If the past is infinite then the present is the end of an infinite period of time, but an infinite period of time has no end. — Michael

No start, in this case.
But the argument is usually phrased as "cannot be completed", except it can, it just takes an infinity.
Of course, if you presuppose otherwise, then you won't get anywhere.
It's not a (purely) logical thing, unless you include things like the principle of sufficient reason.

_{• James Harrington
• Craig Skinner}

An infinite past of sequential events is illogical, though. If we imagine each second of the universe as a person counting then the present is that person having counted every integer up to 0 which makes no sense at all. — Michael

I wouldn't say illogical, at least doesn't derive a contradiction.
Counterintuitive perhaps?
There'd be no sufficient reason that 0 was reached at one particular moment, and not some other moment, any other moment.
Yet, with a definite earliest time, we similarly appear to run into such a violation, in that there'd be no sufficient reason for the universe being 14 billion years old, and not some other age, any other age.
Maybe the counterintuitive "edge-free", not infinite universe is the more intuitive after all?
Weird. :meh:
At least we might admit that we don't know, and will just have to let the universe tell its own story (evidence).

_{• Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore by Ethan Siegel (Oct 20, 2021)
• The problem with the Big Bang theory by Don Lincoln (Nov 4, 2021)}

Found this fairly informative (has links to studies):

COVID's endgame: Scientists have a clue about where SARS-CoV-2 is headed (Oct 29, 2021)

I suppose this is as well, except in a different way, the way that makes you shake your head:

Big Bird got 'vaccinated' against COVID-19, drawing outrage from Republicans (Nov 8, 2021)

That's a bit shallow, sought, don't you think, ? Drop "the common good" sloganeering, et voilà, sewage systems and clean water is common good. Not sure why you'd complain about that. It's not particularly about "the state" either, but about doing them. We can, and do, figure out common good.

, , *haha* that is kind of funny. :D (I mean, not as a political or defamatory statement or anything like that, just the flatulent incident, not a huge embarrassment either.)

, not quite so good after all, eh? Unlike infrastructure, electricity, clean water, sewage systems, respect as the default, organized health care, generally available education/school, whatever it all may be. We can, and do, figure out common good. Even if some sloganize and abuse verbiage.

“The common good” is a phrase collectivists and utilitarians break out now and again to justify their schemes. You pretend to know it is, how to attain it, and then stack bodies to reach it. — NOS4A2

Nonsense. :down:

Randians. :roll:


_{• Common good (Wikipedia)
• The Common Good (SEP)
• What Is the Common Good in Political Science? Definition and Examples (Robert Longley)}

Late Halloween entertainment

The Cult of Fools – “Trump Empire in Financial Trouble” – Oct 31, 2021

How to present nonsense to, and spread fear among, the gullible ...

Official Government Reports suggest the Fully Vaccinated will develop Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome by Christmas (Oct 27, 2021)

The executive summary: if you had COVID-19 vaccines, then you'll probably have AIDS before the end of the year.

What I assume you consider valuable members of society put everyone else at risk every day. They step in cars, they don't get their flu shots, they procreate, they smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, etc.
To cherry pick one particular risk and assign it so much weight is completely inconsistent and unconvincing. — Tzeentch

Err two wrongs still don't make a right.
We still have to deal with the darn virus.

Chardin, a Catholic priest said, God, is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. — Athena

Here are some snippets I know of, going way back ...

God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man. — Ibn Arabi (1165-1240), scholar, mystic, poet, philosopher

The divine spirit slumbers in the stone, dreams in the animal, and is awake in man. — Schelling (1775-1854), Romanticist, idealist, philosopher

Live not the stars and mountains?
Are waves
Without a spirit?
Are the dropping caves
Without a feeling in their silent tears? — Byron (1788-1824), Romanticist, poet

Personification.

A lot of arguments ensue from the fact that empirical philosophy proceeds as if there is no observer to be taken into account. — Wayfarer

Or any observer?
Quantum weirdness is more about any interaction than a conscious observer consciously observing.
At least in experiments, minimization of (uncontrolled) variables tends to be desirable.

