For some, I think it's a proxy for grief in their personal lives, just like it can be easier to talk to strangers about personal troubles.Why do you think this happens? — Vera Mont
I don't know, but I suspect it's more wide-spead than not.Is it confined to a related group of cultures or is it world-wide?
Nope.Do you do this yourself - follow the procession on screen, or leave flowers and messages at the site?
I haven't given it much thought.What do you think about the practice?
Nothing expect I hope it's cathartic or helps those who need such public rituals.How do you feel about it?
Dual-aspect monism is ontological whereas property dualism is epistemological; I prefer the latter but I think it's more precise to characterize Spinoza by the former.How is this not property dualism? — Bob Ross
Spinoza certainly is. I'm a compatibilist and contingentarian.Are you, then, a necessitarian?
Yes, more or less ...Since I seem to be misrepresenting you, let me just ask for clarification: are you claiming that these promises are moral facts because (1) they are mind-independent (as biologically embedded into us as organisms) and (2) also obligations? Is that the idea? — Bob Ross
Well, your quote cherry-picks its emphasis (indicative of uncharitably reading me out of context again) by missing / ignoring the following...So I am failing to see how I misrepresented you ... — Bob Ross
To suffer is also to desire help to reduce my suffering; but there are only other sufferers who can offer, and effectuate, (some) help. This desire, or need, for help, however, implicitly promises to help others to reduce their suffering. This promise is natally prior to reciprocity, contract, cooperation, etc; it's implicit, fundamental, and inheres in each of us being individual members of the same species with the same functional defects (re: physical & psychological homeostasis) which if neglected or harmed render an individual dysfunctioning or worse [...] — 180 Proof
From my study of Spinoza, by "dual-aspect" I understand there to be (at least) two complementary ways to attribute predicates – physical & mental – to any entity which exhaustively describes its functioning.I am misunderstanding what 'dual-aspect' means in your use of 'monism'. — Bob Ross
This is my shorthand for Spinoza's description of substance (i.e. natura naturans) that, among other things, consists in necessary causal relations and is unbounded (i.e. not an effect of or affected by any external causes – other substances – because it is infinite in extent).What is modal-ontological determinism?
:100: :mask:It seems clear to me that Jesus has anticipated the self-defense/just-war question: What if someone attacks me? Do not resist evil ... I don't know how you can read Jesus's teachings as anything other than total pacifism. — RogueAI
'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both. — Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
I do not see how Spinozism (i.e. dual-aspect monism + modal-ontological determinism) is consistent with panpsychism / idealism.By ‘panpsychism’, are you referring to idealism? If so, then I think Spinoza can very easily be interpreted as an idealist. — Bob Ross
I've no idea to what you are referring or how the above is relevant to anything I've stated.I would like to hear more about your irreductivist approach to explanation.
I've not alluded to any "theory of explanation". Interpretively describing higher-order concepts or theoretical (or formal) discourses is what we/I do when we/I philosophize; I've not endeavored to "explain" anything.... could you elaborate on your theory of explanation here?
No. "Automatons" are machines programmed by intentional agents (e.g. h. sapiens). Self-organizing complex systems are dissipative processes (e.g. cell replication, terrestrial climate, solar radiation, black holes).My point is trying to examine whether self-organizing systems, accountable for self-organizing complexity, possess purpose. Are they instead automatons? — ucarr
For you it's "always wrong", so don't do it. For others, it's not "always wrong". Live and let live, because "it's not complicated" except for a*holes. :victory: :mask:Abortion is always wrong. It's not complicated. — NotAristotle
They are measures – self-organizing complexity (i.e. entropy) – of micro (quantum) events. Anyway, so what's your point?Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?" — ucarr
Yes. The dynamics of the latter are constrained by (the regularities-densities of) the former.Macro, not micro
— 180 Proof
But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not? — universeness
Yes.If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?
Not yet ...Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?
I don't understand your objection. Consider this SEP article ...A promise is not an ‘is that entails an ought’, for it is the obligation to fulfill one’s promises that furnishes one with a valid deductive argument for any obligation contained in the promise itself — Bob Ross
Insofar as atheism means theism is not true and therefore theistic deities are fictions, I am "an atheist through and through", which I've stated already ..I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through, — universeness
You quote my post on pandeism out of the context of its salient qualifiers:... well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be ...
A woo-free speculation much more consistent with the observed universe of natural science — 180 Proof
i.e. universe = no god/s... which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not. — 180 Proof
Yes.If I understand this list correctly, you are positing an eternal cycle, via your numbering of events, yes? — universeness
As per the wiki link (that follows), "event 1" means the deity becomes the universe and therefore no longer exists as the deity until the universe ends (event 5).Does event 1, 'not deity' just mean the deity is no longer involved?
No, just the opposite (re: event 0)Does event 1 'Deity becomes' suggest a 'before' when deity did not exist?
No. Again, just the opposite (event 1 "fluctuates until symmetry breaks" – an acausal, random, planck-vacuum event).Does this list mean that you accept that a first cause with intent is likely or 'at your most speculative?'
Macro, not micro .Do you think the universe is fully deterministic, ...
:100: :up:My vague and distant impression is that
he didn't drain the swamp,
he didn't build the wall or make 'them' pay for it,
didn't lock her up,
didn't de-rust the rustbelt, transform the economy, or bring back the good old days.
Above all, he didn't make America great again, but made it a place where drinking disinfectant is suggested as an anti-viral, and religious fundamentalism is encouraged. — unenlightened
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept.It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him. — Arthur C. Clarke
Quando paramucho
mi amore de felice carathon
Mundo paparazzi
mi amore cicce verdi parasol
Questo abrigado
tantamucho que canite carousel
In my understanding: before 24-26 weeks of gestation, a human foetus lacks intact thalamocortical circutry and therefore isn't sentient (i.e. feels pain as an independent organism with the potential for learning to anticipate pain in other organisms (empathy)) – not a person, so excising it is a lumpectomy, not homicide ... — 180 Proof
Strawman. I've made no such posit.This is you positing ... — ucarr
Strawman again. I've made no identity claims. 'X indistinguishable from ~X' merely implies a distinction without a difference – conceptual nonsense, not a contradiction in terms – the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer.This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...
I prefer I use the term ...What is… — Mikie
to denote (i) a possible object, (ii) a possible version of the world or (iii) actuality (i.e. every possible version of the world).Being
to denote attention to circumstances.Awareness
to denote being aware of awareness (i.e. attending to a state of attention and/or an act of attending); also, synonymous with mind (i.e. what sufficiently complex nervous systems do – minding).Consciousness
to denote reflecting on – examining, questioning – conventions or norms, givens, assumptions, biases, desires, habits, gaps in experience or knowledge or understanding, unknown unknowns, ... and prerequisites of thinking.Thinking
to denote the metric of asymmetric, sequential changes (i.e. events); also, experiential disappearing.Time
to denote bodily stimulation constitutive of perception.Sensation
to denote environmental stimulation constitutive of consciousness.Perception
(See consciousness above.)Mind
to denote a dynamic kinetic system causally-related to other dynamic kinetic systems that rarely is also a 'conscious being' (i.e. embodied mind).Body
to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of harm and dysfunction.Good
to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of needs and/or fear.Happiness
to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of civil/social unfairness, harm and dysfunction.Justice
to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of undecidability, error and nonsense.Truth
Thanks for mentioning this. On my purchase / borrow list. :up:Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them
- Francine Prose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Like_a_Writer — Amity
:up:Kindle, but I so much prefer physical books, I hardly ever use it. — Vera Mont
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy – thus, an empty name (e.g. five-sided triangle).... cosmic sentience ... — ucarr
