Read on through the rest of this thread, particularly page 2 (re: my proposals for "existence" and "morality" in the context of (how I understand) Western philosophy).What needs to be defined therefore is what precisely do we mean by existence? ... And what is morality? — Ray Liikanen
This question addresses the subject of moral concern: actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake).Do you cause unnecessary harm? — schopenhauer1
Apparently, you've not read this thread from the beginning. A little more than semantic quibbles is going on here. Besides, definitions are not "verifiable" (unless they are tautologies). :roll:... 'religious' has not been defined in a concrete, understandable, verifiable manner. — Ray Liikanen
My layman's best guess: only the interaction of the measuring-apparatus and "planck-scale phenomena" is manifestly ontic – quanta (e.g. photons) "perturbing" quanta – and the physicist's readings of her measurements (thereby making inferences) are empirical....since classical-scale systems (e.g. brains-sensoriums) cannot directly interact with planck-scale systems (re: decoherence).
— 180 Proof
How do you characterize ontically and empirically the physicist and its experimental_inferential connection to planck-scale phenomena? — ucarr
If by "observer" you mean measurement and by "observes" you mean measures, then I think you're correct here about QM. Afaik, "sentience" itself cannot "perturb" quanta since classical-scale systems (e.g. brains-sensoriums) cannot directly interact with planck-scale systems. That way leads to the dark side (imo, p0m0 / Berkeleyan nonsense :sparkle:).QM tells us the observer perturbs what s/he observes. — ucarr
:100: :fire:My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist. — apokrisis
:up: :up:Who could care about AN concerns? They are ridiculous given that there is plenty enough of pragmatic importance to be getting on with in our already extant lives.
A fashion statement and not a philosophical conundrum. — apokrisis
"Life after death.". "Resurrection." "Past lives." "Reincarnation." "Release from the Wheel of Rebirth." EtcAs to false hopes: one needs to go into this: false hopes about what? — Constance
Your accusation of "bad metaphysics" is clearly a projection and non sequitur.bad metaphysics. This is a straw person
:roll:Its overpromising and underdelivering is itself metaphysics, that is, beyond verification and falsification. — Constance
All Christian sects preach that every person has an "eternal soul" (i.e. "I AM" = EGO sum (re: "imago dei")) that will be either "saved" or "damned", no? Iirc from my Jesuitical education, each follower of Christ seeks only the "eternal salvation" of his "eternal soul" ... in the world to come". Augustinian / Kierkeegardian subjectivity (i.e. "leap of faith") metaphysically screams "ME ME ME". :pray: :eyes:Christian metaphysics is not at all egoic ...
Humans' denial of death via myths / symbols of 'immortality' (e.g. scapegoating, redemption / propitiation sacrifice, martyrdom, "teleological suspension of the ethical", etc) as I've pointed out on this thread ...what is essentially religious about our existence
26August24 – $21.72 per share :down:NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)
16August24 – $23.06 per share
(NASDAQ 17,631.72)
Loser The Clown's pump-n-dump scam is down 40% in five months. Not bad for an OG grifter who even 3x BANKRUPTED A CASINO. — 180 Proof
This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. The world's oldest confidence game ritually over-promises and under-delivers: false hope. Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this.Religion's answer: know that your ego is nothing. There is a Reality that is/does without your ego. And that's your salvation from su[ff]ering. — ENOAH
I think "in general, idealism" asserts that "the physical" is only an idea and not real (i.e. mind-independent). Maybe you mean platonism or cartesian dualism? :chin:In general, idealism may be about a realm beyond the physical. — Jack Cummins
They are not because "natalism" is not an ideology or doctrine or dogma –"unlike antinatalism. Natality is a biological function that animals can prevent or terminate. Having been born does not in any way entail procreating. Thus, "antinatalism". (i.e. natality : antinatalism :: mortality : denialism¹)You would have a point if natalism and antinatalism were symmetrical- but they’re not. — schopenhauer1
:100: :up:Testimonial evidence only explains a subjective interpretation of a situation. And people's subjective interpretation of things is no indication of its truth as an objective reality, only the truth in that is what people feel. There are plenty of people who feel there is a God, but is that objectively true? No. — Philosophim
And, besides, what existential-pragmatic-ethical difference does it make, Jack, if metaphysically (according to some ancient tradition) "all is maya" — 180 Proof
This is because (A) "why" (i.e. goal, purpose) only pertains to intentional agency – an unwarranted, anthropomorphic assumption – and therefore does not pertain to "Nature" itself (re: teleological / transcendental illusion (i.e. a metacognitive bias aka "pure reason")); and (B) the only answer to the foundational/ultimate "why of Nature" that does not beg the question (i.e. infinitely regress) is There Is No Why of Nature. :fire:We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why".
Yes, like the plot device of "Manwë" in The Silmarillion (or "Sauron" in LotR). :smirk:God is already there is Scripture. — BitconnectCarlos
Existence itself is absolutely presupposed, and therefore requires no justification; also, it's self-contradictory to assume that 'IS possibly is not'. Existence "just is" the hinge on which all existing swings. Your inversion, Sam, assumes an unwarranted 'dualism' that is both incoherent and unparsimonious. Spinozism had refuted 'Cartesian duality' over three centuries ago.and Berkeley's 'subjective idealism' is clearly question-begging (see Kant's critique).Existence swings on the hinge of consciousness. It requires no justification. It just is. It’s the presuppositional axiom of existence. — Sam26
This :sparkle: "core mind, core consciousness" :sparkle: reminds me very much of the sage woo--woo of an ancient Jedi Master:I do believe we are individuals that are part of the core mind, i.e., we are individuals that are connected with the core ... The core consciousness is constantly creating experiences for the innumerable conscious beings that are associated with the core mind ... the essence of who we are cannot be harmed ....
In sum: "NDEs" = temporary FORCE GHOSTS. :sweat:For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes.
*
Deceive you, eyes can. In the Force, very different each of you is.
*
Death is a natural part of life, rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force.
*
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall. that is the way of things. The way of the Force. — Sayings of Yoda
Apparently, as your 'dogmatic ontophobic idealism' shows, you do not grok absurdism as expressed by (e.g.) PW Zapffe, A. Camus, C. Rosset ... Instead, schop, you fetishize the lyrical "antinatal" musings of a minor horror novelist and latter-day disciple of a haute bourgeois, misanthropic, dyspeptic pessimist (who also happens to be a great neo-kantian philosopher).Absurdism is a response, similar to existentialism, but it doesn't see the problem for what it is. — schopenhauer1
Raised & educated by strict Roman Catholics, I'd reach this conclusion by senior year in my Jesuit high school (though my apostasy had begun two years earlier).Suppose you somehow became convinced that Christianity is false. — Art48
In the late 1970s I'd critically compared his purported teachings to that of others like Socrates, Epicurus, Buddha, Laozi, Kongzi ... who were also "just men" and had found Yeshua ben Yosef far less compelling.Suppose you came to believe that Jesus was just a man. How would you proceed?
I'd become a freethinker and naturalist / anti-supernaturalist; then had for years studied comparative religion and religious histories on my own; all the while growing more secular, even irreligious, from apostate to weak athiest to strong atheist by the mid 1990s to antitheist (with strong speculative affinities for pandeism) about two decades ago.What would you do?
Well, as sketched above, my path had been from 4 through 3 to 2. :halo:Make a choice and explain why.
1. This is ridiculous. Christianity IS true and that’s all there is to it. I’m not doing this silly thought experiment. Count me out. (No further explanation needed.)
2. I would become an atheist.
3. I would search for a God that isn’t false.
4. None of the above. I would do something else.
And yet consistent with your (Ligotti's) defeatist premises that's still a MALIGNANTLY USELESS "notion", no? :smirk:That's the basis of my "Communities for Catharsis" and "fellow-sufferers of compassion" notion. — schopenhauer1
Yeah, of course, because (like in cults, asylums, prisons, marriages) misery does love company. :mask:... if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way. — "schopenhauer1
:up: :up:Of course, as previously noted, this presupposes a considerable reduction in population. That's not something I advocate - that's something I predict. — Vera Mont
a post-scarcity, philanthropic AGI-managed (automated), sprawl-free municipality (arcology) — 180 Proof
On the contrary, g/G is an empty name thatLikewise, we don't know what G*D is, — Gnomon
pacifies the superstitious. :pray:only what it does:
If this "hypothetical explanation" is testable, then cite such a test or what one might be in principle; however, if it is not testable, then there is not any reason to consider g/G an "explanation" for anything at all.a hypothetical explanation for the existence of [ ... ]