The purpose of a fool is to provide amusement. — Banno

You said you were going to ignore me. In response I made you and offer, which you have not responded to. You should put you money where your mouth is.

Because that is what forgoing truth is; rejecting the need of consistency. And if that is your approach, then well done, since you have thereby placed yourself beyond mere argument, above coherence, and beyond the reach of reason. — Banno

Again, just restating you position without supporting argument, as if it didn't need a one.

An ignore you for a fool. — Banno

I would be happy if you would ignore me and my posts, but you won't. I'll make a deal with you - I'll ignore yours if you'll ignore mine. That way we can end our "epic feud."

When and how do you determine if a cultural convention (most people do or hold a belief about something in a society) is an indicator of a moral intuition? — schopenhauer1

I agree with you on this. I don't think really moral behaviors are matters of convention. By "really moral" I mean behavior that reflects our common humanity and capacity for empathy. As I see it, "conventional morality" is a form of social control meant to enforce homogeneity and the smooth running of society. It's a police function.

How do you know that I don't know how Buddhists "define" it? Explain please. — schopenhauer1

You act as if you think what Buddhists mean by suffering and what you do are the same thing, but they're not. I'm certainly not any kind of expert in Buddhist beliefs, but I know they aren't talking about the suffering of getting up in the morning and going to work - the everyday stuff you use as the basis for your argument people should not have children. I find it hard to believe Buddhists are anti-natalists. Maybe somebody can set me straight.

Has this been widely discussed — Banno

I have been in quite a few discussions on that subject. Generally, I was the one who raised the subject, since it's an important part of the metaphysics I find most useful. You should have seen enough of my writing that it wouldn't be a surprise to you.

If you think it true, then you are yourself relying on truth in your argument. But if you are relying on truth, then you are implicitly valuing it, in contrast to what your argument claims. — Banno

This is another discussion I've had many times. I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of that. As I noted, my positions on this are metaphysical. And as I've said many, many, many times on the forum, metaphysical positions are not true or false.

And if you do not value truth, and your point is merely rhetorical, then we have no need to pay your argument any heed. — Banno

And you accused me of making an argument for rhetorical purposes. You should be embarrassed.

The first is that the logic of any discussion depends on the propositions of the argument being true. — Banno

Clearly not true. Most philosophical discussions relate primarily to values, not facts.

The second is that if you are more concerned with advantage than with truth, you join the class of Bullshiters, — Banno

Again, embarrassingly rhetorical. I noted in my response to @Raef Kandil that I don't think the word "advantage" is appropriate in this context. The way I say it is that the important question for people is what to do next and that truth is a tool in that regard and not the primary goal. Did you not read that post?

Rejecting truth is self-negating, both logically and rhetorically. — Banno

This is you begging the question.

This is the poverty of pragmatism. Sure, go ahead and do what is to your advantage. The truth will catch you up. It plays the long game. — Banno

You're not even trying to address my argument. You just repeat your position as if it's self-evident, but it's not.

I love this observation :lol:. The shearing of Buddhist notions of life being suffering from the practices of mindfulness. — schopenhauer1

I think this just shows a lack of understanding of what Buddhists mean by suffering. It's something different than the way you generally define it.

First off, even if it is true(!) that "humans are primarily driven by their quest for personal advantage", it remains open to ask if the ought to be so. Perhaps we ought dissuade ourselves from seeking advantage and instead seek after truth. That's a view with a long heritage. — Banno

This is something that's been discussed a lot here on the forum. In most situations, I don't see what value truth has beyond being a tool to help us decide what to do next. Why should I care about truth sitting up there on its pedestal not doin' nuttin?

In the realm of philosophy, one of the fundamental questions that has intrigued humanity for centuries revolves around the pursuit of truth. However, upon closer examination of human behavior, it becomes apparent that our inclination is not primarily towards truth-seeking, but rather towards advantage-seeking. — Raef Kandil

My first reaction to your post was negative. I think it was the word "advantage." To me that implies a competitive strategy against an opponent, which I don't think applies. I put it a bit differently. I think the most important question humans try to answer is "What do I do now?" rather than "What is true?" Is that the same as gaining an advantage? I don't think they're exactly the same, but they are similar. Truth for me is important as a tool we can use to answer the primary question.

That being said, I don't find your arguments for the position very convincing, or necessary for that matter. For me, a position like that you and I hold is clear just from understanding how people in the everyday world know things and how they use the knowledge they have.

I agree that it is a social process. I think my argument rests on that. — noAxioms

Trying to guess which assumptions you're talking about. — noAxioms

You and I agree that the fact that human behavioral processes must be consistent with the principles of physics does not mean humans are not responsible for their actions. I think our reasons are different.

To say that A causes B when B is not even theoretically predictable from A is meaningless. For me, free will is a metaphysical issue, not a physical one. Holding people responsible for their actions is a social process. It does not happen in any manner derivable from physical principles.

Why 'of course not'? I mean, it seems to be a product of physics, even if all those things are far more complicated than a more human-explainable interaction between two particles. So if your argument is about our ability to directly express love in terms of particle interactions, I will agree, but that doesn't mean that love isn't a function of particle interactions. If one assumes a form of dualism, that just means that our current knowledge of physics is incomplete. If it really works that way, then there's more physics going on unnoticed despite being right in front of behind your face. It would still be a causal relationship. — noAxioms

Given your underlying assumptions, I would say you are correct. I don't agree with your underlying assumptions, but that's me. We can leave it at that.

Human moral motivations; e.g. guilt, responsibility, conscience, empathy, blame, shame, altruism; are psychological, sociological, and cultural phenomena. Is it suggested that all psychological, sociological, and cultural motivations and behaviors can be explained and are controlled by physics? So, my wife's scampi recipe; the Constitution of the United States, Benny Hill, psychosis, Adolph Hitler, marshmallows, love, Hello Kitty... can all be explained by physics. Of course not.

We've had a lot of discussions here on the forum about the hierarchical nature of science and the perils of reductionism. It's a controversial subject among scientists and philosophers. In my understanding it comes down to this - Each level of phenomena on the hierarchy of science must be consistent with the laws of the next lower level, e.g. biological processes must not violate any rules of chemistry. By that standard, ultimately everything must be consistent with physics. That's reductionism. That does not mean that you can predict the behavior at higher levels from the processes at lower levels. Laws of chemistry cannot be used to predict the principles of biology. That would be called constructivism and it doesn't work. This is the point in the discussion when I include a link to a famous paper on this subject - "More is Different" by Anderson.

https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf

Now, if you want to discuss whether psychological and sociological process control our behavior and free us from responsibility, that's a different, more nuanced, discussion.

Anyone wanna trash this theory? — invicta

I'm with you. It ties in with the question of whether or not something can come out of nothing for which I have two possible answers, depending on my mood - 1) Of course 2) It depends on what you mean by "nothing."

As the OP makes clear, Eugen is incorrigibly confused on this point. — 180 Proof

As I noted in my response to @Eugen, this is a matter of disagreement among philosophers and those of us who pretend. I think you and I are in the minority.

So, in your opinion, only science can tell us what is and isn't a ''fact"? I'm not going to debate that, I want to understand you. — Eugen

This is the song I sing over and over. [laughably untrue statement]People love it when I do.[/laughably untrue statement] I learned it from R.G. Collingwood, who wrote "An Essay on Metaphysics." Metaphysical positions have no truth value. They are not true or false. Many people on the forum and elsewhere in philosophy don't agree.

Upshot - for me, the question of what, if anything, is fundamental is a matter of attitude, preference; not fact. As such, the question is not resolvable by logic - or science for that matter.

Let's leave it there and take it up in a different thread sometime.

If we replace matter with another fundamental substance (except consciousness itself) can something change? — Eugen

I won't clutter up your thread with my somewhat idiosyncratic views beyond saying this - The idea of "fundamental substance" is a metaphysical one, not a scientific one. It's a way of thinking, not a matter of fact.

Nuff said.

I was impressed with Weir's unconventional but realistic alien concept. — Gnomon

I agree. The fact that the aliens were not aware of relativity was clever.

Do you know what the word fringe means ? — invicta

If 15% is "fringe" then black Americans are a fringe race. If 7% is "fringe" then gay people are a fringe population.

fringe religions — invicta

Yes, those pesky fringe religions:

Apparently, they are working on a movie based on Hail Mary. — Gnomon

I liked the book, but I'm not sure I'd want to see it as a movie. We'll see.

So where do I exactly try to do that? — Eugen

From your previous post:

I need your help on the following matter.
I am not trying to criticize anyone, but I need you to help me understand something. Every time I open an OP containing the words ''consciousness, emergent, fundamental", there's this weird pattern. Basically, ↪180 Proof comes and says ''This OP is nonsense." It's like this all the time. None of you or other people on my other OPs seem to have this issue except him. — Eugen

Well, if you like pain in the ass, go for it. I personally don't have this kind of fetish. — Eugen

I am not a patient person. One of the best things that's happened to me since I've been on the forum is learning how to navigate through a contentious bunch of people with strong opinions and still get my points across. It's not about liking other people's responses, it's about learning to argue effectively and constructively.

Who decides what's a "good, well supported" OP? — Eugen

I wasn't implying your OP in this thread wasn't a good one, I was just laying out the process I see as necessary.

Every time I open an OP containing the words ''consciousness, emergent, fundamental", there's this weird pattern. Basically, ↪180 Proof comes and says ''This OP is nonsense." It's like this all the time. None of you or other people on my other OPs seem to have this issue except him. — Eugen

This is a bad rhetorical strategy. Trying to get us to back you up with @180 Proof won't work. He's a pain in the ass, but he's our pain in the ass. We've all had to figure out to work around his... idiosyncrasies. You will too.

Here's the right approach - write a good, well supported OP. Layout what you want to discuss. Have good arguments at hand. Listen to what other people have to say and be responsive. Then, if people try to take the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent, ask them to stop. That will usually do the trick.

I enjoyed it.

I was totally clear on that: if you don't agree with my notion of ''emergence", ignore it and focus on ''reduction". — Eugen

As I indicated in my previous response, I think phenomena you have identified as non-fundamental would all generally be considered reducible. Isn't that the definition of "non-fundamental?" From what I have seen in posts subsequent to my previous one, that seems to be the question you have put on the table. I don't think I have any insights to add.

Some thoughts:

You've left terms undefined or at least not clearly defined, e.g. consciousness, emergence, fundamental.

I. Consciousness is or is not fundamental - 100% of the possibilities — Eugen

If consciousness is somehow fundamental, it still clearly requires physical, biological, neurological processes to manifest. As far as I know, we don't have any evidence of a conscious entity without a nervous system.

A. It is 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - weak emergence.
B. It is not 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - strong emergence. — Eugen

This is a misrepresentation of the meaning of "emergence." Emergence applies to processes at one scale or level of organization that are manifestations of processes at a smaller scale or lower level. All emergent processes are "reducible to fundamental processes of reality" if by that you mean consistent with the laws of physics. The difference between what you call weak vs. strong emergence is that while both are reducible to physical processes, strongly emergent processes can not be derived, predicted, from those lower level processes. Here's a link to a famous paper - "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson that explains the difference.

https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf

This model looks like this:

I. Consciousness is or is not fundamental - 100% of the possibilities

II. If it is not fundamental, then:
A. It is 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - weak emergence.
B. It is not 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - strong emergence.
A + B = 100% of the possibilities

I + II = 100% of all possibilities — Eugen

This model could be applied to any phenomenon. It really doesn't have any explanatory power.

I am not a fan of Myers-Briggs and I hadn't heard of the other system you described, but I had some thoughts I hope are responsive.

First, I sometimes call myself a pragmatist. Pragmatism as a philosophy focuses on how knowledge and understanding are used and how they can be useful. Myers-Briggs at least was developed and is used for practical purposes, e.g. to help people work together and understand each other better or for human resources purposes. I've always seen it as more a psychological engineering method rather than scientific or philosophical. My father and I were both engineers. In later years, his work involved labor relations with a strong emphasis on giving workers a role in work decision making. He used testing like Myers-Briggs a lot. He and I sometimes argued about the way it organized and characterized people. So - pragmatism.

I think the main reason I dislike Myers-Briggs is that it is just a way of labelling people without ever having to see them. Lao Tzu is one of my favorite philosophers. As he wrote (Tao Te Ching, Verse 1, Stephen Mitchell translation):

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things. — Lao Tzu

I guess I would say the person who is characterized by Myers-Briggs is not the real person.

I'm trying to think what other philosophies might have something to say about this. I'm not really much of a student of philosophy. This type of testing attempts to characterize people using methods that are claimed to be objective. Does that make this a materialist approach? The term "reification" is applied to situations where an abstract idea is treated as if it were real, concrete. I would say that M-B classifications are reifications and that claims they represent something "real" are open to question.

One final thing, which may seem to contradict things I've said so far. My understanding of how people come to adopt philosophies is that it is strongly dependent on temperament - our general attitude and outlook toward life. It would be interesting to see if anyone has compared different people's M-B categories with their philosophies.

This is a really good, nuanced, response. Much better than mine was going to be. Maybe I'll go back and think of something better to say.

A charitable interpretation of T Clark’s position is that he is not saying, for example, that in a discussion entitled “What is truth?” we have to agree on what truth is at the start to make any progress—that obviously couldn’t work—but that in a discussion about something else, some other concept, one that depends on the concept of truth, a way of directing the debate is to decide on the definitions of those dependencies, otherwise the wrangling over definitions never ends. — Jamal

Yes, it is a charitable interpretation. And in line with my thinking. Thank you.

I am at a loss as to what it is you are supposing we are doing in philosophy. — Banno

Oh, Banno. You should be ashamed. You're just trying to provoke me.

To restrict the use of a term at the beginning is to shut down the philosophy. I understand your position. My last post was a response to the post of yours in which you appeared to conflate definitions at the beginning of a discussion with definitions as an aim. This is the crucial point. — Jamal

I'll just repeat what I wrote previously - a lot of the discussions on the forum stink because people never get beyond disagreeing on definitions.

I have explained as clearly as I can what I think is wrong with personalizing everything, so I don’t think I’ll say any more on it. — Jamal

As far as I can tell, you haven't made any kind of case at all beyond that you don't like it, which is ironic. Yes, let's leave it there.

A definition of a philosophical concept might be required at the beginning of a discussion only in the case that the term is equivocal. — Jamal

I fall back on my experience here on the forum as the basis for my response - many discussions quickly descend into confusion and lack of direction caused by lack of agreement on what words mean. Prime examples are "consciousness," "metaphysics," "truth," and "reality," but there are plenty more.

It’s possible that T Clark’s approach is more relevant than I thought, although it’s an approach to analyzing TPF discussions in terms of psychology rather than analyzing definition itself. What I mean is, I’ve noticed that people are disagreeing in what seems a temperamental or polarized way rather than substantively. It’s not clear that, for example, @Janus and @Isaac, or @T Clark and I, would really differ much given an actual discussion to look at, and what differences there would be might be to do with temperamental levels of tolerance for troublemaking. — Jamal

This isn't the place to take up the subject, but I don't understand your objection to "personalizing" philosophical issues. As I've noted before, one of the goals of philosophy is self-awareness. For me it is the primary goal. This is certainly true of eastern philosophies, but also western ones. After all, some guy supposedly said "The unexamined life is not worth living." The point, at least the only point, isn't to discuss ideas and reason, we're also here to examine our lives.

I think it's interesting that this thread, aimed to demonstrate that definitions are not needed in philosophical arguments, has become a platform not just for definitions, but definitions of "definition."

It is still reductionist, and if it's not, then what does it actually say? — Wayfarer

I gave examples, which you didn't respond to.

The reductionist wants to say of such mental acts that they are actually neural processes, and that they are real via this grounding in their material constituents; that they exist as physical constituents in the brain, to which we assign meaning. — Wayfarer

That's not what I said and it's not what I meant. I don't deny that mental acts exist as mental acts. Trees exist as biological organisms. They are also manifestations of chemical processes. They are not equivalent to those chemical processes. They are something different.

Meaning and thought can be seen as manifestations of mental processes, which can be seen as manifestations of biological, neurological processes. I don't see that as reductionism.
— T Clark

But that is the textbook definition of reductionism, to wit:

Neuro-reductionism is the argument that the mind can be "reduced" (made equivalent) to the brain. This sees the brain as identical to its thoughts and feelings. In neuro-reductionism, as neuroscientists study the brain, they gain an understanding of the mind. — Wayfarer

I was trying to use language carefully so that my meaning would be clear. I guess I failed, although I put part of the blame on you for not even trying. "Manifesting as" is not the same as "equivalent to." Broadcast TV signals manifest as images on your TV set. Are the signals equivalent to the images? Are they the same thing? Of course not. DNA manifests itself as an organism through reproduction and development. Are DNA and the organism the same thing?

personal experience/consciousness is instrinsically dependent on judgement and the discernment of meaning
— Wayfarer

I'm not sure, but I don't think this is true.
— T Clark

That itself is a judgement. — Wayfarer

So. Language games, as if you don't know what I mean. I didn't say I don't make judgements, I said consciousness is not intrinsically dependent on judgement.

I don't see that as reductionism.
— T Clark
And not seeing it, doesn't mean that it isn't so. — Wayfarer

And yet another language game, again as if you don't know what I mean.

I watched a Quinn's Ideas YT video about blindsight a few months ago. — Marchesk

I enjoyed the video, especially the graphics, and even more the narrator's shirt. They made a five minute film out of the book. I don't know if you saw it. Very good.

personal experience/consciousness is instrinsically dependent on judgement and the discernment of meaning — Wayfarer

I'm not sure, but I don't think this is true.

The tendency of reductionism is to conflate the two kinds of causation, physical and logical: which is what we do when we say that 'the brain' acts in a particular way, and so 'produces' thought, because of physical causation. — Wayfarer

I don't agree. I understand the distinction between types of reason described in your post, but I don't see any conflict. Meaning and thought can be seen as manifestations of mental processes, which can be seen as manifestations of biological, neurological processes. I don't see that as reductionism.

That's a good book, but at one point aren't they inflicting pain on one of the aliens? When they try to test its communication abilities? — RogueAI

That was a very interesting, maybe the most interesting, part of the book. You had to try to imagine what pain would be like with no sense of personal identify.

Doesn't torture imply that the aliens have subjective experience? — RogueAI

No. Yes. I don't know. I guess that's the point.

I watched a Quinn's Ideas YT video about blindsight a few months ago. — Marchesk

Thanks, I'll take a look. People can argue about what consciousness is and what experience feels like, but it is hard to imagine how it works. "Blindsight" puts you in a place where you have to try to imagine what it would feel like to be intelligent but not self-aware. I found it very effective.

And if you if you think you can make physicalism work with phenomenal consciousness, then good luck with that. — Marchesk

By the way, if you are a science fiction reader, I just read a good book - "Blindsight" by Peter Watts. In it, humans meet up with intelligent aliens who have no personal consciousness, no self-awareness. The interactions between the humans and the aliens are very interesting.