X-) Very droll.

It is the most original piece of thinking I've seen here so far, although there has been some fine exegesis on Indian Philosophy.

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

You're right. That's why you're absolutely wrong when you say the realities of our physical world supports the existence of reincarnation. They don't.

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

...and of course a Physicalist.

And then you start with the (erroneous) name-calling while failing to address my argument in any way. Considering you can't counter it in any way, that's not surprising.

So, the only one who has demonstrated himself to be a typical troll is you. So, I won't read or respond to any more of your trolling on this thread.

I won't be replying to "Thanatos Sand" again. — Michael Ossipoff

+1

He has some interesting ideas but the posturing is over the top. Posts that are so defensive are indicative of the lack of conviction in their author. A philosophical discussion cannot proceed only by attacking one's opponents.

I've been pretty much ignoring him. He doesn't add to the quality of the discussion.

"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

Quanta.

A wave function collapses, not when it is observed, so much as when it makes a difference.

It makes a difference when it is observed, so the reason for the confusion is clear.

But consciousness is not what collapses wave functions.

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. — Michael Ossipoff

You will notice I actually removed the sarcastic remark I made, and replaced it with another. But the point of the remark was that you're glossing over a lot of very significant differences. Also that I have yet to see any indication that you really understand or argue from the perspective of scepticism.

A wave function collapses, not when it is observed, so much as when it makes a difference.

It makes a difference when it is observed, so the reason for the confusion is clear.

But consciousness is not what collapses wave functions. — Banno

Collapsing wave functions are an artifact of the original Schrodinger equations. It survived for a couple of days decades (desire De Broglie's real model) because Van Neumann, the god of mathematics, proclaimed that a real model of the equations could not be derived. Enter Bohm who derived a real model version and collapse is now banished and Bohm gets a Nobel prize for doing the impossible. Well, not quite. Scientists insist on the old equation because they are easier to use and Bohm is more or less forgotten.

Sure. The take-home, again, is that mind is not central to physics.

Physics is written in the third person, not the first person.

...there is no evidence that there is a third person view... — unenlightened

I beg to offer a counterexample:

A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new. — Albert Einstein

I believe this is written in the third person. Am I wrong?

Similarities between Pyrrho and Buddhism have been noted by scholars, but I'm not aware of such a comparison being made in respect of Advaita. — Wayfarer

I defined Skepticism as the name of the metaphysics that I propose, and I explicitly clarified that it isn't the Greek philosophy called Skepticism. No similarity, derivastion, or other relation is claimed, between my Skepticism and Greek Skepticism.

Michael Ossipoff

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." ... "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all.

I defined Skepticism as the name of the metaphysics that I propose. — Michael Ossipoff

What Banno said.

You will notice I actually removed the sarcastic remark I made, and replaced it with another.

Actually no, I didn't notice that, because i didn't notice either "sarcastic remark".

Sorry about that, but I guess that sarcasm isn't what I expect at a discussion forum.

Naive me, I expect that people mean what they say.
— Wayfarer

But the point of the remark was that you're glossing over a lot of very significant differences.

Differences between Skepticism (I've clarified several times that, by "Skepticism", I refer the metaphysics that I propose, not to Greek Skepticism), and Advaita, I presume.

For now, at least, we can agree to disagree about how many differences there are between them.

Also that I have yet to see any indication that you really understand or argue from the perspective of scepticism.

Forgive for believing that rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-facts is skeptical :D

That's why I named my metaphysical proposal "Skepticism".

As I've already said several times, by naming my metaphysical proposal Skepticism, I make no claim for any similarity, derivation, or other relation between it and Greek Skepticism.

Michael Ossipoff

Let's talk about John.

John grew up in Canada, but moved to England. The atoms of his body that he started with were replaced by English atoms.

But he was still the same person.

John might have been elected Prime Minister. He might have won the lottery. But he didn't.

It was the same person who might have done these things.

John was in an accident, and lost his memory.

It was John who lost his memory. He was the same person.

John changed his name to Fred.

He was the same person.


Nothing about John remained the same for the duration of his life.

Funny thing is, for all that he was the same person.

Michael Ossipoff

" "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." — Banno

When I coin a usage or a term, or anyone coins a usage or a term,, it means, in the coiner's usage, what the word's coiner chooses it to mean--neither more nor less.

Coining a usage or term starts with stating the definition with which you will be using it--As I did, when I named my metaphysical proposal "Skepticism".

It's hardly unusual, improper or inappropriate to give a name to a proposal. ...by which to refer to it.

I'll repeat what I said to Wayfarer:

Forgive me for believing that the rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-facts is skeptical.

That skepticism is what distinguishes the metaphysics I call "Skepticism" from most other metaphysicses. Hence its name.

Michael Ossipoff.

I'll just add that posting "arguments" (either very sloppy, or insincere) like the ones that I've just replied to wastes your time and mine (if I reply).

As I've said elsewhere, i naively expect people to mean what they say, and say only what they can defend.

It really only makes sense to reply to people who post seriously-intendeed valid objections, arguments or questions,.

Sorry, I don't have time to reply to more postings from someone who habitually hasn't met those requirements.

Bye.

(It's just that today I noticed that I was wasting a tremendous amount of time replying to such things.)

Michael Ossipoff

Good for you. I agree that it is a waste of time defending names.

That was rather the point of my mentioning Humpty.

I've just gone back over your last half-dozen posts on this thread without being able to understand what you were getting at. Were you defending reincarnation? How did that fit with scepticism?

Now I guess I will never know.

It's hardly unusual, improper or inappropriate to give a name to a proposal. ...by which to refer to it. — Michael Ossipoff

Except when you take some recognizable terminology and use it in an entirely idiosyncratic way, which makes you a self-appointed expert in a school which has a single member.

3.3k

" I defined Skepticism as the name of the metaphysics that I propose". — Michael Ossipoff


What Banno said. — Wayfarer

Then I'll refer you to my reply to Banno.

Maybe you qualify for the benefit of the doubt--in case you really thought that I was referring to Greek Skepticism (though I'd already clarified otherwise). But now you're also trying to imply that it was somehow wrong, inappropriaate, or something, to use "Skepticism" as the name for a metaphysics that uses no assumptions or brute-facts..

I welcome and reply to posters who post seriously-intended criticisms of, objections to, or questions about Skepticism.
.
Michael Ossipoff

But then, names - or better, identity - is exactly what is at issue here.

We know from Kripke and friends that essences are logical rubbish.

So it is reasonable to reject the idea that it is an essence or soul that is reincarnated. Hence one can reject

shows a way of doing reincarnation without essences, but at the cost of not reincarnating the self. That should work.

I don't see reason to pay attention to mumbled quantum mechanics. Without the mathematics, it becomes very dubious.

is at least working with the notion of identity, but in a way that is different and a bit odd.

I don't see reason to pay attention to mumbled quantum mechanics. Without the mathematics, it becomes very dubious. — Banno

Philosophy is about putting together clues imagining patterns in differences and patterns. There are lots of patterns that can be discerned from Bohm's quantum potential.

Dean, to the physics department. "Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff. Why couldn't you be like the math department - all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper."

I really should go and do stuff.

It's the image that Bohm's quantum physics potential that is so interesting. Observe how the action is directed by the quantum potent potential and how a multitude of actions could create things including memory. Memory would not be in the brain, but instead would be embedded in the potential, and would not go away. The brain simply filters and recons reconstructs like a TV.

This video got 2 million views, which I find rather bewildering.

How is memory stored in quantum potential if the potential hasn't been realized yet?

Memory has very specific locations where it exists primarily as energy: "Short term memory is found in the frontal lobes and the parietal lobes of the brain. The hippocampus is necessary in forming long term memory but not in the storage of it."

The potential exists as a real field. I view it as fundamental intelligence. Pretty much what Daoists intuited thousands of years ago. When we see something "out there" it is because it really is out there, not in the brain.

Speaking of the quantum potential:

" ... it was later elaborated upon by Bohm and Basil Hiley in its interpretation as an information potential which acts on a quantum particle."

↪Thanatos Sand The potential exists as a real field. I view it as fundamental intelligence. Pretty much what Daoists intuited thousands of years ago. When we see something "out there" it is because it really is out there, not in the brain.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/89104#Post_89104

What real field? I'm sorry, but Daoists dont' take precedence over neurologists in matters of memory.. And there are things in the brain, like the frontal lobes, parietal lobes and the hippocampus. And that's where the neurologists say memory lies. You are, of course, free to go against science and say they're wrong.

n

OK. I get it. It all happens in the brain by magic and everything else is an illusion. Similarly, all the people we see on TV are hidden in the TV computer chips. Let me ruminate on the plausibility of the story.