If someone showed you a phenomenon that were impossible to explain by laws of the physical world, you'd be compelled to believe in dualism.

There are two problems with this. One is that it is impossible to prove that something is impossible to explain by laws of the physical world. That's big enough a problem so I don't have to say what the other one is.

But if you just figured out that some observed phenomenon is not possible to explain; then you'd need to believe in dualism.

Some things are not explained by natural laws. This does not give them proof strength, but they do open the possibility (without any indication of probability) of other-worldly stuff happening in our lives.

We do have some things in our sphere of experiences that satisfy that very criteria. The notion that we have sensation, we see, not just look, we feel, not just touch. We also have a soul, which to this date has not been identified to have a link to our bodies.

These phenomena are not proof, but at this point a sign that possibly there is dualism.

We discussed in this thread the necessity of brain to function to have a consciousness. We concluded that consciousness does not exist outside of a functioning brain.

That is a false conclusion. Our consciousness may exist after death, but since it is not bound to any body, there is no physical evidence that it exists. Likely they don't exist, but possibly they do.

maybe there is stuff that autodidacts just miss out on. — Banno

Yes, totally right. I can't argue with that.

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. — Wittgenstein

This is another humongous error in logic. We think of people as beings who have a mind. Each person has his or her own mind. Yet we don't know what a mind is. We don't know how it attaches to the body. We don't know how it is related to the brain. Yet we speak of it as an obvious and inalienable quality of humans.

It is part of our world, but we lack the language that describes it. We each have an unerringly similar concept of what a mind is, yet the concept is not formed as a consensus achieved by language... it is a concept indescribable by language, therefore it is not possible to harmonize our understanding of the concept using language.

A similar concept may be god. We each "know" what we consider a god, yet nobody can assuredly describe a god knowingly with language. God and mind are concepts that are part of our world, that is, they are found inside the limits of our world, yet both are outside the limits of the language we use.

Davidson argues that thought has content if and only if the thought is related to a social system. That is my perception Davidson's opinion, after reading paragraphs in this thread.

I think Davidson is only right if the thought is experienced in language. However, language is not essential to thought formation. The necessary need of language for though formation is one of the bigger misconceptions in philosophies concerning language and thought.

on Wittgenstein’s view, while chess is essentially a game for two players, this does not exclude the possibility of playing it against oneself provided such solitary games are not regarded as paradigm instances of chess — SEP: Private Language

This is interesting. Playing against an opponent inherently means that both players want to win; one wins, the other loses. There is no such thing as both winning the game. If you play against yourself, and you win, you also lose. This is different from a draw.

Winning is the point of the game of chess. You can win two ways: 1. you are smarter than your opponent, or more educated in historically established strategies. 2. You make fewer mistakes than the opponent. Both of these are absurd in a one-person game. You can't be smarter than yourself. And if you make a mistake, you can't simultaneously capitalize on that mistake -- although further analysis in due course of time by a singular player of both sides of the game can reveal that he or she had made a mistake, and can capitalize on it.

Therefore I say that a single person can't play a game of chess all by himself. The paradigms are so far removed of the original of the game, that it becomes a different game, not a chess game, although it is still played with chess pieces with the same rules of their movements as in a two-person game.

I think in this sense Wittgenstein becomes a guru, who utters infallible truths in the view of his followers, and nobody notices that in effect he is speaking nonsense.

This is what I noticed on the entire board in the conversations between or among members here who have had some or else extensive formal training in philosophy. They like to discuss things in agreement with each other, they admire the classic greats, and they lose sight of the essence of philosophy in this mutual admiration society, which is the love of truth and wisdom, and which necessarily invokes the uncovering of mistaken lines of reasoning.

And then when one comes along who tells them, "hey, this is wrong, and this is wrong and this is wrong", then the trained gang ostracizes the logical dissenter, they make fun of him, and they bitterly reject him with either silently ignoring his points, or else calling him names.

Note to self - practise memory games. — bert1

I tried that... playing games. They're no fun. I always know ahead of time who the winner will be.

