life: a replicating chemical reaction. Is this an accurate or even useful definition of life? And if so are we able to speculate how such a self replicating system could come into existence? — ovdtogt

I replied to you on the other thread, but I’ll repeat it here: I think that life is more a self-replicating system of interacting chemical reactions. This is at its most basic, mind you.

I speculate on this all the time. The way I see it, the diversity and changeability of carbon molecules and carbon chains in chemical reactions enables a broad variety of different reactions to potentially occur alongside each other in ‘primordial soup’ conditions, and to interact with each other in an even wider variety of ways. I’m probably doing a terrible job of explaining the situation, but the possibility of a chemical reaction interacting with another chemical reaction several times in several different ways across the duration of each event certainly increases the chances of developing some kind of spatial-temporal relationship between the these chemical reactions.

But I don’t think it’s just about the interactions, rather about the information available when this occurs (I think this also relates to @Pfhorrest’s entropy reduction above, given that entropy=missing information).

We could consider the basic interaction between two particles as a one-dimensional awareness: where only a single bit of information about one particle is presented to another, and is immediately integrated. It could be an increase in vibration, or trajectory, etc. The particle has the capacity to be aware - only in that briefest interaction, and only very vaguely - of more (than itself). More than what, it cannot possibly know, yet it manifests/integrates the information within itself.

A chemical reaction, however, can be considered a two-dimensional awareness: where two or more particles interact for a duration. During that duration, the chemical reaction forms a relationship-entity, and has the capacity to also be aware of any third particle that may interact. If two interactions occur during that time, this relationship-entity can even make a basic distinction between these interactions, as one-dimensional information (a distinction in relation to itself). This distinction can then inform the results of the chemical reaction.

Life develops from a three-dimensional awareness: two chemical reactions, as enduring relationship-entities, interact with each other, with the capacity to acquire information about the other chemical reaction in relation to its own duration. This means that each chemical reaction can make a distinction between two or more different chemical reactions that it interacts with (in relation to their distinction from itself), and can also interact with those relationship-entities for a duration, forming a more complex entity/relationship (life) - one that has the capacity to be aware of interactions as gradients (two-dimensional information), and inform its various chemical reactions, creating movement, etc.

There is at some point where truth can be defined as an object. Since the universe exists and theoretically AI could operate on the entire universe's principles, then that AI would be truth. — ep3265

Truth can be reduced to an object, in much the same way as a table can be reduced to three lines on a page. But are they the same thing?

Truth is usefulness. — ovdtogt

A lie can be useful, too.

life: a replicating chemical reaction. — ovdtogt

More like a self-replicating system of interacting chemical reactions.

So you believe choice exists within suffering. In the cases where one does not have choice, is a slave to playing out the pain, then this is truly suffering.

Complaining at your arms getting stronger in a place where you have choice not to do pushups is not suffering.

What think you of will or agency and how much agency do different people have? Do we all have opportunity of choice? — Spirit12

I think it’s very much dependent on awareness of choice. We can’t always choose our circumstances or what happens to us, but as human beings we always have the capacity to choose how we respond to each interaction - if only we were fully aware of that capacity. I think we suffer from ignorance, isolation and exclusion in this respect, more than we suffer from pain, loss or humiliation.

Sure, but any change can be interpreted as a loss. The night can be interpreted as a loss of the Sun, the day can be interpreted as a loss of the night sky, the absence of happiness can be interpreted as a loss of happiness, the presence of happiness can be interpreted as a loss of however it is we felt beforehand. Even the loss of suffering can be interpreted as a loss. Talking of loss this way is simply talking of change. Usually we refer to loss as something leading to suffering, but equating loss with change misses that negative aspect of loss. — leo

Yes, and it has been interpreted in these ways in various cultures and philosophies. But it’s more than an interpretation - it’s an awareness of various aspects of reality, and how we interact with change at each dimensional level. Referring to all of these, including death, as ‘change’ is a five-dimensional awareness - recognition that we interact with an aspect of reality beyond spacetime. I think perhaps you and I take this aspect as a given, but not everyone does, and so they’re likely to suffer from loss experienced at a four-dimensional level rather than see it as ‘change’.

When loss is equated with change I agree that change is fundamental to existence, there is no existence without change.

But I’m not certain that there can be change without desire and without life. That’s the view of physicalism, which assumes that everything that exists behaves according to physical laws, that these laws were not created by a being and that nothing can break these laws, but I disagree with that view for various reasons. It is possible that there is no existence without at least a being, that existence and being necessarily go together. It makes more sense than saying that somehow for unexplainable reasons being and consciousness arose from dead particles that behave according to unchanging laws which are there for no reason at all. — leo

That’s not necessarily physicalism - a view I also disagree with. Change occurs in chemical reactions, without desire and without life. You don’t need to be a physicalist to recognise this as a reality, and you don’t need to believe in the existence of a being beyond time to be aware of existence beyond time. That’s my view - it’s far from conventional, and probably requires another thread to explain properly, but I don’t see particles that were never alive as ‘dead’, or see being as necessary for existence.

Then you are not as reasonable as I am. I think our reason is our only guide to what's true. You, I suspect, like to put yourself in the mix as well and will only listen to reason if she seems to be saying things you already agree with. — Bartricks

Well, you’d suspect wrong.

Reasoning is the act of structuring and restructuring the mind for the purpose of integrating new information to minimise instances of prediction error.

Reason, on the other hand, is a limited structuring of that mind based on a system of logical significance and language. As such, it is reason who only listens to things she already agrees with. Reason has her perspective of what is true - it’s a limited perspective, but she’s not aware of this - and she ignores and excludes new information that cannot be reduced to logical argument.

So for Reason, truth is subject to logic. If you put all your faith in Reason, then you could very well be as narrow-minded and ignorant of reality and truth as someone who puts all their faith in God - just in a different way.

I have no idea what that means or why I should endorse it given that you have provided no argument whatsoever in support of it, whereas I have provided an argument - an argument you have ignored because it had assumptions (like, you know, every argument ever) - in support of mine. — Bartricks

This is because everything has to be reduced to logic and the language of argument before Reason (and therefore you) will recognise it. If I reduce it to logical argument, then it can only be argued as a truth subject to logic. And my argument is that we cannot be certain that it’s true under these conditions.

I’ll try to clarify and extend:

Truth is a shared meaning achieved without ignorance, isolation or exclusion of any information (perhaps that’s a little clearer?). It exists regardless of relativity to logic or value, and regardless of time or space.

More inclusive... ? In what way? And, how are the principles of cause and effect, and vibration (energy) limited? — BrianW

The principles of cause and effect and vibration refer to a reality that is four-dimensional: relative to time and space. But what is real or true is not necessarily bound by time, or by cause and effect. Potential energy, for instance, is not an ‘effect’ and has no ‘cause’ - and yet we understand it to be real/true. It is a truth that exists in relation to value and meaning, but has no defined temporal or spatial aspect. The principle of cause and effect does not apply to potential energy, and neither does the principle of vibration.

Having said that the utterly passive life is not a moral life, implies that it has a negative impact on the world. But you can’t pinpoint exactly what that person is doing wrong. He could for example have worked for the poor in the slum, painted his neighbor’s house, played music to cheer people up or an infinite number of other possibilities. Positive ethics doesn’t specify what is wrong. There are no specific demands. — Congau

That depends on the positive ethics. I explained that the person you described, who did not consciously interact with life, was ignorant of what suffering they caused to whom. They may believe their passivity does not cause suffering, but their refusal to consciously interact precludes them from any awareness of the suffering they actually cause. This ignorance is what is ‘wrong’. The delivery boy could get beaten by suppliers every time he has to pick up the delivery - they won’t know that or be able to do anything to prevent it if they don’t interact. So they indirectly contribute to suffering by their ignorance. According to a positive ethics that calls us to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, they’re doing nothing commendable by their passivity.

Contributing to suffering is not the same as causing suffering. If you are one out of millions of people who hurt the environment with your garbage, in this respect no one suffers because of your existence. If you dump garbage in your neighbor’s back yard, your neighbor suffers because of you. In the first instance we can only encourage caution (positive ethics), in the second we demand that you stop (negative) — Congau

This ignorant attitude is why the world is going to shit, while everyone arrogantly points the finger at governments and corporations. They may not appear to suffer from your existence, but they’re certainly suffering from your actions (yes, you are acting by producing garbage), and particularly by your ignorance.

Let me make something clear here: from the start, I have not argued that positive ethics should be employed without a negative ethics, but that both work in harmony. An effective positive ethics, in my view, has a corresponding negative ethics and vice versa - but neither gives us the right to make demands on people. We make demands anyway with negative ethics because we believe that here we can more effectively force compliance through fear. The demand is accompanied by imposed (rather than natural) negative consequences. In many situations, the demand is effective only because a fear of these imposed consequences render those who comply ignorant of, isolated or excluded from, their capacity to choose the immoral act. Where this is not the case, they make their choice based on the soundness of the ethics, not the demand itself.

What are the difference between constructive, deconstructive/reconstructive and destructive suffering? — Spirit12

Like if we are doing push up vs being forced to do pushup — Spirit12

The question is, are you suffering if you choose to do push ups, or are you simply experiencing pain? Are you suffering if you’re aware that the pain is constructive or reconstructive? Why or why not? There may be a part of you that calls it ‘suffering’, but you wouldn’t entirely agree, otherwise you wouldn’t choose to do them. In my view, to call push ups we’ve chosen to do ‘suffering’ points to different levels of awareness in the body that contribute to the mind.

On the other hand, we may be led to believe we have no choice but to do push ups - what you refer to as forced. There would be more of a consensus from you that this is ‘suffering’, but it’s still a perception that the pain has no aim (constructive/deconstructive/reconstructive) - which in my view is a lack of awareness. If the person ‘forcing’ you to do push ups is holding a gun to your head, then the pain you’re experiencing is preventing a bullet in the brain. If they’re a drill sergeant in the army, then the pain you’re experiencing is preventing what you would consider to be greater suffering: humiliation, pain and loss from isolation, exclusion, etc. If they’re a boot camp instructor, then the pain is a consequence of your decision to get into shape - a reconstruction of your body, as it were.

But in each of these situations, the reality is that you still have a choice - you’ve simply excluded your alternatives. There is no imperative here, no force, except the one imposed through ignorance, isolation and exclusion. You can choose to get a bullet to the brain - except you exclude that option because your systems are geared towards the survival of the organism, and are completely unaware of anything beyond this. When you predict a bullet to the brain, for instance, that prediction comes with an overwhelmingly negative affect, and your systems will do what they can to prevent it. At a broader level of awareness, you’d be convinced by evolutionary theory that your motivation is survival, which fits with this negative affect. But if your awareness extends beyond this - to the recognition, for instance, that your interaction with the universe extends beyond your survival - then a bullet to the brain is still a choice, and there are many other things to consider.

I wouldn’t say we ‘clashed’ on this in the past, more like we disagreed, in the end I want the truth to come out I never try to impose my ideas onto others, it’s simply when I’m convinced that I see something that the other side doesn’t see that I become more persistent, but even if the other side still disagrees after all my efforts I don’t keep ill feelings, maybe simply a little sadness that we couldn’t come to agree, sometimes there are things we simply aren’t ready yet to understand, this counts for others but this counts for me too, I don’t claim to have reached the whole truth but I believe I’m closer to it than I used to be. — leo

You’re right - ‘clash’ was the wrong word. But we do continue to disagree, and from your reply here, I have a feeling we’re going to pick up close to where we left off, and perhaps even go over the same ground again. I’m fine with that, and I do enjoy these discussions with you. They are both respectful and challenging.

I disagree that there can be no life without loss. Loss is an interpretation, you can be far from someone and still feel connected to them, feel that you haven’t lost them. You can see death as a passage rather than the end, and consider that you are still connected to your loved ones who passed away and that you will see them again. Seeing things that way you don’t have to see loss in life, only change. — leo

I agree that we can be far from someone and still feel connected to them, that we haven’t lost them. This is an understanding that what we lose in physical connection is only part of the connection we’ve had with them all along. But you can’t say that we haven’t lost something here - we’re just not suffering from that loss, because we recognise that there is more to our loved one than the physical or temporal aspects we’ve lost. And we have lost those aspects of them - you can call it change, which refers to either loss or pain, or both, but I see it as roughly the same awareness. Denying the loss is denying that they had a physical or temporal aspect at all, which I don’t believe is being honest with ourselves. But I don’t think we’re that far from understanding each other here.

Also I see desire and suffering as more fundamental than loss, since for instance if one doesn’t desire anything there is no life and thus no loss. — leo

This is where we differ, because I consider an experience of loss/lack to be fundamental not just to life, but to existence - to all forms of interaction in the universe. I pair loss/lack because they refer to the same basic sense of incompletion (although loss has a temporal aspect). Without interaction, there can be no loss, but there is loss without desire and without life. There is no desire without an experience of lack, however.

So far, I think the best way to express truth is to express the principles through which it manifests (this is based on the perspective that we, humans, and everything else, are a manifestation of reality - therefore, truth is expressed by the principles which operate through everything, despite the relativity, and which also enfold everything). — BrianW

I think these principles need to be more inclusive than cause and effect or vibration in order to operate through and enfold ALL of reality despite relativity to space, time, value or meaning...

I'm only familiar with Noddings to a larger extent and her emphasis on education. In her, Education and Happiness, she often takes the presupposition of a liberal education to be inclusive and open to all, a very egalitarian presumption. Lock's tabula rasa is a central theme for feminists, do you think so? — Wallows

Not sure how you’re correlating Locke’s tabula rasa with a liberal education, or with feminism as such.

I got the impression that the focus of Nodding’s relational ethics approach to education was about the relationship between the teacher and student, with the aim to develop the ‘whole child’. I would think Roosevelt’s ‘People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care’ is more appropriate. I would agree with this, but I’m dubious of her reference to ‘happiness’ in the book title: the idea that an aim of education is ‘happiness’ sets an unreasonable expectation for teachers and schools, in my opinion. But I think I see where she might be coming from:

“We will not find the solution to problems of violence, alienation, ignorance, and unhappiness in increasing our security, imposing more tests, punishing schools for their failure to produce 100 percent proficiency, or demanding that teachers be knowledgeable in the subjects they teach. Instead, we must allow teachers and students to interact as whole persons, and we must develop policies that treat the school as a whole community.”

This preference of Nodding is certainly a focus of the private school my own children attend, and largely endorsed by my teacher husband (except for the knowledgeability of teachers - but he does teach maths).

Yes, you’re right. But the feminist ethics Wallows refers to, “the feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision. — Brett

There does seem to be a leaning towards this as a solution, or correction, to our developing problems. Personally I don’t agree with it. Though it’s not difficult to imagine that the masculine voice, logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld, has dominated in a negative way and resulted in inflexible institutions and laws.[/quote]

I think a lot of this may come down to difficulties in approaching a shared meaning - although I’ll admit that I have only a cursory knowledge of feminist ethics, care or relational ethics, etc. It certainly wasn’t a topic I had explored in developing my own philosophy. So this is only my initial impression of it, at a glance.

The ‘care’ perspective, as I see it, is portrayed in a way that leans towards only one of two general definitions of ‘care’: “the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something”, which would position ‘care’ in opposition to the more traditional ‘justice perspective’ of ethics in many respects. A second general definition of ‘care’ - “serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk” - enables a focus on ‘care’ to be inclusive and even critical of traditional ethics, without positioning the care/justice perspectives at odds. It’s a definition that I would personally lean towards more in relating an ethics of care to mainstream or traditional ethics (being more aligned to my own philosophy), but I will probably need to read more to comment at a deeper level.

So, this is a troublesome issue. As far as I know most virtue ethicists such as Noddings or Gilligan have no imperative for their voice to be heard over that of males. In fact, I suppose that such a thing would be detrimental to their cause. — Wallows

I don’t agree with this interpretation, but I’m far from being knowledgeable on the topic. From the Wikipedia entry: “Feminist ethicists believe there is an obligation for women's differing points of view to be heard and then to fashion an inclusive consensus view from them.” Whether this is what they’re achieving, I can’t be sure at this stage - from your interpretation of Noddings and Gilligan, I would say they’re not.

