180 Proof

The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
We have learned a bit about the strings and the pulling of them but are completely in the dark about the puppet master. — Manuel
Perhaps because "the puppet master" is merely a grammatical illusion (i.e. "doer" attributed to doing – "subject" of a predicate) that amounts to folk psychology's homunculus fallacy. Consider (e.g.) Buddha's anattā¹ ... Hume's bundle² ... Metzinger's PSM³ ... :chin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81 [1]

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model [3]

@Jack Cummins
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
↪bert1
So what's your point?
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
Today in Trumpenfreude

NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)

4Sept24 – $16.98 per share (-36% past month)
(NASDAQ 17,084.10) — 180 Proof
13Sept24 – $16.12 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 17,395.53) :up:
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." :fire:

The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang ...? — kindred
Insofar as "before" is a synonym for without in this context, the above amounts to asking whether 'walking happened without legs' or 'vision without eyes' or 'life without mass' or 'minds without bodies' or 'patterns without primordial symmetry-breaking' ... wtf :roll:
Can the existence of God be proved?
↪Fire Ologist
"Existence of God" (false predication) =/= "God exists" (re: matter of fact). You equivocate those phrases and thereby confuse the issue, FO. Btw, "proof" pertains only to logic and mathematics, not to matters of fact which, however, can be shown to be the case or not to be the case. "God exists" can be shown not to be the case.
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪wonderer1
:up:
Can the existence of God be proved?
↪Fire Ologist
Afaik,"God" is an empty name that "exists" only in the heads of religious believers (i.e. superstitious, magical thinkers).
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪ucarr
I can't follow any of this ...
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪Ludwig V
"So scornful?" Why do you ask? Read the links I provided (the articles are simplified, non-technical summaries).
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
↪Relativist
:up: :up:
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪Ludwig V

"GUT"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

"TOE"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
↪Sir2u
:nerd: :up:
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
↪Fooloso4
:sweat:
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
... Perhaps l should look at dark: matter_energy through this lens. — ucarr
I guess I'm a broken record ...

Bad philosophy derived from bad physics. :roll: — 180 Proof
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
Today in Trumpenfreude 11Sept24

The Clown is so fucked! :clap: :lol:

Roevember is coming! :party:
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
@BitconnectCarlos The enemy? You mean all those non-combatants you displaced and then stole their houses and land?

It's theft plain and simple. If I attack you and you successfully defend yourself, you don't get to steal my wallet afterwards. The defence is justified the theft isn't. — Benkei
:100: :up:
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
Judging other species by human standards is the first mistake ... — Sir2u
:100:

And probably, imo, "they" are not even – are no longer – "species" but instead spacefaring AI probes (operationally independent of their long ago left behind biological makers)..
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪ucarr
G.U.T. =/= "T.O.E." (both in physics and anatomy :smirk:) because the latter is pop-sci / metaphysical hype and the former is a scientific research program.

When we speculate about the nature and content of this world, of course we’re doing it within the scope of NI. This leads me to say we don’t and can’t really know a non-NI world.
So you're "absential materialism" (or "strategic incompleteness") is Kantian?
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
Had I lived in the States, I wouldn't vote. — Tzeentch
In that case it wouldn't matter one wit that you'd lived here. :mask:

Kamala won that debate. — NOS4A2
:victory: Yes, the next POTUS sure did.

Trump is the greater evil. Don’t overthink it. — Mikie
:up: :up:

Like Ronald Reagan (whom I loathed), Kamala Harris is, if anything (besides highly competent), a happy warrior. :strong: :cool:
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪Ludwig V
:up: :up:

↪ucarr
:meh:
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪ucarr
How about a (commonplace) synonym for "cons"... ?
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
Taylor Swift has endorsed Harris.

“It’s over.” — Mikie
:sweat: :up:
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Well that was fun. Now about that genocide… — Mikie
:smirk:
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
the omnipresence of cons — ucarr
Clarify this phrase (in context, of course). Thanks.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪Mikie
:up:
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
Is a purely objective world ~~out there~~? — ucarr
Are you asking whether or not the world lacks subjects? or lacks subjective aspects? Insofar as subjects are self-reflexive, adaptive objects (which are 'entangled' to varying degrees with (all?) other objects), the unambiguous answer is 'the "objective world" also has subjective constituents'. Anyway, perhaps you can clarify precisely what you mean by "objective" – are you using it as an epistemological concept or a metaphysical concept?
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
↪noAxioms
:up:
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
The fact that we have not received any signals does not mean that they are not out there, it just means that we have not received signals. — Sir2u
Yes. Or maybe we have received their signals but our systems lack the sensitivity and/or bandwidth to distinguish those signals from the cosmic background noise (e.g. maybe they use neutrinos rather than EM waves). That would also filter us out as still too primitive (e.g. one of many Kardashev Level less-than-1 species) to reveal themselves to.
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
Isn't truth a metaphysical concept? — T Clark
Whether or not it is (I don't think it is), the OP clearly doesn't use "truth" that way.
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪ucarr
Your "physics of nature" is redundant (unless you believe there is "physics of" something other than "nature", which doesn't make sense).
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
↪I like sushi
:up:
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;) — I like sushi
:up: :up:
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
↪Jack Cummins
The claim of "pseudo-science" is not just someone "expressing their opinion"; the claim can be shown to be true or not true – to wit: if an explanation of phenomena is not testable, even in principle, then it is not a science (i.e. pseudo-science). Whatever else Dispenza's "mind-body" quackery might be, afaik, it is demonstrably not a science. And, imo, speculation based on pseudo-science, Jack, is merely pseudo-philosophy (e.g. esoterica). :sparkle: :eyes:
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
↪Linkey

From a 2020 thread Aliens!

Btw, barely a century of terrestrial technoscience, our so-called "Fermi Paradox" seems wildly premature. — 180 Proof
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
Not all self-reference is self-contradictory. — T Clark
Of course; but I didn't claim or imply otherwise. There are virtuous circles and vicious circles, and the latter are self-refuting ones (e.g. OP's definition of "relativism").

Relativism and objectivism are metaphysical positions.
Well maybe, TC, but the OP posits epistemological positions (on "truth"), not metaphysics.
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
↪Jack Cummins
I just can't grok this gobbledygook, mate. Sorry. Reads like trumpian word salad to me. :mask:

↪SophistiCat
:up:
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
Consciousness and existence being linked biconditionally is radical conjecture. — ucarr
Yeah, that's ancient neoplatonism ... subjective idealism (Berkeley), monadology (Leibniz) or absolute idealism (Hegel). This anti-realist thesis is conceptually incoherent (like 'panpsychism'). Read Hume & Q. Meillassoux/R. Brassier.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/584/what-are-the-major-points-of-meillassouxs-critique-of-correlationism

Also, this "conjecture" is, like teleology, without modern scientific significance, imho.

You don’t allow that causation is a part of ~~the physics of~~ nature.
I've neither claimed nor implied this.
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
↪ucarr
I'm pretty sure I've directly or indirectly answered these already
↪180 Proof
.
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
Is causation an emergent phenomenon? — ucarr
No, it is inferred (read Hume ...)

Or Is it just part ~~of the physics~~ of nature?
It could not be anything else (read Epicurus or Spinoza ...)
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
I don't believe Zionism is inherently correlated to Jewish religiosity.

I don't think ... — BitconnectCarlos
Your willful ignorance is stunning, BC. :sweat:

Home » 180 Proof

More Comments

Start FollowingSend a Message