Pareidolia

I'm mainly concerned about the brain activity being the same between awake and REM sleep states. If the mind is the brain, we should be conscious on both occasions but we're not. — TheMadFool

I thought your concern was the matter of the mind being physical or not. I don't see the connection to dream sleep and being awake.

Have you heard of lucid dreaming?

To show that the mind is not physical, all you have to do is show how it can be independent of the physical. That will be difficult to show. It would be like showing that you can have a conversation with someone in a vacuum, and neither of you can read lips. Sound wave patterns are weightless but require the medium of air to carry them.

I think all you need to do is show how a mind can exist independently of anything physical.

Maybe he’ll sign an executive order disallowing talking about death as a proportion of population.

I said in an earlier post that the simplest definition of "to flourish" I could find in online dictionaries is "to grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way."

It is hard to argue that what America is currently experiencing can in any way be described as "flourishing". Growth has taken a historic step backwards and as to health... — Thomas Quine

Steven Pinker makes a pretty convincing argument in Enlightenment Now. In any case, your definition is still foggy and how wise is it to aim for an unclear target?

Flourishing could mean that basic needs are met, including healthcare and education, and be measured by indicators like sustainability, relative level of happiness, having a sense of meaning, etc., none of which depend on economic growth.

Certainly Amazon is flourishing, but even if we take standard measures of business success, such as GDP or average corporate profits, the U.S. has taken a massive hit, like all countries but on many measures by far the worst of any developed country. This is in part because of a pervasive fetishization of individual liberty which makes containing the pandemic that much harder. — Thomas Quine

Strange that you equate GDP growth with flourishing. Climate change, the mass extinction of species, and other environmental degradations aren't usually considered conducive to human flourishing. Your own dictionary definition of flourishing includes, "..., especially as the result of a particularly favorable environment." Also, there are currently cultures that don't fetich individual liberty as we do, such as China and India, that are currently experiencing GDP growth that's lifting millions out of extreme poverty. But like other developed economies the growth will eventually decline. The point being that there's no apparent reason to conclude that the rugged individualism of the West has anything to do with economic decline.

Pinker argues that Enlightenment values lead to flourishing. I imagine that you would agree with that. This centers on values, however, and how can anyone be the judge of cultural values, much less force our own onto others?

If our goal is human flourishing, we must defend individual liberty, but not past the point where it threatens human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

How do you define human flourishing? Sorry if I’ve missed it, the topic is long. In the materialistic sense it could be said that Americans, for example, are flourishing, so things are good the way they are.

Interesting, thanks!

I understand Pigliucci's presentation of the dichotomy of control to be similar to Eastern philosophy in that what we have no control of will ultimately be unsatisfying (life is suffering), and since we have complete (not sure about that) control of developing our virtue it's bound to be satisfying, and it's in accord with our nature, being social and having the capacity of reason.

Absentee mail-in voting good, universal mail-in voting bad, supposedly because absentee follows a stricter process, but it doesn't.

In the absence of an explanation for the significance of a belief in a deity, I will assume that it has to do with spirituality/transcendence. I can fully appreciate that if that's the case. Pigliucci's stoicism isn't a problem for me in that regard because I had practice (realizing Buddhist emptiness, to put it plainly) before becoming interested in stoicism.

The capitalistic appropriation of traditional beliefs and practices is apparently a common theme. Buddhists lament mindfulness being used to increase work efficiency, for example. I recently read How to Change Your Mind, by Michael Pollan, and in it he mentions the practice of silicon valley creatives micro-dosing psychedelics to increase their creativity. Shamans have traditionally used psychedelics for spiritual purposes. Micro-dosing is too weak for that purpose.

I don’t [think] Trump will win, so it’s probably too little too late. — NOS4A2

After witnessing the last three and a half years I have to say that I don’t share your faith in humanity.

You might want to read Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism as well as Pigliucci for modern, godless (as it were) Stoicism. For me, the traditional Stoic view of God is appealing, as I can easily think of the universe/nature as something to be revered. — Ciceronianus the White

I've only read Pigliucci so am curious how God fits into a Divine Stoicism. If I remember correctly, Pigliucci claims that it can coexist with just about any metaphysics, but that's coexisting and not being integral.

Apparently Trump isn't doing well with suburban housewives so we'll probably be seeing more of this sort of thing. Fuck the poor!

It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Biden wins, if he’ll try to make inroads with the opposition party or if it will be all Tea Party gone wild.

I can't see the point of bringing genes into it. All we need to flourish is a healthy state of mind and body. That is taken away from many, even most, of us by modern life, beginning with the advent of agriculture and private ownership. We only require discipline to reacquire what would naturally be ours, but for the dire state of the environment, overcrowded cities and pervasive neurosis and addictive behavior of most of those of us who are "prosperous" in the modern world. — Janus

I bring genes into it in order to help understand the foundation of all morality. I don’t believe that it’s human flourishing because if it were then why aren’t we all flourishing? We’ve been around for thousands of years. There are signs of progress but there are also signs that we may be on the brink of self-destruction. Could it still be said that the foundation of morality is human flourishing if we all end up buried under the ashes of a nuclear winter? That or a similar fate is a possibility, and we are moral.

You say that “we only require discipline to reacquire what would naturally be ours“ but is that true? Would a hunter-gatherer society have the knowledge and discipline to flourish if an abundance of alcohol or high fructose corn syrup were made plentiful to them? Doubtful. We have a natural craving for sweetness, for example, that in the wrong circumstances will tend to lead away from flourishing.

We have a variety of moral intuitions that I assume have developed for particular circumstances, just as we have a variety tastes that fulfill various bodily needs. Perhaps our moral intuitions fulfill various specific social needs, like avoiding rejection or discouraging freeloading, and in the wrong circumstances can be counterproductive to flourishing.

Religious followers are not free to develop the ethical code being offered. If they do then they’ll no longer be considered part of the tradition. Developing virtue, as stoics do, leads to independence. This is why religions focus on following rules and not developing virtue, and why it doesn’t matter much if the rules are broken. Followers need to be kept dependent.

Traditional, in a word, or emphasizing the moral senses of sacredness or purity, loyalty, and authority/subversion (to ultimate authority).

Is Stoicism a suitable alternative to traditional Christian moral values for a modern pluralist society? — Ross Campbell

No. Religious moral values are not about developing virtue, they’re about binding a group with a common creed, values, purpose, and so on.

There is no replacement for a sky father. We have to simply grow up.

I would have thought carrying the bricks would be the curse and finally questioning why you're doing it would be breaking free of that curse. — Harry Hindu

Every day you breathe in and out, over and over again, but eventually you’ll stop and that will be the end of breathing. Is realizing the ultimate futility of it, or the option to not breathe, liberating? Or maybe you feel free in realizing that you can breathe, when you know that others are not so fortunate.

Selfish genes seek to reproduce into the next generation. — Thomas Quine

They seek to reproduce genes that are most like themselves and that’s why the term ‘selfish’ is used. They do not seek to reproduce genes that are unlike themselves.

They do this by helping to create species that flourish.

As I’ve mentioned already, it’s a matter of degrees of likeness, and that includes intraspecies likeness. Genes don’t seek to reproduce a specific set of genes, like all human genes, they seek to reproduce that which is closest to themselves.

As someone who appears to value science I don’t know how you can ignore this.

:yikes: I neglected to realize that the Clinton administration was in the 90’s, two decades after you say term ‘identity politics’ was coined, and two decades into the working class becoming less expensive to capital class/government.

... morally speaking we should all accept a diminution of our prosperity if that would afford equal prosperity to all others. But we are not sufficiently morally motivated. I would say most of us only care about what affects, or would be likely to significantly affect, themselves and those they may be more or less intimately involved with. — Janus

Closer to home and therefore more likely to share genes. This indicates that the foundation of morality is ‘selfish genes’ and the intuitions and moral frameworks that arise from them, and not human flourishing.

The fact that we must learn and practice well-being, and that it requires discipline, also indicates that it’s rather against the grain of our base nature.

the slack of the nuclear family's childcare has to be picked up by close relatives and the state. — fdrake

On the other end of life, things aren’t looking good for eldercare, with the working class losing ground in recent decades and entitlements or “free things,” as some conservatives say, being cut.

Can you show any evidence of that happening in the 70’s? Evidence would be convincing.

I would freely divulge my conscious insecurities but I don’t want to bore anyone, and we’ve stayed far enough from the topic as it is.

You shouldn’t be ashamed of your condition, I will add. Many of us have been there and worked through it. The trick is learning how to relax.

Hush now, my child. Soon you'll be asleep again in the garden of safe space. — MadWorld1

Funny you would say such a thing, I received a PM today from Outlander demanding that I “hush” because he fears that you are suicidal.

Is that a hoax or should I be the one reassuring you?

I doubt anyone would claim that Americans are among those with the greatest lack of well-being, at least not in the material sense. Millions of children die of malnutrition each year in other parts of the world. Basic needs come before grand eudaemonic schemes.

Is it because human flourishing is the foundation of morality that makes it so easy to turn a blind eye to human suffering? We are moral, aren’t we?

It is not generally regarded as immoral though. The so called American Dream, for example, is highly praised by much of the world.

