You seem to not have read my post. No, I've never seen it. I'm venturing that nether have you — javra

On Thursdays I think I sense awareness but all other days of the week I doubt it so severely and whine to myself that the universe could be so cruel to contaminate my mind with such unwieldy ideas. Ideas are rather like diseases.

What is this awareness you speak of? Have you sensed it? Sounds like an idea to me.

Rocks are just ideas, man~ — MindForged

Speak true, brother.

To be is to be perceived.

We don’t see the physical world as such. — apokrisis

Why we don't see the physical world? Strange way to put it, as if it were possible to experience the physical world in an absolute way.

I can see we are not aware of the totality of what is going on around us by our evolved senses but what we sense is still grounded in the physical world.

Fundamentally any body of knowledge that represents a good account of how the world behaves is validated by the senses, otherwise something else is going on, like supernatural monkey business.

Sounds like you just need to go study your chemistry text, or troll a chemistry forum.

I don't think "substance" has a precise technical meaning in the context of chemistry. You could differentiate this mixture of salt and water from, say, just salt by itself and water by itself and say these are substances whereas mixtures are not -- thereby setting out how you mean to use the word "substance" in the conversation. — Moliere

It does have a precise meaning in the context of chemistry but it probably isn't of much use really.

Salt water is a mixture not a chemical substance (by strict definition). A solution is always a mixture.

Once you evaporate off the water and you have H20 and Na, they are separate chemical substances.

Since nothing is really pure though (unless achieved by chemistry) we dismiss negligible impurities to call something a substance.

Table salt has trace minerals in it and is hydrophilic, so while according to theory it is a chemical substance insofar it ought only contain NaCl, it is practically always a mixture of trace minerals, salt and water and atmospheric gas.

A chemical substance is either a homogenous aggregation of molecules or elements. A substance can only contain one type of molecule or element (discounting isotopes maybe), otherwise it is a mixture.

I hope this hasn't confused you more.

If I just had some extremely loyal and hard working pathologically altruistic volunteers to upkeep my property and take care of all my domestic affairs with no need for recompense, the world would be a better place.

Yes; but, what makes the mind of a depressive more prone to cognitive distortions? — Posty McPostface

Probably because feeling directs and is more crucial to thought than we think. Just a guess. Am relating this to disqualifying the positive or wallowing in the negative.

"I feel therefore it is. "

Moodie De Cartes

Why is that so? — Posty McPostface

There is a more severe tension (or dissonance) between expected, normal or good behavior and the behavior of someone suffering anxiety or depression and this is reflected in thought by rationalization.

How can you appreciate the positive more? Can you stop disqualifying the positive? — Posty McPostface

The first step would be to stop the negative thought or be aware that it is unnecessary, then affirm all the good things in one's life as a counterpoint I guess. There is a lot of relative good in my life but when it doesn't correspond to feeling good its hard to find it worthwhile (or to do it). Feeling bad corresponds with thinking negatively in my book.

So, mindfulness meditation is the key, here? — Posty McPostface

Just a practiced method for relief.

It seems like most folks are prone to these cognitive distortions in subtle ways. Such thoughts are likely exaggerated in those who have neurotic or depressive personalities.

It seems like "disqualifying the positive" would apply to me more often than it should. Being depressed all I tend to see is the negative. Life is like being stuck within the rhythms and flows of an impersonal and brutal bureaucratic slave-driving machine but I fail to have a perspective grounded in true hell (genocide, poverty, failed states and war).

Am reading J. Goldstein's explanation of the Sattipathana Sutta (foundation for mindfulness meditation). Being mindful of the mind's automaticity in regards to sensation is important to freeing ourselves from bad habits of cognitive distortions.

Part of the problem is that the entire production process behind goods and services is usually hidden. As consumers we enjoy the fruits of the market in blissful ignorance. We're all partly to blame for allowing this to happen.

There is a great series of food documentaries on Netflix called Rotten, detailing corruption in agricultural markets. In a section on garlic there is footage of a Chinese prison where inmates are forced to hand peel an absurd quota of garlic by threat of physical force. It was suggested that this garlic actually makes it onto American supermarket shelves via an American garlic cartel which has pushed most out of market by competitive pricing and its global network ties. Similarly there is some privately owned water draining basin in California which enables a monopoly by unfair access to the resource and is connected to the success of The Wonderful Company (they own Fiji water and POMwonderful for example).

A lower price buts pressure on all competitors, which then pushes the bottom line often to the detriment of human labor.

Resentiment ala Nietzsche and others has re-entered the political atmosphere via Jordan Peterson (though perhaps it has always been since Nietzsche).

At minimum we often rationalize away the discomfort of personal failure but at maximum it may also explain senseless acts of killing (public massacres) by resentful and en-raged individuals. In such extreme situations it wouldn't be right to say that it was a mere 'lack of talent' that caused such folks to wreak havoc but the idea of rationalization is there.

Rationalization
1.
the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
"most people are prone to self-deceptive rationalization"
2.
the action of reorganizing a process or system so as to make it more logical and consistent.
"the rationalization of accounting standards"
British
the action of making a company, process, or industry more efficient, especially by dispensing with superfluous personnel or equipment.
"the London dockers struggle to preserve their jobs against ruthless rationalization"

It seems the second definition would also have a bearing on nihilism, a sense of voiding something (God and sacred values) by reason.

That was awesome negative psychology. Now, I know how to become more miserable. Thanks! — Posty McPostface

Knowing what you're doing wrong is part of the answer to navigating your way to a better place. Duh!

It has all been said before, over and over and over again.

You need to be kidnapped and dunked in cold water everyday for a month.

Forced Bikram Yoga sessions (Bootcamp).

Streaking through various social places.

Horse therapy.

Mime classes.

Mime horse therapy classes.

That might help.

Have you tried any changes to your diet and exercise habits?

Anything is a lot to ask for someone who may feel like they are trapped in the bottom of a damp well, wrapped in a straitjacket with a bag over there head.

The expansiveness of mind is more significant to waking reality.

Everything you can dream can probably be cooked up in some form, even if it is an illusion ( engineered simulation or story in a book).

Why is existence dependent on being known? — Marchesk

Why wouldn't it be?

It really isn't that important either way.

If nothing is knowable then nothing exists. Only minds know things. Without minds, there are no things.

Worlds without minds don't exist.

Worlds without minds may exist but... I've left the oven on, I have to go.

Voted for all democrats though it doesn't much matter in my state. Think a majority of incumbents are blue most of the time, probably what one would expect in the most ethnically diverse state in America. Democrats are probably the new conservatives though, since everything feels like it is shifting right.

Why did I vote?

Because if someone asks I won't be embarrassed that I shirked my civic duty, or whatever. Also I think compulsory voting is a good idea, so I'm practicing for that.

The first folks who go will die there in service to those who come after and it's going to take way longer than a century to make it a sustainable operation (unlikely in my estimation). Better to wait until robots can do everything for us by remote construction.

I'll eat my hat if people land on mars during my lifetime. They'll just be going to die. Expensive fun-time dreams, I guess, for quirky billionaires.

If you've been hypothetically marooned somewhere in the Solipsistic Archipelago with a fundamental Christian sect, you will benefit greatly from being saved, either by outside agents or accepting Jesus as your representative savior.

Excuse the "in sin"-cerity.

There is research now that shows depression may follow from an immunological primer for anticipated trauma. It's a way for the body to prepare for physical damage (for fighting infection) based on levels of psychological stress. Chronic stress is likely the culprit for a lot of depression cases which is exacerbated by the knock on effects of all kinds of unhealthy lifestyle choices.

They say extended periods of sitting is worse than smoking these days, so blue and weary philosophers beware, get out of your armchairs every now and then.

It goes without saying events have many causes in which case countless narratives could be used to argue for why any particular outcome is true. If any news outlets are saying Trump's rhetoric caused a particular event most folks should recognize that it isn't likely to primary (since we aren't all doing it) but rather a contributing cause. Whether or not we should hold Trump responsible for his effects is another philosophical question. He may not be responsible for what he is at all but just the unwitting moment of innumerable causes.

If a contributing cause is something like the needle that breaks the camel's back can we legitimately then say it's also a primary cause?

Philosophers are obsessed with whether or not statements are true.

