So how are you a physicalist then? I'm confused at this point. You're posting a lot of stuff in this thread, and I've kind of lost the thrust of it, as well as my own interest in it. I was responding to a very specific problem I thought I saw, and kept my comments very specifically about that (consciousness), but at this point I'm having a hard time understanding your views on any of these topics.

When you focus right down to it, every single behaviour and action from eating to love and even death can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life. — ThinkingMatt

Your whole theory is basically a description of the perpetuation of biological life, which you're then conflating with a vague philosophical concept of "purpose".

Hey rossii,

I know a lot of those feelings, if not all of them. Another musical icon that I respected recently committed suicide, and it shook me up more than I could have anticipated. It elicits a different emotion in you than you've ever felt before. It's the feeling of a theoretical "mentor" who has..."checked out". It leaves you with a feeling of betrayal or disillusionment.

Of course I had to go through those threads and found myself confused even more. — rossii

It's an endless maze of ideas. It's wise to learn how to pace yourself when you read these things, particularly with regards to the topic of suicide.

Deep down I don't want to hurt myself, because I don't want hurt anyone around me, but don't know how to battle these thoughts. — rossii

That's also one of the main reasons that keeps me from committing suicide too.

If you think maybe there's some more advice you can give, I'll be glad. I guess that's why I post here. Maybe to talk to someone who went through something similiar or to read what to do. — rossii

The best advice I can give you is that you're not alone in your feelings, and that there's always a different state of mind available to you, and waiting eagerly for you, than the one you're currently in that is bringing those feelings.

My long term goal is to achieve mindstate that goes something like - Well I was born, I am alive, so I should live and wait for the death to come by itself. — rossii

There's so much more than waiting for death! There's an entire life in between. You have it in you, this life. It's in you.

delete

B.) At the group level, unhappy people are being scapegoated or swept under the rug because, no matter what is the cause of or reason for their unhappiness, their presence is a reminder of the failures and shortcomings of particular societies and social systems and of humanity in general. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Not only that, but on an individual level, the presence of the outwardly unhappy is an unwelcome reminder of the presence of the inwardly unhappy state of the outwardly happy. I call it The Grand Taboo.

Then where’s the need for this additional Dualistic entity that you call “Consciousness”? — Michael Ossipoff

I never said I was a dualist. You asked if I was a spiritualist; I questioned what that was because it's not a philosophical term, and I clarified that I thought you meant dualism. You're assuming I'm a dualist, it looks like, probably because i'm questioning your physicalism, and because my correction about spiritualism/dualism made you realize that you meant dualism, which is now what you've correctively proceeded to accuse me of.

I'll go ahead and let you know here that I don't consider myself a dualist or a monist (or an idealist) in the classical senses. More later.

I suggest that all that’s objectively, or globally-assertably, real and existent or true are maybe some abstract logical facts. — Michael Ossipoff

What?? How does that relate to your insistence on "animalism"? Are we just animals, or is objective reality just "some abstract logical facts", or are you an idealist like you say later on, or...???

You insist on wanting to artificially, unnecessarily, dissect the animal into a Consciousness and a body. — Michael Ossipoff

Your assumptions about what I'm arguing are getting tiring. Nowhere am I arguing for a "dissection". I'm arguing for the primacy of conciousness within experience. As I'm reading through your tome of a response I'm feeling more and more that you're not really comprehending my argument at all. I sincerely don't mean that as an insult. You basically continue to say the same things, and now I'm just saying the same things, because you're not addressing my points; but my points were direct addresses to your points...

Most animals have no awareness of having or being a Consciousness. Only imaginative Dualist philosophers can create that fiction.
.
Would you say that a squirrel perceives that it is a Consciousness, or that it just perceives that it likes acorns?
.
If squirrels could speak English, and if you could ask a squirrel what it is, would it say that it’s a Consciousness? Or would it say, “I’m someone who likes acorns. Give me some acorns.” — Michael Ossipoff

I don't even know what to say.

