We can describe the mechanism of how all the tributaries flow into one another to end up at the Nile Delta. — andrewk

Seems like causation is inherent to the concept of mechanism. Why does it rain? Because the heat from the sun evaporates water into the atmosphere. Then we can go into the mechanism of how that all works with sun's radiation, water molecules, cloud formation, etc. Every single step will have inherent to it B happening because A, even if it's some A radiation and some B H20.

The overall picture is that the sun causes the Earth to heat up, which includes bodies of water, and some of that water evaporates as a result, and the moisture in the air eventually forms rain clouds.

There is no doubt that the sun is heating the earth, and if it stopped shining somehow, the Earth's temperature would drop dramatically, and the rain cycle would come to an end once the Earth's temperature had dropped to the point that evaporation no longer occurred.

That last paragraph looks like a prediction, but it's a counterfactual, because the sun has enough nuclear fuel to burn for a long time, so we can never test the actual scenario.

There have been lottery wins and millionaire athletes who have squandered their wealth and ended up poor. And then there are those who have invested and created businesses and ended up more wealthy.

It's not all luck. Some of it has to do with being smart with what you have.

There's definitely enough for everyone to live comfortably, we have the technology and the resources to provide a high standard of living for every person on the planet, it's our current system of dollars and cents that creates the massive disparity. We could have a post-scarcity world now if we really wanted it, but most people prefer the zero-sum game of winners and losers because they believe it offers them the chance to become rich. — Sivad

Maybe in theory, but what in practice will motivate enough people to be average to make this post-scarcity world work? A lot of incentive comes from being able to start your own business, or rise to the top of a company, etc. And a lot of people do want to own more than the Smiths, or live in a nicer location, etc. Status is important to human beings.

Also, without money, how do the markets know what resources to allocate? How many widgets from factory X should be produced to be delivered to stores Y & Z? Is the government going to determine production?

And then you have to problem with different political, religious, and cultural practices. Maybe untouchables or women aren't allowed to have equal stuff. Perhaps the local leaders would rather keep their power, etc. Maybe the natives don't want to plant crop XYZ for the good of people living in region ABC.

Just heard a short interview of Peter Singer by the BBC. The interviewer asked him whether pursuing a field that could have made him a lot more money might have been a better choice. Singer responded that by being a philosopher, he is able to get his ideas out in the world and influence people.

The context of the discussion was effective altruism, where you calculate what does the most good for your contribution. If Singer had gotten a job on Wall Street, he would have had more money to give to charity, but he wouldn't have been in the same position to promote the idea behind being an effective altruist.

Life is but a game. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. — Harry Hindu

Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules.”

“Yes, sir. I know it is. I know it.”

Game, my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all the hot-shots are, then it’s a game, all right—I’ll admit that. But if you get on the other side, where there aren’t any hot-shots, then what’s a game about it? Nothing. No game. — Catcher in the Rye

So...am I over-thinking this? Is it just a metaphor that went over the edge? Or does it suggest that Dawkins in spite of himself believes in an invisible spirit-world? — mcdoodle

Dawkins is trying to justify our short existence as meaningful by using such a metaphor. Death isn't so bad if you consider all those unfortunate souls who never got to exist! Except of course they don't exist, so there's nothing fortunate or unfortunate about them.

I'm an atheist, but not because I think it makes life better. I don't justify atheism by trying to argue that death is okay, etc. That we only live such a short time is aburdity. Camus was more honest.

What is the actual, practical difference between some very few exceptional individuals understanding how everything works and no one individual at all understanding how everything works, even within any given science? — John

There's no way that anyone understands everything in any field of consequence. That's certainly been true in Information Technology for a long time, even without genetic algorithms and deep learning. The field is constantly expanding, and nobody has the time to learn everything.

It's no more stupid than art, sports, music, or brewing your own beer.

