"I've felt that really Skepticism and Advaita differ only in wording". — Michael Ossipoff


Russia, Germany and France are all in Europe. The only thing that differs is their cuisine. — Wayfarer

So they don't have different languages and customs? :)

In any case, you didn't say why or how that would be relevant, even if true. ...because, of course, it isn't.

I've answered more posts from Rich than any notion of politeness or fairness could obligate me to answer.

All of his comments that I've answered have been things so silly that they don't need, deserve or call for a reply.

So, in keeping with the policy that I stated, a few messages ago:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I won't reply to Rich again, because he's demonstrated that he doesn't deserve a reply.

When I don't reply to Rich, that doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable. ...only that his posts don't deserve a reply, and i don't have time to waste in that manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Ossipoff

Yes this life is fantastic, but it is fantastic within the rules of physics and recorded phenomena. — Thanatos Sand

Physics doesn't have bearing on metaphysics

...unless it does in some special case, as described by that author on quantum-mechanics, who said that quantum-mechanics lays to rest the notion of an independently existing objective physical world. But I don't believe that Physicalism needs that to lay it to rest. It's already laid to rest by its own unparsimony.

If you want to say that you have an instance of physics having authority in metaphysics, then give a convincing justification.

And haven't you lately been the great science-hater? But i guess a troll can be whatever he wants, and say and believe contrary things in different conversations, because it's just a devil's-advocate game.

So now you've changed from a science-hater to a science-worshipper :D

...and of course a Physicalist.

In terms of your Physicalism, you couldn't accept anything that I'm saying. You've heard what I've said about Physicalism. If you're still a Physicalist and a Science-Worshipper, then we have nothing to talk about.

...because our conversation was about the validity of Physicalism. If we don't agree on that, then we can hardly discuss tthe conclusions and consequences of a different metaphysics.

Neither accounts [for?] reincarnation.

So that's your pronouncement

Well, then that settles the matter, doesn't it. :D

So believe in it if you wan[t]

Nonsense. We aren't (or shouldn't) be only expressing beliefs at these forums. But of course I can't speak for you. :)

t, but it's no less fantastical than believing in God

A different topic.

So you're an evolution-denying, science-hating, science-worshipping Atheist. :D

Neither I nor you know what God it is that you disbelieve-in...something that, I admit, is entirely your business.

or the Easter Bunny.

This is typical of Thanatos' "arguments". He's prolific with his expressions of strong opinion, which he never justifies. "That's just blather (or gibberish, or as in-valid as belief in the Easter-Bunny...etc, etc.)".

Repeated pseudo-angry characterizations of what he (says that he) disagrees with, with never a justification. ,,,often or usually accompanied by a claim that none is needed.

Or sometimes replying to things that weren't said.

I said "pseudo-angry", because of course a troll isn't really angry when he goes on the attack. It's just part of his fulfillment of a psychological need that he has.

Call it "angry-noises", with the understanding that "angry" means "pseudo-angry".

These are some of the typical standard habits of the typical troll..

I inititally said that I wasn't going to answer this particular one. But then I felt that every argument, objection or question deserves an answer on its own merits, no matter who it's from.

But that policy doesn't really work well, because it encourages the troll to post replies to me, if I've been answering them, and then take the trouble to judge just when he's crossed the troll-line.

I don't want to encourage him in that way, and I don't want to take the trouble to read and evaluate each of his posts. To bother with that would give him respect that he isn't entitled to.

So I'm going to go back to my policy of not replying to anyone who has demonstrated himself to be a troll.

If a confirmed troll were to say something qualifying for an answer (an unlikely occurrence), that would just be too bad. He had his chance. If it's a valid criticism, objection, comment or question, then someone else can post it themself.

So, I'm going to, again, post this troll-non-reply statement (it will be standard in these instances):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I won't be replying to "Thanatos Sand" again. My not replying to him doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable. It's only because he's demonstrated that he doesn't deserve a reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Ossipoff

Well I hope I am doing something more than just playing with words. — unenlightened

But maybe some disagreements aren't really substantive, but are really only differences in wording.

That can eliminate some philosophical disagreements.

I've felt that really Skepticism and Advaita differ only in wording. Their conclusions and consequences are the same. So, they're just different descriptions leading to the same conclusions.

Advaita was first written about millennia ago, when maybe people said things differently, in different terms, in terms of different premises and traditions.

...maybe in terms of an earlier tradition.

So I don't feel that there's a substantive disagreement between Skepticism and Advaita.

Suppose, imagine, that I have convinced you, that quite literally, another's pain is your pain even though you don't feel it; that another's harm is your harm. Do you not think it would change your prioities, change your life, if your identity was actually 'everyman'?

Sure. Though I already want to not harm other living things, it's conceivable that if I knew what you're saying, for a fact, I'd be in a better position to convert my household to complete vegetarianism.

But, though I don't believe that we're all the same "I", I still don't want to harm other living things, and so the only change, if I were convinced of what you're saying would be that I'd have a stronger argument for vegetarianism...an argument easier to justify to everyone.

...assuming that I could convince others to it as well. It wouldn't help if I couldn't.

And of course that would apply to human-affairs too, all the depredations that are in the news.

But, in those human-affairs matters, and in every matter other than our household's lack of all-the-time vegetarianism, it wouldn't change me one bit, because I already don' t want anyone or anything harmed.

Michael Ossipoff

Regarding my explanation of reincarnation, in terms of it being consistent with Skepticism, someone could object,

"I don't know--that transition from one life to another just sounds a bit magical."

Sure, if you believe in Physicalism.

But sure, maybe it still sounds magical, and counter to the kinds of things that we expect to observe.

But we didn't observe it.

You didn't notice it happening, because it happened when you were too far-gone to know that you'd just left a life.

And, then, in the new life, who can say about that?

When that happens, it will be unobserved and will later remain inaccessible, behind the same veil that masks the beginning of this life.

Whatever your beliefs, this life began when you didn't know it. ...didn't know what was happening. That origin and beginning were unobserved.

Ask yourself: wasn't the origin and beginning of this life unobserved, and isn't it inaccessible?

Fantastic? What do you think this life is?

Michael Ossipoff

I think that my explanation is the best one. Go figure, eh? — Wosret

You didn't say whose explanation of what you're referring to. Why not at least "mention" whom you're replying to, by clicking "reply" at the bottom of the post to which you're replying.

But, in case you were speaking to me, I'd answer, "Would you rather that I give you the explanation that I consider the worst one"" :)

Michael Ossipoff

Basically, you're re-defining the word "Me".

Michael Ossipoff

"That finger-cut is in your tissue. That's part of you.

That's qualitatively very different from matters involving other bodies." — Michael Ossipoff


Are you saying you feel differently about your cut finger? — unenlightened

Different from if it's someone else's finger? Sure. And that doesn't conflict with my disagreement with harming anyone.

Probably not. It can happen that one cuts a finger and yet doesn't feel it, at least not immediately.

Sure, but it's still a cause of immediate personal concern, and will hurt later if it gets infected. ...and could result in dangerous illness. ...things that will involve direct perception by the person whose finger it is.

Do you want to say it is qualitatively different, and in some way the same as if it was an other body?

I'd say that it's qualitatively different, but similar, and still important. Injury to anyone should be undesirable to everyone.

This is what we do; we identify ourselves with the limits of our sensations.

Literally identifying ourselves with other bodies--saying that they're literally "Me", would be a tremendous leap-of-faith, unsupported by any indications from our experience.

Yes, sometimes I don't feel a cut till later, but I never directly sensorally feel a cut on someone on the other side of the world (though I don't want them to be harmed).

Whatever I can feel the hurt of or the pleasure of is me, and if there are hurts and pleasures that I don't feel, that is another. It's strongly intuitive

...and strongly obvious. It's intuitive because it agrees with our actual experience.

What you're proposing is a theory.

Yes, Advaita says it. I don't mean any criticism of Advaita. As I said, Skepticism agrees with Advaita in general aspects, conclusions and consequences.

, and it's the way we go on. So I'm not surprised that there is resistance to my questioning this intuition. But I am trying to show, with a closer look, that it is a bit arbitrary.

But it's reasonable to compare theories according to how well they accord with experience.

Michael Ossipoff

Typo correction:

In the 2nd sentence of my post, I meant to say:

RPN has at least one useful advantage over FPN.

Michael Ossipoff

Nothing "supernatural" about it. It's an obvious consequence of accepted natural events.

For details, I refer you to my explanation of natural-selection.

There's really further nothing to say to you. You've decided what you want to believe, the position that you want to take, and you're going to try to rationalize and justify it no matter what.

There's no possibility of communication with you.

Are you a cliimate-change denier as well as an evolution-denier and, overall, a science-hater?

You must be very proud of our current president.

Maybe you should move to a red-state, and work to ban evolution from textbooks.

Michael Ossipoff

"From what I remember of what Eliminative Physicalists say, it's canonical that the valid point of view is the objective, 3rd-person point of view, and animals' experience is fictitious "folk-psychology". — Michael Ossipoff


Then it's rubbish. — unenlightened

Of course.

We know there are animals, and there is plenty of evidence that they have a point of view - their eyes for example, but there is no evidence that there is a third person view, and there cannot ever be evidence even in principle. That is the fiction.

Quite so.

I'd said:

But the fact that you don't perceive from my point of view, or that of anyone or anything else, is, itself, evidence that you're one individual, one person, one body. — Michael Ossipoff

It is very common to think so, but I question it. There is no end of stuff I don't perceive about my own body, how it heals a cut for instance, or my own fingerprints and DNA. Is this evidence that it is not my body after all? I think it is incontrovertible that there is much more to a person than they can perceive or know, and therefore lack of perception is not evidence of non-identity.

But, until the cut heals, it hurts if you disturb it. And, if the cut gets infected, due to neglect, then you might get sick. Those are things that you directly perceive, and even have a survival stake in.

No, you don't perceive all the details of the body, but it's still what you are.

That finger-cut is in your tissue. That's part of you.

That's qualitatively very different from matters involving other bodies.

I want to not harm an insect, not because it's me, but because living beings are so similar, nearly alike in important ways, arguably identical at core. It isn''t me, but it's my brother or sister.

Advaita's assumption that there's only one consciousness, instead of separate individuals, is just that--an unsupported assumption.

But I emphasize that, as I've said, Skepticism shares the same general aspects, conclusions and consequences as those of Advaita, and other Vedanta versions. ...qualifying it as a Vedanta version.

But it could also be said with respect to the conclusions and consequences of Buddhist metaphysics.

...except that I can't make heads nor tails about what Buddhist metaphysics is saying. But maybe that doesn't matter, if the overall conclusions and consequences are the same.

So maybe it would be better to more broadly say that Skepticism is a member of the broader category that includes the various Vedanta versions and Buddhist metaphysics (though I don't know what Buddhist metaphysics is saying).

Michael Ossipoff



Michael Ossipoff

I'd like to further clarify my suggestion about how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.

At the stage of body-shutdown that I called "stage 1)", the person doesn't remember hir most recent life, or remember that s/he is dying, but s/he still feels identity, and possesses the Vasanas that I referred to.

I spoke of Vasanas, which include feelings, impressions, inclinations, subconscious attributes, etc.

One of those feelings or inclinations is our natural orientation towards the future, something that we anticipate, or intend to do.

Therefore, because the person doesn't know that s/he's dying, and because of our natural orientation towards the future, with feelings such as anticipation and intention, ...

...and because there is a life-experience story that starts out exactly where you are at that point, then isn't it plausible to suggest that, at that point, given your future-orientation, you're at the beginning of a life?

If someone objects, "Isn't that a bit of a reach?", I'd answer, "Why are you in your life in the first place?"

That's simply because there is a life-experience possibility-story that has you as Protagonist.

So the origin of, and reason for this life is something as aethereal and nonphysical as the fact that there's that hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.

That remains so in the above-described situation too.

The reason why you're in this life now will still be a reason later too.

Yes, if Physicalism is true, there's no reincarnation. But I the Principle of Parsimony suggests that Pysicalism isn't true.

Michael Ossipoff

I didn't understand. Well your entire explanation then becomes a brute fact. — Rich

We're making progress.

In particular, which part of my explanation didn't you understand? Which statement or conclusion didn't seem supported?

Michael Ossipoff

For someone who claims to eschew brute facts, your posts are just one big bundle of such. — Rich

Well, I carefully, and at length, explained how natural selection works.

A brute fact is a fact that is posited without an explanation, typically with a claim that it doesn't need one. But natural selection, and its central role in evolution, is very well explained.

Michael Ossipoff

But aren't you the one who is disparaging gays, when you say that they're criticizably unnatural if they're the result of an accident?

I described a variety of ways in which all of us are the result of various accidental occurrences.

Michael Ossipoff

"Yes, from his/her point of view, there is no rat's point of view. Of course". — Michael Ossipoff


There cannot possibly be a point of view from which there is no point of view. Not even solipsists are that radical. And while views differ, points are all the same. — unenlightened

I just meant that the points of view are mutually exclusive.

From what I remember of what Eliminative Physicalists say, it's canonical that the valid point of view is the objective, 3rd-person point of view, and animals' experience is fictitious "folk-psychology".

And I was just saying that that view isn't justified, making canonical a point of view that isn't anyone's point of view.

I'd also said:

There's no evidence for that. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No evidence for what? There is evidence that I don't feel your pain, and that my senses are limited.What there is no evidence of is that there is some other separation

But the fact that you don't perceive from my point of view, or that of anyone or anything else, is, itself, evidence that you're one individual, one person, one body.

First of all, forgive my manner of expression. I'd just been previously replying to Thanatos :)

Every indication from your experience is that you're the person, the body, and nothing more.

One person, one body.

I don't harm any living-thing, if I can help it, because I recognnize all living things as being like eachother. ...and, as I said, identical at core. But the fact remains that we're each one individual body, and there's no evidence or indication otherwise.

I take it that you're an Advaitist. I have two arguments for Skepticism, vs Advaita:

1. As I emphasized above, there's no indication or evidence that you're more than one body.

2. Why is there the one consciousness that Advaita posits?

Michael Ossipoff

But yes, admittedly you and all the other life-forms have much in common, and, of course, are identical at core, ...are all brothers, to say the least.

I just feel that Advaita makes an extra unsupported assumption, when it denies the obvious fact that you're a particular person.

I'm a Vedantist, but not an Advaitist.

I claim that Skepticism qualifies as a version of Vedanta, because it shared with Vedanta, the general aspects, conclusions, and consequences.

Michael Ossipoff

If you want to disagree, don't talk about "our conscious". I'm not attributing any quality whatsoever to it beyond that it has contents which are generally called 'experience'. — unenlightened

You're positing some metaphysical substance called "Consciousness", which is some kind of a container, which contains experience.

Do you see the roundabout artificiality of that?

Animals respond to their surroundings.

What we call "experience" is the perceptions of that animal (including ourselves). "Experience" and "perceptions" are a way of referring to the point-of-view of the animal when it responds to its surroundings.

From the external, objective point of view, there's just that animal, a device that responds to its surroundings, in a manner resulting from natural selection.

Typical Eliminative Physicalists say that's all there is. They speak of "experience" as being fictitious notion. ...as they are, from the objective, external point-of-view.

They're right, as far as they go. From an objective, external point of view...from the point of view of a white-smocked lab-person watching a rat and taking notes.

Yes, from his/her point of view, there is no rat's point of view. Of course.

But the objective, external point of view isn't the only one that can be spoken of. In fact, no one particular point of view can claim to be the only valid one.

It's possible to speak of the animal's point of view. Since you're an animal, that point of view is the one that's most obvious and relevant to you. And--Dare I say it?--your own point of view is every bit as valid as that of an Eliminative Physicalist who is observing you and taking notes.

And that experience that is your point of view is your life-experience possibilily-story. I call it a possibility-story, because (as I've explained at length) there's no reason to believe that your life-experience story is other than a hypothetical system of inter-referring hypotheticals, as I've described and justified in more detail elsewhere.

I've told why that hypothetical system of inter-referrng hypotheticals couldn't have not been (as a system of inter-referring hypotheticals).

To save space, I won't go into all the details here. I've recently posted them elsewhere at these forums, and will paste them to this topic if requested.

Why is there your life?

Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories, your life-experience story is one of those.
There are infinitely-many, and they're all "there". They include yours. Tautology? Sure. Then maybe just say that there's your life possibility-story because your life story is self-consistent and therefore possible.

Now, is that system of hypotheticals somehow not going to be there just because your body eventually shuts down?

Yes, at the end of your life, you aren't exactly the same person you were earlier in your life. Certainly not the same person that you were at the beginning of this life. But, if you're still someone about whom there could be a life-experience possibility-story, then there still is a life-experience possibility-story about you.

1) So, as your body shuts down, there's what remains of you. There's of course a time during that shutdown when you don't remember any details of your life. But there could be deeper, less detailed, impressions, feelings, attitudes general inclinations. Vedanta calls them your "Vasanas". They're what remains of you at a fairly deep stage of body shutdown.

2) I've spoken of a farther-advanced stage of shutdown, in which there's no identity, and you don't know that there ever were identity, time, events, problems, concerns, incompleteness, etc.
The body will eventually shut down, of course, but, in stage2), that, by the time the body shuts down, you don't know that there ever was such a thing as a body, a life, time, events, cares, incompleteness, etc. All you know is Timeless absence of identity, events, cares and incompleteness.

But the stage that I referred to in the paragraph before last, and labeled with the number 1) is before the stage in the next paragraph, labeled with 2). In stage 2) there are no Vasanas..

Well, in stage1), the Vasanas are all that remains, and there's a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story about someone with those impressions, feelings, attitudes, and general inclinations.

That's you.

Your life impressions, feelings, attitudes, and general inclinations don't suit you for stage 2). Due to Vasanas, you aren't stage 2) material.

Sure, the body will eventually shut down. But, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there's one about the person described by your Vasanas. That's uncontroversial.

What more argument is needed?

Are there really people without Vasanas? H have no way of knowing that. My only information about that is 2nd-hand. It's said that eventually a person reaches such a character. But, if so, there wouldn't be many people around you who are like that. We have it from the teachers of a millennia-long tradition in India that there are a few such people, and that every one of us will get there after sufficiently-many lives.

Someone could argue the opposite, and claim that everyone goes to stage 2) not having died and remembered it, I don't claim to be in a position to say. But, above, I said, "What more argument is needed?"

Is the person in that other possibility-story different from you? Well, it's a story about you, as you are at that time. What do you expect to experience at that time? At that stage, you don't remember life-particulars, such as the detail that you're dying.

In dreams, you don't remember particulars about your life.

As someone earlier quoted Shakespeare's Hamlet, in these forums:

"To sleep, perchance to dream."

Michael Ossipoff

What I am doing is turning the question around, and asking what makes someone think that they are not already incarnated in every living being, and suggesting that it is merely the limitation of the senses. Because I don't feel your joy and pain, I tend to think we are separate. It seems a short-sighted notion.

There's no evidence for that. By every indication, you're a particular person. Period.

Michael Ossipoff

Attributing Gays' sexual preferences to an unproven, unscientific, homophobic "mechanism" that you see as a "bug in the reproductive system" and not just a regular product of the reproductive system that made Gays and their predilections is a value judgment. You are saying that Gays' sexual predilections are not as natural as Straights'. that is an immense value judgment. — Thanatos Sand

Not unless it's intended that way.

Look, one thing for sure is that gay-ness isn't hereditary.

That isn't rocket-science.

If it were hereditary, then, with no one (or many times fewer) to inherit it, then it would soon disappear from the population.

So it isn't hereditary. What other alternatives are there. Well, environment is an obvious one (and not just the home in which one is reared).

CasKev's explanation avoids some of the problems of the environmental explanation.

If you agree that gay-ness wouldn't be propagated and perpetuated by heredity, then you'd agree that another explanation is needed. Environment, &/or the genetic transcription-errors suggested by CasKev are alternative explanations.

Don't make an issue about "natural". What's natural? Without the CT-hit, there'd probably be no humans.

Want "natural"? What could be more natural than Nothing? Nothing can be regarded as the natural state-of-affairs. ...and you'll eventually return to what could be called Nothing, at your end-of-lives. (or at the end of this life, if you assume that there's no reincarnation). And of course it will be Timeless, as opposed to our limited time in life (...limited if you believe either that there's no reincarnation, or those who say that there's inevitably an end to lives, when a person achieves what, in the East, they call "Liberation".)

Much of the variation that makes natural-selection possible is due to mutations. ...instances of cosmic-rays, or radiation from radioactive minerals, altering chromosomes. is it a disparaging value-judgement to suggest that some human attributes could have resulted from those accidental collisions?

Did you know that there's strongly-convincing evidence that we're all the descendants of a pig and a chimpanzee (or someone very similar to a chimpanzee) that had an affair, a relationship, or at least a tryst?

If so, the only reasons why there are humans is because of what happened between that pig and that chimpanzee.

Is that suggestion a disparaging value-judgment about humans?

Michael Ossipoff

Of course it precludes environmental causes since Gays greatly come out of Straight environments and mostly Straights come out of "Gay" environments. So, the environments clearly aren't making people Gay or Straight. — Thanatos Sand

A person's environment is more than just the home in which they are reared.

Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

.
"That’s your scientific pronouncement?I stated an obvious reason why, in view of natural-selection, a strong environmental influence is needed to explain gay-ness."--Michael Ossipoff


You did nothing of the kind; your reason was neither obvious nor correct. — Thanatos Sand

Yes, in view of what CasKev posted, maybe my explanation wasn't the best one. Maybe a better explanation is that it's just a "transcription-error", to borrow a term from the movie Timeline.

Note that I admit when I'm wrong (or was likely wrong).

And it's really lame to reduce my statement to three words from the middle statement and treat it like my complete one. If you have faith in your incorrect view, at least address my entire statement. You have failed to do so, so far. Here it is:

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

...none of which precludes environmental causes. But CasKev's explanation is more plausible.

Michael Ossipoff

I hasten to add that no one is implying a value-judgement. Just a mechanism.

Michael Ossipoff

Is it possible that homosexuality is just a bug in the human reproductive program, rather than an emergent trait with evolutionary implications? Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. Homosexuality may just be a flaw in the system that occurs when a human is first forming, where a male brain gets paired with female sex organs, or vice versa. There is no hereditary component other than continuation of the chance of the flaw occurring, because there are no homosexual sex organs, only mismatched bodies and brains. — CasKev

That's a good explanation. Admittedly the environmental explanation wasn't really that good (It was just the best that I could suggest) . Your explanation sounds better, and explains the otherwise difficult-to-explain fact that homosexuality is found in other animal species too.

Michael Ossipoff

Evolution 101:
.
This is one big reply to several posters:
.
Alright, I came here to discuss metaphysics. I didn’t come here to explain and advocate natural selection to evolution-deniers, or to justify science to science-haters.
.
Besides, I suspect that the evolution-deniers and science-haters aren’t really that, and are just devil’s-advocate-trolling.
.
But here I am anyway, replying in this topic. Explain that. :)
.

.
And we've now reached a point where natural selection pretty much no longer applies to humans. The 'weak' humans end up being raised into adulthood, with just as much opportunity to reproduce as the 'strong' ones. Unless we start picking and choosing who can have children, I don't foresee any further advancement of our physical and mental abilities.

.
Maybe, but if eugenics conflicts with kindness and humanity, I’d choose kindness and humanity.
.
But don’t expect societal improvement.
.
What has been the result, the culmination, of all of the best efforts of people working for societal improvement? Don’t take my word for it, just look around at what’s happening societally.
.
Have you ever noticed that the sheep are matched and suited to their herders like a glove to a hand?
.
…as if the sheep were made for their owners?
.
It’s like Huxley’s Brave New World, except that of course there’s nothing new about it. And of course, in real life, as opposed to the novel, it wasn’t achieved by drugs.
.
It was the result of evolution.
,
Don’t get me wrong. It’s amazing what evolution has accomplished. If you aren’t awed by it, then you haven’t noticed it.
.
But there must have been a time in our species’ prehistoric past (and after too?) when complete obedience to authority was adaptive.
.
Think of it as a “theory” to explain societal events and the societal stasis.
.
It’s a particularly well-confirmed theory.
.
P.T. Barnum said that there’s a sucker born every minute.
.
W.C. Fields said, “Never give a sucker an even break.”
.
Those two great social-scientists have provided the explanation for the societal stasis.
.
It can be called a stasis, because of course nothing has changed throughout history, from ancient times, to Classical times, to medieval times, renaissance, up to modern times. Only a few details of the herding-method, the mode, have changed, with technological advances.
.

I don't understand how natural selection can select something if it doesn't already exist. Hence we are left with the issue of how these emergent properties come to exist.

.
There were always differences and variation among individuals. Those differences were augmented by mutations. Most mutations were maladaptive. But just a few were adaptive. The individuals with those adaptive mutations (or just with more adaptive attributes within ordinary variation) survived long enough to pass them on. Soon the individuals with the more adaptive traits and attributes increased their percentage of the population.
.
That’s how varieties of species arise.
.
As industrialization arrived, in some places soot filled the air, and trees’ bark became blackened with soot. In at least one location, it was noticed that the moths that landed on the tree-bark had eventually acquired a dark coloring, for camouflage against the black tree-bark.
.
Sometimes populations become geographically separated for one of any number of reasons. Maybe some move into a new niche somewhere else. Then, as the two populations continue to diverge, in their separate adaptation to their different environments—or maybe just because they’re geographically separate and not interbreeding—soon their genetic makeup is so different that they can’t interbreed. …or at least not with the full efficiency that’s possible within a species.
.
Now there are two species instead of one.
.
That was inevitable. That speciation has been happening for as long as there’s been life.
.

People seem to be conflating the benefit of a trait with a causal explanation.

.
The benefit of an adaptive trait results in its possessor surviving longer, having, and successfully rearing more offspring. …resulting in adaptive traits increasing in the population.
.
Causal? You bet.
.
• Andrew4Handel
.

This is another abuse of "hierarchies"

.
"1920s, Belgian ethnologists analysed (measured skulls, etc.) thousands of Rwandans on analogous racial criteria, such as which would be used later by the Nazis. In 1931, an ethnic identity was officially mandated and administrative documents systematically detailed each person's "ethnicity,". Each Rwandan had an ethnic identity card.[11"

.
These identity cards formed part of the later Genocide.

.
Science (and misunderstandings of science) has been abused. Does anyone believe that abuse of science and technology hasn’t taken place even after the Nazis?
.
But are we worse off because of science?
.
How were things in medieval times? Sure, rulers didn’t have the technology to do as much harm as they can do now. But they did the best they could, didn’t they. …reminiscent of the Walrus in Alice in Wonderland (or Through the Looking-Glass?), who didn’t eat as many of the oysters as the Carpenter did, but nevertheless ate as many as he could.
.
If you lived in ancient times, would you still be alive at your age? And what kind of hardship would your life have consisted of?
.
Yes, arguably, life might have been pretty good in Paleolithic times, but that lifestyle just isn’t societally-attainable now.¬
20 hours ago
• Rich
780
Rich:

Since Evolution is indistinguishable from other Western religions…

.
Evolution isn’t a religion. It’s an established fact.
.

…, it would make sense that adherents would draw the same conclusions, e.g. being Gay (or any other target minority group) is unnatural and is a target for extinction.

.
Thoroughgoing utter nonsense (as from a troll).
.
The Nazis abused their misunderstanding of evolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to be an evolution-denier. Most people who aren’t evolution-deniers don’t endorse or support Nazis or the like.
.
In fact, evoluion-deniers are among the most numerous supporters of Nazi-like policies.

.

This the Nazis could justify the murder of tens of millions of people by simply suggesting that they were agents of the natural universe. Similarly, the Inquisition could be justified as the adherents being agents of The Lord.

.
Your conclusion: So we should all be evolution-deniers and science-haters.
.
The Nazis’ misunderstanding of science, and the Inquisition’s decidedly unscientific justification for its crimes have no valid role in justifying evolution-denial or science-hating.

.

We can thus view Evolution and religion as a battle for the hearts and souls of fatalists (determinists) who embrace the concept of an outside force directing the Universe.

.
Too silly to answer. The question is, why do I waste my time answering trolls? Well, just this last post, and that’s all.

18 hours ago
11 hours ago
• Rich

Rich:
.

“Natural selection suggests that gay-ness must have an environmental component.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
The discussion is about the all-powerful force called Natural Selection which was totally concocted by science
.

Science didn’t concoct evolution; it discovered evolution.

and which seems to be obsessed with reproduction

.
Selective reproduction is the obvious mechanism of evolution.
.
See above in this post, regarding natural-selection..
.

(something Freudian going on here)

Darwin was a few decades before Freud.
.
Freud deserves credit for having the courage, in Victorian times, to mention the dreaded “S-word”.
.
Other than that, I don’t know that Freud said anything societally helpful. (But I’m no Freud-authority.)
.

. Apparently, according to this reproduction obsession, Natural Selection is weeding out all those that aren't equally obsessed.

.
Obsessions probably aren’t optimally adaptive. But yes, natural selection has tended to weed out survival-&-reproduction-disadvantageous attributes.
.
But it isn’t just reproduction. It’s survival for long enough to reproduce and successfully rear and protect one’s offspring.
.

It's all about procreation? Sounds very strange to me.

.
Sorry, but it’s nevertheless true. What, other than selective procreation resulted in speciation?


• Thanatos Sand:

“And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does. “—Michael Ossipoff

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight.

.
Of course. But there’s also a blatantly-obvious natural-selection influence too.
.

, but theres neither.

.
That’s your scientific pronouncement? I stated an obvious reason why, in view of natural-selection, a strong environmental influence is needed to explain gay-ness.

Rich:

“And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Nazism was entirely technology driven, and after the war the U.S. used many Nazi for our missile program.

As far as ideology was concerned, the concept of the survival of the fittest race was music to their ears. They actually set up labs that experimented on humans (in the most barbaric ways) trying to figure out ways to exterminated faster. It was all about Natural Selection and the survival of the fittest.

.
Answered above, in this post.
.

Natural selection can only select something after it begins to exist. it can't produce consciousness (or gills) on demand. conscious has to begin to exist before it can be of any use. — Andrew4Handel

.
Adaptive attributes either existed here and there among the population, to varying degrees, or else were the result of (usually maladaptive, but sometimes adaptive) mutations.
.
(see the natural-selection explanation, above in this post)
.
The changes, from one generation to the next could have been quite gradual, but eventually, over time, those changes could be big.
.
Animals react to their environment. Call that “consciousness” if you want.
.

You haven't really proposed any argument apart from telling people watch this etc I have a degree in psychology and philosophy. I know how neurons work and about different brain structures, I know about fMRI etc (I had to write a critical essay on brain scanning techniques) etc and studied the search for neural correlates. I had to read seven books on the philosophy of mind for my course and I have also read Dennets Consciousness explained. — Andrew4Handel

.
Consciousness is used as an obfuscatory way to refer to the fact that animals react to their surroundings.
.
"Consciousness explained"? Darwin explained it in 1854.
.
Sorry, Mr. Dennet.
.

I have proposed an argument - that the mind has evolved as a result of environmental selection pressures and that consciousness improves evolutionary fitness.

.
That’s Darwin’s explanation.
.
He beat you to it in 1854.

.

Heterosexuality is not explained yet it is taken for granted because of it obvious benefits to gene transmission/reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

You say that it isn’t explained, and then you give its obvious explanation.

.Alright, enough troll-engaging, evolution-defending, and science-defending.
.
As I said, I’m at this forum to discuss metaphysics.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"Yes, natural selection, while selecting remarkably well for attributes that increase reproductive success (actually reproduction, successful child-rearing and protection)," — Michael Ossipoff


Are you suggesting that natural selection will be weeding out Gay people? This type of reasoning, perpetuated by science, is as least as distasteful as any religious teaching along the same lines. Nazism was fed by this type of scientism. — Rich

Nonsense. I've repeatedly criticized Scientificism (Science-Worship) at these forums.

Commendations to you for not being a Science-Worshipper. But not worshipping science doesn't mean you can play ostrich with it. Science (as a process for finding out how things happen in the physical world) is valid within its purview, its region of applicability.

It's not going to go away, by your doctrinaire, dogmatic anti-science belief.

So then, to you likewise believe that global-warming is just fake news?

But you aren't alone. There are a number of other people who want to prevent evolution from being taught in schools. Sorry, I won't wish you success in that goal.

Since around 1854, it's been more and more accepted that there is such a thing as evolution, and that natural selection is what drives it.

Join the 19th century. And then maybe the 20th and he 21st.

------------------------------------------------------------

I support everyone's right to make their own life choices. That includes gays. That also includes people who want medical euthanasia for any valid medical reason--any disease or injury that they regard as lowering their quality of life to what they regard as an unacceptable degree..

And that right to make one's own life choices has nothing to do with the PC (political-correctness) issue about whether gayness is hereditary, environmental, or both. I'm not into PC.

If gay-ness is more environmental than hereditary, so what? That's completely irrelevant to the individual-rights issue. I support everyone's individual right to make their own life-choices, where no one else is directly harmed. (Raising crocodiles in your backyard isn't just a personal choice, because it would endanger other people and animals.)

Dare I say it?: Natural selection suggests that gay-ness must have an environmental component. Probably a strong environmental component. Otherwise these discussions of course wouldn't be taking place.

Anti-Science PC?

And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does.

--------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, "Scientism" isn't a good name for Science-Worship. What would you call an adherent of Scientism? A Scientist? But that word (without capitalization) has another meaning. It means a practictioner of science--a completely different meaning from "Science-Worshipper"

That's why I say "Scientificism" instead.

Michael Ossipoff

Yes, natural selection, while selecting remarkably well for attributes that increase reproductive success (actually reproduction, successful child-rearing and protection), can't guarantee survival and reproduction, in all instances, or favorable adaptation in that regard for every individual.

But it's pretty amazing what natural-selection has accomplished.

Michael Ossipoff

I liked the idea of Skepticism being a tautology, because tautologies are completely undeniable.

But now I must admit that I can't say that Skepticism is a tautology, because:

A tautology is true no matter how things are. But Skepticism would be false if Physicalism were true.

And, unlike the absolutely unquestionable certainty of a tautology, no metaphysics can be proved.

A tautology doesn't state any information or make a substantive claim, but Skepticism says that our physical world is just a system of inter-referring hypothetical or abstract facts, including some that are always true, such as mathematical theorems and abstract logical facts; and (as conditions in if-then facts), some hypothetical facts, such as physical laws, and hypothetical quantity-values which (because they're those facts' topic) are part of those facts; and if-then statements referring to and relating all these things--facts about conclusions that some particular fact is true if a set of other facts are true..

So Skepticism is an explanation for our physical world, but, because no metaphysics is provable, Skepticism doesn't have the absolute certainty that a tautology has.

And Skepticism is a substantive propositiont that contradicts other metaphysicses.

Yes, not needing, using or including any assumptions, and not positing any brute-facts is something that Skepticism has in common with a tautology, but it seems to me that I can't go so far as saying that Skepticism has the absolute certainty of a tautology.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

If anyone thinks that reincarnation requires souls, then I'll remind you that millennia of Buddhists didn't and don't think so.

.
As I've said in a previous post here, I suggest that reincarnation doesn't require anything inconsistent with Skepticism, which doesn't assume anything.

.
Thanatos says:
.

If reincarnation doesn't require souls, the person arguing for its existence needs to assert what it does require.

.
…unless it doesn’t require anything.
.

And reincarnation is very inconsistent with skepticism, which may not assume anything.

.
Thanatos needs to not reply to posts, discussions or topics that he hasn’t read.
.
The metaphysics that I call “Skepticism” doesn’t assume reincarnation.
.
In fact, it doesn’t need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute fact. That’s why I call it “Skepticism”.
.
In particular, I made a point of saying, in an earlier post to this topic, that reincarnation isn’t a part of, or necessary to, Skepticism.
.
*******************************************
Administrators:
.
Consistent, habitual, misquoting, and replying to things that weren’t said are standard behaviors of the typical troll. What is this forum’s policy regarding trolls?
*******************************************
.

but doesn't accept unsupported claims.

.
What unsupported claims does Thanatos think Skepticism accepts? :)
.

And claims of reincarnation are all unsupported.

.
Well, reincarnation is supported by being consistent with a completely parsimonious metaphysics.
.
As for “assumptions”, maybe it’s necessary to remind Thanatos that I said:
.
“It’s well to remember that, in this topic, we’re talking about terra incognita.”
.
Hello? That means that we don’t know.
.
My claim for Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose), is is a strong one, because I claim that the Principle of Parsimony pretty much settles the matter of which of two metaphysicses is better qualified as valid. My statements about reincarnation are more modest and cautious.
.
Michael Ossipoff

If anyone thinks that reincarnation requires souls, then I'll remind you that millennia of Buddhists didn't and don't think so.

As I've said in a previous post here, I suggest that reincarnation doesn't require anything inconsistent with Skepticism, which doesn't assume anything.

Michael Ossipoff

But at the other extreme, can high parsimony become tautology? — Jake Tarragon

But what's wrong with that? If the world could be explained essentially without saying anything (much less assuming anything), then wouldn't that be even better?

As I mentioned earlier, I have a feeling that your Skepticism borders on the tautological ..

Yes, I can say that Skepticism doesn't need any explanations. It would be even better if I could show the world doesn't even need any explanation, because there's a complete explanation that's a tautology, that would be even better. But I don't claim to be able to say that. But I'd appreciate any help, if you can help me to justify such a statement.

Maybe that's the best that I an claim. . ...that Skepticism borders on tautology.

"it [existence] is what it is".

...and, if I could say that, then what nicer, neater explanation could I offer, than showing that, not only does Skepticism not need any assumptions, but it shows that the world doesn't even need any explanation.

Well, yes, I see what you mean: Maybe Skepticism is an explanation that shows that no explanation is even needed.

I like that. It doesn't get any neater.

I'd said:

I claim that the metaphysics that I propose here doesn’t need or use any assumptions, doesn’t make any controversial statements, and doesn’t posit any brute fact(s). — Michael Ossipoff


also true of a tautology!

But it's still a good thing. ...and even better if it's close to being tautology.

...or, even more ideally, if it fully were tautology. (But I'm not claiming that it is.)

Michael Ossipoff

Yes, we were all taught in early school-grades that science has all the answers. Yes, the religious denominations found in our society teach their own different versions of how and why things are.

So a person either accepted the teaching of Science-Worship, or one of the alternative religions/demoninations that were also being taught.

What a sad state of affairs. No doubt, even then, some questioned it. I wouldn't know about that--I'm talking about when I was too young to question it, or to know that anyone was questioning it.

Beatniks and beat-poets seemed to be offering a Nihilist-sounding alternative. There a sitcom episode in which the series-regular character, who had evidently been listening to beat-poetry, got his girlfriend upset by telling her that neither of them existed.

In those days, I accepted the Scientificist account, because it seemed the best of the taught alternatives.

Michael Ossipoff

What you say sounds right.

Michael Ossipoff

My most recent post here was very brief, because that was all there was time for, right then.
.
Of course some things that I said in it call for a bit of explanation or some justification.
.
A website by a modern Buddhist or a Vedantist outlined his beliefs, including a statement that there’s no metaphysical mechanism for reincarnation. Sure, certainly not in Physicalism.
.
I’ve said that you’re the body, and nothing more. So it sounds as I contradicted myself, when I said that it seems to me that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.
.
In my first post to this topic, I said that it’s a matter of asking oneself, “What is the origin, cause or reason for this life? Does that origin, cause or reason obtain afterwards?”
.
In the framework of Skepticism, as I proposed it, that question seems to have an affirmative answer.
.
It’s well to remember that, in this topic, we’re really talking about terra incognita.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"What you are is what you get." — Michael Ossipoff


Ok, but do you think reincarnation is true? Does reincarnation require an indestructible soul? — TheMadFool

"

"What you are is what you get." — Michael Ossipoff


Ok, but do you think reincarnation is true? Does reincarnation require an indestructible soul? — TheMadFool

Reincarnation needn't require an indestructible soul, or a parallel universe of souls.

Though reincarnation isn't part of, or necessary to,. Skepticism: Reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, or so it seems to me.

Is reincarnation true? I admit that none of us can give personal testimonial to it, but because Skepticism is similar enough to Vedanta to be called a version of Vedanta, that gives me some confidence that the ancient Vedanta writers might very well have been right about other things, like reincarnation. They had some consensus that reincarnation happens as an appearance. They often spoke of life as an appearance.

As as been mentioned here by others, Buddhists have a similar consensus about an appearance of reincarnation.

For the above reasons, I'd say that reincarnation is probably true.

People taking the opposite position tend to sound very sure, but maybe they're overconfident about what can be known for sure.

Michael Ossipoff

I will not read or respond to any more of your posts on this thread. — Thanatos Sand

Promise?

Than thank you for that too.

My previous replies are sufficient, and there's no need or reason for me to continue answering the same repeated confusion.

Michael Ossipoff

No, a relevant dynamic to your proposed topic is not a different topic. But move on with your topic. I well-addressed it and will let my relevant statement stand. — Thanatos Sand

My topic was the origin, cause or reason for the fact that your life occurred at all.

Your topic was developmental influences during your current life.

The influences to which you refer occurred after the beginning of your current life, and aren't relevant to the origin, cause or reason for that life's initial occurrence.

...or to my post, or to this topic.

But thank you, Thanatos, for providing us with such a classic textbook example of a troll.

Michael Ossipoff

No, as you can see, you said "What is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life?" and I addressed that:

Its also a matter of asking yourself is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life something spiritual, or is it just the result of many physical & psychological phenomena that have occurred along the way. — Thanatos Sand

Yes, you addressed something different from what I clearly stated that I was referring to. Before your most recent reply, I had already clarified that what I was referring to was not what you were replying about.

You're talking about "many physical & psychological phenomena that have occurred along the way" (during your current life), which have caused your current life to turn out as it has.

After your first reply about that, I clarified that I was referring to origin, cause or reason for "the fact of your life itself" (in other words, the fact that your life occurred at all).

Different topic.

Michael Ossipoff

Its also a matter of asking yourself is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life something spiritual, or is it just the result of many physical & psychological phenomena that have occurred along the way. — Thanatos Sand

No. I was referring to origin, cause or reason for the fact of your life itself, not about events and causes during your life which have influenced its eventual outcome. Those don't bear on the topic's question.

Michael Ossipoff

The traditions that posit reincarnation seem to be saying "What you are is what you get."

Michael Ossipoff

General comment to topic:

Of course the determination of whether you believe that there is or might be reincarnation is a matter of asking yourself this: What is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life? Will that origin, cause or reason continue to obtain afterwards?

Michael Ossipoff

I won't say that your post doesn't contain any information. It says that you can't explain what you said can be explained.

My post was long because I was answering a long post. You know, answering, something absent from your posts.

But enough of this.

I've answered you all that I intend to, and more than your posts deserve. I've more than fulfilled any obligation to reply to you.

Discussion concluded.

Michael Ossipoff