I think it's much more complicated than that. One has to distinguish the proffered reason for the fight and what's actually going on. The interplay between morality and self-interest is very complicated but morality is always a more respectable reason for a fight than self-interest. But self-interest is a more effective motivator.Humans will forever fight over morals because adaptation is ruthless and desires are dictatorial. — ucarr
The social contract is not always a contract. Sometimes it is a peace treaty and the stronger imposes the contract.The social contract is a necessary prerequisite for a peaceable society, so an effort towards moral standards is also necessary. — ucarr
OK. .So long as they don't intersect, I suppose.For me, independence = distinct things running on parallel tracks that don’t intersect. The tracks might converge and diverge at points along the way. — ucarr
Fair enough. I'm still not sure what "insuperable" means here. I've already mentioned, I think, that I don't see that as the same problem as the Science/Humanities issue. Fortunately, there's no chair to rule things off topic.Regarding “from within,” knowing, i.e., cons, is insuperable. As for the question of the existence (ex) of an external (ext) world, this conversation is deeply concerned not with the question of an ext world , but with the deep interweave connecting the two. This translates to the question of the two great modes: subjective/objective. — ucarr
Yes. It was a nasty surprise.I suspect what QM has done, in essence, is manipulate quantity, i.e., discrete measurement, towards existential ambiguity. That’s fascinating because scientific discovery of discrete particles for seeming continuities like radiation and vice versa for seeming things like elementary particles was a drive toward definitive boundaries, with opposite result of real boundary ambiguity affirmed. — ucarr
Are you possibly confusing our opportunities to discover things with hindrances to perceiving them? What does "purely" objective mean? (In what ways is the objectivity that we know and love impure?)Is a purely objective world out there? The answer to this question is ambiguous, and cons plays a central role in the fact of existential ambiguity instead of discrete boundaries being the picture on the scientific view screen. — ucarr
I still can't work out what "insuperable" means, so I can't comment. This problem is not what I understood to be the Hard Problem, except that in some way, it is concerned with the interface between consciousness and it's objects (to put it that way).Part of the difficulty of The Hard Problem is the global question whether cons is insuperable. If it is, then the “what” of experience is forever compromised by subjectivity who partially contradicts and nuances it. — ucarr
Saying "you can't know things outside of being conscious" is like saying "you can't see things without your eyes/walk without legs." "Insuperable" implies an obstacle, but consciousness enable us to know. I simply don't get this.Insuperable in my context here is simple: you can’t know things outside of being cons, so you can’t know yourself outside of being cons, so as long as you persist as yourself, the cons that empowers you to be yourself is, for you, insuperable. — ucarr
That's like complaining that sciences like physics are incapable of explaining chess or that a car can't fly. It was not designed to do that. An enduring self knows perfectly well what-it's-like to be an enduring self in the only sense of "what-it's-like" that assigns any sense to the question. It's not as strange a use of "know" as you might think. "I know Taylor Swift" may be false, but it is true of many people and there's no difficulty establishing that it's true. But it isn't propositional knowledge.The Hard Problem acknowledges that what it’s like to be an enduring self is resistant to the objective exam and manipulation of materialist science. — ucarr
What would it be like to thwart materialist objectivity?A big part of the reason for the hardness of the problem is the insuperability discussed above. Another problem of materialist science vis-a-vis selfhood is the insuperable selfhood of the scientist thwarting materialist objectivity. — ucarr
The Hard Problem was developed in order to disprove materialism and prove dualism. So I doubt it can be solved. Certainly it would be a lot easier (though still not easy) to dissolve it.This conversation is an exam of how the the two great modes differ, and The Hard Problem is that difference under a microscope. — ucarr
So you're "absential materialism" (or "strategic incompleteness") is Kantian?When we speculate about the nature and content of this world, of course we’re doing it within the scope of NI. This leads me to say we don’t and can’t really know a non-NI world.
I had the impression that Einstein pursued the T.O.E at one point. So how come you are so scornful of it? Especially as the G.U.T. looks like a stepping-stone to the T.O.E.because the latter is pop-sci / metaphysical hype and the former is a scientific research program. — 180 Proof
The second law of thermodynamics leads directly to Gódel’s Incompleteness.
Perhaps l should look at dark: matter_energy through this lens — ucarr
Imagine a math space such that : 6+9 =/= 9+6; semi-symmetrical mirroring. — ucarr
Imagine a math space such that : 6+9 =/= 9+6; semi-symmetrical mirroring. — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.