You might be interested in this 2020 thread Disambiguating the concept of gender
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888

That's trite.

In sum, "faith" is trust in magical thinking (that too many adults never outgrow re: ) in stark contrast to fallibilistic "belief" based on trust in defeasible reasoning (that is cultivated in too few children).

Outside of religion the word is used
metaphorically and IMO wrongly. — Tom Storm

The only time I use the word faith in conversation is to describe someone's religious views. I try to avoid using this word to describe quotidian matters. — Tom Storm

:up: :up:

:up:

How God becomes Real — Wayfarer

Thanks for this. :mask:

... mental states are not identical to brain states. — RogueAI

Yeah and likewise, e.g. poems "are not identical (or reducible) to" grammars, so what's your philosophical point?

@Manuel

haunted minds, not haunted houses — Tom Storm

:up:

Re: "spirit" (that which breathes, or breaths / voices / winds) & "ghost" (i.e. traum or geist ... dream or in/of the mind ... daimon, etc); also: from acculturation, "believing is seeing" :eyes: :pray:

↪Wayfarer You'd think, given the atrocities committed against the aborigines by the white settlers, that their ghosts, if there were such actual entities, would haunt us plenty. — Janus

:up: :up:

How do you think about spirits and ghosts? — Manuel

I think of them as personal (or ancestral) memories and traumatic (or social) histories, respectively.

And, more importantly, what do you think about falling into such a state as to be suggestible into believing such things to be existing phenomena?

IMO, such beliefs (i.e. literal projections) are delusional. :sparkle:

:up: :up:

In this thread, I am trying to discuss the relationship to moral philosophy of the scientific study of our moral sense and cultural moral norms. — Mark S

From what I can tell, sir, that so-called "relationship" is pretty weak. While interdisciplinary disciplines like moral psychology, evolutionary ethics & sociobiology are empirically interesting (re: 'cultural norms' as eu-social constraints/biases), in situ 'moral sciences' do not motivate/facilitate either ethical (or juridical-political) judgment or moral conduct. I stand by my earlier assessment:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/885373

"Empathy" and other emotions are not "cooperation strategies innate to the universe" anymore than (e.g.) strawberries are caused by strawberry-flavored atoms. Cite some reputable scientific studies which corroborate your claim.

Never mind.

the fate of their immortal soul — Wayfarer

i.e. superstition (or māyā)

... belief is a primary driver of action. — Janus

:up: :up:

:100:

Neither (A) whether or not there is "free will" nor (B) whether or not one believes one has "free will" changes the fact that actions (causes) necessarily have consequences (effects). I think, however, any coherent conception – convention – of agency presupposes compatibilism.^

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism ^

:up:

Rather than taking empathy and other parts of human nature as givens, I go up a level of causation to their source, the cooperation strategies that are innate to our universe. — Mark S

This claim seems to me quite an unwarranted (reductive) leap that, so to speak, puts the cart (cultural norms) before the horse (human facticity). Explain how you (we) know that "cooperation strategies are innate to our universe" and therefore that they are also "innate" in all human individuals.

Seems masturbatory.

What are you trying to accomplish?

I won't bother playing with a LLM until, without prompts, it asks (us) interesting questions.

And therefore we have metaphysics in order not to despair at the real.

:death: :flower:

... suffering is the crucible in which all great things are born, through overcoming that suffering. Not by avoiding it. — Vaskane

I've neither claimed or implied otherwise. Obviously, as an existential fact, suffering is not avoidable; morally, however, suffering is a reducible exigency, the reason, in fact, for flourishing (i.e. overcoming) by non-reciprocally – non-instrumentally – helping others to reduce, not "avoid", suffering. Of "all great things", human flourishing comes first and last, otherwise the rest (including "great things") are merely decadent detritus. Easy sleep is not proposed by me as a "virtue" but as the daily reward for and restorative of strivings to flourish – even as a measure of good health: eine Ja-sagen zu Leiben. :fire:

The eternally recurring choice: blue pill (passivity) or red pill (actively affirming there is no ultimate choice: amor fati – what Spinoza calls blessedness) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726159

But my initial impulse was not based on arguments as such. — Tom Storm

Same here, despite a decade or so of Catholic Catechism, altar boy service & bible study, I couldn't shake the (naive?) question: why believe in this religion, or this god, rather than any of the others? I suspect I'd outgrown 'magical thinking' in elementary school a few years before I'd explicitly realized in high school that I did not believe in 'Christian myths'. Most of the arguments, as you say, Tom, came years later.

For me atheism isn't about proof that there are no gods. It's whether I believe in gods or or not. I don't believe, so i am an atheist. — Tom Storm

The question for me, however, is whether or not 'claims about g/G (e.g. theism, deism) are demonstrably true'. AFAIK, such claims are not demonstrably true; therefore, I am an atheist.

Also, as the ultimate or absolute "mystery", g/G is neither an explanation nor a justification because attempting to answer such questions as "Why do we exist?" and "What is right or good?" with "mystery" – g/G created and g/G said – only begs those questions.


addendum to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/875902

I've no idea what you're talking about or taking issue with.

:up: :up:

I'm sure you can think of greater virtues than Sleep. — Vaskane

I wonder if you can think of something interesting to say without taking either my words or Nietzsche's out of context.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726159

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772934

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/808366

But if you're distinguishing the US system, you'll have to give a counter non-American news outlet that transcends these problems. — Hanover

"Have to"? That doesn't follow ... and apparently you don't grok my post.

IME, the manifest function of 'US corporate news media' primarily has been to inform the business class & its mandarins (i.e. shareholders) while simultaneously disinforming – infotaining/polarizing – the masses (i.e. stakeholders). This mirrors the K-12 conformative education of their respective children.

:up:

If you say so.

To each his own. — Gnomon

Yeah, that's what the astrologer (or witch doctor) said to the astrophysicist (or medical doctor).

Contrary to my interpretation, you're saying that "there can be something outside of spacetime?" Yes or No? — Gnomon

I'm not saying that. Again, I'm saying this:

there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") ... — 180 Proof

for the reasons given in that post.

If I mis-interpreted your  Immanentism position on the all-inclusive, no exceptions, expanse of space-time, I will apologize in this thread.

No apology needed.

But you would have to either reject the Big Bang theory outright, or ...

I don't think so. BBT explains only the development of the current structure of spacetime (see R. Penrose's CCC¹) and not its "origin". Btw, in reference to quantum cosmology, I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology ¹

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Astronomy__Cosmology/Supplemental_Modules_(Astronomy_and_Cosmology)/Cosmology/Carlip/The_Hartle-Hawking_%22no_boundary%22_proposal ²

My question to you is: "What caused space-time?" — Philosophim

On what grounds do you assume "space-time" was "caused"? It seems to me, Philosophim, you're asking, in effect, "what caused causality?" :roll:

If there is nothing prior which explains why space-time had to have existed forever or exists as it does, then we have reached a first cause. It is the cause of all other things, yet has no cause for its own being besides its own existence.

No, not "first" but only: existence, being sui generis, is the only cause of everything – causality itself – which in Relativistic physics is often described as the "Block Universe" or in metaphysics, as Spinoza conceives of it sub specie aeternitatus, as "substance" (i.e. natura naturans³)⁴.

https://pursuingtraditions.wordpress.com/category/natura-naturans-vs-natura-naturata/ ³

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu ⁴

Of course ...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/05/us-banks-leave-esg-finance-climate-crisis

The US is a very stupid country, you see. Or, better, extremely ignorant and desperate. — Mikie

As an American I believe this observation is only true of less than half of the half of the population who bother to vote. :mask:

A being is anything at all. It can also mean exclusively sentient beings. The latter is not what’s used in ontology, whether Aristotle or Heidegger. Trees rocks and ideas are all beings. — Mikie

:100: Yes, a being (even a nonbeing à la Meinong's "sosein") is whatever is not nothing.

"Insurrection? What Insurrection?!" :mask:

Commentary by establishment conservative attorney George Conway on 4March24 SCOTUS' tr45h decision ...



@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw

Doesn't the {belief that eliminating immaterial data decreases a model's error} imply that immaterial things have no causal relationship with material things? — Lionino

No. The "belief" implies that "immaterial data" is indefinite or without sufficiently definite parameters with respect to material data, thereby, in effect, comparing apples & oranges (or facts & dreams). I think both conservation laws and the principle of causal closure, however, imply that only material entities can have causal relationships with material entities. Btw, isn't "immaterial thing" an oxymoron? :smirk:

Regardless of your personal position, would you argue that a moral naturalist would find the science of morality useless? — Mark S

I'm a "moral naturalist" (i.e. aretaic disutilitarian) and, according to your presentation, Mark, "the science of morality" is, while somewhat informative, philosophically useless to me.

I prefer morality for interactions with other people defined by a kind of rule consequentialism with the moral consequence being a version of happiness or flourishing and the moral rule being Morality as Cooperation. So the science of morality is not just helpful, it is critical to my moral philosophy. Would you claim I am being illogical?

I think your "preference" is wholly abstract – "a kind of rule" – and therefore non-natural which is inconsistent with your self-description as a "moral naturalist". What you call "cooperation" (reciprocity), I call "non-reciprocal harm-reduction" (empathy); the latter is grounded in a natural condition (i.e. human facticity) and the former is merely a social convention (i.e. local custom). Of course, both are always at play, but, in terms of moral naturalism, human facticity is, so to speak, the independent variable and convention / custom / culture the dependent, or derivative, variable.

No doubt the relationship of nature-culture is reflexive, even somewhat dialectical, yet culture supervenes on nature (though it defines or demarcates 'natural-artificial', etc). No, you're not "illogical", Mark; however, I find the major premise of your "Morality as Cooperation" to be non-natural (i.e. formalist/calculative/instrumental) and therefore scientistic or, at the very least, non-philosophical vis-à-vis ethics.

Are science’s explanations of why versions of the Golden Rule exist, are found in all well-functioning cultures, and are commonly described as summarizing morality of no interest to you?

All "science" says, so to speak, is that 'h. sapiens are a eusocial species with prolonged childhood development for intergenerationally acquiring homeostasis-maintaining skills (from natal, empathy-based social relations, not unlike all other primates and many higher mammal species which also care for their offspring so that they survive long enough to reproduce)'. The parenthetical part is a philosophical reflection, not mere empirical data, and thus significant for our moral reasoning.

I'm interested in reflecting on natural conditions for moral conduct independent of – anterior to – "well functioning cultures" and indifferent towards codified norms/strategies of "cooperation" which are only artifacts of "well functioning cultures" (and as such, IMO, are all that (a) "science of morality" can "summarize").

:up:

↪180 Proof indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} — Gnomon

I did not claim or imply this.

As I've stated in several of our exchanges, Gnomon, my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) ... just as there is no edge of the Earth off of which one can fall, no north of the North Pole, etc.

Stop making up sh*t. :sweat:

By March/April, SCOTUS will uphold the "states' rights" to individually decide whether or not to disqualify Insurrectionist/Criminal-Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 from appearing on the 2024 federal election ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 (Insurrection Clause) of the US Consitution. — 180 Proof

Well, I got the date right but the decision wrong: (maga-wingnut) SCOTUS is in the effing tank for (former) SCROTUS aka "Insurrectionist/Criminal Defendant/Fraudster/Rapist/Loser-1" ... making up stoopid ahistorical-ad hoc shit (like they did to overturn Roe v. Wade i.e. to jackboot curbstomp 'stare decisis') in order to further accelerate the bananafication of the US Republic.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/feb/08/14th-amendment-insurrection-disqualify-trump

What?! "States Rights" for forced pregnancy but NOT for ballot qualifications (or e.g. vote recounting re: Bush v. Gore)?!! :shade: :down:


@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw

Perhaps understanding what human morality ‘is’ will provide valuable insights for philosophical studies into what morality ought to be. — Mark S

Given that morality is an aspect of philosophy (i.e. ethics), a scientific "understanding of morality" seems, IMO, as useless to moral philosophers as ornithology (or aerodynamics) is useless to birds.

What is hateful [harmful] to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, 1st century BCE

:fire:

possibilities that go beyond space-time — Gnomon

I.e. mere possibilia :smirk:

↪180 Proof is much more knowledgeable of Philosophy than I am.

:up:

Like the Buddhist desire to overcome desire, I think an egoist might practice altruism (i.e. non-reciprocal help/care of others) in order to overcome – deflate, sublimate – her ego: a positive, or adaptive, form of selfishness à la Spinoza's 'ethical conatus' (and not mere selflessness).

— a[n] exercise entirely in the domain of science. — Mark S

So then why do you think this "exercise" has any relevance to moral philosophy?

I think the attempt to reduce habits of normative non-reciprocal harm-reduction (i.e. morals) to "strategies for solving cooperation problems" (e.g. game theory, cybernetics) is incoherent and misguided. This proposal is incoherent due to the category mistake of reframing non-reciprocity (altruism) in terms of reciprocity (mutualism), or vice versa. Also, it's misguided to assume that calculation (i.e. problem solving) is fundamental to moral judgment ("strategy"?) when, in fact, it's reflective habit (i.e. virtue) that is fundamental to moral conduct (empathy-care-compassion).

I said the existence of cultural moral norms and our moral sense are explainable as parts of cooperation strategies. — Mark S

Anthropological and developmental evidences suggest you've put the cart before the horse, Mark. For example, the so-called "moral sense" in human toddlers and many nonhuman animals is expressed as strong preferences for fairness and empathy towards individuals both of their own species and cross-species ... prior to / independent of formulating or following any "cooperation strategies".

the myth of h. Sapiens being ‘just another species’. — Wayfarer

:monkey:

So that oldtime mythmaker Charlie D. got it wrong: "h. sapiens" is something other than an "evolved" animal species (i.e. we are more than discursively-delusional, semi-eusocial, bald primates), is that it? Well, most bacteria and viruses, Wayfarer, as well as large land predators, seem to have not yet gotten the memo "Don't Eat Them". :mask:

We’re of a different kind.

Agreed – a "different kind" of species that fetishizes its imaginary differences which do not make an existential difference – "h. sapiens" is, no matter the ontological stories we flatter our fleeting smallness with, fundamentally inseparable from nature like all other natural species.

Try teaching the concept 'prime' to your dog. — Wayfarer

C'mon, Wayf, that's our limitation, not the dog's. :smirk:

How about you (we) try to learn from a hound how to follow a rabbit's or lost child's days-old scent through a teeming woodland; or learn from a bat how to echolocate; or learn from a cuttlefish how to continuously camouflage themselves unseen against any background while moving from place to place; or try learning from bees how to build a beehive; or learning from a cat how to play with utter abandon with a dangling string ...

In broad terms, which of the following is closest to your own materialist position:

(A) philosophical materialism (i.e. every concrete thing is "matter"-in-motion aka monism)

or

(B) methodological materialism (i.e. populating models with immaterial data – entities, causes – amplifies experimental error, therefore scientific (and historical) practices require eliminating as much immaterial data as possible as the preliminary method of decreasing a model's experimental error – making it (more) testable)

or

(C) ??? materialism ...

NB: (A) & (B) are how I use the terms which I think are a bit clearer than the standard (wiki? non-academic?) muddle. Btw, I consider myself a (nonstandard) p-naturalist ...