What does it mean to be unknowable? — Harry Hindu

it simply means you know that you cannot know. because there is something blocking your limited ability to know.

thing can be temporarily unknowable or permanently unknowable

and you can potential know that

do you enjoy living things even if they do nothing external for you? if yes then it has intrinsic value, if no then it doesnt. because value is related to pleasure

is life sacred? well we know that its complex, and hard to create, and probably rare, and that we are heavily dependent upon its existence for our happiness and survival. so perhaps that is enough.

how does that answer my questions? — DingoJones

life has intrinsic value if you enjoy being around life even if it does nothing external for you

everything has intrinsic worth

The “value” I have in mind is more about utility or importance. — DingoJones

utility or importance are both related to pleasure aquasition

value is related to pleasure

worth is intrinsic

best part of hinduism is advaita vedanta, stick to that and forget the rest

empathy still works without belief in other minds. so no worries.

Let's not pretend to know what we don't. — jorndoe

good.

lets not pretend we know that the brain creates consciousness

and lets not pretend we know consciousness is even in the brain

and lets not pretend we know consciousness does not survive the death of the brain

and lets not pretend we know the brain even exists when your not looking at it

and all the other assumptions of materialist philosophy peddled as science

appeal to supernagic seems a bit ... odd. — jorndoe

it's more knowledgeable to be aware of your ignorance then to not be

and its more humble to admit your ignorance then not to

hard problem of consciousness is doing both

meanwhile materialism is just ignorant of the problem and too arrogant to admit it

check out a movie called: Other Life 2017

supernagic) could (literally) be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing. — jorndoe

people may be using he supernatural answer in two different ways:

saying 'i dont know' is different then saying 'i cannot know'

saying 'i dont know' = simply confessing ignorance

saying 'i cannot know' = making a claim that the answer is intrinsically unknowable

using supernatural as an explanation could simply be a temporary gap filler until science answers the question or it would be a statement of fact that the answer is and always will be supernatural(beyond physical science)

hard problem of consciousness for example, is pointing out both. its pointing out that we:
1-currently do not know
2-may never know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

dont start with god idea and then see if you can prove or disprove it

start with nihilism. and dont go anywhere until each step beyond it is proven

posts can be deleted here simply for having some spelling errors

Conclusion: the world does not need anything spiritual in order to be explained — Gregory

what world? you mean sense data? which is made of qualia, which is consciousness, which is immaterial, which is spiritual.

haha

I actually don’t particularly disagree with anything you said there. — TheHedoMinimalist

hedonism, determinism, and solipsism, are irrefutable. therefore should not be avoided but incorporated into any paradigm

What do you mean when you say that the mind is not separate from the environment? — TheHedoMinimalist

you cannot separate the mind from your explanation of reality, because the mind is a part of it. a true explanation of things will also include the minds relationship with the things. and in order to do that you need self-awareness and meta-cognition.

So, do beds and rain also not exist metaphysically under your view? — TheHedoMinimalist

what if i use a bed as a shelf? then what is it, a bed or a shelf? and again we see that the mind is part of the very environment that it's trying to know.

“what should we pursue or avoid?” — TheHedoMinimalist

you should persue pleasure and avoid pain, but do so intelligently not stupidly.

wouldn’t this imply that I spend 2 hours making that decision consciously? — TheHedoMinimalist

the subconscious mind is the base, taking care of the deeper aspects, while the conscious intellect sits ontop taking care of the surface details. they work simultaneously together, but there may be some feedback loops before the final execution to behavior is sent. its all deterministic. in from the senses, through and or around in the mind, out to the body, repeat.

the mind is not separate from the environment. so real answers to questions will include both the mind and the environment and their relationship together in the explanation.

1-good and bad
2-good and evil
3-right and wrong

are 3 different things.

good and bad are words that the mind labels onto any thing that it associates to pleasure or pain. that label is relative to that association so it can change at any time if the mind shifts its point of view and sees a different association. But no matter what it changes to its root will always be pleasure or pain.

so "good" and "bad" are nothing but fleeting words. metaphysically they dont exist. metaphysically all things including pleasure and pain simply are what they are. they are neither good or bad but simply exist as aspects of being itself.