So since the issue of suffering can't be resolved through voluntary extinction, it becomes an ethical imperative for some species or entity to thread that needle and reach something like Tippler's Omega Point — Sivad

Voluntary extinction was never realistic for humans, either. Best the anti-natalists manage is to convince some people not to breed. Not as if that will be a problem for continuing the species.

Good point regarding Camus, but I do like the idea of intelligent life in the universe evolving into a much better state, even if it makes us fodder. Not saying I believe it, because who knows. Maybe all life goes extinct before then. But then again, can't entirely discount what technology has accomplished so far.

LULZ!

Procreation brings it into sharp focus. — schopenhauer1

I wonder if Camus ever wrote about procreation. Is giving birth a form of rebellion against life's absurdity?

The antinatalist argument, to the extent it's anything beyond preaching to the choir, is distastefully presumptuous about the ineffable inner worlds of others. — Roke

I've made a similar argument in the past against anti-natalism. But anti-natalism is arguing against bringing more people into this life, not against lives already being lived, where you try to make the best of it.

I've asked myself the following thought experiment. If I could create another Earth-like planet, and put a new batch of humans on it, would I do it? Probably not if I gave ethics serious consideration. Because whatever inner value those humans experience, there is likely over time being a lot of war, injustice, rape, murder, discrimination, unfairness, disease, mental illness, misery, poverty, etc. Kind of like our world. And I'm not sure that world would be worth it. I'm not sure whether our world has been worth the terrible cost.

In fact, if I had to chose whether to experience my own life over again to this point, I'm not sure it would be worth it either, even though I've been spared the worst. Maybe when we wake from the nightmare of feeling that life is awful, we do so to the day dream of feeling that life is wonderful.

If you don't believe in God, then God talk isn't very convincing. — Bitter Crank

Right, particularly because the God talk very much depends on who is doing the discerning.

If we see God working in history, through actual people, places, events... then don't we have to make an attempt at a historical understanding of what God is about? — Bitter Crank

How in the world would we know what sort of working God is doing, though? Just because people put to writing claims about God doing this or inspiring that doesn't mean that's what God is actually doing any such thing.

What standard do we use to judge God's dealings in history? How do we know what God is about, anyway? Do we just use whatever we value most in this particular time? God is love is very appealing, but a Roman or Spartan God might be brave and unflinching instead, and so on. And clearly, people's views on God's nature have changed quite a bit over time.

Love exists between humans because social bonding is important to the survival of social animals. But God is not a social animal. God's not biological at all, if there is such a being.

Maybe God is Brahman is just wants us to get over the illusion of being separate beings, or whatever.

Isn't a desire by its very nature something you're aware of? What would it mean to have an unconscious desire? I have a desire for X, but I'm unaware of it. If I am aware of it, then it's not unconscious. — Sam26

An unconscious desire would be some motivation you're not aware of that influences your behavior. The psychological explanation is that what we are conscious of is only the tip of the iceberg as to what actually causes our behavior.

Human interaction can include their interactions with slabs, apples and stars. — Banno

So the interaction is what makes statements about slabs, apples and stars true?

But I don't think it will help us to do so. Very few 'Why' questions have answers. — andrewk

If we ask why water is a liquid within a certain temperature range and pressure, we know that's because of it's chemical properties. If we ask why some pattern of brain activity is conscious, we have no clear answer without biting some philosophical bullet or other the many people will find objectionable.

The thought experiment seems to want to ask how you can represent experience without having experience. I don't see how a description of anything could usurp experience. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but the issue is that it seems like language can describe most of the world in scientific terms, so the question is what makes minds unique? Particularly given how the bodies those minds are part of are understood in scientific terms. Far as anyone can tell, there's nothing unique about the brain or body that would make it an experiencer.

Alright, so can Mary's Room be recast to ask why there is something more to the physical world than knowing all the facts?

That's what all the criticisms of physicalism qua consciousness come down to. Why is there (in the case of human brains at the very least) an experiential aspect?

How does it help?

Those people won't be gunning down elephants in the future. It makes me that mad because it's human selfishness gobbling up the planet with no regard.

David Papineau has a nice resolution of it. He says that when Mary sees the tomato she doesn't acquire knowledge of a new fact but rather she has learned new skills, which are to remember what it was like to see something red, and to recognise when something is red. — andrewk

Being able to remember and recognize red sounds like knowledge. We do use "know" to mean experiential in addition to propositional knowledge.

Remembering and recognizing facts as well as forming propositions requires abilities as well.

You don't believe, "in order for justice to be restored, I must be sure that the people responsible are harmed." do you? — anonymous66

I certainly feel that if you're going to gun down a bunch of endangered animals just for some tusks that you deserve the same in return.

Intellectually, I acknowledge that justice would involve a trial and what not. I think some parks have adopted a shoot poachers on sight policy.

On the other hand, some (the Stoics, Buddhists, for instance) argue that anger is always harmful, is not necessary, and can be removed from one's life altogether. — anonymous66

If you came across a herd of elephants, all dead including the babies, machined gunned by poachers simply for the ivory, the proper emotional response is anger and a desire to see the poachers brought to justice.

Just as one example of something that makes me instantly angry and I make no apologies for it. There are times when anger is the appropriate response.

Even better:Language games are human interactions. — Banno

How does truth fit into this? Are there no longer sentences with truth values that depend on states of affairs?

If I state, "The Milky Way Galaxy has exactly 12,532 stars.", is that sentence not true or false depending on how many stars there are in our galaxy?

(The actual number being in the hundred billions)

because I don't think the world would be a disaster or calamity in our absence. — Ciceronianus the White

It certainly was around for a long time before us. Plenty of organisms on this planet would do fine in our absence.

Literally speaking, you're right. But there are the people who will be born, and that involves a choice.

There's really no use saying that 'it would be better not to be born' because the reality of our situation is that we have been. I think it's a case of 'the only way out is through' - which means learning to accept the reality of existence in the first place. — Wayfarer

Yeah, since we already exist. But what about the potential future people who haven't been born? Isn't that what OP is talking about?

That's the point though, nothing can be said to be related to anything else, except through how we identify them. So if I think that one thing is related to another, then it is related, by virtue of that very thought which relates them. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's an extreme form of nominalism where humans create similarity among particulars in a totally ad-hoc fashion.

But that's not how it works. We perceive similarity among particulars, and our language reflects those relationships. It's not arbitrary that cats have some things in common with other cats that dogs don't have, and that's why we group living things into categories. We don't create those similarities. They are already there. We just decide how to make sense of it.

By the way, why were there groceries out in the car if Bob was still in his PJs? Had Alice gone out shopping before breakfast? Or was it an evening shopping trip and Bob had already got ready for bed? I think that's the real mystery in this scenario. — andrewk

The groceries are mystical in this scenario. You cannot speak of where they came from, and they help illuminate language as game between spouses over who will prepare dinner.

Right, I don't understand this what/why distinction and how you relate it to explanation and causation. — SophistiCat

We can ask why stochastic models work for certain physical phenomenon. Does the indeterminism of QM represent our ignorance, or something fundamental about the world?

People, including physicists, have asked this sort of question, and debated the proposed answers.

That would be Aristotle's immanent realism. — Andrew M

That looks like realism about universals, not a position on the subjective/objective distinction.

Maybe I'm missing something?

The Investigations is much less rigorous and logical and treats reality as a sociological language game, meaning that how we perceive reality is entirely dependent on our inclinations, desires, upbringing, and will. — Question

Man is the Measure with some postmodern deconstruction

What you say is entirely in accordance with what I was getting at, though; which is that philosophers formulate new definitions and qualifications of terms in order to clarify problems that, in a sense, already exist (in the sense of being implicit). — John

Right, I don't see it as an abuse of language that creates philosophical problems that otherwise wouldn't exist, although that could be the case in some instances. Rather, philosophers are trying to make explicit the philosophical problems already implicit.

That's quite interesting as Wittgenstein professed a very strong version of solipsism in the Tractatus. — Question

Which is also interesting, because he does get accused of being a solipsist, or espousing some form of solipsism:

"I am my world."

"The limits of language are the limits of my world."

Thus your mental cramp is relieved, and you are free to look around the field of use of the expression and to describe the different kinds of uses of it. — ernestm

That's fine and good, but how is this a criticism of philosophical discussion? It seems only to critique philosophers who were constricting language use to narrow definitions, like the logical positivists, perhaps?

I understand that language has various usages, and the same word can have multiple meanings, but I don't see how that impacts philosophy. When doing philosophy, I have certain meanings in mind, and not all the other uses of words, because I'm engaging in philosophy, instead of trying to avoid going out in the mist or cooking dinner.

sn't this what Wittgenstein means by language going on holiday? — John

But it's not a fair criticism, because every field of specialty will adopt terms that have a specific meaning in the field. The reason philosophers do it is because ordinary language has enough confusions and ambiguity. So if we're debating free will, it's very helpful to know if someone is arguing from a libertarian position rather than a compatibilist, for example. That helps clarify (somewhat) the issue. "Free will" itself is way too broad, full of ambiguity and unspoken assumptions. To even approach the problem, you need to figure out what being free and having a will might possibly mean, and why people care about it.

That's very well put, but all it seems to be saying is that sometimes we're not interested in the truth value of a stated proposition, or its boundary conditions, or a scientific account. Instead, the proposition encodes for another unstated meaning. So we can use words to mean something other than what's stated in the dictionary.

But when realists talk about apples or rain, presumably they are interested in the truth value of the stated propositions and not some other meaning. Realists may want to argue that propositions do correspond to reality, at least in cases where there isn't a hidden agenda! The cat is on the mat means exactly what is stated, which can be looked up in a dictionary. It would be silly to think that dictionary definitions never reflect the way words are used, because often we do state facts, or what we think are facts.

However, in the world of real language, W does make a valid point, and that is, the purpose of a statement can be more important than its actual truth. — ernestm

It can be, like with the wife raining example. But if I'm asking a philosophical question, presumably I'm puzzled by some aspect of being, not trying to avoid cooking dinner, or hopefully, performing some piece of sophistry.

Take the problem of universals. One could argue that it arises from philosophers taking words out of context. But I don't think it works in this case. Because the problem arose by noticing that although the things we perceive are particular, we form generalized concepts across particulars. And this happens throughout all language games.

Why do we do this? Well, because particulars have similarities. And what makes things similar? At this point, you have the problem of universals. And it's not unique to any language game, or even language, since we perceive both similarity and particularity, and presumably our language employs universal talk because that's the way human cognition works.

And now you're back at Plato or Kant, or modern cognitive scientists and perhaps even cosmologists (symmetry breaking and initial state of the Big Bang). You may even conclude that man is the measure, and we carve up the world as it suits us. Or you may side with the essentialists.

But either way, it's a legitimate philosophical (and maybe scientific) question.

ell, I think Wittgenstein's point here is that what you trivialize by saying 'it's just because language is flexible' is entirely the real issue about truth and reality. — ernestm

That has always seemed prima facie absurd to me. Now maybe some philosophical problems can be cured by understanding language as a game. Sorites would be a candidate. But others, like whether perception & cognition give us an accurate view of the world, or whether Sextus and the Cyrenaics (or Kant, Hume, Berkley, etc) were right is not. It's a legitimate question that arises because perception and cognition are fallible, and we sometimes notice this to be the case. Furthermore, our sciences have shown that common sense, which ordinary language makes great use of, often gets things wrong.

We can legitimately ask, without abusing language, whether the rain we see is as we perceive it, or something else, like maybe 10 dimensional strings of energy, or code in the Matrix.