The counterpoint to this would be that existence would be satisfying in and of itself without any needs- but that is not our world. — schopenhauer1

I don't see how one could find something satisfying other than from the position of having been unsatisfied? They seem to go together. We are restless, or we are resting, lively or lifeless, hungry or sated; comfortable or discomforted, etc. Call it all suffering, why?

All Schopenhauer did was lower the bar for what entails suffering to such an extent that everyday life is suddenly filled with it. In other words, Schopenhauer was a pussy. — Benkei

Perhaps for some people it is so; some people take their own lives, and seem to have been suffering invisibly. I don't think it is a mistake to find life burdensome, any more than it is to find it a fascinating and joyful privilege, well worth a few slings and arrows. But it is perhaps a mistake to make one's own condition a universal philosophy.

Since knowledge begins with unprovable premises picked out of a potentially infinite set of unprovable premises, it is impossible for there to be an objective value/knowledge/morality. — khaled

Just so, your nihilism is universal, and does not pick out morality in any way. Knowledge is impossible - for no reason. End of conversation, I think.

You are conflating 'no reason' and 'no proof'. There is no proof that my bed is still in my bedroom where I left it, at least until I go upstairs and it proves to be there. But I have good reason to think that it is. And I have good reason to think we can communicate, and thus that the truth has value, though I cannot prove it. If values have equal uncertainty with the material world, that is enough for me, and for most people - one does not hear folks complaining that objects are not objective.

I don't think truth and falsehood hold the same value — khaled

So it turns out that nihilistic relativism doesn't exist. :cool:

Let me answer that question with a falsehood, since it has the same value as the truth.

It's when the donkey's hind legs fall off.

Jack Sprat could eat no fat, His wife could eat no lean; And so betwixt them both, They lick'd the platter clean.

No, we don't need conflict for identity.

we need to start making huge amounts of fresh water, and only with a renewable energy infrastructure can we do that. Otherwise, those 2 billion people will migrate in ever increasing numbers - and migration is already becoming a contentious political issue. — karl stone

You are quite right, though more careful use has a role also. But forests make their own water, or their neighbour's. There is a complex relationship, not fully understandable, between vegetation and aquifers, and there would be some effect also from large scale solar cells cooling the atmosphere and increasing rainfall. But enough is known about the cycle of desertification to understand that the loss of vegetation leads to erosion, faster runoff, and sets up a vicious cycle that can be reversed with careful management. It's not called 'the green movement' for nothing - caring for our green brothers that form the 'other' side of the carbon cycle that we are the consumer side of, has got to be the backbone of the solution.

As a side note, to answer some of the criticism of your scheme to use hydrogen, it is quite possible to produce fairly conventional fuel from solar. This would have advantages in not requiring a total transformation of present infrastructure.

What is the best defence against the stupidities of science? — Evil

Alas, the stupidities of science are lethal, and I have no defence to offer.

There is of course also the possibility of carbon sequestration. And on that front, and on other fronts, it is worth considering low tech solutions. http://www.greatgreenwall.org China is also reducing its deserts. Techno-energy solutions have their place, wind, tidal, solar, geothermal etc, but bio-solutions are even more important.

I would say that climate change is a management problem; we need to stop making destructive exploitation profitable and incentivise sustainable production. And one crucial aspect to address is short term-ism in the economy. To plant a forest is to make a 50- 100 year investment, whereas to cut down a forest is to make an immediate profit. A democratic government has a hard time thinking further ahead than the next election. Fertilising the oceans is simple and cheap, and would make a huge contribution, but needs to be globally financed because it only has global benefits.

the late, great, Raymond Smullyan. — LD Saunders

Definitely. Logic and magic.

Contemplate for a moment the difference between ignorance and stupidity. From ignorant to well read one passes by way of reading some good books; From stupid to sensible is a much harder road, and magic is required.

Pirsig is magic, and Lila is even better than Zen and the Art. Winnie the Pooh is magic; Pobby and Dingan, Spoonface Steinberg, The Little Prince, If This is a Man, Lao Tsu, Philip Dick, Ursula LeGuin, Faulkner - start with Light in August, Dostoevsky, start with The Brothers Karamazov, J. Krishnamurti, start with The Ending of Time, The Cloud of Unknowing, The Gospel of St John.

Generally, I would say that a good stock of magic is the best defence against the stupidities of philosophy, of which there are many, and philosophy is the best defence against the stupidities of religion and politics, of which there are also many.

there is no neutral answer — macrosoft

Who would want a neutral answer? Neutral is stupid! Powerful cannot be neutral, it acts.

Edit: Steinbeck, how could I forget? Cannery Row, and his unfinished masterpiece, The Acts of King Arthur, and The Grapes of Wrath, of course.