Schrödinger’s Cat – Still Not Dead (Hossenfelder; Feb 27, 2021)

Put in that way, it is true. The issue is articulating what is that "which gives rise to these considerations".

Sense data? I don't know. — Manuel

I guess, when you go chat with your neighbor, their reactions are to what you see in a mirror, something like that?
There are some ramblings in this old post.
Say, when something relevant/significant differentiates hallucinations and perception, then it's the perceived.
We learn of things extra-self (be they rocks or other people) by interaction, not by becoming them.
But of course you can't escape yourself, that's just nonsense, can't escape the means of learning about things and understanding them, while still wanting to do that — perception, consciousness, ... — those are inherently part of yourself when occurring, part of your (ontological) makeup.
Mere existence (be it of rocks or other people) is different from figuring out what it all is, which is both more involving and interesting.

Why universalize self-dependence...? :brow: Crazytalk.

So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. — Isaac Asimov (1941, 1990)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. — Philip K Dick (1978)

Point me to the person I hurt by refusing this vaccine, and I will take responsibility. — Tzeentch

Except, once you "take responsibility" it might be too late.
That's not taking responsibility, it's irresponsible. :fire:

Should SARS-CoV-2 be left to replicate propagate mutate unchecked with no containment efforts, leaving whatever in its wake, as your sentiment suggests? :down:
Should asymptomatic pathogen factories (active carriers) be treated/avoided? :up:
COVID-19 isn't really bad, but it's bad enough, and doesn't care about people's ideologies; could be a suitable rehearsal for a worse one.
The right thing to do is to stomp the pathogen down, learn, and get on with things.

I guess you could stay away from others, or get tested before freely intermingling with the unsuspecting?

, instead of "an actual world", I'd use "the actual world", but maybe that's just me?

1. X is a possible world ∧ X is not the actual world = X is a possible world but not our's

Say, one where Napoleon drowned by suicide. At least that seems possible.

2. X is a possible world ∧ X is the actual world = X is our world

Or, instead of "an actual world", we could use "a real world", i.e. not fictional or merely imagined, despite being unknown to us.

1. X is a possible world ∧ X is not real = a possible world but imaginary/fictional

2. X is a possible world ∧ X is real = our world or another real world (unknown to us)

(Technically, there's a presumption that our world is a self-consistent whole, but that doesn't seem controversial; either way, the possible world semantics, I think, is intended to allow reasoning that includes our world, the actual world.)

If that makes any sense...

, something's a bit off. By "the actual world" we normally just mean our world.

All possible worlds are actual worlds. — TheMadFool

With this (I think) you're moving towards modal realism, which means that all possible worlds are real, like our's is real.

A possible world need not be real, just possible, or let's say a self-consistent whole, if you will, even if hypothetical/imaginary/fictional.

When crafting definitions so, then of course there's no logical/scientific dis/proof.

It's not that hard to craft a definitional proposition so that both the proposition and its negation are compatible with all evidence. Like a difference that makes no difference (except Bateson used that phrase differently).

With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple procedure by which claims can be counter/evidence-immunized, converging on such propositions. With the invisible gardener, John Wisdom expressed something similar. Say, when the Olympians were nowhere to be found once people started looking (and could), the deities became "relocated" to some "otherworldly" realm.
The immunization procedure.
Thus, Tillich, Eagleton, and Whalon learned from the best, and now declare "God does not exist", yet in the same breath also declare "I believe God is". :D If we take existence to include reality, fictions/imaginations (fictions exist too, they're just not real), thinking (might occur when reading the forums), whatever, then their strange verbiage leads to "God" as "something" of which nothing much can be said. Neither here nor there, a ghost of bewitching language.

I guess you could show something, and then identify that as "God", which hence exists, or come up with a definition and determine that it refers to something real, just what you were looking for, "God". Just have to keep in mind that definitions are ours — there are no running elephants in dictionaries/encyclopedias, though we might find evidence of a stampede out there.

Misinformed horse uses COVID-19 vaccine to treat worm infestation (Oct 28, 2021)

, you don't think breast cancer prevention is cool...? :brow: How odd. It'd be a great accomplishment, Nobel material. Know/knew anyone with breast cancer?


_{• Breast Cancer Prognosis: Survival Rates by Stage, Age, and Race
• Breast Cancer Statistics
• Breast Cancer: Statistics}

Trial announced for 'first-of-its-kind' vaccine to prevent breast cancer (Oct 27, 2021)

Genuine medical progress, a great scientific achievement, if it pans out.

What will the anti-vaxxers say, though?

Trial announced for 'first-of-its-kind' vaccine to prevent breast cancer (Oct 27, 2021)

Genuine medical progress, a great scientific achievement, if it pans out.

What will the anti-vaxxers say, though?

, oh, I might'a misread, was just wondering about the something → (intellect) → tree thing.

We see.....sense..... something directly. It isn’t a tree until the intellect gets done with it, somewhere downstream in the mental process. — Mww

Hmm... Are you made by someone seeing...sensing...something, which then becomes you, once their intellect gets done with it...? Or, are you referring to someone's perception alone, rather than you?

You can't comprehend color just as I can. — GraveItty

Well, your experience happens to you (as also set out above). They're part of your (ontological) makeup when occurring.

Another aspect: I can't (even in principle) experience your self-awareness, since then I'd be you instead. Self-awareness is indexical. This stuff is pervaded by self-reference. And happenings (temporal).

We can still chit-chat about the world, though, including self-awareness. Meaningfully, too. Or we'd have no forums. :)

doesn't explain my conscious feeling — GraveItty

Right, no comprehensive explanations.
My comments at least (612641, 612834) are just about delineation.
Giving up (or mystification) not really warranted, and epistemophobia is irrational.

^{Pop: Neuroscientists Have Followed a Thought as It Moves Through The Brain (Jan 18, 2018)
Paper: Persistent neuronal activity in human prefrontal cortex links perception and action (Dec 18, 2017)}

Consciousness simply can't be explained. — GraveItty

It's obvious to everyone, but it's an object for no-one. — Wayfarer

Spatiotemporal analysis (with evidence):

Say, my supper is locatable, left-to-right, movable, breakable (i.e. object-like), my experiences thereof occur, come and go, are interruptible (i.e. process-like).

• Suppose x is defined as non-spatial, "outside of space". Well, then obviously x is nowhere to be found, no place. Cannot have any extent, volume/area/length, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
· A demarcation: objects are spatial, left to right, front to back, top to bottom, locatable, movable, breakable (under conservation).

• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
· A demarcation: processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation).

The closest to non-spatiotemporal in the literature seems to be abstracts, like sterile inhabitants of Platonia.

Minds partake in the world, interact, both ways, are active, are in fact parts of the world. It's a hallmark that minds are temporal, process-like; experiences come and go, occur, are interruptible.

Some entertain the notion that consciousness is a container (e.g. of experiences) that can be empty, yet the only evident container is the body.

Note, though, there is a sort of space-time duality here (distinct from substance dualism). Mind isn't object-like, that'd be a category mistake, rather mind is more clearly process-like.

We do know some things, but we don't know exactly what it all is, and, perhaps more pertinently, we don't know what it can all do together. Mystifying isn't a particularly good response as such.

Consciousness attempting to self-comprehend has troublesome self-reference...
Analogous to a map being part of its own territory.
Does that mean there's an information horizon somewhere?

There are going to be a lot of exploded heads if Trump wins in 2024. — frank

And some facepalms. :)

The Voter-Fraud Hunt in Texas Just Blew Up in Republicans’ Faces (Oct 21, 2021)

It’s my belief that they were trying to get cases of Democrats doing voter fraud. And that just wasn’t the case. — Eric Frank

Was he looking for a celebrity or a political group as a whole? I don’t know what he meant by bigger fish. — Eric Frank

Maybe a "Big Lie" type thing.

The Big Money Behind the Big Lie (Aug 9, 2021)

I guess we might consider two cases:

(≠) the experience ≠ the experienced (the Sun, other people, extra-self world, ...)
(=) the experience = the experienced (feelings, impulses, self, ...)

Say, when I experience my neighbor, the neighbor isn't identical to my experiences thereof (≠).
And, when I experience joy, the joy itself is the experienced (=).

So:

• subjective idealism (solipsism) is mistaking = for ≠
• hallucination is mistaking ≠ for =

Since experiences are involved in both cases, subjective idealism is an easy (gross) pitfall/trap.
Under the (ordinary) assumption that we're sufficiently similar, each of our introspections might also be sufficiently similar, so we might learn about others via introspection (like empathy).
The extra-self world is normally associated with a "physicalistic" reality, filled with all kinds of wibbly-wobbly interaction/transformation.

Errors are can be found either way, so I'm thinking that includes mysticism and weird introspective experiences (perhaps in particular); it's not like we're "perfect" perceivers or anything.



No one-size-fits-all answer I guess; sometimes, sometimes not?
My 2¢s on this quiet weekend; your mileage may vary.

:up:
Ongoing science/medicine has given us marvels, only to be thrown out by some kooky thinking. :roll:

Some elementary schools have a weekly dental hygiene thing.
The kids are tested for having brushed their teeth in the morning and get points accordingly.
Periodically, some reward is given to those having gotten a good score.
Simple reward-oriented system.

I suppose, open capitalist societies with relevant legislation sort of auto-reward and punish companies that manage to stick to :up: and avoid :down:.
Capitalism itself knows no ethics, though.
Maybe the punishment part has to be up'd to be proportionally effective, in some cases anyway.

Hey that may actually be predictive, .
I suppose ethical concerns might be raised (in particular) if it would all be on public record.
I'm guessing surgeon Ben Carson would get a good score.

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Oct 19, 2021)

Tu quoque, ? :roll: Sorry, it's not the case that "anything goes". Do get vaccinated. :up: :smile:

, cognitive biases and such — they come to the fore in the public square, when exchanging ideas, arguments, and such — don't want to transfer those as well.

But in any case, I'm opposed to mandatory childhood vaccination too, always have been. — Isaac

Right, ideology.

I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that. — Isaac

Select opinions. Means to an ideological end.

@Isaac, seems clear enough that you're coming in from a rather ideological angle (no, can't just shut down media :smile:). Pharma, for one, receives your blanket :fire: distrust (period), yet is good enough for others, going by your comments. The rest is then a matter of attempting to justify vaccine-denial, means to an end.

Meanwhile, there's a public crisis, where the pathogen isn't really bad, just bad enough, this time around, and doing the right thing generally is socially dependent.
So, now what? Do the right thing (like help stomping the pathogen down)? Cancel membership of society? Something else?

(There are scores of mad/ideological anti-vaxxeries out there, spreading and lapping up dis/mal/misinformation/bullshit; probably best to distance from those.)

I don't think a single person involved in this thread would, under normal circumstances, assume corporations act for the public good. — Isaac

Nor for the public bad either, presumably?
I suppose, in capitalism, supply and demand type mechanisms + profit-maximization drive what corporations do. As noted somewhere, GlaxoSmithKline got busted and paid substantially. :up:
Having disregarded the shaman out in the woods, maybe government-run research + production would do? Just established universities? Well, no, we still get into Us-versus-Them narratives, or at least that's what it seems like. (Even though "They" aren't quite Kafkaesque, ghostly entities.)
How many (and what sort of) offenses to render blanket distrust/dismantling and what would a realistic solution look like anyway? As to the ethical dimension, a project to cultivate and nurture moral awareness?

Do people believe internet nutjobs because they've lost faith in mainstream media, or have people lost faith in mainstream media because of internet nutjobs? — Isaac

Or neither, as seemed to have been the case with the example patient mentioned earlier?

Ban Facebook, ban Twitter, ban Instagram. That'd be a start. The damage they've done is beyond reckoning. — Isaac

:gasp: