An interesting counter view, is offered by Lee Smolin, in his book 'Time Reborn.' I have not read the book, but he talks about it in this interview (posted with an audio and textual versions):
Ira Flatlow 21min interview with Lee Smolin. — universeness

I have listened about half of the interview. I still didn't hear anything substantial or specific about time ...
So I looked in YT ... (BTW, always prefer Youtube than just audio or other audiovisual medium. It has usully transcripts of what is said, which is very helpful for different reasons.)
So, you can listen to Smolin's Theory of Time at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI
But there's something else more interesting and more at the point regarding time:
Lee Smolin - The Nature of Time
I have watched about half of it (with small jumps) ... He talks about the cocetn of the main things the main argument that I heard from Smolin about time being real didn't persuade me at all:
Here's parts I copy-paste from the video transcript:
~5:55: "One of the most mysterious aspects of time is the future and we all think about the future ... about aging, which is our concern with our own futures, the concern with the future of the planet climate change and so forth."
OK, the word "future" here is used as a figure of speech, an expression that wa all know what it means.
Then,
~6:18: "If time isn't real, if you're one of those people believes the time is an illusion, then what is the future? Is the future already determined? Do you think, when you think about the future, that are you one of these people who's a fatalist that ... well, it's bound it's all set up it's bound what's going to happen is bound to happen it's already determined or is the future open?"
~6:50: "If the future is open is novelty possible? There's this idea of science [that] explains everything in terms of laws and how could anything new ever happen because it's things of just time is just the rearrangement of atoms nothing is really happening but atoms moving around in which case nothing new can ever happen most of my scientific ..."
~7:12: "We see novelty all the time in the evolution of the universe, the appearance of galaxies stars planets, life, everything up to including everything that we experience each day is novel in the universe. Is that a real aspect of reality or is it an illusion?"

I stop here, because I can't find any good argument about the existence of time as something real but only ideas related to time (like novelty) which don't tell us anything specific about time or are an evidence that time is real, that it actually exists. Does novelty --which is a pure concept-- offers as such an evidence?

See, once again, ideas about time, concepts related to time, descriptions, figures of speech and common language expressions using the word "time". There's nothing scientific or a plausible argument in all this that can be used as an evidence for the existence of time as something real.

He states during this interview (with Ira Flatlow):
Well, what I mean when I say that time is real is that everything which is real and everything which is true is real or true in a moment, which is one of a succession of moments. ... — universeness

Abtract talk. What is a "moment" other than a concept? How can "a succession of moments" --which is also an idea, it hs not even a foundation of some sort-- form an explanation and evidence about the existence/reality of time?

You traverse space, by means of physical effort, you walk, run,... — universeness

What is the space I'm traversing? Can it be specified? Can it be perceived? Can it be sensed? Or all that is just movement and change, feeling the effort I am doing, the resistance I feel from the air, thew sound my steps are procusing? All these these are physical and real. Only these.

So yes, the universe must be a container.
I also perceive the big bang singularity, with some notion of 'container,' don't you? — universeness

I can understand the universe as a container. I can't undestand the Big Bang singularity at all, either as a container or anything else! :grin:

I accept that my perception breaks down, somewhere between the notions of infinite space and infinite space that is not boundless. — universeness

Are infinite and "not boundless" compatible?
I can conceive the Universe as one of the two. But only conceive. Can't know or figure out which for certain.

But, there is still you, me and all other biological lifeforms, traversing space, by physical means, and by doing work that uses energy. Distance and time are real, in that sense. — universeness

(See my comment about "traversing space" earlier on)

I think you are taking a logical step too far. Your step too far, is also too 'metaphysical' for me. — universeness

Well, I always believe I'm mostly talking in an "earthly", everyday language. Maybe by "stepping too far" you mean going too deep? I may do this. I want to get to the essence of things. But in doing this, I try to use as less abstract thinking as possible. On the contrary, sometimes I feel I oversimplify things, at least in the minds of others. (For me, simple is beautiful and effective. One of my favorite mottos is "Truth is always simple" :smile:) Maybe this exudes a metaphysical aroma. I don't know ...

I don't see how you get to 'points A and B are hypothetical,' when I can choose them and physically label them A and B, in 'real' physical spacetime. — universeness

Do points A and B really exist? Does a point really exist ? Points can't and don't exist by themselves. As I said, it is we who assign a point, which can never be precise enough, anyway. Hence, the "hypothetical" attribute. In the same sense that a second cannot exist by itself. And even if we measure it, it can never be precise enough, i.e. absolute. Water in glass is real. It exists by itself. But its "volume" is not. It doesn't exist by itself.
But even if points A and B refer to real objects, e.g. two loudspeakers, their distance isn't. They are just apart. What we call distance is the measured path between them: 30cm, 50cm, 1m? Do these measures exist? And, as I said, this measured distance can never be precise enough.

BTW, this reminds me of Zeno's Arrow "paradox", a simple version of which is: An arrow can never reach its target, because it has always to pass from the middle of the distance between the archer and the target, ad infinitum. Well, that's why I call it "paradox", because it's a pseudo paradox: it assumes that space is discontinuous and thus divisible. (He did the same with the Achilles and the Tortoise "paradox", considering time as discontinuous and thus divisible.)
So, the concepts of space and time can be only conceived as continuous in nature. They have no start, intermediate points or end. Otherwise, they the Universe would follow Zeno's "laws"! :smile:

But still, I accept that it's not possible for me to identify the smallest duration of time or the biggest size possible for a universe. — universeness

I don't think it's possible foe anyone else. :smile:

there is some evidence for quantum superposition discussed in places such as this Caltech article but this is superposition at a quantum level ... — universeness

You lost me! :smile:

I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, that fact that points DON'T coincide, and humans can't be in two places at the same time, is evidence that distance is real!!! — universeness

No, the opposite. I said exactly: "This would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all." That is, there would be no distance at all.
I guess, I can never be clear enough! :smile:

I can make two goalposts, and label them A and B, and there is observable, traversable, measurable distance between them — universeness

What exactly can you observe? It's empty space. You can do that only mentally, i.e. imagine a line that joins these two goalposts. Or, in the physical worls you can draw a line. Or take a measuring tape and measure the distance. OK. What you would have done is simply using physical means to measure that distance. And, as I said, measurement is one of the things we are using the concept of distance (and time) for. The other is description. In doing so, we make distance acquire"flesh and bones", i.e. become somewhat "real".
Now, if we remove the line between the two goalposts --both physically and mentally-- and also forget about measurement, is there anything there that we can perceive and refer to as a distance?
So, isn't what we call "distance" only what we can visualize and/or measure?
The goalposts, on the other hand are real and they don't need to be visualized.

Why do you conclude that the fact that we do the assignment, makes the result, not real? We are real, so what we do is real! — universeness

I don't know what do you mean by "result". But assigning physical points is a real event and the points are real too. Evidently. But the distance between these points, as I said above, is only what we can visualize and/or measure.

But 3D points in space do exist. — universeness

If they dont exist in 2D, as we used them all this time, how can they exist in 3D? :smile:

Mathematical coordinate systems such as cartesian coordinates are valid. — universeness

Yes, geometry. It's the first or among the first things I brought up in this exchange:
From the Greek geo (= land) and metron (= measure) -> "measurenent of the land". (Of course, this was people's most imporantn thing at that time: their land property! :smile)
So, guess what? Right. Measurement again! :smile:

In physics and math the word instant means instantaneous or infinitesimal - having no length or duration. However, in common usage it can mean a tiny interval. Planck time is the limit of measurability and does not necessarily imply the smallest possible time interval. — jgill

Interesting.
But doesn't infinitesimal mean exceedingly small? And as such it still has a length/duration?
So, what I undestand, in Physics "instant" is just concept and something referention, used for description purposes, and as such it has no existence by itself. The same about --and maybe worse with-- "tiny interval". How mush is "tiny"?
I didn't know about this Planck's time. I know about Planck's time which about 10−43 seconds, as it is brought up by @universeness (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/823560)

Fall short of what?
— Alkis Piskas
Being able to reference / label / indicate, what scientists observe. — universeness

My views and the labels I use are often different than those used in conventional Science.

But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. — universeness

The "chocolate bar" was sthe simplest example I could think of off-hand. The essential thing is that what units measure --time, distance, length, weight, etc.-- are constructs or concepts, and as such they have no physical/material existence, i.e. they do not really exist. Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones."
(Why do I have to bring up an external view? Well, I do it sometime, only to show that I'm not the only one who has certain views about a subject but also persons who are much more knowledgeable than me on that subject.)
Anyway, there have been not a single person who has rejected my view about time and argumented --in a plausible way-- in favor of physicality or even the actual existence of time. And I'm not surprised! :smile:

I still think you are taking a step too far by stating that a concept such as distance does not exist in an observable 3D universe. — universeness

It might look or sound so, but if one grasps the essence and meaning of what distance is, I'm sure one will find what I say not only far-fetched but even quite obvious. One needs also to see a subject from all its aspects and include one's own experience with it: E.g. Can I really perceive "distance" or "space"? Can I conceive them as something that can be sensed? As much as I try I will only see lack, absence of anything. How can absence of anything has en existence? One could say, "Well, one can't perceive atoms either, since they are not visible with a naked eye. True, but Science can, using special tools. However, Science has not show similar observation results and evidence about (empty) space, has it?

which contains discrete objects, with very clear boundaries or termination points or spacetime between one object and another — universeness

To say that something contains something else --in concrete, physical terms-- we must be able to perceive that kind of container, mustn't we? So, what is this "container" here?
I'm not sure if you refer to "distance" or the "3D universe". And I als don't know which is considered larger: the space, which "contains" the Universe, or the Universe, which "contains" space? They are both so vast that it might nor even matter which of the two is the case.
But what I can say is that the word "contains" here is a figure of speech.
This is a very important point that I brought up earlier on: We are using concepts in expressions in a figurative way so often that they finally become a reality! They acquire flesh and bones. They come to be used in literal sense. See what I mean? One such expression is "space contains".

If there is no 'real' distance, then why can I not just move instantly to any dimensionless coordinate within the universe? — universeness

This distance you are taking about is a vector, i.e. it is defined by magnitude and direction. But this is not important. It's only to say that it is a term used in various scientific areas for description and demonstration purposes.
Distance is something we can perceive and/or measure. Again, the measurement factor comes in. You use it in geometry, to show how far way is point A from point B. But points A and B are hypothetical. They don't really exist. In fact, there are no actual "points" in the Universe. They are used only for descriptive purposes.

But let's look at what you say from a logical viewpoint:
So, what you are saying, I think, here is somthing like the following: "The distance between points A and B is X. If there were no distance, we could move from A to B instantly." Right? But this would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all. Which nullifies, invalidates the first proposition.

And also from a physical viewpoint:
Distance generally decribes how far one point is from another. Now, points exist only in geometry as applied to hundreds of different fiels, beside Math. They are assigned arbitrarily and used to describe shapes, topographic elements, relations of physical objects in space, etc. We set, assign or draw a point on paper, blackboard, computer screen, etc., or we select any point on any object or shape and we call it point A. This is something we create or assign. And, how many points can we create depends on the size of the available 3D space and the size of the point. And the minimum size of of the point --which is what we need and should be-- depends on the medium that we use to draw or set it. In sa computer scree, for example, that would be a pixel, but that would also depends on the screen resolution. This never ends, as you see. Yet, we can assume arbitrarily a cetain point. Now what about outside any drawing media? What abount in the whole Universe? Can we assign such points? In fact, do such points have any meaning at all? Do such points exist at all?
So, if points do not really exist, distance doesn't really exist either.

Are you conceptualising a model, within which discrete (or separate objects) don't really exist? — universeness

No.

Do you think such as Sheldrakes morphic resonance is such an example of 'natural networking?' — universeness

I have no idea about this.

I am never sure if their 'happy state,' indicates that my absence from their life, has been a joy or a curse. — universeness

:grin:
I personally am on the "joy" side. :smile:

It seems to me that you are stating that the labels that we choose to use for a real existent such as 'distance,' dimension or 'time,' fall short. — universeness

Fall short of what?

what do you conceptualise, as existing, between dimensionless point coordinates, you observe over a duration in spacetime, say, from an agreed reference/origin point, (0,0,0,0)... — universeness

Right, this is the second element I talked about (besides "desdcription"): measurement.
E.g. "10 cm" means nothing by itself, i.e. without a context or reference. But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. Americans would use "inches". Chinese would use "shì cùn". And so on. All these measures are references. They serve as descriptions and measurements, for comparison purposes. They have no existence themselves. The only existent element in all that is the chocolate itself. And it is independent of any description or measurent.

Geoffrey Hinton (first link) looks ghostly and terrified in this photo. Maybe he's been threatened or he fears he will be attacked by AI bots. :grin:
(Bad joke, for a famous and respectable person like him. But I couldn't help it. It's the climate produced by this subject, you see.)

As for Stephen Hawking warning artificial intelligence could end mankind, I know, I have read about that.
Well, it is easy to say and even argument about and proove that guns, nuclear power, etc. are in general "dangerous". But we usually mean that in a figurative way. What we actually mean is that these things can be used in a dangerous way. And if we mean it in a strict sense, then we forget the missing link: the human factor. The only responsible for the dangers technology presents.

Except if what threatens mankind is independent of us, too powerful, incontrollable and invicible by us --an attack by aliens, a natural catastrophe, a huge meteorite or even an invicible virus-- what we have to worry and take measures about is its use by humans.

The atomic bomb was created based on Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2. Can we consider this formula "dangerous"? Can we even consider the production of nuclear power based on this formula "dangerous"? It has a lot of useful applications. One of them however unfortunately has been used for the production of atomic bombs, the purpose of which is to produce enormous damage of the environment and kill people on a big scale. It has happened. Who is to bleme? The atomic bomb or the people who used it?

So, who will be to blame if AI will be used for purposes of massive destruction? AI itself or Man who created it and uses it?

So, what are we supposed to do in the face of such possibility? Stop the development of AI? Discontinue its use?

I believe that it wll be more consctuctive to start talking about amd actually taking legal measures against harmful uses of the AI. Now, before it gets uncontrollable and difficicut to tidy it up.

In physics, Planck time is posited as the smallest duration possible — universeness

Hi! Long time no see!
Yes, I know that. It's too short for me to grasp it! :grin:

Are you suggesting that a dimension does not have a physical existence? — universeness

Isn't it quite evident I do? :smile:
A dimension refers to a physical existence. Itself is not either physical or existent.

Any reference to a space dimension has direction and extent, does it not? — universeness

This is exacely what I'm saying: "a reference to".
A concept refers to something that exists or not. Itself does not exist. (In the strict sense, of course. Because the verb "exist" can be used figuratively in all sorts of ways.)

Been done a few times — Vera Mont

Of course. AI reigns in sci-fi.
I checked the titles and stories at the link you brought up ... The Marxist movement is a new idea! :smile:

"What if the computers become independent and stop following orders from humans?" — Vera Mont

This reminds of sci-fi. I have the title ready: "The revolt of the machines". A modern Marxist movement run by machines: "Computers of the world, unite!" :grin:

A single computer -- or even a whole defective batch of computers-- may stop following orders, i.e. "stop responding the way they are supposed to". And if such a thing happens, these computers are either repaired or just thrown away. What? Would they resist such actions, refuse to obey? :grin:

So, let these people worrying about the threats. Maybe they don't have anything better to do. :smile:

TIme is certainly flux — Pantagruel

Right. This is why I mentioned Heractlitus. :smile: ("Everything flows")

To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. — jgill

First of all, "duration of time" is a pleonasm or a self-referential expresssion (however you want to look at it), since duration already refers to a length of time. The same applies to "a period of tme" or "interval of time". They are all self-referential expressions. I know these expressions are commonly used. But better avoid this, at least in this place, isn't that right?

So, right. For something to exist, it must persist for some length of time. This is about the same as if we say "For a javelin throw to be valid, the javelin must go across some distance." Does that "distance" --or any distance for that matter-- actually exist? Of course not. Both time and distance are dimensions. They aer both used for description and measurement purposes. They do not actually exist.

Can something exist in only an instant of time? — jgill

Yes, if you set a length for that "instant", however small it may be. E.g. a soap bubble pops up after a few of seconds. It does exist for that length of time.
Otherwise, there's no absolute present. That would require an instant of zero-length. Which is absurd of course. So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing.

Machines are not a threat to humanity. Only Man himselg and nature can be.
Machines are created by Man. And it is how Man uses them that may present a danger.
One might ask, "What about a robot that can attack you and even kill you? Doesn't it present a danger?"
Well, who has made it? He can also stop it from attacking and even destroy it.
Oth the other hand, it is difficult and maybe impossible for Man to destroy viruses and control destructive natural phenomena.

As for AI, which is and advanced machine, with human characteristics, it has no will or purpose in itself. It just does what it is programmed and instructed to. How can it be dangerous? :smile:

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. — Pantagruel

I believe this generally true. The same thing was believed by Heraclitus 2,500 years ago! :smile:

However, this does not apply to us as beings, and esp. the mind, since most of the time we live "in the past" (remembering, contemplating, affected by and stuck on incidents, etc.) and sometimes also "in the future" (dreaming, wishing, etc.) In fact, whenever we are thinking --anything-- we don't live in the present, now. To live in the present, we must be just aware --perceive, observe, etc.-- the environment. That is be part of "the ongoing now" of the Universe that you talked about.

Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

I believe that in way this is also true. Time does not actually exist. It is a concept and something we have created to help us explain, describe and measure change and movement.

Hollywood influenced Matrix version of 'we are living in a simulated reality' without having a theory of language that explains how any of these realist claims are possible.
- Hilary Lawson — Tom Storm

You don't have to have a theory of language to create a simulated reality.
The Klingon language is a constructed language spoken by a fictional alien race. (The Klingons, in the Star Trek universe.)
One can create any kind of language as well as any kind of world.
Our world is basically independent of any specific language. But language certainly enriches immensely our world.

I can have a pretty good idea of what is happening when I see two Dutch persons quarreling, without knowing a single word of their language. I would undestand much more of course what is happening and what they are quarreling about if someone translated to me what they are saying. And I would have a better reality if I knew Dutch myself, and esp. if I were a Dutchman. Languages enriches our world.

Language is basically a set of symbols, structures and rules used to describe or communicate something with the purpose of creating information. This information is then mapped onto developping of structures --patterns, schemes, models, etc. The assimilation and understanding of this information creates knowledge.
This is how a great part of our view of the world is created.
And this is how I view the relationship of our language with our world.

I know that most people in here will find all this an oversimplification of how things are and work.
Well, I know that there are much more that can be said about the subject. But would that change the essence of what is language and "How Does Language Map onto the World?"

I'm generally interested in philosophical ideas - these often have no bearing on what I believe. Nor should they. I'm simply interested in what ideas are out there. — Tom Storm

Interesting. (As intellectual endeavor.)

I[Re: switching the focus to idealism]I didn't really. It's in the original quote from Lawson in the OP. — Tom Storm

I know that. I meant the topic itself, i.e. the mapping of language onto the world.

Anyway, I might get closer to the "language-world" subject since ita has alreaded starte to work somehow in my mind --not that I miss subjects to explore :smile:-- and read the SEP article that I brought up, to get myself some useful ideas on the subject ...

[Re: what kind of "world" you have in mind?] I have no world in mind. I am simply interested in what others think of this matter. — Tom Storm

I can't believe you wrote about something w/o having anything in mind! :smile:

I chose Lawson because he put what he thought was a key problem for ontology in plain English — Tom Storm

Yes, I know. This is why I talked about an impasse (no outlet, no solution),

I am wondering what people who study philosophy think of this claim as it strikes me as an interesting argument and might breathe some new life into debates about idealism. — Tom Storm

Oh, I din't know that. I'm not a student of or studying philosophy. So I cannot speak in that capacity.
I also see that you swtched the focus to idealism. I'm not so knowledgeable about that either.

So, I'm sorry to intervene.

Let me at least offer you a good reference on the subject: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-language-ontology/

Just a few remarks ...

When you ask "How Does Language Map onto the World?" what kind of "world" you have in mind?

The world, in the sense of our external world, the physical universe, is independent of any language. It is there whether we exist or not. (Although there are theories that say that it is us who create it. I really can't see how, except if one assumes our own worlds, i.e. our own reality of the world.)

The world, in the sense of our internal world, our reality, is obviously much connected to our language. But also obviously not limited by our language, as Wittgenstein has said. (Which most probably has rejected later in his life as I have read, but not by himself and which, anyway, is something totally unimportant for me.)

So, I guess that your question of the topic refers to our own word, am I a right? In which case, the question of the topic would have more meaning as "How Does Our Language Map onto the Our World?", wouldn't it?

Now, you have said the you have made some modest reading about this subject. And you have selected the views of Hilary Lawson as most appealing to you. Yet, these views only lead to a kind of impasse making you wonder if the problem of creating a realist(ic) theory of language is insurmountable. How I see it is as if you have started to walk to a place you wanted to visit and you created obstacles in addition to what the road itself already has, with the result of creating your own dead end. So, I believe that you kind of "killed" your topic, a very interesting one indeed.

The subject of this topic belongs to the "philosophy of language", which is huge and its history begins from the antiquity. It is offered for so many paths to choose from, which could lead to a more pleasant travel and destination.

This isn't what I asked. I asked "how do you imagine an object 'occupying time'?"
The same way it occupies space, since time and space are just different dimensions of the same thing under the spacetime view. Under the 3D view, objects and the entire universe are contained by time. I'm not sure if that would be considered 'occupying time' or not, since the term isn't typically used that way. — noAxioms

Saying "the same way it occupies space" is wrong because space and time are not "just different dimensions of the same thing"; they are two totally different things and concepts. Look them up! Besides, I already mentioned that we can undestand how an oblect occupies space, but we cannot say the same about time. So, you have avoided the question for the nth time.

After all these exchanges between us, you should have either given an exact and/or plausible answer, preferably with an example, or admitted you don't know or admitted that an object cannot actually occupy time.

So, I give up here.

This leads me to doubt the nature and reliability of "intuition" — Charlie Lin

I don't think you can doubt about the nature of anything, including concepts. Nature refers to the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. Everything that we can conceive has a nature. The only thing you can doubt about is the explanation, description, interpretation etc. by someone of the nature of something. And I believe that this is what you mean, isn't it?

Moreover, there are different kinds, aspects and contexts for "intuition". SEP has an article about 15,000 words about Intuition. And its first chapter talks about "The Nature of Intuitions". So, as you can see the subject is not so trivial that it can be confined in discussion like this one. Still, I believe that one can filter all that and talk about intuition in its common meaning, that is a direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process. Or in whatever similar description one can offer.

Then you cannot doubt about the reliability of something either, except if you refer to a context, purpose, aspect, etc. It's not reliable as or for what? From what aspect?
Using my intuition to know whether what I'm doing is right or wrong, to order a dish in a restaurant, to solve a mathematical problem, to create a relationship, etc. is very different from using my intuition e.g. to take an important financial decision, which might have catastrophic consequences.

Then, one can also look at the subject in a cool way. like Einstein, who has been reported to have said, "I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason.”

\Indeed, intuition and inspiration go together. That's why artists trust and used their intuition a lot. Technical people on the other hand trust more their reason, skills and expertise.

As for me, personally, I don't use my intuition often since I'm too rational in nature. :smile:

I can't imagine a simple belief without justification — Astrophel

If you can't imagine a simple belief without justification, meaning that a belief is always justified, then why the distinction "justified belief"? It has no meaning. It's just a pleonasm.

Knowledge is supposed to take belief to a notch higher — Astrophel

Exactly. So knowledge is different than just a belief. Which is what I have been telling you

The issue that haunts the whole affair is, "How do you know?" — Astrophel

Where does this come from? It's a question out of the blue. How people come to know things is a whole new chapter.

Yes, but I am having trouble understanding this cancelation. — Astrophel

I gave you a simple example. Maybe two. I can't do more than that.

Well then, I'll assume the fault is mine. Apologies. — Astrophel

I don't think that the fault is yours. So no need to apologise. It's quite a common phenomenon, when there's a clasj between two different views that an impasse is created and/or a discussion gets stagnated.

To me, this is a bit confusing, Alkis Piskas. I doubt we disagree, in the end. — Astrophel

Indeed, his part looks somewhat confusing. My saying "this is wrong" ddid not refer to your definition but to the rejection of mine, which you rejected with a "No, no". And I also said that "your definition is acceptable too."
OK, let';s pass over this.

Pls explain how "the words "justified" and "true" are incompatible with "I think." — Astrophel

But I just did! I said that the expression "I think that" can be replaced by "I believe that", which indicates a simple belief, not a "justified" or "true" one.

[Re "'True' and 'possible' are incompatible"]Only if you think something that is true cancels it being possible — Astrophel

But I explained that too, and I gave you an example. Besides, saying "something that is true cancels it being possible" is almost the same thing. This what "incompatible" means: impossible to exist together, simultanesously and in harmony, without conflict.

It is true that I had chicken for dinner. Are you saying it is therefore not possible that I had chicken form dinner? — Astrophel

No, this is not what I'm saying at all. Saying "not possible" (negative) changes the whole logical structure. I said that if something is said to be true "it cannot be also possible". Please read back what I said.

I have the impression that what we are doing is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. And this can go ad infinitum.

I don't consider this as a constructive, fruitful or even meaningful discussion ...

No, no; knowing is justified true belief — Astrophel

Yes, I have heard about that a few times. But this "No, no" implies that my definition was wrong and that only yours is true. Which is wrong. One can say, at best, that the your definition is acceptable too. But even so, the words "justified" and "true" are incompatible with "I think". The expression "I think that" can be replaced by "I believe that", which indicate as simple belief, not "justified" or "true".

if P is true, P is possible — Astrophel

"True" and "possible" are incompatible. If it is true that you have sent me this message, because I read it, it cannot be also possible, at the same time, that you did so. It would be possible only if I had not received or read it yet.

One has to conceive of the cogito as ... — Astrophel

Wow, that's quite an analysis! I'm sorry if I can't follow here. I lack the necessary background.

What does one observe as one observes a thought? — Astrophel

But you have just answered that just a while ago: "its existence s discovered the same way other things' existence is discovered: through observation."
Consider a thought as an image or a series of images. These are "objects" in your mind. You can perceive and observe them as you percieve and observe anything else outside your mind, in your surroundings. The only difference is that it is you who have created these "objects", which are images, whereas objects in your surroundings have been created by some other source than you.

I think that the following experiment will explain everything in the relation of knowledge and thinking and other things I have talked about. If this won't make sense to you, nothing else I could say would.

Just watch an object in front of you, e.g. your monitor, for a couple of seconds. Then close your eyes and think of what you just watched. You will create an image of the real object. This is what we call a thought. And the process of the creation of that image is what we call "thinking". This image is a representation of the real object and it may be very close to or very different from it, depending on your ability to recall. But there will be always a difference --however small-- between what you have actually observed (knowledge) and what you thought about it.
And this is the difference between knowing and thinking about something.

I see no better way to interpret 'a life' than 'a body, while it is alive'. That makes it an object in any scientific sense. — noAxioms

Obviously.

If you have a non-scientific definition of such things ... — noAxioms

What things? And what do you mean by "non-scientific definition"?

Do you have a reference for the consensus view of neurobiology that a brain cannot 'originate, create, imagine a thought from scratch'. — noAxioms

How can I have such a ref? This is an impossible question for a philosophical discussion. It can be asked only and maybe among scientific communities. For out purposes, one can only know about the prevailing views of neuro(bio)logy on the subject. You can google if you like things like "Thoughts are created", "Thoughts are located", etc. You will see that almost all the results refer to the brain.

Under the spacetime view, they're just different dimensions of the same thing, so every 'object' has a ... — noAxioms

This isn't what I asked. I asked "how do you imagine an object 'occupying time'?" And I added that I'm very curious. Well, I'm not anymore! :smile: In fact, I wasn't curious at all. It was a manner of speaking. Because an object occupying time is a totally absurd idea.

so if you don't understand it, you're not particularly qualified to critique it. — noAxioms

This is called argumentum ad hominem, i.e. "argument against the person". And it's a bad thing.

I see. OK.

I think I know what it is to know — Astrophel

If you think you know then you don't know! :smile:

Knowing means understanding clearly and with certainty.
Thinking --in this context and case-- means considering something possible.
These two do not match.

it's not the cogito that grounds knowing because the "I" that thinks remains at a distance from that which is thought. — Astrophel

Indeed it's not thinking that creates knowledge, but not because the reason you give but because thinking and knowledge do not match, as I showed above.
That "the 'I' that thinks remains at a distance from that which is thought" doesn't mean much. You can equally say that I am at a distance from my memories, my emotions, everything created by my mind, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. Yet, I am connected to them unbreakably. In fact, the thinker is the thought.

"I am" is an ontological claim; "I think" is epistemic. — Astrophel

I agree with the first. I disagree with the second. "Epistemic" means of or relating to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it. And, as I shown, thinking and knowledge are incompatible concepts.

What Descartes didn't see was that the "Deus deceptor" could indeed still be constructing an illusion — Astrophel

I agree. I have mentioned in here and elsewhere that thinking is not prove that one exists. But I have also thought that maybe by "thinking" Descartes meant "being aware". In which case, he was right.
See, at that time the terms and concepts of "consciousness" and "awareness" were not developed yet.

underlying our knowledge of the world, there is a foundation of intuition — Astrophel

This is a good point you have brought up. It reminds me of what imagination and intuition meant to Einstein in relation to knowledge:

• “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.”
  .
• “I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason.”

Good. But I'm not sure if you still believe that illusion is something inexistent. Also, if you believe that phenomenal consciousness is something inexistent too ...

BTW, in such cases, where a lot of concepts are involved and their analysis leads to doubt, conflict, confusion, etc., I believe the best thing to do is to try to use one's experience, i.e. first-hand knowledge. In this case, forgeting about terms and concepts, just be aware of your environment and yourself in it and inside you (one at a time! :smile) If all that feels real to you and you can repeat it whenever and for how many times you want, would you think that it is an illusion? That is, your environment, yourself, your thoughts, etc. do not actually exist?

You are dealing here with two different subjects: "illusion" as a concept and "illusionism" as a philosophical idea.

In the first case, most dictionaries and even Wikipedia, treat the concept of "illusion" from a physical view, and more specifically related to human perception and senses. For example, we all know of course about optical illusions. But surprisingly enough, they miss another huge area of application of the term.
Dictionary.com (former Oxford LEXICO), defines "illusion" as follows:
"1. Something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
2. The state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension."
See the "space" that these definitions open up?

In the second case, although there are different theories of "illusionism" in philosophy, I think that the most common and what I personally came to know about is one that has to do with the nature of consciousness. A view belonging to "eliminative materialism", which considers and describes phenomenal consciousness as an illusion.

In the article "Eliminative Materialism" of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we read:
"'Illusionism' about consciousness [is] a label designed to help indicate why it seems to us that phenomenal consciousness is real (Frankish, 2016, 2017). Illusionism is motivated in part by broader theoretical considerations, such as the problematic nature of consciousness from the standpoint of physicalism and the observation that even reductive accounts of phenomenal experience typically suggest some sort of misapprehension of what is really going on."

So the I guess radical conclusion for me is that phenomenal properties cannot be illusory because there simply is no such thing as an illusion, — goremand

I don't know why you say that there is no such thing as an illusion. I believe that after clearing the term, as I did above, you must give the concept of "illusion" a second chance! :smile:
Otherwise, I agree with you that the phenomenal properties cannot be illusory, at least as far as consciousness is concerned, but for another reason. What you are experiencing is always real. As what you are dreaming is always real. It just happens. It is kind of "registered". Now if the contents of what you are experiencing and what you are dreaming are nonsense, contrary to facts or logic, etc. this is something else. We are talking here about relative reality, relative truth, which are on a scale from totally illogical or unreal to very logical and real. Because there's no such thing as absolute reality or truth. Hypothetically maybe yes, but not on practical level, i.e. a level that we can talk about, that we can express, explain or describe. What is real or true for me, may not be for you. And vice versa. The same goes for illusion. My reality about a subject may look illusionary to you and vice versa.

The future is memories. — Art48

Say what?

Apologies for responding to stuff sometimes days old, but some of them needed comment. It turned into a long post. — noAxioms

Why do you aplogize? I was not expecting a response from you but from the OP of this discussion, @Michael, who seems not to know what a discussion is and/or he lacks communication basics, esp. when he is the OP of a discussion.

Also known as the block universe, or eternalism, a view that goes back to at least the 11th century. — noAxioms

Thanks for letting me know.

Re "But can a person's life be considered an "object"?
Yes, quite easily. It being an object only becomes problematic if its identity is challenged ... — noAxioms

Then we are not speaking about the basic meaning of the term "object", which is anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form, but about is secondary and more general meaning, i.e. anything to which thought and action is directed, related or referred. The first is clearly physical. The second one not necessarily physical.

A human life is bounded by a couple meters of space — noAxioms

Most probably you mean a "human body". (A life occupying space is just absurd.)

Re "And if we accept that to be true, should we also consider thoughts as objects too?"
Why, because you don't consider thoughts to be a physical process, or because you don't consider a physical process to be an object. — noAxioms

I don't consider thoughts to be a physical process. There's nothing to prove this. The brain reactions that neurobiologitsts and other consider as thought are just that: reactions. The brain is a stimulous-response mechanism, And as such it reacts to thoughts, in various ways. That's all it does and can do. It cannot originate, create, imagine a thought from scratch.

Re "But both are concepts that cannot exist in space! How can we include them in 4 dimensions when they do not exist even in 3 dimensions?"
Re: "We say that an object occupies space. I really cannot see how it can also "occupy time""
That's like saying you're ok with bread having width but you can't see how it can have length. — noAxioms

"Width and length refer both to space. They have nothing to do with time.
Indeed, how do you imagine an object "occupying time"? I'm very curious ...

What the Andromeda Paradox implies is that the observed universe apparently shifts in its entirety towards a moving observer. — magritte

I have not tackled the Andromeda Paradox yet. In the articles it is said to be an extension by Penrose of "a form of" the Rietdijk–Putnam argument. I only talked about the Rietdijk–Putnam argument itself and how it didn't make much sense to me.

So I expected that the OP would clarify at least one or two of my questions. The OP however couldn't care less. Well, there are different ways OPs view and handle their launching of a discussion ...

Afer that, I couldn't care less myself about the Andromeda Paradox, But since you have brought it up, I just had a look on it, in the same article of the link in question.

My first impression is that the "experiment" is unnecessary complex and includes unnecessary details that add nothing to its essence, e.g. the two persons crossing each other --because it is impossible to pass each other ... except if they were foot racing! :grin: They could be anywhere on the planet. The "paradox" has to do mainly with time, and very little with space. Then the trip to Andromeda is too far-fetched and quite unrealistic. The same "paradox" could be set on something much simpler and realistic, like e.g. tennis final. (One can think of a million of such simple examples.) So, one person knows that the match is about to start and the other doesn't know what time the match will start. One can add more uncertainties --always realistic ones-- e.g. wheher the match will take place at the foreseen day or it will be postponed because of weather conditions, which players are going to compete for the title, etc.