I could pay you to hang out with me, assuming you're not totally nuts, but alas I live in a subtropical paradise (overcrowded hot rock) in the middle of the pacific ocean. Off course you'd probably be bored by my limited intellectual acumen and lack of knowledge about deeply abstract subjects. But that is what the $$$ is for. Everything has been nearly debased to serve the $, might as well push the donkey over the cliff.

I think the Japanese rent folks for social occasion (even Grandmas).

Maybe a plain answer to emergent complexity besides irreducible stuff is quantity. The more of set of a particles space the more relational aspects there are. There is a certain level of material order (differentiation) which is progressing to a new state and this is nothing but fundamental properties sorting themselves out. If you didn't have enough of them their effects would be different at different levels of description (probably).

There is a new untested theory at the level of physics that might help explain the origins of the evolutionary process, which states that matter can adaptively dissipate heat by changing its orientation (properties) in certain stable context (with an energy source). New orientations bring on new configurations of matter and the process builds on itself until you've got a Darwinian process.

Anthropomorphizing one's car, one's computer, or one's force of robots is common, but mistaken. — Bitter Crank

You make it sound as if these folks are actually mistaking their car, computer or robots for actual anthropoid-like beings in the moment. I guess when you are watching a film about human-like light shadows you're also mistaken and that folks usually aren't aware that they are.

Perhaps we anthropomorphize other humans, which are really just soulless meat robots.

Maybe the conceptual scheme (analogy of parts) is somewhat irrelevant to the physics of these particles. They say particles can also be characterized as waves. Maybe the quantum (particle) part is essential to quantifying the phenomena but doesn't really extend to the conceptual reality by which we apprehend everyday life.

19th century physics had to come to terms with the idea of waves without medium, which is not intuitive.

Wouldn't the component parts of a subatomic particle be the context of interaction (other things) through which it becomes significant or a knowable thing. The concept of thing doesn't likely approximate the thing itself either, as it reduces it incredibly, or is liable to features of an analogy which are just plain useless.

Everything is potentially attached to everything else, even if the level of connection is insignificant to what is worth knowing about or being observed.

But this is probably just armchair malarky on my part.

Also is the irreduicibility of these particles absolute or just a matter of our own limitation (relative to us and the mathematical/conceptual tools by which we apprehend it).

There is a bit on the wikipedia page about the pathetic fallacy which might help.

In science, the term "pathetic fallacy" is used in a pejorative way in order to discourage the kind of figurative speech in descriptions that might not be strictly accurate and clear, and that might communicate a false impression of a natural phenomenon. An example is the metaphorical phrase "Nature abhors a vacuum", which contains the suggestion that nature is capable of abhorring something. There are more accurate and scientific ways to describe nature and vacuums.

Another example of a pathetic fallacy is the expression, "Air hates to be crowded, and, when compressed, it will try to escape to an area of lower pressure." It is not accurate to suggest that air "hates" anything or "tries" to do anything. One way to express the ideas that underlie that phrase in a more scientific manner can be found and described in the kinetic theory of gases: effusion or movement towards lower pressure occurs because unobstructed gas molecules will become more evenly distributed between high- and low-pressure zones, by a flow from the former to the latter.[13][14][15] — wikipedia: pathetic fallacy: science

Literal readers might get hung up on the a kind of language which might be considered overtly figurative (full of metaphor and simile) if the particular expressions aren't so widely accepted. These two examples in wikipedia could be cases of anthropomorphism if only humans can "abhor" or "hate" something.

Part of the problem is that human language is inherently anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. — prothero

Yes, it would seem the OP is full of contradiction because of this (anthropomorphic, figurative, general and unclear language). As a result I don't really understand what BrianW is rambling about.

It could just as well be about the supposed pitfalls of unyielding ideology of theoretical certainty or a way of doing things.

Anthropomorphism is rather harmless if we aren't taking ourselves so seriously and claim it as unassailable truth (like some theists do). Since we are for the most part social creatures we enjoy the presence of other human beings (and all their qualities and features which might give us the illusion of comforting presence).

Given that folks here would aspire to scientific modes of querying reality, that the value of rational thinking is assumed out of the gate, isn't the default tendency of the modern age to overcome anthropomorphism, or at least be able to recognize its (ir)relevance to whatever is at issue?

