• African Americans still wearing Covid-19 masks.
    Living in the US Southeast (Atlanta, Georgia) until spring 2022, I'd contracted Covid-19 twice in the winter and again in the fall of 2021 wearing masks, etc the whole time. Despite the onerous and opportunistic effects of "long covid", I managed to drag my dutifully masked self to the US Pacific Northwest (metro Portland, Oregon), relocating permanently in the spring of 2022, and by the fall had stopped wearing masks feeling fortified by my third vaccine booster (I was 59 then).

    Four months ago I received my booster, still maskless, and then contracted the virus again two months later and suffered mild (and some new) symptoms during the holidays which seem to have finally(?) subsided. I'm Black and still maskless. I haven't encountered any Black men or women wearing masks in metro Portland in the last twenry months. AFAIK, none of my friends and family who are Black and living in NYC, Phoenix, Atlanta & Seattle wear masks either so I have no experiential basis on which to find the OP credible. If anything, I only see Asians and some Whites still wearing masks.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪ucarr
    If you say so. Epistemology, not semiotics ... but whatever floats your boat.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requires an arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considered a “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr
    Okay, more or less. Dynamic models "require" initial conditions but what they model (e.g. the univerde) does not. In other words, wouldn't you agree we ought not mistake the maps we make for the territory itself?
  • Regarding the antisemitic label
    ↪Eros1982
    Among semitic peoples, "anti-Jewish" makes more sense than "antisemitic". Criticism of Israel's "Greater Israel" policies is called "antisemitism" by apologists / propagandists for Israel but most of such critics are, in fact, principled "anti-Zionists"¹ (many of which are conscientious Israeli and non-Israeli Jews as well as non-Jews (like myself)). Colloquially the term "antisemitism" is used synonymously with "Jew-hatred" as a traditionally sectarian form of systemic discrimination (i.e. racism) against Jews and Judaism (i.e. slandered as the source of "conspiracies" to control or destroy all "Christian nations", etc).

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450 ¹
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    :roll: If you say do ...
  • Bob's Normative Ethical Theory
    Now, to be completely honest, I am rethinking this normative theory; because I don’t think it works anymore. — Bob Ross
    :up:
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    You say first, a beginning is necessary, it is logically necessary to begin somewhere, but then you proceed to say that beginnings are not logically necessary, they are possible. — Metaphysician Undercover
    This sloppy misquotation, MU, shows why you (willfully) misunderstand my position.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    Counting is a process, standing isn’t. — Michael
    Silly semantics. :roll:
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪Michael
    I don't think so. IMO, spacetime =/= time sequence (A or B).
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    If the past is infinite then the present is the end of an infinite sequence of events. An infinite sequence of events has no end. Therefore, the past is not infinite. — Michael
    If (post-Newtonian) spacetime describes an unbounded, finite magnitude like the surface of the Earth (or torus, Klein bottle, Möbius loop, etc) – does not have edges or end-points – then the tenses of events (i.e. inertial reference-frames) are relative and not absolute (e.g. "the past" "the present"). It is "logically necessary" to "begin counting" somewhere in a beginning-less sequence just as it is to be standing somewhere on the Earth's surface. Thus, beginnings, or "first causes", are demonstrably not "logically necessary" in ontology (topology or cosmology) though, of course, they are possible.

    "It simply is" is the first cause. — Philosophim
    :roll:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Addendum to
    ↪180 Proof
    :victory: :mask:

    "The Coming Biden Blowout"
    by David Frum

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/gop-republicans-2024-election-biden-trump/673856/
  • What are you listening to right now?

