Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020

Yes (e.g. a community – more than any "subjective mind" – that uses the public conventions of "stop signs" & "traffic lights"; see below).

If there is no mind to experience and conceptually designate “red” does red ever aquire an inherent existence independent of a third party mind?

Yes (e.g. thermal EM radiation from stars, etc). The "experience" may be "subjective", though "red" is acquired publicly, but (except for those who are colorblind) what "red" corresponds to in every instance (e.g. EM frequencies) is not "subjective".

[D]o you think physics describes logic? — Shawn

No. Physics (provisionally) explains 'the regularities of nature' and logic (exactly) describes 'the entailments of regularities as such'. The latter is, imo so to speak, the syntax of the former (i.e. physics discursively presupposes logic). Why? Perhaps because ... nature, which includes – constitutes – h. sapiens' intelligence, is a dynamic process evolving within (thermal?) constraints from initial conditions – ur-regularities.

:up:

First Order Logic is a subset of Axiomatic Mathematics ... First order Logic, a subset of axiomatic mathematics, doesn't exist. — Treatid

:lol: Principle of explosion —> STFU, kid.

re: "NDE"

It doesn't matter ... the meaning of death, who cares? It's not the concept that matters it's the experience! — Sam26

:clap: :rofl:

:up: :up:

:eyes: You're still incorrigible and fatuous! Resuscitations, not resurrections, ergo not biological "death" as implied by "NDE" (as I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you Sam).

Yw. :point:

from 2023 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/782860

and follow-up to your conspicuously poorly reasoned, often disingenuous dogma ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/797025

Feel better? :smirk:

Are you critical of the subject, 180 Proof? — Mark Nyquist

No, I'm neither an economist nor a policy-maker.

What's your philosophical question? Describe what makes this "economic issue of arbitrary transfers" philosophically significant.

:nerd: :up:

:lol: Well, apparently you're too lazy to think so it's no surprise you're also too lazy to click on the link I've provided in my previous two posts to an earlier post with the questions you obviously cannot answer.

.

Thank you. :yawn:

just dogmatism, mere dogmatism. — Pantagruel

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584

Straight-forward, relevant questions are beyond you. Gotcha, Pants. Just checking.

How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective?
— 180 Proof

cogito, ergo sum — Wayfarer

:sweat: :lol: :rofl:

Neither thinking nor existing (individually or jointly) equals "consciousness"; besides, Descartes' slogan (epitaph) is a non sequitur, sir.

Agreed. Still, Roevember is coming! :victory:

The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. — Wayfarer

(a) How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective? :chin:

(b) And if neither you nor any agent can know (i.e. corroborate) that you, herself or any other agent is "conscious," then on what grounds do you conclude, without vicious circularity, that "any kind of explanation" requires "that you must be a conscious agent"?

(c1) So, in principle, it is impossible for a future, non-conscious AGI-system "agent to create or provide any kind of explanation"?

(c2) And if it does "explain" anything, then, by your reasoning, Wayfarer, that would be evidence the AGI-system is a "conscious agent" (affirming the consequent be damned)?

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy... — Sam26

The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll:

Life is largely anecdotal [sophistry]. — Pantagruel

Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584

:up:

:up:

Science has no trouble depicting the world as it was before the evolution of h.sapiens, for instance - an empirical fact - — Wayfarer

And that suffices, the rest is derivative (pace Kant) or superfluous. A more cogent and parsimonious description is, imo, more or less this one: "observers" are any aspects of the world interacting with – abstracting stochastic patterns from – any other aspects of the world.

Biden was not removed by lawful means. — fishfry

Which law was broken?

:zip:

What there is (i.e. the view from any where): the world¹ and true statements about the world¹; all the rest consist in abstractions, fictions, fallacies, confusions, illusions and affects.

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

Philosophy should be about how best to live. Whatever does not inform that, however interesting and creative it might be, is just a diversion in the form of speculation. — Janus

:up: :up:

The precise point Schrodinger was making with Schrodinger's Cat. — Wayfarer

:roll: Schrödinger proposed this thought-experiment only to show that the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum mechanics is, at best, paradoxical (i.e. does not make sense).

???

:up:

... perhaps unrealistic Idealism is not too far off the mark. But I prefer the unfamiliar term Enformationism, which has no history of philosophical [cogency or self-consistency] politics to elicit incredulity and knee-jerk reactions. — Gnomon

:sparkle: :eyes: :lol:

:rofl:

Notice I said "live in the world", NOT the world itself. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, and then you draw an unwarranted conclusion about "the world itself" as if the living are the world's victims. Stop shifting goal posts and admit you've been caught poorly reasoning again (e.g. category mistake of "world as perpetrator of unfairness and injustice").

