In fairness I just glanced at the pdf of the book ... it is pop-science rather than pseudoscience.

Not knowing much about the author that book appears to be an attempt at a self-help book like thousands of others. I think it might be a bit rich to call yourself a 'researcher' though :D Perhaps he is an amateur scholar of neuroscience (like me) and nothing more.

I had never heard of him before tbh. When it comes to pop-neuroscience I go for Damasio or Gazzaniga.

With neuroscience it is about mapping and is different from experiments — Jack Cummins

NO. Neuroscience is HARD science.

I have always found what I find as a very disturbing mistake among intellectuals when it comes to talk about free-will and determinism.

Too often they are looked at as Complimentary antonyms by some who argue with others who view them as Relational antonyms. This can then lead to the argument going around in circles with each party accusing the other of contradiction or wordplay. I imagine some would even propose Gradable antonyms (likely those fond of panpsychicism).

In Popper's notes he views the distinction as aesthetic taste being of a 'private character ' while moral taste concerns people and their lives.

I am not entirely convinced by this distinction, but on the surface it seems like a reasonable enough demarcation (if for convenience only). I am probably more inclined to view 'ethics' as an offshoot of 'aesthetics' if that is what you are asking. It is still pretty much an unformed thought as I have only relatively recently begun to look more carefully at ethics and morals in general.

I figure our response is something we do not know ourselves. — Paine

This is somewhat along the lines of what I was considering when I wrote the OP. Do we think we are what we perceive ourselves to be? How does this relate to the overall balance regarding negative and positive perspectives?

All too often in my life I have expressed certain opinions about myself to others and they have strongly disagreed.

I do think it is pretty clear that negative experiences drive us harder than positive ones, yet we are also overly optimistic and that this most probably balances out our higher attentiveness to negativity (threats and such).

It is interesting to see how the American "Can do" attitude has, to some degree, also bled over into arrogance. Is the American "Can do" attitude only a vestige of the previous generations now or is it still alive and kicking?

Sure. Then read Plato — Shawn

People never stop scrapping I guess :)

You are aware it is streamlined by the content it scraps and the people who run it right? So use your noggin ;)

The irony is Chatgpt is bias.

This short list of negatives, which could be significantly longer, should answer your first question. — Shawn

Do you see this as a persistent trend or one that has waxed or waned over time?

What is your theory? Are you a Christian Believer?

Must also add my voice to "must reads". It smacks of totalitarianism, no? Maybe that's too harsh. — Ray Liikanen

Is it not what you read. It is how you read ... and whether you can actually (rather than merely passing your eyes over some words vacantly).

I can barely read btw :) No shame in that though. I do my best and hopefully slowly improve here and there.

@ucarr Was this correct:

I am starting to believe that what you are really getting at behind the curtains here is that science and art share common features. — I like sushi

Followed by the possibility of uniting/transcending the differences held by many?

I simple yes/no or suffice. If it is a bit more than this then a sketchy - yet straight forward - outline would be all I need.

Thanks

With history speaking for itself, I doubt many young people see the appeal of communism. — Tzeentch

I think this analysis is a little naïve because young people are naïve ;)

With the above said, I want to ask, to whom would communism appeal towards, nowadays? Why or how has communism lost its appeal, if it really has? — Shawn

I think elements of it are more appealing today given the possibility of humanity hitting the singularity increasing. It is within reason that if such an extraordinary event was to happen then practically everyone would have access to what would be limitless resources. Therefore, within Communist ideologies there could be some useful applications for such a transition.

Sadly, the lack of a roadmap, and the 'inevitability' of such a project (as claimed by Marx), leaves us kind of empty in terms of how to deal with such a situation and how it may arise.

In every ideological position there is values of some kind.

I great many people have pointed out the problems of the current situation but very few (none?) have offered up a workable solution that can be put into action. Then again, maybe they are already in action and we will see if they work or not soon enough.

Personally I believe the heart of the problem lies in the perpetual disconnection among differing groups. There is a lack of 'whole-sightedness' and I am unsure how this can be even partially remedied.

So ethics is just a matter of opinion. Moral Scepticism. Which begs the question what kind of moral sceptic are you? If you are not then your position is contrary as you believe ethics is a human thing not an universal thing.

What might the ancient stoics say about modern concept art? A modern stoic? — jkop

Probably something related to kalos or some thread of beauty/harmony. It is clear they understood beauty in craft, so they may well not have had a specific word for Art but certainly had enough terms to talk of it how we do.