    "What's Going On" (3:53)
    What's Going On, 1971
    writers A. Cleveland, R. Benson & M. Gaye, 1970
    performer Marvin Gaye
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    What is an example of something non-empirical and natural? — Lionino
    (Some) Mathematical structures.
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    Do you think that could be done from some perspective outside of consciousness? — Wayfarer
    I'm a p-naturalist¹ and thereby speculatively assume that aspects of nature are only explained within – immanently to – nature itself by using other aspects of nature, which includes "consciousness" as an attribute of at least one natural species. Atomic structures, genomic evoluntion and human brains, for instance, are each scientifically studied publicly, or "from outside any one conscious perspective", within the horizon – limits – of culture (e.g. ordinary / narrative & formal languages) that is, again, an attribute of at least one natural species. IMO, Wayfarer, whatever else (individual) "consciousness" may be, it seems to function as a lower-information phenomena always situated within higher-information systems of culture which likewise is always conditioned by the unbounded-information 'strange-looping, fractal-like' structure of nature that I compare analogously to 1-d lines imbedded on surfaces of 2-d planes imbedded in 3-d objects / an N-d manifold, etc.


    ¹Whatever else reality might consist in, nature is the only aspect of reality with which we natural beings, who are inseparable from – encompassed by – nature and therefore constrained by our natural capabilities, or attributes, can only finitely observe and thereby asymptotically explain nature itself. (re: Epicurus, Spinoza, Peirce-Dewey, Zapffe-Camus, D. Parfit, P. Foot et al)
  • New Year's Eve celebrations
    When I'd seen 2010 in theatrical release back in the 80s I thought it was okay too but rewatching it again several years ago I really didn't like it. Same with A.C. Clarke's three sequel novels – for me, they diminished, or cheapened, the original. With few exceptions, I tend not to like sequels (or series) in any medium though.

    How was your TNG marathon? How many episodes did you watch? Which season/s? I'm a diehard TOS trekkie so for me "canon" ends with the Star Trek: The Animated Series (though I do enjoy rewatching the movies ST II & ST VI). While my nephews were growing up in the early 2000s, I'd watched quite a few episodes of TNG (& DS9) with them. They were huge Patrick Stewart fans from his role in the X-Men movies and I suspect that somehow lead them to TNG. Well I remain stuck in the 60s era of the franchise; must be childhood nostalgia from watching all those "reruns". :nerd: \\//_ "LLAP"
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    Is anything "non-empirical" supernatural? — Skalidris
    No.

    And if by empirical you mean scientific, well this is a philosophy forum, not a scientific one.
    'Empirical' is also a philosophical term (e.g. Kant) so it's not synonymous with "scientific".

    If science is the only field that is allowed to deal with the topic of consciousness, should it be banned from this forum?
    No. :roll:
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    And this is where I find myself in some agreement with Wayfarer. — Banno
    :gasp:
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    Here's a thought: why not use different sorts of explanations for different things. — Banno
    :up:

    This is why I say 'aspects of nature' and not 'everything'. Epistemological pluralism (e.g. N. Goodman's irrealism) makes the most sense to me.
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    What do you think of this reasoning? — Skalidris
    Too reliant on folk psychology and seemingly not informed enough by contemporary cognitive neuroscience. "Consciousness" is an empirical problem yet to be solved (i.e. testably explained) and not merely, or even principally, a speculative question ... unless by "consciousness" one means a 'supernatural' or non-empirical entity. :chin:
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    All the advances in science are consistent with idealism. — RogueAI
    What do you mean by "idealism – which flavor of it?" Why does this "consistency" with "advances in science" matter?

    Science doesn't do metaphysics.
    "Science doesn't do" poetry or sports either, so what's your point, Rogue? And how are "all the advances in science", as you say, "consistent" with a metaphysics like "idealism" if "science doesn't do metaphysics"?

    If you are a physicalist, what convinced you? — frank
    To paraphrase W. Churchill:

    IME I've found that physicalism is the worst methological paradigm for explaining – modeling – aspects of the natural world except for all those other non-physical or anti-physical paradigms tried from time to time.
  • Bannings
    Certainly, in the Platonic-Aristotlean tradition, politics & ethics are complementary faces of the philosophical coin. Not all participants in political discussions are 'dispassionate' (or thoughtful) enough to forgo their unwarranted/uninformed opinions for the sake of dialectic or argument. Political controversies attract trolls like flies to turds so Mods have to weed-out the incorrigible ones from time to time. Same as any other topics.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Great legal (& political) minds think alike! Truth hurts MAGAts, doesn't it? :victory: :mask:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    re: Criminal Defendent/Fraudster/Loser-1:

    2023 was the Year of Felony Indictments. :cool:

    2024 is the Year of Convictions (& Bankruptcy).     :fire:

    *Happy New Fear, MAGAts!*

    (Don't drop dead, Donnie, before 20Jan2025.) :sweat:
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    For last year's words belong to last year's language. And next year's words await another voice. — T.S. Elliot


    01.01.24
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I never called it [Gaza] a concentration camp but nice to know you [@schopenhauer1] feel obligated to defend that crime by pointing out it isn't as bad as an actual one. — Benkei
    :up:
  • Bob's Normative Ethical Theory
    Apologies for this delayed response.

    If something is solely a means to an end, then it can’t be an end itself because it is just a means towards some other end. If it is also an end then it is not just a means towards an end. — Bob Ross
    Repeating your definition doesn't make it more substantive than just a definition.

    .The argument for FET is as follows:

    P1: If something is solely a means towards an end, then it is not an end in itself.

    P2: Minds are ends in themselves.

    [ ... ]     — Bob Ross
    Again, an arbitrary posit.

    P2 notes that minds are ends in themselves, and this is because minds are the only beings with the nature such that they are their own end—i.e., they are an absolute end
    Circular to the point of being tautological.

    Minds are the only beings capable of setting out contextual ends for the sake of themselves (as the final, absolute end) and are thusly ends in themselves.
    :roll:

    C: One should not treat a mind as solely a means towards an end, but always as (at least) simultaneously an end in themselves.
    Again, this conclusion does not follow validly from your mere 'definitions' (& otherwise 'hidden premises' e.g. what is conceptually meant by "minds").

    Reason's Greetings & Happy New Year, Bob! :sparkle:
  • African Americans still wearing Covid-19 masks.
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up: :up:
  • New Year's Eve celebrations
    Just under six hours to go to 2024 on the US Pacific coast and we're about to sit down to dinner. Later I will watch 2001: A Space Odyssey again as I've done ritually almost every New Year's Eve since the early 1970s. :nerd:
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    I'm a methological physicalist – I exclude 'non-physical' (i.e. stop-gap / fudge factor) concepts and entities from models, or explanations, of aspects of nature – who thinks 'metaphysical physicalism ' (re: SEP article) is superfluously reductive.
  • Bannings
    ↪hypericin
    :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    you Hamas symps
    — Merkwurdichliebe
    Cite where I "sympathize with Hamas" or retract your slander.     — 180 Proof
    Banned ... another "Israeli war crimes" apologist.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    you Hamas symps — Merkwurdichliebe
    Cite where I "sympathize with Hamas" or retract your slander.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    Apparently, you've not been paying attention ...
  • Would you live out your life in a simulation?
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up: :up: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪tim wood
    Please, sir, STFU. Much appreciated.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    [H]amas played their hand, fuck 'em — Merkwurdichliebe
    And Bibi's regime took the bait, so fuck 'em too.

    But their choice is commitment to murder - not what I think but what they in every way make explicitly clear year after year after year after year.
    — tim wood

    Israel or Hamas? Since the IDF are far more effective terrorists, I’ll assume you mean them.     — Mikie
    :mask: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪tim wood
    "The question itself is" simple minded (e.g. ahistorical). :brow:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪tim wood
    :roll: :shade: For decades Bibi has supplied matches & gasoline to Hamas and now firebombs Gaza in retaliation for Hamas setting one of Bibi's houses ablaze. You're an effin' war crimes apologist, tim wood.

    ↪Mikie
    :up:
  • James Webb Telescope
    White hole (instead of "Big Bang"):
  • What if the big bang singularity is not the "beginning" of existence?
    White hole (instead of "Big Bang"):
Home » 180 Proof