How? And what proof?

'Natural goodness', as Philippa Foot, says is the immanent "source of the ethics" for natural beings – pursuing what is good for ((our) natural species') thriving and avoiding / reducing what is not good for ((our) natural species') thriving. A modern formulation of fundamental insight shared by Laozi, Kǒngzǐ, Buddha, Hillel the Elder, Epicurus-Lucretius, Diogenes the Kynic, Seneca-Epictetus, ... Spinoza, et al. — 180 Proof

There is a problem with basing ethics in what is good for one particular species. Much will be sacrificed for the good of that particular species.

More real reality?



Please, Blue Fairy, make me into a real live boy.

Watch the film and notice the use of the word "real".

"Much will be sacrificed" such as?

Anything other than that particular species.

Oh yeah, there's plenty of exciting new technology around the corner.

I think there were two versions. One left off the ending I think.

Reread the post of mine you've quoted. There's no mention of a "particular species". I wrote "natural species" with "our" in parenthesis to include h. sapiens. Maybe not clear enough ... well, "natural" connotes any other species as well as ours; so 'what's good for each species for thriving' is specific to each species and therefore differ, by degrees (not kind), from one another, suggesting that moral concern is, on a naturalistic basis, inherently pluralistic (i.e. inclusive).

about 15yrs of practice in lucid dreaming I found that their are for lack of a better term levels to existence and very dramatic ones at that

don't be so ignorant . If your going to ask such a question then you need to define what you mean by proof

Reread the post of mine you've quoted. There's no mention of a "particular species". I wrote "natural species" with "our" in parenthesis to include h. sapiens. Maybe not clear enough ... well, "natural" connotes any other species as well as ours; so 'what's good for each species for thriving' is specific to each species and therefore differ, by degrees (not kind), from one another, suggesting that moral concern is, on a naturalistic basis, inherently pluralistic (i.e. inclusive). — 180 Proof

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But now the sentence appears incoherent to me. Obviously what is good for some species is not good for other species. There is a natural competitiveness in the world which leaves most organisms in a state less than "thriving". The thriving of all species is completely counter to the natural process of evolution. Are you suggesting that morality should be based in an effort to put an end to evolution? This would not be naturalistic at all.

Describe what you mean by "more" – "more real (than) reality". — 180 Proof

Excellent question!

What you extrapolate consists of an assumed naturalistic fallacy and has nothing to do with the naturalistic conception proposed. Ethics, I contend, while grounded in, or conditioned by, nature, "evolution" (or directing/"ending" it) is not the goal of ethics, which is operable only at the level of culture-habitus and not biology. Your reading of my position, MU, seem uncharitable and tendentious to say the least. Anyway, forget me; read some P. Foot, O. Flanagan, D. Parfit, M. Nussbaum, A. Sen, P. Singer, K. Popper ...

↪jgill
about 15yrs of practice in lucid dreaming I found that their are for lack of a better term levels to existence and very dramatic ones at that — MAYAEL

I'm sure you will agree that the actual experience of these mental states cannot be adequately described to those who haven't enjoyed them. Years ago Steven King in one of his books narrates an instance of one of his characters emerging into an alternate reality in a country meadow so fresh and invigorating that one could smell an onion pulled from the earth a mile away.

However, this thread includes possible physical realities as well. Nevertheless, I encourage Tired Thinker to study the sort of practices you and I have enjoyed. Excursions into the realm of pure will.

How can you show a reality you have experienced is more real than the one most of the rest of us experience? Can you return here with information that we don't already have?

Your reading of my position, MU, seem uncharitable and tendentious to say the least. Anyway, forget me; read some P. Foot, O. Flanagan, D. Parfit, M. Nussbaum, A. Sen, P. Singer, K. Popper ... — 180 Proof

You might call my reading "uncharitable", but I simply do not understand how you can propose an ethics which proposes to give priority to all natural species. Clearly that is not a possibility. And regardless of how many names you can list off, of people who have supported this unrealistic idea, it flies in the face of the natural process which we call "evolution". So until you can provide some explanation as to how you can produce consistency between "what's good for each species for thriving", and the natural process called "evolution", I'll assume that your proposed type of ethics is a very unnatural attempt to constrain this natural process, therefore not a naturalistic ethics at all. It is an ethics of artificial interference.

I simply do not understand how you can propose an ethics which proposes to give priority to all natural species. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not understand it either since I have not proposed that. :roll:

so let me see if I understand you correctly. You sound like you're asking me if when I'm in a higher level of existence if I could grab some form of evidence of said higher level then come back down to this normal level of existence with that piece of the higher level so that I can show it to you so that you can then use the scientific method of evaluation (which only grants a small sliver of reality as "real" and dismisses the other 90% ) so that you can judge it to be true or not?... Is that what your asking me?

Essentially. Lol.

And for whatever it maybe worth people who had NDEs often report a more real reality. Any psychologically people here? Is there a reason why the mind would create such a thing, and how exactly could it? — TiredThinker

Yes. Brains on hallucinogenic drugs create imaginary realities that seem more real than mundane materiality. The "could" is easy to answer : the brain produces it's own chemicals to adjust its reactions to perceptions (e.g. endorphins ; opioids). But the street drugs merely exaggerate those normal effects. Sometimes the distorted feelings may feel heavenly, but they may also seem hellish . Take the drug, take your chances.

As, to "why" the brain would release abnormal amounts of those intrinsic neurotransmitters, when it detects signs (stress hormones??) of impending death, many NDE researchers are still looking for the answer. But most assume that it may have some last-ditch self-protection purpose. Why does consciousness black-out when you get hit on the head? Perhaps that allows you to roll with the punch. I don't know. :cool:

Hallucinogens are a diverse group of drugs that alter a person’s awareness of their surroundings as well as their own thoughts and feelings. They are commonly split into two categories: classic hallucinogens (such as LSD) and dissociative drugs (such as PCP). Both types of hallucinogens can cause hallucinations, or sensations and images that seem real though they are not.
Note -- drug addicts and NDE survivors typically wake-up to the same old sh*tty reality as before.But if the effect makes a deep impression, it may lead to changes in lifestyle. Maybe to quit sinning, or to get off the drug.

On this basis it is reasonable to conclude that "what we normally see" is more useful for reasoning about the true nature of reality than what we see on drugs.
https://www.quora.com/If-drugs-can-alter-the-way-we-perceive-reality-how-can-we-be-sure-that-what-we-normally-see-is-the-absolute-reality

I agree with you that language is not suited for the job of fully conveying the experience, at best it can only tiptoe around the border
However they are not necessarily less valid than a physical experience although I understand why one would hold this physical realm to a higher standard than a mental state however the mental states and their experiences may very well be just as real as this physical state it's just that it's not as easy to share with somebody as this state is.

Like I said I've had experiences that make the "real world" feel like a joke where everything felt more real then "reality" and that goes for all of your sense organs and hypothetically speaking what if we are part of an endless amount of realms and we hop through all of them and this is experienced as different dream states and so we wake up in a different realm every time we have a dream. It would be impossible to prove one state as real to the other because well it's different realm so one measuring rod won't stretch far enough to measure the other so to speak. Ps my experiences were drug free Incase anyone was wondering.

Has anyone here ever wondered if there is anything more real than this life? Maybe even thought that there had to be something more real? — TiredThinker

Matter is an image of energy. Energy is more real than matter. The material world is an image of real things. Things of the mind and spirit. These are more real than matter.

Like I said I've had experiences that make the "real world" feel like a joke where everything felt more real then "reality". . . — MAYAEL

It was about forty-five years ago when I decided to try Castaneda's simple instructions. They worked the first time, and the experience was astounding. No drugs. To become pure unrestrained will is indescribable. However, picking up a newspaper in this realm I could see the print clearly but could not process the meanings of the words.

We see what we consider physical reality and our minds process what we see or otherwise experience. When the processing is separated from its input the mind becomes very creative. More philosophers should engage rather than only talk. Just my opinion.

Some argue matter and energy have equivalency.

Some argue matter and energy have equivalency. — TiredThinker

In practical terms they are equivalent but energy precedes matter in the sense that you cannot have matter unless you have energy.