Depends what you mean by soul. — Banno

Let's pretend that what soul means is a particular configuration of neuronal structures as memories and dispositions of a purely physical, structural nature, such that it can be emulated by a computer. Then Bert2 is a recording of Bert1 uploaded to a class III robot with enhanced philosophy circuits, such that when it asks, "why am I me?", we can give a meaningful answer along the lines that Bert1 was a millionaire determined to cheat death, and Bert2 is the result. And of course that also explains why both of them think they are Napoleon.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mail-order-crispr-kits-allow-absolutely-anyone-to-hack-dna/

Well in case anyone is interested, the cost of desalination and the energy required may be about to drop significantly. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/beacons/breakthroughs/affordable-desalination/

that spirit will define humankind's reaction to this report, and climate change in general - such that, the window is closed. It has been since the day we decided we could use scientific truth as a tool, without accepting scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of human affairs. — karl stone

You are entirely wrong. First, the spirit that defines your reaction expressed here is despair, and that despair is precisely born of the acceptance of scientific knowledge as the rule of conduct of human affairs. Despair leads to inaction; declaring the window closed helps to close the window.

Nothing prevents us from solving this problem, it is complex, but essentially trivial. A practical matter that we are well equipped in terms of manipulation of the environment to solve, and the proof of it is that we have created the problem by manipulating the environment.

The unscientific rule for the conduct of human affairs is that the situation is always unprecedented, and the old ways are never adequate for thinking about and responding to today's problems. It is time to wake up, time to think anew, time to transform ourselves and our society. We have done it many times before, and we need to do it now. There is no time for despair.

So in the end, the unjust suffering of one person, if known to everyone, will be reflected in the calculus as an unviable system due to the staunch disagreement of a few. — khaled

Keyword: in the end

If you adjust the calculus to reflect the morality of each individual, you no longer have a calculus that can decide morality, rather morality decides the calculus.

Here's a question. Most, if not all countries are in debt. Who is the creditor? What kindly body is lending to us all, ET?

in that case, the suffering of the child will cause the suffering of everyone else in society as it is emotionally and ethically unappealing and this will be reflected in the calculus making that system unviable. — khaled

I don't agree. Perhaps it is worth going into a little. Unfortunately, it is simply not the case that another's suffering makes me suffer that much. If it was generally the case there would be no need for morals in the first place. If hurting you hurt me as much, no one would hurt another. I would prefer not to see homeless people on the street, but not so strongly as to make myself poorer, or give up my own comfort to change their situation. We do have many people who suffer, and in this example, that is reduced to one, and by hypothesis, this is the minimum of suffering. Theemotional suffering of all is the necessary minimum to sustain a kindly peaceful beneficial society.

In other words, most people will regretfully accept the suffering of one, for the benefit of many, and their regret will console them that they are suffering too. But it is immoral to do so, and utilitarianism that counts justice the supreme value in its calculus is no longer utilitarianism, but deontology.

It's a short story thought experiment. Wiki has the essence of it. Imagine a great society, according to whatever utility you want to use, everyone is healthy wealthy and wise, or whatever, everyone cooperates and cares for each other... paint the nearest thing to perfection you can realistically imagine, and then add a small price, that one person will be deprived of all this and live in misery and squalor, and this miserable life is the essential learning tool through which everyone else's wonderful life is sustained. That is, maximum utility depends on a radical unfairness and cruelty to one. Is it a price worth paying?

The calculus must fail, and one ought to walk away from Omelas.

Well the fat man was just about to produce such a calculus, the benefit of which would have been incalculable, but some short-sighted consequentialist pushed him in front of a trolley.

Or am I missing something? — ChatteringMonkey

"The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel." wiki

That is to say, cement is produced by driving off CO2 from calcium carbonate (limestone).

In other news, as I tried to indicate earlier, the ocean is not as empty as it looks; covering it with solar cells is probably not as disastrous as covering a rainforest with solar cells, but not that far off.

Why is life so complicated?

I thought Goodman proposed a predicate that involves a scheduled meaning-change of a word, rather than word that describes a change in an object. Am I wrong? — Dawnstorm

Like my age? That changes on my birthday? I am always "my age," but my age changes. "people my age remember the assassination of President Kennedy." A stable truth using a changing predicate.

Like I said before, trying to rule out 'grue' on grounds of language rules is weak. It is missing the point.

Well you appear to be talking about them, but as a solipsist, you do not believe I have one. As a solipsist, you do not - and this is the crucial point - believe you have one either, because whatever cannot be shown, is invisible to you. But beetles are in any case the whereof one cannot speak, that you (and I) can name and waffle on about but actually say nothing meaningful about, because there is no commonality. And that is why the question of solipsism or non-solipsism drops away, because there is nothing to be said - it makes no difference to you, whether I have a beetle or not, as long as I pass the Turing test.

It seems at least close to an oxymoron - if something is taken with consent, it is a gift; if it is stolen it is taken without consent.

Not that you cannot use an oxymoron now and again, but you cannot expect analysis to reveal its meaning.

Your what? I have no beetle. Or, if I have one, we can't talk about it. But solipsists have no beetle by definition. There is no privacy in solipsism because there is no one to be private from, any more than there is anyone to be intimate with.

But, the issue arises that solipsism never was solved; by which I mean to say that it persists. I might be mistaken about this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. — Posty McPostface

Not solved, but dissolved. I think what W. arrives at is that solipsism followed through loses its bite. The forum of logical solipsists still has one post responding to another as if 'we' were separate communicators. 'One' simply 'communicates' in 'scare-quotes'.

Pirsig is very hot on the dynamic/static distinction in relation to 'quality'. It's complicated, and a bit off topic.

the TLP is two dimensional. But, that's how language seems to operate. — Posty McPostface

Well there you have it, language is two dimensional, but it operates - and operates recursively, and that makes it dynamic. So there is TLP, the last word in philosophy, and the fact that the limits of expression have been expressed extends the limits of expression, so that they cease to be the limits, though there are still limits. ( I'm struggling at my own limits of expression here, but if I can make this understandable, then it becomes possible to explore further again.) Looking at the picture of language as a picture, I see something that has been unclear, become clear. So my world has changed.

I might have a go at a separate thread if I can find the right levers... I think I'm talking about transformations of insight - awakenings.

Yes, it was what came to mind immediately. But to be mobile implies being in one place at one time and another place at another time, as does to be running.

Or perhaps compare the colour 'denim'. A very dark indigo that fades to light blue. Anyway, objecting to the concept seems a weak argument.

Thoughts? — Posty McPostface

Philosophy, like mathematics begins with a command. "Think about it like this: ..." "Let x be ..."

"Picture language as a picture of the world."
"picture language as picturing the world"

Perhaps this is the change from TLP to PI, from static to dynamic (see Pirsig). The reflexivity of depicting language as a picture is static; TLP is the correct picture, and having the correct picture 'once and for all' there is nothing more to be said that can be said.

But the command itself is the epitome of doing something with language. I inscribe the world on the world, and the world is changed by it. And this change is not inexpressible after all, but can be further inscribed, so what appears in TLP as the limit to the expression of thought, turns out to be no limit, but a dynamic incompleteness that is always open to further investigation.

Here's a new report on food and warming, that suggests we need to at least cut back on the meat.

If you don't have time for the academic report, here's the news version.

Is this desperation encouraged because many can exploit those that are trapped? Is this the 21st century’s version of slavery? — 0 thru 9

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to increase dissatisfaction - it's called advertising. "You're not really free, you're not a real man, you won't get the girl or have any fun unless you buy Dr Foul's 4x4 penis extension. " Schools are right on board, endless competition, endless measurement of performance, and 'there can only be one winner (and everyone else is worthless).'

Time was when it was perfectly honourable to be poor, and to make no progress up the greasy pole, now, you call it "trapped". But the trap is not poverty, the trap is seeing wealth as freedom. This is what leads to desperation.

I've never heard of a predicate that denotes two different kinds of properties at different times. — Purple Pond

Allow me to present "mortal".

coastal land is valuable real estate - particularly if it's sunny — karl stone

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/08/photos-along-the-namibian-coast/569041/

See also Chile, Morocco Australia.

As to the politics and economics, what is required is to wage a global war against CO2. Money becomes irrelevant in wartime, one does whatever it takes - that might include shooting some traitors.

I would suggest that solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, could produce electricity - used to power desalination and electrolysis, producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel at sea, collected by ship, or pumped through pipelines to shore. — karl stone

May I point out that covering the oceans will prevent phytoplankton from absorbing CO2. Put your solar panels on coastal deserts instead, and use the desalinated water to irrigate inland and grow some forest.

About half the members here have no posts. The mere sight of us chronic sufferers seems sufficient to cure them entirely. What you see in this hospital are the most intractable, chronic cases, but if you look at the world via a news ap, you will see at once that not merely philosophy, but even common sense has been largely eradicated.

Yes, it sounds a lot like heaven. There would seem to be no logical reason why God could not have created a heavenly physical world if he was omnipotent, and no reason why he would not want to if he was omnibenevolent.

If God created the world then logically catastrophes must be his work, either by commission or omission. — Janus

We're all in heaven already, but we get bored singing hallelujah, So God has made us this totally immersive game full of goodies and baddies and difficulties and problems. The creator of Mario also created Bowser - it was no mistake or failure.

Perhaps, I don't know, not having a crystal ball, but I don't see why - there's nothing can be done about society without free will, except what is inevitably done. You can't help being a criminal, and the court can't help condemning you - 'so it goes'.

If it can be demonstrated in court that a person had no free will according to science, then what? — Posty McPostface

Then the court has no free will either, and nothing will be other than it is determined to be.