Unfortunately two party politics are pretty much inevitable in a first past the post system of voting. Gotta switch to something like alternative vote, ranked choice, proportial representation, etc. if you want more than two parties. — Michael

I'm not really advocating for more than two parties, although that might be better than what we have now. I'm saying that we should abolish political parties altogether.

I never said it would be easy. I was thinking more of like a run-off. We would replace the primaries with a preliminary election to eliminate most of the candidates so that in the final election there are only two or three candidates.

Should any of this lead to riots, another difference is that Trump can rely on thousands of neo-Nazi sympathizers to unleash hell onto peaceful demonstrators. These violent cretins have had wet dreams for years about the Day of the Rope. Yes their dream is to hang all people of color, all white women who ever had biracial sex, as well as all politicians, journalists and intellectuals. — Olivier5

This is a great example of how emotions cloud your judgment, and the power propaganda has on weak minds.

The problem with the SC vacancies issue is hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans. Normal procedure was that when a justice dies the president appoints a new one modulo Senate confirmation. With the late vacancy under Obama the Republican-controlled Senate flatly refused to even consider any confirmation, on the grounds that it was "too close to the election". — Pfhorrest

The Dems made the exact same argument when Trump had a vacancy to fill. The only difference was that the Reps had control of the Senate. So it seems clear to me that had the Dems had control of the Senate they would have flatly refused to consider any confirmation.

and Democrats calling for them to stick to the new procedure that the Republicans just established four years earlier — Pfhorrest

Thats not the argument they made. The precedent is in the Constitution. It says, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.

I'm not going to defend the Democrats as any kind of paragons of virtue, both parties are FUBAR, but that doesn't mean they're both equally bad. "They're all equally bad, there is no difference" is just a lazy way of avoiding having to figure out which is better or worse, every bit as lazy as "my position is right because it just is because it's mine now shut up you're a bad wrong person".

(Hey look, it's my principles against "nihilism" and "fideism" showing up in an unexpected place, again). — Pfhorrest

The only problem is that I'm not a nihilist nor do I adopt fideism, nor does anything I've said support such ideas, so your experiencing your delusions of grandeur again.

Your problem is that you think there are only two choices. Those that can only think in black and white terms are the lazy thinkers.

If I'm thinking about this correctly then I'm meaning, what is it that gives the darkness it's black colour for the naive realist from an objective stand point, if the blackness doesn't have physical properties to intrinsically accommodate the colour like objective material objects would. — David Cleo

Hmm. I'm not sure I understand the difference between naive (direct) realism and indirect realism. Is your mind not part of the world, and you have direct access to the contents of your mind? What do you mean by naive realism? Would another person experience the same thing I experience if they were me? Or maybe I should ask if I have the same experience everytime when there is no light, then does that not say something objective about the relationship between me and some amount of light in the world? If so, does not that mean that my experiences are objective? If we can predict what someone experiences given that they are a human in an environment without any light, does that make what they experience objective?

I'm not sure i understand the question. Darkness is blackness, and black is a color.

Its amazing how people blind themselves to the simple fact of a two-party system of government, where one party reverses the "progress" made by the other when they are in power. In a two party system of govt., progress isn't one party gets what they want, because that will just be reversed by the other party. Progress in a two-party system is when both parties work together so that everyone gets what they want. The only problem is when both parties don't represent certain citizens, which just means that they don't get what they want. This is why we need alternative choices with new ideas to bring to the mix. Its just that the media is controlling what ideas you have access to.

Deligitimize the result in key states, prevent them from certifying their results in time or, if republican controlled, send in competing electors, then vote Trump in via the house. — Echarmion

Sounds exactly like what the Dems would be doing if the roles were reversed. Just like the Supreme Court vacancy fiascos at the end if the Obama and Trump administrations where the Reps and Dems reversed roles, one claiming we should wait until after the election while the other said that the president gets to select a new judge.

Its so predictable what each side will do and say in every situation that it has become boring. And the contradictions are such that neither side actually says or does anything different. You all are just a gaggle of automatons that keep voting for same BS. There is no difference between Reps and Dems when they both adopt the others position when the roles are reversed. The fact that you all are unable, or unwilling, to see it just exposes how insignificant the truth actually is to you.

We just might have the same situation in 4 years with the roles reversed and then the democrats are going to be doing the same thing as the republicans are doing right now while conveniently forgetting everything that they said four years prior.

Senator Graham's announcement that there will be no more Republican presidents if they back down from this fight is a call out for civil war as States that lean red will have no reason to remain part of the Union. Of course the only winners of another American Civil War will be Russia, China, and the U.S. military industrial complex.

There is a way to make sure there aren't any more Republican president's without a Civil War. That would be to abolish all political parties, including Democrats.

You're just making noises with your mouth. — Harry Hindu

Now that's a good example of a lie. Or is it the truth? — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends upon your explanation of what makes a noise or scribble a word, rather than just a noise or scribble.

