Our bookstore outing last weekend was a bit disappointing. The first store had a lot of inventory, but it was poorly sorted, shelved, and laid out. And the books were overpriced. However I spotted this gem of ancient scepticism and I knew that $10 for a Cambridge University press publication would be a good deal. As with some academic books, no price on the cover, so she guessed low. It's a $50 book in mint condition. This is on deck.

Martin Chuzzlewit
by Charles Dickens

sine qua non claims of theism — 180 Proof

My sine qua non theistic claims are that there are greater-than-human conscious entities. And that the most general definition of a deity is a being possessed of abilities that humans don't understand. Whether such beings are then worshipped, feared, etc. is about how human's react, not about what those beings in essence are.

As far as I know, there is no universal consensus that could legitimately be called the "sine qua non" of theism. i.e. you are making it up in order to then argue against it (as I have repeatedly pointed out).


edit: Among (many) other things, the Wikipedia article on God notes that "God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence". This agrees perfectly with my approach since there is certainly in reality a referent.

The one that academics are part of. — Lionino

Sorry, that's just plain ridiculous.

Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree:

a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being: — Lionino

This doesn't in any way shape or form contradict the generalized description I provided.

In any case, that is not a defining feature because it is nonsense. Our modern ability to solve differential equations in our head transcends the human understanding of Bronze Age Europeans, and yet we are not gods. — Lionino

Exactly. Every other concept that mankind has ever entertained has evolved into more sophisticated forms as our species has evolved. So why should the concept of god not likewise be amenable to...refinement?

The epistemic stand of a person has zero bearing or whether they are qualified to define something or not. — Lionino

Of course it does. If you claim not to believe in atoms, you are certainly the last person that someone should talk to who is interested in developing a theory of atoms.

Yet, nobody in the academy, when discussing philosophy or theology, has the above in mind when talking about God — Lionino

What academy are you referring to? The main defining feature of a "god" is having abilities which transcend human understanding. That's really not a very high bar....

If you are going to set yourself up as presenting an authoritative definition of "god," I would think that advertising yourself as an atheist isn't the most credible first step.

Let's face it. Atheists, by their own declaration, are really only qualified to speak about what god is not.

Do you then grant that I have all the rights to flesh out the concept of God as the banana that I will eat in 15 minutes before leaving for the gym? — Lionino

If that seems reasonable to you. It doesn't strike me as something someone striving to frame a credible concept would do though. Rather, someone striving to frame a flimsy concept for easy criticism. If that's an argument for atheism, then I'd say it qualifies as illogical.

If the conceptualisation of something is flawed because it entails contradiction, what people have in mind is demonstrably false and what can exist is something other than what people have in mind. Assigning this or that label to this or that conceptualisation doesn't change the facts about the world — Lionino

That's right. And my definition is empirical. Given that consciousness obviously exists, and there are gradations of consciousness, there is come greatest extant consciousness. I have as much right as the next person to flesh out the concept of God in whatever ways make the most sense to me. You think that each and every individual has a concept of god that reduces to whatever they read about in some piece of orthodox literature? Even if so, every person would have a slightly different defining set of references, based their unique intake of information.

No, that fact that my conceptualization is empirically sound isn't a weakness to me. However, if you persist in wishing to maintain that the actual concept of God is logically unsound, only for the purposes of therefore denying the concept, well, that is very much a dogmatic assertion. You choose to support an invalid version of a concept that you want to deny.

Anything can exist as soon as we arbitrarily and unilaterally change the definition of "anything". But what we get is not informative, it is a tautology. — Lionino

We get what we are essaying to conceptualize. If you assume the conceptualization entails the non-existence of the thing then perhaps it is the conceptualization that is flawed. I fail to see how one position begs its question more than the other.

How We Think
by John Dewey

Dewey never fails to satisfy, like a cool drink of water on a hot day.

So I see tons of points that lead us to rationally conclude consciousness does not extend on after death. There is no how, where, what, or why. There is only a personal belief in the desire that it be true. — Philosophim

Perhaps the possibility is a function the belief itself.

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....