Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we run with some sort of physicalism plus abstract objects.

By some sort of physicalism, I'd start out with a cup of coffee (important), the Moon, a soccer match (Manchester United), ... Of course there's more to it (perhaps mass energy distance/volume duration forces relativistic quantum fields whatever), in a way, but we might start there.

So, where does that (physicalism plus abstracts) then take us?

Consciousness no longer occurs?
Death, at first, is the last time consciousness ends and cannot recur, then, as determined by doctors and such, when bodily functions cease.
Is there anything ... extra, unaccounted for ... found...? Anything missing...?
I suppose you might check @Sam26's Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body thread; bit long though.

Press Conference: Election Whistleblowers Come Forward - Amistad Project via PR Newswire; Dec 01, 2020

featuring three whistleblowers who will provide personal eyewitness accounts demonstrating significant potential election fraud, some of which affects hundreds of thousands of ballots [...] Rigorous on-the-ground investigations have uncovered extensive evidence of fraud affecting hundreds of thousands of ballots that is being used in litigation across five states

... they claim.

("demonstrating" "Rigorous" "extensive" ... also "potential")

Can't help but wonder if they want to deny legitimate mail-voters.

Which is it; Wide spread or in labs? — Book273

This isn't an "exclusive or" type thing.

not an observational or anecdotal study, something peer reviewed and robust, that I could use in my practice — Book273

But it is observed. Like that party over there turned out a spreading-event, that ferry over there carrying passengers daily while observing protocols isn't, whichever. Why would you want to dismiss observations, when we're after the truth of the matter, and safety?

Not the kind of thing you'd typically find with carefully constructed (large scale, controlled) experiments reported in Nature magazine. The world at large is an inadvertent "experiment" here. And so we best learn, of which observing is a means.

The minor inconvenience of safety protocols (and visor perhaps) taken together with observations and "safety first" makes them reasonable, irrespective of your demands.

If you're an accredited medical professional, then ... nevermind. I call contrarian bollocks. Maybe you ought be tagged a public risk?

with covid, everyone is treated as infected before the fact — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it's treated as unknown, because that's what it is in the population at large, unknown.
In small "bubbles" of acquaintances, confidence can be higher.

Surprise — widespread use of masks is known to make a statistical difference.
(At close-up, in labs, masks have been shown to make a difference.)
And so, that's where it's at — make a difference. Common sense, too.

Should someone pin an info-post on the pandemic or something...?
Or not. There are a few available out there anyway. Some will remain challenged apparently.

innocent before proven guilty — Merkwurdichliebe

Hyperbole. Bad analogy. Take the virus to court.

I don't want to wear any mask at all, end of story. — Book273

Then stay away from other people, or at least ensure you don't expel your exhaust onto those that don't want it.
Hopefully a vaccine can be generally available soon, so we can do away with these (inconvenient) safety protocols. (y)

(y)

, if you don't think they're good enough, then wear something better.

Definitely mob morality, I'll pass — Merkwurdichliebe

This is mob morality in your book?

... or ...

Did you know the CDC restricts the use of masks on newborn babies. They don't seem to be doing too bad, eh? — Merkwurdichliebe

Masks are (mainly) for others' protection.
So you want to wear the annoying thing around newborns. Right?

Sure hope you're not one of these:



Creepy.

, Strangelove

• masks are dirt cheap
• widespread use of masks is known to make a statistical difference, check history for that matter
• masks have been shown to make a difference in labs
• heck, it's common sense, use your gray matter, others may not be interested in all your exhaust
• no, you're not particularly entitled to stride about spreading disease
• wearing a mask is being respectful to others, yep, there are morals somewhere here
• the virus couldn't care less about you me us anyone, it's in the business of infecting, whether you cry "tyranny" or not
* the virus is known to be dangerous enough, hopefully a vaccine can come about soon
• yo' can friggin' live with the minor inconvenience ya' cry-baby :)
• no, you don't have to wear the darn thing when on your own, at home, in your backyard, in your "bubble", whatever

Heh, are you trying to repeat Stove's competition? (Stop me if I am spoiling it!) — SophistiCat

Admittedly that was one motivation. :)
I thought periodic nominees and winners could be nifty, and the forums a good place for it.
(Perhaps even kind of relevant with the fake dis- mis-information out there.)

Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)
Adam Weishaupt (Wikipedia)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Wikipedia)
The New World Order (Robertson book) (Wikipedia)
Conspiracy theory (Wikipedia)

Mental pollution, fear, hatred, zeal ... turned Us-versus-Them is a favorite pass-time of some people.

Neurotic apes doing our thing?

Hey all, I kind of had examples in mind, maybe like "look what was in the Daily Planet", or "check this out", preferably somewhat short and identifiable, so as to show what not to do.

Because you shouldn't trust that Bill Gates creep. He's pro population reduction and you don't know what he might stick in that vaccine to get his way. — Ergosum

You think he's mixing it in his basement lab or something? At night?

(play theme from The Twilight Zone here)

, might depend on what's meant by subjective/objective.

If subjective means ad hoc fiat, discretionary opinion, random, then morals don't seem subjective.

On the other hand, with

• subjective: existentially mind-dependent
• objective: existentially independent

consider some analogies:

1. some are loved, some are hated, many have known love, many have known hate
2. after an extinction, love and hate could be rediscovered
3. so, love and hate are existentially independent of any one person

Further:

4. love and hate are phenomenological experiences, qualia or whatever
5. phenomenological experiences are existentially mind-dependent
6. so, love and hate themselves are subjective

The likes of love and hate can be parts of us, but not of rocks.
They're ontological constituents of us when occurring, and can also be wholly absent (e.g. pre-life, extinct) and come about again (e.g. rediscovered recurrence), without themselves existing independently.
Asserting otherwise might be charged with externalizing hypostatization or the like.

Seems (to me at least) that the objective versus subjective dichotomy is misleading here.

There are many two-legged individuals, they all have that in common, fairly simple information, two legs.
Yet, we don't therefore conclude that "two-legged-ness" itself somehow exists independently.

Commonality does not entail independence.

Likewise for morals and autonomous moral agency.

Are morals particularly related to (a)theism in the first place, though?
The likes of divine command theory and theological voluntarism aren't, they're just rule-following.
Gods aren't around to answer things either; useless.
Even given some such rule, in any given situation, you'd still have to decide if following it is the right thing to do.
Autonomous moral agency is where it's at; morals are better exemplified, than predefined rules.
So we better cultivate moral awareness (like embrace our humanity socially); it's down to us, always was.

Brief retrospect:

2016: prior counts, Trump warns of rigged elections
2016: after counts, Trump makes fun of sore losers
2016: Trump says recounts would be a scam to delegitimize him

Trump Administration's Mishandling of the Coronavirus Response by Congresswoman Jackie Speier

2020: after counts, Trump claims invalid election, shooting lawsuits from the hip
2020: some make fun of Trump as a sore loser
2020: Trump has acquired cult followers making threats, some spend their time searching for an illusive yet extensive election boogeyman

You'd think a population of 300 million could pick better, more competent, reliable leaders?
I guess, of a larger population, mad fringe can also be proportionally larger, more visible/seductive?

Hmm...
What would non-individuated self-awareness be? Doesn't seem right.
Maybe just consciousness without self-awareness then?
Isn't consciousness conscious of something? (Didn't someone once comment on that, maybe Kant, Hume, Descartes?)

The discontent with the US Elite-versus-Commoner thing (and "the swamp" and "class divide" etc), aren't those issues related to US free enterprising and capitalism...?
Just seems odd to keep pointing elsewhere, to keep emphasizing lower taxes and less government, and the ordinary family still expecting to readily be able to put their kids through a solid educational system equally available to everyone, reliable health care, etc.
Wouldn't you want government to facilitate and organize such likes, since government is employed by voters in the first place?
That's not an objection to capitalism, just seeing the US situation as odd.

Some years back, I posted "Time and such" in the Metaphysics & Epistemology section.
Seems to me that the block-verse (or eternalism) is incomplete in some way.
Works great as a descriptive device, but maybe reification without further ado is unwarranted.
Presentism is kind of worse, though, so this stuff can keep philosophers busy. :)
Don't let it depress you.

OAN represents the dark side of free speech. To be sent running with more free speech. Just so darn time-consuming.

I wager even you will be longing for a Trump presidency before long — NOS4A2

I have no ability to predict future events, so why would you want to hear me try? — NOS4A2

Hm?
Anyway, seems kind of odd that, out of millions of Americans, lots of cool people, Trump and Biden of all people would be the two candidates.

Trump's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. — free adaptation from an old play

I'm sure there'll be lots more strutting and fretting, sounds and fury. ;)

Donald Trump supporters rock back and forth while praying for his election win (Jacob Henry, Metro News, 6 Nov 2020)

Weird. Maybe some folk are just goners and Trump managed to herd them in?

Stephen Colbert will have to find a new line of work, presumably. — StreetlightX

Even Stephen Colbert can't laugh at Trump anymore after his last press conference — Stephen Colbert Reacts to Trump's Thursday Election Presser (NowThis News, 3m:3s youtube, Nov 2020)

The All Lives Matter crowd is extremely upset to learn that All Votes Matter. — Kathy June

:D

, does the following look right/wrong to you?

1. Trump lies and bullshits, followers don't hold him accountable, don't care
2. others typically encourage following covid-19 protocols, including Biden
3. on election day Trump encourages his followers to vote in person
4. Biden's supporters more likely to mail in votes following covid-19 protocols
5. Trump would know 4 (reasonable assumption)
6. come time to count mail-in votes, Trump fights tooth and nail to invalidate them, thus denying a number of voters (4)
7. a number of Trump followers (1) go look for a fight where mail-in votes are counted

And a familiar pattern is seen, Trump at the center, possibly engineered to "steal the election" in this case, ironically, since that's what Biden is accused of, or just another circus act to grab some attention...

• viruses don't care about Trump's bullshit
• Trump Administration's Mishandling of the Coronavirus Response by Congresswoman Jackie Speier
• US election 2020: Three viral vote claims fact-checked by BBC
• in addition to lying and bullshitting, Trump also divides and induces what follows from that

Part of Trump's political genius is that he talks non-stop (thus dominating all forms of media) but you can never really know for sure what he's saying — Hippyhead

I'm not sure how much it matters.
Seems Trump has legitimized conspiracy theories.
There's this thing, "in chaos all are equal" (or however it is), that seems applicable here.
Works well when you're (out-gunned or) out-reasoned, and there are a bunch of people that want to revert Roe versus Wade for example.
Actually, given how Trump says one thing one day, and another (or the contrary) the next — demagogue'ish post-truth'ish bullshit — what he says at large doesn't seem to matter much; as long as he rattles the cage, stirs some (bull)shit, upsets the upsettable, appears different somehow, but doesn't alienate the discontent country guy and the Christian soccer mom (and such).

• Trump shattered his promise to ‘drain the swamp.’ The self-dealing would be epic in a second term. (The Washington Post, Sep 2020)

FiveThirtyEight's 2020 Election Forecast seems to suggest Biden.
I'm not sure how good those models-simulations are, though.

What an odd thing to write, .
Children suffering terribly and dying uselessly from cancer ain't good.
Should we worry about you getting your hands on some Ebola and...? :)
By deeming everything good, it has kind of lost its meaning.

Thanks for the response, , and apologies for the late response.
Both wants and can, but doesn't?
FYI, here's an alternate layout of the opening post:


The Epicurean Problem

We observe children suffer terribly and die uselessly from cancer, while researchers work hard to prevent/relieve/cure as with "prior" (or historical) maladies.

Researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital want to but can't prevent/relieve/cure children suffering terribly and dying uselessly from cancer (4 below).

(want ⇐ benevolent)
(can't ⇐ not (yet) capable, not (yet) knowledgable)

If Yahweh wanted to and could have His creation free of the terrible suffering and useless death of those children from cancer, then what do you think would be the case?

(wanted ⇐ omnibenevolent)
(could ⇐ omnipotent, omniscient)

1. unlike humans, Yahweh (almighty all-creator) is and wills good
2. what Yahweh wills is good, unlike humans at large
3. the children that suffer and die from cancer is good, e.g. "the greater good"
4. the will and sentiments of researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital are contrary to 3 and unlike following Yahweh's example
5. activities of researchers at the Hospital are not good (and are without warrant)

Cease and desist? No more vaccines and whatever else medicine, prevention/relief/cure?

"The greater good" defense challenges the term "useless" above — the predicament is not useless but for an unknown greater good — to which the points 1-5 is a response.
By assertion, Yahweh has every warrant without exception; what warrant do researchers, doctors, etc then have (1-3 above)?

Premises 1 and 2 are fairly typical and figure more or less as definitions in divine command theory and theological voluntarism.

, "the greatest good" is where the halls of Hell are empty and Heaven is sprawling with infinite souls? :)

By and large, the universe doesn't care about us. Seems we're just dispersing energy entropically, made of stardust, riding on sunlight, like dinosaurs, covid-19, cancer and roses. Deities neither evident nor necessary.

Happy Thanksgiving. (y)

I don't think that makes much of a case for Yahweh, . :)

If Yahweh created self-identity, then Yahweh would also not be Yahweh. Say, both all-creator and not all-creator.
We would not be able to speak of "something" like that, since "it" would also not be "itself" (and even saying that would be going a step too far by merely using the term "something" in such a fashion). Not schizophrenia, not even chaos, just baby-talk, like a kind of "illogical" intellectual suicide.
There cannot be anything in particular prior self-identity. It's meaningless, since "meaning" presupposes identity.

Incidentally, that's also where the presuppositionalists go over the top. Or it's one of their troubles anyway.

Explosive, . :)

, "children suffer terribly and die uselessly from cancer" is both good (Yahweh, 3) and bad (doctors, 4)? Seems contradictory.

, objection to/affirmation of the opening post...?

Let me just add, the opening post is not itself an alternate rendition of the Epicurean problem.
In a way, it's a response to "the greater good defense" of "the problem of suffering".
Yahweh supposedly has every warrant; what warrant do we (researchers, doctors) then have?

, ugh, "free will" is a can of worms.
Wasn't there some parallel thread about that, at least peripherally, recently?
I'm guessing that researchers and such will say they chose what they do.

Who says Yahweh doesn't will the doctors...? And therefore their efforts are also good. — tim wood

Doesn't that violate Yahweh supposedly insisting on "free will"?
After all, the "free will defense" is used for blaming humans, Hitler, Manson, rapists, murderers, ...
Personally at least, I'd like to credit those researchers, doctors, nurses, etc.

Also seems a bit like the children then are collateral damage. :confused:
(Their suffering is not purely "academic".)

Not quite Caesar, but anyway ...

Trump came, Trump worked his taxes, Trump worked the voters

(y), the highlight of the quarrel.
Trump interrupting again, and Biden saying

Will you shut up, man? — Joe Biden to Donald Trump

:D

Should be played every time Trump rambles?