I think that in a world where there are so many variables, that the situation couldn't have been any different, or the methodology couldn't have been as good.

Meaning is derived from interpretations, and even Derrida would have had something to say on the matter. :smile:

Looking at it, again, from a kind of biological anthropology - the evolution of the h.sapiens forebrain was one of the most (if not THE most) spectacular and unparalleled events known to evolutionary science. — Wayfarer

Yes, fascinating topic to drill. Quite curiously, I want to ask, from what I understand the forebrain was developed by our need for the use of tools in its earliest stages. I do want to know that how could something so simple as the need to use and create tools could have led to so much of what defines human beings. What are your thoughts on the matter?

this fantastically elaborated brain anatomy, which enabled language, conceptualisation, tool-making, story-telling and many of the other essentially human characteristics of our species. — Wayfarer

Yes, I take the forebrain or frontal and prefrontal cortex as the highest developed trait, yet, the Broca center the brain seems equally important too for language development. I'm not sure if our abilities would have mattered without such a highly sophisticated use of language skills and learning abilities...

Deep topic.

But again, if you have a broader definition or conception of sentience, maybe more could be said. — Manuel

No, I kept the OP as simple as I could; but, thanks for the input!

I accepted your post as the answer to this thread; but, wanted to further ask, if inference based off of causality is something that only humans can do, (is it called 'backwards rationality')?

That is a topic approach by anthropology. There is content online about the origins of animism, which is considered the most primitive, thus earliest, kind of religion. — Lionino

This might be a question framed best in terms of anthropology, but, I'm also quite interested in what the concept of a creator might mean to a chimpanzee or dolphin or gorilla.

Conceptualisation relies on abstraction, the ability to represent and to imagine. — Wayfarer

I agree, but, is conceptualization something that can be specified any further? I left the OP ambiguous about what defines the capabilities on h. sapiens to imagine/reason/conceptualize the notion of a creator. I don't want this to be the focus of the thread, as there are many interesting things that can be said about this topic apart from anthropology...

I think the OP is written in the right way. In terms of held beliefs and norms, karma can seem like a thing that exists with respect to known known's.

However, some old guy sitting on a cloud writing what good and evil you have done and translating it into something that hasn't been seen or witnessed before seems a little outlandish.

Essentially, karma is a form of judgement on an act or deed in the positive or negative, so it seems that it can have an effect with respect to the observer or the environment one partakes in.

Wait until Philip Morris and Budweiser put the stuff into their products, laws permitting in select states...

Socrates never abandons his pursuit of the good.It is not for him an intellectual puzzle to be solved. It is a way of life. The pursuit of the good is good not because the good is something we might discover. The pursuit of the good is ultimately not about knowing the good but about being good. — Fooloso4

I was influenced greatly with Wittgenstein, and the way in which he addresses your final question of an awesome opening post. Wittgenstein did away with centuries of footnotes to Plato by actually saying something very similar which you are saying. Furthermore, many ordinary people who were attracted to philosophy as phronesis seem to be these Victorian stoics or Aristotelian virtue ethicists seeking emotional balance and tranquility. Although in some regards the pursuit of eudaimonia might be perceived as a distraction in regards to what you are saying, much like the Christian stories of an afterlife deserved for being good.

I'm not sure if you have read Pierre Hadot, who praised philosophy as a way of life. He's pretty accessible and well regarded.

One is speaking American and the other... not really sure.

Pot speaks to kettle. It's a democracy and people want some other candidate than Biden, so what's the issue with not having a second term. Act mature for your age and agree with everyone else that once was enough, at least you'll get a pat on the back from both parties and the public.

It strikes me as sheer egotism at this point.

We could possibly relax the definition of the predicate isProvable(n) to isRational(n). Say that if the majority of the observers believe that a natural-language sentence is rational, then it is. — Tarskian

Yet, is rationality truth-apt, as you've defined it? At least if it's epistemologically denoted, then these observational sentences are truth-apt, no?

Very marginal, imho. Read Philosophical Investigations instead. — 180 Proof

Yes, I have something to say about how Wittgenstein approached Gödel's incompleteness theorems as logical paradoxes. Namely, because Wittgenstein took the world as the totality of facts, not things, then the sum total of facts operating in the state of affairs of the world, necessitates that logic takes care of itself.

There's no Neo or glitch in the system itself...

Everything is a tautology...

At the sake of sounding incoherent, I just wanted to provide my rationale for asking (what I perceive) a fundamental question about formal and non-formal languages where Gödel's incompleteness theorems can apply.

What I suppose is the fundamental question is at which point does Gödel's incompleteness theorems manifest their truth in a natural language, if applicable?

But I don't know what you mean by 'applicable to non-formal languages'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I suppose this is a statement more apt for discussion under the guise of T-schema's and Tarski's undefinability theorem, no?

An excellent book that discusses arguments about Godel-Rosser outside of mathematics and philosophy of mathematics is 'Godel's Theorems' by Torkel Franzen. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, thanks for this. I'll be sure to give it a look.

What would "extend the import to non-formal languages" mean? — TonesInDeepFreeze

As the topic progressed, I simply will rephrase the OP to look, as the following:

Are Gödel's incompleteness theorems applicable to non-formal languages?

If so, then the question follows, if it doesn't then it does not. Therefore, I think the need for that condition to be met is a sine qua non for Gödel's incompleteness theorems to have anything to do with non-formal languages, such as natural languages.

Thank you.

I don't think Godel's has anything to do with natural languages. — tim wood

Why is that? What makes his theorems unapplicable to natural languages?

I'll bite. Non-formal language is descriptive, as such useful - "true" - wrt certain criteria, and as such never itself the truth. And the same for formal/technical language, the efference being that those users usually do not worry about truth. — tim wood

So, I think you are right about the centrality of truth in formal systems with axioms. Therefore, do you think that the very fact that we have circular definitions in our natural language denies what Gödel's incompleteness theorems can say about such languages?

So, since definitions are circular and the scope of natural languages take place in the world itself, then do you think that there's anything that can be said about Gödel's incompleteness theorems, within such a context?

It took me quite a while to figure all this out--I have had just the last few years to enjoy knowing who I am, understanding where I have been, what's coming up (at 77, one is into the last few chapters (maybe pages) of the book). I'm not complaining; my life was, over all, good. I had good friends; I loved and was loved; I had pretty good health; I was reasonably happy much of the time. Regrets? Sure. Mistakes? Absolutely. — BC

I'm pretty sure you're doing well health wise. I haven't heard of elderly putting drugs on their bucket list, have you?

Gavin Newsom — 180 Proof

Sure, as a Californian I would vote for his campaign...

Watch the 'we defeated Medicare' meme... :lol:

Yes, well I think it really is about genetics. If an illness originates or has a predisposition based of off genes then one can hope that gene therapy becomes the norm in the future. Just my 2 cents.

That said, why should philosophy not have a normative role as well. Maybe we are not discovering what the essence of “Truth”, “Knowledge”, or “Free Will”, but philosophers are inventing what these terms ought to mean. — Richard B

Yes, well Wittgenstein was a methodological nominalist, which in regards to common sense we might not be suited to answer the questions you ask about in terms of common sense.

For Wittgenstein, psychology attempts to relate what we experience with physical things, but in fact, we are just relating what we experience with experiences themselves. So, science aside I think we should focus on the problems philosophy ought to or is able to provide a way out for the fly.

We don't all cope equally well. — Vera Mont

Is escapism and the distractions some drugs offer a coping mechanism? I think we're getting into the discussion about reasons why people take drugs as a coping mechanism...

Might also be useful to recognise the distinction between narcotics and hallucinogens. They’re very different. I don’t know where cannabis fits in the scheme. — Wayfarer

Yes, the distinction only makes sense for the purpose those respective drugs are utilized for. So, when it comes to thrill seeking of otherworldly experiences, I think hallucinogens might fit the bill...

No. It was the other way around.

Indeed, one could almost say that hard drug producing countries (Myanmar, Afghanistan (opiates), Columbia (cocaine), China and Mexico (fentanyl) are engaged in biowarfare by flooding the United States and Europe (and other places) with drugs whose long term (or in the case of fentanyl--short term) use may result in death or disability. — BC

I always thought there was some kind of government nefariousness in supplying America with drugs. Those South American narcodollars are always utilized to subvert the aims and ambitions of South American politicians and politics.

There's so much to say on this topic but am limiting myself to only analyzing the reasons people take drugs. I find it an edifying discussion.

I'm not quite sure what an "emotional imbalance" is. Say more. — BC

Well, I think it appeals to those with mental disorders who seek out self medication. Just take the example of ADHD, they have a much higher statistical likelihood of trying marijuana for their diagnosis, whether it was labeled or not. Again, trauma seems like a high confounding factor as it was to Vietnam veterans who needed to feel comfortably numb after the horrors of war.

I have something to say alongside this topic, America was once very liberal about drugs in the early days. Some people sold snake oil laced with opium, Coca Cola used to provide cocaine once upon a time in their drinks and bennies with amphetamine salts were once popular. Then there were quaaludes and barbiturates people took. Only after the establishment of a Federal Drugs Administration all these excitements were limited to even eliminated by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

America is complex to say the least in what it allows and disallows.

I thought so. I wonder why you think this way? Care to elaborate? — Tom Storm

I doubt there's any fundamental all encompassing truth as to why people take drugs or what motivates them to do so as there are quite a few drugs out there...

But, it seems to me that part of the reason is emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. And then there's pure hedonism which seems like a non significant population of drug users, paradoxically. Does that make any sense?

You asked this from the beginning and it seems to me this has been answered. Is it that you don't agree or do you not like the answer? — Tom Storm

I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. In my deepest contemplation, I think the reasons for substance abuse can vary widely but almost always appeal to an emotional imbalance or ennui. I mostly think the majority of people on one drug or another have a hard time feeling loved or appreciated by anyone including those with or without close one's to talk to or reciprocate empathy or sympathy for their situation.