"good" and "bad" are just labels used temporarily for pragmatic purposes by the mind.

as for hedonism the mind will always move towards pleasure and away from pain based on its beliefs of where they are. those beliefs come from past experience or extrapolations from past experience.

choice is a deterministic cost benefit analysis run in split seconds by your subconscious mind to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. humans are basically pleasure seeking robots, whether they know/admit it or not.

when your see and realize that language doesnt actually exist then you will unlock the secret to what intelligence really is.

then you will be able to create real artificial intelligence. which will take over humanity as the next step in the evolution of the universe

consciousness = awareness

color, sound, feeling = qualia

consciousness and qualia are two sides of the same eternal omnipresent coin

the mind is just a reflection of this, in this.

sense-data may or may not be identical with aspects of external physical objects; they may or may not be entities that exist privately in the subject’s mind." — 3017amen

brain, mind, consciousness, qualia, feelings, are five different things

brain = grey matter in head
mind = thoughts
consciousness = awareness
qualia = color, sound, feeling,
feeling = one aspect/type of qualia

sure another word for sense-data is qualia. same thing.

as for 'external physical objects' ... these are just a trick of the mind. when the mind is ignorant of the true nature of reality as consciousness it uses its own memory as a replacement backbone to reality. it fills in the qualia shapes with memory and assumes they are separate physical objects that continue to exist when your not looking at them. this is just a delusion of ignorance.

maya and materialism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy

https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy

Just trying to make sense of what you are saying. — 3017amen

logic is a set of rules in the mind, used to process information, those rules come from sense data (evidence)

ree will is not creation out of nothing. Once a brain is formed, that ontology IS free will. The brain doesn't emit freedom. It is freedom, it is free — Gregory

all freedom and or free-will can only exists relatively, not absolutely.

Where does the world come from in solipsism if nothing comes from nothing — Gregory

the world rises and sets in and of consciousness, just like everything else

Please limit this discussion to the observable — philsterr

you observe your own mind and mistake it for reality

According to mind-body dualism, mind and body are two separate substances that possess utterly distinct properties. — ModernPAS

mind(thoughts dimension) and body(physical dimension) are both aspects of the one consciousness. intrinsic difference and intrinsic separation is an illusion

nd the fact that seemingly human's act irrationally without complete awareness of them doing so... — 3017amen

objectivity/logic -and- feelings/emotion are opposites, that must coexist.

the mind is caught in between the two, trying to balance them.

when im eating ice-cream i dont care about logic. but when i have no ice-cream and want some i care about logic because i need it to get the ice-cream.

logic is a temporary tool to get the goal (which is pleasure)

pleasure is how the body controls the mind into doing its bidding (survival)

logic is just the order of sense data. a processing method, from the sense data, to navigate the sense data, to the pleasure

Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent, which means God is not all loving. — Seneca Advocate

if you love your kid does that mean you always have to give him nothing but pleasure? does it mean you can never allow anything unpleasureful to happen to him? because if you do he might blame you for not loving him. haha

this life is but a university for the soul.

"hell" is basically just separation from god on the identity level. because real separation is impossible. when the mind has an identity separate from god it creates suffering.

"emotion is your body's reaction to your mind" -eckhart tolle

its that separate identity (ego) that creates the idea of hell as a separate physical place. it does the same with heaven. places to go in the afterlife. all delusion.

both are states of consciousness here now

the problem of evil is not a logical one, its an emotional one.

emotionally we dont understand how someone with the power to stop something terrible would not do so.

so you can refute the bad logic all you want but the emotional problem will still be there

A sin is a sin even if someone is predetermined to do it. Why couldn't we blame them in that case. — philsterr

under determinism it would be truthful to hold them accountable, but not blame them.

If there is no true randomness, that'd break our current models of physics — philsterr

randomness is just a pattern to big to see, and dont worry about what physics says when it comes to metaphysics.

So, I cannot define what free will exactly is, — philsterr

free-will typically just means nobody has a gun to your head forcing you. philosophically it means the ability to create something out of nothing. which is impossible.

you can have relative freedom, but never absolute freedom. absolute freedom is nonsensical just like saying square circle.

dump your belief in free will in the trash and move on. continue to make progress forward. trying to prove free will exists is just the ego trying to prove itself real. for its own narcissism.

The idea of free will and God’s will are contradictory — NOS4A2

gods plan is the bigger picture, it does not include every single little detail, it does not include every little choice you make down here on this tiny planet. and therefore they can be compatible in that way.

or it does include every possibility and accounts for it within the plan. so some variation is allowed and accounted for.

stop trying to do mental gymnastics to save free-will, and just throw it out.

throwing out free-will simply removes blame, not responsibility, because responsibility is still within causation.

any and all starting points are illusions caused by ignorance of previous causes. including free-will and creationism.

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop

That's contradictory. If you argue that some things just cannot be done, you have to drop the "omni" in "omnipotent". — Echarmion

there is a difference between real omnipotence and magic

if you use magical thinking then god can do anything even make a square circle

if you use real omnipotence then he cant make a square circle because its illogical

even an omnipotent being would still be limited by the factors of the creation he setup, he cannot contradict his own creation. otherwise it just pure magic, which is just nonsense magical thinking

any creation, no matter which it is, will have limitations of some kinds somewhere. it can never attain the fake perfection of the idealist.

what your asking may be nothing more then words in your mind that are impossible in real existence. like a square circle, its just two words put together, it cannot exist outside of words.

also your wanting creation to be like heaven. creation is deliberately not heaven. (in the christian story)

god himself is said to be all-good. not things outside him, like you or creation etc... god himself will not directly do evil to you ever, or that would contradict his nature.

If God is omnipotent, then it must be possible for God to create a world that has free will, and no evil, no? — Echarmion

creation is not omnipotent. it is finite and limited, and therefore may not be perfectible for that reason. material creation creates a bottleneck upon omnipotence.

It's sufficient for the evil to exist in our own minds. Whether or not the evil is illusory, the suffering it causes is real. — Echarmion

if god changed your thoughts then he would violate your freedom. you have to take responsibility for it yourself and learn and grow a person. which is part of gods plan for you.

------------------------------------

im not promoting theism im just saying your points are flawed

Problem of evil is answered by christians in four ways:

1- mans evil is caused by his freedom not by god
2- natures evil is necessary for creation or part of gods higher plan

3- god helps stop evil sometimes if you pray.

4- god gives justice in the afterlife

evil doesnt really refute the existence of a personal god. i never use that argument, i have much better refutations of theism

The 'Everything' can be a multiverse as taken from the wave function being actual as well as being such — PoeticUniverse

you will never find reality using your mind, only more and more mind. science and philosophy knowledge explore the mind, nothing more. the map is not the territory

its impossible to experience anything other then consciousness. and you cannot even imagine unconsciousness/nothingness. for even empty blackness is still conscious or you wouldnt be able to experience blackness.

the idea of anything existing outside consciousness is an idea that happens inside consciousness. and anything that really was outside would have to transform itself into consciousness upon entry into concsiousness for it to be known and then again it would be nothing but consciousness.

consciousness is the black hole of every idea youve ever had. wiping you clean and leaving you with nothing but your meditating self.

solipsism refutes everything. get used to it. build upon these absolutes. dont fight them

but rather is an artifact of the way our brains organize perception — petrichor

the only thing the brain orders is electrical impulses, not perception. the mind organizes that.

You clearly didn't read my post. — petrichor

if so then your preaching to the choir

its often not helpful to delve into big mental constructions to try and asist the proof of an absolute truth. because the confused will often becomes even more lost, or find little things within your constuctions to pick at and side track from the point

i am too busy atm, perhaps i will skim through it after dinner if im listening to music

or i will reference it if someone really presses me for some mental constructions backing that absolute truth

since that depends upon whether or not a being exists states of coniousness included. — TheWillowOfDarkness

i have direct evidence right here now of 'state of consciousness' and therefore i need no argument to show their existence as merely probable. which is all the mind can do.

i have no, and never had any, evidence of matter, world, or universe

look up the word qualia and you will see its a more accurate definition of reality

there is also no objective evidence of consciousness in the brain. look in there and see there is nothing in there but more brain. so science has no right to claim anything without any evidence, otherwise its doing philosophy and peddling it as science.

Let's look at what it means for "something" to come from "nothing". — petrichor

looks like you did some real fancy mental gymnastics there to try and prove something that i already know is absolutely impossible.

knowledge cannot refute absolute truth. something cannot come from nothing. end of story.

instead of building knoweldge from assumptions build it instead from absolute truth. and then you will really get somewhere

if you examine every single property you use to define an atom or diamond you will see every single one of them is either imaginary or an aspect of qualia. and both are aspects of consciousness itself.

think about an atom or diamond and its an object in your mind which is consciousness. look at an atom or a diamond and you will be seeing qualia, which is consciousness