:up:

Dude, "the world" is not an intentional agent so it cannot be "unfair" or "unjust". Stop whining about your category mistake, for fuck's sake, and get on with playing the cards you were dealt as well as you can – get on with living and thriving – or die trying (as per e.g. Laozi, Epicurus, Epictetus, Pyrrho, Montaigne, Spinoza ...) :death: :flower:

:up: :up:

NOS4A2
And you're happy to let Americans live however they like. :up: — frank

:smirk:

I am outraged that people are given power based on race and gender, yes. — NOS4A2

We agree for once, NOS. Here in America we've been "outraged" about that since 1619 ... 1701 ... 1787 ... (1791-1804) ... 1857 ... 1896 ... 1954 ... 1963 ... and now in 2024 this "outrage" may culminate again (like 2008) in another (merely symbolic?) step up and forward out of America's white male caste system. TBD.

Logic doesn't work by the principles of logic. — Treatid

:lol: STFD

:smirk:

You are not a serious person. — AmadeusD

Coming from you, lil troll, I wear your grunt like a badge of honor. :up:

I waa a courtroom prosecutor ... I took on perpetrators of all kind: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped-off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump's type. — VPOTUS Kamala Harris (D-CA)

It ain't no laughing matter to beat this senile fat fascist Clown, yet already I love her happy warrior's laugh. Roevember is coming! :victory: :lol:

:sweat: More fatuously hypocritcal projection. I love it, dude.

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party and I never have been.

I do not care one bit whether or not the party organization or its nominating primary process is democratic.

I only care that the Democratic Party is as ruthless, disciplined and united going forward to victory in Roevember 2024 as it was in 2020.

I don't care how they engineered ("forced" "bullied") POTUS to step aside ("palace coup"?) so long as the outcome is a candidate to replace him who can curb stomp The MAGA Cult Clown to Electoral College defeat in just over a hundred days.

In the UK, the Tories were just given their worse electoral beating in two centuries. In France, the right-wingnut populists were defeated by a concerted unity of centrist and leftist parties. The US Democratic Party with moderate independents and "Never Trump" suburban college-educated Republicans together, can do the same thoroughly rejecting the neofascist MAGA-GOP again just like 2020.

THIS ELECTION IS NOW ABOUT TRUMP, LIKE 2020, AND NO LONGER ABOUT BIDEN. :clap:

VPOTUS Harris isn't my first choice by a long shot, but I am confident that with a well-funded, united coalition and superior ground game (especially in the SWING STATES), aided and abetted by the deranged, angry-whining babbling bilge of bullshit The MAGA Cult Clown will continue to senilely spew and sputter this fall after Labor Day when the other 80% of the potental electorate will finally be paying attention, VP Harris (or whomever the nominee is) will win the 2024 election. Civil unrest by MAGA brownshirts & GOP shitheads notwithstanding. :fire: :mask:

Roevember is coming! :victory:

But few here would remember Landru Guide Us — Banno

An old sparring partner ... :smirk:

... my point is that you are AWARE of counterfactuals and you CHOSE this one (whatever else might be the case surrounding this decision). — schopenhauer1

Since my being "AWARE" is post hoc confabulation, I "CHOSE" before I became "AWARE" (as Libet's experiments¹, etc show) that I have "CHOSEN" (e.g. from prior "counterfactual" – imagined – options), therefore any "decision" is (mostly) unconscious² as I point out here without raising the concept of "determinism" (which is your strawman, schop1, not mine).

.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024487/ [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology) [2]

I simply ask, what IS it that is beyond oneself? — Constance

Self itself.

There are various systems of paraconsistent logic that accomodate or mitigate explosive results, so I won't rule out some form of dialectic, but I won't rule it in, either. (see what I did there...?) — Banno

:smirk:
.

But it remains that the sort of contradiction seen in dialectic is not the sort of contradiction found in formal logic. What a dialectic contradiction is remains, I think, ambiguous.

And secondly, even if we supose that dialectic does not breach non-contradiction, the result is not clear. Given the Principle of Explosion, anything could follow from a contradiction, so given a thesis and an antithesis, the nature of the resulting synthesis is far from fixed.

So I would rather not glorify dialectic by calling it a "logic". — Banno

:up: :up:

Indeed, what we know is mental, but that does not imply that the world is mental...

The argument attempts to show that the world is partially mental, but only succeeded in showing that the what we say about the world is "mental".

That is, the argument presented here does not demonstrate it's conclusion. — Banno

:100:

Yes, it's the idealist (antirealist) conflation of epistemology ("what I/we know") and ontology ("all there is") – i.e. a fly-bottle out of which @Wayfarer @Gnomon et al can't seem to find the way.

The "formatting" helps you illiterati read and maybe even comprehend the post. Btw, you're welcome.

:up:

:up:

21July24

Well, if Harris winds up the nominee ...

:lol: :up:

Roevember is coming!

Does it matter what the primary function of religious thinking is? — Igitur

Yes, and afaik it's this ...

[H]istory amply shows, imo, that 'religion' is required only (or at least mostly) for herding sheep, prophets making profits and sanguinary propitiating/martyring/scapegoating. — 180 Proof

ergo
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/919316

FWIW, my guess (preference) of prospective nominees to emerge out of the Dems Convention shitshow next month:

1. VP Harris-Gov Whitmer (likely)

2. Gov Whitmer-Sen Warnock (less likely)

3. Gov Whitmer-Gov Newsom (very unlikely)

Nevertheless, MAGAts – Roevember is coming! :party: