if Science has not proved it, it doesn't mean that life after death exists.
— Alkis Piskas — Philosophim

Errata: It should be "it doesn't mean that life after death doesn't exist".

Science does not attempt to prove that life after death exists. — Philosophim

You are right. I mean, "there's no scientific proof".

Your brain is you. — Philosophim

No, it's not! :smile: I'm not my brain.
(See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11791/you-are-not-your-body/p1)

Religion fills a need in humanity for a community that pushes them to be better people. — Philosophim

Well, as it is proven through the ages and in all places on Earth, from the less civilized people (tribes) to the most civilized ones, "religion" is more than just something to fill a need or a kind of motivation for being a better person: it is a natural thing for Man. It is part of the human condition. Religion is what makes one a better human being. (And of course, I don't mean speciffic religions, and esp. the dogmatic ones.)

Right now, I want you to try using the power of your mind to float 3 feet off the ground. Can't do it right? — Philosophim

I can't! I always wanted to be able to do that! :grin:

My apologies! Much appreciated again. — Philosophim

No problem. And thanks again. :smile:

This would mean that there is a future without any past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This reminds me the way two couples use to repair a broken relation: "OK, let's forget about the past. Let's start a new life from now!" :smile: And similar funny cases ...

It's the "cause from outside of time" which is difficult to make sense of. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course. Like a new bing bang, for example! :grin:

Life after death just seems counter to every single basic learned experience of life — Philosophim

Most probably you are talking about your experience and also the experence of millions of people. But, as I said, there is an equal --or maybe greater, if you consider the East too, but I'm not sure-- amount of people with a different experience on the subject. You just can't ignore it. Also, if Science has not proved it, it doesn't mean that life after death doesn't exist. Science has not proved anything about consciousness either. But most of us know that consciousness exists. (Some deny it ...)

The evidence is as solid as the sun shines. — Philosophim

What is this evidence?

Perhaps too if I saw more people motivated to be better people or do greater things in the world with a belief in their eternal existence, then I would be less angry. — Philosophim

That's very nice. I also say that if the belief in God make someone more ethical, or just more happy, then let him believe in God. I will support him. But unfortunately, there are innumerable atrocities that have happened in the histery and are still happening in the name of God! And this makes me angry too! Because it's not anymore about beliefs but about hypocrisy.

All of our beliefs are our personal reality. It doesn't mean they match actual reality. — Philosophim

What's "actual reality"? I don't think it exists such a thing. There's only personal reality (as you say) and "common reality", i.e, the reality of tqo or more persons. Reality has to do with agreement. If we agree on something, we can say that we have the same reality regadding that thing.

But much appreciated Tim! — Philosophim

My name is Alkis. But thank you anyway! :smile:

Can't we say that time is an irreversible collective motion of particles, which started near time zero? — Dijkgraf

We could say that time is irreversible, based on common sense and experience. (And Physics laws, I guess, but check https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6501215 about time reversal. Im' not good in Physics though!)

We can't say "(collective) motion of particles" since, as far as I know, it has not ben proven that time consists of particles.

And we certainly can't say either that "it started at time zero", since this is a circular statement: time started at time zero! :)

Well, don't be (angry)! :smile:
Does the existence of God or a Supreme Being make you also angry?
Does the existence of ghosts make you also angry?

These are beliefs, not facts. I think that the beliefs of people, esp. when there's a huge amount of them on Earth, should be respected. I do. Almost the whole East believes in life after death and a big part of the West too. It is their reality. If that doesn't make sense to you, it just doesn't make sense to you. Adhere to your own beliefs and reality.

The reason is that it becomes an excuse for humans to put up with suffering and lower states of being. — Philosophim

it is a convenient excuse for why you don't do more — Philosophim

Not true. There may exist some cases like these, but it is not the general rule. Most people's belief in life after death is real. It is their reality. It is something much more real than you can imagine. They don't believe it in order to escape from anything or give excuses.

It is not the belief in life after death per say, it is the belief in something that is not real, that I, in my viewpoint ... — Philosophim

Exactly, this is your viewpoint! :smile:

Everyone knows what time is. — Raymond

Maybe you mean "Everyone talks about time". Because, if you really mean "Everyone knows what time is" then I guess you also mean or can expect that everyone can give a workable definition of description of "time". Have you asked any of them what time really is? Can you answer that yourself? It would be interesting to do that and hear hundreds of different answers, which in fact, will not explain what time really is.

You have talked abput Einstein and clocks and that time can't go backwards and so on. Do any of that explain what time really is?

Then, if as you say "time is an old subject that can be traced back to the antiquity (much before Plato, before 1,500 BC, and philosphers and scientists still speak about and disagree on it, doesn't this make it a "mystery"?

Iit is the same mystery as with "consciousness", "reality" and other concepts, the nature of which is a subject very common in the agendas of philosphers and scientists since a long time ago and yet unresolved!

Saying that "whatever exists is based on matter" is not a paraphrase of "nothing exists except matter". These are quite different things and carry different implications. (If this is the paraphrase you are referring to ...)
— Alkis Piskas
Strawman, again. You attribute things to others that they never uttered. — god must be atheist

I didn't say that you said these words. These words are from Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster, resp/ly. The second one is close to what you said:

"Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. For instance, consciousness, feelings, emotions, beliefs. — god must be atheist

And since you didn't mentuion what the paraphrase was, I assumed that that was it. Don't you notice that I also added in parentheses "If this is the paraphrase ..."?

I think that all this is a waste of time. Thanks for your contribution to the topic.

I just took a paraphrasing of your quoting Wikipedia — god must be atheist

Saying that "whatever exists is based on matter" is not a paraphrase of "nothing exists except matter". These are quite different things and carry different implications. (If this is the paraphrase you are referring to ...)

Can you please be more specific?

just stated that you think there is more to it — god must be atheist

Where are you referring to? (What did I state exactly?)

It is an undecided question at this point. — god must be atheist

What question are you referring to? (I can't see any question involved here.)

All we can argue is what different schools of philosophy say — god must be atheist

What schools of philosophy? (Which school says what?)

This is the issue which Mr. Storm's proposed switch from "materialism" to "naturalism" makes clearer to us — Metaphysician Undercover

I see the point.

So the proposition that the material world creates, or produces intention is completely backward and unjustifiable as inconsistent with the evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agree.

The evidence is very clear that the awesome power of human intention introduces something new to the material world, which was not there before.
... — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: This part is quite inspiring!
"Intention" is indeed very important in all that we are talking about. I mention it quite often, in general, but I just missed bringing it up in this thread. Thanks for doing it youself and in such a nice way! :smile:

(BTW, thanks for your response to the topic! :smile:)

Do you have good evidence for any well-known supernatural beliefs - disembodied consciousness, god, ... — Tom Storm

No, not for any in your list! :smile:

[Re the term 'supernatural] "words in this area are often loaded and people's reactions to them often say more than the terms themselves." — Tom Storm

True.

Naturalism is the term most educated skeptics and atheist philosophers would use. — Tom Storm

I see. Maybe as a way of avoiding the hard term "materialism"? (OK, this was a shot!)

Knowledge takes as long as it takes. Uncovering knowledge does not run to a timetable. — Tom Storm

OK, I can accept this. Although I'm telling "too long", etc. but in combination with what I have said in similar cases, that it is quite evident that scientists look in the wrong direction and using the wrong tools. To the extent that somethimes fool themselves. Example: Some time ago, I watched a video on the examination of the reactions of a person to images presented to him on a screen by monitoringing his brain, after having opened a part of the skull and using electrodes to measure the current that it was produced. And I thought, are they so naive? Is this the way they are going to explain who the human mind works? Of course the brain reacts to external stimuli! This is known since eons ago! But this is all the brain does: it reacts! It receives and sends signals.
See the situation we are facing here with science? (Which, otherwise, is great in experimenting with and solving problems related to matter.)

I'm not a neuroscientist or philosopher so you are best asking someone with real expertise. — Tom Storm

I'm not any of them either! :smile: But at the moment I feel fine with the partial --but still usable and generally reliable-- knowledge I have on these matters. I will consider contacting any of them if I'm going to pass exams or write a paper on the subject! :grin:

***

Thanks again for your contribution to the topic!

"Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical?" — Alkis Piskas
Nobody knows that, and that's the current state of knowledge. It happens. That's all that the materialists can say. — god must be atheist

I could well accept this, but from my experience, there are very few among them who say and/or admit that.
(I have already mentioned somewhere in this or other topic that statements like "We don't know", "It's a mystery", etc. are at least honest answers.)

Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. — god must be atheist

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

Yes, there's this interpretation too.

"Materialism" (Philosophy) from ...
1) Oxford LEXICO: The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."
2) Merriam-Webster: "A theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter." (Closer to your point.)

I can accept this definition too, but on the condition that it is not taken to mean that something physical (matter) can create something non-physical, which is impossible. Something physical can only participate in the creation of something non-physical, which is actually created by something non-physical. (I explain why below, but it only extends my point ...)

***

See, the second definition has a flaw: It implies or may be taken to mean that something physical (matter) can create something non-physical. How can this be possible? Something physical can only participate in the creation of something non-physical by something non-physical. For example, consciousness (non-physical) needs the brain and other parts of the body (physical) to create a sensation, perception, experience, etc. for the person. Thus observation, thought, emotion, states of mind, etc. are created, which are non-physical.

So, if we remove this ... "impossible" possibility :smile:, what we are left with is that "matter can only create matter", i.e., "everything is matter". and this leads to the first definition of materialism that I brought up.

"Should we better then avoid talking ...?"
Yes. If that is the issue we want to discuss. — ssu

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

Yes, this is the conclusive question. But it is good to also know why! :smile:

One may assume you believe that we experience quale. Where do they come from? Not what are they - What is their source? — Real Gone Cat

(Thanks for your response to the topic. Although I cannot consider it as a reply to the topic! :smile:)

You say you are young and new to philosophy, and yet you terms as "quale". So it seems you are advancing fast! :smile: I'm old in both age and philosophy and I have only known about this term a couple of years ago. (It's a very modern term, anyway. And, BTW, the plural is qualia).
I never use this term. I prefer talking simply about perception(s) and experience(s). Their quality is of secondary importance, except maybe if one lies on the chase long of a therapist. :grin: For example, what you and I feel when we see a dog is from slightly to very different. It depends on our experience(s) with dogs, our characteristics/personality, our mood, etc. Some are afraid of them, other hate them, other love them and other are indifferent. And this is what they feel when they see a dog, depending also on the circumstances.

Now, about your question, where do they come from, i.e. what is their source: Our consciousness, reality and experiences in combination with our mind (memory, mental state, etc.) .
This is what I think. But you can find a lot of answers in the Web and judge for yourself about their logic and/or validity.

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

All this is true, at least in my own case. I prefer the concrete and physical to the abstract and immaterial. — NOS4A2

Me too.

the other I can only find in the pure wind of idealist literature — NOS4A2

It's good that you brought up "idealism". I din't want to do it myself for not "overloading" the subject and my description of the topic!

Well, exactly, one more bad or wrong thing with "materialism" is that it is often contrasted with "idealism", in which reality is asscociated with ideas and the activity of the mind in general. And this can bring us back to Plato and his "Ideas". But I think this is an obsolete subject ... Anywhay, it gets us into a foggy landscape and far from what one can simply consider as and call "non-physicality", which is much more clear and what we are usually looking for, I think.

I've assumed that naturalism had replaced the term materialism — Tom Storm

This is an interesting point. But then, naturalism is contrasted with supernaturalism --or, in a simpler way, natural is contrasted with supernatural-- which is not want we actually need, is it? And this rises questions like whether e.g. consciousness is natural or supernatural. If yes, it belongs to the realm of scientific methods, which I don't think have been much applied to it until today. From what I know, there are very few scientists who have been involved in the subkect of consciousness, like Menas Kafatos, Bernardo Kastrup, et al. (They do have some interesting, even exciting, ideas on the subject.) On the other hand, if we consider consciousness as something "supernatural", we enter in the field of religion --which is a very vast area, with a lot of truths but also plenty of misconceptions and other traps. Or we get into the world of angels, demons, spirits and other creepy entities! :scream:

No, I prefer the term "physicalism". It's much more clear and it draws a line --not always clear-- between physical and non-physical. The first one is open and offered for scientific study; the second one, for philosophical study.

The six things you listed above are really one thing - the subjective experience of consciousness - and this may well be the by product of our physical brain. — Tom Storm

Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical? And even if that were possible, wouldn't that then consist an acceptance that non-physical things exist too? Which, of course, is something the scientists, materialists, physicalists, naturalists, etc. don't believe exist. Doesn't this consist a self-contradition?

The subject of human conscicouness is open for too long a time for scientists, materialists, physicalists, naturalists to come up with tangible, persuasive and workable scientific results. I'm afraid they have lost their chance! :smile: The subject is offered only philosophical study.

"An explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain."
-- "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" (https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/)

When it comes to prejudice, it resides as comfortably in the land of woo woo as it does on the continent of scientism. — Tom Storm

True.

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

the proposition 'anything real is material' applies an artificial closure to the extent of the unknown, which limits a person's logical capacity to the confines of one's own conception of matter, and this restricts the person's capacity to learn. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

it is in most cases rather pointless to be talking to a materialist about materialism. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

It's good that you brought up prejudice, which I believe has no place in philosophy, since it refers to lack of reason (logic, critical thinking) and experience, which are essential in philosophy and also vital in the creation, development and support of one's personal reality.

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

This is why i don't believe that self-avowed materialists are materialists — sime

Right. I don't believe it either. Contradictions, as you say, and also ambiguities and lack of evidences --things the physicability of which is ambiguous or has not been proven-- make it very hard to believe it.

They are smuggling their own brand of phenomenalism into their private definition of materialism whilst being in denial about it. — sime

I would like to hear such a private definition ...

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

I think you have put the subject into a good perspective and explained well the paradox-like "Materialism means nothing to materialists". :up:

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

You seem to have digged into the subject quite well! :smile:
Well, I, on the other hand, am not for too many or complicated concepts, much theory, etc. on a certain subject, with a few exceptions. I am rather practical and I generally talk from a practical viewpoint. On the other hand, I am very strict about definitions and clear descriptions. Both of these things have to do with real undestanding (no misconceptions), common logic, experience (experiencing) and application in life.
And this is what my description of the topic was all about! :smile:

Well, there is a meaning to such talking, if wasting time qualifies as "meaning" ... — baker

:grin:

(Thanks for rsponding to the topic!)

Never said you did — Tom Storm

I know! But the quote by @Ree Zen's that you brought up was an anwer to me and leads back to me! (OK, I'm a little sensitive to being attributed statements I have never made, esp. if they are false! :grin:)

Even Nietzsche said of the cogito that there was an unjustifiable presupposition that there was an I. — Tom Storm

I see. But there a lot f things Nietzsche has said that I don't agree with! :smile:

Descartes went to all the trouble of ... — Tom Storm

OK, I think enough is said about Descartes ... I have not even mentioned him in my present topic!

Ever met anyone with schizophrenia? Thought insertion and the sense that your mind isn't really yours is a common experience. — Tom Storm

Only in movies! :smile: But, not only schizophrenics, a lot who suffer from severe mental illnesses have no sense of themselves; they are not aware that they exist. Their mind is just messed up.

As you see, I avoid using "I" or "self" as concepts, because they only create confusion, misunderstandings and trouble! I prefer using "YOU", "ME" etc. referring to real and concrete things: human beings, persons, myself, yourself, ourselves, ... This clears up a lot of things because one has to think in real terms: personal experiences, examples in life, etc.

All this means is that some very smart thinkers have taken the cogito in ways alien to Descartes' conclusion. — Tom Storm

If you mean that they misunderstood Descartes' thoughts, ideas and conclusions, I can really believe it. That's why I never rely on what known philosophers or "experts" say. I prefer to use my own positions on a subject --if I have any-- and talk with persons based on their own positions. Some depend only on quotes by and positions of philosophers to provide arguments in a discussion. And very often, they bring in quotes that are either false or have never been actually said by the person: E.g. the famous "I know that I know nothing" is know to never having been actually said by Socrates! :smile:

It's even more serious than this. How did Descartes establish there was an "I" doing the thinking? He made some assumptions even here. A more accurate exclamation might have been, 'There is thinking." — Tom Storm

(BTW, I have never said or left be implied that Descartes proved the existence of this body, as @Ree Zen mentioned.)

Interesting point. However, the existence of "I" is not based on an assumption. It is self-evident. I am aware of being aware. That's the proof --for me-- that I exist. And if you need a proof for yourself too, I could ask you, "Whom are you talking with?". And if this is not a "hard" evidence, I could make it harder: by kicking you. You will feel that kick and you will know for sure that I exist, and you will never ask me that again! :grin:

Then, stating "There is thinking", as you say, brings questions like, "Where?", "Who claims that?", "OK, but what does that prove?", etc. It's also a circular argument/reasoning, because saying "There is thinking" is itself a thought, i.e. it comes from thinking.

When Descartes exclaimed "I think therefore I am, he proved the existence of his mind," not his body. — Ree Zen

Please use "Quote" to give me the exact reference to what I have said. Because I don't remember having ever said that Descartes, with this or any other statement, proved the existence of his body!

:up: I have contributed to 100 topics up to now. Only you and another OP owner have thanked me for that!

(There were even a lot (27) of OP owners who din't even respond to my reply on their topics!)

I would say though that sureness is not the same as certainty. — Philosophim

"Sureness" from Merriam-Webster (My favorite dictionary, Oxford LEXICO, doesn't have it! :sad:)
"A state of mind in which one is free from doubt."
"Certainty" from the same dic:
"A state of mind in which one is free from doubt." !
(Check for your if you don't believe me! :smile: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/sureness and https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/certainty)
Well, dictionaries are not perfect, of course. There may be nuances between them. But they are certainly (surely :smile:) synonyms.

Whatever is the case, both terms, as well as "belief", are certainly (surely :smile:) are totally different from "knowlwedge" and are connected to it only as a sequence, i.e. from a belief on can pass to knowledge, which was my main point. Again, I bring in the definition of knowledge, for s "fresh" comparison:
"Knowlwedge" from the same dic:
"Information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education"

Please note that I don't rely totally on dictionaries. I used them mainly as a common reference. If I now e a term well, i.e. it is "solidly real" for me, I rely more on my own undesrating of the term and sometimes I add elements to the dictionary definitions if I deem that they are important. But in the present case, I don't need to. Things speak for themselves! :smile:

I even posted the word "will" next to it, so you would understand the context of what I was trying to convey. — Philosophim

I have to confess that I have not undestood "will" in this context, even after having looked it up!
But see, this would create (more) confusion, anyway. Also, whatever you mean by it, the second part --or a sureness reality exists in a particular state-- was more important and enough to raise a protest in me! :grin:

Look at it this way, what makes you believe anything? — Philosophim

I gave you examples on this.

For most beliefs, there is some type of conviction behind it. — Philosophim

True. But this doesn't change much what I pointed out, does it? :smile:

you may not like the essay, because you have a prescriptive outlook on what I should be saying — Philosophim

This not true. I told you that I cannot judge the rest of the discussion and that I would have continued reading if I had read a more plausible introduction. I think this is fair, no?

And, as you can see, I like to converse with you! :smile:

I don't think that my reading was "dishonest" --actually, a more correct word would be "unfair"-- because I didn't read the whole thing. And I didn't say that the whole description of the topic was wrong. (Of course, since I didn't read everything!) I didn't criticize anything either. As I said, "I only wanted to point this out". I explained why stating that "A belief is a will, or a sureness reality exists in a particular state" is a wtong assumption, because belief is not sureness. I also gave examples why (something that most people don't) . But since you ignored all that, considering maybe that it is just a false idea of mine, here's another reference that describes well the difference between belief and certainty:

"Belief is the state of mind in which an individual is convinced of the truth or validity of a proposition or premise regardless of whether they have adequately proved or attempted to prove their main contention. Certainty is the state of mind in which an individual is convinced of the validity, truthfulness, or evidence of a proposition or premise. While believing is possible without warrant or evidence, certainty implies having valid evidence or proof." (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Belief_and_Certainty)

And as for my "dishonest reading", if your introduction started with something more plausible, I would certainly read more, since "knowledge" is a hot subject for me. But I always stop reading something when it starts and is based on a wrong assumption. Well, this is me! :smile:

Part 1 The basics of knowledge
"Any discussion of knowledge must begin with beliefs. A belief is a will, or a sureness reality exists in a particular state." — Philosophim

Knowledge consists of facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education.
A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Beliefs are not knowledge. And in most cases they do not reflect "sureness". Of course, I may say "I believe that ..." and state some fact or something I know well, but it's only an expression, a figure of speech.

Do you believe that "cats are animals" or you know that "cats are animals"? Do you believe that the "Earth is round" or you know that the "Earth is round"? Only people and Copernicus himself might not be certain about that before the later stated it as a fact. And after some time, it has become common knowledge. A belief is something like an hypothesis. When it is proved true, it is a fact.

I'm sorry for not being able to go further in this topic, because it starts and is based on a wrong assumption. I only wanted to point this out.

Yes, I got the idea. It's a very interesting point.

Nice topic. But also a dangerous one; it's a field with hidden mines! :smile:

There is no “real” present, any more than there is a “real” context: the entire symphony, its first movement, the movement’s 100th measure, are on equal standing, as are the presents associated with the performance of them.' —Yuval Dolev [1] — Pierre-Normand

Nice quote. Present needs indeed a context. I would put though a stop at the place of the first comma. Because even context does not make the present "real". It can only provide a frame of reference, based on which we can enclose, define, limit it. And that has to be continuous. I can say, for example, that right now I'm writing a message, but I cannot locate any specific moment during this period by saying "Now!" or "This!"etc. Because until I have spelled or even thought of it, that moment would have already passed. Time is continuous and thus indivisible. Hence there cannot be a "real" present. In other words, there's no actually such a thing as a "present".

Whenever we ponder about the passage of time, we do it from the perspective of our present experience of it. — Pierre-Normand

Just a remark on "Whenever": We can talk about the "passage of time" from a lot of different aspects and for a lot of reasons, not only from or based on our present experience, as you say. But, OK, you are referring specifically to one of them.

our involvement in them, either as observers or as actors, have a duration; they don't occur in an instant. — Pierre-Normand

Right. This is quite similar to what I described earlier.

When temporally extended human experiences happen, such as listening to Beethoven's Pastoral symphony, what we experience in the moment is conditioned by what happened before and by our expectation of what is to come. — Pierre-Normand

Nice! I liked that! :smile:

consider a useful analogy to the question "What is the duration of now?" — Pierre-Normand

OK, you have already brought in the element of context. This, and what I described earlier, apply to this question, too.

it makes no sense either to pinpoint the time of now to an instantaneous moment in time — Pierre-Normand

Right. Similar to what I have already described earlier.
(Sometimes I'm getting ahead of what is being said or written ... Hope it's no problem for you! :smile:)

the objective flow of time can be understood as the movement of an instantaneous present moment that represents a moving cutting edge between the growing past and the shrinking future. — Pierre-Normand

Nice! I liked that!

___________________

Well, I think you have handled your topic very well and avoided stepping onto mines! :up:
And I enjoyed all that! :smile:

:pray: + :up:

OK, D is the winner! Case closed! :sweat:

I think there is a difference between the sense of self and the self itself. — hopeful

First of all, what do you mean by the "sense of self" and the "self" itself? Also about the concept of "ego", which features in the title of the topic. I believe you must start from that, because I know well that people mean different things about them. What matters though is what do you mean by them, since this is your topic. Don't you agree?

So, I won't start describing what do these concepts mean for me or, even worse, start talking on the subject assuming stupidly that I know what exactly you mean about them! :smile:

In what the OP said, I have replaced "Ayes" with "animals", "Bees" with "four legs" and "Seas" with "cats". All the rest is the same. The conclusion (D or E) is what the OP also thought (maybe for another reason though).

Certainly. But I have edited my reply and gave you right after I checked the label "possible world" ... Also, I presented a more interesting and realistic scheme ...
See the update at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/646385

:up: Kudos! I wish I had the patience to draw all that! (I only drew it in my mind!)
What I found simpler instead was to "draw" it verbally, in my answer to @tim wood, using math sets as you did:
Mammals are a subset of animals. Cats are a subset of mammals. That is, cats are a subset of a subset of animals.
Which looks exactly what you have drawn on the right...
Now your left drawing shows that only a part of mammals are also animals. This may be correct, if we ignore the fact that we know (ourselves, not from the premises) that mammals refers to animals. That is, in a "possible world", as you say. So, to get rid of this "pitfall", we should change our premises, for example, to:

Some animals have four legs
All cats have four legs

In this case, "four legs" would not refer exclusively to animals, since tables, beds, etc. too have four legs ...

So let's see our statemets:
A) Some animals are cats: Unknown
B) Some cats have four legs: False, since we know that "All cats have four legs" (and not only some)
C) No cats are animals: "No cats" is ambiguous - At best, it's Unknown, based on (A)
D) No animals that have not four legs are cats: "No animals" is ambiguous - Assuming that it means "none of the animals" then it is True, since cats have four legs
E) None of the above conclusions can be drawn: False, if we can accept (D) as True, else True.

It all depends on (D). And this also explains the doubt of the OP, who was not sure about (D) or (E).

One cannot live a life like this, as if unless the world is morally leveled out — Astrophel

I don't think that the world will ever be morally leveled out ... At least, this what the trends show. Besides, how can it be? The main force and drive of morality comes from religion. However, all the dogmatic religions, including Christianity, have evidently failed. At least "in numbers". No other institution is responsible for inspiring and promoting morality. What remains is the morality that is innate in humans. And this is obviously theatened more and more by all sorts of immoral forces or factors. Immorality is generally much stronger than morality. A single criminal or bad-intended act can destroy, in a very short time, what hundreds of commendable or well-intended acts have created in years.

I can't do anything for my self and family. — Astrophel

Why's that? I believe that you can do a lot for yourself and your family.

And we get into the habit of ignoring others ... — Astrophel

I can't see why, either ... I don't think we should, anyway.

Where does the ethical call to duty draw its line? — Astrophel

I don't think we can draw such line. Also, I don't think that etchics are especially connected to duty. Doing our duty can be the result of inherent ethics, but also of being forced to for various reasons. The bottom line is that an ethical behaviour benefits everyone, ouselves and others. Independently of what happens in our environment. External consitions should not dictate ethical behaviour.
In dicussions about life and the world beiing unfair, my answer has alwayse been: "Just be fair and true to yourself". This is what later I called "personal integrity". It is what makes us feel good, have a clear conscience, have a solid reality, be self-confident and a lot of other very desirable things. It is also reflected to and affects others in a positiive way.

(All this may sound as "moral talking", but it really isn't. It's rational thinking! :smile:)

It is true that some animals are cats. But it is not entailed by your premises. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If it is true, well, it is True! That's what I said! :smile:

Some cats are mammals: False,
— Alkis Piskas
Wrong. In basic logic such as this, 'Some' means one or more. 'Some' does not mean 'Some but not All'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I see what you say: We select one or more cats and say "these (animals) are mammals". This is true. But it refers specifically to "those" cats. Now think also about this: Saying that "some cats are mammals" suggests that there are some cats that are not mammals. Which is of course False, since we know that "All cats are mammals".
Maybe this is more clear: Can we say "Some persons are humans"? It makes no sense, does it? And it is also false, based on the above reasoning.

(A) is true, but it is not entailed by your premises. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, you have already said that! :smile:

If you have a dollar in your pants pocket, do you (not) have also 32 cents? — tim wood

No, you don't. A dollar is a dollar and cents are cents. Also, you cannot use some vending, gambling etc. machines if you don't have the exact amount of cents.

A) Some animals are cats: True, since mammals are animals (based on the first premise) and cats are mammals
— Alkis Piskas
You can infer this adding additional information, but you cannot from the premises given validly conclude it. — tim wood

You are right that you have to infer it, i.e. we don't know that directly, but it is true because its inference is valid, i.e. we can validly conclude it. (Using math sets: Mammals are a subset of animals. Cats are a subset of mammals. That is, cats are a subset of a subset of animals.)

e conceived of the de facto condition that we do indeed care about family first and friends ... — Astrophel

I see. Then yes, most people think first about themselves, etc. But this depends on the culture. It has to do with social conscience. In Greece, for example, this is quite low in relation to other European countries.

But what about those who stand in our way? those Uyghurs in China that will not toe the line, the poor who not find a job, the useless, the mentally diseased, and so on. We could make the greatness happen if it wasn't for those that hold us back.... — Astrophel

I think I see what you are talking about, although these things are not so real to me, living in a totally different society than yours. Anyway, to stick to our subject of ethics and well-beingness, I could say that each country thinks more about its own good than the good of the world, even if Unions of countries are created for supporting each other. For example, I don't think that Germany as a state thinks more about the good of the EU than about its own. And I also think it's not the only one. This is what I call "lack of ethics". In other words, we cannot talk about ethics on a social plane. Ethics is a personal thing.