You think that you’re a Consciousness that “has” a body. — Michael Ossipoff

Nope

You say that what’s ontologically-primary is a Consciousness that is separate from the body. — Michael Ossipoff

Nope

You say that Consciousness is the proper starting-point. Can you show justification for that claim? — Michael Ossipoff

Re-read if you want that

Alright, I admit that you haven’t been very specific, but I assume that you’re saying that, in addition to a physical body, in addition to the animal, there’s a separate entity called a Consciousness. You must mean that, when you say that we aren’t just the animal. — Michael Ossipoff

Classically, dualism means that there is an inseparable divide between the two concepts soul and body. I don't see consciousness as inseparably "other" from physicality, but neither am I a physicalist. If I have to label myself with blithe philosophical terms, it would be something like "generative mystical monist". I doubt that would interest you much though...

…maybe a philosophy constructed abstractly, instead of from our actual experience. — Michael Ossipoff

Right, I didn't elaborate clearly on what I meant by simplest. conscious experience as ontological starting point is not experientially the simplest starting point; physicality is, which is your argument. Let's clear this up. What I'm saying is that the simplicity of a physical starting point is not in consonance with the actual state of reality. The actual state of reality is what you seem to consider superfluously elaborate. Recognizing that conciousness is ontologically primary requires a very robust amount of philosophical and mental work. But once arrived at, it's the simplest and purest starting point. It's, rather, a re-starting point. I didn't make that clear, and I apologize.

(Y) *returns to crystal ball*

Maybe ya'll will finally come around to all of my hair-brained mystical psuedo-philosophy now that I've proved my supernatural powers... :P >:O

What can I say, I have a gift...

O:)

Watch out, it's only a matter of time before Thanatos will cut you off and stop reading your posts! :’(

Sure. But your conscious experience is of your perceptions, feelings, preferences, wants, likes and dislikes among your surroundings, Those are exactly what one would expect as the experience of an animal, or any other purposefully-responsive device. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying conciousness is the ontological starting point, which you seem to agree with.

It's just the simplest description consistent with our experience. — Michael Ossipoff

But how can it be the simplest when consciousness is the proper starting point? Conciousness does not present itself to you as "animal". You still haven't peeled back the onion layers far enough; I'm not talking about our conscious experience of our physical surroundings; I'm talking about the pure, simple, experience of your conscious mind: your bare thoughts and feelings.

I can't prove that your elaborate Dualism is wrong. — Michael Ossipoff

Where have I constructed an elaborate dualism in this thread? Ironically, conciousness as the ontological starting point is the simplest possible way to begin a philosophy. It's the most intuitive. What you're perceiving as elaborate and unnecessarily complicated are the layers of the onion of your mind that you need to peel back in order to arrive at this simplest, purest starting point.

Don't you see that "consciousness" of yours is your perception and analysis of your surroundings, maybe with a monitoring of that analysis, for purposes of optimization or communication? ...and your feelings of preference, likes, dislikes, fears, etc.? — Michael Ossipoff

Peel back further; it's not only that.

My argument is that the simplest description of what we are, is that we're nothing other than what we seem to be--an animal. — Michael Ossipoff

Isn't the simplest description of us that we're conscious beings? Your conscious experience is the ontological starting point. The concept of "I am simply an animal" is not the ontological starting point; it's an abstract concept.

Given that animals are natural-selection-designed to accomplish certain purposes, by responding to their surroundings for that purpose, what would you expect that to "look like" and "feel like" to the animal?

Wouldn't you, in fact, expect it to be exactly what you experience? — Michael Ossipoff

Not at all because I experience consciousness.

though humans have a special adaptability, language, and special talents that the other animals don't have, if you meant that, other than that, there's some qualitative fundamental attribute possessed only by humans, then I disagree with that. — Michael Ossipoff

But consciousness itself is that qualitative fundamental attribute because it's the very "realm" in which we humans have these discussions. Consciousness is the foundation of all human experience. You can't make a physicalist claim without your consciousness. The problem you need to address is how to even go about making an argument that that consciousness which is the foundation of your experience is a physical attribute of your body. The burden of proof actually always lies with the physicalist here because consciousness is something that we experience as not being physical, regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Someone who believes in consciousness as something apart from the physical animal. — Michael Ossipoff

You're thinking of dualism; a spiritualist is a person who practices spiritualism.

The body doesn't make or originate mind or consciousness. Mind and consciousness are Spiritualist fictions. The fact is that we're each an animal, with preferences, likes, dislikes, fears, etc., and that's it. — Michael Ossipoff

What's your argument for this claim? I assume you mean dualist fictions, not spiritualist ones.

For instance, this:

The fact is that we're each an animal, with preferences, likes, dislikes, fears, etc., and that's it. — Michael Ossipoff

Is not an argument for this:

The body doesn't make or originate mind or consciousness. Mind and consciousness are Spiritualist fictions. — Michael Ossipoff

Such a person believes in consciousness or mind as a separate metaphysical substance. — Michael Ossipoff

Are you using the word "substance" here as a metaphor on purpose or no?

If you haven't read Tolstoy I highly suggest you do. — darthbarracuda

I haven't read anything about him that made me want to read him, to be honest.

1.) Those who fail to understand the human condition (the ignorant).
2.) Those who understand but focus on maximizing their pleasure (the hedonists).
3.) Those who understand and are able to commit suicide (the strong).
4.) Those who understand and who are unable to commit suicide (the weak). — darthbarracuda

These binary distinctions aren't accurate. An uneducated person might understand the human condition better than a philosopher or pastor; a hedonist is more often than not completely unaware of the reality of the human condition; a person who commits suicide has definitely not grasped the entirety of the human condition, and those who have the urge to commit suicide but do not, or attempt to but fail, often have the strongest characters of all. I have no idea where Tolstoy got the idea to create this fallacious set of inaccurate stereotypes.

most people have a vague inkling of their condition but wash their fears away with cheap pleasures. — darthbarracuda

That can often be true, yes.

There's a few people who get a little beyond this and try to embrace life or come up with some dumb reason for living but they're usually obnoxious and twat-like. — darthbarracuda

Do I strike you that way, then?

Also I would like to point out that failing to have any good reason to live does not necessarily mean you have a reason to die. Maybe you don't have a good reason to live or die, but life comes before death so you end up living for a while longer. Or maybe you have a good reason not to die - but that is not an affirmation of life. It is simply what I said earlier, a reason not to die is a reason to kick the can down the road, to procrastinate on suicide. — darthbarracuda

It sounds like you place no value on life. I've been there. I'm finding that when I'm in that state, I'm avoiding the steps I could take to rediscover the value that inherently exists for those willing to take the life-long journey. Beauty, for instance, exists whether or not you're willing or able to perceive it. The value of life seems to be related.

:P

use your English skills if you have any.. — Thanatos Sand

There's no need to insult me; consult my posts to see if I have English skills. I trust you have it in you to philosophize with arguments instead of insults. All of us do, and you're no different. It just takes a willingness to question one's own beliefs, to weigh the beliefs and philosophies of others as impartially as you're able to, to put yourself in their shoes, and to use reason to assess arguments, including your own, in a leveled manner. I wish you the best in cultivating that ability.

But since you're fine with misrepresenting me, — Thanatos Sand

I'm not, which is why I asked you to simplify the sentence in question. It's a small, inconsequential sentence, and not worthy of cutting off debate with a specific forum member over.

we're done and I won't be reading anymore of your posts. — Thanatos Sand

I've seen you say this to others. It would appear that at this rate, you'll only be singing to your own choir on this forum, or possibly just not posting at all. I'd love to debate with you more in the future if you decide to change your mind. Good luck!

No, they are not; they are somatic and mental manifestations of chemical imbalances in the brain. — Thanatos Sand

This is not a response to my argument. You continue to avoid how conciousness plays into this.

No, it's not because my conscious intellect is a product of my brain and the rest of my body and nothing more. — Thanatos Sand

See above.

No, I'm not. — Thanatos Sand

yes, you are.

They are biological functions — Thanatos Sand

No they're not, we only apprehend them through subjective conciousness.

We can't observe the mechanisms of our minds. Only neurologists and their equipment like EKGs can. — Thanatos Sand

So why are you making arguments on their behalf?

What a ridiculous metaphor. — Thanatos Sand

I thought it was pretty tasty >:O

I never said they were. You need to go read what I wrote again and retract that. — Thanatos Sand

The sentence in question is pretty vague, so maybe simplify it? Then feel free to comment on the actual argument that I just made instead of nitpicking on things that I misinterpreted because your language was vague.

Nature knows no "shame" — Thanatos Sand

What is Nature, capital N? the poetic device here is confusing.