I sense some strange irony in the OP, as if instead of overcoming anthropomorphism you're secretly desiring to argue the opposite. Is the topic geared toward theists?

Edit: Maybe anthropocentrism (human exclusivity) is a better term for your purposes.

Nostalgia is interesting in relation to cultural or religious myth, or the way myth (cosmogonies) possibly functioned for peoples prior to our scientific age. The communal attachment to what was once a functional fantasy, facilitating life. It seems that fundamental myths constitute a homeland of some sort, an ideal or cache of beliefs and processes to venerate. Makes me want to read Mircea Eliade.

"In our day, when historical pressure no longer allows any escape, how can man tolerate the catastrophes and horrors of history—from collective deportations and massacres to atomic bombings—if beyond them he can glimpse no sign, no transhistorical meaning; if they are only the blind play of economic, social, or political forces, or, even worse, only the result of the 'liberties' that a minority takes and exercises directly on the stage of universal history?

"We know how, in the past, humanity has been able to endure the sufferings we have enumerated: they were regarded as a punishment inflicted by God, the syndrome of the decline of the 'age,' and so on. And it was possible to accept them precisely because they had a metahistorical meaning [...] Every war rehearsed the struggle between good and evil, every fresh social injustice was identified with the sufferings of the Saviour (or, for example, in the pre-Christian world, with the passion of a divine messenger or vegetation god), each new massacre repeated the glorious end of the martyrs. [...] By virtue of this view, tens of millions of men were able, for century after century, to endure great historical pressures without despairing, without committing suicide or falling into that spiritual aridity that always brings with it a relativistic or nihilistic view of history"[24] — Mircea Eliade

I think this is a real problem which resonates with me tremendously. Maybe nostalgia ( and personal fantasy) helps us to exist in this absurd and empty chaos some poor folks today find themselves in.

So, after reading and watching a few things, nostalgia arises during times of transition, identity flux or liminality, which maybe associated with heightened stress, anxiety, general uncertainty. It is thought to be adaptive in the way it bolsters mood, provides sort of an anchor or distraction for moving forward toward building identity (making tough decisions).

Eh, I was trying thinking of a weird scenario with set and setting and how that might influence subsequent experiences with a drug. How the memory interacts with the drug... I'm just in the weeds here though with its relevance to nostalgia. It's all horribly complex in the end anyway.

Not sure have any direction to go with nostalgia but it is an interesting subject, especially with regards to human fantasy and fiction, even political ideals and national identities (forces behind the "American Dream" and it's good old days).

Nah, you sound disinterested and hurried. I just thought that up for the post.

Most humans have troubled minds, ceaseless desires, unending thoughts.

Generally speaking, addicts miss the features of the drug that influence them. Such as heightened perception or increased productivity. The initial high isn't of import to the discussion. — Posty McPostface

Actually, I think the context of use (set and setting) may be of some relevance to the features of the drug and future expectations of experience. In a way, good memories are initial highs about which nostalgics reminisce. These are natural highs of course. But you are probably right with regard to real addictive substances, like heroine, methamphetamine, et cetera.

I wonder about dark scenarios though, killing someone's partner or child in front of them and then giving them heroine. Does the initial experience determine whether they develop an addiction, or have an influence on the likelihood of addiction... Maybe the pain relief during such horror would be welcome.

Eh, I'm sort of guessing. Might have to go read about nostalgia before I continue talking out my arse. Just read that drug tolerance is reversible but I wonder what addicts experience, from a more subjective take on first time use.

Feelings of nostalgia must range from benignly pleasant (ex. watching my brother play super nintendo in the early 90s and sleeping under the Christmas tree) to full of heart ache (reminiscing about a deceased relative or partner).

My notion of nostalgia always has a melancholy heartache element to it, missing the past, missing a non-existent home type of feeling, dead friends, et cetera. This is where the feeling is potent but it is not without a sort of pleasantness despite the ache (a happy sad mixture, sweet memories haunting the future).

I think fantasy worlds can embody the same feeling tones that memories do, some might even build upon them, since everything is really built on what comes before. So in a way of course we feel nostalgia for the future (the future doesn't really exist except as reconstruction of the past).