:up:

Or cold, mean and indifferent. It doesn't matter which, unless and until the universe reveals its preference and purpose in action - and we probably wouldn't recognize its intent even then. — Vera Mont

Well, yes, but you had already more or less said or implied the possibility that if the universe had a mind it was more likely to be "cold, mean and indifferent", and I was merely presenting the other possibility. But as you suggest the question is pointless anyway as we cannot know, and I would add that we could not even calculate the probability of it being one or the other.

We might care about the Earth ones. I did say Centaurian termites: we don't know whether there is any such thing. — Vera Mont

Ah, I wasn't paying attention, I just assumed it was a species of Earth termite that I had not heard of before.

Well, yes. A market can only exist in a legal framework, which is a form of regulation. I'm only referring, n short-hand to the movement at the end of the 19th century to palliate (welfare) or control (additional regulation) some of the anti-social consequences of capitalism. — Ludwig V

Totally agree—unfettered capitalism would be a disaster for all but the few.

Far more overt control, yes. Capitalism is subtler. I prefer the second, of course. — Ludwig V

As do I. I am no fan of Churchill, but I tend to agree with the statement (probably falsely attributed to him and loosely paraphrased) "Democratic capitalism is the worst of all possible systems, apart from all the others".

So either the people who control the money or the people who are members of the CCP are in charge. It doesn't look like a particularly exciting choice. Who looks after your interests and mine? — Ludwig V

Those who do, or us, or perhaps no one, I guess.

That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving.

So I’m not disagreeing with you, but I would not conclude from the difficulty of holding an identity fixed and unchanging that there is no self to seek to identify. — Fire Ologist

Right, I agree the identity of anything is as difficult to grasp as our own and I haven't suggested the self is not real either—as I said before we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea of it. That it is not determinable does not entail that it is not real, although we might say that it cannot be as fully real to us as our experience is. That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us?

Probably. I don't claim that the universe has a mind of its own; I just don't know that it doesn't.
If it does, it's as unlikely to care - crave or miss - our poetry and cruelty, as we are unlikely to crave or miss the cultural touchstones of Centurian termites. — Vera Mont

If the universe has a mind of its own, might that mind not be vaster, more capacious, more compassionate than our own. If it were aware of our poetry and our cruelty, might it not value the former and lament the latter, far more so than we do ourselves?

How would we possibly assess the likelihood of either possibility? As to us valuing or caring about termites, it would seem that it is not outside the realm of human possibility.

Well, yes. The universe is whatever it is. I don't know that it's blind and stupid, but I know that we alone care about the things we care about. If our minds didn't exist, who would miss the poetry etc?

Also, we humans, who think so very highly of the mind don't seem particularly concerned with preserving or supporting even the minds of our species, let alone all the other kinds. — Vera Mont

Are you suggesting that perhaps the Universe absent any and all percipients might not be blind and might even be intelligent? In that case would that not qualify it as being somehow mindful?

And yes, I agree that we who do understand ourselves as possessing minds are in many ways blind and stupid—far more so than the other animals it would seem.

:up:

There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, so of what possible significance could they be to our lives? Even if they were true what would that change? On what basis are they even interesting? Why should be waste any time or energy concerning ourselves with them?

You might have fear when you assert something you don't have concrete knowledge, evidence or experience, so you don't know what you are talking about. — Corvus

Chet, if consistent, would have to be the first to admit that. Which should leave us wondering as to what purpose he thinks his taking at all serves.

Knowing the self is a curious thing.
— Fire Ologist

We only know the self inasmuch as we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea that there it is an entity with an identity. When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp.

But then, I'm no longer sure that you refer to "the world" not as the universe, but as some image or model that doesn't exist.
I mean that minds are minuscule ephemeral sparks in a vast cosmos of billions of suns. Minds are dependent on the bodies that contain them and those bodies are dependent on their ecosystems which are dependent on their planet, which are dependent on their sun. Minds are trivial. — Vera Mont

That is one way to think about it. The other is that absent minds the Universe is 'blind'—there is nothing that can experience anything—there is no beauty, no poetry, no compassion, no love and also no ugliness, no doggerel, no cruelty, no hatred. In a way the mindless universe would be as good, or bad, as non-existence.

Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately — Julian Huxley, Evolution and Meaning

This is a way of looking at human consciousness and intelligence, but it doesn't mean much since we are such a tiny fraction of the cosmos, Animals too are arguably conscious, so it could be said that life itself is, or that percipients constitute, that part of reality in which the cosmic process has become aware. But even life as far as we know is a vanishingly tiny part of the cosmic process.

The idea that humanity could "guide the course of events" presents us with a type of scientific hubris or scientism. Humanity cannot even begin to imagine a plausible way to guide the evolution of the entire cosmos.

There have been unconvincing attempts, for example, see The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler

Think also of Teilhard de Chardin. Unbridled anthropocentrism, anthropomorphism and scientism seem to go hand in hand.

Then there's the question of whether evolution was always bound to produce rational sentient bipeds such as ourselves, and, if so, why? — Wayfarer

If causal determinism based on the invariances we refer to as laws of nature were the actuality, then life would be an inevitable part of the unfolding of the cosmic process.

Then what is it that provides ‘direction’? — Wayfarer

Under the deterministic scenario what appears as direction is just the result of the inevitable unfolding of the cosmic process. But this would not imply any externally or transcendently imposed intention or "telos".

I don't think it matters what you focus on, or what thoughts or feelings you have that motivate you to make a conscious decision, a commitment, not to smoke, provided you care more, are more motivated by, those thoughts and feelings than you are by your desire to smoke. It obviously won't work if you are more motivated to smoke.

What red tape is designed to hamper small business?
Is it, perhaps, that legislators try to make regulations for all businesses, and the big corporations can get around the regulations, while the small ones get caught?
(I don't know - I've only been involved in a tiny business and had no trouble with red tape.) — Vera Mont

I guess it depends on the business, but in the building and home improvement trades, there is licensing, ongoing training requirements, quality assurance documentation, insurance and superannuation, which together require significant financial and administrative resources, and make it ever harder for small businesses to compete with the larger ones. The trio of supermarkets have pushed out a large proportion of small shopkeepers and the same goes for the building and hardware suppliers. I have no doubt the same applies in many sectors of retail as well as primary production.

Large corporations are also notorious for being able to deploy the financial and legal resources to avoid taxation, which throws the burden back onto the average wage earner and small business and although our governments frequently make noises about their intention to do something about that it never happens. It seems it's just virtue signaling designed to net votes—our governments certainly appear to be bought by the plutocracy..

In whose movie? — Vera Mont

Well, I should have said "capacities and circumstances"—by " capacities" I really meant to include circumstances. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia that's basically how it has been, but government red tape is making it ever harder for the small entrepeneurs. Those who have the capacity to deal with that red tape can get ahead. I don't deny it is barely possible for many—equal opportunity has been a dream and is becoming ever more so.

Under capitalism, you think that people get things from an entirely passive system, and under communism, the system dishes things out to people who are entirely passive. That's far too simple. — Ludwig V

I wasn't implying that under communism or capitalism people wouldn't try to play the system. I have no doubt there is criminal activity, for example, under both systems. I can't think of any totally unregulated capitalist systems. On the other hand, communist systems, insofar as they are anti-democratic (which most seem to be and to have been) exercise far more control over their citizens.

I also did not want to imply that the differences between the systems is black and white. In the modern world it is money which effectively rules, and governments are, to a large extent, bought. The CCP on the other hand controls the money because it effectively owns the business it seems.

A consensus would be a good basis, but one would probably have to settle for a majority view that is acquiesced in by those who don't agree. — Ludwig V

Yes, it's either that or it is imposed by the authority of power, and that goes for any society, whether capitalist or communist.

One question is what level of needs is appropriate - the level of bare survival or the level required to function as a member of society. Is health care part of the package or not? — Ludwig V

But isn't that the same question asked now, when allocating resources and remunerations under capitalist organization? Somebody always seems willing to decide who is worthy of what. — Vera Mont

Under a capitalist system, apart from whatever welfare state is in play, people end up getting whatever their capacities enable them to. Under most communist regimes, people simply get what they are given by the powers that be.

Marxism isn't bothered by inequality, but by unfair exploitation. The slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" is not about equality. — Ludwig V

Who decides what the needs of each are? Perhaps the same question could be asked of abilities.

William Blake said "He who desires, but acts not, breeds pestilence."

I've encountered different senses of 'nihilism'. It's a while since I read Nietzsche, but I seem to recall that he classed Christianity and other beliefs in transcendent meaning given "from above" as (at least) potentially nihilistic because such authoritarian systems annihilate the possibility of the individual human creation of meaning. The human creation of meaning is always individual because we, like all organisms are each unique.

Life is replete with meaning for all creatures, because all creatures have their own concerns, but there is no single overarching meaning, and any attempt to pursue such a chimera would seem to be potentially nihilistic. Think of Buddhism and its universalized notion that all life is suffering and is something to be escaped rather than embraced.

This is not to say that religions always make people miserable, though. Some people prefer to have their meanings spoon-fed to them and might be miserable without that assistance. I think it is also true that some find their creativity within religious systems. The essence of nihilism is to universalize and tar everyone with the same brush.

A perfect example of the difficulties with language: to impute dualism to actuality is metaphysically disastrous, re: whatever is just is, Aristotle’s A = A, but when actuality is qualified by “mind-independent”, a dualism is automatically given.

An overly-critical analyst might even go so far as to assert there is no such thing as “actuality” without an intelligence affected by it, the repercussion being non-dualism is impossible, from which follows A = whatever I think it is. — Mww

Yes, if we think of reality as mind-independnt dualism is a given—in our thinking. But then our thinking is inevitably dualistic anyway. I think it follows that our thinking cannot grasp reality. we can only, dualistically, grasp at it with our thinking, but it escapes from our mental hands like a puff of air.

I agree there is no such thing as a mind-independent "actuality", that can be grasped without an intelligence, or in other words there is no such thing as a grasping of actuality without an intelligence, and I think there really is no grasping of actuality at all —it is beyond the grasp of intelligence.

Respectfully, I submit that our intelligence is dualist in its logical structure, and language merely represents the expression of its employment, so our mindsets are at least that far apart. — Mww

Our conceptually mediated intelligence is dualist in its logical structure—I agree. I think even in animals there must be a proto-conceptual division between self and other, but it is underlying, not consciously articulated. But then that might just be my anthropomorphizing dualistic intelligence at work. Once anything is re-cognized, once it becomes a gestalt that stands out from its environment, perhps we have the beginnings of dualism.

Anyway….historically we’ve noticed between us the pitfalls of OLP, so in that respect, we’re not that far apart. — Mww

Yes, the intellectual poverty...!

I don't see how we could, but I realize others disagree. The law allows for mitigating circumstances, but it seems impossible to determine where to draw the line. I think there is no rational warrant for praise or blame with humans any more than there is with animals, but of course if determinism is true then no one who praises and blames can help praising and blaming.

I think our society would be better without praise and blame; it is necessary to restrain criminals but there seems to be no rational warrant for wanting to take revenge out on them. I think revenge-seeking is emotionally, not rationally driven.

:cool:

I know that but you also seemed to say that my contributions to chets boring model and your issues within this self-induced boredom you are experiencing does not help in that same sentence! — Kizzy

I don't know, perhaps I didn't read you closely enough, but to the extent that it seemed to me that you were indulging what I see as Chet's self-indulgent grandiosity it seemed to me a "wankfest" I don't know if you agreed with him or if you were just being polite to him, but if I misunderstood you, then I in turn apologize.

I basically agree with your "move forward peacefully" but I also don't mind a bit of conflict and confrontation and challenge in the process of examining one another's ideas. I never take anything personally on here.

No problem and no need to apologize, When I spoke of it being boring, tedious, vacuous I was referring specifically to Chet's unargued pontifications, not the whole thread. I always find value in trying to formulate and express my views, and all the more if someone can show that I have been misguided. I try to be open to alternative views, perhaps I don't always succeed, and no doubt I have my own scotomas.

When you say, "I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands," you're giving an argument using a sensory justification. It seems to me it's just an enthymeme. I'm not sure why you would think that's not a justification. You're even using the word know epistemologically. — Sam26

I'm using the "know" of familiarity. I see my hands, feel my hands, use my hands, know my hands. I'm not justifying any belief, simply reporting the experience of having hands.

Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, which I consider to be a belief. Can you tell me why it's not a belief? — Echogem222

Life does make sense to us, provided we don't ask incoherent questions. Of life didn't make sense we could not survive. We speak from present experience, not from barely imaginable possibilities.

Because tomorrow, for all we know life could suddenly stop making sense, logic that we once thought we understood so well could suddenly change, causing us to not understand how to make reasonable arguments anymore. — Echogem222

That is merely a vaguely imaginable scenario, not a serious consideration.

And JANUS gets nothing — Kizzy

Don't presume to speak for me...that would be a good start if you really want to engage.

I don't need to believe anything when I can simply see what the case is. I don't say all knowledge is not reliant on belief. So-called propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and I have no problem with that because I think, under a certain interpretation, that we can be said to know things we are not certain about.

Although the coherence of that idea turns on justification and it may not be entirely clear as to just what constitutes justification. There may be many cases where we believe such and such is the truth, and if we have good reason to believe what we do and if what we believe is the truth we may be said to have knowledge under that definition, even if we are not certain the belief is true, In that case we could be said to know, but not to know that we know.

This continues to be a pointless exchange.

You present a whole paragraph of seemingly irrelevant or incoherent questions, and then when I ask what you think the relevance to the issue is in what you wrote, you respond by saying there is no issue, and then asking how that seems like trolling?
The issue from the start is that @Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot.
It's tedious and boring stuff, totally vacuous, and you haven't helped make it any more interesting...to me at least.

So, you're just trolling then?

I have no idea what relevance you think what you wrote has to the issue. Do you know anyone, or know how to do anything? When you are out and about, do you know whether it's raining or the sun is shining? If someone asks you, do you know where you live, what your address is?

s pretty obvious that the exact thing which you need to care about more than smoking, to stop smoking, is not-smoking. If you look into the scientific research on the subject, as my brother did when he quit smoking, you'll find that what has been proven as the best way to quit smoking is to have a strategy, a method, or procedure, and to adhere to it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, but I don't disagree with that, and haven't said anything that should lead you to think I have. You will give up smoking if you care more about stopping than you do about smoking. You could have any number of reasons as to why you care more about stopping.

My point has only been that we care about what we care about, and we can't just magically decide to care more about something we previously cared less about—we need incentives to shift our concerns.

Attempting to discuss anything with you is usually an endless battle against strawmen. :roll:

Are you saying that looking at your hands (sensory observation) provides a justification for the belief that you have hands? — Sam26

No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. Doubt about it is impossible unless I buy into some silly artificial possibility like "brain in a vat" or " evil demon.

. I agree with you that eliminating the word 'know' from the lexicon would make no difference. That said, I do think that people often take themselves to know things which they really don't.

My issue is that we do know many things, so eliminating the word 'know' would be impossible in any case, because then we could no longer speak accurately about our experiences.

The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief. — Chet Hawkins

This is confused, If something is undecidable then we cannot know the truth about it. We can know the truth about many things, and these are therefore decidable. It doesn't follow that people cannot decide to believe they know the truth about those things which are undecidable—this happens all the time.

I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did. — Chet Hawkins

You know perfectly well that I meant that you do not use the word to apply to yourself. Of course, you must use the word in order to refer to the idea so that you can reject it. Your thinking seems quite shallow, but I don't doubt that it is clouded by some dogma or other.

I'm familiar with the teachings of both Naranjo and Gurdjieff, I have participated in the Gurdjieff Foundation in Sydney and completed two of Naranjo's 'SAT' workshops. The enneagram typology has some interesting insights, but life and people are not so configured as to fit neatly into such systems.

To break an addiction is not a matter of deciding that there is something you care about more than the addiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't say or imply that it is a matter of deciding anything and then making the feelings follow suit, in fact that is precisely what I have been denying. You simply come to care about something more than the addiction, and are thus able to let it go, or you do not come to care about something more than the addiction and are thus unable to let it go.

The point is that if you hadn't cared about something more than the addiction, then you wouldn't have given up smoking.

In the end, the principle that got me off it was Buddhist - I realised that cravings are transient. — Wayfarer

Right, so you cared more about Buddhism and its ideas than you did about smoking. I have no doubt that your advanced age and the sense of the increasing risk of something going wrong with your body if you continued smoking contributed to your desire to quit and enabled you to finally do it. When we are younger it is easier to tell ourselves that the risks of detrimental effects are far away. I have no doubt that if you hadn't cared about those things sufficiently you would have continued to smoke.

Experiences don’t exist in the brain, but the things the brain does, whatever that is, that makes it seem like experiences exist in the brain, exist in the brain. — Mww

Yes, that seems right.

In for a penny, why not in for a pound? Thinking and judging is just about the entire human conscious intellectual environment anyway, isn’t it?

At least now I have a better idea regarding your mindset, so, thanks for that. — Mww

It seems that language is dualistic in its logical structure, its grammar. If that is so, then all of our discourse will be dualistic also. But I don't want to go further and impute a dualistic structure to the mind-independent actuality.

I don't think our mindsets are that far apart.

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know? — Bylaw

The irony is that @Chet Hawkins constantly talks about things which are undecidable, and hence mere matters of opinion, as though he knows the truth concerning them, while refusing to use the word "know".

Others addressing like questions will acknowledge they are just expressing their opinions and will reserve the word "know" only for those (countless) mundane cases where we actually do know.

I think the intellectual honesty belongs to the latter group.

Therefore, if to give up smoking, it is required that one cares about something else more than the person cares about smoking, this "something else" must necessarily be "not-smoking". — Metaphysician Undercover

If you accept that smoking is detrimental to your health, and you care more about maintaining good health than you do about gratifying your desire to smoke then you will give it up. if you care more about gratifying the urge to smoke you won't. The point is that you cannot simply decide by fiat what will be more important to you.

For me, he was a significant philosophical presence, and one of the most misrepresented modern thinkers. Some of those who criticize and even despise him, and I would be surprised if there were not many others I have not encountered, openly admit to not having even read his works.

This seems to support my claim rather than yours. Since you name a multitude of types of desires, and the human being must prioritize one over the other in many situations, this seems to support what I said, that we can choose what we want. — Metaphysician Undercover

The point is that we do not determine sui generis what is significant for us, what we care about, So what I have said does not support your claim at all.

The objects of all your mentioned desires, "food, warmth, shelter, sex," are very general. — Metaphysician Undercover

No they are not. The object of the desire for food is food, the object of the desire for warmth is warmth...and the same goes for shelter and sex. The fact that there are many sources, and kinds of sources, of food, warmth, shelter and sex is irrelevant, so I hope you are not trying to make that sophistical argument.

The effect is not the general "desire for food", it is the desire to eat something. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, you are trying to make that kind of sophistical argument...if the desire is merely for "something" to eat how is that different from the general desire for food? In any case the argument is not over whether our desires are general or specific, but over whether we are able to determine by fiat what we desire, and/or are able to determine by fiat whether we desire one thing more than another.

Your last paragraph is merely hand-waving. We are what we are and want what we want, and think what we think, and we cannot change any of that simply by fiat. Of course, people do change, but they only do so insofar as they have the capacity for change, and they cannot simply conjure up such a capacity if they don't already possess it.

For example, if you are addicted to tobacco, you won't be able to give it up unless you care about something else that contra-indicates smoking more than you care about smoking. You will either be able to do that, or you will not—we do not create ourselves from scratch.

The special set of concepts is Kant’s Table of Categories, which are taken mostly from Aristotle with a few revisions. — Kant, Metaphysics, Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy

This is bullshit. Of course there will inevitably be some categories that appear in both sets, but that would not be evidence that Kant "took" those that match from Aristotle. Reflection on possible predicates is sufficient to explain the matches. Do yourself a favour and put the two sets of categories side by side and you will see they are nowhere near the same.