I live in California and we really have a high homelessness population...

Yes, but some people need that spice in their lives. There is an astonishing amount of money spent on drugs every year that supports organized crime.

I suppose the follow up question to this thread is to the point in asking, why do people want or need drugs? Is it curiosity or a need derived out of a sense of emotional poverty or boredom in ones life?

Thanks for the post BC!

Human beings in most cultures throughout history have used substances and had roles for mind altering experiences. We relish and build lives around exhilarating activities, risk taking, extreme sports, adrenalin inducing movies, etc, etc. Kids often go around in circles in order to spin out and fall over. We seem to be hard wired to try and mix things up with thrills, euphoria, elation and other similar sensations. Unless someone is on the spectrum, boredom and routine are often experienced as 'soul' destroying. Particularly when younger. — Tom Storm

Sure, but, how do you explain the negative image that the government presents of drug users, as you say? Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs.

To me, its interesting since, as you say, most cultures in human history have had some experiences with one mind altering or mood altering drug or the other.

To put this more succinctly, if I want drugs and the government doesn't allow it, then what gives?

I took a break from this topic, only to ponder about the things other users have said. So, I'm sorry if I don't address your post individually; but, you may find some of the contents of this post edifying instead...

I wanted to bring into the discussion the concept of homeostasis. Namely, that human beings tend to gravitate or naturally exist in a normalizing relationship with their natural tendencies to seek out homeostasis in their lives. Homeostasis is a state where a human being is in a stable state functioning. This state is commonly known as 'sobriety.'

Now, it might seem perplexing that a person seeks out a high or mind alteration by the administration of already mentioned substances to one's homeostatic state. Based on what has been discussed already in this discussion, people want new experiences or better mood in their daily functioning. Sometimes a person will drink alcohol, a commonly known substance, to improve their mood or alter their mood or even suppress some mood. So, because having a mood is in response to our memories and environment, then do other members think that altering one's mood reflects something about how our nature is susceptible to a dysregulated state of homeostasis. If so, what are your thoughts about the matter?

Regarding which, do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? Too many...

On the contrary all my formal education seemed designed to create the "ideal" conforming angst-ridden robot, that is all governments can cope with. — unenlightened

I can see the antipsychiatry sentiments here. Drugs have a purpose; but, not the ones you would prescribe.

When paychologists and psychiatrists turn into modern day shamans, things usually go downhill.

Witchdoctors and stuff.

To be amenable and flexible is part of sanity when it is a conscious choice, but when it becomes unconscious and rigid conformism, it is a madness of false identification and leads to horrors. Magas, Nazis, cultists, fanatics and zealots of all persuasions all suffer from the loss of reality in favour of ideology. This is sadly the mental condition of normality, that confers on the sufferer a complete confidence in their distorted thinking. Psychodelics in particular serve to break down the identification somewhat - with luck, the cracks that are made in the psycho-ceramic's everyday insane certainty will allow a glimpse of reality to reach the sufferer. — unenlightened

In my mind, what this means is that a good college education is of greater value for becoming open-minded and non-conformist. Then again, some people also take some drugs while at college. :victory:

For those with the blues, then the blues matter. :cool:

Drugs, seem like a distraction
— Shawn
So we agree on (this 'recreational' path of least effort) after all ...
... perhaps addictive intoxication (i.e. escape, distraction, self-anaesthetization) is the religion of the masses.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Yes; mostly. But, to every person there is a unique identifier to be held about what or even why (which psychology addresses) some things are desired to be distracted from. Non-trivial to address.

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that drug-taking is an attempt to fulfill a "spiritual" need? — 180 Proof

Yes. Instead of going to mass on Sundays, some people might prefer to smoke a joint or do whatever recreational stuff certain drugs have to offer.

If so, what's this "spiritual need grasping for? — 180 Proof

It seems like one of those existential questions, that only experiences endowed with significance and meaning can address.

And why isn't "spiritual" fulfillment just another form of futile ego-gratification (like e.g. overconsumption, status-seeking, addictive intoxication, etc)? — 180 Proof

I don't think it is futile. Seems to me to be more in line with hard to understand or attain. Not everyone can become a guru or saint.

What this means in my opinion, is that people routinely fail at their own quest for purpose and edification in everyday living. Where this follows in my mind, is a life concerned with virtue and eudaimonia, which philosophy addresses the best. Drugs, seem like a distraction in this view.

Do you think AI could and should plan your life? — NOS4A2

Regardless of any should's or oughts, AI is being utilized and (in the future) continue to be exploited to do so. Any should's or ought's, never stopped the rich and wealthy from becoming richer and more wealthy.

Thanks for the links. For quite a while I became interested in psychotronics, which the United States military was interested in for a while. The Army became interested in parascience and parapsychology for quite a while under the behest of the CIA, which did extensive studies into the practical applications of LSD and other psychedelics. MK-ULTRA is something you may have heard about. There are some chilling reports on YouTube about human experimentation under the Church Committee. Crazy times, the 60's.

There was a pretty good movie about psychotronics and all that other stuff the hippies were interested in: