• US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Mikie
    If I had to, I bet that Trump won't be the GOP nominee (though a MAGA shithead will be).
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪EricH
    Yeah, in 2024 that "1 way to lose" will be the same as 2016: HRC. The Dems don't learn new tricks often ... though maybe VP Harris :yikes: (if Biden drops out of the race and the Dems don't nominate e.g. Gov Newsom, Gov Whitmer, et al) – HRC redux.

    Btw, Putin's Bitch & MAGA GOP candidates have lost in 2018, 2020 & 2022. Despite media hysteria (which is needed apparently to keep the rabble mobilized), MAGA GOP prospects in 2024 are even bleaker in no small part due to SCOTUS' 2022, 2023 (& probably 2024) rulings.

    Not seeing that leftward shift in independents yet — Mikie
    Neither do I. Be patient. Remember "the red tsunami" of 2022? The GOP "sweep" was predicted it had seemed by everybody (except me).
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756539
    Thanks, "Independents". :smirk:
  • God and the Present
    Only the present is real. — Art48
    A nonsensical statement due to the fact that neither past nor future are escapable in – separable from – the present.
  • The Argument from Reason
    I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus
    :up:

    I took the point to be the claim that life originates as a chance event. — Wayfarer
    "Biological evolution" models the development of life just as "Big Bang cosmology" models the development of the universe – neither model explains the "origin" of life or the universe, respectively. However, as reasons to the best explanation, both models (usually) eliminate intelligent reliance on non/super-natural "origin stories".
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪RogueAI
    As long as Shillary isn't the supremely unpopular Dems nominee who carelessly throws away the election again, IMO, Traitor-Seditionist1 can't win.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Mikie
    Whoever the Dem candidate will be in the end will decisively beat any GOP canditate in 2024 due to a significamt "leftward" shift in support by Independents and higher turnout by Dems base voters because of Traitor-Seditionist-1's multiple prosecutions and SCOTUS' MAGA decisions on abortion plus ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819011
  • US Supreme Court (General Discussion)
    ↪Ciceronianus
    MAGA Supremes are pulling the plug on stare decisis in judicial review? And yet Biden still opposes 'packing the court'. :shade:
  • What do we know?
    ... the pleasure of pursuing knowledge. — Torus34
    Science "pursues knowledge" and AFAIK philosophy does not (but rather makes explicit and interprets (for flourishing) what we do not – perhaps, cannot – know). In either regard, "The Simulation Hypothesis" seems to me an idle thought-experiment.
  • What do we know?
    Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. — RogueAI
    Not quite true (e.g. vide T. Metzinger), but even if you're right, philosophy has only fantasy (i.e. folk psychology), not even an "idea how".
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Wayfarer
    Naturalism is a conceptual paradigm, biology is a natural science, NeoDarwinian Evolution is a scientific model. Try not to confuse, or conflate, them, Wayfarer. 'Objections to naturalism' are irrelevant to biology, chemistry, physics, etc.
  • What do we know?
    Consciousness requires nerve impulses??? — RogueAI
    At least in h. sapiens it does.

    No possibility of machine consciousness?
    Non sequitur.

    No possibility that this is a simulation?
    For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Wayfarer
    What does some "philosophical argument" have to do with a well-tested biological theory? :mask:
  • What do we know?
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up:

    How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences? — RogueAI
    How are "conscious experiences" "created" without "nerve impulses"? :roll:
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Janus
    :up:

    ... anything designated 'revealed truth' will be discounted ... — Wayfarer
    Any "truth" that lacks a truth-maker or corroborating public evidence is reasonably discountable (Hume, Kant, Clifford, Popper, Sagan), except, at best, as a fiction.
  • What do we know?
    The problem isn't whether it's a probable possibility but, rather, that it cannot be logically ruled out. — Torus34
    The "logic" may be valid but its soundness is dubious at best. An infinity of such notions "cannot be logically ruled out", but so what? Life is short, we need to sort out which of relatively few ideas are worthy of our limited time and energy to seriously consider. By all means, as I'm not aware of any nontrivial^^ grounds, please cite some for bothering to make an effort to think through "the simulation hypothesis". :chin:


