• Is the real world fair and just?
    It is that which discloses such things as gravity and raditation and sub-atomic particles, amidst innumerable other things. It is the subject to whom all this occurs or appears. The ‘unknown knower’.Wayfarer
    This "knower" (i.e. perceiver) Bishop Berkeley calls "God" which, not by coincidence I'm sure, is functionally indistinguishable from @Gnomon's "Enformer". An infinite regress-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:

    [T]he mind is not ‘a thing among other things’Wayfarer
    Agreed. Mind(ing) is something sufficiently complex brains do – a (meta)activity, not an entity.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    ... to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" ... Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A point worth making in a philosophy forumBanno
    :up:

    It is one thing to say that things unperceived are not the same as we perceive them to be and altogether another to claim that when unperceived they don't exist.Janus
    :up: :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Two women on the ticket is, unfortunately, a loser.Mikie
    IMO, not "a loser" versus two misogynists who advocate a National Abortion Ban (i.e. criminalizing women's reproductive healthcare) if elected.
  • The game theory against divorces
    The question is, why does he want to preserve that relationship?Igitur
    :up:
  • The game theory against divorces
    In your example, the husband is a simp if he doesn't go to the football match without her; in the long run, the wife will respect him more for ignoring her ultimatums rather than giving in. The reasonable choice is, imo, either they agree to go to an event together or each one goes alone to the respectively preferred event rather than either one trying to force the other to do anything.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Survivor of an FBI entrapment case, more like it. It was planned by paid FBI informants. More deep state crooks elevated by deep state dupes.NOS4A2
    :lol: The only "deep state" is Project 2025 (i.e. The Heritage Foundation + The Federalist Society). Take your meds, dude. Roevember is coming! :victory:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    I still think Gretchen Whitmer would be the best VP candidate: an attractive white woman, popular governor of a large swing state, target of a wingnut Trumper/MAGA-affiliated kidnapping conspiracy in 2020; very smart politician, pro-civil rights, pro-labor & pro-choice. Checks more boxes than the other prospects. Makes too much sense and that's why Harris & her team probably won't pick Whitmer.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Sleepy Joe is (again) a day late and dollar short. Here's more disingenuous grist for your MAGA-grievance mill, NOS: a late-2020 post of mine on equitable 'SCOTUS reform' ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/461370
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    [C]onsciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality, which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition.Sam26
    (a) So if "consciousness ... creates reality", then what "creates" "consciousness"?

    (b) And if "consciousness" is not "created", then why assume that "reality" is "created?
  • Does physics describe logic?
    The rules of chess encompass all the possible games of chess without themselves being one, and a game can provide examples of the rules in action, without being them.tim wood
    :up: :up:
  • Perception
    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".
  • Does physics describe logic?
    [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:
  • Simplest - The minimum possible building blocks of a universe
    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.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    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:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    :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).
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    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
  • Politics, economics and arbitrary transfers.
    Are you critical of the subject, 180 Proof?Mark Nyquist
    No, I'm neither an economist nor a policy-maker.
  • Politics, economics and arbitrary transfers.
    What's your philosophical question? Describe what makes this "economic issue of arbitrary transfers" philosophically significant.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    :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.

    .
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    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.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    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
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    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.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Biden was not removed by lawful means.fishfry
    Which law was broken?
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    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).

    ???
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    :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").
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    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:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    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.
  • Simplest - The minimum possible building blocks of a universe
    Logic doesn't work by the principles of logic.Treatid
    :lol: STFD
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    You are not a serious person.AmadeusD
    Coming from you, lil troll, I wear your grunt like a badge of honor. :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    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:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    :sweat: More fatuously hypocritcal projection. I love it, dude.