Just as plausible that everything we know in physics will be found wrong in the future — Philosophim

Like the JWST crisis in cosmology?

I have a pretty good grasp of what's scientific and what's not. I'm not aware of any science that contradicts the fact that consciousness appears to transcend materialism in significant ways. What you are claiming might be true in a reductionist reality. But reductionism is no longer, what is your word, plausible.

More importantly, do you agree by the definitions above that it is impossible for life to continue after death? And I don't mean your feelings, I mean rationally? — Philosophim

Life? Sure. Consciousness? No. They are not necessarily equivalent. Perhaps Consciousness is emergent from Life.

Its plausible that we survive after death. — Philosophim

I agree.

:up:

Personally, I'm especially interested in the concept of causality qua instrumentality, and the instantiation of knowledge in the physical form of tools.

For what is imagined to be real, there must be evidence of it being real somehow. There is zero evidence. — Philosophim

Sure. Democritus imagined atoms were real. And there was evidence. It just wasn't available to him at the time that he imagined it. But his imaginings formed part of the overall inquiry that eventually led to the discovery of that evidence. Which in itself is yet more evidence that consciousness transcends that of the individual....

Because there is no life after death — Philosophim

Maybe. Does this entail or imply that there is nothing after death? Consciousness can and does transcend the limits of individual physical entities. You yourself are an aggregate of individual entities (cells) whose mutual "communication" is integral to what you experience as consciousness. But your cells constantly die. So if you cannot reductively explain consciousness with reference to the finite lifespan of individual entities (i.e. consciousness can transcend the destruction of finite living things) then you cannot conclusively eliminate it based on the termination of a finite life-form either.

Whatever that means, it's not that. — 180 Proof

You say. I say, the logical concept of god is what is logically possible to each and any given individual person, based on that individual's experiences. Are you saying that, if I don't ascribe to some specific religious credo, I can't have a concept of God? Because that is definitely not true. It is manifestly evident that there is a huge spectrum of characterizations of Godhood, ranging from the anthropomorphic pantheon of the ancient Greeks to the apex enlightened-consciousness of the Buddha.

If you are going to logically deny the existence of God, then it must be at the logical-conceptual level. If you are contradicting nothing more than some specific narrative-version, then you aren't denying the possible existence of "god", you are just critiquing a cultural construct.

The relevant empirical facts are:

1. There is a spectrum of consciousness, with beings more and less conscious than each other
2. There is no good reason to assume that human beings represent the highest form of consciousness (ontogeny and phylogeny both substantiate this)
3. Therefore it is probable to a near-certainty that there are higher forms of consciousness in the universe than human (given the expanses of time and space involved).

So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness, then God by definition does exist. And even if you choose to stipulate that God must exhibit far-beyond human abilities, it is still likely (based on the empirical history evident from the evolution of consciousness on this planet) that God does exist (qua that definition). And at least possible that God exists. So atheism is illogical.

It isn't about whether some random person's characterization of God is illogical (an enormous white man wearing a crown directing human affairs from a cloud-realm somewhere). It is whether, for any given individual, that individual himself can logically envision the state of godhood consistent with what is known about reality.

That is by definition, proving a negative. What's absurd is your explanation. You are in fact, conflating positive/negative with existence/nonexistent.

Positive: There's a dog in my room.
Negative: There isn't a dog in my room.

What's also absurd is you think that "proving a negative" means that one must prove all negatives. — night912

I don't think that proving a negative means one must prove all negatives. However I do think that the only negative that can be proven is a determinate negation, i.e. one which is explicitly contradicted by empirical or logical reality.

I personally don't believe there are different kinds of consciousness.

All of those goals were set by mankind once, but only a few nations ever pursued them. Now, it appears that most people have given up on themselves and are thinking, "Let's try to be more supportive or ethical towards others using AI," because it is evident that we will not be able to achieve such goals. — javi2541997

Yes. I set some transcendental conditions of consciousness based on certain rational-cybernetic constraints on conscious self-perpetuation (and accounting for such classic problems as why people do not choose the good when it is evident that choosing the bad is bad for them.) Chatgpt4 merely summarized the conclusions.

Why do you assume "AI" will ever be "conscious" or that it needs to be in order to function at or above human-level cognition? — 180 Proof

I don't and I didn't think that was what I said. I assume that is the goal of the people developing it and in particular those who are part of the governing hype. I suppose the opposite. However, assuming that were the goal, then one reasonable way of viewing it would be as the next iteration in the evolution of consciousness.

I just had a chat with gpt4 about how the commoditization of life in modern society can only impede the emergence of the next new state of consciousness, which is what I take it AI is supposed to be. It's conclusion:

The challenge of evolving consciousness in a commoditized society requires a multi-faceted approach that includes reorienting AI development towards ethical goals, educating and empowering individuals, promoting holistic economic models, and advocating for supportive policies. By addressing the root causes of value distortion, it is possible to create a society that genuinely supports the evolution of consciousness and well-being.

Well, yeah, I rigidly believe that we should not give powers to people that only Allah should have, and if Allah does even not exist, then so much the better. — Tarskian

Thanks for clarifying that.

dangerously false pagan belief that misleads its followers into accepting untested experimental vaccine shots from the lying and scamming representatives of the pharmaceutical mafia — Tarskian

It sounds as though you yourself hold some rather specific and rigid beliefs that likewise are not entirely objective in their genesis.

The Return of the Native
by Thomas Hardy

Llana of Gathol (Barsoom #10)
by Edgar Rice Burroughs

Synthetic Men of Mars (Barsoom #9)
by Edgar Rice Burroughs

https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/scientific-realism-selected-essays-of-mario-bunge-9781573928922.html

9 million people die from starvation every year. Should we lay these deaths at the feet of capitalist corporatism? Because I surely do.

The collection of essays is available as a PDF here:

https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/scientific-realism-selected-essays-of-mario-bunge-9781573928922.html

Looks really interesting. I looked on line and it's not available for free. Alas. I did download "Causality and Modern Science" from Hoopla of all places. Any good? It's a subject I've pontificated about a lot here on the forum, so maybe it'll help if I actually know something. — T Clark

I just read that essay. It's what you would expect, surveys the various takes on causality across the socio-scientific spectrum. Concludes with an affirmation of "spontaneity," but in the context of an "enriched determinism."

I found the essay on energy more thought-provoking. Essay on the Mind-Body problem tomorrow.

The collection of essays is available from Kindle and is intended as a kind of survey of Bunge's mammoth body of work.

But then for anyone who seriously asks that question, the inherent goodness of existence must precisely be in question, must it not?

Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at all — Philosophim

The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good. But only then. Otherwise, you have no business bringing existence into the domain of morality. None. That is the only sense in which "what ought to be" can meaningfully confront the question of non-existence.

The trolley problem is a thought experiment where you’re asked to either watch five people be killed or pull a lever so that only one person gets killed.

In this hypothetical scenario which choice would you make?

For those who would let the five people die by not pulling the lever to kill one person is there a minimum number of people on the track that would make you choose to kill the one person?

50? 100? 1,000? 10,000?

What is your reasoning? — Captain Homicide

Does this not seem like a case where the whole problem just typifies the fallacy of the excluded middle? Like there is a right and a wrong answer? If anything, what the problem reveals is that there will always be multiple answers. Ultimately, one does not even require justification. What if someone puts a gun to my head and forces me to choose or die? It's a concocted scenario designed to highlight the complex nature of morality. In fact, in a real moral scenario what we perceive as choices will normally not be so equally balanced in theatrically catastrophic consequence. Do you sacrifice something to benefit someone else? Or do you always put yourself ahead of others? Those are the important motives underlying everything that people do. Trying to turn it into a a complex equation is just misleading rationalization.

If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions. — Philosophim

Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions).

"If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction).

What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashion ("Once again, in participating here, you assume the validity of the previous conclusions.") You are pre-empting criticisms in order to extend your reasonings, which motivation I can understand. But some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out.

Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing. Do you mean counting? Anyway, You "prohibit" people from making legitimate observations about any of your current ideas unless they are willing to already concede all your preceding assumptions? That's a poor idea. It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it.

e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.

f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.

g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself. — Philosophim

It seems like all of your subsequent reasoning devolves upon this set of specious reasonings.


First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong. You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"?

All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction. Which is trivially (definitionally) evident, and doesn't add any substantial information. Your argument makes exactly this much sense:

If a banana exists, then it is good.
If a banana claims that it does not exist, then it is self-contradictory.
Therefore bananas are good.

As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good. In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists. It exists all around us. In which case you may not stipulate that "existence is good" because what exists is clearly both good and bad.

Existence qua existence is neither good nor bad, it just is. Non-existence is not; meaning nothing can be meaningfully predicated of it.

Scientific Realism: Selected Essays of Mario Bunge
by Mario Bunge

New Worlds for Old: A Plain Account of Modern Socialism
by H.G. Wells

When the Sleeper Wakes
by H.G. Wells

Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology
by Alfred North Whitehead

I expect this will take a while....

Let us know what you think after reading it, and thanks for bringing it up in this thread. — javi2541997

Definitely not suitable as an introduction to systems theory. What it does is excavate a comprehensive set of laws that govern systems behaviours and illustrate their role in applied systems methodologies. However you do need a good grounding in systems concepts going into it. Non-linear dynamics is frequently referenced, but not explained. In a sense, the book highlights how the failure of certain types of thought amounts to the existence of cognitive biases, for which the laws of systems thinking are the remedies.

but as the end-point in our development is it not thwarting creativity and vitally original human thought — Nemo2124

Yes. And plagiarising and blending everything into a single, monotonous shade of techno-drivel.

Unto this Last; The Political Economy of Art; Essays on Political Economy
by John Ruskin

:up:

"The study of axiology" is not itself axiology (i.e the study of value), so how does this "enhance the appreciation of value" when its object of study is not even (a) value? — 180 Proof

It would seem that "the study of" connotes the act of reflection upon the topic or instance of something. So it can rightly be construed as an extension or expansion of the thing being studied. Just as the study of music enables one to directly experience nuances of performance inaudible to the untrained ear. In other words, that reflection upon something is able to enhance the value of that thing. Which is to say that reflection is inherently valuable, or confers value.

The Grammar of Systems: From Order to Chaos & Back
Patrick Hoverstadt

I've either been looking forward to or dreading this book. Subtitled "33 Systems Laws and Principles and How to Think like a Systems Thinker" it will be demanding I'm sure. My other alternative is taking another stab at Process and Reality, which is also in the dreaded anticipation category. So the lesser of two evils?

The study of axiology enhances the appreciation of value. — Shawn

I like this formulation better. :up:

I just spelled out the positive argument from Durkheim plus the relevant modern supporting evidence. I don't see how what I supplied requires any additional validation or how anything else that was said contradicts it.

I believe that faith is a deterrent against suicide.
— BitconnectCarlos
How does faith deter anything let alone suicide? — 180 Proof

This is part of the thesis of Durkheim's book Suicide. It has been supported by academic studies, including this one which concludes, among other things that "external religiosity" - participation, in other words - statistically does have a prophylactic effect on suicidal ideation.

In what sense does the study of value instantiate value? You can study anatomy but never practice medicine. Arguably, the practice of medicine instantiates more benefits than the study of anatomy.

I find the premise that what people actually do reflects their values much, much more than what they say (or write). So while axiology may have some value, it can hardly lay claim to being the highest value, therefore, neither can it lay claim to being the highest good.