• A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    Any one-sentence OP is basically click bait.Wayfarer
    :up:
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    beyond our realityan-salad
    :confused: (e.g. north of the North Pole)
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    Tranwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?Philosophim
    False. They are "transwomen" (typical XY) and "transmen" (typical XX). Period. Usually they suffer from gender dysphoric disorder (GDD). Otoh, men are adult males (typical XY) and women are adult females (typical XX). Ergo: e.g. it's reasonable (i.e. fair) to prohibit "transwomen" (typical XY) from physically competing against women (typical XX) in organized sports.

    Addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888 (re: the Junk)
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    What emerges as fundamental are the invariances. The constraints of symmetry and then the degrees of freedom that result.apokrisis
    :chin:
  • Idealism Simplified
    I think it most plausible to consider that what we cannot introspect is 'neural', and that it is precisely it's character as non-mental that makes it impossible to introspect.Janus
    :100:
  • Do we really have free will?
    Do we really have free will?
    Free of spacetime locality (naturata)? No.
    Free of situational constraints/conflicts? No.
    Free of ecological-embodied execution? No.
    Free of involuntary (selfish) desires/biases? No.
    Free of unintended consequences (risks)? No.
    Free of responsibility for uncoerced re/actions? No.
    Free of coercion by other agents? TBD.
    Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. — Arthur Schopenhauer
    :fire:
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    It's not that we must avoid pains -- it's that we shouldn't be the cause of our own mental anguish; the pains aren't so bad as they stand, and the pleasures are not so alluring that we need to punish ourselves for not obtaining them.Moliere
    :up: :up:
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    As you stated, eudaimonia is hardly objective.javi2541997
    I don't recall stating that. In fact, I believe eudaimonia (i.e. flourishing) is objective — acquiring adaptive habits (virtues) and unlearning maladaptive habits (vices) — e.g. the Capability approach of M. Nussbaum & A. Sen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    But my post was in direct relation to how Epicureanism was outlined by 180 Proof. And with that description I yet disagree.javra

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1024189
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    None of your examples are the ones I gave: luxuries, excesses, wealth, power or fame (all of which cause fear of pain of losing them somehow) and therefore not "bad pleasures" per se, or "pleasures" at all.
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    I have not read the thread yet but ...
    What are the bad pleasures according to Plato?javi2541997
    I don't know about Plato's mumbo-jumbo, but Epicurus thinks "bad pleasures" are ones which cause or increase pain (or fear (i.e. suffering)) because they are either unnecessary (e.g. luxuries, excesses) or unnatural (e.g. wealth, power, fame) in contrast to good pleasures which reduce pain (or fear (i.e. suffering)) and are simple but necessary (e.g. food, shelter, play, friendship, community). I think tranquility, not the "pleasure" (i.e. euphoria) of hedonists like the Cyrenaics, is the Epicurean (or disutilitarian) goal. :flower:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    Not-nothing aka "something" is, so to speak, a ripple in nothing. As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo there's always "something" (existence) too.

    ... a world equal to nothing is impossible
    :up: I.e. nothing-ness (or total absence of possible worlds).
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    Do you see errors?ucarr
    I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    So the Real World is an "evolving structure" that has existed forever, cycling but never beginning or ending.Gnomon
    This story makes more sense – is more consistent with quantum cosmological evidence (as well as e.g. Spinoza's, Epicurus' & Laozi's spectulations) – than any of the other cosmogenic alternatives.

    Does that sound like a reasonable alternative to the current scientific evidence that space-time [false vacuum collapse] suddenly exploded from a mathematical point into a complex [spacetime]?
    It's not an "alternative"; (metaphorical) BBT might be just (our) observation-limit of the most recent phase-transition (i.e. symmetry-breaking event 13.81 billion years ago) in the "cycling" "evolving structure" of the universe.

    Does forever causation make the Hard Problem of human consciousness irrelevant?
    Well, that's a pseudo-problem at most (i.e. faux-epistemological fodder for woo-of-the-gaps idealists), so it's not even "irrelevant". :yawn:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    "Existence" as such is presupposed and not proven. "Why not nothing?" As I've pointed out already, (because) nothing negates existence or prevents (its) occurrence. Besides, "the cogito" is neither sound nor a proof. In so far as existence is a brute fact (i.e. eternal and infinite ~Spinoza, Epicurus, Laozi), a 'transcendent creator deity' necessarily is nothing more than a conceptually incoherent fiction (~Feuerbach et al) living rent free in the minds of religious believers & magical thinkers. :sparkle:

    However, if I am wrong (What does a pragmatic anti-supernationalist like me know anyway?), ucarr, soundly refute these three implicit points . :chin:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    "Religion is the opium of the masses" - Karl Marx.

    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful," - Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC–AD 65).

    Most ideas that come from Abrahamic religions start with an idea that supports the belief that God exists and then uses weak logic to support it. [ ... ] Since theism rests solely on smoke, mirrors, and blind faith for it to work, it can be be dismissed ...
    dclements
    :up: :up:
  • Idealism Simplified
    At minimum, 'idealism' implies (A) that brains are 'not mind-independent' and (B) that (a priori) 'minds are substances' rather than what brains do.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    Ever a drunk in recovery/reflection, I'll drink to your fact-based, autopoietic story. :up:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    [C]omplexities arise in steps from that simplex; the supposed 'God' is a complexity and thus cannot be First.PoeticUniverse
    :up: :up:

    :eyes: wtf ...
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    Formalisms are vacuous and irrelevent with respect to claims about the (non-abstract) world.

    Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.

    Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
    (1) at least one mystery
    (2) created the whole of existence and
    (3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in ways which are nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles").
  • Idealism Simplified
    The idealists collapse epistemology and ontology [what is known is equivalent to what there is], claiming there is no substantive distinction between the two, while the materialists maintain a substantive distinction [what is known is a fraction of, or exhausted by, what there is].Janus
    :up: :up:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    I fail to see your point.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    And why do you too ignore the Planck energy density that came with the radius?apokrisis
    Why do you ask?
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    Do you think the universe is eternal & self-existent?Gnomon
    Ockham the Barber says "Yes".

    Or do you accept the Cosmological evidence indicating that Nature as-we-know-it had a sudden inexplicable beginning [planck radius]?
    Of course.

    :smirk:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?
    — ucarr
    No. Why do you ask?
    — 180 Proof

    Let me quote you:

    God will not be completely understood.
    — ucarr
    X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either.
    — 180 Proof
    ucarr
    Well, I don't see how your question is warranted by – addresses – my reply.
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish?ucarr
    I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions..

    I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it?
    Incoherences and falsities.

    Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises.
    It only requires showing that theistic truth-claims lack sufficient truth-makers.

    Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?
    No. Why do you ask?
  • Comparing religious and scientific worldviews
    :up: :up:
    Summary

    Every major religion offers mutually exclusive [non]explanations of the universe’s origin, purpose, and future.

    Science, using observation, testing, and revision, provides a consistent and independently verifiable [testable] picture:

    Universe: 13.8 billion years old

    Earth: 4.54 billion years old

    Life evolved gradually through natural processes

    Consciousness arises from neurological activities, not supernatural souls.

    Therefore, while religious faiths differ irreconcilably in beliefs, scientific cosmology and biology converge on a single evidence-based worldview - one that continues to expand through discovery rather than divine decree.

    Hence, my worldview is scientific, secular and vegan.
    Truth Seeker
    :100:

    What is your worldview?
    "My worldview" consists of (A) anti-supernatural, (B) anti-authoritarian/sectarian/utopian, and (C) anti-dogmatic commitments (i.e. constraints) ...

    (2022)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/798898

    How do you justify your worldview?
    I think 'pragmatic absurdism' (re: Laozi ... Zapffe, Camus, Rosset) best describes my day to day existential stance.
  • Idealism Simplified
    ... and we [material sentients in/directly] observe that everything [materiality ~ "swirling atoms"] is active and changing.Metaphysician Undercover
    :victory: :smirk:
  • Math Faces God
    I’m skeptical of grand narratives and the tendency to claim certainty or authority in areas where we lack real [knowledge]. When I say I am a fan of uncertainty, I refer to being content to say, "I don't [or we can't] know".Tom Storm
    :up: :up:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    I like the brain-as-receiver model.
    — AmadeusD

    The fact that it is a standard symptom of schizophrenia ought give pause for thought.
    apokrisis
    :smirk:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact.Banno
    :up:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    God will not be completely understood.ucarr
    X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either.

    Why not nothing?
    Maybe because "nothing" stops something from coming-to-be, etc.