Having said that it occurs to me that though both sexes may have similar or equal capabilities, it doesn’t then follow that they apply them the same way. — Brett

I agree, although it cannot be assumed that just because someone is female or ‘feminine’ in some respects, that we would expect her to apply them in a particular way, either. In a reality where masculine/feminine is no longer a binary distinction, how do we define and structure these concepts in relation to an ethical ‘voice’? Is @Wallows’ advocating feminist ethics to bring the ‘feminine voice’ alongside, in opposition to, or above the ‘masculine’ voice?

The OP suggested a revival of ‘feminist ethics’ as one avenue for the future of philosophy. I argued that reviving it under that label risks negating the relevance of the philosophical perspective to a mainstream critical analysis and revision of ethics, and proposed a future of philosophy that eliminates the need for the distinction between ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ voices in ethics.

Was I getting off track?

No, nor do I. But it’s a problem dealing with people who still insist it’s true. I’m not referring to Gilligan, but to people who insist that one sex is incapable of what the other possesses. — Brett

Agreed - which is why the label ‘feminist ethics’ is a problematic one for me, and one I make every effort to shake.

“Negative impact on the universe” is really something so minuscule that it doesn’t count. Besides, you can only cause individuals to suffer not the universe in general. — Congau

I never claimed that the universe suffers. Suffering is a perspective of harm from negative affect towards experiences of pain, loss, lack and humility. It all adds up when considered from the ‘perspective’ of the universe - which is the only way to approach an objective position.

If you avoided all interaction with other people, lived on a deserted island or isolated in house (say you had a fortune and paid a landlord and a delivery boy, making them happy), it would be possible to live without causing suffering, but it wouldn’t be a good and a moral life. We can’t demand (meaning we don’t have the moral right to demand) that that person does something specific. In positive ethics we can only make general recommendations, many things would be good to do, but none of them is necessary. For negative ethics we can (have the moral right to) make very specific demands: Don’t kill Peter! Don’t do A! — Congau

No, you would still cause suffering - you’d just remain ignorant of what and how much suffering you cause to whom, which in itself cannot be a ‘good and moral life’. How you interact with the landlord and the delivery boy, with those who source, produce and supply or are otherwise impacted by your various needs and wants - that’s not doing nothing at all. Your existence and your impact on the universe is not just about ‘physical’ interaction. You’d have to be fully aware of how your interactions contribute to pain, loss, lack and humility from the perspective of each of these people, animals and ecosystems in order to be certain that you are not causing suffering. Which means that you would have to interact more.

What is a ‘moral right’ as such? How does a moral right pertain to negative ethics but not to positive ethics? I looked it up, and it was defined as the right of an author or creator to preserve the integrity of their work. So your ‘moral right’ is to make demands of me in any interactions with your limited construction of how the world is supposed to work, whether or not we agree on the details.

I know that it seems like declaring something to be ‘immoral’, ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ justifies our actions to do what we can to exclude instances of it in our experience of the universe, but this is not an objective position. You believe you have a ‘moral right’ to interact with others in a way that excludes, isolates or ignores the ‘moral rights’ of others because they’ve excluded, isolated or ignored the ‘moral rights’ of others - but most likely they’ve merely exercised their ‘moral right’ to do the same...this does nothing to reduce suffering.

Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and other virtue ethicists? Just off the top of my head. — Wallows

“According to Gilligan, there are two kinds of moral voices: that of the masculine and the feminine. The masculine voice is "logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld. The feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision. For Gilligan, Kohlberg's stages of moral development were emphasizing the masculine voice, making it difficult to accurately gauge a woman's moral development because of this incongruity in voices.” — Brett

I relate to this distinction, but my concern is that a philosophy such as my own, which may very well fall into this category, can be labelled and subsequently marginalised as ‘feminist ethics’, effectively distancing its impact on and capacity to revise any mainstream study of ethics. So I don’t think the labelling of moral voices as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ is a useful one in philosophy, except in an historical sense.

An effective ethics or philosophy would aim to eliminate the need for a distinction, in my view. I personally don’t see the focus on interpersonal relationship as a distinctly feminine perspective, but a more universal one that positions a logical perspective, for instance, as one part of a system of limited and interrelated value structures.

Not sure I follow. I am assuming that upon reflection all reasonable people will agree about the form the answer to the question must take. That is, it must take the form of a proposition that the faculties of reason of most of us seems to endorse.
And then I am assuming that reasonable people will agree that if we'd all agree that "theory X" is the true theory of truth if our faculties of reason represent Reason to be asserting its contents to be the case, then by default we should assume that truth itself is synonymous with that property. — Bartricks

No, you’re making an assumption that anyone who disagrees with your definition is not ‘reasonable’, and are therefore excluded from the discussion. You’re limiting the parameters of the discussion to manipulate the ‘truth’ your claim.

That's the next question. It is the question it is appropriate to ask if my answer to the "what is truth?" question - namely that 'truth' is the property of being a proposition whose contents Reason asserts to be the case - is true.

