P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

Accepting that experience is real, how the experience can affect physical? — MoK

"Experience" is a feature (output?) of "mind" and mental and physical – the former either an epiphenomenon or emergent (strange loop-like) from the latter – are complementary descriptions of the manifest activities of – or ways of talking about – natural beings (i.e. property dualism¹). For example, both a stone and a human are manifestly physical but humans manifest, or exhibit, purposeful activity that we describe as mental whereas stones do not.

A more fundamental, or metaphysical, version of property dualism is (Spinoza's) parallelism²: physical and mental are conceived of as parallel aspects of every natural being (not to be confused with panpsychism or epiphenomenalism) which do not interact causally (or in any other way) and we attribute to each natural being to the degree either or both aspects are actively exhibited.

So whether a mental property¹ or mental aspect², it doesn't make sense to conceive of "experience" as an independent causal entity (re: Descartes' interaction problem ... disembodied mind).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism [2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory [2]

Re: "experience" ...

What is non sequiturs here? — MoK

:roll:

I believe in De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, so no Schrodinger cat paradox, no particle-wave duality, Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is explained well, etc. — MoK

:sweat:

And thanks for all the fish. — unenlightened

:smirk:

It must take its toll on those who have been dedicated to the site for 10yrs...
I couldn't do it for 5 minutes. — Amity

Me too! :100:

:ok: Non sequiturs ... Whatever.

:roll:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/966656

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are invalid.

Also, "mind" is what sufficiently complex brains do – activity / process (i.e. mind-ing) – and is not a concrete thing. "Mind(ing)" causes brains no more than 'walking causes legs' or 'digesting causes intestines'. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever of (anything like) 'disembodied mind'.

Lastly, in nature "uncaused cause" is not unique since (e.g.) random – "uncaused" – radioactive decay causes EM static (i.e. radiation).

NB: Read Spinoza, forget Aristotle/Aquinas.

Thanks for your dedication to the site, you will be missed. All the best.

12February25


SLAVA UKRAINI :strong: :fire:

↪180 Proof ↪180 Proof Nice summations! :up: — Janus

Thanks!

I was drawn to Whitehead's philosophy and struggled on and off for years to penetrate what I thought must be the sense of it, only to conclude in the end that it is pretty much vacuous, unintelligible.

:up:

It’s sorta hard to regard this well because @Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense. — Darkneos

:up: :up:

Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions. — Gnomon

True. And yet there's a never ending bilge of pseudo-scientific "opinions" often rationalized by incorrigibly poor reasoning / bad philosophy festooned with irrelevant quotations. Lots of woo, Gnomon sir. :up: – that's 'job security' for critical forum members who happen to be literate in modern sciences and western philosophy. :cool:

:chin:

I've also pointed out how "process philosophy" fails; what more needs to be "explained" that has not already been summarized ...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

With respect to ethics, as I've stated above

I don't think there are any "ethical implications" unique to either the naturalistic-chaotic (Dewey, Deleuze, Prigogine-Stengers) or the theistic-teleological (Whitehead, Hartshorne) versions of process philosophy. — 180 Proof

Insofar as it is an a priori categorical framework (i.e. ontological paradigm), a metaphysics might constrain but does not imply an ethics, so, it seems to me, Darkneos, you're asking the wrong question – "process philosophy" is just a twentieth century (scientistic) 'metaphysics of becoming'.

:smirk:
:cool:

So far no one’s been able to answer the original post. — Darkneos

How does the following fail to answer your OP?

(p.1)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963559

plus

(p. 5)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/966863

Science looks at what is, while philosophy looks at why it exists.
— @Gnomon

Debatable — Darkneos

Is it though? He sounds to me patently uninformed (as you've repeatedly pointed out); after all, "why" pertains only to actual agents and not to existence and "what" pertains to descriptions, not to explanations. Much less "debatable", I (unoriginally) propose that science seeks to testably explain how states-of-affairs – physical systems – transform (e.g. hypothetical-deductions) whereas philosophy concerns reflectively making explicit the rational and/or pragmatic limits (which include describing presuppositions as well as implications or derived prescriptions) of any given explanation ... e.g. Socratic inquiries. Clearly Whitehead's "process philosophy" fails to do either well like nearly all other flavors of idealism, imo, because he attempts to do both together confusing the disciplines' distinct levels of analysis or generality.

Different histories and legal traditions 'require' different ways of addressing their respective Empires.

Hindsight bias is completely. uninformative.

The US Constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1788. Prior to that (1783?) the Articles of Confederation governed the (former British colonies of) 13 separate states. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was not ratified by a popular election and predates the US Constitution (i.e. founding of the Republic), and therefore, is not controlling in American law.

edit:

Old posts on the roots of American "fascism" ...

(2021)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504611

(2020)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/420051

The first US elections were held in 1788.

America's Fascisting Around and Finding Out ...

PSA Monday

The real question ought to be, how did[why are] the American people get so dumb? — Tzeentch

Proudly Voting rich, Living poor since 1788!

United States of Kakistan
10February25 (FAFO day 21)

As the "deep state" is being bulldozed and replaced – with fear-muzzled, bipartisan acquience – by the Project 2025 state, I'm reminded of the world-historical power of human stupidity ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/967127

The post-2024 US election blues ...

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622062

The Five Laws of Human Stupidity

What happens in the dialogue between the human and the artificial [ ... ] — Jack Cummins

2020 (re: 2013) - fiction

2025 - fashion

"Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. "More human than human" is our motto" ~Eldon Tyrell (1982)

:nerd:

Spiritualism, from the evidence, appears to be nothing more than delusion.

