Myths are almost certainly educational devices used in prehistory. Knowledge needs to be passed on somehow and narratives are a great way to do so.

Lynne Kelly will probably interest you.

See above.

As to the OP in general … it just takes a small amount communication to see the divide and then explore where the differences lie within the divide.

Poor example.

In physical sports no. I general yes. It is common sense.

By the end pf the century I expect there will be a complete change of our species and we will extend beyond anything we can currently imagine. CRISPR and cybernetics will ‘evolve’ us down several roads. Things inevitably change. Sadly I think there will be far more significant prejudices and social problems to come that will make the whole politicising of transgender people a mere speck in the distance.

More gibberish. We shit and breath without choice. We may try not to do either but they are both inevitable until death comes.

The rest is more unrelated drivel. I am assuming you take ‘imposition’ to be wholly unrelated to choice? Like I said, semantics. Convenient ways to bend anything anyone says to suit your needs to ‘win’ a debate.

No idea what lying and cheating have do with this? Both are natural and neither are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Join a religion or start one if you want. Boring!

Bye bye

I’m not going to get stuck in some semantic mess. The root of this whole anitnatalist view is useful for self-reflection on the ‘why’ someone may choose to have children. Nothing more.

If children were created by some randomised process absent of parents then it would not be a question of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ at all. Let us say some machine. Let us go further and say a biological system. Further still, some biological reproductive system by creatures that have a primary instinct to reproduce. Such creatures may then evolve to have something they refer to as ‘choice’ … it is here where you seem to think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ overrides any personal perspective on life being ‘good’.

You do not have to agree but you would be wrong to imply an ‘imposition’ completely detached from an ethical stance. Words are related and I fear you are being far too liberal with their use to suit your means - the folly of ‘debate’ (which I have strong dislike for being nothing other than a political weapon used to bend people to your will).

Bye bye

The parents choose to have a child. That child has no say in whether it is born. That's an imposition by the parents on the child. — Tzeentch

No. This does not logically follow. I may think about killing people yet that thought does not make me a murderer.

The potential ability to commit murder is something we all possess yet it is not a reason to send everyone to prison.

The same goes for taking antinatalism to this degree of seriousness. It is a ‘tool’ to question the ethics involved on parenthood NOT a sensible argument against having children. Those who take antinatalism seriously to this degree are what I guess you would frame as ‘unethical’.

I gave a reasonable explanation why people choose to have children.

There are perfectly reasonable reasons that motivate people to have children. The main one being enjoyment of life in general. It is not a hard sell.

As a purely hypothetical investigation - to explore motivations for having children - the whole antinatalism thing is reasonable too.

Again, reason is hard to find in the motivations behind child-having. — Tzeentch

Sorry, probably not your quote? Lost it now :D

Not in the slightest. We have one life. Having children is an experience we can have. It is difficult and fulfilling to have children. People generally enjoy life and wish others to enjoy life too, hence having children is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as well as being part of a biological process.

Is there any particular area of philosophical thought you feel is frivolous?

That makes no sense … but neither does the OP :D

Meaning our ‘sense of the world’ is ‘in our brain’. We do NOT ‘see’ with our eyes nor ‘hear’ with our ears for example.

It seems to be the main issue here is an old one … arguing for dualism is a peculiar approach in this day and age. But who knows! Maybe there is some ‘real’ woo woo going in :D

I good by the reader should be made to understand what is being said, and often an even larger degree of charity in interpretation too.

The whole point of any discussion is to bridge across the gap from one mind to another. Some gaps are more worthy than others (and such judgements are necessarily subjective).

If someone asks for a definition and/or questions how a term is being used then it is on the author to attempt to offer a different line to bring the reader in or for them to judge the worth of bothering to do so. If everyone understands the core of your idea and position then it can mean either the point was not worth bringing up to begin with or you have exposed something deeply insightful/useful (the latter will be obvious to all).

My post was clear, precise and gave reasoning and a suggested resource for people to look at. No opinions.

If people do not wish to take it seriously (like yourself) not my issue.

Bye

No I didn’t read 13 oages of posts. I read the OP … was dumb and ill-informed. If someone else pointed this out good for them.

It might also be worth mentioning that within the neurosciences (like within every field of interest) there are group of people with vastly differing views and approaches on the subject.

All that is exactly like saying physics tells us nothing about the universe even though it clearly does help us to distinguish and delineate between phenomenon we observe and can verify.

Dumb post. Cognitive Neuroscience has A LOT to offer various questions about consciousness and if you ate particularly interested in consciousness (from a philosophical perspective) it is about time you read up about this. Vice versa, for clarities sake, there are clearly some particular uses from more philosophical areas here … ie. Phenomenology (an area I actually got into through reading university level textbooks on the Cognitive Sciences (put together by Gazzaniga - I mention because older editions have free pdf online).

That which has … how should I say? … ‘True Existence’ is that which we cannot be aware of - it effectively does not exist for us. This is like the Kantian Noumenon that has ‘negative existence’ (if you are familiar with Kant).

Hunting for some ‘Truth’/‘Absolute’ is contrary. This does not mean there is merely subjectivism and opinion. The possess the item we call ‘knowledge’ due to common themes/pattern but this ‘knowledge’ is not absolute. I believe it is best to think of knowledge as that which can be brought into question and/or investigated. That which cannot is not an item for our limited human scope. Also, limitation itself allows knowledge. You can take an everyday example of this with something like speech or walking. We do not ‘walk’ or ‘speak’ in a state of perpetual knowledge of how our legs function or how words are uttered as well as their particular meanings and possible contexts … the action of ‘speech’ and ‘walking’ inhabit us and it is only when we focus in on them that they become attended to that they can become ‘knowledge’.

