll give you another hint: it's possible to prove mathematically that in a deterministic system, if your 6-sided dice is perfectly symmetrical then each side will show up 1/6 of the time, without invoking probabilities at any point. It's not a mystery, it's a consequence of the symmetries of the dice.

As you mentioned, the outcome is completely determined by the initial state. So you have to prove that 1/6 of all the initial states lead to outcome "1", 1/6 of all initial states lead to outcome "2", and so on. In order to do that you have to enumerate all the initial states.

As I mentioned, the initial state is described by various parameters: initial orientation of the dice, initial position of the dice, initial velocity the dice, initial direction of motion of the dice, initial air density at each point of the system, initial air velocity at each point of the system, initial shape of the ground, initial hardness of the ground at each point, ... and so on. Let's call these parameters p1, p2, p3, ... pn, where n is the total number of parameters.

Each of these parameters can take many different values. For instance the parameter "initial velocity of the dice" can take as many values as there are initial velocities that the dice can have. Let's say that the parameter p1 can take v1 values, the parameter p2 can take v2 values, the parameter p3 can take v3 values and so on. Then the total number of initial states is v1*v2*v3*...*vn

The key thing to use is the symmetries of the dice. These symmetries will play a role in the parameter p1 (the initial orientation of the dice).

If you keep the initial parameters p2, p3, ..., pn constant and only vary the initial parameter p1, consider how you can use the symmetries of the dice to prove that in 1/6 of all initial states the outcome will be "1", in 1/6 of all initial states the outcome will be "2", and so on.

As far as I know no study has been done regarding the influence of relative velocity on the relative aging of twins.

Regarding probabilities, we know that usually probability refers to incomplete knowledge, and even in quantum mechanics where probabilities are said to be fundamental it's possible to interpret observations in a way that doesn't involve fundamental probabilities. However it isn't clear that the whole universe is a deterministic system, it is possible that the will is fundamentally not deterministic, not determined by deterministic laws.

One can abstain from procreation and promote love. I would get on board with it. Sadly, the everyday messiness of the world often demands that we demand stuff from each other, and "love" the mooshy good feeling can turn into other things. This especially goes when stuff is on the line (products and services need to get produced!!). So, there is some realities that are not amenable to "love".. Managers gotta do what managers gotta do.. People will feel they deserve more, are better, understand more.. are resentful of those who aren't living up to certain ideals, etc. etc. You can probably name a whole bunch of real life scenarios with even just a small group of people where "love" simply breaks down due to the conditions that are mitigating factors, personalities, education, background, beliefs, how people think.. The variations and factors that distort "loving relations" are mind-boggingly complex and multi-faceted. So in the end, though a great notion, I think it just falls flat in terms of how it plays out. — schopenhauer1

Yes it is more profound and complex than just saying "let's love one another", otherwise Jesus, Gandhi and Lennon wouldn't have been killed. The message is the goal, the problem to work on is how do we get there. Just because simply saying it doesn't solve the problem, that doesn't imply that the problem can't be solved, and thus that love doesn't work. Love works but it's not sufficient. Understanding the world, others and oneself is important too, otherwise how can we truly love that which we don't understand? If we don't understand then love isn't effective, because we don't provide what the other needs.

The idea that endless growth of production and exploitation of resources is what we need has to go, that idea is mistaken and leads to a lot of suffering. We have to question, rethink and change a lot of things, loving one another within this society won't be very effective, society has to change, and in order for society to change our beliefs have to change. Such as the belief that "it's impossible", "we can't do it". When we believe it's not possible we give up, when we believe it's possible we eventually make discoveries.

Stopping procreating is the overkill solution to prevent suffering (and it might not work depending on what there is after death). There are ways to ease and prevent suffering within this world, ways we have found and likely ways we have yet to find. When pain is accompanied with suffering we have found painkillers to prevent that suffering. When one suffers from being isolated, love eases that suffering. When one suffers from being harassed, help eases that suffering. As a general rule fear and hate lead to suffering, understand what people fear/hate and why and you can prevent a lot of suffering. Understand how everything is connected and you can see how we all need one another, the whole human species and even the whole of life is like one big organism that we have to take care of, if we hurt one part we're hurting the whole. One great source of suffering is the need to kill to live, I believe eventually we should be able to synthesize food from non-living matter and this will make an immense amount of suffering disappear. And that's just the beginning, there is so much more we can do.

So I really don't believe suffering is inevitable within this world, I believe and see that we have barely begun working in that direction. It's only beliefs that are hindering progress, but beliefs can change, and people can wake up, not all at once, but a few, and then more and more. And then maybe the antinatalists will be glad to be alive and will change their mind.

Those are part of the same postulates you are speaking about? It isn't based on assumptions either it is based on evidence and fact. Astronauts age differently as do the twins. This is all in line with special and general relativity unless some definitions changed? We are talking about physics here right?

How is Gravity not involved in the twin paradox? Are the Twins floating in a vacuum? How barbaric! — Mark Dennis

Again this is better suited for another thread as this is really far away from what the OP is about, so this will be my last post about that in this thread:

Observations are not assumption-free, how you interpret the evidence is theory-laden (depends on your implicit assumptions that you haven't necessarily uncovered): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness . As a simple example you may interpret some observation as showing you something real, or as it being an illusion, hallucination, imagination ...

Astronauts haven't been observed to age differently, it's what the theory predicts (relativity and some others). Relativity is based on postulates, obviously these postulates were chosen so as to account for many observations and experimental results, but you can't predict anything if you don't start from any assumption. Even if you somehow believe that your observations are assumption-free, there is still the problem of induction, how do you know that the universe is going to keep behaving the way it did in the past? That's an assumption.

What has been detected is that some clocks run at a different rate depending on their location and velocity. It takes assumptions to move from that to saying that "astronauts age differently".

Gravity can be neglected in the twin paradox, the paradox arises due to relative velocity, gravity doesn't have to be involved, you can have the twins in a vacuum and the paradox still applies. Also it's a thought experiment, we haven't tried it in practice.

I agree this is my intuition on the matter as well. Simply due to the knowledge that gravity stretches time. As for the Postulates; I don't like to assume anything. Physicists and mathematicians can assume what they want. We shouldn't conflate scientific facts and evidence with the opinions on them. — Mark Dennis

Well the idea that "gravity stretches time" is based on assumptions, it's not something we observe directly. Any prediction is necessarily based on assumptions. And gravity isn't involved in the twin paradox, but all of that would be better suited for another thread :wink:

How repeatable was this observation? How consistent? I'm only vaguely aware of the summaries of a few of the studies but I'd need to go deeper to determine any stance on the matter yet. — Mark Dennis

To put the matter succinctly, imagine that at every moment during your trip the theory tells you that your twin is aging more slowly than you, yet when you reunite with him he has aged more, and the theory explains why in a convoluted way. It is unintuitive to me and to many that at every moment your twin ages more slowly than you yet when you reunite with him he has aged more. That's a paradox, yet the popular interpretation of special relativity is that it is what really happens.

A less popular but more intuitive interpretation is that during the trip the other twin does age more quickly. Technically it's not an interpretation of special relativity as it doesn't start from the same postulates as special relativity, but it is experimentally equivalent (in the sense that the two theories make the same observable predictions, but they give different explanations as to what is really going on behind the scenes).

The idea that the other twin ages more slowly is not something that can be directly observed/tested since we don't have instantaneous signals that can tell us how fast the other twin is really aging at every moment, we only infer that from the theory. But that's precisely the point, we are not forced to use an unintuitive theory to explain what we do observe, we can explain the same observations in an intuitive way.

Looking forward to your thread :up:

Well, what I percieve to be intuition; is right now telling me to point out that obviously two twins age differently when apart. Time is relative. If one spends time in a mountainous region or is an astronaut that has done a round trip to the moon what did you think was going to happen?

