Regarding altruistic acts, we can also see similar things in the animal world. Where you can even find animals taking care of other animals from a different species.

So, there seems to be this shared experience occurring where one can almost feel the other's distress. Because something is felt, it drives one towards action. The discomfort of others causes the self to sense discomfort as well and so there is the desire to alleviate that.

Putting the self in others' shoes seems to be innate. The experience felt by another is shared. Similar to how looking at a person yawning somehow causes us to yawn as well.

Both science and truth are such wide open areas. I think it is worth narrowing the matter down to the more specific. It might be worth you spelling out the actual questions you think are the underlying ones relating to truth. — Jack Cummins

I agree it's very broad that's why I'm limiting myself to more practical things like say, medicine, engineering, physical objects, climate, biology etc...things that are basically within the realm of the sciences.

Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins

Yes, thank you for the explanation. Though, what I'm trying to do is to answer your question above. Science is not perfect but I think it's the best we have at the moment.

What do you think about the harm principle? As in "prevent unnecessary harm and suffering?"

People are likely to follow that more than anything else and our laws are pretty much based on that principle.

Now, since this unobservable, unmeasurable, aspect of... (reality?) is causal, as evidenced by the
observable and measurable existence of artificial things, ought we not assign "real" to these unobservable things? — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe. Like the unobserved part of the universe. I doubt there's nothing there just because we haven't the tools to see that far. But then we have to go with probabilities and likelihoods. So, stars would probably exist in the unobserved universe but not floating tacos.

So you agree that what it means to be real, or to be true, remains unverified and unproven. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that all real things are unverified and unproven? I don't think that's the case. But, for sure, some unproven/unverified things are real.

How could the scientific method prove anything to be real or true, when what it means to be real or true remains unproven? — Metaphysician Undercover

What I'm trying to say is that I don't know of a better method that can identify whether something exists or not but I agree that it's not a perfect method, as in my unobserved universe example.

Now, since this unobservable, unmeasurable, aspect of... (reality?) is causal, as evidenced by the
observable and measurable existence of artificial things, ought we not assign "real" to these unobservable things? — Metaphysician Undercover

In my opinion, unless verified/proven, it will remain unverified or unproven.

Ah ok. I suppose, like symbols, concepts/intentions/ideas/values - once expressed, will also become real.

Added: But, that's not to say that mere utterances become true realities as in "I believe 4 is greater than 5" makes it so that 4 does indeed become greater than 5. But, what I'm saying is that my expressing the phrase "4 is greater than 5" makes the phrase itself real as I just presented it.

However, I can show how 4 can be greater than 5 if I add the letters "kg" and "lb" in the right places. lol

I get the feeling that I'm clearly out of my depth here, though haha

Is "real" confined to what is observable, or does it include things, like the above mentioned, which have an observable effect in the world, but are not observable themselves? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know in what way these symbols are not "observable." Is it in the sense that someone is conceiving a set of symbols in their heads and chooses not to reveal them?

I would think that once anyone writes or prints the symbol then immediately the symbol becomes observable.

My dude, it's not controlling you or making you choose anything it just knew. — Outlander

It doesn't have to do anything beyond creating us (assuming we disregard every single act of wrath it did or approved of) because every single decision was already pre-approved prior to that event.

It, allegedly, creates a world or environment of many paths, it just happens to know what you will end up choosing. — Outlander

Yes, so again there is just the one path - the one it knew all along that we would choose.

Take the atheistic approach of evolution. Millions of years of whatever, blah blah, the circumstances are still same. It's something (in this case not an entity but an event or series of events) that defines all we are able to experience thus do. So, because of evolution we don't have free will?

Evolution only got us to the point of directing our biological needs and abilities. We still have to make decisions based on those needs and abilities.

The two are interchangeable, God and evolution in the sense that something greater than us is responsible for not only why we're here but all we will ever see, hope, and do.

Interesting take. But, evolution is not a sentient thing that directs our actions.

The God aspect does complicate things. Seeing as by definition all things were created/set in motion by God, obviously... yeah. You have an interest in gambling due to some either biological mental configuration that makes you a risk-taker or you happened to be born in a family who buys lottery tickets often, both that were outside of your control and allegedly the result of God. — Outlander

Yes, as odd as it sounds, if we accept the omni status of this being then there is no other path except the one laid out by it. Everything was predetermined and set in motion upon creation itself.

Free-will only makes sense if the being was not an omni. And if you read through god's many human-like reactions like anger, disappointment, jealousy, then it would appear that it isn't an omni but a lot like every other god of the time: a reflection of ourselves.

What might be interesting is how or why, with so much freedom, so many people make so many bad choices. I myself am often good for as many as six before breakfast. — tim wood

Human nature is basically a battle between our aversion to suffering and the desire for pleasure. Unfortunately, a lot of the most pleasurable things have a lot of harm attached to them.

And it's a shame to dismiss the Bible. Squeeze what you and I might call (the) nonsense out of it and there is still a good bit of sense left - in my opinion if nothing else it's a book of mostly very astute psychology and good advice, distilled of thousands of years of experience. Perhaps not all agreeable, but scarcely to be dismissed. — tim wood

I'm not dismissing it at all. I treat the Bible as a kind of godified chronicle of very real events. Take out all the extras and you have the journey of a people from humble beginnings to become the region's most powerful warlords to again be put under the boot heels of another powerful group of people.

Those guys came from under the opulent oppression of the Egyptians to the decaying mega cities of Mesopotamia and even saw the ruins of Sodom/gammorah - decayed and destroyed not because of God's wrath but of mismanagement, overpopulation, scarcity, famine, disease and most importantly climate change - stuff we're dealing with today.

But unfortunately, they godified everything from their simplistic view of the world sprinkled with countless borrowed concepts from their neighbors and oppressors - so you see the Mesopotamian, Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Persian influence - all of whom had multiple gods (except the Persian Zarathustra) with various personalities that they stuffed into this one being that a paychologist would probably diagnose as having dissociative identity disorder or split personality.

Symbols like letters and numbers themselves have no meaning unless we apply them to some context that gives them meaning.

We can't just put together a series of numbers and letters and expect them to have some sort of value or meaning.

Context and function comes first. So even before we choose those letters or numbers we already know what we want them to do, giving them value and meaning.

That's how I understand them to be at least.

OK, let's talk about that part of reality which cannot be measured or observed, how is the scientific method the only way to prove that these things are real? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I suppose we first have to agree on the definition of "real." For me, "real" are things that can be scientifically proven to be real.

But again, that's not to say (or rather I didn't mean to say) that unproven things are automatically not real.

Rather that they will remain unknown or unverified. 95% of the universe falls in this category so I understand that it's definitely possible for unproven things to exist.

You have an assumed "us" here. What substantiates the required proposition that what is real for me is the same as what is real for you, to support this assumed "us"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I agree and that's where science comes in. If you say you caught a 14 inch fish, I can confirm by bringing along a tape measure.

But it really depends what we're talking about. If it's something that can be observed, measured or possibly recorded then there are a lot of things we can use to confirm what you're saying.

First, there is less disagreement in science than there is in philosophy. But, given that both are based on rational thought, I would have thought there would be about the same in each. — tinman917

Both are based on thought but there are tools and standards in science that people must agree to use prior to testing each other's theories. And usually they're talking about more concrete applications.

I'm quite sure there's a standard method in philosophical discourse but the topics seem more abstract and open ended.

Yes I understand that science can only tell us what's real for us humans. And since our perception is limited, then the science will also be limited.

But again, it has very practical applications, most of which may only be suitable for humans but suitable nonetheless.

I'd tell a sick person to go to a doctor, not a shaman for example.

I agree that experience is largely subjective when it comes to humans since we all experience, process and convey things in a way that's specific for each person. But, that's where the scientific method comes in with things like tools and procedures - not perfect maybe but still preferable.

You know this already, right? Presumably from long experience in monasteries, viharas, ashrams? — Wayfarer

That's the thing. Anyone can go to a lab to test or see an experiment - or even do the test themselves if they have the right tools. But no matter how many times you go to a church, monastery etc... you'll probably have a slightly (added: or vastly) different experience as everyone else.

Well, except for the replication crisis. — Wayfarer

Yes of course, nothing is perfect but as a method, it's the best we have.

There's also the fact that within philosophical and spiritual traditions, there's both peer validation and recognition of the student's understanding by experts (i.e. spiritual masters). In fact, arguably, this is where scientific method originated. — Wayfarer

I can see where and how philosophical concepts can be peer reviewed and validated - much like how mathematical formulas/solutions are validated and reviewed. Phrases are reduced to near-algebraic terms if x = y, and y = z, then z = x kinda thing.

But can the same be done to religious experience? Probably not.

So what is the scope for original possibilities and are there questions which have not been touched upon at all. — Jack Cummins

I think so. So far, mankind has been limited by its own perception. We see things as only a human can see things. Everything we've made so far is based on that.

But we're touching on real phenomenon that are beyond human perception. Quantum physics, dark energy and matter, unifying theories, and whatever else that lies beyond the observable universe... In other words, we might have exhausted our human perception but there's far more that exists beyond that.

I don't see why there has to be a "why."

Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins

Science has it's limitations and so nobody can discount the supernatural. However, since the scientific method is an actual method that's based on testing, observation, standardization, then it is superior because anyone can repeat or follow the same methods and arrive at the same conclusions.

This cannot be done with the supernatural. That's why there are countless variations in religion, giving birth to millions of deities, each with their own special rules and principles, allowing for countless more interpretations and reinterpretations.

Therefore, any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method.

That's not to say that unprovable things aren't true but rather that they shouldn't be considered as completely true. They are simply unknown or unverified.

I believe I do (have as much freedom of will as everyone else). What I don't believe in is the Bible.

Having free-will means we have the ability to *actually do whatever is in our ability to do. This means, not just having the option to do otherwise but the actual ability to choose that option.

So, in the context of this God-creator, we can only do whatever that God planned for us to do. It is impossible to do anything else because this God knows every single decision it's creations would ever make prior to being created. It's creations are therefore simply enacting the plan.

Yes there's no free-will with an omni god creator. All of it's creations can only do what it foresaw. Therefore, the option to do otherwise doesn't apply because we will never choose that option.

It also doesn't matter if we have 1 other option or 1 million. Every single decision we made or will make, was already known and therefore set right upon creation.

There are limits to what we can perceive and there are limits to the tools that we have therefore we can't say with absolute certainty that some things don't exist.

This might not always be the case but I think that it will take a while before the universe and all the forces acting within are fully known.

But that also doesn't mean that all those fantastical supernatural things exist either.

I used to be so sure before but then the truth is I'm not 100% certain and so I can't say that some unobserved phenomena don't exist for sure.

95% of the universe is basically unknown after all.

I am just interested to know why you think that consciousness ceases completely at death. Is this based on the premise that mind is totally dependent on the brain? — Jack Cummins

As much as I'd like to think that consciousness is seperare and possibly eternal, it's still what we call somewhat supernatural. There's still no proof of it.

However, that also doesn't mean that there's no such thing either. It might be one of the major forces in nature and as a form of energy(?) it too cannot be destroyed.

So, I am interested in other people's thoughts on the question of what becomes of consciousness at death? — Jack Cummins

I think the physical part of us dies but a lot of our past work, our ideas, some of our desires/fears, live on through our offspring, family, coworkers, community and even our environment.

As parts of a greater whole, we all inevitably affect the people and world around us, much like how our parents shaped ours and how their parents shaped theirs and so on and so forth. It's really a never ending thing (until of course we see the demise of life itself).

What I would say is that it is possible to not belong to any community at all. Most people have some connections with others but it is variable.
But in some cities people are increasingly becoming numbers and isolated. — Jack Cummins

Yes, it's a sad reality that modern society is moving towards isolation. Is it because people are too busy? Or are they wary of potential problems with opening themselves up to others?

In the US, there's this custom (?) where children are expected to leave the household by the time they turn 18.

I'm not sure if it's the same way for the UK, but that's unheard of here, where one household can have 3 generations of relatives and/or multiple families. Interestingly, affluence doesn't change things. All that happens is the houses get bigger haha

I was speaking of "the group" in the widest possible sense, because we were talking about altruism. When talking about human altruism, we normally consider the most altruistic acts as the furthest from provides any material benefit to ourselves. — Mijin

With that definition, wouldn't instinctive acts be excluded? Caring for young is genetically self-interested, therefore, behaviors that stem from that instinct shouldn't be considered as altruistic.

If some animal actions are vicious, or spiteful or greedy, then absolutely there are actions that fulfill the requirements for being altruistic or selfless. — Mijin

When it comes to animal behaviors, I don't tend to use such labels either since they're all instinctive in nature. There's no malice, intent to harm unnecessarily and likewise, no good will or anything of the sort.

So, relating that to humans, we tend to think that there's some sort of higher purpose or order but is there?

In terms of (2) we can just look at the outcome and say that the action benefitted the group at a cost to the individual: it's altruistic. — Mijin

I don't see how say a cow raising a wolf can be beneficial to the herd.

Anyway, with regards to the act being instinctive then I agree completely.

The question is are acts of instinct - which in the evolutionary sense are based on self or genetic preservation, altruistic? Here, the cow is acting on instinct to care for a wolf cub.

So a lot of the logic in this thread implying altruistic behaviours must really be for personally selfish reasons, doesn't follow. — Mijin

When an animal takes care of an infant from another species, would you call that "altruistic?"

Sport is competition. Even a mountain climber on his own competes with the mountain. My point was that I don’t think competition only occurs in times of scarcity. It may be part of our nature to compete. — Brett

Yes, there's a personal development aspect in engaging in such activities - by training for them, completing tasks, we become stronger, more skilled, while gaining a sense of achievement (and possibly rewards).

Isn’t it possible that the mutual benefit is to survive? Isn’t it possible being part of a collective contributes to security, quality and quantity of good, successful child birth rates, general health and well being, which is about survival. — Brett

Yes, I completely agree. We are a self-interested species. Cooperative behavior aids in our survival and well-being.

Football or sports in general are activities we either engage in or watch for entertainment. That's all it is. Fun and entertainment.

We cooperate with each other because it is mutually beneficial to do so.

Competition only occurs in times of scarcity, and even then, cooperative behavior has been proven to mitigate the need to compete. Why fight for that single loaf of bread when you can all agree to slice it into smaller pieces and share it?

But, again, this pandemic is stretching the capacity for cooperation in most stressed places in the world. However, I still believe that more cooperative cultures tend to fare better than individualistic cultures when it comes to these times.

Yes, this pandemic has put most countries in a bad situation. This is where community really comes in to ideally cover for whatever the government can't provide.

So, that's also something that could explain why they say that our impoverished seem to be so resilient.

And I also feel that that's why some individuals in developed or modern societies seem prone to deviant behavior - their isolation and detachment.

As individuals, it's easy to justify one's behavior but once we're part of a community - which works by consensus, we find that we need to calibrate our moral compass to more closely coincide with that of the community's.

I guess that's possibly because your country already provides the basics (but maybe not 100%? I'm not sure) that it allows the citizens to focus on other things that may not seem to be related to the needs I mentioned.

In one of your posts you suggest that there are 4 basic needs: 'eat, sleep,sex and drink'. I find this a rather simplistic picture of human nature. — Jack Cummins

Yes those are indeed very basic but the process and resources required to achieve the right balance is extremely complicated and specific for each individual.

It's also heavily affected by the environment. So it requires constant readjustment.

It may come down to basic sets of values and aspirations. Of the those raised in poverty may in some cases be told that these are the important aspirations. But you leave out the whole aspect of relationships with others which I would think is treated as more important than material goals, particularly in some more poverty stricken societies. Perhaps?

That's a great point. Impoverished communities are heavily reliant on each other to provide the basics and so relationships are definitely important.

That's why sharing is such a vital part of our culture. Anytime you pass by somebody eating, they'll typically offer what they have no matter how little it is. Of course, the polite response is to simply decline but if you did decide to join them, they would happily share.