I do not see how that is true of philosophy.

In general philosophical areas stem from the basic question of ‘What we should do?’. People then attach ideas, opinions and speculation to this fundamental question.

One thing I hear repeatedly (and believe to be true) is that philosophy is mostly about Questions rather than Solutions.

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others.

Not interested. I said one thing and that is all. Penrose states that the process in non-computational. He proposed that there is a QM mechanism in the brain and also stated that he saw no means of QM happening in the brain. The End (really).

He was not suggesting any mechanism only that something is happening that is not computational. He says nothing about biological processes because that isn’t his field. His field is very much about mathematics, logic and theoretical physics.

Anyway, bored now. This is going nowhere fast.

I think you may have misrepresented what Emotivism is about.

It is generally regarded (as far as I know?) as about personal expression; rather than ‘true statements’ it is ‘true expressions’. So if you express that your mother being killed is worse than someone else being killed that is your ‘true expression’ rather than some kind of ‘one size fits all’ statement.

Emotivism is not a ‘belief’ it is a metaethical category which can be use to explore the moral landscape. By saying something we often express opinions about what we believe to be morally right or wrong, but that this is not identical to some underlying/absolute ‘right’/‘wrong’ dichotomy.

Most, if not all, areas of meta ethics serve to question how emotional/ethical/moral terms are played out in academic parse and day-to-day ramblings, as well as the kind of functions and possible miscommunications that can occur alongside these points (including how you or others interpret certain topics of meta ethics.

The general field of meta ethics is - I strongly believe - a hard shift away from parcelling up black and white views we hold dear in order to clear the field of thought for a more generalised understanding of ourselves, others and how differing views and opinions collide.

Using QM to describe biological phenomena is not wise or sufficient. We've already identified mechanisms that allow the brain to be aware and able to introduce content in a conscious state. Sure, a Quantum mechanism can have a role in the process (like in Photosynthesis or Navigation of Birds) but it would be ignorant and irrational to assume that quantum elements can be carriers of High Level features in an emergent biological phenomenon. All "spooky" actions in QM act on the Kinetic characteristics of particles....so I don't know how one can justify that leap. — Nickolasgaspar

For the sake of it. There you go. Neither myself nor Penrose makes any such claim. His point was - to repeat again - that what the brain does is more than mere computations (authority Godel).

I literally have nothing more to say and have said nothing more than this (three times now I think?).

I honestly do not see this going anywhere so I will decline. Bye

You are arguing against ghosts. I read first part of your response and stopped dead because you are (clearly unintentionally) making out either myself or Penrose has made such a claim.

Try reading/listening to his recent thought on this matter. To repeat, his position is (via Godel) that the brain does not merely ‘compute’ and that reason therefore dictates that something else is going on. When someone says they do not have an answer it does not mean they believe in fairies.

methodical and systematic findings of Science and the rules of Logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Then why are you disregarding both on your reply to me about Penrose? His thought is based PURELY on logic and known physical mechanisms.

You are also avoiding the main point he makes. Which is that conscious thought is non-computational. The problem is then about figuring out what could possibly be an answer to this - hence his original thought in Emperor’s Mind suggesting Quantum Mechanics.

If you do not like this idea that is your choice. Not liking something should not really be a singular guiding principle when tackling any complex problem.

I guess you just want to scream and shout and accuse others of X and Y when they do not even say that.

As for evidence … you want ‘evidence’ of what sort from a theoretical physicist exactly? Logical proofs? Exactly why do you think Penrose is some kind of woo woo wizard or something. Are you trying to embarrass yourself or just flying off the handle for no reason.

Either way, if that is your cool calm and collected response (that had a good deal of charity in it) then go bother everyone else but me with weird rants.

This is why I barely look on this site anymore … too many reactionary comments and responses.

Bye bye

But now we know that life is evolved complex chemistry. So consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms and that's completely a matter of definition and how we define the term and what we entail it to mean — Metamorphosis

Before you speak investigate how certain terms are used within given fields. ‘Consciousness’ is not regarded as you define above by anyone with some reasonable scientific background. You maybe mistyped? You mean ‘self-conscious’ above with is not ‘consciousness’.

Conscious states vary. In neuroscience ‘consciousness’ can mean slightly different things depending on what is being discussed. Generally ‘consciousness’ is some form ‘brain state’ of that encapsulates ‘dreaming’ whereas ‘being put under’ may sometimes be referred to as a non-conscious state.

Penrose simply states that the physical ‘mechanisms’ of the brain - as understood superficially - are more than mere computations. The problem then remains how is this can be . Penrose’s view on this is along the lines that Quantum Mechanics is (at its base) wrong.

The Emporer’s New Mind is a very, very old book. It is certainly not the best reference point to understand his current opinions on consciousness now.

He reveals his thinking process and ideas quite well in his exchange with Jordan Peterson. That might help some to understand what he is about.

Who are you talking to and how it is relevant?

I am guessing it is moe a case of you believing you see with your eyes … some basic attempt to study brain function may remove that idea.

I see things when I am asleep. Some people have defects where they cannot. Are you one of them?

That which we can question in some regard. That which cannot be questioned cannot be comprehended.

Sounds a lot like asking ‘What makes the light shine?’

People who’ve bee here a long time may get bored of the same old questions. Who doesn’t?

And soon you will be accused of navel gazing ;)

I just thought it was - as you put it - a ramble.

You basically end up asking a question that is more phenomenological in tone to my eyes. Take from that what you will. Semantics are tools of … just like consciousness is of … NOT some disembodied item, so to speak!

Real things are real. Things that are not real are real in the sense that they ate not real.

It is basically a semantic problem.