I think this is where we are getting into something really fascinating! Join me in an intuition thread later! — Mark Dennis

But it's not that the two twins age differently that's necessarily unintuitive, it's that at every moment each twin is aging more quickly than the other, twin A ages more quickly than twin B and twin B ages more quickly than twin A, yet when they reunite only one has aged more than the other, if you find that intuitive then indeed hats off to you and I want to hear more :grin:

What does intuition mean to you though? I've got what my answer is or what I think it might be but I'm curious to know yours.

Do you think it might be possible that what is intuitive to you isn't intuitive to me? If so, why? Thank you for the constructive points and I am looking forward to hearing more :) — Mark Dennis

I meant intuitive as in particles can be seen as having a definite trajectory even when they aren't observed, as in one particle doesn't follow several trajectories simultaneously, as in things do not behave in a fundamentally different way than what we're used to observe.

Sure it's possible that what is intuitive to me isn't intuitive to you, however it seems to me that most people find it unintuitive to imagine a single particle following two different trajectories at the same time, or to imagine two twins each aging more quickly than the other when they are in relative motion and yet when they reunite one has aged more than the other, actually I believe I have yet to find one person who finds that stuff intuitive :)

I think charecterising this as intuitive doesn't really reflect the reality that is Quantum mechanics.

Your response doesn't answer the fundamental question; How does a subjective microverse create an objective macroverse? — Mark Dennis

Sorry I missed your reply. Consider that on very small scales, when you try to measure a tiny thing (for instance by sending electrons or light towards it and measuring what's reflected), the act of measurement itself (which includes bombarding whatever you're measuring with electrons or photons) changes the position/trajectory of what you're measuring sufficiently that by the time you get the measurement you don't really know where the thing you have measured is anymore, you simply know approximately where it was and how fast it was going, but you don't know where it is and how fast it is going.

On the macroscale, the photons that for instance your body emits have a negligible influence on what you observe for instance with your eyes, the presence of your body does not change the position of a rock or of a wall if you're simply looking at it.

The popular interpretation of quantum mechanics is that probability is fundamental, which leads to all sorts of confusion and apparent paradoxes, but it's not necessary to see it that way, it can be interpreted in an intuitive way (as above). There's a similar situation in relativity, special relativity can be interpreted in a way that doesn't lead to all kinds of incomprehensible paradoxes (like the twin paradox).

The fact of the matter is that, experimental probability? the outcomes of a throw of a dice, say done a 100 times, will be an almost perfect match with the calculated theoretical probability. For instance the probability of a dice throw with outcomes that are odd numbers is (3/6) or 50% and if you do throw the dice 100 times there will be 50 times the dice shows the numbers 1, 3, 5 (odd numbers).

This match between theoretical probability and experimental probability is "evidence" that the system (person A and the dice) is objectively/really probabilistic. — TheMadFool

I already explained in my previous posts everything you need to understand your confusion, if only you made the effort to read and understand. I won't repeat everything obviously as you would probably again not care to read the whole thing.

The fact of the matter is that, sometimes, you will throw the dice a hundred times and you will get the same outcome a hundred times. It is possible that you throw the dice a hundred thousand times and that it never lands on some specific number.

Would you count that as evidence that the system is not really probabilistic?

If, as the experiment reveals, the outcomes are indicating the system (person A and the dice) is objectively probabilistic, then it must be that the initial states are probabilistic. After all the outcomes are determined by the initial states. — TheMadFool

Yes, in a deterministic system the outcome is determined by the initial state, which includes the initial position/orientation/angle/velocity of the dice, the air density, wind, shape/hardness of the ground and so on. And again, as I explained several times, make one side of the dice more sticky than the others and the dice will land more often on that side, changing the probability distribution. Always start with the same initial state and the dice will always land on the same side, changing the probability distribution (100% for that side, 0% for the other sides). Would you say that in a system where the dice always lands on the same side, the system is inherently probabilistic?

Reflect on that, in order to understand the problem in your reasoning.

(hint: a dice is symmetric, if you don't break that symmetry then the rest of the system has no reason to break it either)

(hint2: if you rotate the dice in your hand for a while in arbitrary directions without looking at it and then you look at which side is up, you will get each side about equally as often, does that mean that the dice is inherently probabilistic? That the system dice+hand is inherently probabilistic? Or neither?)

Well, thank you for trying to show me positiveness in life. You seem like a kind-hearted spirit based on your post. In a way I agree with your "mission". That is to say, I see compassion and helping others as a great way to cope with life. I see antinatalism and philosophical pessimism as actually therapeutic, but starting from a different place. Once life is seen in this way, we can be more tolerant, more compassionate, etc. We can see ourselves as in this together, rebelling against it, and communally seeing the problem. So antinatalism can bring people together in a way through the rebellion :D. — schopenhauer1

:halo:

Although I wouldn't say compassion and helping others reduces to a way to cope with life, instead you could see it as "love makes life worth living despite the suffering". It's two different ways to look at the same thing, I had mentioned that a while ago, the same glass can be seen as half-full or half-empty, and in the same way you can view life as something you have to endure while finding ways to cope with it, or you can view it as something to enjoy in spite of the suffering that is in it. Deep down it's the same thing, yet the outlook changes how you live it, either as something you enjoy despite the constraints, or as constraints you endure and you cope with.

I can see how antinatalism can be therapeutic for those who see life as something they endure. But I believe that existence doesn't end with death in this universe, so in my view one way or the other at some point the antinatalist is going to have to start seeing the glass as half-full :yum:

I'm also of the view that we are all part of a single being (us and all life), that giving birth doesn't create a new being out of nothing but that it shows us another part of that being, so in that view we suffer because the whole being also suffers, and then it doesn't create new suffering to give birth, what creates new suffering is how we treat others and ourselves. In order for the whole being to get better we have to care for one another, if we simply all stop procreating then other forms of life will take our place, and if somehow all life in the universe disappears then the whole being would simply create another universe and start again. Maybe the way to reduce suffering is neither suicide nor antinatalism, but love. There are so many things we could do to make the world a much better place, so let's keep working in that direction, let's try everything before giving up, the way I see it we have barely begun.

If some people want to give up that's okay, and if they want to share their views on antinatalism that's okay too, but it would be a sad thing if somehow antinatalists came to rule the world and force everyone to stop procreating against their will no matter the suffering they cause. If existence doesn't end with death in this universe (which I firmly believe) then that would cause more suffering than it would prevent. But the way I see it you don't force your beliefs onto others, so if it's therapeutic for you that's good.

Indeed we're all in this together, but while you see the problem in life itself, I see the problem in what we do with life :flower:

What justifies a positive ethics? When children and people love life. What makes people hate life? Lack of love.

Love is that thing that when you don't feel it it's just a word, it's like it doesn't exist. It's only when you feel it that you see how important it is and that you see the point.

You're constantly conflating love and happiness with well-being and pleasure, they aren't the same. You can be well off and experience lots of pleasures while having a life devoid of love and happiness. You're constantly missing the most important part of the picture.

While you're on a mission to spread antinatalism, I'm on a mission to tell you that if you had received more love you wouldn't see things that way.

You would have preferred not to have been born, so you want everyone to feel that way because you think you have it all figured out, but most people don't feel that way and don't want to feel that way, because they still feel or believe in that thing that you've stopped feeling and believing in.

I'd honestly want to meet you, to help you see what you've forgotten to see, because I can't show it to you using words on a screen, and it pains me to imagine you following that path for the rest of your life. Reading your threads it feels like your life has become completely devoid of joy, and all that's keeping you here is that mission to destroy life, because you think you're doing a good thing, but all the people you're ever going to convince are those who focus on the suffering like you.

I said I would make a thread on why there is no fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience (whereas Pigliucci promotes the opposite), and I will, but I'm trying to make it as clear, thorough and short as possible, and personal life is getting in the way so it is taking longer than expected. The OP said the discussions would take place in the beginning of December, hopefully it will be ready by then, if not I will post it anyway once it is done.

:up:

But I think it’s also important to have a forum category where people can ask for help or advice about something. Sometimes people find themselves lost in their life and need some help or guidance to get out of their predicament, and sometimes the help they need is found neither in their family, friends, or medical practitioners but in philosophy. Many times people have come here and said that they didn’t know who else to ask because there are certain subjects they can’t discuss with someone they know, either because it’s too personal or because they feel misunderstood, and in that respect the openness of philosophy is important. That’s also partly the job of therapists, but therapists are not always good philosophers, and their help comes with a price while some members here are happy with trying to help people. This isn’t to say that we’re all great philosophers (at least many of us are trying), and this isn’t to say either that we will always have the perfect answer to some problem, but if we can offer some help or guidance to people who need it and don’t manage to find it anywhere else, I think it’s important to allow that kind of threads somewhere in the forum.

Questions go in this discussion only, please. And, sure, you can add a critique. But please make it of a reasonable length. Prof. Pigliucci's time is likely to be limited and we want to share it as evenly as we can among posters. — Baden

Okay I will create a thread then. It will be long because there are too many things to say, even though I focus on the most important points. If I make it too short the reasoning will be full of holes, I make it as short as possible but I can’t make it shorter than that. If his time is limited he can read only part IV, it directly addresses a paper he wrote, he made quite a few mistakes which make his conclusion unwarranted. Parts I to III are so that everyone can understand the problem, understand what has been tried to solve the problem, and most importantly to understand the last part.

Whether he reads it or not I will probably publish it as a paper, because he and others are wrong about pseudoscience and they have to see why, and if they don’t then at least other people will be able to see why.

If you (Leo) get the ball rolling on a thread with some discussion from various members, we may at the very least get Prof. Pigliucci to take a read if he has time and possibly respond. No promises of course, but I think it'll be cool if there's an already-ongoing discussion that he can chime into if he'd like. — StreetlightX

Ok, but leo put that discussion in one of the philosophical categories first, please (if you want to do it that way). We'll keep the guest speaker category clear for now. — Baden

Understood :up:

Massimo Pigliucci is a strong proponent of the idea that there is a fundamental distinction between science and pseudoscience, and that this distinction is desirable. I emphatically disagree. Instead of asking him questions I want to explain why there is no fundamental distinction between science and pseudoscience and why forcing such a distinction is not desirable. This is better than asking him why he believes there is such a distinction as he has already explained that in his books, papers and talks (see his website for instance).

While I understand that the invitation is to ask him a detailed question/inquiry, the subject of this thread is also “Discuss Philosophy with Professor Massimo Pigliucci”, and I believe challenging some of his core ideas in a respectable and rational way could lead to an enlightening debate. Philosophy isn’t only about listening, it’s also about challenging.

Among other things I will critically address a paper he published in 2013: “The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan”, that appears in the book Philosophy of Pseudoscience (link to the paper: https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGTDP.pdf)

I have almost finished writing the whole thing, should I post it in this thread or should I create one? It is quite long, it could make for a small paper, it consists of 5 parts:

I. Definition of the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience
II. Historical attempts at a solution and why they failed
III. Pigliucci’s attempt at a solution
IV. Why Pigliucci’s attempt fails too
V. Why there is no fundamental distinction between science and pseudoscience and why forcing a distinction is not desirable

What about a quantum coin or a quantum dice? Get ready for the deep mindfuck that is the quantum world of "subjective facts" — Mark Dennis

That can be explained in an intuitive way though, without giving up an objective reality, when we take into account the fact that on small scales the instrument of measurement interacts with what is being measured in a non-negligible way, thus two different observers (or instruments of measurement) can make different observations/measurements :smile:

:chin: Kindly read my reply to litewave — TheMadFool

I have answered your questions, if you don't want to bother reading/understanding what I've explained at great length in order to help you understand, I won't bother any more.

I know what you mean, for instance the best way I can describe psilocybin is that it allows one to see/imagine/understand things that one is not capable of seeing/imagining/understanding usually.

That information being subconsciously stored in the brain is a possibility, however that’s doubtful because studies have shown that brain activity decreases while under the effect of psilocybin, instead of increasing as would be expected if it allowed to access more information from the brain.

Another possibility is that the mind is more than the brain (which to me is a necessity for other reasons, if the mind reduced to the brain we couldn’t explain the existence of qualia), and that the mind is able to create experiences that are more than combinations of previous experiences, that it transcends causality, and that there are ways to help it express that ability through psychedelics. I have heard that some people have found a way to relive similar experiences without using psychedelics, I’ll have to look into that.

But if the mind has that incredible ability then indeed why would it be entirely causally dependent on the physical body?

So I do think that when the body dies the mind doesn’t instantly cease to exist, but the big mystery is does it go on to keep living in a spiritual realm, or does it remain partly connected to matter and dissolves into the universe just like the matter that makes up the body disintegrates without being destroyed? As the atoms that make up the body do not cease to exist, they move on to other places within the material universe.

Since the mind is at least partly connected to the body, it seems equally strange that the mind would suddenly disappear upon death of the body, or that the mind would go on to exist independently in another realm. Maybe then the explanation that makes the most sense is that the mind neither disappears nor goes on to exist independently, but that it dissolves into the rest of the universe, which would make reincarnation real in some way.

I think you guys are looking to deeply into my argument. It is very simple. It is simply stating that the trip one gets from dmt exists (this trip is different to dreaming and most other psychedelics hallucinations as it is a completely foreign experience ie. people believe their soul leaves their body). Because this trip exists it is a part of nature. The principles that govern nature (ie friction is caused when two object drag, eating food gives nutrition, gravity brings objects together, when dmt is smoked one hallucinates in a certain way) account for this experience and the experience is very complex. This leads me to believe that the experience must be real, otherwise it would exist merely to deceive humans into believing it exists. — Marc

Indeed the experience is real, I would say all experiences are real. But to what extent is the experience an experience of something separate from us (such as of a spiritual dimension), or a creation of ourselves (of our mind)?

But then we can ask the same of the world we see with our usual senses, do other people exist or are they a creation of our mind (solipsism)? If we assume from our experiences of other people that other people exist, it is natural to assume from experiences of other spirits that other spirits exist.

In any case psychedelics tell us something important. But even though the experience is real, it could be that the interpretation of the experience is mistaken. For instance not all people who take DMT (or another psychedelic) react the same way. But then it can also be said that not all people see the usual world the same way (for instance there are blind people), so as we explain why some people don't see the usual world it could be that later on we come to explain why some people don't see the spiritual dimension.

One of the things that prevents me from being absolutely certain that the spiritual dimension exists (as in a place where our spirit goes to when we die) is that in the past I have had vivid and lucid dreams that would have really strange implications if they were experiences of something separate from me rather than a creation of my mind. For instance when I was a kid I once had a vivid dream of a Tyrannosaurus rex chasing me in our garden, that would be strange if that was a real thing that happened and not a creation of my mind based on things I had seen (such as depictions of dinosaurs and Jurassic Park).

How do we know whether an experience we have is coming from outside us or from within us? Is 'outside' or 'inside' a label that we assign arbitrarily?

Of course you are free to argue a metaphysical position, but this argumentative approach pays a suspicious tribute to reason, as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. What does it mean that you want your theory recognized as rational? — Eee

What’s wrong with looking for a rational model of existence? The ideas I’m presenting offer an alternative to the materialist view that is itself metaphysical, why do you not react the same way to the metaphysical position of physicists and cosmologists regarding the nature of the universe, its future and our place within it? That seems to be a double standard.

Existence can be seen as change. What would it mean to model that change without reason, without looking for relationships or structure within that change? That’s what physicists do, however they limit themselves to a subset of all experiences, while I attempt to take into account all experiences, why would you find it suspicious for me to use reason and not them?

Maybe you simply do not recognize the metaphysical assumptions of mainstream science.