You are missing out on the best part of life if you think that everything spoken must either be the truth or a lie. You might also be missing out on the worst part of life, as well. Conclusion: your life must be very boring. What if I said to you: "Let's go run away together", how would you class this as truth or falsity? How would you class a question? How would you class rhetoric? How would you class diplomacy? I'm sorry to have to shatter your illusion Harry, but human relationships are not discussed in terms of truth and falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

We were talking about politicians. They don't ask questions. The reporters do. Politicians make assertions. If you aren't telling the truth or a lie then you aren't saying anything. You're just making noises with your mouth. So it seems to me that believing in the existence of statements that are neither truth or lies would be the boring life.

Asking a question asserts the truth or falsity that you are ignorant of the answer to the question, or else why ask it, unless you are lying about, or feigning your ignorance?

And if politicians aren't telling the truth or a lie and people believe that what they are saying is either or, then the politician is fooling their listeners, which equates to lying.

Vague platitudes are neither truths nor lies. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl:
Post-truth bullshit.

If it isn't the truth, then its a lie.

You're not interested in the truth, only your ideology. But then, like I said, ethical/political truths are subjective. 71 million people thought Biden was more dangerous than Trump.

I was once Christian. But I began to question my beliefs. I actually had the humility in my late teens to consider that what I believed was wrong. I questioned my beliefs and eventually did a 180. I did something similar with my politics.

The problem today is that everyone thinks they are right and are unwilling to accept the possibility of being wrong. People are too emotionally invested in their political and religious beliefs.

You may be right, but the issue isn’t necessarily the quantity of lies, but rather the harm, chaos, destruction, etc. that they cause. I think there is at least an argument to be made regarding whose lies have been worse. Also, doesn’t all thought reflect whatever system (political, philosophical, religious, cultural, etc.) the agent has bought into? — Pinprick

The amount of harm, chaos, destruction, etc that they cause is subjective, as is all moral and political truths.

People also conveniently lumped all the blame on Trump when we have various levels of govt. where our mayors and governers have much more control over your lives than the POTUS has and no one wants to point the finger at them too?

I haven't bought into any system. I'm an atheist and an independent voter. I'm not the one that is indoctrinated into some system here. Atheists that are registered Democrats have simply swapped one Big Brother (god) with another(govt). Atheists that are Republicans are just confused.

No, really, some people lie more than others. There is actually such a thing as counting a person's lies. And Trump has pushed the volume meter to levels which we couldn't imagine, even from the most dishonest politicians. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do vague platitudes count as lies or truths? Vague platitudes is the language of politicians and lawyers. When you learn how to twist words to mean almost anything, then you can always assert plausible deniability later.

All you have to do is watch any news station where they interview political pundits or strategists from both sides and observe how each side spins the truth.. Its a wonder any reporter worth their salt puts a microphone in front of any politicians face, as what comes out of their mouth is just flat out propaganda.

But at least we'll be free from the liar in chief. — Wayfarer

As if no president except Trump has lied, and even acquired power by lying. :roll:

You people's political party is no more than a religious cult. Democrats lie. Republicans lie. Thinking one does it more than another is just a reflection of your indoctrination.

You speak as if thought is different to speech. It is, quite obviously, but it can be said and it is true that speech is nothing but vocalized thought and thought is simply unvocalized speech. I'm curious though because, if what you say makes sense to you, your brain must work in a radically different manner than mine. Care to share. — TheMadFool

Do you understand what Aristotle is saying? Take in what Aristotle is saying and then roll it around in your head and then get back to me with how you would paraphrase it.:

“It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” — Aristotle

To represent a contradiction with words, you can only represent the opposing ideas separately on a screen or on paper with symbols stretched across space and time. Contradictions are opposing qualities in the same space at the same time. Try to say, "exists" and "not-exists" at the same moment. Do you see the problem now?

While you can say a contradiction, you can't think a contradiction. A contradiction is illogical because it doesn't represent how one thinks. It is impossible to think of opposing qualities in the same space at the same moment. If you can do that, then your brain must work in a radically different manner than mine. Care to share.

Explain it to me with the argument I made:

1. P & ~P.......assume contradictions allowed
2. P............1 Simp
3. P v A......2 Add [A being any proposition under the sun]
4. ~ P.........1 Simp
5. A..........3, 4 DS

Three important facets to the logic above:

1. The propositions themselves
2. The logical connectives (&, v)
3. Natural deduction rules

Have I missed anything?

Explain the non sequitur using one or more of the above. — TheMadFool

Why do you keep moving the goal posts? I explained it using the way you expressed it in your OP. I already pointed out that A cannot be any proposition under the sun because it has to logically follow. A has to be logically connected to P, and it isn't. You say it is, but how? Do you even know what a non sequitur is? It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid, therefore you are not adequately applying all the 3. Natural deduction rules to the principle of explosion. Basically, the principle of explosion is a lazy attempt to be logical.

p & ~p = Something is something & Something is not that something — TheMadFool

Then I don't understand how you can say that the quote I provided doesn't have any contradictions in it. :roll:

It wasn't and thus this thread. By the way, how, in what sense is the law of noncontradiction self-evident? — TheMadFool

Try thinking of something and it's contradiction in the same moment. That is different than trying to say a contradiction in the same moment, which is impossible. To say a contradiction means that you have to say one sentence and then another that contradicts it in the same moment. It is in saying it that you get the sense of time passing where something is added and then taken away. That isn't what a contradiction is. That is utterly different than thinking of a contradiction, which is done in the same moment with the same thing.