Right, art became an off-shoot from crafts, like philosophy became an off-shoot from science. — jkop

I think you have gotten that backwards ;)

What would you die without? So would everyone else. What would you die from? So would everyone else. — Vera Mont

Well, no. The degree is different for everyone. I get your general point though. The problem lies in the application and logistics.

There are, and have been, efforts to reduce such problems and they have been reasonably successful. The social issues and social institutions are probably more pressing atm as they could likely need resolving before tier one issues can be fully completed.

I think it is safe to say we are both opposed to "smashing eggs to make an omelet."
— I like sushi
It's not that. I haven't called for revolution or a philosopher-king with unlimited power. The way things stand, I'd rather see a supercomputer in charge than the motley collection of humans who run things now. But my main contention is that the way things are can't keep standing very much longer. Tipping points loom hither and yon. — Vera Mont

You are for "smashing eggs" then? I am confused. What do you mean?

This can involve how 'passionate' we are about the object or our aims. A hedonist might simply aim to please self at the expense of others. A stoic might want to reign in the passions so as to live a balanced life. It depends. — Amity

My understanding is that Hedonism was the original Stoicism. That is, Stoicism branched off from Hedonistic thinking - hedonists coming to the understanding of temperance as preserving the most long lasting 'pleasure' rather than drowning in excesses.

I do actually think one must dip into excesses to know where the optimal positioning is.

How this relates to aesthetics though is something I feel is important but it has not registered properly in any rational sense.

That is ONE perspective I imagine among many. The floor is more than open to any other lines of engagement :)

@jkop@Shawn@Amity I was thinking more along the lines of feeling passionate

causal relationship between entropy and incompleteness? — ucarr

This does not really make sense. entropy is basically the thing revealed empirically when we measure things temporally. Necessarily, not consequentially, the beating heart of physics is entropy (which is a place-holder for "we do not know").

I am starting to believe that what you are really getting at behind the curtains here is that science and art share common features. That the subject and object distinction is merely one of convenience.

To which I can say. Yes. And yes, it can be extremely hard to pull people away from their microscopes to look at the larger picture. To attempt this is often futile so pick your targets well.

See :D

@T Clark Like this

@Leontiskos You might want to quiz them regarding their views on their views becoming legally binding or not. You will probably find another disparity there.

Anyone actually bothering to take such a poll must be bored. It is surprising that that many say they are happy :D

By the fact that it's not my vision alone: it's a distillation of historical information about social arrangements that were stable and equitable, of 2000 years of European folk tales and songs and of the yearning of utopian literature through the centuries. — Vera Mont

I can agree that overall humanity does always seem to be reaching for a higher fruit. As evidence that it is a good idea to aim for a utopian society it just simply doesn't hold up though. Like I have said before, the whole John Lenon-esque vision is certainly an appealing idea to me. Personally I think it is good for the individual but obviously holds no ground in reality and any roadmap - as Popper points out - would take so long that our outlook may change the form of the initial idea into something unrecognisable.

We all need the same things, adjusted for size and level of activity, and we don't have to know in advance what everyone wants. — Vera Mont

No confusion. The question is still left open about how you know what everyone needs?

Some people make a strenuous and sustained effort to misconstrue and contend, I suppose because that's what they want. — Vera Mont

Sounds like a dig :D I just want to know the rationale behind your thinking; or lack of it. The irony is I think we are pretty much on the same page BUT the contradictory positions we hold within our views (mine are lacking too btw) are of a different breed. That is what interests me.

You oppose 'social engineering,' as do I to a degree, yet seem to hold some form of it in your head as you have a theory (a vision to work toward). I do not have a solid position on this matter as I have only recently started looking more closely at political philosophy.

Although I am pretty well convinced by Karl Popper regarding 'utopian engineering' I am not sure that reason is necessarily all there is to how 'piecemeal engineering' could work in an optimal manner. This is where I am lacking because I am pretty convinced that 'reason' is not a mechanical cognitive process - it is a difficult extrapolation from neuroscience though so more or less conjecture at this point.

It's a theory. You can't get there from here without climbing over a whole lot of rubble. — Vera Mont

I think it is safe to say we are both opposed to "smashing eggs to make an omelet." :)

I know what it looks like to me;i know how it works for everyone. — Vera Mont

How is that possible. How can you say how your vision works for everyone? Is that not like stating you know what everyone want. I am guessing not, but you can probably see how easily this can be misconstrued.

It is just a fantasy, yes?

Okay. It seems you are more or less Piecemeal then rather than having any explicit idea of what utopia would look like let alone laying out any particular roadmap for it.

It appears any misunderstanding of what you meant is due to use of terminology.

Thanks :)

@Vera Mont I think I may have found something that will help distinguish between what we were arguing about better here:

Karl Popper uses the terms Utopian Engineering and Piecemeal Engineering. I am STRONGLY against the former over the latter; as does Popper.

In brief, Utopian Engineering aims for a blue print of an ideal society whereas Piecemeal Engineering is more or less about contending with immediate negative attributes in society whilst also possibly holding hope for some perfect state yet not claiming it is achievable OR not believing it is achievable.

I believe you are advocating for Piecemeal rather than Utopian Engineering? It does seem to be what you have been stating previously, in which case I am far less resilient to this view.

Popper frames Utopia (rather than utopian engineering) as fatalistic. Very much like what Marx, Luxembourg and Lenin had in mind with the inevitably of Communism.

I think it might be useful to consider 'real' and 'BS' labour on a scale of the division of labour itself.

With increased specialisation we see the onset of particular types of 'labour' sloughed off to free up time of the specialist.

I would say that it is also undisputed that in the pinprick world there will be suffering, at least until you give an actual explanation for why a pinprick does not count as suffering. The prima facie answer is that it does count as suffering. — Leontiskos

Learning is also a kind of 'suffering' too. The impossibility of clarity for the term 'suffering' makes AN a particular kind of subjective view. Like most items in ethics it is more or less opinion.

@Bob Ross I am curious what your response is to what I said regarding 'self-defense'? If one uses 'force' to merely incapacitate temporarily without causing actual bodily harm (eg. pinning to ground or such) does this straddle the definitions in your premises or not?

Another example would be if someone is holding a gun and you knock it out of their hand is this a form of 'force'? Is this not permitted in your premises?

Maybe you can think of another grey area where an unarmed person disarms someone without using 'force' on them directly. This would be 'self-defense' but just without 'force' used on the target directly.

Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me. — AmadeusD

Well, right back at you. This is my point. If you are stating that you can only speak to people who understand and that anyone who does not is a waste of time that speaks volumes for the position you are favouring.

Of course, it may have just been poor wording. Nevertheless am I somehow acting in bad faith by pointing out how one-sided it sounded. I do not think so. We basically understood each other in a discussion here pretty well and it is quite clear to me that you are happy to disagree and you know I am.

Anyway, think we are sort of saying the same thing again and understand each other :D

I can, and maybe will, point out when I think you or anyone else has said something a little one-sided or poorly expressed AND I will consider the fault can be with me too in appreciation of what is said too. This is just me flexing my writing muscles now and hoping to improve so will shut up :D

Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them. — AmadeusD

Well, the vast majority of the time this is probably true enough for everyone. I am well aware that we can easily hoodwink ourselves too. But yeah, probably, for the most part.

That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works. — AmadeusD

I do not find an issue with it either as what you seem to say falls on what I coined the "Moral" for the most part. From what Schopenhauer has said in the past too I would say he does too (unless he has changed his views a little since then), so I have no issue with the positions you both hold. I do not agree with them though and neither has put forward a proof because a proof cannot be put forward, only expressed opinions - as is the nature of most of Ethics dealing with obligations.

Thank you for the link. When my current assignment is over, it might be something to go over with you. — AmadeusD

Sure, and same here regarding time limitations. Expanding my workload and loving it though, so should be able to pay decent attention to it :)

@AmadeusD This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfgpM4uCVw&t=1s

The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him. — AmadeusD

From your perspectives maybe. Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation.

But, do not get it twisted: "you don't understand", for me, has absoltely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement — AmadeusD

Given this and the above you can see how they can coincide?

180? I was referring to the video posted recently AND your post.

You generalise and mention 180.

1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them. — AmadeusD

I did. The guy in the video is holding two contrary views and had this pointed out to him (he probably won't listen though because I have heard some of his youtube stuff before and it is pretty close-minded stuff).

He showed an "Ethic" and "Moral" stance simultaneously (with the meanings I gave you some weeks back) and these are contrary.

It should also be stated that just because someone disagrees it does not mean that they do not understand. If that is the place you leap too maybe you should question your own understanding of what they are saying otherwise you are essentially claiming your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand. Wrong. Either they do not understand you fully or you do not understand them fully; but most likely an admixture of the two.

Personally I am some kind of moral sceptic so the whole matter for me is pretty moot at its core. The AN position is Anti-Ethical as pointed out by the guy in the video if your position in in the sphere of what I coined "Ethic" rather than "Moral". As a Moral stance it has more apparent validity.

It really doesn't warrant anything like that. I dedicated sub forum for Kant or various other philosophers/philosophical ideas would make more sense.

Antinatalism is fringe. SO fringe the word is not even recognised by spellcheck yet :D