But we can agree that my answer is true, even if we subsequently disagree about who or what Reason is. So I hesitate to say who or what Reason is for fear that many will think my answer to that question will discredit my answer to the "what is truth?" question (which it doesn't). — Bartricks

No, I cannot agree that your answer is true if I disagree on the meaning of your answer. That’s like handing over a signed blank cheque on the proviso that we can ‘discuss’ the sum later. Or expecting me to agree to the statement ‘the Bible is true’ before we discuss any further. I commend your honesty in acknowledging fear as your main reason for trying to corral the discussion. But I would argue that the truth of your answer, as it is structured, is entirely dependent on a shared meaning of ‘Reason’.

I don’t value ‘reason’ quite as highly as you do, by my estimates. This is evident by your willingness to exclude any and all aspects of ‘truth’ that cannot be explained by reason alone. So let me offer my answer to your question, and we’ll see if we can find a shared meaning of ‘truth’:

Truth is a shared meaning achieved without ignorance, isolation or exclusion of any kind.

Are there folk out there who did not realise that greed is a bad thing until they studied ethics? — Banno

There would certainly be folk whose concept of ‘greed’ is not the same as yours. That you position certain behavioural observations as ‘greed’ and others don’t would be a matter of ‘philosophical’ discussion/debate/conflict in actualising your supposed solution of ‘rejecting greed’.

That is, truth is the property of being a proposition that Reason asserts to be the case. When Reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case. Her asserting it, and its being true are one and the same. — Bartricks

But what (or who) is Reason? Aren’t you basing all your ‘truth’ on an assumption that everyone knows this particular ‘truth’?

Climate change, together with the Anthropocene extinction, is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large.

The solution is simply the rejection of greed. — Banno

Are you sure that’s not something philosophy has anything to do with?

Rejecting ‘greed’ is a moralistic approach. ‘Greed is bad - let’s point out all the instances of behaviour and being that we recognise as greed and punish them for ruining the planet’. Not a solution.

The Tragedy of the Commons is a ‘tragedy’ because of the philosophy employed by users - one that is invariably characterised by exclusivity and isolation, but is more importantly ignorant of details regarding the resource itself, their fellow users, sustainable use parameters, responsibility, etc. Elinor Ostrom argues for a bottom-up approach to resource management that appears to successfully override this Tragedy of the Commons. At its heart (in my view) is the system-wide increase of awareness, connection and collaboration, achieved by that system supporting and encouraging awareness, connection and collaboration at smaller, local and more individual levels.

Indeed it is possible to desire things and not suffer from not getting them, if we are already content with the way things are. Buddhism understands that, and that's why it says the root of suffering is not desire, but attachment to desire. However not being attached to desire means not being attached to life itself, if something threatens your life and you desire not to suffer then you are supposed to be content with the situation and accept your fate. If someone steals from you or kill your loved ones you are supposed to not be attached to things or to your loved ones in order not to suffer. And that's something most of us will not accept. I see being detached from our desires as giving up on life itself, and letting others decide our life for us. As long as no one bothers us we can live that way, but if some natural phenomenon or someone attacks us we are at their mercy, and we leave our fate in their hands. — leo

I recall that we’ve clashed over this discussion before. I think it’s possible to desire and to enjoy life, without being ‘attached’ either to that desire or to life. I think that by ‘attached’, what is meant is an inability to let go, or to recognise the impermanence of desire and life and everything. If someone steals from you or kills your loved ones, you will experience loss. That’s unavoidable. What most of us will not accept is that the experience of loss is unavoidable even if no one steals from you or kills your loved ones. If you EXPECT something to be always where you want it, you will suffer from losing it. If you EXPECT the continual interacting presence of another in your life, you will suffer from losing them, too. But it’s possible to have something or love someone without suffering from its loss - and it has nothing to do with being content with the way things are - quite the opposite. We do it by recognising (as Carlo Rovelli states) that the universe is made up of events, not things. We interact for a time and then, necessarily, things change, and the connection we once had is no longer the same. That’s not to say it’s no longer a connection: just not the same.

So does that mean that being attached to life necessarily implies suffering? No, because there is a possibility Buddhism hasn't taken into account. The way things are, all of our desires cannot be met, some are mutually incompatible, which leads to suffering. The key point is, "the way things are". The way things are now, suffering is inevitable. However things change, through our actions, through what we do. Buddhism gives up on life and does not attempt to change the way things are, yet in principle it could be possible to progressively change the way things are to get to a state where all of our desires are met. There is no proof that this is impossible. Desires aren't set in stone, and neither are beliefs, both change. In principle it could be possible to attain a utopia, in which we would all live in harmony in such a way that no one suffers. — leo

It may be theoretically possible to attain a situation in which we would all live in harmony in such a way that no one suffers, but not one in which no one experiences loss of any kind. There can be no life without loss.

And even if one doesn't ascribe to the view that such a utopia is possible, at least many can already agree that we can do better to reduce suffering in the world. I see it as important to realize that Buddhism does not provide the only way to overcome suffering. In a way the solution of Buddhism is to give up on life, but that's not the only solution, we don't have to give up on life. — leo

Buddha may have appeared to have ‘given up’ on life, but I think he was demonstrating his point in the most enlightening way: the only way to effectively overcome all suffering in one’s life is to cease to live. I’m not convinced he was expecting anyone else to actually copy this - the lesson is not always a path for us to follow, but an opportunity to learn where the path goes without taking it ourselves.

This is all very well said! You're right, the man made version of climate change we are facing now was made a reality due to the same old injustices most of us have been fighting for our entire existence. Consistent morally progressive leadership I feel is something we have never truly had as a species as well as consistent humility and responsibility in leadership too. I wouldn't mind certain leaders so much if they just had the balls to do what is right and admit mistakes or admit to lies and save us all time in deciding whether or not to give them another chance or not. There needs to be much more trust and assumption of forgiveness when it comes to callousness. Intent is certainly a contributing factor in judgement of wrong doers and if its a genuine mistake from a fallible human at least have the decency to own it and let people make informed decisions about forgiveness, forgetting or justice. If the form of justice wasn't so violent and aggressive as it is now maybe this would be easier for people to do. As it is too many people spend so much time trying to micromanage how people perceive them and its boring and totally inauthentic. I like the narrative of being in a debate with someone and wondering whether or not you or they are the "Bad guy" in this. More often than not the end of that narrative is usually realising we aren't all so different deep down. These social failures and successes are what define us really. Failure is certainly character building but we get to decide in what way this shapes our character. Honesty is always the best policy when it comes to what we do. — Mark Dennis

To be honest, I’m not putting much stock in authorities to ‘lead’ on this, or anything. As long as survival is a major goal, authorities won’t have the courage to lead. And we have had morally progressive leadership, but they’ve notably led from the bottom, not from the top, and ‘consistent’ is a pipe dream in an ever-changing world. If we’re to make this kind of change, it has to be a groundswell that influences authorities, not the other way around. I think as a rule we rely too much on authorities to make these decisions for us, as if we can’t choose to stop burning fossil fuels on our own, but need to be forced into it (and then complain about it).

Like @god must be atheist says, we need to stop being hampered by fear. We need the courage to own our mistakes in the face of violent and aggressive justice in order to demonstrate that justice is overly violent and aggressive, and wrong doers are mistreated. And we need to recognise that we’re the bad guy in this, in order to repair our failures.

One thing that Trump has done is make it painfully clear that the POTUS has never had to earn the respect and authority we’ve given them.

While everything that you wrote up to this point is very reasonable, this is pure sophistry. It's like saying "you can't fight death." A truism, of course, if you state it like this, out of context. But if you say it while watching a toddler drown in a bathtub, anyone would be in their rights to bash your brains in. — SophistiCat

This is true, but try telling it to a human: "You gotta stop being, man. Your time is up, give way to cockroaches, bloodsuckers and tapeworms. Sit down, shut up, extinc** yourself." — god must be atheist

Yeah, but it got a response.

I’m not saying that you can’t turn the tide on the effect of climate change - what I’m saying is that when you frame it as a ‘fight against climate change’, you will lose. You have to approach it differently - stop trying to make the world do what we want it to do, but rather listen and pay attention more, and then give the world what it needs from us.

Don’t just stop being anything - start being what the universe needs, instead of being human just for the sake of it, for the glory of it, or for the perks. We are not the ultimate goal, as such. We can be the ultimate solution, though - humanity has the capacity to facilitate a sustainable world. We’ve evolved not to maximise survival, dominance or proliferation, but to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. The more we focus on this, the more we recognise that the rest of the universe is open to it - and needs this from us, more than anything else we can do.

I think we need to not just re-evaluate how we live, but to restructure our value systems themselves, to include the significance of what isn’t necessarily seen as valuable to humanity.

Climate will change; it has done so for billions of years, and it will continue to change long after we’ve gone. The idea that the climate of a location would remain within our choice parameters is ridiculous. But the accelerated change we’re experiencing, drying out some habitats and flooding others, and the extinction-level impact this has on the already reduced, threatened and divided habitats of the planet’s diverse wildlife, is still mostly our doing.

But - oh, no! Now our lives might be under threat! Well, maybe not under threat, as such. It’s not like we’re facing extinction. Scarce resources, maybe. Flood, fire and famine, war, genocide, coup d’etats, countries in economic collapse, environmental refugees, perhaps even poverty, exploitation and corruption on a national level - this will be the human impact. But most of that is already happening around us. Many of us will gradually need to adjust our diet, where we live (here in Australia, at least), our lifestyle, occupation, etc. It will be inconvenient and frustrating... and someone else’s fault.

And we will be sad to hear that another species needs our help to escape extinction, that we can’t find Nemo on the Great Barrier Reef anymore, and that people and animals and trees are dying around the world without ‘good’ reason. But we’ll get used to it, won’t we? We’ll adjust, as we always do, as a species.

We can’t fight climate change. To fight it is to refuse to accept that climate changes - that it should change - as if it’s the change that threatens us, as if it’s us that’s most important. It’s the wrong focus. We need to be more aware of what is really happening without fearing it, to connect with what is happening, and to collaborate with it. All of it. A good start would be to stop referring to it as ‘climate change’ - it’s humanity that we need to halt...

No, you can’t demand that people pay taxes if they have never worked. If a person chooses to be a vegetable, you can’t demand anything from him. — Congau

A government, king, authority, etc CAN still demand it. It’s how they justify it and how they enforce it that matters - how they align it with the value structures of those to whom it applies, and how they interact with those who don’t comply for whatever reason - NOT the demand itself.

A person who does absolutely nothing is not far off dead. In the meantime, their very existence - breathing in and out the way they do, consuming oxygen and energy, displacing air, etc - can be seen by some as inadvertently causing suffering, depending on your perspective. If you exist and do not make effective use of the suffering you will cause just in choosing to live, by finding something to do that will offset your unavoidably negative impact on the universe, then what are you still doing here, and why make more like you?

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think we can or should enforce anything. We can increase awareness, connection and collaboration, or we can contribute to ignorance, isolation and exclusion - at various levels of interaction. That’s pretty much it.

Shows how much I pay attention, and rely on the ‘Forum’ landing page...

Missed this excellent recent addition to the already existing ‘Learning Centre’ this site, on effective argumentation.

Thanks again, @Baden - I will be spending more time here, I think...

An excellent point to raise! Maybe I should review how I am using consequence free here; Real consequence free. That isnt the same as completely consequence free. For example we can introduce fixed consequences in video games; for example we if a player deviates from a certain area, they automatically are transported back there and are denied the forbidden area.

You can design a super cop in a simulation of reality with the ability to mete out justice through either punitive of reformative justice without fail.

Or you can design realistic consequences and just have someone repeat scenarios until they figure out which consequences aren't bad for them or others. — Mark Dennis

Too many ‘realistic’ consequences at once in a video game or simulation will detract from the main appeal, which is to be relatively free of the pain, loss, lack or humiliation that pervades real experience. The more ‘realistic’ we make these simulations, the more prediction error will occur, as people struggle to accurately determine the parameters of the distinction. But by the same token, the more we address each prediction error, the more refined and detailed our understanding of these distinction parameters will become - so long as we continue to accept some prediction error (ie. suffering) as a necessary part of the process.

The current market of simulations and VR seem to reflect the current offerings of ‘reality’ TV. It shows where we’re at socially in relation to which consequences we’re willing to accept as necessary, and which ones society in general genuinely believe shouldn’t exist. Any consequence we’re not willing to purposely inflict on contestants contributes to the majority of what we call ‘undue suffering’ in our reality: what we feel is ‘wrong’ with the world.

This is where ‘happiness’ cannot exist from a human perspective. There is nothing in this part of reality that is ‘good’ for humanity. But it’s still real. If we continue to choose not to be aware, to connect or to collaborate with what is ‘bad’ for humanity, then we will continue to experience the same prediction error in our interactions with that reality. And the same suffering will continue unnecessarily. It is in addressing each prediction error (with awareness, connection and collaboration) that we relieve instances of suffering - not in avoiding (ignoring, isolating or excluding) prediction error or suffering in general.

Can you tell me where in the world you are from? I could recommend some local philosophers of historical significance if I know any from there. — Mark Dennis

I’m Australian - I’ve read a little Chalmers, and familiar with his recent work with Tononi on IIT. That’s an interesting work in progress. I can see what they’re trying to achieve, but I think, like most, they’re hampered by assumptions in relation to evolution theory and reductionism that only people like Nagel are courageous enough to address from a philosophical standpoint - at great cost to his reputation, mind you.

For structure, other than Badens thread; studies in logic are helpful and I cannot recommend giving Cohen's preface to logic enough early on studies in logic. — Mark Dennis

Yeah, logic is a struggle for me. I read Marianne Talbot and Chris Wood’s ‘Critical Reasoning’ a few years ago, and I know I have to re-read it (or something similar), but it’s literally like learning a new language. I find that formal logic has limitations that commonly discard information I think is vital for a more ‘objective’ understanding of reality. It’s like trying to draw: you have to be proficient enough in the medium to know which marks on the page will convey the 3D object in 2D, in a way that most accurately retains its 3D perspective. Otherwise the 2D structure you create will look nothing like the 3D object you’re trying to illustrate - especially to someone who is proficient in the medium.

We also have the ability to create and potential to improve upon Consequence free environments through video games and simulations so its not like after a certain level of advancement people wont be able to get their freaky kicks without hurting anyone anyway in a way where they honestly couldn't tell you if its an AI or not but not discounting player vs player simulations. — Mark Dennis

The problem with this situation, though, is that the value structures of this consequence-free environment are not as ‘isolated’ from the value structures we use in other environments as we’d like to think. The very relativity of value suggests that there is a structure that determines the circumstances under which we would apply our different value structures, enabling us to interact with everyone and everything else regardless of the value structures they might apply in the situation. We need to be conscious and critical of how we determine this overall structure - as a more ‘objective’ reality - to avoid prediction error (ie. suffering) in how we interact with others.

I think the difference between philosophical concepts and physics concepts, is that physics concepts are objectively defined: in most cases there is a consensus that extends beyond human experience. We can define ‘energy’ in a way that is inclusive of how an amoeba, a tree or a piece of paper responds to what the concept refers to. But can we do the same with ‘pain’?

I’m not an academic - it’s been more than 15 years since I’ve written anything that requires citations, formal or otherwise, and I’ve not formally studied science since high school. There are many discussions here where I feel ill-equipped to contribute in a way that would be taken seriously. Sometimes I do anyway, and occasionally my post is ignored. I try not to assume the reason for this. I recognise that I’m relatively new to philosophy, and my ability to frame my position in relation to established theory is limited. I also realise that I should be structuring my arguments more formally, but to be honest, I’m too far out of practise to even know where to begin.

In that respect, @Baden’s advice on ‘How to Write an OP’ was excellent, and much appreciated.

I wonder sometimes if some of the academics here could offer more of their expertise in this regard - if there was a place where we could ask for (or they could compassionately offer) tips and advice in structuring arguments and positions, and it would be quite separate from any opinion or position (academic or otherwise) on the topic or content itself. Perhaps a section where discussion or debate was secondary to the learning process, where the many non-academics on this forum could be students without being subject to condescension. As much as I’d like to, I’m not yet in a position to go back to formal study, so this is my university for the time being...

The problem is this:

1. People believe that simplicity evolves into complexity

2. Humans can't create anything more complex than themselves

3. If 1 is true then 2 should be false. — TheMadFool

Let me try again. If 1 is true, it does not follow that 2 is false, because creating has nothing to do with evolving. So 3 is false.

Humans don’t need to create something more complex than themselves to demonstrate that simplicity evolves into complexity. Humans themselves have evolved into more complex organisms, and continue to evolve, particularly in relation to their capacity for more complex mental structures.

We can create art but art can't create us and I'm quite sure you're not claiming we're simpler than the art we create. — TheMadFool

No, of course not. But to create is not to evolve. ‘Create’ is a transitive verb - it’s an action exerted on an object. ‘Evolve’ is an intransitive verb - it is enacted by the subject.

The simplicity from which art has evolved is not the human creator, but the materials used. That which creates is NOT that which evolves.

The problem is this:

1. People believe that simplicity evolves into complexity

2. Humans can't create anything more complex than themselves

If 1 is true then 2 should be false. — TheMadFool

When humans create art, they create an expression of reality that is more complex than the materials that constitute the artwork. Michelangelo’s David, for example, has a complexity to it that certainly wasn’t apparent in the stone before he got his hands on it.

Plus, ‘create’ is different from ‘evolve’. I think that humans also evolve into something at least marginally more complex than themselves all the time: other humans.

A lot of my philosophy, or arguments, if not all, are ignored. When people face an argument they can't face, but they are still in love with their pet theories, then they ignore dissent
— god must be atheist

While this is one of the reasons people ignore others; it isnt the only reason someone can find themselves ignored. I often find that my rebuttals draw begrudging silent acceptance, telling of inward accepting of the argument but the lack of willingness to just say so for a myriad of reasons. Pride being one I think. It's a shame really as I choose to get happy when people genuinely make me speechless in a way that shows they are onto something. Nothing is ever perfect though. — Mark Dennis

I think there are also those who have gone silent because they are genuinely reading up on what they are struggling to understand. There are some here who have the humility to say ‘I will have to do some more reading on that subject/theory/philosopher’, and I greatly admire that. It’s difficult to admit that in the face of someone who believes they are engaged in a debate instead of a philosophical discussion.

I want to say that each contributor to this thread so far have contributed to my learning process since I’ve been here. I haven’t always engaged with you, and I haven’t always engaged well, but following your discussions have lead me down many paths, and helped me to articulate, critically examine and revise my theories. So thank you.

As for the OP, I think engaging with posters here enables you to structure both the academic and applicable aspects of a philosophy, which I don’t imagine would happen as much in a purely academic environment. It’s certainly a challenge for those philosophies that are built on one or the other, and I think the particular environments of some past philosophers may have protected their theories in this way, to some extent.

So do humans deserve to be happy even though it is happiness that causes divides in people? — Anthony Kennedy

Happiness refers to a general positive affect. It can be our own interoception, or inferred in someone else from their external behaviour.

I wouldn’t say that it’s happiness that causes divide in people. When people are upset because of life, it’s how they respond to their own lack that causes the divide. When we hate, we attack that which draws attention to an aspect of reality we believe is wrong or should not be - not necessarily what we believe is wrong (especially if it’s something wrong with ourselves).

It’s when we believe that we should have a life without experiencing lack, loss, pain or humiliation that we attack the world without cause. Because there IS no life without these experiences.

Positive affect comes and goes for everyone, and in response to many different experiences. It’s not something that lasts, an accumulatable property or a character trait. We may not even notice it when we have it, especially if we’re focused on something else. We usually package it as a more specific emotion, such as pleasure, joy, excitement, anticipation, contentment, etc. It is when we call it ‘happiness’ that we convince ourselves it’s something we can obtain and hold onto, something we deserve, or a resource that is being intentionally kept from us.

From the outset, we can’t demand that anyone does anything, but we can demand that they abstain from doing. — Congau

Well, I’d be one who disagrees with this. You CAN demand both, but the question is HOW would you ensure that your demand was successful?

You can demand that people pay taxes, for instance. And you can demand that people abstain from having sex. But how successful can we be with these demands?

It does seem like that, although the connotations attached to the word ‘faith’ often imply that we must ignore evidence or take leave of our senses - which is not what I’m suggesting at all.

It’s like when astronauts first went into space - they didn’t just head out there with no idea how to get back. They structured and planned the process as much as they could without actually doing it. But the astronauts knew that, past a certain point, they were relying purely on predictions and assumptions from loosely related information at best - not evidence. They knew that the maths and physics were a poor substitute for reality. But it was as much as they could manage.

I guess ‘faith’ to me is just recognising that, past the point of certainty, you can choose to interact or not. Those who don’t like the word ‘faith’ are usually uncomfortable with anything past the point of certainty, and will choose not to interact.

The fifth dimensional aspect of reality is value. Mathematics is an effective system for structuring value aspects of reality beyond our temporal and physical existence. But it is still relative to meaning. So are the various other value/significance systems of language, logic and morality. Objective is not the same as rational.

The sixth dimensional aspect of reality is meaning. Objective meaning is correlation regardless of how one structures the universe in space, time and value - not just ‘beyond good and evil’, but beyond language, logic and mathematics. Objective reality is therefore beyond the value of human existence. Religion cannot quite reach this objective reality, anymore than language, mathematics or logic can. They can all get us pretty close, but I think in order to understand how all of these structures correlate into an objective reality, we have to take that last leap without them, and then look back...