People [like @Gnomon] who cite the “philosophical implications” of this stuff don’t understand [modern quantum physics] well enough to do so. — Darkneos

:up: :up:

But my question is about the ethical implications of it [process philosophy]

I don't think there are any "ethical implications" unique to either the naturalistic-chaotic (Dewey, Deleuze, Prigogine-Stengers) or the theistic-teleological (Whitehead, Hartshorne) versions of process philosophy.

Rather, as far as I can make it out, "becoming" (dynamics) is broadly conceived of as a metaphysical constraint on "being" (stasis, reification) such that, metaethically, becoming moral (via inquiry, creativity, alterity) supercedes being moral (re: dogma, normativity, totality) – and moral in the "process" sense, I guess, means Good (i.e. always striving – learning how – to treat each other (re: community & the commons) in non-zerosum/non-egocentric (i.e. dialectically holistic) ways ~my terms, not theirs).

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

... and also not free of consequences. :100:

So, what are your thoughts about tautologies apart from the standard stuff said here? — Shawn

From Witty & co, iirc, 'tautologies' are information-free, necessary repetitions (syntax) and 'logic', constituted by tautologies and rules of inference, is a consistency metric (systematicity) that is strictly applicable to grammatical (semantic) as well as mathematical (formal) expressions. Thus, I think of logic as sets of scaffoldings for excavating knowledge from nature and/or building (new) knowledge with nature – that is, making explicit maps of the terrain (i.e. possibilities) which are constitutive of the terrain (i.e. actuality (e.g. Witty's "totality of facts")). Nonetheless, imo even more fundamental than tautologies, contradictions are a priori modal constraints on ontology (i.e. the instantiation of logic, ergo mathematics, semiosis & pragmatics (Spinoza, A. Meinong, U. Eco, Q. Meillassoux ...)) which entail 'impossible worlds', or necessary non-actuality.

I assume it is true ... — MoK

Another hidden premise.

God is by definition the creator.

Ad hoc ...

To make this explicit I can change P1 from "God exists", to "God exists and is the creator".

Why not? – a third hidden premise. :roll:

There's a possible world in which you did not make that OP. — Banno

Under any nondeterminist interpretation, one 'could have chosen differently', or even might not have faced the choice at all. It also works under some fully deterministic interpretations like MWI where all possible choices are made in some world. — noAxioms

The OP raises whether or not it's possible to 'change the past' of the actual world (i.e. retroactively making a choice different from the choice that already has been made); imo counterpart choices in 'parallel / possible worlds' are not relevant to the question at hand.

So 180 Proof presumes the universe is determinate, then concludes that we cannot make choices — Banno

My reply to the OP is consistent with compatibilism – not your strawman.

:cool:

Idk anything about the podcast.

Two politically-savvy philosophers discussing "truth in an age of division" is quite relevant in this Trumpian moment, no?

United States of Kakistan
7February25

"Truth matters" ...

[deleted]

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1) — MoK

Neither C1 nor C2 validly follow because P1 is not true and P2 contains a hidden premise ("There exists a creator").

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so.

P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing
C1) Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God (from P1 and D1) — MoK

Unless what is meant here by "God" is synonymous with "nothing" ...

First – (D1) "from nothing" contradicts (P1) "caused by an agent"; thus, (C1) is invalid.

Second – (C1) also does not follow "from P1 and D1" whereby you conflate "nothing" (D1) with "nothing but God" which are not ontologically equivalent.

(C1) is consistent with "... an act of creation of something from God" (D1 revised); however, this revision implies pan-en-theism (or even a-cosmism) instead of theism.

Can you prove time exists? — Corvus

Can you prove temperature exists? or color exists? or charge exists? etc ...

I read through much of Klossowski's Nietzsche book decades ago and didn't finish it. Nothing "new" for me then (after more than two decades of studying Nietzsche and his legion of 'interpreters').

What do we make of Nietzsche today? Considered by some as the father of existentialism ... — Nemo2124

I view Nietzsche as the father of postmodernism, and as a critic of existentialism. — Joshs

Freddy seems to me 'an absurdist skeptic of European modernity' (both heir to Epicurus, Spinoza & Voltaire and predecessor of Zapffe, Camus & Rosset). "Some are born posthumously" ... yet, apparently, his protean works have been coopted – mis/appropriated :mask: – by both existentialists and postmodernists (as well as nazi / fascist propagandists). Just my two shekels.

Afaik, philosophy of religion examines concepts of religion (re: worship) in contrast to theology which speculates on the nature of god (re: transcendence); where these inquiries possibly converge or overlap is on implications for human existence (e.g. values).

:up: :up:

So, I take it that you accept the non-Christian argument, and you reject the Christian argument. And it seems that you deny the second premise, FTI2 — Arcane Sandwich

Nope. I didn't make it past your "Is Jesus God?"

Is Jesus God? — Arcane Sandwich

Given that both "God" and "Jesus" are fictions, yes / no depending on each e.g. Biblical, Quranic or Vedic author (make-believer) I suppose.

Can Santa Claus beat up Batman?
— T Clark

Nope, I think it's the other way around.
Batman can quite clearly whoop Santa Claus' ass. — Arcane Sandwich

:strong: :lol:

Shouldn't AGI participate in 'developing ethics' for itself (which humans might learn from) or do you mean, prior to AGI, humans should apply ethics to engineers / institutions 'developing AGI'? :chin: