So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. — Pop

Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument — Pop

You gloat that people don't understand or agree with your ideas, then crow that the forum supports you.

I can see that your poetry is heart-felt and sincere. It's romantic, which is fine. It is also philosophical, as the OP specifies. But it is not good poetry.

So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. :lol: — Pop

Alas, arrogance unmatched by intellectual content. Your ideas have been deservedly rejected by most members of the forum. Most people would take that as a sign to rethink their position. Anyone unwilling to face the fact that their positions might not be correct or not the only way of seeing things cannot truly considered a philosopher, or even an intelligent thinker.

What information where you referring to? I didn't see a link. — schopenhauer1

I was referring to Pentagruel's post up above. Here's the link again.

@schopenhauer1 @Antinatalist

I don't know if you saw this, but I thought you might be interested. It is not the same argument you guys use, but it's similar. I found it more convincing.

Disappointing we seem to have a stalemate so soon. — Jerry

Not a stalemate, a disagreement. Judgement of the significance of human accomplishment is a question of values, not fact. People are important to me, but that doesn't mean I think they have any cosmic significance.

I think that there is, in some either cosmic or objective sense, something significant about what we're able to do. — Jerry

Hm, seems like I'm just reiterating at this point, but what I would like to hear is a little more on how either we aren't exceptional (some more argumentation against the claims I've made or support for your own) — Jerry

I have no further argument for my point. Some of what humanity has done is really cool, but it just doesn't seem like that big a deal in a cosmic, objective context. To me, it certainly is not significant enough to suggest that a creator is necessary. There are a lot of organisms in the world. Humanity is just one more. We're important because we think we're important. I guess that's evolution too. We've not only evolved big brains, we've also evolved an over-blown sense of our own importance.

So I ask, what is the reason for this vast discrepancy between us and all else in our world? — Jerry

This is a well-thought-out and interesting post. Welcome to the forum.

As for your question, I don't think it is true that

we also seem inconceivably beyond the scope of our local planet. We can launch ourselves from the atmosphere, control particles to our whims, and capture the universe in a picture, a far cry from even the most impressive feats of the animal kingdom. — Jerry

We've barely left our planet. If I remember correctly, it was only recently that an unmanned spacecraft left the official boundaries of our solar system. Electromagnetic signals from our technology have only traveled a little more than 100 light years in a universe that is 46 93 billion light years across. The things humanity has done may have had more of an impact on the planet than most other organisms, but what we have accomplished only seems significant to our own self-fascinated eyes.

We are only important in our own eyes. I don't think that's an argument against God, but I also don't see that it's an argument in favor.

What I meant is - the definition is not opinion. — Pop

And what I meant is that we've taken this discussion as far as we can.

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion. — Pop

Nuff said.

Even before language was created - before humanity possessed language? — Pop

I don't know when the language ability developed in humanity or its predecessors. I also don't know when people first started using language.

All the rest is noise and opinion. — Pop

Of course it's opinion. Do you think your thoughts are somehow something somehow grander than your opinion? The definition you've provided is not a good one. People have been explaining why they think that since the thread started. You have not defended your position well. It doesn't work to just repeat yourself over and over.

It is not possible to make art without expressing your consciousness.
Something I keep repeating every few posts, but not many seem to get it. — Pop

We get it, we just don't think it is a useful way of characterizing or defining art. People have been saying this to you ever since this thread started. People have explained their objections, but all you do is keep repeating yourself. There are three possibilities 1) You have not done a good enough job explaining yourself 2) You're wrong or 3) There's more than one reasonable and defensible way to define art.

Language is not socially derived. That is, the means to speak. Of course the specific language is. And of course one needs social intercourse for speaking. — Khalif

I think you're right.

You are implying intuition comes after and or is dependent upon socially acquired concepts? This may be true. — Yohan

I think you're running up against the problem that you haven't defined "intuition" very well. Concepts are words. You don't need words to think. Brand new infants think. They're not waiting for us to pour something in their tank before they can start grinding the grain. I think I mixed metaphors.

Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all? — Pop

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts. — Pop

It is pretty well established that the structural elements of language are innate. They are present from birth. Genetic and/or epigenetic. Babies are not blank slates. The same seems to be true of other cognitive elements, e.g. number and moral judgements. I think your intuition about how babies think and learn is not correct.

You may have noticed that people can and often do BS as they please about all sorts of things, well defined or not. — praxis

It's not bullshit. It's philosophy.

Don't get offended if I give a wrong account of your world view. — Yohan

All in all, it's a well-presented chain of thought.

Before we get started, I'll give my habitual spiel. I say it all the time, but I think it's especially important when we address your points. Here it is - The issues you are discussing - materialism, idealism, realism, and other philosophical approaches are metaphysical. They're not true or false, they're more or less useful in a particular situation. I was reading somewhere in the last couple of days - mathematicians tend to be idealists and physics tend to be materialists. Are idealists attracted to math or does studying math make you see things in a idealistic way? There is no doubt, for me at least, that both idealism and materialism are appropriate ways to look at things in some situations. Not in others.

What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence) — Yohan

I'm on board except for the word "mistaken." I'd change that to "interpreted" or "seen."

Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan

Ditto. Change "confused" to "interpreted as."

Logic can only eliminate falsehood. It disproves. It cannot explain what is but only what ain't. (I'm repeating myself...hmm). When logic is mistaken as positive rather than eliminative, you become a rationalist — Yohan

Again with "mistaken" vs. "interpreted." Are we talking about deductive logic? I don't know enough to comment more. Unless you're saying inductive logic is impossible. Then we can argue.

So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.

I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation — Yohan

I don't think this is wrong, but I think it is oversimplified. You also haven't defined what you mean by intuition, logic, or observation. As I've seen reading the posts in this thread, intuition means different things to different people.

As for "essence," it again is a metaphysical entity. Does it mean objective reality? The Tao? The dream of a butterfly? Information? Mathematics?

Good post.

Then, by extension, determinism isn't perfect! In other words, chance and free will are a possibility. — TheMadFool

Here's one of my familiar refrains. Determinism vs. free will is a metaphysical distinction. Neither is true. Neither is false. Either may be useful in different situations.

But one of the other things I would point out here is the “weirdness” of the situation where the random kinetics of the particles of an ideal gas is seen as the deterministic part of the story, and macro properties like pressure and temperature become the emergent accidents. — apokrisis

This is something I've thought about. I don't find the idea of determinism very convincing. To much of the world is too complicated to make that a useful way of thinking, e.g. the molecules bouncing around with a wide range of kinetic energies. On the other hand, the macro behavior, the pressure and temperature in the boiler, behaves in a very predictable way, at least as long as we keep it fairly simple.

Classicality emerges as the perfectly engineered limit of a more basic dichotomy where the non-linearities have yet to be tamed. — apokrisis

Are you talking about statistical mechanics, e.g. pressure arising out of the random behavior of molecules, or something else?

explanation being something that appears to run out regardless of the world view held. — AJJ

And that is metaphysics.

So it looks like the choice is between a view that forgoes further explanation and one that claims but can’t demonstrate its explanation. — AJJ

I don't consider the idea of determinism very useful in any but the simplest situations. Scientific generalizations, including laws, we develop describe how the world happens to work, not how it has to work. The law of conservation of matter and energy does not cause matter and energy to be conserved.

So, the probability that a law of nature will break down is nil? — TheMadFool

It doesn't have to be perfect. It only has to work well enough to be useful and understandable enough so we can figure the uncertainties. You use induction all the time.

My understanding is that chance entails lots of brute contingencies. Why does A happen and not B? It just does and it isn’t possible for there to be an explanation, since this would remove the chance. — AJJ

I think the determinists response is that each of the "lots of brute contingencies" is determined, even if we don't know what they are or how they are caused. In this view, chance is just another word for our ignorance of what determines what. I don't buy that.

Hume's coup de grâce, delivered mid-18th century. I don't know what the fuss is all about! Determinism is predicated on the laws of nature but the laws of nature have no leg to stand on. — TheMadFool

Apparently you haven't gotten the word. Hume was full of it. Of course induction works. This is probably not the right thread to discuss it further.

Well, that's the naive argument. In practice, it can't be known in priciple. Which doesn't mean that the process is not determined. It is. — Zweistein

The pragmatists rebuttal to this is that if a specific outcome is not predictable, even in principle, then it is meaningless to call the phenomenon determined. I think this is a good way of looking at things. This argument can be extended to include phenomena that are completely impractical to predict accurately, e.g. the winner of the 2024 Super Bowl. I think the dice example is somewhere in the middle - highly impractical in most cases, but not impossible.

And this is all before quantum mechanics and chaos theory are taken into account.

For example, we propel bicycles by pushing on their pedals, but that requires specific circumstances (wheels on the ground, you on the seat, chain hooked up, etc). Nevertheless, that is indeed how we propel bicycles. To say that this isn't how we propel bicycles because if the chain weren't there it wouldn't work would just be silly; there's nothing in the claim that this is how we propel bicycles that purports this to be sufficient. — InPitzotl

Wonderful. Something I can quibble about. I love to quibble and nitpick. When they were first introduced, bicycles did not have pedals, chains, and gears. They were propelled by foot, much as a scooter or skateboard is.

That is a quibble, but it also says something about facts.

I really like the way people look, especially when they make an effort, especially clothing and hair. I often comment to both men and women, although women wear interesting and attractive clothing and hair much more often than men. If I'm going to say something to a woman I don't know, I sometimes say "I hope you don't mind if I say this..." Then I say something like "I really like your dress," or "Your hair looks great," or my favorite "I really like the color of your hair." I love hair color, the wilder the better. I saw a woman with short hair dyed bright yellow. I said "I love your hair, is that it's natural color?"

Almost all women I've talked to have reacted well to this kind of approach. For many, most, I can see they appreciate what I've said. I don't remember ever getting a negative reaction. I always make it clear by the way I approach that there is no ulterior motive for my comments.

I'm sure it helps that I'm 69 years old.

Perhaps it depends on how you say it and what you mean when you say it. according to my experience if you love someone they will look beautiful to you regardless of whether they have the kind of looks that are generally associated with being highly physically attractive. — Janus

There are two types of women, and, I assume, men 1) beautiful and 2) beautiful if I loved them.

It's a minute before midnight here, 59 minutes past midnight where you are. And he's still not banned! — Bitter Crank

@AlienFromEarth

I'm glad. I was in a bad mood yesterday. When I saw how upset he was, I knew I'd gone too far.

I think that's going to do it. We'll see you later.

i don't know about being hostile, I'm having fun. — AlienFromEarth

The moderators here are a bit trigger happy about getting rid of those who send out what are known as "low quality posts". I think yours meet their standards. I predict you won't be here long. We'll open a pool. I'm down for midnight. Any takers?

She might be evil, if that's the case, get away from her. However, if she was only expressing anger due to frustration with something, and only meaning to take control of the situation, then what we would say about her behavior is that it was a MISTAKE. — AlienFromEarth

You wrote:

Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. — AlienFromEarth

I covered this already in the OP, — AlienFromEarth

No, you did not.

so you live in a cave? — AlienFromEarth

You're new here, and you're kind of being an asshole. We already have at least one member who thinks philosophy is mostly insults and condescending remarks. We don't need another one. Play nice.

The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people. — AlienFromEarth

My wife has a bad temper. Sometimes, with very little provocation, she will say things to me and others that are very hurtful. There is not doubt that she does this intentionally. That cruelty is not reflected in other aspects of her life.

By your definition, I guess she's evil.

This is a very useful thread. It demonstrates how philosophers can take a relatively simple phenomenon and turn it into complete bullshit. The truly impressive part is that four or five people have accomplished this in completely different ways. I'm overwhelmed with admiration.

What the fuck? Self-organization! What does that even mean in this context.

I haven't been keeping up to date with this thread because I was gone for the weekend. Reading through the posts now, I see you've been doing a good job standing up for a down-to-earth understanding of art. My opinions match yours pretty well, but I don't know if I could have spoken for them as well as you have.

Sorry if I'm unkind, but here a reminder of what real poetry is like, not this crap personal doggerel.

The Telephone - Robert Frost

“When I was just as far as I could walk
From here to-day,
There was an hour
All still
When leaning with my head against a flower
I heard you talk.
Don’t say I didn’t, for I heard you say—
You spoke from that flower on the window sill—
Do you remember what it was you said?”

“First tell me what it was you thought you heard.”

“Having found the flower and driven a bee away,
I leaned my head,
And holding by the stalk,
I listened and I thought I caught the word—
What was it? Did you call me by my name?
Or did you say—
Someone said ‘Come’—I heard it as I bowed.”

“I may have thought as much, but not aloud.”

“Well, so I came.”

As you may have guessed by now, I love Robert Frost. He has a reputation as something of a misogynist, but I love the way he portrays women and relationships between women and men in his poetry. I think this may be his most romantic poem. Willing to be convinced otherwise. Not particularly philosophical, so I'll put in the final verses from "Two Tramps in Mud Time."

The time when most I loved my task
These two must make me love it more
By coming with what they came to ask.
You’d think I never had felt before
The weight of an axhead poised aloft,
The grip on earth of outspread feet.
The life of muscles rocking soft
And smooth and moist in vernal heat.

Out of the woods two hulking tramps
(From sleeping God knows where last night,
But not long since in the lumber camps.)
They thought all chopping was theirs of right.
Men of the woods and lumberjacks,
They judged me by their appropriate tool.
Except as a fellow handled an ax,
They had no way of knowing a fool.

Nothing on either side was said.
They knew they had but to stay their stay
And all their logic would fill my head:
As that I had no right to play
With what was another man’s work for gain.
My right might be love but theirs was need.
And where the two exist in twain
Theirs was the better right — agreed.

But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For heaven and the future’s sakes.

Gives me chills whenever I read it.

Only when love and need are one
And the work is play for mortal stakes.

Damn, damn, damn.

Hey, Marco, get lost.

Cool to hear someone describe it this way, as being creative is so commonly only associated with the arTIST. — praxis

I often find myself making a distinction between craft and art. Is a pair of exquisite, hand made shoes an example of art or craft? I tend to go with the latter, because the experience isn't just aesthetic, but must also be practical and be located in a lineage of other such traditional artifacts. Is a great and talented chef an artist or a craftsperson? We often throw the word 'artist' around as a type of free-range compliment - the barista down the road from me is called an artist by people in our office, etc. — Tom Storm

I wanted to respond to this since praxis' post was in response to mine. I remember in an earlier thread about art, I waxed rhapsodic about the passion I feel for writing technical specifications for earthwork construction projects. I don't know if you've ever read any Tech Specs, as we call them. They are the driest, pared down, compact descriptions of the work to be performed you can imagine. And they are very important. A bad set of specs leads not only to an improperly constructed project, but also to claims and lawsuits. A good set, in the hands of our intrepid engineer, provides a legally enforceable guide to what is expected from the contractor. I love them. I love writing them. I love going out into the field and discovering the mistakes I made.

Not to overstate things, but my mind and all my creativity go into writing Tech Specs and preparing Drawings for these projects. Don't you think that all Einstein's intellect, imagination, and creativity went into his 1905 relativity paper? Darwin? There you go. Me, Einstein, and Darwin in the same paragraph.

I have written poetry. It's something I enjoy once in a very long while. Writing poems is not the same thing as writing Tech Specs. It feels like it comes from a different place in me. Civil engineering, in general, is not art. I guess not craft either...I don't think physics or evolutionary biology are either art or craft. I guess my conclusion is that what makes art art is not creativity or imagination. It's something else.