To cut to the chase, I/we can't help it. It's autonomous. — ENOAH

It's not and that doesn't answer the question.

The exploration further, call it philosophy, is a desire to build meaning. That desire is rooted in a positive feeling. We may not perceive that root feeling on the surface, so overcrowded with layers of constructions, but at the root is an unnable positive feeling. That is what I said was the first movement in philosophy. — ENOAH

But that's not what it is at the root, it's not a positive feeling. Also unnable isn't a word. It's not even the first movement. The first movement is making meaning, that's just what we do as humans. Meaning making is automatic, we do it like that.

Of course it's [grown into] a system etc. But everything beyond whatever that positive feeling is--the feeling both our bodies are after by, for lack, "discovery"--is making-up meaning. — ENOAH

You have it backwards. The feeling comes after all that. Discovery is partly making up meaning, it's also incorporating new information.

In the end some of us produce functional new paths, some don't, but we're all making meaning to attach to organic feelings. So ultimately we're confounding any path to that once real feeling, with making sense. — ENOAH

Except that's not what's happening. There is no "ultimately" and we aren't confounding any path, nothing is getting mixed up or confused here. The feelings and the ideas are in tandem, not one preceding the other.

It really just sounds like you don't know. We aren't attaching meaning to feelings, the feelings arise as we attach meaning. It's one in the same.

I don't take Quora seriously, to be honest. I participated a for a small time there in answering labor questions and saw how it's basically a social media game. — Moliere

Yeah, by now I should know better than to go there. Even just looking at his profile raises some red flags to be honest.

I don't think irony is based on a lack of expectations, though if you're a dullard without any expectations I could see how irony is lost on a person. — Moliere

Then you likely wouldn't get along with many Zen monks then.

I'm not saying irony is relativism, I'm saying that in the original post by David I think he's meaning relative instead of ironic. Saying that anything can be made ironic isn't technically true, things change meaning based on context. So that would make things relative, not ironic.

What does it mean to say "everything is ironic", or "relative?" We claim to be making sense of it, but, ironically we're
confounding it further. — ENOAH

I think it does make sense but some people like to insist otherwise, so far no one has been able to show you can't define it.

But if things didn't make sense you'd never be able to argue the point about whether they do.

We do not focus on the truth we already know. "Irony" like most things surfacing through minds as culture or history, is not a definite singular thing. It represents first an organic feeling best left not displaced by signifiers. But inevitably minds come up with "irony" [for the feeling triggered when facts reveal themselves to be fictions and vice versa]. And its definition is already impossible because it is not the unnamable feeling, but the construction for it in code. But because it is constructed we give to it also constructed meanings. If conventionally accepted within a range of functional applications of that signifier, then we settle upon that as "definition." Fair enough. A reasonably necessarily dialectic for "irony" to function as code. — ENOAH

That made even less sense then your original comment. Irony isn't a feeling, it's something we can define and point out. It's not impossible to define. I mean...all meanings are constructed since we made up words to understand and navigate reality.

Philosophy isn't a feeling so much as a system or method.

But then philosophy (also first an unamable feeling, stretched by Mind into [a] near infinite structure of signifiers, requiring extra lengthy narratives to arrive at the feeling [akin to discovery]) comes along and takes the dialectic beyond the reasonable conventional one designed to give the Signifier some signifieds, the construction of meaning [out of feeling]; but to a place which is clearly more fictional, a game claiming to be uncovering the core of truth. — ENOAH

This was what I expected you to say given the last response but it's an empty statement. We made the rules so how can we say to uncover truth in a system we made up? *yawn* Interesting point, but then it begs the question of why even post that or reply to me to begin with?

Well if nothing was true or "made sense" I doubt we'd be on computers talking about it.

Maybe there is no clear answer. Either way a rather dull response.

Almost reminds me of nihilism and the making of meaning and how I thought we lived a fantasy world of our own creation by pretending all these things matter and are so important, well...at least this bit did:

"The Logic of Mathematics and the Imaginative and Creative Process by which we Make Sense by Rendering the Continuous Discretely and Producing Continuity from the Discrete" — Darkneos

Though I'm not really sure Math says that.

Everything isn't irony because most things don't end in aporia or comedy. — Moliere

Well he seems to think differently, though in my view if irony is based on expectation then nothing is ironic if you have no expectations.

That's why I'm thinking he's meaning relative or subjective, not ironic.

Though given his other content I've linked I can't really say for sure either way.

They are simply words that remind us that there is no ultimate metalanguage that serves to describe language. It is the same with the word "metaphor". You define it in a non-metaphorical sense and there is a contradiction in what it is to speak metaphorically and to define metaphor, that is, you betray its meaning. This implies that there is no metalanguage of definitions valid for all cases. Moreover, when we believe we have a metalanguage we use it as any other way of speaking that you can also define in another metalanguage of a higher order; and so on ad infinitum. That is, there is no ultimate metalanguage from which to define all aspects (or being) of language. — JuanZu

Ummm, in English? I think we can define metaphor with betraying the meaning, otherwise you couldn't use it. There also is no contradiction in defining metaphor and speaking in that way same with irony. Really don't know where people get that one from.

Or does it mean language is fluid, which also isn't news. Words have different meanings based on the time period and the context they're used in.

Do you mean there is no objective language in the universe?

Not really sure what you're getting at.

The other thing I’m thinking about is how he might be saying we live in a fantasy world and not reality because we made all the concepts and ideas used to describe it that only make sense to us because we made it up, even meaning.

Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/vPS5Yw_YsHA?si=HElsCrPjpMUYxSiY

Ironically, we might just end up confounding things. — ENOAH

I'm not sure what you mean.

Ironically, both are something only a human could say... or, does that negate the irony? — ENOAH

Who knows, I’m still trying to work out what the dude means and if it’s just a bit about our attempts to make sense of things.

From the article ‘the most potent examples of irony emerge from scenarios in which objects and the expected meaning in their context appear perpendicular to the more immediate meaning of that context.’

It’s pretty close to what I said. — Wayfarer

But what you said isn't what I'm getting at what I think he means by irony.

Especially in light of some other stuff he has posted: https://www.quora.com/What-is-semantic-despair/answer/David-Moore-408?srid=hp09y
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-attribute-meaning-to-things/answer/David-Moore-408
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-ugly-truths-of-life/answer/David-Moore-408
https://www.quora.com/What-makes-you-wrong/answer/David-Moore-408
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-truth-about-everything/answer/David-Moore-408

That's what I mean by him suggesting that if irony can't be defined then that would apply to all words that we use thus rendering meaning invalid.

Also he has this weird pop track listed too:

https://soundcloud.com/mooretrumpet-1/sets/continuous-discretion

Not sure what this line means:

"The Logic of Mathematics and the Imaginative and Creative Process by which we Make Sense by Rendering the Continuous Discretely and Producing Continuity from the Discrete"

AT first it reminds me of process philosophy but who knows what he's thinking. Maybe I'm trying to make sense of nonsense and I feel like that's playing into his hands. Like deliberately making nonsense to prove a point.

Ugh, who knows.

No, I think you’re on the right track. It’s a little like humor or explaining a joke - if you have to explain why a joke is funny then it’s not funny. And there are those - this includes a particular type of American - on whom ‘irony is lost’, who can’t see the irony of something. In which cases it’s pointless to try and explain why it’s ironic.

I suppose that both irony and a humor (at least not slapstick humor) both rely on cognitive dissonance, a kind of double meaning, a mismatch between what was expected and what actually happened. — Wayfarer

I don’t think you got what I meant by my reply. Ironic means the opposite happening of what’s intended, but he’s saying you can’t define what it is.

And I’m saying if that inability to define it is making the same point about all words that we use, since context can change the meaning of things.

Even still I would only call changing the context or perspective meaning things are relative, not ironic. Ironic implies contradiction, there is also intent and expectation involved in irony.

Though I guess if you expect nothing then nothing is ironic…maybe…

Maybe irony is relative. Either way that’s not really what I’m asking about what David is saying.

Ironically, this David Moore doesn't know what irony is. — DifferentiatingEgg

Probably not, but I'm easily influenced. Though I did come across this while reading up on irony: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1913/03/111-3/132217691.pdf

Though to be honest I think the word he's looking for is relative not ironic, ironic means the opposite of what is intended or expected, not different. Though you could make a argument for it being different not being what you expected and therefor opposite, but that seems kinda weak to me.

I'd also argue if everything is ironic nothing is, though according to him irony is not ironic:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-irony/answer/David-Moore-408

Though the more I read the more it just sounds like his personal takes with some references to Wittgenstein.

I have many arguments in this forum as to whether humans are categorically different to other animals. Most say they’re not, but ironically that’s something only a human could say. — Wayfarer

I guess I’m just wondering if what he means is accurate or not, or just nuts.

The part about irony not being able to be defined according to him kinda undermines his point. How can you call something that you can’t define? Unless he means irony not being able to be defined would apply to all words then thus render meaning useless.

Or am I just severely overthinking it.

Also I think it's changing the context changes the perspective, not changing the perspective changes the context.

Both are considered to be idealists, but I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable", unless you want to trivialize their work as proponents of woo-woo. The link below characterizes Berkeley as a "subjective idealist", and Whitehead as "more complex", perhaps combining subjective concepts and objective percepts. For example, matter is both a tangible percept (experience) and a philosophical concept, as in Materialism. — Gnomon

This is incorrect. Whitehead was not an idealist nor is he considered one. His view is that of panpsychism or close to it, not idealism. Both however did have to underpin their views with god to make it work.

How Matter can also be Mind may sound like woo-woo to some skeptics. And if immaterial ideas are woo-woo (can't see'em or touch'em), then this forum of sharing ideas via spooky action-at-a-distance is also mystical mumbo jumbo — Gnomon

That’s not what spooky action at a distance means at all, that refers to quantum entanglement, the theory that particles don’t have to be near each other to impact each other. It has nothing to do with materiality. In fact there was a Nobel Prize given a few years ago for proving nonlocality, meaning particles that are entangled can impact each other across distances.

But yeah, wrong again as usual.

I have no issue seeing that.

You said energy is a concept. So then matter is energy and therefore matter is a concept.

So is Whitehead interchangeable with Berkeley? — Fire Ologist

He's wrong on pretty much everything and you can literally google it. I told you to stop believing them as they're often either wrong or grossly butchering ideas.

Here, I'll show you per the Einstein "quote":

"While the phrase "there is no matter" is often attributed to Einstein, there is no credible evidence that he actually said this; however, his theory of relativity does suggest that what we perceive as matter is essentially concentrated energy, meaning the distinction between the two can be blurred, leading to interpretations that could be misconstrued as "no matter" exists. "

https://www.google.com/search?q=did+einstein+say+there+is+no+matter&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1050US1050&oq=did+einstein+say+there+is+no+matter&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yDQgCEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgDEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyBggEEEUYPNIBCjIyNDk2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBYGtsUR7H_JO&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Literally just ignore them if they say anything about this still.

If you are not a physicist, you don't need to concern yourself with the Energy/Matter equation. But if you are interested in accommodating modern physics into your philosophical worldview --- as Whitehead was --- a general understanding of Einstein's theories and Quantum concepts will be mandatory. What will be more mind boggling is to accept the implications of the fact that Matter is Energy, which is a mental concept. Perhaps even Mind itself, as noted in the previous post. — Gnomon

This is, not true, again. Matter and energy are interchangeable under certain conditions like high energy, also energy is not a concept...again.

The interchangeability of Energy and Matter are not magic, but physics. Albert Einstein boggled minds with his E=MC^2 equation ; where E refers to causal power as in atom bombs, M (mass) is mathematical measurement of matter, and C is lightspeed : the cosmic constant. But physicists soon got used to the idea that the visible stuff of reality is ultimately a form of invisible energy. — Gnomon

You're missing the speed of light, this is really only a concern at such high pressures and intense conditions, not for our everyday stuff. It does not say that it's a form of invisible energy, only that the two can be converted under intense conditions. It's why you'd need the power of the entire sun just to convert a paperclip to energy and why we can only make a few particles in the lab.

Saying everything is invisible energy is the stupid person's take, to be blunt. E=mc2 is the most cited yet misunderstood equation, poor Einstein.

The second Einstein quote below*1*2 implies that Photons are pure energy, but as they slow down to less than lightspeed, and expand their wavelength, they naturally, not magically, convert into particles of matter. That may sound like ancient Alchemy, but Lead is indeed a heavier form of Gold*3. Note the term "transform", meaning to change physical properties of matter. — Gnomon

That quote is incorrect. Not only did he never say that his entire work says the opposite, in fact his famous equation E=mc2 wouldn't even apply if that were true. This is like that quote ascribed to Aristotle that he never actually said.

Pro Tip: if Gnomon said it then it’s probably either wrong or severely misunderstood. They don’t even read their links (I know because one was a direct refutation of process thought).

Whitehead needed to create god to make his philosophy work in a similar manner Descartes did to escape doubt.

Also energy is very much real and physical, not just a concept. I wouldn’t take anything they say on QM seriously since they don’t know how any of it works.

Their sources also don’t mean anything since it’s just google ai and them prompting it with the answers they want.

All QM does is create mathematical models to predict reality, it can’t really say anything about what makes it up, energy or otherwise. Hence the various interpretations. Particle theory has issues, field theory also has issues, etc.

The reality is that we don’t really know. Anyone making definitive claims about what it “says” doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Though they are wrong that Whitehead was an idealist, even the wiki page says as much. It’s more like panpsychism because he emphasizes experience. So they don’t even understand whitehead either…

Yes, "energy" is considered a concept, meaning it's an abstract idea that describes the capacity to do work, and is not a physical object itself, but rather a property of matter that can be transferred and transformed into different forms like heat, light, or motion; it's a fundamental principle in physics used to explain various phenomena in the universe — Gnomon

This is not true, energy is physical but not an “object”.

This dude just posts stuff from google AI (which is terrible by the way) and doesn’t actually understand how any of this works. We’ve been over that before.

Note --- Even quantum particles are now described as statistical states instead of substantial matter. Yet, on the macro scale those states are interpreted by our senses as solid objects. — Gnomon

No they are not. Physics doesn’t say anything about the subject one way or the other, it just makes mathematical models to predict reality. Physics doesn’t say what reality is “made” of and the inability to detect could just be the limits of our technology.

Also energy is very much a “thing” just not in the way most would think of it.

The idea that the mind is a form of energy is a theory that's gaining traction in neuroscience and quantum physics. It suggests that thoughts and consciousness are generated by electromagnetic fields in the brain. — Gnomon

This is also false. Again, that’s what happens when you let AI do your thinking for you. None of your “sources” mean anything, they just reinforce what YOU believe. That’s how the algorithm works.

I know because I searched the same sentence and the AI spat out 3 different results that differed from each other.

So, no, I’m not trying to argue against process philosophy. I’m saying, like Heraclitus said, “the barley-drink stands, only while stirring.” I’m saying there is no need to speak of process (nor is there an ability to do so) if process is all there is to say. There’s more, or if not, there is nothing more to say. — Fire Ologist

I kinda got that notion from it too, that things can be process all the way down. It does explain why Whitehead had to ground his in god to make it work.

I’ll admit I don’t understand what that Heraclitus quote means though.

Our 3,000 year frustration with discerning something of substance has become the post-modern frustration with trying to speak anymore. — Fire Ologist

So is this an argument against process philosophy?

I think they’re just bitter that people don’t acknowledge Nietzsche’s wisdom even though I have read his stuff and looked on his life and found it odd how he could write such things despite not living any of it:

Hey, you brought Nietzsche to this discussion and went on in great detail. Sorry to trigger you. Take care. :wink: — Tom Storm

Trigger is an accurate word here

— Nietzsche, AC 39

Kinda shows he didn't understand the teachings or Christianity, like I said, easy to see through. You seem to be bothered by this though.

So his care depends on resentful people? — DifferentiatingEgg

No, people abiding by the "slave morality" he talked about. Like I said, his philosophy doesn't work in practice, not that he lived it.

No cause you're obviously too heavy handed to know the difference between pity and compassion.

You're a low disciplined nihilist with a youtube reference of Nietzsche's philosophy. Lame, and thus... not even worth "arguing" with. — DifferentiatingEgg

No I just see through his philosophy an know it doesn't address the existential questions of meaning.

You've not made a single argument other than you know very little about Nietzsche. And that you try to be edgy "the case against suicide" here's the case against it for you: you're still here cause you're what Nietzsche refers to as a last man... — DifferentiatingEgg

I’ve read enough of him to know his philosophy doesn’t work in practice and he never lived up to it. Not to mention his care depended on people not following it

So my disagreement is with the notion it's always and entirely guided by emotion unless you are claiming that emotion cannot be separated from our any of our conscious actions including rationality and that I would have to think about as that maybe true?? Hmmm — philosch

It’s still not the case. Any sorta value system you would use to come to that determination is based on emotion. It’s like Hume mentioned reason being a slave to the passions. There is no pure rational case for suicide or against it.

I mean, with all due respect, *hammer emoji* *nail emoji* *coffin emjoi* one could not imagine a grander thesis... how am I to argue such infinite wisdom? You win. — DifferentiatingEgg

I mean you never really had an argument other than indignation so it wasn’t hard.

I disagree. Suicide may be rooted in those things or maybe not. Could be as simple as wanting to end the intractable pain from terminal bone cancer. I say the main argument against suicide is rooted in those things, not the wish to remove oneself from the suffering and loss and pain that it's possible to feel as a human being. Instead the religious view greatly effects whether we consider suicide a sin or a great act of heroism. Remove the religious, moral and ethical filters and focus on the 3 P's. The philosophical, psychological and physiological condition of the person who wishes to speed up their inevitable destiny. — philosch

You can disagree but you’d be wrong. Suicide is rooted in emotion same as philosophy. Wanting to end pain is emotional.

Fine if you chose not too, but really all you've declared here is that you're too lazy to attempt to tackle Nietzsche. That your transfiguring mirror is sour. — DifferentiatingEgg

The man himself had a life that was effectively a downward spiral that ended with him having to be taken care of by others. He transfigured nothing.

In a sense all of it. He also happened to benefit from people not following his philosophy, especially morality.

He doesn’t really understand how human society works or what made humans successful.

In short he’s lucky people didn’t obey his words.

The man spent his life knowing he would die early due to his life long medical conditions that were similar to his fathers...and he even overcame serious physical injuries, while being crippled by some life long hereditary conditions most likely falling under the umbrella of CADASIL. — DifferentiatingEgg

I wouldn’t say he overcome anything since he didn’t really embody the philosophy he preached.

So find something that transfigures your outlook...
It's subjective to you. But Nietzsche says most people don't even know their way into or out of that labyrinth in his day, I'd assume that holds true today also. — DifferentiatingEgg

Nietzsche isn’t the best example given how his life turned out. He was wrong.

The case against suicide once all the emotion and man-made ethic/morality is removed, it is a matter that cannot be determined as an absolute. In other words the case against suicide is necessarily case specific and I tend to agree with the OP's attitude on this. — philosch

You can’t really remove emotion and man made ethics or morality from it since wanting to off yourself is rooted in such things

Except those books or lectures don't actually usually address the interpretational issue regarding it. Usually, they actually feel its irrelevant to the mathematical formulation and my textbook from the university makes that expressly clear where the math ends to where the uncertain philosophy begins.

Which is a key point that I'd like to emphasize. — substantivalism

Last time I tried to dive into it I couldn’t understand a word of it, so I just ask people.

You know, given process philosophy is supposed to be a more faithful interpretation of QM by its adherents its actually really tangential but close to it. — substantivalism

So what does that mean exactly? You’re not really telling me much with that. From what others tell me that’s not the case and that process philosophy runs into issues when applying it to reality let alone our lives.

From your earlier posts it doesn’t sound like you understand because you said your friend losing a hair wouldn’t make them a whole new person when according to process philosophy it would.

Also physics doesn’t really answer what reality is made of so…

I also, agree. Course, I'm bored and I didn't take to heart a previous morbid thread that you had started so I'm left with a good amount of personal free time. — substantivalism

I say that with Buddha but really I’m trying to understand this but people are either vague or don’t know. Like I said, I’m asking how does this look in our daily lives and no one can explain that.

You don't need a money or a degree. . . you need an internet connection and the will as well as the desire to dive into this.

Here is a pdf version of the Griffiths book on quantum mechanics. Get reading! — substantivalism

Way to illustrate my point behind a lot of the misunderstandings behind QM.

But again none of this is relevant nor answers my questions so you’ve effectively said nothing. I don’t even know how this got to quantum physics…

You don’t understand process philosophy to answer my initial concerns so none of this means anything.

So again unless you’re telling me how this philosophy looks in daily life I don’t care. I’ve already asked everywhere else and got nowhere.

Just reposting this. For reasons. — substantivalism

This assumes you know what you’re talking about, which from the replies wouldn’t suggest it.

Then challenge yourself to actually figure it out. That way these conversations can go way easier.

I'm going through the process right now to finish my own physics degree and am learning the basics of Hilbert spaces as well as bra/ket notation right now.

You want to show some incentive too! — substantivalism

I just ask people who know better, I don’t have the time or money for a degree.

Not that any of this is relevant to the topic or my questions.

In a trivial sense there are tons of verbs that are also nouns. Then there are many examples of metaphorical/analogical speech that give things which are abstract a concrete element to them. — substantivalism

Right but that’s not process philosophy.

Again none of this gets to my real questions and it doesn’t seem like you understand process philosophy either.

To say there is a misunderstanding of QM implies there is a right way to do this even if no experiment would showcase any of these interpretations as wrong or that they are consistent with the mathematical models. What is this mysterious philosophical methodology you are appealing to but don't make explicit?

Is the proper scientific approach to tell the philosophers to, "shut up while we calculate because you can't figure anything out!" Or is it, ". . . you aren't doing this interpretational work correctly, here is how you actually do it. . ." — substantivalism

Well there is a “right way” but I’m not versed enough in it to know. We aren’t even done with it so any philosophical stab at it is moot right now.

Far as I know philosophers don’t add much to the discussion since they don’t understand the math.

What I do know is that so far it defies our intuitions about reality and maybe one of those is that solid things can’t occupy the same space. Physics models reality, doesn’t tell us what it’s ultimately made of.

Solidity is the ability to not be interpenetrated so to allow for interpenetration is what I would not take as them possessing solidity as intrinsic to them.

Unless you mean by solidity a completely different thing than our intuitions would provide but then you aren't talking about the same thing. — substantivalism

Well you’re talking classical sense.

Why should that stop physicists from proposing them as lacking intuitive physical properties if they are as un-fathomable as you say they are? — substantivalism

That’s not what I said, I said people can’t really pictures what it means for something to be that small.

You shouldn't be so focused on the material substance of a person because in the end it gives you only a base but not a handle on why you attach yourself to them despite their changes. It also doesn't bode well for illusory characteristic such as consciousness if the 'real' reality lacks those. Their ability to change does not make them some fleeting collection of individuals you can't make out but a process you happily indulge in. It's not like your friend losses a single strain of hair and all of sudden he is someone new to you. — substantivalism

It’s funny you mention that last part because that’s exactly why process Philosophy is saying. If they lose a hair they are someone entirely new. Again if they are a process then they don’t exist, per the philosophy itself.

I also wouldn’t say consciousness is illusory, that’s a funny thing to say.