[energy is] a property of space from which particles emerge

The question of how experience, or subjectivity, can be "in the world" if the world is understood physically is currently unanswerable. — J

MoK, the problem with your argument is that it ignores basic science about the brain. Your mind is caused by your brain. That's a pretty well established fact at this point in history. Philosophy has to be constructed on the science and current understanding of the day or else its just logical fiction. — Philosophim

Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the caus[al] power to cause the physical in the state of S2. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2. — MoK

Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't. — Philosophim

My request is not a red herring. — MoK

I think we cannot make any progress. — MoK

I asked you what the mind and physical are to you and you refused to answer. — MoK

The Mind is the uncaused c[aus]e. — MoK

Experience is a separate thing. — MoK

The mind has non-physical properties, such as the ability to infer meaning and interpret symbols such as language and mathematics. These acts are not determined by physical causes in that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes — Wayfarer

that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes

That is, apart from usefulness in laying out a metaphysics, is there a truth of the matter? If there was -- if there was a correct way to conceive of existence, and/or talk about it -- how would we show this? — J

Things that exist I would say have real predications [sosein und sein]^ and fictions which are constructs of the mind have predications also, but those predicates are every bit the imaginary construct [sosein ohne sein]^ that the fictional object is [ ... ] The properties of "real" objects and fictional objects are not the same category of things. — philosch

Anything that can improve the quality of schools should be good, but putting control in the hands of conservative ideologues strikes me as dangerous, especially these days. — T Clark

I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me. — unenlightened

Efforts to criminalize drugs have destroyed many many lives and done a number on the countries to the South of us. Maybe it would be better to just legalize it all and addicts can do it in licensed safe spaces. — RogueAI

Very often stupidity is not a failure of intelligence, it is a moral failure. Selfishness ignores the good and leads to behaviors that others find incomprehensible. As you say, intelligent people can do stupid things. This is because they use intelligence in the wrong way - they are clever. Selfishly so. Stupid behavior is often about putting the intelligence in the service of self interest, at the expense of the good. — EnPassant

I am okay with people doing drugs if I, or people I care about, are not harmed — Paine

What is a drug, in practical terms ...? — Arcane Sandwich

... the Ethics of not doing drugs ...

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

Accepting that experience is real, how the experience can affect physical? — MoK

What is non sequiturs here? — MoK

I believe in De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, so no Schrodinger cat paradox, no particle-wave duality, Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is explained well, etc. — MoK

And thanks for all the fish. — unenlightened

It must take its toll on those who have been dedicated to the site for 10yrs...
I couldn't do it for 5 minutes. — Amity

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

↪180 Proof ↪180 Proof Nice summations! :up: — Janus

I was drawn to Whitehead's philosophy and struggled on and off for years to penetrate what I thought must be the sense of it, only to conclude in the end that it is pretty much vacuous, unintelligible.

It’s sorta hard to regard this well because @Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense. — Darkneos

Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions. — Gnomon

I don't think there are any "ethical implications" unique to either the naturalistic-chaotic (Dewey, Deleuze, Prigogine-Stengers) or the theistic-teleological (Whitehead, Hartshorne) versions of process philosophy. — 180 Proof

So far no one’s been able to answer the original post. — Darkneos

Science looks at what is, while philosophy looks at why it exists.
— @Gnomon

Debatable — Darkneos

The real question ought to be, how did[why are] the American people get so dumb? — Tzeentch