None of the above.
— counterpunch

Care to elaborate? — Pfhorrest

Glad to. Thanks for asking.

To my mind, the organism evolves in relation to a causal reality, and has to be 'correct' to survive. From the structure of DNA, to physiology, to the behaviours of animals, all are crafted by the function or die algorithm of evolution to be correct to reality, or are rendered extinct. To illustrate the point we might ask: why does a bird build a nest before it lays eggs? Does it know and plan ahead? Unlikely. Rather, all the bird like creatures that didn't are extinct. This is behavioural intelligence crafted by the function or die algorithm of evolution.

Human evolution begins with primate tribal groups - and it's here we see the origin of morality. Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. They share food and groom each other, and remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly. A moral sense is advantageous to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe composed of moral individuals. Assuming humans were little different in the early stages of their evolution, the origin of morality is a behaviourally intelligent evolutionary response to the environment, and manifests as an innate moral sense.

Human beings developed intellectual intelligence, and much later joined together to form multi-tribal social groups. At this point they needed an explicit moral code - so that, any dispute would not split the social group into its tribal elements. They justified social rules (think Moses coming down the mountain with the ten commandments and uniting the tribes of Israel) with reference to God. Society required faith in God, and consequently the origin and nature of morality was forgotten. Morality became objectivised - and it's this objectivised morality that is a separate magisterium to reality, truth, facts etc. Whereas, the moral sense is a consequence of the truth relation between the organism and a causal reality, and a innate part of human understanding.

In light of this, consider Hume's famous observation:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

Putting aside the usual implication of this argument, it's what human beings do - and cannot help but do when presented with a list of facts. We see the moral implications of those facts. Facts are not a separate magisterium to us, because we are imbued with an innate moral sense, in turn a behaviourally intelligent, evolutionary response to a causal reality.

This much, I'm fairly certain about. But to get speculative, it gets interesting when considered in relation to the Anthropic Principle - which states that in order for intelligent life to exist, the universe must have qualities that allow for the existence of intelligent life. If morality is a behaviourally intelligent response to a causal reality, one could draw the implication that the universe has moral qualities.

None of the above.

I am discussing Strawson's argument. Criticising it. It's called philosophy. — Bartricks

You're not though. It's like I said earlier:

Your threads descend into arguments about the argument because it's not Strawson's views being debated. — counterpunch

I posted Strawson's Basic Argument and commented on it. You have ignored Strawson's argument, and dismissed the comment as gobbledygook, and have insisted on your restatement of his argument.

If not A, and
If not B, and if
A+B=C
Not C!

Your restatement is not debateable, because you have removed all the debateable questions about how moral responsibility is formed and operates.

What you've done is create another: "God is omnipotent. He can do anything! Anything means anything!" You then adopt this non-debateable position as your own, because your purpose is to win. You're not doing philosophy. You're doing rhetoric. And in rhetorical terms, you just got your ass handed to you!

So we're debating your argument - which is:

If one is not morally responsible for A, and one is not morally responsible for B, and A and B are causally responsible for C, then one is not morally responsible for C. — Bartricks

End of debate. Nothing to see here!

The Catholic Church is 100% committed to ecology and fighting climate change. — Olivier5

Good to hear. I need £10bn to start with, and a further £20bn over 10 years. The plan is to drill through hot volcanic rock, and pump water through, to produce steam, to drive turbines, to produce massive base load clean electricity. This electrical energy will be converted into hydrogen for distribution, to be burnt in traditional power stations, and used as fuel for transport. I also aim to develop large scale desalination and irrigation technology, carbon capture and storage, and recycling technologies - only viable given a virtually limitless supply of clean energy. DM me with the details! Thank you!

Flying cars and robot butlers!

Your guesses hide a multitude of sins. It beggars belief that Descartes would uproot his life and move to another country, were he not assured of a welcome reception. And yet, you guess - she knew nothing of the works of the most famous philosopher in Europe until he arrived? You said:

In truth Christina didn't like Descartes's philosophy, which she found too mechanistic, — Olivier5

A surprise to all, then? Something doesn't add up.

You are imagining a kind of cosmic battle between science and religion, — Olivier5

If you mean to say, that I'm illustrating the suppression of science as an understanding of reality in order to maintain the overlapping authorities of religious, political and economic ideology, you might argue that I'm colouring carelessly outside the lines, but the outline is not imagined.

...in which Galileo was a hero of science and Descartes a kind of traitor, while the 'aristocracy' and the Church are on the other side, fighting for obscurantism. But my contention is that the historical facts paint a far more complex and less manichean picture. — Olivier5

"Manichaeism was a major religion founded in the 3rd century AD by the Persian or Parthian prophet Mani (c. 216–274 AD) in the Sasanian Empire."

That is one obscure reference. The only person I've ever known use it is former Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams! It's incredibly apt because of the dualistic cosmology of Manichaeism. I am arguing that Descartes was intellectually dishonest - or what you would call prudent; while Galileo was intellectually honest, and condemned for it.

Galileo is my own hero too, more so than Descartes, so no dispute on his contribution. But he, like Descartes and all the others, was a devout Christian educated by the Church and tied to it in many other ways, including financially. — Olivier5

No doubt. Newton, 150 years later, in England - had to hide his unconventional religious beliefs in order to advance in his academic career. That's rather the point. Our relationship to science was set 400 years ago, in the context of religious oppression, and has never been revisited. I am arguing that relationship is mistaken - and that science now paints an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, to which it behoves us to attend.

So this battle between science and religious tradition was happening within the Church. It was not pitting the Church vs the scientists, but splitting the Church and her flock in two camps: those who believed that scripture was the only certain source of knowledge, and those who thought that human reason and observation were God-given faculties that, if used well, could help get a glimpse of the glory of God through the study of His creation. — Olivier5

I have argued that the Church might have welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so imbued scientific knowledge with authority, such that politics - justified in some part by the authority of God, would necessarily have had much more regard for science as an understanding of reality, particularly in the application of technology. Had that been so, perhaps now, we would not be facing a climate and ecological crisis that threatens the stability of civilisation, and perhaps thereby, the existence of humankind. Instead, we are faced with something of a grinding of the gears to survive, or a smooth ride into oblivion.

You presented his being invited to the court of Queen Christina as a reward for his supposedly 'subjectivist' philosophy, which the powerful would have some interest in promoting... In truth Christina didn't like Descartes's philosophy, which she found too mechanistic, and he fell sick and died as a direct result of accepting her invitation to Stockholm. So your nice conspiration theory crumbles. — Olivier5

You're right, I did. When all I can realistically defend is, that unlike Galileo - Descartes was at liberty to accept such an invitation, and not on trial for his life and soul, his works banned from publication. It's puzzling though - why Descartes would be invited to the Royal Court of Sweden, if Queen Christina so objected to his ideas?

It was a thought experiment about doubting the world, not a real doubt. He was just playing with the idea of radical doubt. — Olivier5

Rather puzzling again. Do you suppose then - that, in search of certain knowledge, a philosopher of Descartes calibre, was simply unaware of Galileo's hypothetico-deductive methodology?

You don't get it. — Olivier5

What don't I get?

Pain can sometimes be an illusion. Descartes cogito's point is that one cannot doubt the doubter himself. — Olivier5

You think I don't understand Descartes conclusion? You jest, surely!

Descartes was well aware of the existence of an objective reality, and his cogito is an attempt to prove that it does exist. — Olivier5

No, his argument was ostensibly, a search for certain knowledge. But Descartes method of doubt boxes him into a solipsistic corner; where all he can assert is that he exists - a point with no implication because the world has been doubted away. He relies upon an appeal to the existence of God to rescue his argument from this oblivion.

Thus I see plainly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends strictly on my awareness of the true God. So much so that until I became aware of him I couldn’t perfectly know anything. Now I can achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters,

Descartes did scrap a book almost ready to publish on heliocentrism, after the second Galileo trial, because he was afraid of being jailed. So he was prudent. But he was not the mouthpiece of the Church. After his death all his books landed on the Church index of prohibited works. — Olivier5

Jailed? Do you mean damned and tortured to death? Galileo's imprisonment was lenient. The Church was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. And it was by these means - science as an understanding of reality was divorced from science as a tool used by industry from 1730, to drive the Industrial Revolution. Sure, there's more to the story of Descartes than appears in the headlines, but isn't there always. Nonetheless, it remains that the argument for subjectivism was written in terror of the Church, to accord with religious doctrine - to the exclusion of scientific method as a means to certain knowledge.

What is the importance of Descartes?
Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) French philosopher and mathematician. Descartes is considered the founder of modern philosophy

Should have been Galileo!

Your assessment of Strawson's argument has nothing whatsoever to do with his argument. I mean, what on earth does this mean. It's complete gobbledygook. — Bartricks

I'm unable to help you with your incomprehension. They are English words, plainly spoken.

if one is not morally responsible for A, and one is not morally responsible for B, and A and B are causally responsible for C, then one is not morally responsible for C. — Bartricks

Where is this from? You attribute it to Strawson, but I did not find it among his writings.

The argument seems to turn on this pivot; and therein lies the weak link.

(5) But one cannot really be said to choose, in a conscious,
reasoned, fashion, to be the way one is mentally speaking,
in any respect at all, unless one already exists, mentally
speaking, already equipped with some principles of choice,
'P1' - preferences, values, pro-attitudes, ideals - in the light
of which one chooses how to be.

As the assertion is that moral responsibility is impossible, given Strawson's argument here, it would have to be Robinson Crusoe - cast away on a desert island, far removed from any real world moral expectations of him, in regard to which he may or may not be morally responsible, and reliant solely upon his own resources, for this condition to hold. And arguably, a man alone cannot be moral or immoral. This raises a suspicion that, the sterile conditions of Strawson's basic argument create the conditions in which moral responsibility becomes impossible.

A more cumbersome statement of the Basic Argument goes as
follows.
(1) Interested in free action, we are particularly interested in
actions that are performed for a reason (as opposed to 'reflex'
actions or mindlessly habitual actions).
(2) When one acts for a reason, what one does is a function of
how one is, mentally speaking. (It is also a function of one's
height, one's strength, one's place and time, and so on. But
the mental factors are crucial when moral responsibility isin
question.)
(3) So if one is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must
be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking -at
least in certain respects.
(4) But to be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking,
in certain respects, one must have brought it about that one is
the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects. And it
is not merely that one must have caused oneself to be the way
one is, mentally speaking. One must have consciously and
explicitly chosen to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in
certain respects, and one must have succeeded in bringing it
about that one is that way.
(5) But one cannot really be said to choose, in a conscious,
reasoned, fashion, to be the way one is mentally speaking,
in any respect at all, unless one already exists, mentally
speaking, already equipped with some principles of choice,
'P1' - preferences, values, pro-attitudes, ideals - in the light
of which one chooses how to be.
(6) But then to be truly responsible, on account of having chosen
to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects,
one must be truly responsible for one's having the principles
of choice P1 in the light of which one chose how to be.
(7) But for this to be so one must have chosen P1, in a reasoned,
conscious, intentional fashion.
(8) But for this, i.e. (7), to be so one must already have had some
principles of choice P2, in the light of which one chose P1.
(9) And so on. Here we are setting out on a regress that we
cannot stop. True self-determination is impossible because it
requires the actual completion of an infinite series of choices
of principles of choice.
(10) So true moral responsibility is impossible, because it requires
true self-determination, as noted in (3).

https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/The%20Impossibility%20of%20Moral%20Responsibility%20-%20Galen%20Strawson.pdf

Well, my theory about that would be because I'm debating with people who can't recognize an argument from their elbow. The main argument I made in the OP - the one that's interesting and novel - is one that no-one yet seems even to have noticed or said anything about. — Bartricks

At the risk of confusing the OP for my elbow, I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific about what you consider interesting and novel - because my reading of the OP, is a poor presentation of the ideas put up for discussion, buried in a mess of wild logic chopping.

And therein lies at least one answer to the question I asked earlier. Your threads descend into arguments about the argument because it's not Strawson's views being debated. Have you thought maybe, about removing yourself from the picture - and debating the philosophy?

I don't deny facts, ever. But the fact Descartes died is somewhat incidental - (unless he really was poisoned by a Catholic missionary, as apparently, Theodor Ebert suggests.)

I have read the 'cogito ergo sum' argument many times, and cannot believe it a credible argument from a man, whom - as you say, was a scientist and a philosopher and invented Cartesian coordinates.

As he was a gifted, rational man, how could he have not realised his 'evil demon' argument was sceptical doubt, as opposed to rational doubt? How could he have doubted that the world exists, and that his own body exists, and not cared if it was credible doubt?

In an argument that ostensibly seeks to establish knowledge that is certain, he moves past physical experience, like pain - a primary sensation prior to cogito, without so much as an acknowledgement. Why? Because he already had a conclusion in mind - that, thrusting his hand into the fire and finding 'I'm in pain, therefore I am' - would rule out, by implying the undeniable existence of an objective reality, it was his intent to undermine.

In relation to the withdrawal of a work on physics from publication, in direct response to Galileo's trial - we can very reasonably conclude that Descartes wrote the 'cogito ergo sum' argument to accord with Church doctrine - using a dubious method to find certain knowledge in the subjective/soul, rather than, find meaning in the physical world through hypotheses tested by the evidence of the senses - and maybe find himself on trial for his life.

Cod psychology. How about addressing the argument I made? That's what a philosopher would do... — Bartricks

Well, if it's cod psychology, I thought we could just cut straight to the argument about the argument. Isn't that what every one of your discussions devolves to? Why is that, do you think?

You don't know. You really don't. You don't know that the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of society is just made up, and can't see it because you draw your identities and purposes from it, and above all you've got to be right, especially when you're wrong. Science is not just a tool with which to pleasure yourself and threaten others. It's an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of the reality you inhabit; what at one time you called Creation. Remember? You had me stand in assembly to sing songs about it. So don't tell me now it doesn't matter, just because I figured it out.

You made a stupid, immodest mistake in defence of your own power and privilege you can't blame on the run-away train of civilisation. The continued existence of the human species is at stake, and you're responsible. You made science a heresy, and rendered it a whore to industrial and military power. In 400 years you have never revisited that arrangement - even as science has surrounded you with technological miracles, you continue to believe the superstitious myths that so unjustly order society, and so now, here we are, looking extinction in the eye.

All you need to do is accept that science describes reality best, and act accordingly. Tap into the limitless heat energy of the molten interior of the earth, and use that energy to secure a sustainable future. I'm not asking you to start over or turn back - but secure the future, now, before it's too late. Extract carbon from the air and bury it. Desalinate water to irrigate land, and farm it, rather than burning the forests and bleeding rivers dry. Produce hydrogen fuel, recycle, farm fish. Give us the hope of a future, and maybe - just maybe, we won't have so much not to complain about.

If we are to use history as a source of philosophical insight, it might be useful to recall a few important points. One is that Queen Christian was well versed about the heliocentric system. Her favorite philosopher was Gassendi, an heliocentric. Another is that, while Galileo did live under house arrest, he died in his bed at the respectable age of 77, while Descartes died at the tender age of 53, of pneumonia, four months after accepting the queen's invitation to come to Stockholm. According to Wiki, neither the weather nor the queen agreed with him. Should have stayed in his bed... — Olivier5

Important in what regard? It remains, Galileo was grievously suspect of heresy - which is about a hair's breadth from being burned alive, while Descartes was rubbing shoulders with European aristocracy. And so it remains that science as an understanding of reality was potentially heretical - while subjectivism was potentially a ticket to the big show!

Are you suggesting that had no effect on the subsequent development of philosophy?

I cringed reading the introduction to Rousseau's Inquiry into the Causes of Inequality 1755 - a brilliant piece of writing that foreshadows Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations 1775, and Darwin's evolutionary theory, 1859. It begins with a crawling apologetic to the Church for even daring to think in rational terms.

It depends on what you mean by philosophy! My interest; in correcting our relationship to science in order to secure the continued existence of humankind is in my view, entirely consistent with a literal translation of the word philosophy: love of wisdom.

I don't see the wisdom in undermining the truth value of scientific knowledge with philosophical ghost stories, to maintain religious belief. I think your love is self love; not a love of philosophy of itself, but rather your philosophy stems from a desire to construe yourself as spirit, above and beyond the mere physical and objective.

I think you're mistaken. You are not the centre of Creation. Science is not here to flatter you. But if you attend closely, and act accordingly, it will save your life.

You have failed this class. — Bartricks

You have failed to defend your thesis. And ironically, done so by failing to act in a morally responsible manner. You have acted, as I would have expected you to act - because that's who you are! Your disingenuous style of argumentation is inherent to your character, and so perhaps there is something to Strawson's claims after all. I'm would add, perhaps, that it takes someone who is blisteringly lacking in self-awareness to play out their script - so consistently, to ill effect, without revision.

Tomkins, Silvan. "Script Theory". The Emergence of Personality. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1987.

From my perspective, you don’t understand what I’m talking about, whilst I think I have at least an inkling of your point. In any case, please don’t let this stop you from reading Thomas Nagel, because he is one of the leading philosophers in the English-speaking world, and very well worth reading. — Wayfarer

I could just read Descartes - and extrapolate slightly. It's not like any subjectivist could ever have anything new to say, is it really? That's the problem with the haunted butthole hypothesis. It's something of a dead end philosophically speaking. What's it like to have nothing new to say in 400 years?

Meanwhile, science is taking photos of craters on mars, discovered the stones of Stonehenge are from Wales, 300km away, is tackling climate change, has built the world's biggest telescope - a square kilometre across, has plans to visit Europa, has discovered the world's smallest reptile, awwww, found new bat coronavirus evidence - and so on. What's Nagel gazer on about? Ah yes, his haunted butthole!

In the OP I expressed disagreement with one of Strawson's claims, — Bartricks

Opening line:

Contemporary philosopher Galen Strawson wrote a famous article called 'The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility' in which - as the title suggests - he argued that it is not possible for anyone to be truly morally responsible. I think he is wrong. — Bartricks

Closing line:

So there we are: Strawson is wrong. — Bartricks

Nothing in-between indicates any agreement with, or acceptance of any part of his argument.

Really? — Bartricks

You expressed no agreement with Strawson in the OP. You expressed strong disagreement; and then asked me if I agree with you and Strawson. Either you're an idiot or a snake. Your choice!

Erm, Strawson thinks more than one thing. — Bartricks

I also think more than one thing. Given that I had already expressed a view that we are morally responsible, when you asked me:

Do you agree with Strawson and myself that if one is in no way morally responsible for A, and in no way morally responsible for B, and A and B are wholly causally responsible for C, then one is in no way morally responsible for C? — Bartricks

You must have assumed I would disagree, but the crude arithmetic of these propositions is sound - if one accepts the propositions; and so you were inviting me to make as ass of myself. Alternatively, the more difficult route, would be that I agree with the crude arithmetic, and you attack me with the metaphysical implications. Neither seemed particularly attractive, and so instead, I decided to stick with what I wrote, and mock your clumsy attempts at boxing me in.

Yeah, you do that. I'll be thinking about being reduced to words of one syllable to get past your apparent incomprehension - and then being told, that's an interesting reading, goodbye!

In the hands of Descartes, a means of asserting the primacy of the subjective - to undermine the significance of the objective, such that science could be used without being recognised as truth.

You mean, failing to appreciate the role of science in the understanding of reality is the blind spot? — Wayfarer

Not quite. I mean failing to appreciate that science is a valid understanding of reality, relative to overlapping religious, political and economic ideologies - is the blind spot, and it's a mistake held in place by subjectivism.

So there we are: Strawson is wrong. Contrary to what he has argued, moral responsibility is not impossible, — Bartricks

Do you agree with Strawson and myself ... — Bartricks

If Strawson is wrong, and you agree with him, that would make you wrong.

So, no - I don't agree with you!

lol.

Surely you must agree that Descartes' invention of algebraic geometry was one of the major foundations of the 'Scientific Revolution'? It allowed the application of the newly-discovered laws of motion and general scientific method across a universal range. — Wayfarer

I really couldn't say. I'm not so well versed in math that I could judge the significance of Descartes algebraic geometry in the history of mathematics. A quick wiki suggests: "Some of the roots of algebraic geometry date back to the work of the Hellenistic Greeks from the 5th century BC."

Is that so? — Wayfarer

Yes, it is so. Anna Goddi was the last witch burned alive by the Church in 1792 - 60 years into the Industrial Revolution. I mention this, not to cast moral aspersions, but to illustrate the disparity of reason between science and religiosity.

Of course they should have. And in reality, there was a progressive sect inside the Church who was horrified by Galileo's treatment, and who argued strongly against the proceedings. Regretably, the ultra-conservatives won the day - and not only on religious grounds. There were many factors driving the whole affair, some of which were political in nature. — Wayfarer

The only reason I indulge in 'should have' is to illustrate the mistake, and show how it plays out in relation to our mistaken relationship to science, now, as we approach upon the climate and ecological crisis. I have argued elsewhere that it's futile to project one's modern day moral sensibilities onto the past. I cannot doubt the piety of the Church. I was an understandable mistake - but with massive, unforeseen consequences we need now, to get to grips with.

Whether it is or is not a virtue - it has enormous strengths, on the one hand, but also has its blind spots, which I still don't think you've acknowledged — Wayfarer

I'm trying. You're not making it easy. You distinguish between subject and object. I'm making a distinction between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality - and suggesting that the latter is the real blind-spot.

I’ve never encountered this reading of history before. The orthodox account is that Cartesian algebraic geometry was a crucial foundation for the ‘new science’ of Newton and Galileo. The other crucial element was the definition of primary and secondary qualities, with the former being those which were amenable to precise mathematisation and the latter being relegated to the mind of the observer. This set the stage for modern scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

Galileo's Trial for heresy was 1634. Descartes didn't publish Meditations until 1641. Galileo had already made the necessary distinctions between subject and object to allow for scientific method in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, before Descartes introduced subjectivism as the only certain truth in defence of religious thinking.

It was only because of what the Church did to Galileo, Descartes withdrew his essay on physics, "The World" from publication, and maintained throughout his life a subjectivist defence of the soul - that for example, in relation to his communications with Harvey, an English anatomist concerned with the function of the heart, clearly inhibited scientific advancement.

What if, instead of finding Galileo grievously suspect of heresy, the Church had welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so afforded a scientific understanding of reality - the moral authority of God's word? Truth of Creation! Science would have been openly and enthusiastically pursued and integrated as an authoritative moral truth into political and economic decision making.

Instead, science was decried as heresy; stripped of anything but practical value - and used as a tool to drive the Industrial Revolution from 1730. All the while, for example, the Church burned people alive for witchcraft right through to 1792. If the Church had embraced Galileo, do you think that now, we'd be threatened with climate change, desertification, deforestation, overfishing, ocean full of plastics, etc, and be racing headlong for extinction? I'm not at all sure modern scientific materialism: the physical object to your spiritual subject, the scientific "is" to your religious "ought" is the unalloyed virtue you seem to think it is!

Well done for not addressing anything in the OP. — Bartricks

I have some slight suspicion that your congratulations are not sincere, and yet - I accept your congratulations sincerely because I am a philosopher, and as such can only respond in my own terms, in reference to my tradition.

If you demand I respond directly to the OP - I can, but only to point out that there you said Strawson is wrong, and now you say:

Do you agree with Strawson and myself that if one is in no way morally responsible for A, and in no way morally responsible for B, and A and B are wholly causally responsible for C, then one is in no way morally responsible for C? — Bartricks

If insincere congratulations are the order of the day: bravo!

What say all you really smart people? Has your intelligence helped you to become a better person, a more balanced individual, more content, or has it done just the opposite? — synthesis

Than what? Some hypothetical stupid version of myself?

I value intelligence above all. Therein lies the hope and purpose of humankind; to know!

You're almost there. It's about conserving energy when food is scarce. In winter, there's less food around, so the natural tendency is to conserve energy by conserving heat, rather than generate heat by burning energy. Odd how we are crafted by evolution in relation to the causal reality of the environment in ways that effect our behaviours, of which we're barely aware.

Humans left Africa 70,000 years ago, and migrated all around the world. We have adapted to local conditions; most obviously, the amount of melanin in the skin in relation to how much sunlight there is. There's been plenty of time to adapt an instinctual tendency to reduce activity in cold weather; a tendency I'm experiencing first hand - because when everyone in my building turns their heating on, I get no heat - and all I want to do is curl up against the cold. There's a good reason for it, and I've figured out what it is. I think it's an interesting puzzle, because subjectively, it's a bad strategy. I feel the cold much more when I'm curled up than I do when running around. It doesn't matter how cold it is if I keep moving, I hardly feel it. Yet...I don't want to. Why not?

I've just figured out something that's been bugging me for quite a while; that is, why - when it's cold do we instinctually want to curl up - rather than run around? After all, they say, he who chops the wood gets warmed twice. Quite difficult to explain in evolutionary terms, such that I thought maybe, it's molecular - y'know, how atoms slow down when it gets cold. But no. It is an evolutionary instinct. I just figured it out.

Oh, right - so is this book one long advert for Buddhism? I'm not in the market for a religion. I value existence..., I think ego is healthy....., 'stuff' is both productive and entertaining, meat tastes great, sandals look stupid, and men should wear trousers. Other than that, awesome!

Within the hierarchy of fabrications that compose our lives — Ligotti/CAHR

I don't get this passage in the way I got the last. I can comprehend the idea of the evolutionary organism, inventing god, nation and socio-economic class status, and wearing this ideological armour to hide his shameful, animal self. But beneath this disguise there remains a kinship tribal creature with parents and siblings, and the self - a moral being, existing in a state of nature. So I don't understand what he's deconstructing the world toward here - or how he dismisses the family or the self. I can only suppose he's driving toward nihilism, but that so, there are easier and more certain ways to get there. And in the midst of this, he speaks of salvation beginning from the bottom, but from what? What is left?

I'm learning, slowly, that imagining you can change someone's mind only leads to frustration. You've presented your arguments, and it seems like you were well prepared to do so. I was not. Yet I've given a counter argument, I hope proves more convincing to people - because I want my country and the world to get past this and move on as soon as possible.

Now you're just describing how vaccines work, and saying it 'seems a little screwy' I'm at a loss. The first vaccine, developed by Edward Jenner used cowpox to protect against smallpox. That's how vaccines work. They infect you with something relatively harmless to evoke an immune response that protects against infection by something much more deadly.

Your complaint about masks was only concerned with your own health, your argument about vaccines is irrelevant to the one being proscribed, and your medical ethics with regard to public health are dubious at best. I hope I've managed to show this.

Your wish for real data you can interpret yourself is a vain hope, given the urgency of the situation. I'm sure it will come in time, but you don't seem to have any appreciation of how damaging this situation is in so many other ways. I don't know why you're expressing your concerns here, or at all, to be honest. What's the alternative? All walk around with no masks and no vaccines and let 100 million plus people die - because you want data you can interpret for yourself? You're crazy!

There seems to be some truth to your concerns, but - I assume you're talking about the work of Chien-Te Tseng, Elena Sbrana, and Naoko Iwata - which was a VLP vaccine (virus like particles) whereas, the vaccine developed by Oxford AstraZeneca is an adenoviral vaccine.

The former was a synthetic, constructed molecule, whereas, the latter is a disease that causes the common cold in chimps, hollowed out and used as a vehicle.

In short, you are comparing apples and oranges. Your argument may be taken to indicate a general concern about the dangers of drug development, but is not specific to this vaccine. It's a completely different approach.

I see your dilemma but if all you have is uncertainty, would you not weigh that against the public health implications - of voicing those concerns, and perhaps undermining a vaccination program that you admit, will probably work?

I mean, they produce vaccines for specific strains of flu every year - and the reason they were able to turn this around in under a year, is that they plugged this virus into that infrastructure.

Exactly a hundred years ago - somewhere between 50 and 100 million people died of flu. How do you weigh that scale of threat against the possibility of autoimmune disease or hyperinflammatory response - and err against vaccination? I just don't understand your logic.

Analogically too, there is a blind-spot, but the essay is completely wrong about its nature and cause.
— counterpunch

So what is it really? — Wayfarer

Its the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. We use the tools, but pay no attention whatever, to science as an understanding of reality. See: climate change!

‘Blind spot? What do you mean, ‘blind spot?’ — Wayfarer

It's from the essay on your title page. The question rather, is what that essay means by blind spot? I simply disagree with that essay.

I suggest that if there is a "problem with science" it's not the assumption of an objective physical reality that exists independently of our experience of it. And it's not exclusion of the subjective - by virtue of such an assumption, but rather the divorce of science as a tool from science as a description of reality by Cartesian subjectivism in defence of religiosity.

Great. Good to know I haven't made a difference!