A good point among others is made by Weinstein (starting at 17:52) that under Clinton the left's traditional voting block, organized labor, was replaced as it made some quite expensive economic demands. And it replace was with identity politics was cheaper, or that you could get people with very little relying on identity politics. I think Weinstein's insight is great to answer why identity politics, rights of minorities (sexual or racial) have become the focus rather than the working class in general. — ssu

To enact this replacement they mention three bases of power or influence: the media, education, and the courts. Somehow these were used to convince organized labor to care more about identity politics than their rights and their paychecks. Courts tend to be more judicial than persuasive so I think we can rule them out of the convincing part.

The media, as Weinstein says, tends to report news that aligns with whatever political narrative an outlet favors, and they tend to not report what doesn't align. I think what he means is that news outlets cater to the interests of their audience, because they're interested in maintaining and growing an audience in order to make money. That being the case, organized labor was more interested in identity politics than news about what effected their rights and paychecks?

Identity politics thrived in academia around the 70', I imagine. It's unclear, however, how academia so readily convinced labor to care more about identity politics than their rights and paychecks.

Getting back to the courts, Weinstein claims that the Warren Court overreached and much of their decisions had to be rolled back. That's fascinating because the Warren Court is famously known as the only court that tended to support the interests of the working class, shortlived as it was.

Well-being usually refers to a brain state and thus is a subjective measure and a measure of how well an individual is doing. — Thomas Quine

It’s not entirely subjective, for instance, there ways to physically measure stress and serotonin levels, which correlate to mental well-being.

The modern urban lifestyle is typically regarded as being high stress, incidentally, which would be odd if the foundation of morality were human flourishing, or it’s an indication that the modern lifestyle is generally immoral?

What country are you from?

Scaremongering isn't limited to one side, — ssu

You mean like that the-shy-is-falling climate change bullshit or that Trump is Hitler reincarnated? The latter is definitely true. :scream:

defending the utility of narratives with an ad hominem — MadWorld1

I was merely attempting to simultaneously explain your aversion to them and amuse myself. Only questionable stories need defending.

why should I do anything when you've...

You choose to whine instead of dispute, how unsurprising.

What makes it an issue is our glorious leader saying things like the following at campaign rallies:

Virtually every Democrat candidate has declared their unlimited support for extreme late-term abortion, ripping babies straight from the mother’s womb, right up until the very moment of birth.

Such comments are designed to appeal to the conservative moral framework, and pathetically, they actually work.

If your mental gymnastics were more entertaining I might engage with more of them, but I haven’t completely disengaged.

I don’t know what to make of your irrational aversion to narratives. Did your mother only read unpleasant stories to you as a child?

And if you don’t want to dispute my assertion about the Trump administration favoring the rich and powerful over the working class that is your choice.

But the more urgent question is why doesn’t Scandinavia have any restrictions on late-stage abortion?
— praxis

This is false. — ssu

So why would Madworld be inclined to vote for a candidate based on the criteria that they support late-stage abortion restrictions?

We need a better class of trolls around here.

Come on praxis! At least be original! — MadWorld1

I seriously have no idea of what you’re babbling about with that.

If you think it through you'll see that it makes no sense.

Working class Trump supporters working against their own interests is entirely senseless.

You still haven’t disputed any of my allegedly controversial assertions, by the way.
— praxis

What is there to even respond to?

Exactly.

Not good enough

But you would still vote for a candidate that under performs. Anyone who supports Scanexit, aye?

I am interested to hear what you were referring to there- how/where/when did Nietzsche "falter in his rejection" of either faith (in the relevant epistemic sense- i.e. faith-that certain propositions are true, not faith-in) or nihilism, and what do you think follows from this? — Enai De A Lukal

I wasn’t talking about Nietz and the faltering was hypothetical, a review of the posts above will reveal. Also, I couldn’t answer because I don’t know the philosophy in question, the core of which rejects both faith and nihilism.

Incidentally, like Pfhorrest I’m not religious or nihilistic. I believe that I understand these things, how they fit in human development, but it would be awkward to say that I reject them and especially that the rejection was core.

... is also based on more than mere faith. — Enai De A Lukal

I doubt that Pfhorrest’s philosophy is based on mere faith.

so what?

So don’t be hung-up with the notion of faith. It’s not only about religious belief.

Well sure, but utterly unquestionable/infallible vs. a matter of faith strikes me as an obviously false dilemma- there is ground in the middle, right? — Enai De A Lukal

I suppose the middle ground here is faith in one’s reasoning.

And being faithful to a given endeavor is a different matter than having faith in this or that proposition or belief.

Pfhorrest spoke of rejection, of two things, and it being core to his philosophy, so if he faltered in his rejection wouldn’t that show a lack of faith?

I imagine most would agree that good philosophy should involve sound reasoning, no? And sound reasoning renders faith superfluous/unnecessary (faith comes in precisely where/when we lack a sound rational or evidential basis for something). — Enai De A Lukal

Sound philosophical reasoning is still questionable, right? and a pursuit, of truth or wisdom or whatever, and one can be faithful to that pursuit.