    ^^(a distinction that makes no ontological and/or existential and/or pragmatic difference)
  • What do we know?
    ↪Torus34
    What grounds are there to believe "we are living in a simulation"? or, more precisely, to doubt that physical reality is more – other – than a simulation?
  • US Supreme Court (General Discussion)
    The court's decision on affirmative action is as surprising as its decision on abortion. [ ... ] If affirmative action is a gateway to a BA, MA, and PhD, a ton of debt, and a run-of-the-mill job (which it will be for some) the loss isn't as great as it might seem to be. — BC
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    I'm not as familiar with philosophical literature as you are, so I Googled ...
    With no formal training in Philosophy, I began from the conjunction of two modern sciences --
    My primitive understanding has evolved ...
    My personal worldview ... PanEnDeism ... rehash of outdated mind/body Dualism/Spiritualism.
    ↪Gnomon
    :eyes: :cry: :lol:
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    Non sequiturs abound.
  • The Argument from Reason
    So the question then becomes, is intelligence [adaptation] physical? — Wayfarer
    Yes.

    So, what is it that organises the elements of the periodic table in such a way as to give rise to living beings?
    Quantum computation (re: Seth Lloyd, Stephen Wolfram, David Deutsch).
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Gnomon
    :eyes: :rofl:
  • How Does Language Map onto the World?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Of course you will assume that information is physical ... — Wayfarer
    For the *Quantum Woo Crew* ...

    You're welcome, gents. :smirk:

    @Gnomon

    encore:
  • How Does Language Map onto the World?
    If we suppose that there no realist notion of language, what is it that language does when we attempt to describe reality? — Tom Storm
    Language usage orients language-users.

    (I've generally held that language is metaphorical, but then what?)
    Yep. Read George Lakoff et al.

    ... do we need a theory of language that explains how any realist claim is possible in order to accept those claims?
    Nope. (Witty's 'nonsense', re: TLP)

    If we do not employ a realist account of language (as per postmodern thinkers), what is it we can meaningfully say about this notion of 'reality' we are so fond of describing and seems to be a substitute for god?
    This depends on the language-game you're engaged in which uses the term "reality".

    ... theory of language was not possible because it falls to the self-referential paradox that it is unable to give an account of itself.

    Is this problem insurmountable or overstated?
    No. Yes. Read Witty's PI as a contextual extension (rather than critical refutation or theoretical correction) of his TLP. The latter expresses only one possible language-game (re: logical atomism) out of innumerably many other language-games suggested in the former.

    I think Hilary Lawson loses the plot – the problem of the criterion (and its ilk) arises from confusing maps with territories and then complaining that 'maps =/= territories is an intractable paradox' when it's not: in practice, a map is made by abstracting features of interest from a given territory just as language is used to discursively make explicit (e.g. problematize) the invariant, ineluctable, conditions (i.e. "reality") of their circumstance. To avoid circle-jerking p0m0 / anti-realist nonsense, language must be shown (reflectively practiced) rather than said (theorized-via-language).
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Wayfarer
    I'll take your latest non-answer as a concession to my edifying points here
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/818106 You're welcome, Wayf. :smirk:
  • The Argument from Reason
    The apparently inviolable constraints of physical laws have been transcended many times in the history of science. — Wayfarer
    Cite an instance when and where Newton's 3rd Law and/or any conservation laws "have been transcended" even once. :lol:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Discerning precisely what is meant by materialism, physicalism or naturalism can seem tricky. — Tom Storm
    They are only "tricky" for idealists like @Wayfarer who prefer to torch strawmen – mischaracterizing a speculative paradigm such as naturalism as an explanatory theory – which is far easier to do than to demonstrate that idealism is a less ad hoc, less incoherent, less subjective paradigm than naturalism, etc. Naturalism does not explain "consciousness", yet idealism – which rationalizes folk psychological concepts (often ad absurdum) – conspicuously explains "consciousness" even less so.

    And in a broader sense, many of our intellectual processes rely on immaterial entities, such as numbers, ratios, laws, and so on. Humans are situated between two worlds, so to speak - the physical world, governed by the laws of physics, but also the world of ideas and reasons, 'the space of reasons' as it has been called. — Wayfarer
    Unwarranted, question-begging, substance dualism as well as a reification / misplaced concreteness fallacy (à la platonism). Abstractions themselves do not "act upon matter" because they are not evental (or causal); rather instantiations (encoding / patterning) of abstractions (from matter) in matter act upon matter (e.g. typing on my keyboard these sentences you're reading on your screen), which refutes your dogma, sir, that "matter does not act but is only acted upon" (as if Newton's 3rd Law & conservation laws are violated, or miraculosly suspended, by "ideas"). :eyes: :roll:

    ... has anything physical passed between us? — Wayfarer
    Of course, information (i.e. instantiated patterns).
  • The Argument from Reason
    We have no knowledge or experience of any immaterial entity of process. Absent evidence, reasoned argument that such may or must exist is idle speculation and leads nowhere. — Fooloso4
    :100: :up:
  • Insect Consciousness
    Some of the materialists here get all huffy when you ask them if insects are conscious. — RogueAI
    Not "insects" per se, but entities without nervous systems (e.g. stars, rocks, cells, atoms).
  • Masculinity
    ↪T Clark
    I dispute the premise of your.question by countering it with my own.
  • The Argument from Reason
    Shall I paraphrase? — Wayfarer
    Given that I'd addressed your statement, sir, please "paraphrase" what you think, not what others think. You do think for yourself, don't you?

    @Jamal
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Wayfarer
    Let's keep things simple and clear, Wayfarer. I'm interested in your dogmatic statement about matter and have questioned you here
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/817594
    and again in my last post. Either you can answer the question I have asked or you can't. Quoting walls of other people's texts without answering my questions comes across as telling me to "fuck off". :brow:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Say if I suggested 'mind' or 'consciousness' as a hypothetical answer - — Wayfarer
    By "mind or consciousness" you're claiming, in effect, that matter is only acted upon by immateral entities or processes – is that right?
  • Masculinity
    ↪T Clark
    You mean patriarchy doesn't denote 'a disproportionate control of national governments and multi-state/national corporations (re: resource investments, allocations, accumulations, subsidies, etc) by "wealthy" members of the male gender primarily for the benefit (i.e. maintaining "traditions" of hierarchical dominance) of "wealthy & professional" members of the male gender'? :confused:
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    ↪NOS4A2
    :clap: :rofl:

    Consider again, lil MAGAt, reality on Earth One ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816567
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Janus
    :up:

    ↪Srap Tasmaner
    :up: :up:

    This is because it is my dogmatic belief that matter does not act, but is only acted upon. — Wayfarer
    If "matter does not act", then "matter" "is only acted upon" by what? Please cite an example.
  • Deep Songs

    "Feeling Good" (2:53)
    I Put A Spell On You, 1965
    writers L. Bricusse & A. Newley, 1964
    Nina Simone

    *


    "Because" (2:24)
    A cappella version (Anthology vol. 3), 1996
    writers Lennon-McCartney, 1969
    The Beatles

    *


    "Let's Get It On" (4:53)
    Let's Get It On, 1973
    writer M. Gaye & E. Townsend
    Marvin Gaye
  • James Webb Telescope
    It will be interesting to see how they fix these Six Galaxies that appear to be older than the Big Bang allows them to be, in terms of time for formation. — Manuel
    I haven't come across any evidence or learned consensus that the "Six Galaxies" are, in fact, what they appear to be. It seems more likely than not to me that they are images distorted by gravitational lensing or another spacetime phenomenon yet to be discovered in physical cosmology. 'Dark matter' and 'dark energy', respectively, seem to be much more substantiated predictions than this preliminary interpretation of 'anomalous' JWST images. :chin:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Nonreductive materialism is popular among philosophers. Which takes us back to 180 Proof’s early response, which I don’t think you’ve addressed. — Jamal
    @Wayfarer won't because he dogmatically cannot.
Home » 180 Proof