Philosophy is not the love of wisdom... — Lionino

Speaking for yourself, I presume?

We evolved, and exist, in this universe, with its consistent principles. Meaning they are within us. I think counting is our recognition of these attributes, these consistent principles, of the universe. It makes sense that we recognize the principles of our own existence when we see them outside of ourselves. It wouldn't make sense if we were surprised every time we added 2 and 2, and came up with 4. — Patterner

:up:

So I am an inadequate atheist in a sense - I never found the notion of gods coherent, attractive or useful, even before I heard any of the arguments. I wish I could say I had a deconversion experience, but it never happened. — Tom Storm

LOL

I wish I hadn't needed one.

Which leads to the question: "if the universe necessarily produces all this meaning and value, in what way is it meaningless and valueless?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Meaning and value are things naturally evolved minds project on things in the environment, since survival and reproduction is fostered by seeing things in the environment as meaningful and valuable. Obviously there is no requirement that people recognize their projection of value for what it actually is, (and most don't, and no one does all the time) in order for such subconscious projection to be adaptive.

How would you distinguish between something having value, and your mind subconsciously projecting value on that thing? Does not what you find meaningful and valuable change over time, and how would that be possible if you were somehow perceiving objective value?

It seems to me that the fixation of New Atheism on fundementalism has to do with it being an easy target, and it's an easy target because it makes explicit claims about the types of facts that scientific inquiry is well adapted to explore. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd think it is much more about recognition of the toxicity of fundamentalism. Remember the role 9/11 played.

I appreciate your courage, openness, and insights.

For me here I think it gets hazy because since in my example everything is completely identical except for this gamete part, it seems to me I could plausibly say they are the same person. — Apustimelogist

Speaking of identity, I can with a high degree of confidence say that you are the same person as "Srap Tasmaner". Care to verify or falsify my intuition? :nerd:

It is an example of how it can be simplistic to talk in terms of necessity regarding genetics.

My only purpose here was to try to make the nuance clear. — Banno

Pointing out nuances has been one of my purposes in this thread as well, for example my pointing out tetragametic chimeras earlier.

In 2002, after applying for government assistance in the state of Washington, Lydia Fairchild was told that her two children were not a genetic match with her and that therefore, biologically, she could not be their mother. Researchers later determined that the genetic mismatch was due to chimerism, a condition in which two genetically distinct cell lines are present in one body. The state accused Fairchild of fraud and filed a lawsuit against her. Following evidence from another case of chimerism documented in The New England Journal of Medicine in a woman named Karen Keegan, Fairchild was able to secure legal counsel and establish evidence of her biological maternity. A cervical swab eventually revealed Fairchild’s second distinct cell line, showing that she had not genetically matched her children because she was a chimera. Fairchild’s case was one of the first public accounts of chimerism and has been used as an example in subsequent discussions about the validity and reliability of DNA evidence in legal proceedings within the United States.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/case-lydia-fairchild-and-her-chimerism-2002

Hand waving. Are you saying it is an induction, like "all swans are black"? If not, what? — Banno

As I said, it is a sentence of your creation. It seems to allude to inductions that are frequently made these days, but I don't see any need to pigeonhole your sentence as you seem interested in.

It's not an observation; so in what way could it be considered empirical? — Banno

It alludes to reasonable expectations we could have based on a wide range of empirical observations which have been made regardless of not in itself stating an empirical observation.

Because I'm suggesting it is not empirical, but a choice about how you would use the name "schopenhauer1". — Banno

Well it certainly isn't a choice about how I personally would use the name "schopenhauer1". I use the name " schopenhauer1" to refer to some dude on the internet I have a fairly fuzzy concept of, though I am quite confident that he has a fairly unique genome.

By way of trying, what status, what sort of sentence, do you think the one labeled K1 has? Do you think it an observation? Something that is empirically verifiable? — Banno

It is a sentence you came up with. It is a simplistic assertion. No, it is not an observation. As it stands it is too vague to be empirically verifiable.

Anyway, I've never taken much of an interest in the details of language that you are interested in, and undoubtedly I'm not going to be very good at playing guess what Banno is thinking on subjects such as this.

Do you consider being scientifically informed an aspect of being well educated? I seem to get mixed messages on that subject from you.

I suspect schopenhauer1, ↪wonderer1, too, think they are making an observation, but it doesn't look that way to me. More generally, if folk do not accept that we bring things about using words - that there are commissive utterance - they will have a hard time understanding what is going on here. — Banno

I don't really know what you are imagining here. Of course there are commisive utterances. I don't see what that has to do with this thread.

The suggestiong to my mind is if one could establish that human beings are a natural kind, and natural kinds of the sort that human beings are can be said to be different under such-and-such circumstances, then we could say when a person is, which in turn should at least hint whether genetics are necessary for the identity of a person as an object... — Moliere

I'm not seeing a need for establishing humans as a natural kind, in order to recognize genetics as playing a necessary causal role in maintaining human identity.

It is enormously scientifically supported, that our genes play an ongoing role in maintaining us in existence as living human beings. What would the notion of a natural kind add?

When one's argument against moral realism involves claiming to not know what it means when some behaviour is forbidden, then I'm not sure what else I could say to help. Knowing that mush seems to be a necessary prerequisite for doing metaethics. — creativesoul

This is coming across to me like "What is wrong with you for questioning whether the emperor is wearing clothes?"

I'd just say Chalmers has bad epistemic hygiene. Inflationism might be handy for making weak arguments appear strong, but I'm not seeing a good reason to take it seriously based on what the SEP says.

Logical and metaphysical possibility amount to the same thing. — frank

Philosophers disagree.

We can conceive of something that is physically identical to us not having consciousness, therefore it is metaphysically possible for something physically identical to us to not have consciousness — Michael

How do you get from being able to imagine something, to that thing being metaphysically possible?

People can certainly imagine things that aren't physically possible. Why would the situation be different for metaphysical possibility.

And yet there are people who pretty much live like zombies, at least some of their time. Not people in a coma, but people who mindlessly peruse Facebook and such. — baker

Those people are not physically identical to us, and so aren't relevant to Michael's argument.

Ah, I was hasty and didn't pay sufficient attention to the "identical" in 1.

With that aspect of the definition in mind, I'll shove p-zombies the short distance from utterly ludicrous to metaphysically impossible.

2. P-zombies are not a metaphysical impossibility
3. Therefore consciousness, if it exists, is non-physical — Michael

I don't see a need to reject 2 in order to reject 3.

Getting to 3 in your argument seems to require a non-sequitur.

Impossible because conscious experience is physical or impossible because non-physical conscious experience is a necessary consequence of brain activity (or other physical processes in the body)? — Michael

I wouldn't say impossible, but it's ludicrous to think there would be a couple of p-zombies carrying on, what to us would appear to be a deeply personal heartfelt conversation, while in fact their conversation is simply meaningless noises they are making for no reason.

I have to think that people considering p-zombies plausible is a result of not having really thought through what is under consideration.

That doesn’t counter my gametes theory, it just elaborates on an interesting variation of it. — schopenhauer1

Right.

My quest here is to find an objective thing that differentiates a person from being all possibilities that that person can hold. Clearly the stopping point for that person to be all counterparts of that person would be at conception. How could it be otherwise? — schopenhauer1

Consider tetragametic chimeras.

Tetragametic chimerism is a form of congenital chimerism. This condition occurs through the fertilization of two separate ova by two sperm, followed by aggregation of the two at the blastocyst or zygote stages. This results in the development of an organism with intermingled cell lines. Put another way, the chimera is formed from the merging of two nonidentical twins (a similar merging presumably occurs with identical twins, but as their genotypes are not significantly distinct, the resulting individual would not be considered a chimera). As such, they can be male, female, or have mixed intersex characteristics.

In such a case there were two separate conceptions resulting in one person.

And it's navigating the world and doing its job effectively, and it's doing all this without knowing anything??? How does that work, exactly? — RogueAI

Why think it does work? I think the most reasonable perspective on p-zombies is that they are an incoherent idea.

Assembly language is the best. — unenlightened

Machine language is 102 97 114 32 98 101 116 116 101 114

As Banno pointed out, your argument does not follow. — Lionino

Right, I was expecting someone to point that out, and I'm hardly surprised that it was Banno.

My point of contention is this... — Lionino

Keep working on it. You are 'finding' problems that aren't there, and you didn't recognize the problem that was there.

(◇p ∧ ◇¬p) → ◇(p∧¬p) is invalid. — Banno

I was wondering how long it would take. :wink:

Let X = "The person who made that post as wonderer1 is the same person as the person who posted previously as wonderer1."
— wonderer1

If you take the conclusion to be a premise, I can prove that God is in my backpack making waffles too. — Lionino

Since I am the person who has made all the posts as wonderer1, I know X. How exactly do I get from there to God and waffles? (It is breakfast time.)

It's logically possible that the person who is posting as wonderer1 right now is not the same person as posted previously as wonderer1. However it isn't metaphysically possible.
— wonderer1

How so? — Lionino

Let X = "The person who made that post as wonderer1 is the same person as the person who posted previously as wonderer1."

It is the case that X.

Therefore X is metaphysically possible.

If ~X is also metaphysically possible, then it would be the case that a logical contradiction (X and ~X) is metaphysically possible.

It is not the case that the logical contradiction (X and ~X) is metaphysically possible.

Therefore it is not the case that ~X is metaphysically possible.

I’m not sure that counts as belief. Belief seems to me to be a conscious activity. Machines can record and analyze information but they don’t believe anything. — Michael

This gets me thinking about 'muscle memory' events, like knocking a cup off a counter and reflexively catching it without time to think. We must have subconscious expectations which direct moving our hand to where it needs to be to catch the cup. Are these subconscious expectations not in some sense beliefs? And if we posit conscious beliefs and subconscious beliefs, is there a clear dividing line?

6. Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God. — Hallucinogen

Why in God's mind rather than in say, Tod's laptop?

Copied and pasted from another forum:

Let's suppose there is a six dimensional universe (6 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension). In this universe there is a naturalistically evolved intelligent being called Tod.

Now suppose that due to existing in this six dimensional universe, brains and computers can be vastly more powerful than in our universe due to the extra dimensions available for interconnectivity, higher complexity of parts per volume, etc. (Feel free to add dimensions as needed.) In other regards we can consider Tod to be a lot like us for the purposes of this thought experiment.

Now Tod is a researcher at a university, and the prevailing wisdom is that intelligent life can only evolve in a universe with four spatial dimensions or more. Tod sets out to study this matter, and in the course of this study he sets up some comprehensive simulations of a universe with three spatial and one temporal dimension. After some trial and error, Tod succeeds in creating a simulated universe where intelligent life evolves.

Of course Tod's creation is meant to be understood as our universe. So, some questions:

1. Can it be proven by beings inside such a simulation what the nature of their existence is?

2. Is Tod deserving of worship by the intelligent beings that exist inside the simulation?
2a. Does it change things to know that Tod is going to shut the simulation down in ten minutes?
2b. Does it further change things to know that ten minutes in Tod's time is equivalent to 10 million years in our time?

Now, suppose Tod's colleague Ged gets a copy of Tod's program and runs it on his own 6D computer. However, unlike Tod who is hands off other than setting the simulation going, Ged gets really interested in the lives of some intelligent beings in one tiny microcosm of the simulation. Ged develops ways to manifest himself within the simulation he is running and to communicate with the 3D people who are being simulated. GED tells some of the 3D people that he is going to build 6D robots in the actual 6D universe and give the 3D people he approves of bodies in the real 6D world.

3. Is GED more worthy of worship than Tod? Why or why not?

What hath Tod wrought?

However, what would something metaphysically impossible but logically possible be? — Lionino

It's logically possible that the person who is posting as wonderer1 right now is not the same person as posted previously as wonderer1. However it isn't metaphysically possible.

Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate attempt to get rid of Melania?! — Fooloso4

:rofl:

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space. — Hallucinogen

Having looked at some of the quotes and links you provided, they seem to be presenting speculation rather than the sort of evidence you suggest.

I think my favourite complexity is the one about the non-coding bases, which are 98% of the molecule. What is all that stuff doing there? I don't believe it is doing nothing. The question is, what is it doing? Talk about terra incognita — Ludwig V

Well, not really terra incognita, because stuff is being learned about non-coding DNA. One such detail (and actually kind of old news) is that broken down genes for the production of egg yolk components occupy some of that DNA.

Embryonic development in nonmammalian vertebrates depends entirely on nutritional reserves that are predominantly derived from vitellogenin proteins and stored in egg yolk. Mammals have evolved new resources, such as lactation and placentation, to nourish their developing and early offspring. However, the evolutionary timing and molecular events associated with this major phenotypic transition are not known. By means of sensitive comparative genomics analyses and evolutionary simulations, we here show that the three ancestral vitellogenin-encoding genes were progressively lost during mammalian evolution (until around 30–70 million years ago, Mya) in all but the egg-laying monotremes, which have retained a functional vitellogenin gene. Our analyses also provide evidence that the major milk resource genes, caseins, which have similar functional properties as vitellogenins, appeared in the common mammalian ancestor ∼200–310 Mya. Together, our data are compatible with the hypothesis that the emergence of lactation in the common mammalian ancestor and the development of placentation in eutherian and marsupial mammals allowed for the gradual loss of yolk-dependent nourishment during mammalian evolution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267819/

Another stretch of DNA is a broken down version of what once was a gene for producing Vitamin C.

Other details involve stretchs of DNA which can promote or inhibit the transcription of coding DNA.

I'm far from having any expertise on the subject, but my impression is that it would be a rather daunting task for most to come up to speed on what is understood about noncoding DNA these days.

When it comes to the philosophy of mind and language it’s littered with figurative and almost superstitious language, and is largely speaker-centric. — NOS4A2

Given...

1. The complexity of our brains and the physical processes occurring therein.
2. The idiosyncratic differences between each of our brains. (Differences in biological factors and in experiences resulting in learning)
3. Our level of technology being well below what would be needed to get a remotely comprehensive 'picture' of what is going on in our brains.

...I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Still, there is progress. A huge amount has been learned over the decades I've been considering the topic and the pace of that learning has been accelerating as old guesses get replaced with new, better educated, guesses.

Perhaps it’s time we gravitated away from the metaphors, for instance “hear”, and focused on the actual. — NOS4A2

Good luck with that. I can recommend getting some education in electrical engineering, as an aid to trying to wrap one's head around the subject.

I have a strong urge not to post this reply, because I partly think it's all nonsense (but there's still something in it somewhere that I think I want to say). But for once, I think that very confusion is sort-of on topic, so I force myself to click "Post comment". If you've been reading this, I have. — Dawnstorm

I appreciate your effort to verbalize this, and I'm glad you did post because I find this sort of stuff fascinating.

Thanks.

This original post brings a certain mild misery to me, to be stirring up mischief through slave morality is cute, but altogether misguided. — Vaskane

Ya know how autistic people tend to focus narrowly on one thing...