"shameful" thing we do is as much a part of our biology--very often in deficient forms like psychopaths or pedophiles--as tearing animals to shreds is to crocodiles. — Thanatos Sand

The physical symptoms in the brain that lead to psychopathy or pedophilia are not the same thing as a crocodile feeding to survive. And furthermore, those physical symptoms of mental illnesses are simply the machinery by which our subjective conscious experience of those states of mind are set into motion, and we only know that through the subjective experience of conscious scientific observation. You're reducing those mental states to biological functions (biological reductionism). This is fallacious because you're doing this through your conscious intellect. None of us have the ability to actually observe the world outside of this mental state that we all share. When we observe the physical mechanisms of our own minds, we are doing just that: observing the mechanisms. We are not observing anything to do with an ontological meaning by which one might be able to make a philosophical argument.

You're basically saying: The lasagna is only a product of the oven. No one made the lasagna, and they didn't (not) make it for anyone else to eat.

No, emotions are also physical reactions and expressions of unconscious experience and feeling, particularly with the more irrational ones like hate, love, and anger. So, they are products of the brain/body and, as you mentioned, another product of brain/body--consciousness. — Thanatos Sand

All mental processes are obviously functions of the physical brain, but this doesn't explain consciousness itself. I said "shame...only exists as a concept within consciousness". Michael was talking about the concept of shame when he said we're the shame of the animal kingdom. To feel an emotion without consciousness is physical (animal), but to make an emotional argument, as is doing is intellectual (conscious); not physical. That's the argument I'm making against Michael. For humans to be the "shame" of the animal kingdom requires consciousness; other animals don't consider us the shame of the animal kingdom because they don't consider anything. Whether or not animals actually feel the emotion of shame is not related to a human (conscious) argument about whether or not we as humans are "shameful" animals.

I continue to try to bring the discussion to a fundamental place of considering what the assumptions are that you all are making when you focus so heavily on biological considerations when making philosophical arguments; I continue to ask why you find these discussions worthwhile, I ask what the referent is to why these questions matter, and you all continue to only respond with more biological arguments. You have to agree to go where I'm trying to lead you in order to make arguments against the actual points I'm bringing up.

Incorrect. Just because the many other animal species on this planet can't speak human language, doesn't mean that they like it when they or their young die prematurely. ...as many of them do when we destroy their habitat, by clearcutting, pollution, global-warming, etc. — Michael Ossipoff

I said nothing of language; my comment was about consciousness. Your comment hear doesn't respond to my argument.

Compared to the other animals — Michael Ossipoff

You continue to completely miss my point. Shame, along with all emotions, only exists as a concept within consciousness.

Humans have great potential. As a species, we don't live up to that potential at all, and our effect on Earth's life is incomparably worse than that of other animals — Michael Ossipoff

Is our potential environmental and nothing else? Why does the environment matter? What's the referent for why it matters? Why is it wrong to harm the environment?

You seem to be confusing our potential with our actual deeds and effect. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm trying to help you see that these things you consider morally wrong need a non-physical referent in order to be coherent.

But no, regardless of what it means, its definition, whatever it may be, doesn't invalidate anything that I said. — Michael Ossipoff

Your entire argument has been biologically reductionist thus far, in it's own unique way.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507137

Are you a Spiritualist? — Michael Ossipoff

What is a spiritualist?

You're right. We should be proud of the fact that we're the rogue species that is perpetrating a mass-extinction, and in the process of rendering the Earth uninhabitable. :) — Michael Ossipoff

It was a serious question because it wasn't clear to me what you meant.

The problem is that you're beginning with the assumption that mass-extinction and rendering the Earth uninhabitable are bad states of affairs, but the very consciousness you possess as a human being is the sole tool with which you've come to that conclusion. In other words, you're looking at only one side of what it means to be human. The idea of us as the "shame" of the animal kingdom has no referent; shameful as opposed to what? In reality what you're saying is that humanity should care for the earth, not destroy it, but your consciouss mind is what came to that conclusion, and your conscious mind is the very thing that actually sets humans at the top of the animal kingdom. You're ironically beginning with an irrational emotional argument when you address the question of where we fit into the animal kingdom.

As a matter of interest, are you aware of what biological reductionism is, who its proponents are, and who are its critics?
— Wayfarer

Not yet. Let me get back to you on that. — Michael Ossipoff

You'd be prudent to research that before further trying to expand on your ideas here.

As opposed to not weak-willed? Strong-willed? Idk what you would call it. We lack the guts. — darthbarracuda

To be weak-willed is to suggest that the opposite exists. Weak-willed exists in relation to something else. If it's the state of everyone, then it's not specifically weak. So, if the will of humanity is weak, it suggests the idea of a strong will; the strong will that we could achieve; the strong will of a higher being, etc.

I mean sure you can "choose" to live but really what that means is that you choose to procrastinate your suicide. — darthbarracuda

So every death is a suicide?

We all do it cause we're weak willed. — darthbarracuda

Weak-willed as opposed to what?

There's something twisted yet satisfying in showing people's reasons to live to be empty and shallow. — darthbarracuda

How is the word "satisfied" predicated in that sentence?

There's really no "decision" to live usually. — darthbarracuda

But can there be?

(Y)

So why shame?

But how is us being the "shame" of the animal kingdom related to what I said?

Btw, welcome to the forum, and good observations here.

Some thoughts:

So if civilizations or city vibes homogenize creators, and homogeneous creations lead to movements, then surrealism, realism, romanticism, etc, are for west civilization what Mona Lisa is for Leonardo da Vinci, what Guernica is for Picasso, etc. — aylon

I'm unclear on what you mean here, I think it's just the wording.

"movements are the way that cities express themselves" — aylon

A note to your point is that cities as cultural centers are generally what create the ferment in which ideas and movements are made. Science, art, etc. This points to how the relationship between those disciplines is complex and interwoven.

Not sure on the science, but I think Du Champ was the 1st (?) self referential artist...'It is art, because I say it is art.' Of course he was right, but... — Cavacava

Yeah, Magritte seems to fall more into the category of surrealism.

The generalization of "I feel depressed" is a shared concept that we can basically rely on. We can ask what the depression feels like; 9/10 times I've talked with others, we found much commonality in the experience. So we can self-diagnose ourselves as "depressed", and this generalization, "I have depression", holds up well and is not inaccurate.

Some of the parallelism is based on conscious copying of science by art - e.g Picasso's "discovery" of cubism was, I believe, a deliberate take on relativity. — Jake Tarragon

Did he say this somewhere? Sometimes artists do deliberately make a "take" on something happening in science or politics or whatever, but it's impossible to really say how much this happens, and so the corollary is that we have to assume that, just as often as not, any parallelism isn't necessarily deliberate or completely a conscious decision. You have to understand how artists work here; they don't work like scientists or philosophers. An artist develops an artistic voice over their entire lifetime, and that voice is a product of so many diffuse factors. Mondrian evolved to the point of favoring the simplicity of three colors, and only lines and right angles. This was a long process of development that was concurrent with the development of his own aesthetic philosophy and his own general philosophy. He was influenced by science and tech, but he also influenced science and tech, specifically graphic design. It's an example of the diffuse nature of the relationship.

I think inaccurate is too strong; the label might generalize, but it does so based on shared characteristics.

It's interesting what you say, but what use is putting those labels on ourselves? Oh, he has generalised anxiety disorder - oh I have a messiah complex - oh etc. It's just a label, it prevents us from seeing the person underneath the label - it makes everyone so labeled identical, and they're not. — Agustino

True that it shouldn't make people identical, but it's also true that the states of mind those labels represent are a part of the identify of those people.

If yes, it's only rational to expect their contraries be distinct from each other. — TheMadFool

It may be rational to think that, but why is that the right approach? I still fail to see why different forms of love require nice tidy opposites. Numbers and love, for instance, are not of the same kind...obviously...

The different forms of love mentioned in my posts are the different forms of Agape. — TheMadFool

Love of car is not agape...

What does that mean and how does that relate to my comment?

What??

Love has many forms. So, each form should have its very own contrary form of Hate, as distinct from each other as the forms of Love. But this isn't the case. — TheMadFool

Why should this be the case?

I think Love as Agape is not well-differentiated, and hate is it's opposite. The other forms of love are lesser, because they have a possessive aspect (eros). The unconditional nature of Agape is a giving love.