Try thinking of a god that both exists and doesn't exist. Now, use your logical symbols to say the same thing. It takes time to write them out, and the symbols appear in different places than the symbols that they are contradicting. When thinking of a contradiction, you think of the existing and non-existing property in the same moment and in the same visual space - meaning the existing/non-existing god must appear in the same space at the same moment. Remember this quote of Aristotle's:

“It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” — Harry Hindu

Your symbolism is not adequate at representing how the LNC is self-evident, because the symbols appear in different areas of space, not the same area of space, as explained by Aristotle. In order to observe the self-evidence of the LNC, you have to [try to] think of a contradiction, not say or write it.

I guess everyone has an opinion on the matter but what's your beef with the principle of explosion? Any flaws? You don't mention any — TheMadFool

Yes. I did. Search for the phrase, "non sequitur" on this page. The principle of explosion IS a non sequitur error.

I love this quote but, on analysis, it, nowhere in its poetic fervor, states a contradiction. — TheMadFool

Then how are you defining, "contradiction"?

never really making a point, — TheMadFool

To Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction was not only self-evident, it was the foundation of all other self-evident truths, since without it we wouldn’t be able to demarcate one idea from another, or in fact positively assert anything about anything – making rational discourse impossible. — Harry Hindu

Is the principle of explosion self-evident in the way the principle of non-contradiction is self-evident?

(this is the important step because A can be any proposition at all) — TheMadFool

No it can't. It has to logically follow, or be causally related with, the prior statement or its a non sequitur. I did mention this the post you replied to but apparently did not read.

"As for the obstinate, he must be plunged into fire, since fire and non-fire are identical. Let him be beaten, since suffering and not suffering are the same. Let him be deprived of food and drink, since eating and drinking are identical to abstaining.”
-The philosopher and polymath Avicenna

Why is the official (logical) explanation for why contradictions are prohibited (ex falso quodlibet) different? — TheMadFool

I think that maybe you're confusing the law of non-contradiction with the principle of explosion.

The LNC, as stated in Aristotle’s own words: “It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (Metaphysics, IV). To Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction was not only self-evident, it was the foundation of all other self-evident truths, since without it we wouldn’t be able to demarcate one idea from another, or in fact positively assert anything about anything – making rational discourse impossible.

In the centuries that followed Aristotle, medieval logicians noticed something interesting: if they allowed themselves just one contradiction, they seemed to be able to arrive at any conclusion whatever. Logicians refer to this as ‘anything follows from a falsehood’, which is the principle of explosion as you mentioned, but rarely explain why this is the case.

A non sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, so anything does not follow from a falsehood if you apply all applicable logical rules to some proposition. The conclusion is not about, or related in any way to the premise, so even if the premise were true, there is no guarantee that the conclusion will be true or false. Essentially the premise and conclusion would be talking past each other.

While I'm honking, I gotta say, whatever happens we Dems need to sit down in front of a mirror and finally figure out why we continually find ourselves in close elections against cartoon characters. — Hippyhead

The problem is that you don't see that your candidate was a cartoon character as well.

Having to fight tooth and nail to have a chance of defeating Trump? That's clear evidence that all the blame can't be aimed elsewhere. We've somehow alienated vast swaths of the population to an extreme degree. We need to figure out how that happened. Calling them a "basket of deplorables" isn't going to fix it. — Hippyhead

No. It was the candidate that you put on the Democratic ticket that contradicted the very things that the Dems argued against or for. A true progressive just can't bring themselves to vote for an old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years, nor can people that have claimed that systemic racism and white privilege exists bring themselves to vote for a old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years.

The problem is that too many people get their political information from one source - the E! Channel, celebrity social media channels, etc., and that too many people simply don't have the memory capacity to remember the statements that their political party made over the years that contradict the very things that they are saying today. The media is insulting your intelligence and you want to vote for more of the same.

Just look at when Obama wanted to fill a Supreme Court seat near the end of his term and when Trump wanted to fill the vacant seat in the same body near the end of his term. The Dems and Reps swapped arguments in both instances. Both took the position of the other in the previous incident. When both parties are so inconsistent to the point that they take the position that the other party had in a previous instance, it would be difficult to distinguish between them, and the result is close elections between two cartoon characters. Go figure. It is well past the time that we stop feeding this two-headed monster with our votes. There are alternatives. Educate yourselves.

Define Truth as what is eternal, what never changes.

Is there such a thing?

Assume Truth does not exist. Then there is nothing that never changes. So “there is nothing that never changes” is eternal. So Truth exists.

So something is eternal. Some call it God.

I find it interesting that it can be proven that something eternal exists. — leo

If something (God) never changes, then how does it cause change? How does an effect of change follow from a never-changing cause?

Truth is the relationship between statements and the state-of-affairs those statements are about.

Truth is a predicate of statements; it is not a thing. It is not god nor is it eternal. — Banno

What is a "thing"? Is eternal a thing? If not, then how can predicate statements not be eternal if they both qualify as not-things?

The/my strategy is increased stakehold over stockholder control of society. — 180 Proof

Then electing someone that has been in power for nearly 50 years and has done nothing to advance your stategy, just shows that you're all talk, 180. There is no difference between Biden or Trump in this regard. Neither one is interested in promoting a classless society as they are both opposite sides of the same coin - the corp./govt. symbiosis that feeds each other.

So go ahead and throw your vote away voting against something rather than for something unique and truly progressive - like a non-Democrat or non-Republican. But you can't because you are controlled by group-think.

You do realize that in a two-party system both parties take turns in holding power, or the majority, don't you? And that you have to live with Republicans being power from time to time? and that neither party represents your views, nor mine? The only other options are one party with no choice or liberty, or more choices with more parties having equal press time so that we can have access to alternate ideas.

With the existing system, you can never realize your strategy. It will always be a pipe dream until we have other choices.

You can take your foot out of your mouth now. In future, please wake up and pay attention. — Baden

The only ones not paying attention are the ones that think this is only a two-man race. You and your pals have Trump tunnel vision.

wait, what, you're a progressive? — Benkei

The ones that don't continue to vote or the status quo? - yes, we are the true "progressives", if that is the label you want to use. The Democrat left isn't progressive or liberal. They are authoritarian socialists.

Ah, the good old hypocrisy fallacy. You don't get to decide what people are allowed to complain about. What matters is whether the complaint is warranted, not whether or not the person making it meets your standard of purity. — Echarmion

Stop putting words in my mouth, hypocrite.

I never said that I get to decide what others complain about. People can make whatever decisions they want, but then don't expect others to make the decision to take anything you say seriously when your behavior contradicts your words.

Yeah, that worked very well in the USSR. Or Nazi Germany. — Echarmion

:lol: The USSR and Nazi Germany were one-party systems, not no-party systems! The U.S. is currently only one step away from these types of government.

They aren’t pro-Biden; they are anti-Trump. Anti-Trumpism forces them to toss their principles to the wind. Out of one side of their mouth they will lament systemic racism, and out of the other they would gladly vote for a duo whose political careers led to the mass incarceration of dark-skinned people. Out of one side of the mouth they teach us the failures of neo-liberalism, and out of the other they vote for its champion. They would sink the entire ship if it meant Trump’s exit. — NOS4A2

Exactly. They hate Trump more than they hate systemic racism, white privilege and corruption. When hate is what is driving them, it is difficult for them to make clear decisions.

Pay attention: A Biden vote is only a tactic and not the strategy, just as Trump is only a symptom (much moreso than Biden) of the deeper rot in American society; in other words, an Anti-Trump vote (esp. in a swing state) is not pro-Biden. :mask: — 180 Proof

Your tactic doesn't help you realize your strategy. There are means to vote against Trump while not voting for Biden. There are other candidates that aren't Trump or Biden. Instead of voting for the non-racist woman that hasn't been in power for nearly 50 years, you'd rather vote for Biden?

The way I see it is that both Obama and Trump were rejections of the dynastic, career politicians that have dominated American govt. We're tired of the Bushes and the Clintons, the Bidens and the McConnells. If Trump wins, it will reinforce the validity of this idea, and the next party to put an outsider on their ticket will be the next party to win the White House.

In my district, there are amendments to the state constitution and county referendums that will allow NPA voters to vote in primaries and will remove the Ds and Rs next to the names on the ballots for candidates running for certain county seats. I am voting for these and I would encourage others to vote similarly if they have similar measures on their ballots, as such measures will help to break down these partisan walls.

So independent, NPA voters are now "holier than thou"?

No, Benkei. We are simply tired of the hypocrisy.

Why focus on, or even look for possible misdeeds of Trump Jr., when one just needs to look at the President himself, to be overwhelmed. — Metaphysician Undercover

As if misdeeds only began when Trump became president. :roll:

The size and power the U.S. govt. has accumulated over the years and the way theyve handled that power as a means to divide us and pit us against each other is the greatest misdeed of them all.

You, Baden, Street, and 180 cant see beyond your politically partisan goggles you have on to see that you are pawns in this bi-polar, partisan game that is being played. You all keep promoting the status quo and contradicting yourself.

Please dont call yourselves "progressives" if your voting for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont complain about systemic racism and white privilege and then go vote for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you do such things.

Abolish political parties and then you limit group think. I know you all know how to apply logic, as i see you call others out in other philosophical domains when logic is not being applied properly, so why abandon logic when it comes to politucs? Because most people have emotionally invested themselves in the "truths" that the political parties spin, just like a religion.

Then how can you even use the term, "physicalism" and "experiences", when you have no means of testing and all you can do is guess at what they mean and how they are related? You keep using the terms without explaing what they mean.

I agree that we've invented the hard problem. The problem arises from the incoherent terms that we are using.

I quite like the pathetic focus on Hunter Biden. — StreetlightX

Puuhhhh-leeeze. :roll:
As if you wouldnt be focused on Trump Jr. as evidence that Trump is incapable if Trump Jr. had a similar story being circulated.

The political hypocrisy is soooo old and tiresome.

Ultimately it doesnt even matter what the Reps and Dems think about this, as it predictably falls along party lines. What ultimately matters is what Independents think about it.