There are two schools of solipsism: one says that the experiences a solipsist feels are subject to his will; the other school says that they are independent of his will. Both schools state that a solipsist's experiences are self-generated.

It does not take much self-reflection that self-generated experiences can be either willed, or haphazard.

And if they are of the haphazard kind, a solipsist can be surprised.

The experience of the sopsist does not change or get influenced by the experiences of other solipsists. There is room for an infinite number of solipsists in any universe.

Solipsism; is it the belief that only the self exists, or is it a belief that all that the self experiences is generated by the self? if the second one, then there is room for more than one solipsist. Independent from each other, but perfectly in line with the philosophy of solipsism.

:100: :up: :cheer:

Leo, there are three types of answers to your question.

The believers in god will say the question is absurd, and it does not make sense. This is because of the conundrum of "can an almighty god create a stone he himself can't lift?" If he can, he is not almighty, because he is not mighty enough to lift it, and if he can't create such a stone, then he is not almighty in his task of creating things. The religious who have faith in an almighty god hate this question and their standard reply is "this is absurd", in so many different words. Your question begs this scenario, so by rank and file they MUST answer that the question is absurd.

Then there is the logical answer, that no, a limitless power can't do the impossible. Because the impossible also includes self-contradictions, similar to the god-stone-creation-lift example above. They may concur that there are SOME impossibilities that are possible to perform when you have limitless power, but some impossibilities are impossible to perform when it leads to self-contradiction or paradoxes.

Then there is the Quantum Mechanics camp, which will give you a resounding YES, even if the task leads to self-contradiction: The cat is alive and dead in the box. The smaller a volume of space, the more energy it contains, regardless its contents. Other examples abound in QM. to prove that self-contradictory or paradoxical events are everyday happenings in the quantum world.

Very good opening post. I agree with what you say.

The only thing that I could say which is thoughtworthy, is that chances are that you, yourself, and every one of us, would not be here and striving if it were not for societies, and societies would not exist without discomfort to the individual, of which morality is only one source of discomfort.

It's an exchange... life, good life, for discomfort.

This was worth checking in for a second.

The motte-and-bailey (mnb) argument or fallacy AS PRESENTED IN THE EXAMPLE is a special case not of simply moving the goalposts, in my opinion, but a combination of moving the goalposts with the aid of Aristotle's equivocation. The argument is defended / attacked by using the same word (women) for two different concepts. Hence the argument's origin. This could be any fallacy, which in turn can be applied to mnb. Mnb steps in when a third fallacy is introduced, that is an AD HOMINEM fallacy: "you are a cretin for not seeing my point."

In this sense, mnb is a useful naming of the unmasking of an argument that uses a combination of two fallacies. I think the original clash could be started with any fallacy or even with the truth. Mnb steps in and tries to finish the argument and win via a side-step and a solid argument that defends the side-step. The side-step can only be achieved if there is another fallacy involved.

Thus, a fallacy or a truth in a claim can be defended by sidestepping the claim by employing a fallacy.

I would put it this way: A motte-and-bailey fallacy has the following structure: Claim (of truth or of fallacy) when attacked by counter-arguments, can be motted by employing a fallacy at the same time which is in the service of side-stepping the issue to create a situation in which a solid argument defends the side-stepped issue, instead of the original claim.

In contrast, the NON-FALLACY or non-mnb argument that is valid I would put in this way:
Claim of the truth can be strengthened, when attacked by a counter-argument, by a valid argument.

Assuming that AI driven technology, producing, manufacturing and distribution systems will make those social structures redundant that are organized to exploit humans by some other humans; and assuming that there will be enough of everything, humans can possibly want for themselves, to go around to everyone; will the social structure of present (capitalism and other hierarchical social structures) be transformed to complete and satisfactory communism, or else will there be a huge struggle to achieve this? My skepticism is based on 1. Human values as ingrained at present, mainly around personal property and 2. human nature as a species of individuals all trying to climb ideally to the top of the hierarchical structures.

If there is room for more discussion on this, please ask him how those values and valuables will be handled in a complete, pure and satisfactory communist structure of society that can't be distributed at will, such as good looks, sexual powers and attractiveness, personal strength, smarts and creative artistic and philosophical might?

1. Strong emergence - I would accept that it is logically impossible and that it is not pure materialism anyway.
2. Therefore, I would adopt weak emergence. That would force me to adopt the identity theory.
3. Type-Type Identity can be refuted by multiple realization.
4. So, the next step is to adopt Token-Type. Here the problem arises: depending on what we categorize an emotion?
4.1. The only way here is represented by functionalism, which can in turn be refuted by inverted qualia or multiple realization. — Eugen

1. I don't know what emergence is, and also don't know what strong emergence is.
2. I don't know what weak emergence is. I don't know what identity theory is.
3. I don't know what type-type identity is.
4. I don't know what Token-Type is.

Since all these are false, or assumed to be false theories,

let's assume that we all agree that everything up to 4 is proven to be false. — Eugen

, I can just ignore them altogether.

Eliminating the notion of Type altogether helps as well, since I have no clue what the notion of Type does.

So far your theory has a lot of things mentioned which you ask us to ignore. Why list them in the first place then?

You then eliminate the need for physical structure. Then you eliminat th e need to justify the experience to fit in a category.

1. We don't need the same physical structure - multiple realization solved.
Having no categories, but simply experiences, I don't need a justification for fitting an experience into a category, so:
2. I don't need to equate an experience with a function. There is no law of nature that prevents the existence of an experience without it fulfilling a specific purpose.
I realize that this position is very weak in terms of explanatory power, but I don't see any logical argument that invalidates this exact position. So feel free to hit me with counterarguments. Thank you! — Eugen

What remains?

I am unable to see a statement or a proposition.

You kept eliminating stuff I don't understand. It does not matter that I don't understand what you mean, since they are eliminated.

But you fail to state what remains after the process of elimination. There is no counter-argument to form, since you made no argument.

I'd say 5. Or 4. Years of age. Those are too young to die.

Or did you mean, OP, what is the oldest age for a person to die, at which point he or she is still too young to die.

Well, if you asked that, I would not know how to answer it.

I know that for most people by the time they turn 80, life is not pleasant. At all. For some it still is, but for most it's brutal.

So I don't thing I'd be happy to live beyond 80.

But make no mistake: I won't want to DIE at 80 or beyond or before. That's the human paradox: we don't want to live forever, we just want to avoid going through the dying process. In other words, we may even hate life, but we still would not want to die JUST YET at that point.

Funny thing, this, being a human. Haha. I wish I were born a carburateur, not a bloody human.

I’m trying to think of an example of something that exists only within philosophy’s practice (or doesn’t exist only within its practice). Put differently, isnt the aim of philosophy to address within its practice such inclusive concepts as world, existence , reality and truth?
— Joshs

Entities in thought experiments? Swamp man, twin earth, brains in vats, grue and bleen, the utility monster, Gigantor... — fdrake

What about human soul/spirit/self/identity BEFORE the person gets born and/or acquires it?

------------

EDIT: Sorry, that was actually stupid of me to ask that. And I can't delete the post.

And there are dozens more. Hundreds. — T Clark

I am not denying that any more. I am just saying that there is not much to say about atheism. "I don't believet there is a god or that there are gods." "Me too." There is not much more to say about atheism after that. But there is plenty more to say about religions and theism.

After a while that gets tired, too, so the conversation veers towards why atheists are also moral and ethical, what is the price of a good cut of beef at the butcher, and have you heard about Mrs. Holloway and Mr. Sputnik?

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest. — sime

If the above was true, then how come the greatest consumer society with the most staunch and with the strongest capitalistic tendencies exists in the USA, where 96 percent of the population is a devout Christian? The statistic may have changed, but it was certainly true in the nineteen-fifties. If the overwhelming majority of the population is Christian, and everyone supports Capitalism and everyone believes that economic growth is good, and is achieved via consumerism, then how can you POSSIBLY blame atheists for this?

Conversely, in communist countries of the old, people were almost totally exclusively atheists, as well as poor. They used much less of earth's renewable and non-renewable resources per capita than Americans and Western Europeans.

I think your opinion is right if you only consider speculative thoughts. But if you consider the facts, things as they were and are, then your opinion is biassed, wrong, and useless.

Yes, it's a battle of hearts and minds out there. I have met a number of Christians who said they came to the religion via CS Lewis' famous book, Mere Christianity. But I also met former Baptists and Catholics who credit Russell's famous work as a key reason they turned. No doubt arguments play a role. — Tom Storm

I equate the divide, and the argumentation to defend and to proselytize ones' belief, including atheism, and types of religion, to a form of tribalism. Tribal societies forced annexed or adopted members to assume their faith. Until then the annexed / adopted don't have the right (in my opinion; not researched) to marry, and to take equal proportions of the available wealth, but only much less. They are not allowed to partake in waging wars. Once the incoming tribal member honestly accepts the faith, he is a fully fledged citizen.

Our arguments, between theists and atheists, are the manifestation of the outcome of genetically programmed values. The value is to beef up the number of people who share the same belief system.

If I believe in an ideology, I must grow the number of people to have the same ideology. This way we can be safe to not attack each other; to be powerful and unified against attacks from outside.

Ideology is a social cohesive force, which animals don't have, but all humans share.

This is absurd. — T Clark

It could be that. But this is what it is. I put to you that you never attended a meeting of atheists. They don't talk about what they believe is non-existent. They talk about how others talk about and what they say about what the atheists think is non-existent.

I really don't know why you said "This is absurd." It was not. It was a plain fact.

I appreciate your appreciating my straightforwardedness. That was very nice to hear.

Did you mean to write "and the theists do not try to proselytize"? Otherwise I can't make sense of your statement. — Janus

Yes, Sir, that's what I was trying to figure how to spell. Thanks for helping me out.

Yes, I share atheism's anti-fundamentalism, but when this becomes itself a fundamentalist crusade against all forms and shades of theism, I part company with atheists. — Janus

I don't see how atheists can be partial to non-fundamentalist religions. Unless, of course, they practice patience, and the atheists do not try to proselyze.

Australia is largely secular and most atheists I meet here have no interest in the arguments about god in either direction and have no internet in atheism as a thought system. — Tom Storm

Atheism is not a thought system. Theism is. Mostly.

I raise my hat to Australian secularists. (What's the difference between a secularist and an atheist?) According to my understanding, secularism is a movement that strives to separate politics from religions. The word has developed a taste of atheism, but that is not necessarily true. Secularists simply secule the state from the church.

Atheists don't form clubs because there is not much to discuss about atheism. "Are you an atheist, too?" "Yes, I am." "Me too." And that's where the conversation ends.

The only thing that atheists can discuss, are the faults with theism and with religions. And boy, do we do that vigorously.

To answer the OP: atheism is significant to atheists as much as theism is significant to theists; and atheism is significant to theists as much as theism is significant to atheists. In my opinion, anyway.

For me, the thought comes first, then the words — T Clark

Lucky you!! For me it's the opposite. Gots me into lotsa shite. (-:

What is needed is more reliable information, more factual information. — Fooloso4

... And that is the very thing that a receptor unit (human) of media information can't check other than comparing it with different media. Ultimately the little man has to decide whom to believe, and that decision is not possible to make reasonably.

I know you don't believe in an information-dystopia, but you described its workings beautifully. I never thought of it, but your post opened my eyes to the fact that the everyman basically has to throw himself upon a belief in the media's message, and that is just as possible to lead him to the truth as to lies. And he, the person, can't tell the difference, there is no way he can.

In a very strong way this the same dilemma that the solipsism and the unknowability of reality presents. As you're a fan of Socrates, it may be shown to you that in several layers removed it's the same dilemma of the shadow figures on the cave walls.

My point is that the truth is a standard that must be protected. — Fooloso4

I agree with you again. What I got from your post that is of concern to me is that attaining that truth via information by the media is an epistemological nightmare. Did you not say that, too?

For a more expanded explanation of this view (if you need it) please see my previous post, the one that you replied to. Thanks.

