The Philosophy Forum is not a welcoming place or serious discussions of God. Really, only one question is allowable - yes or no. And only one answer is ultimately acceptable - no. If you try to take it farther than that, you will be met first by smug disrespect, followed by deleted posts and threads and finally, if you won't submit, by banning.

I wish it were not so.

Sadness is just sadness. Boredom is something else. We're not meant to get bored. It's a signal of something else going on. Something hidden. It's ok to just be sad, but with boredom you should pay attention.

Sadness is healthier, but boredom is more interesting.

However, physics is not suitable for describing living systems. — Wolfgang

Of course it is, although it's not enough by itself. As @apokrisis notes, the "other organizational principles than inanimate nature" you refer to have to do with the interactions of constraints from above and below. Life has to work thermodynamically or it doesn't work at all. Every discussion of abiogenesis I've read gets down to thermodynamics eventually.

[deleted]

I am referring to all law in my theoretical critique of law per se. — quintillus

Most law is not about motivation at all. It is about how things are to be done or who's going to pay for it, not whether or not they are done at all.

Not doing something is what is known as a negative act. — quintillus

As I noted, it may be true that law is not effective in motivating positive acts, that doesn't mean it can't be effective in motivating negative acts, i.e. preventing people from doing prohibited acts.

My proffer is that we first render everyone reflectively free. — quintillus

By which you mean:

...being in possession of reflective understanding of his or her existential ontological freedom... — quintillus

Easier said than done. Much, much, much easier said than done. Very easy to say. Perhaps impossible to do in groups larger than five people. It is not an achievable method of governance in our society.

[deleted]

Law is an existing written factual theoretical construct which, because it is a given state of affairs, cannot possibly be determinative of the acts of human beings, who act solely on the basis of not yet achieved absences. — quintillus

Some thoughts 1) You seem to be talking about criminal law, which is only a small part of the law. For better or worse, a capitalist society needs laws to regulate commerce, finance, and especially property ownership. 2) Criminal law is not primarily intended to get people to do things, it's to get them not to do things. Although I agree law is not generally effective in promoting motivated action, it often works to prevent unwanted actions, e.g. I don't always drive the speed limit, but I do drive more slowly than I would if there were none. 3) Criminal law is not only intended to act as a deterrent, it is also meant to figure out how to deal with the consequences of illegal acts, e.g. restricting future actions of people who violate the laws.

Definitely will try it again sometime in the future, but, I wasn't really feeling it at the moment, especially towards the last 100 or so pages of my reading. — Manuel

As you've seen here, you aren't the only one who had to come back later. My suggestion - get a good running start and read as fast as you can. Whenever you think of stopping, just say la, la, la over again with your fingers in your ears.

Or, like me, wait till you retire to finish reading it.

It is impossible that 100% of the time when a UFO crashes, the government gets to the scene first and cleans it perfectly outside the presence of any witness or video. — Hanover

Also, no one has mentioned how crappy the alien pilots must be to keep crashing all the time. I can only think of two possible reasons 1)After you get three DUIs on Koozebane, they sentence you to Earth 2) Earth is where all the college kids on Venus go for spring break.

Oh it's a disaster for panpsychism! — bert1

In a previous answer to one of my posts you wrote:

Not being a panpsychist, looking for consciousness in inanimate objects is not something I would normally do, but since you brought it up... It seems clear to me the idea of consciousness originated to refer to a human mental process.
— T Clark

Maybe, but even that sentence is theory-laden. It's stipulating it's a process. And I'm doubtful that earliest thinkers about consciousness did necessarily restrict it to human beings. If we're going to start somewhere, I suspect it's not processes in human beings - that's a way down the road. The starting point is my awareness. — bert1

As I replied to that comment, I think you were right. The only way you can sell panpsychism is to look at it from the starting point of your awareness. Reading your responses to other people's comments in subsequent posts, it seems like you haven't followed up on that insight. The comments you are responding to are "theory-laden," but you haven't really tried to sell the self-awareness aspect. Or did I miss something?

I'd like to hear you try to make a chain of inferences from your personal self-awareness to awareness in rocks.

As an afterthought - As I see it, panpsychism is a metaphysical concept. There is no way it can be tested empirically. It's more a way of thinking about things, a point of view, than it is a statement of fact. So... why would I do that? What value or insight do I get from thinking of consciousness the way you propose? This is a serious question, no irony intended.

T Clark emoji. :roll: — Noble Dust

Maybe, but even that sentence is theory-laden. It's stipulating it's a process. — bert1

True.

If we're going to start somewhere, I suspect it's not processes in human beings - that's a way down the road. The starting point is my awareness. — bert1

That makes sense. Now I guess you're going to show us how what we experience as awareness can be observed in rocks.

As a panpsychist I have been asked a few times for evidence of consciousness in rocks and other such objects. — bert1

Not being a panpsychist, looking for consciousness in inanimate objects is not something I would normally do, but since you brought it up... It seems clear to me the idea of consciousness originated to refer to a human mental process. There have been lots of attempts to observe similar mental processes in other animals, with some success. What success there has been has come from comparing animals behavior with human behavior and inferring similar mental processes. How would that work with non-living entities? I don't know. It seems to me your job would be to show how what we recognize as consciousness in humans is also observable in rocks.

I think that's what's required - start by defining consciousness in humans and then show how that criteria is applicable elsewhere. To make that work, seems to me you have to either 1) show that rocks have mental processes or 2) show that consciousness in humans is not a mental process at all. If you can't do that, you should just come up with a different name for the process you're describing.

*Thumbs up pic* — Noble Dust

I think I like your riff on my thumbs up tclemoji better than the tclemoji itself.

If anything I think the concept is actually kind of pretentious. — Noble Dust

I didn't think it was pretentious, but it was definitely a one joke routine. Perhaps a short story.

I enjoyed The City and the City so much that I feel I owe it to myself to give him at least one more shot after failing with Last Days Of New Paris. — Noble Dust

Yeah. I just gave up on "Last Days of New Paris." It had that Mieville tornado of words and I could tell it was well put together, but it just didn't draw me in. It was a neat idea - a battle between the Nazis and the surrealists in Paris. I think it would have been fun if I were more knowledgeable about surrealist artists.

Perhaps I will go back to it another day.

"X state of affairs could have happened in the future, but it did not take place" — schopenhauer1

I flip a coin and it comes up tails. If I said "It could have been heads," that would be a true statement. Is that what you mean?

how can you tell which one is more probable? — Skalidris

As I understand it, the big bang theory with inflation is the current consensus cosmological theory. I'm sure that will change over time as we learn more, but the current theory is plausible.

My point is, I genuinely don't understand why humans even try to answer these questions. Especially since they made the hypothesis that the universe is infinite, which makes our knowledge look ridiculous, so why try to speculate about the origin of everything? — Skalidris

It has not been established whether the universe if finite or infinite. Even if it is infinite, that doesn't mean we can't understand it, or at least the part of it we have access to.

Unlimited is still wrong, probabilistically. If you compare human's imagination with the power of creating combinations of elements, if the number of elements is finite, the number of combinations is as well, it is limited by the size of the sample. At least at a given time. You could say that it's unlimited because that sample of elements is constantly growing but it's different from my proposition. — Skalidris

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It seems like you're saying that humans are capable of understanding all the possible combinations of matter and energy, but I thought you said previously that is not possible.

If you assume they are with no evidence, it invalidates the analysis.
— T Clark

I didn't understand that. — Skalidris

You have claimed but not shown that all the possible configurations of the universe are equally likely. If they are not equally likely, analyzing their probability by the method you are using will not work.

I might not have detailed my justification enough for you to be able to make anything of it, but that's personal, the probability that someone can extract useful information out of my 400 word intro is much greater than extracting info from the sentence "I disagree" :p — Skalidris

There is no information in your original post, only unsubstantiated claims. You are guilty of the same intellectual crime you've accused me of. But I'm innocent. As I noted, I don't have to provide justifications for disagreeing with your unjustified claims. I don't have to show they're false, you have to show they're true.

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis.
— T Clark

Really? What would that be? — Skalidris

The currently accepted cosmology - big bang, inflation. It's plausible but incomplete.

We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use.
— T Clark

...I'm not sure what your premises are for such assumptions. — Skalidris

Infinite wasn't right. The right word is "unlimited." Humans languages can generate an unlimited number of propositions.

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random.
— T Clark

I never said they were, I said if they were, it wouldn't change their accuracy. — Skalidris

The only way that a calculation of probability can be meaningful is if all the possible configurations of the system are equally probable. If you assume they are with no evidence, it invalidates the analysis.

you dismiss my theory based on an intuition you cannot explain. So you admit there is no explicit logic in your opinion (which is that you disagree with mine), but yet claim my answer lacks logic, — Skalidris

I'm not required to provide reasons for my disagreement with you if you didn't provide justifications for your statements in the first place.

My response to you didn't use logic. All I did was disagree with your assumptions.

no need to pull out AI! :) — Philosophim

I didn't see that as a comment on @Skalidris. I was just curious about how Chat GPT would handle a long post in logic format. All in all, it was less harsh than my own post.

Does it ever ask clarifying questions? — wonderer1

Not in my experience, but you can.

Keep in mind, in situations where it is possible to be wrong, current versions very often are.

Here's what Chat GPT says:

Your proposed logical proof presents several assumptions and arguments. Let's evaluate them step by step:

God is a being, comparable to the current notion of "life" we have, that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
This premise assumes the existence of a god-like being responsible for the creation of the universe. It is a theological assertion that may or may not be accepted depending on individual beliefs.

We're calculating the probability of god's existence based on the current knowledge.
This premise suggests that the probability of God's existence can be calculated based on our current knowledge. However, determining the probability of the existence of a metaphysical entity like God is highly subjective and not something that can be objectively measured or calculated.

It's impossible for humans to generate an infinite amount of theories based on a finite set of knowledge.
This premise is generally accepted. Humans have finite cognitive capacities, and our ability to generate theories and ideas is limited by our knowledge and creativity.

The finite set of knowledge includes all elements we've "observed", "witnessed".
This premise assumes that our finite set of knowledge includes all observed and witnessed elements. However, it is important to note that our knowledge is constantly expanding, and there may be elements or phenomena that we have not yet observed or discovered.

Life represents specific combinations of these elements. The number of "life combinations" is small compared to all the combinations of elements there are.
This premise suggests that the number of combinations resulting in life is small compared to the total number of possible combinations. While it is true that life, as we know it, is composed of specific combinations of elements, it is difficult to quantify the exact proportion of life combinations compared to all possible combinations without further evidence or assumptions.

We don't have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now.
This premise acknowledges our current lack of complete knowledge about the creation of the universe. It suggests that we don't have enough information to formulate a comprehensive and plausible hypothesis about the origin of the universe.

The only way to make a hypothesis about the creation of the universe is to invent structures, new combinations of elements. This leads to an incredibly high number of hypotheses possible.
This premise proposes that in the absence of complete knowledge, we are left to invent new structures and combinations of elements to form hypotheses about the creation of the universe. It implies that the number of possible hypotheses is vast.

We have no criteria for assessing whether an hypothesis is more plausible than another one. (since 6): none of them make sense anyway).
This premise suggests that due to the lack of complete knowledge and the inability to formulate a plausible hypothesis, we have no criteria for assessing the plausibility of different hypotheses. It assumes that none of the hypotheses make sense, but this is a subjective evaluation based on the limited information available.

If the combinations we create to form the hypothesis are random, their accuracy isn't affected since we can't estimate it. Therefore they will be considered random for the calculation of the probability.
This premise suggests that if the combinations used to form hypotheses are random, their accuracy cannot be estimated, and thus they are considered random for the calculation of probability. However, randomness does not necessarily imply equal probability for all outcomes, and the assumption that the hypotheses are random may not hold in reality.

Overall, your logical proof relies on a series of assumptions, subjective evaluations, and probabilities that are difficult to quantify. It is important to consider that the existence of God is a deeply philosophical and theological question that goes beyond the realm of empirical proofs and logical deductions. The probability of God's existence is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, rather than something that can be definitively proven or disproven — Chat GPT

Your original post and this thread have nothing to do with God and nothing to do with probability. You're just playing around with pseudo-logic. You could as easily prove that @Jamal, the forum's fearless leader, doesn't exist as whatever it is you claim to demonstrate. Ok...

1) God is a being, comparable to the current notion of “life” we have, that is responsible for the creation of the universe. — Skalidris

I don't know what this means. I suspect it doesn't mean anything.

3) It’s impossible for humans to generate an infinite amount of theories based on a finite set of knowledge. — Skalidris

I don't see any reason to believe this is true. We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use.

4) The finite set of knowledge includes all elements we’ve “observed”, “witnessed”. — Skalidris

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that we only know the substances we've observed or witnessed? That's clearly not true. Or do you mean that we do positively know the substances we have witnessed or observed. That's not true either.

5) Life represents specific combinations of these elements. The number of “life combinations” is small compared to all the combinations of elements there are. — Skalidris

I suspect this is not true, at least in a certain sense. I think it's likely that a certain types of substance are very likely in a way that can be understood.

6) We don’t have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now. — Skalidris

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis.

7) The only way to make hypothesis about the creation of the universe is to invent structures, new combinations of elements. — Skalidris

I believe this is not true.

8) We have no criteria for assessing whether an hypothesis is more plausible than another one. (since 6): none of them make sense anyway). — Skalidris

This is clearly not true.

If the combinations we create to form the hypothesis are random, — Skalidris

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random.

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible. — Skalidris

This is only true if the probabilities of all hypotheses are equal, which is clearly not the case.

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible.
As said in 5), the hypothesis implying a life form are only a small proportion of all the combinations (hypothesis) possible. And since 8): we cannot tell which hypothesis are more plausible, we can’t state those containing the “life like forms” weight more.
=> Small number/huge number leads to a probability close to zero.

And it gets even more interesting as you start thinking about:

1) The part of the “universe” we know of is extremely small
2) Our imagination is limited to the elements we’ve “observed” (and by elements, I mean everything: dimensions, shapes, time,...).

=> The probability that the “true” theory can be made by our imagination, and therefore from knowledge from 1): that tiny part of the universe, is even more ridiculously small.

All together, ridiculously small x ridiculously small = too small to be even thought about. — Skalidris

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I am sure it's wrong.

As I noted, this is not logic. It's not philosophy at all. I'm going to run this through Chat GPT and see what it says.

The transition from unconscious algorithmic to conscious thinking — Ypan1944

I think this is an oversimplification. Your "algorithmic" action we would probably call either instinct or habit, depending on whether it is inborn or learned. Those types of behaviors are often both. Example instinct - border collies have an instinct to herd. They'll herd children if you don't give them sheep. Example habit - it is common to drive our cars without paying conscious attention.

There is another level of action before what we normally call consciousness. People can act without reflection but with full intellectual and emotional involvement. I'm doing that right now. I don't think about what I am writing, it comes out from somewhere inside me. Writers sometimes say the words write themselves. That's certainly true of me. I don't know what I'm going to write till I can read it on the page. And then comes what is more commonly called consciousness - rational reflection, logic, reason. That's the kind of thinking I do when I go back and reread and edit what I've written.

Banned Ying — Baden

Too bad. He didn't show up often, but when he did, he usually had interesting things to say.

It's a very broad brush relative to the OP. — Baden

I have no problem with that. I was just curious.

romanticize ebooks in 50 years — Hanover

We've been reading text in physical form for more than 5,000 years. A little regret is reasonable.

I'll say to you what I said to @Baden - This all seems plausible. Is there justification that it's true, or is it just a general sense of history, society, and culture?

This all seems plausible. Is there justification that it's true, or is it just a general sense of history, society, and culture?

Also, you can't loan or borrow electronic books.
— T Clark

You can actually. — Heracloitus

I was talking about lending them to or borrowing them from friends, but you're right. The best of all is Libby. If your library is a member, you can download books and magazines directly. There is even an extension to Chrome called "library extension" that will tell you whether the book is available from the library when you're on Amazon or other book websites. Then you can download it directly from the computer.

Ebooks are real and ebooks are books. — Jamal

Sure, but there's something beautiful about a wall full of paper books. It feels like you're rich. Like money in the bank. Also, you can't loan or borrow electronic books. Also, going to the library or book store is a social event.

Just sayin.

Funny. And sad on my part, perhaps. Or not. I'm not sure. — Noble Dust

No, not sad. I still love books and used to love reading them. Now, when I do, I find myself tapping on the page to look up the word. I'm pretty lazy. If it weren't for Kindle, I wouldn't look up words. With Mieville, you have to in order to get the full value. That's especially true of "Perdido Street Station."

unless dense means constant use of obscure words to which no one knows the meanings. — Noble Dust

I wouldn't want to read a Mieville book on paper. I need Kindle so I can look up all the words. His vocabulary is incredible but it never feels artificial or pedantic.

I found it exuberant and fun, and dense only in its profusion of monstrous detail. — Jamal

Fun? Certainly playful. Dense - every page felt like a chapter. I'd say I had to look up a word every two or three pages. I see that as a good thing.

Is Perdido the one? — Noble Dust

I don't think so. It's dense, long, and pretty bleak. The writing is great, but it took me two tries. The Mieville book I like best is "Railsea." Yes, I think "The City and the City" is more accessible than most of the others I've read. It's the most conventional I guess, but it's still got that Mieville crookedness. His way of making impossible worlds seem normal.

I haven't read "Last Days Of New Paris." I guess I should... Just downloaded it from my library. Ain't technology wonderful. Except they don't have it in Kindle. I had to fiddle around to make it work.

sometimes I am not so wise. — wonderer1

Often I am not so wise.

I find pseudoscience debunking to be providing a positive contribution. — wonderer1

When this kind of thing comes up in a thread, I generally make my case once or twice and then bow out. I don't see any reason to disrupt the conversation. Please don't take that as criticism of you.

I don't think I'm providing any positive contribution to this thread, so I'll bow out.

The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease. It is that human behavior can cause positive genetic changes that will increase life expectancy. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease. It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA."

Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer.

If the mind can exert positive epigenetic pressure via behaviour to promote the actvitiy of these genes, then the mind exerts a protective and reparative force on DNA. — Benj96

Do you have any references that provide data to justify this claim? I can believe that changes in behavior will improve health and help let us live longer. Unless you have evidence, I am skeptical that it can change our DNA.