I assume conscious experiences can be explained within physicalism. — ChrisH

How can the quality of depth in a visual experience be explained within physicalism? What is physical about the experience of empty space? What does "physicalism" even mean? What are "experiences"?

How does "physicalism" address the question of why evidence for your conscious experiences from your perspective is different than the evidence of your conscious experiences from my perspective? You dont experience your brain, you experience colors and shapes and sounds and tastes, smells and feelings and report that this is evidence of your consciousness. I experience the visual if your brain or body"s behavior and report this as evidence of your consciousness. Why is there a difference and how can you reconcile the difference using "physicalism"?

Yeah, but these losses are not the same - it's the difference between amputating both your legs (Sleepy Joe) and cutting off your head (Donny Bone Spurs). — 180 Proof

It may be more like the cutting out your tongue and cutting off your fingers if voting for Biden. Voting for an old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly fifty years after you've been complaining about systemic racism and white privilege just relegates your words into meaningless dribble. Everyone reading your words would have a difficult time believing anything you say or type, so your tongue and fingers basically become useless appendages.

Actually voting for either one is like cutting out your eyes and ears as people in both groups just dont bother to listen or read what others and each other are saying and are becoming more divisive every election cycle.

So the formulation should be "it is an absolute eternal fact that there are (other than this one absolute eternal fact) no absolute eternal facts. — Janus

Still a useless contradiction.

It amazes me to see all of the mental gymnastics being performed in order to deny the existence of truths or facts while at the same time asserting a truth or fact that there are no truths or facts.

Its not assumed. It is innate. Words are inherently about things and this relationship with the things that they are about can only be either true or false. If your words aren't about things then you aren't saying anything at all. You're just making scribbles and noises.

There's nothing wrong with that, no cause to stop theorising or throw logic away, but we assume it, we cannot prove it with itself. — Isaac

So this is an example of a statement that isn't just the case here and now, but also the case indefinitely. What did you assume to assert this?

In order to demonstrate that a position is begging the question it only need appear to be the case here and now and the position holds. It doesn't require that my conclusion is an eternal and absolute fact, it might turn out not to be the case tomorrow, that wouldn't make any difference to the refutation today. — Isaac

Then it is an eternal, absolute fact that at one moment in the universe's history this was the case.

So it appears that you can never NOT assume that some statement is either true or false as these are inherent properties of statements.

If a statement is neither true or false then it isnt a statement at all. Its just scribbles on a screen.

Statement E = There are no absolute eternal facts

E is either true or false
— TheMadFool

You've begged the question. It being the case that E is either true or false assumes that there are absolute eternal facts (ie E must be either true or false). Without that assumption you cannot have the premise that E must be either true or false, E might be true sometimes but false others. — Isaac

Did you not just demonstrate that there are absolute eternal facts - that E being true or false is dependent upon the assumption that there are eternal facts. Can E ever be true or false without having assumed that there are eternal facts?

A. TheMadFool states that "There are no absolute eternal facts" is either true or false
B. Issac states that that is begging the question.

B. is either true or false.

If it is neither, then what use is the statement? What purpose did you have in stating it?

One could even say that if it is neither then B. isn't about A at all. You both would be talking past each other.

The thing that most people tend to forget is any experience or view isn't a direct, clear, unfiltered understanding about the world independent of your body's interaction with it. It always includes information about your body's relation with the world.

When looking at another person's brain, how much of the information, and what part of the information, in your consciousness is only about the brain you are viewing and not about your brain too? How can you separate the information about the observed brain from the information about your brain when looking at another brain?

Think of the sights and sounds that you see and hear on your TV. The image depends not just on what is being viewed, but the quality and settings on the camera obtaining the view and the quality and settings on the TV. Both the camera and the TV together make measurements and then display them. What is displayed is wholly dependent upon what type of measuring device you are using and what device you're using to display the information.

Raw information has no form. It only takes form when needing to be used and how it is used is dependent upon the medium used to represent the raw information (TV sets or minds). Using different senses to observe the same event gives you different forms of the same information. Thunder and lightning are just different forms of the same event - an electrostatic discharge in the atmosphere. Electrostatic discharges have existed well before there were any eyes and ears to measure them. Once eyes and ears evolved, lightning and thunder existed.

Lightning and thunder are even thought of as separate events because based on our location, they can occur at different times, even though it is the same electrostatic charge that caused them both.

I don't know why anyone would say that qualia aren't useful as they contain such useful information about the body's relationships with the world.

We may be in agreement here, and differ only in semantics. Atomic theory is fundamental to the understanding of molecules. Quantum theory is fundamental to the study of atoms. What is fundamental is what is the directly prior set of rules and causality that arise to the current focus of study. What is fundamental to consciousness is the functioning of the brain. — Philosophim

This leads to an infinite regress. You never end up getting at any fundamental understanding if it is always a step lower than your present understanding. Fundamental understanding would be fleeting and unattainable. This leaves us with simply understanding, and some understanding is only useful in a particular domain. Any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental understanding is incoherent.

I hope the prior explanation answers this as well. Consciousness arises from the brain. No where else. You do not need to be around other people to be conscious. The causal explanation is also the same as you mentioned. Atoms cause molecules by their interaction. Molecules cause neuronal cells by their interaction. Neuronal cells cause a brain. And certain parts of the brain cause consciousness. This is straight forward science. — Philosophim

What exactly do you mean by "arises from the brain"?
What exactly do you mean by "caused by their interaction?

Is it a temporal or spatial change that you are talking about? In other words, does the change occur over time, or over space? For instance, a thrown ball causes the window to break. The broken window was caused by something else interacting with it. In one moment it wasn't broken and in the next it was only after interacting with a ball, which isn't part of the window, but a separate entity. So if this is a temporal change, where is the mind in relation to the brain like the window is in relation to the ball? If this were the type of causation you are talking about then the mind is a separate entity from the brain, like the ball and the window. Temporal change is a relationship between two or more different things interacting to create a new thing that is not the same thing as the things by themselves.

Is it a spatial change, which really is just another change in views (conscious sensory models). There is no such distinction between different spatial-scales outside of our minds. Our minds are what make the distinctions between macro and micro, just as they do about present and past, but they have no ontological reality outside of our minds.

So in essence, spatial causation is really just different conscious sensory models of the same thing used for different purposes. There would be no separate entity of mind and brain. They are one and the same, just from different views. One might say an apple is red, but on the inside it is white. A view is from somewhere, so some view will contain information about the local environment relative to that spatial-temporal point within that environment. My view of your mind includes the visual of a brain. Your view of your mind does not. Why? And what does it mean to say that "you" have a view of "your" mind? Where is the you? You say that you are your brain, or part of it. So does this mean that somewhere in the brain is a view of a mind? Why don't we ever find such a thing when looking deep inside the brain?

Yes, so prior I was speaking in general terms. As in, mind/brain. The brain is composed of several different functioning sections that serve the body in different way. Sight is located in a different area then sound for example. Higher level thought is in the Neo Cortex, while the most primitive of bodily functions are handled by the brain stem. That is why a person can still breath even though they are in a coma.

Technically, consciousness would be the same. Certain areas of the brain create consciousness, while others do not. — Philosophim

Sight and sound are part of consciousness, not part of brains. Neurons are part of brains. Brains and their neurons are what are seen, so what would it mean for the sight of a brain to be in the brain?

Scientists even tell us that color has no ontological reality outside of our minds, yet they exist in minds. How does something that is colorless cause color? And how did camouflage evolve?

And if different aspects of consciousness are in different parts of the brain, then consciousness would entail multiple parts of the brain. There must be somewhere where sound and sight come together into a collective whole because I can both see and hear you at the same conscious instant and in the same conscious space.

You seem to be equating a mind as something different from the physical brain. It is not. No mind can exist without a brain. I was pointing out that you noted whether we examine something from a distance or close, its functionally the same thing. Thus brain and mind are the same. — Philosophim

Then I need an explanation of what you mean by "the brain causes the mind", or "the mind arises from the brain". Some causal events create new entities that are not the same as what caused them. Your mother and father caused you, but you are a separate entity from them both. This is what I was talking about the distinction between temporal causation and spatial causation.

Absolutely. Everything is physical Harry. What is there that is not physical? Do you think that when an ant makes a choice, it is not physical? When a cell chooses to eat another that there is some extra universal essence at play? A dog has a consciousness right? Mice, lizards, etc. We are made up of cells, which are molecules, and atoms. So is every living creature. Its all matter and energy.

Finally, your consciousness is physical. You can prove it right now. Stand up and walk somewhere. Look back. Is your consciousness where you just were? Or is it where you are now? It resides up there with you. You have to feed it and take care of it, or it grows weak, becomes confused, and dies. Make sure to use it well before its expiration date. — Philosophim

Then what does it mean to be "physical"? If everything were "physical" then "physical" seems like a useless term.

There is a way this cauliflower tastes to you right now. Well, no. the taste changes even as you eat it, even as the texture changes as you chew. — Banno

Cant you say that for anything, including your brain states?? Observed brains and their neurons change.

So qualia don't exist, but they change? What is it that is changing then?

Intuition pump #2: the wine-tasting machine.
As a tool for convincing those who disagree, this strikes me as singularly useless. Dennett will say there is nothing missing form the machine description; advocates of qualia will say that there is...

Except that they cannot say what it is that is missing; qualia are after all ineffable. But this never stops their advocates from talking about them... — Banno

How do neural activity explain the quality of taste? Sound like we taking about Suffern things altogether. Why would there be a report of taste if neural activity explained it all?

I agree 100%. I am merely trying to break down what Dennet is saying. It doesn't mean I agree with him. I would define things as "Identities for particular purposes". — Philosophim

I think that fits with my use of the term, "measurement". Colors, shapes, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations and feelings are all measurements for a particular purpose. I think Outlander was using "sensory data", which I also like. In essence, consciousness is working memory that contains sensory information (measurements) for achieving a particular goal (purpose).

The "personal experience", or the subjective nature of the identities has to do with how the identities present themselves as including information about location relative to the body, or sensory/measuring device.

Dennet isn't interested in studying the identity of consciousness as a personal experience, because he's not a psychologist. He's trying to get to the mechanical underpinnings that lead directly to consciousness. Of course, the mechanical underpinnings of the mind have further underpinnings like chemistry and physics. Even the atoms break down into quarks and electrons. Now Dennet may need fundamental chemistry to understand the mechanical processes, but he generally doesn't need that to observe how the mechanical processes work.

Of course, a psychologist or sociologist might be more interested in how consciousnesses work together. At that point, you don't necessarily need to understand the underlying physical workings of consciousness, just its expression. The identification becomes important depending on what you're trying to find out. In Dennets case, he's trying to find the underpinnings behind the personal consciousness we experience. So of course the result is not his concern, but the cause. — Philosophim

But that's the problem - explaining how "mechanical" processes causally influence, or interacts with, "personal experiences". How can you even get started with providing a good theory if you're just going to deny the existence, or at least the importance, of the very thing that you are trying to explain by observing its underpinnings (underpinnings of what, and for what purpose?)?

How can one even say that they are the causal underpinnings of consciousness when they can't even explain how the cause is causally related with the effect?

You seem to be saying that the "mechanical" processes have further underpinnings what I would assume that you would refer to as "physical". These terms are sensory terms. They could actually mean that what we are talking about are measurements. Everything that is "mechanical" or "physical" is a measurement, or an amalgam of measurements. Coffee is its taste, smell, temperature, visual (black liquid) and sound of being poured or sipped. You might point to coffee's chemistry and atomic structure, as a means of innovating the production of coffee, but it is all ultimately for the "personal experience" of the taste and smell of coffee for which the underpinnings are investigated.

The "parts" and "wholes" are comparisons of views, or a comparison of measuring scales, like comparing millimeters to light-years and nano-seconds to centuries. Each of these measurements "make up" the larger scales, but those smaller measurements just aren't useful on such large scales, and vice versa. So I would reject your use of "fundamental" and instead say that there are certain scales that are useful, depending on what purpose we are trying to achieve.

But what if consciousness doesn't operate at the molecular level? — Harry Hindu

That would need to be proven. So far, all every bit of scientific evidence points to consciousness being a physical process of the mind. You can zap a brain with electricity and change what a person is sensing and feeling. Check out videos and records when people have to have open brain surgery. Look up Phineus Gage https://www.verywellmind.com/phineas-gage-2795244

You are your brain. There is zero evidence that there is something separate from molecules and energy. Beyond Dennet, there is no, "what if" about this. Now if you wish to believe there is a soul or something separate, that's fine. Personally believe what you want to get you through your day and be a good person. But that is a personal belief, and has no basis in fact or reality. This is indisputable at this point in our scientific understanding. Any objection to this has no grounds in reality. — Philosophim

I think you misunderstood. Brains are not molecular-sized objects. Neurons are. And neurons are made up of atoms, which are made up of quarks. A brain is a part of an organism. Organisms are part of a social group or species, etc. Between which layer does consciousness lie, and how do you explain the causal relationship between the upper and lower (underpinning) layers?

Do you see the contradiction you made? You made the same mistake you just warned me about. There is no separation between mind and brain. When we observe it at a particular level, we see a brain. When we measure our personal experience, we observe a mind. But they're really just the same thing, looked at in a different way.

Of course to get TECHNICAL, we could say that the mind is merely one part of the brain. After all, there's a lot going on there that we don't really have any say or control over. So far I haven't been able to control my digestion or fat storage production. That's all regulated by the brain, but not the mind part of my brain.

But the mind part of the brain is a physical real thing. If we understand the mechanics behind it, we could understand how we work a lot better. — Philosophim

Unfortunately, I don't see the contradiction. I need a better explanation. But it does seem that you contradicted yourself. You said before that I am my brain, but now you say that I am merely one part of my brain. Some would argue that they are their body, as a brain isn't very useful without a body.

If your part of the brain doesn't regulate digestion then are you saying that you don't make conscious choices about what and when to eat and then dump the waste? Do you regularly piss and shit your pants with no control? Are choices "physical"? How does a choice causally influence what the stomach digests?

Dennet isn't saying that we can't use observation. We have to observe the underlying mechanical process after all. What he means by "fundamental" is "its small component parts that make up the whole." Its like H2O are elementary (fundamental) parts of water. You can't do science with "water", but you can do science with H20. Water is the "illusion" (Dennet's poor word choice that I personally wouldn't use) and H20 are the fundamental building blocks. Same with your brain and consciousness. I think everyone can accept that. — Philosophim

The "small component parts" would still be part of the "illusion", so Dennett can't ever escape his own visual illusion - even when talking about "fundamental" parts of a whole. His and your explanation sound visual to me. You can only hypothesize about the components by observing the "illusion".

And calling them elementary parts of water while in the same breath calling water an illusion just makes those elementary parts part of the illusion. It makes no sense whatsoever to call them elementary parts when the whole that they are part of is an illusion. That means that the parts aren't parts or components of anything at all, if what they compose is an illusion.

Water is the "illusion" (Dennet's poor word choice that I personally wouldn't use) — Philosophim

That's fine. What word would you choose to use?

Sure, Dennet isn't denying this either. I swim in water, I don't swim in H20. The idea of H20 for my day to day purposes isn't going to matter. But if I'm a scientist, the fundamentals of why I'm able to swim in water deal with the molecular chemistry and forces involved. Dennet is trying to understand how consciousness, "the illusion" functions on a molecular chemistry level so he can understand it at a scientific level. And thank goodness. Can you imagine if we had people denying the idea of chemistry for water? We would never figure it out!

Now does that mean that the "illusion" is useless to study? Not at all. For my purposes, water is great to drink. Its just useless for Dennet's purposes, which is to discover the underlying fundamentals that produce the result. — Philosophim

But what if consciousness doesn't operate at the molecular level? Does studying the solar system give you complete knowledge into how the Milky Way galaxy works?

You seem to think that there are no such things as macro-sized objects, or processes - only microscopic ones, and that these things can't look different depending on which size scale, or distance, we are observing them from.

Observing a process from far away vs close up changes the way the process appears, but it is still the same process. The difference is not based the observed process being different from different vantage points, but our sensory systems' relationship with the process being different from different vantage points.

In other words, people here keep making category errors about what it is that they are talking about. We can only ever talk about anything in the world AFTER it has interacted with our body. In essence what we talk about is this interaction - never some process prior to its interaction with our body or some other measuring device. We can only talk about our measurements of the world, of which consciousness is a type of measurement. This means that brains and their neurons would be our conscious description and measurement of other minds. It's not other brains out there (naive realism), it's other minds, and brains are how some consciousness measures other minds (indirect realism).

Far better, tactically, to declare that there simply are no qualia at all. — Dennett

If that were the case then language wouldn't be visual in nature. "The grey matter between your ears" is a visual description, pointing to how things like other minds appear within consciousness. I don't see how such a description could ever be used if qualia didn't exist. When talking about neurons, Dennett can't seem to keep from talking in visual terms, as it appears from his own perspective. To then go and say that qualia don't exist just undermines anything else he asserts. Only a p-zombie could say such a thing and mean it.

Check my fire example for one. Another example is the screen you are observing right now. Does the light of this forum post explain the fundamental mechanical process that is letting you observe it right now? No. That is all Dennet is saying. Underlying the screen is a series of small pixels that are being turned into RBGY colors based on 1's and 0's on your machine. We don't see that. We see, "the illusion" of the entire process constructed into something more manageable and meaningful for us. — Philosophim

But how did you come to understand the underlying "mechanical" processes if not by some kind of observation? It sounds to me that you are simply talking about different views of the same thing. A view from the micro is no more "fundamental" than a view from the macro. To label one as "fundamental" and the other as "illusory" is simply projecting value on a particular view of the same thing. You are ascribing to another form of dualism - the fundamental vs the illusory. You haven't rejected dualism. You ended up embracing it.

The "illusion" of the entire process has causal power. It isn't the underlying mechanical processes of pixels displaying colors based on 1's and 0's that then drives my behavior to respond. It is the words that I read that drives my behavior. I don't point to the alternating state of 1's and 0's as the reason I am responding. I point to the meaning of your words as the reason.

Who has better evidence of me being conscious? If we cannot understand it by our own perception, which perception is he talking about - my perception of my consciousness, or your perception of my consciousness? — Harry Hindu

In other words, who has "fundamental" evidence of me being conscious?

All Dennet is saying is that consciousness cannot be fundamentally understood by our own perception of it. — Philosophim

I doubt that this is what Dennett is saying. If consciousness cannot be understood by our perception of it, then what does that say about our other perceptions of the world? Dennett ends up pulling out the rug from under centuries of observable science.

"I don’t deny the existence of consciousness; of course, consciousness exists; it just isn’t what most people think it is, as I have said many times."
It appears to me that Dennett is actually saying that consciousness exists, and then goes on about explaining that our interpretation of it is wrong, and that is what an illusion is.

A mirage is an illusion only when it is misinterpreted. It doesn't make the mirage not real. Eventually we are able to work out what the mirage really is, and then it becomes what you expect to perceive as a product of refracted light interacting with your visual system.

So I agree with Dennett in that science has barely begun to scratch the surface of what consciousness really is to the point where you can predict it's emergence based on prior conditions, like you can do with predicting that you will see a mirage given the proper environmental conditions.

The illusion lies more in how we interpret how the world actually is compared to how we observe it. Naive realism is the illusion - believing that how you perceive the world is how the world actually is, rather than how your consciousness is when observing the world.

The ultimate question that needs to be answered is how is it that evidence for my consciousness from my perspective is different than evidence for my consciousness from your perspective. I don't need to observe my brain or my behavior to know that I am conscious, but you do. Who has better evidence of me being conscious? If we cannot understand it by our own perception, which perception is he talking about - my perception of my consciousness, or your perception of my consciousness?

Time is an illusion. Change is real.

An object/process doesnt move forwards or backwards through time. It simply changes and how it changes is a property of the process, not of time.

Again, what is the observable difference between time being reversed and some process undergoing change? How can you tell if the process is really time reversed or simply undergoing natural changes between two or more process-defining states?

If your bank account had money deposited and then withdrawn, your bank account didn't move backwards in time. Depositing and withdrawing are natural states of bank accounts changing, not a state of time moving forwards or backwards.