What I get out of your post, Fooloso4, is that we get news and although there is some process of verification, the verification is not verified, and can't be. I know that is true, much like you do.

We also know that some verification is proper, since we read the local news, and we know that Maple steet is really really closed when Maple steet is reported to be closed. Or we know there is a war in the Ukraine, because we talk to non-news agents (immigrants) from Ukraine, who tell us there is a war.

But that's scanty information.

A person therefore has two paths of belief (Actually, three):
1. Accept the news media's reports as true.
2. Reject the news media's reports as true.

Either way, it's the sole decision of the individual. There is no arguing with him, because either way the paths are undecidable for dependable truth value. From the individual's point of view.

Therefore what I get out of your post, Fooloso4, and I think yours is an unassailable opinion, is that we live possibly in a world we don't know anything about. Never mind the sub-atomic particles, or the far-flung reaches of space. We have no verified clue what happens around us.

Maybe we have a world view, that supports the opposite theory, namely, that information is solid. After all, we wear plastic for clothing, have iPhones that are more intelligent than us, and we watch movies that are not easy to make. We all KNOW that a hundred, a thousand, and a million years ago things were different.

But we know that because of information. Which is given to us. Only historians are in the know and anthropologists, who are sure (sort of) what had gone one then. We, the people, just believe what they tell us: what the biologists, historians, anthropologists tell us.

---------------------

In conclusion: we have the same chance from our point of view to be completely uninformed, somewhat informed, and completely informed. We have no way of deciding which; it is our temperament that will tell us which version to subscribe to in the degree of our belief of non-.

In conclusion: It is freaking me out that I live in a world where all the truths I learned in my life have been generated by conspiracy theorists

(Corollary: Probably that's why to communists only communism is the true social form, to USA people it's only the capitalism, and in forced labour camps it is only the dream of a good meal and a proper night's of sleep that is the best government type.)

-----------------------

I completely agree with it, Fooloso4, and I am scaring myself to death here in small doses.

Those shapes are triangles, those lines are straight, given the definitions of straight and triangle in non-euclidean geometry. — Banno

Have you looked at your drawings? They are on a surface of a curved plane. It is impossible for the sides of the triangle to be straight. "Given the definition"... so they are defined DIFFERENTLY form triangles drawn on flat, two-dimensional planes. So why not have a different names for them, for crying out loud? "Triangle" and "triangle" are different concepts on Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. Why have the same name then?

I am sure you are not to blame for it. (-: But to insist that two things that are different should be called the same name is just not right.

does the atheist mean that "god doesn't exist" is not his position on god? — Agent Smith

Absolutely not. The atheist BELIEVES that there is no god.

Nobody can tell for sure if there is a god or not. If anyone states otherwise, they are a fool

The question of god's existence is a matter of personal belief. Believe it exists, or believe it does not exist. There is no proof either way. You can't find knowledge on that issue. You can only have a belief in god, or a belief that there is no god.

I am tired of explaining this any further. Sorry. Ask someone else with more patience.

Did we not agree that 2+2 is not 4? You said it needed some different equations, but the upshot was that 2+2<>4, and we also agreed that a 30 degree angle plus a 60 degree angle plus a 90 degree angle do not equal 180 degrees.
— god must be atheist

Certainly not. — Banno

Then how do you explain this:

Arithmetic still functions in spherical geometry. It's just that the three angles of a triangle inscribed on a sphere add to more than 180º. The addition is done in the same way in alternate geometries.

The three angles of a triangle inscribed on a saddle add to less than 180º. — Banno

In other words:

(X+Y+Z) degrees is not equal to (sum of X, Y, and Z) degrees
Then divide both sides of the inequality by "degrees" and you get
X+Y+Z <> sum of X, Y and Z.

I know you will say I am arguing in circular reasoning. But I am not, I am just showing you earlier parts of our conversation paraphrased, in order to show that you are wrong in denying what I claim we had agreed on.

Atheists, I've observed, dodge the request/demand to prove god doesn't exist by saying atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of one. — Agent Smith

Oh, geesh. Atheism is a belief system that includes a lack of belief in god. The entire thing is a belief, but one element that theists believe is in the system (system: world view, weltanschauung) is believed to be not there in the system by atheists... the god concept.

It's not the entire worldview of atheists that is a lack of belief... only one element therein.

I hope this makes sense.

. There are clear definitions of each — Banno

The clear definitions of each what?

This is not the first time we, that is, you and I, debate something due to your imprecise, and insufficiently differentiating language. There are crucial problems arising from that, and which problems could have been avoided with a little more effort to avoid ambiguity.

You see, the way you put this, "There are clear definitions of each" implies that the definition of angles are different with clearly explained differences. And that is what I had suggested, and you argue that that is what is incorrect, because the definition is the same... except they are not the same, as you argue here.

More precise and rigorous translation from concept to language is needed, as the way -- I am sorry to say -- you do it, leaves to a lot of confusion in the readers' perception due to ambiguity and other forms of unclear writing.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I see the explanation you drew since the utterance I am questioning.

What you drew are not triangles on flat two-dimensional spaces, but shapes in three-D, with curved sides. That goes against the definition of a triangle, and that was precisely the thrust of my earlier criticism, that they named something triangle which is not a triange. They ought to have named the things differently, to separate the two types of shapes; you came in then, that the angles are still described by three intersecting lines.

That is not the issue. The issue is that triangles have straight lines, and the concepts you showed have no straight lines.

This is preposterous to call them, then, the same name.

The problem is the basic misnaming of angles. There has to be a different name for angles in triangles drawn on flat two-dimensional spaces, and for angles in triangles drawn on curved two-dimensional spaces.

The naming of the two DIFFERENT TYPES of ANGLES ONE SINGLE NAME is the source of confusion. It's like giving work a unit measure of force, or giving current a unit measure of resistance. The two are not equivalent, yet the literature tragically ignores that fact.

Again, if you find 2+2 is not 4, you are saying it wrong. — Banno

Did we not agree that 2+2 is not 4? You said it needed some different equations, but the upshot was that 2+2<>4, and we also agreed that a 30 degree angle plus a 60 degree angle plus a 90 degree angle do not equal 180 degrees.

It's all up there in previously said things.

If you say that the differences can be explained by different ASPECTS, then that ALMOST sticks, but the mathematical expression, without doubt is that (90+60+30) degrees is not equal to 180 degrees, which means, schwartz auf weiss, that 90+60+30 is not equal to 180.

Whether it is due to a special case, or circumstencial differences, the end result is pure math, and it states something that can't be directly derived from the axioms, instead, it realigns the entire math superstructure built on arithmetic additions or summations.

Including TV mini series isn’t out of bounds. — Mikie

Hurray!! All the episodes of Benny Hill. He is sexist, he is infantile, he never showed an original joke he had created, but he was superb, funny, entertaining and to the core.

Which version? — Mikie

Oo. I think the actor's name is Emma something or other.

Contradictions can only occur in how things are said, not in how things are. — Banno

That is true. Therefore 2+2=3 is not how things are, and 2+2=4 is not how things are, since both describe reality (as per parts of the foregoing discussion, in which it was shown that a simple summation is sufficient in one instance, and insufficient in another instance of the same conceptually measured quantity.)

This bring in the question whether 2+2=4 is a concept, only an abstraction, or is it reality.

If it's reality, then reality is contradicting itself.

If it's not reality, then its contradiction is valid, since 2+2 only exists as thought, not as reality, and contradictions are known to exist in thought, or in its reflection, in speech.

So what's the difference between lack of belief in god and the belief that god does not exist? — Agent Smith

I don't understand why you asked this question, but I'll answer it to the best of my knowledge.

Lack of belief in god leaves perhaps, but not necessarily, other things as presence of belief, but of all things a person can believe god is not one of them.

The belief that god does not exist presents a world view which the person makes it his own, including that he believes there is no god.

Well, if you are happy to introduce contradictions into your thinking, best leave you to it. — Banno

Is it to my thinking? Or are they contradictions very much applicable to reality as we observe it?