Which means that in the forward moving direction many more of the most distant galaxies come into possible view and we lose some distant galaxies from possible view behind us. This is all pretty absurd, yet it is demonstrably true. — magritte

I see that you introduce more factors than what is described by Penrose. But this can be done also in my own example as I mentioned above. However, the main factor --as I see it-- involved here, the "protagonist", is "uncertainly". Any additions only increase --they might also decrease-- that uncertainty.

Then this becomes equivalent to an observer shifting its 'present' physically measurably in space toward the direction of motion. The effect is that we can see from some future present some event that can then be prevented from causing harm in the present present after we quickly got back to where we belong. — magritte

You see a factor here the importance or even the meaning of which --in the present context-- most probably escapes me: the direction of motion.

Well, It;s good that at least you enjoy this "paradox"! :smile:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument — Michael

About the Rietdijk–Putnam argument, to which the above link refers to, we read the following:
"In philosophy, the Rietdijk–Putnam argument, named after C. Wim Rietdijk [nl] and Hilary Putnam, uses 20th-century findings in physics – specifically in special relativity – to support the philosophical position known as four-dimensionalism."

This reference is among those that can entrap you in an endless nested chain of references within references, as they contain terms that you are not acquainted with and you need to look them up. Even if you can skip some of them, there some that are important for the understanding of the subject at hand. In this case, we have the term "four-dimensionalism". So, from Wikipedia, I read the following:

"In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensionalism)

Now, I had to look up temporal parts, because it is central to the description of four-dimensionalism. It is also an intriguing term, I think:
"In contemporary metaphysics, temporal parts are the parts of an object that exist in time. A temporal part would be something like 'the first year of a person's life', etc."
But can a person's life be considered an "object"? And if we accept that to be true, should we also consider thoughts as objects too? But both are concepts that cannot exist in space! How can we include them in 4 dimensions when they do not exist even in 3 dimensions? See the impasse one could get in? Well, this might be \a problem of mine only ...

However, getting back to the description of four-dimensionalism, there are things that throw me off or, at best, make me wonder:
1) "An object's persistence through time is like its extension through space". But if something (physical) exists a) it exists in space, where else? and b) if something exists (in space) can it not exist in time too?
(And, what does "extension through space" mean? This is too perplexing,)
2) "An object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies." We say that an object occupies space. I really cannot see how it can also "occupy time". Can time be occupied? If it could, then we wouldn’t be able e.g. to hear two sounds together! It would like in the early computers that could only produce monophonic sounds. So, I am wondering, is occupying time just a ridiculous notion or there's something more to it?

This is as far as the Rietdijk–Putnam argument is concerned. I will reply to the Andromeda Paradox in a separate comment.

even if a moral state of mind is biologically and measurably indistinct from an immoral or amoral state of mind. — NOS4A2

Of course, since the "biological" mind, i.e. the brain, is not involved in morality in any way.
(I know that most people would disagree about this. Otherwise, materialism/physicalism would not reign in our world!)

others will come to believe that you are good or evil according to what opinions you hold, regardless of any other behaviors you may or not engage in. — NOS4A2

Unfortunately, this is true.

I wonder if I’ve been doing it wrong this whole time, as for so long I’ve been judging people according to their conduct, how they treat others, and not by the opinions they hold and share. — NOS4A2

I believe you did it right. Ethics (morality) has to do mainly with action not thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. although these two areas are usually in agreement. (Exceptions are hypocrisy, lying, dishonesty, etc. That is saying one thing and doing another. But the opposite can also happen, one can exhibit verbal violence but he can't "harm a fly".)

thinking and speaking are some of the least consequential in terms of physics. — NOS4A2

Agree.

So I raise the question to the experts. Does ethics apply to thoughts? Is a man evil if he has evil thoughts, and good if he has good ones? — NOS4A2

Experts in what? Philosophy, psychology, religion, neuroscience, ...? :smile:
Well, anyway, I'm not an expert in any of these but it happens I know well how the mind works, both in theory and in practice, having worked a lot and still working sometimes on this field. Actually there are no evil persons not even evil minds. There are only aberrated persons and minds. By "aberrated" I mean deviating from normal, i.e. what is expected, rational, healthy, good, etc. All of us are aberrated to some degree. However, aberration --with mental illness being its highest form-- is not a criterion of morality, since morality is exhibited with actions and not just thoughts, as I already mentioned. We say, e.g. "commit a crime". And crimes can be committed by anyone: a rational or irrational or mentally ill person and in "cold blood" or in a state of passion.
I must notice here that if a crime is committed by a highly aberrated (mentally ill) person, it cannot be considered as "immoral" (or even a crime), as far as that person is concerned, since such persons, have no sense of right or wrong. This is why such criminals do not end up in prisons but in asylums, per court orders.

If you want to find the “process of thought” watch a person think. Human thought, like believing and reasoning, is an action performed by persons, and not by any other collection of things and processes. If you want to see a cartwheel or a backflip you do the same thing: watch a person perform these actions. — NOS4A2

:up:
But if you train your brain hard enough, it will be able to do these things itself, automatically. You wouldn't have to do anything at all. Not even thinking about doing them! :grin:

If thoughts are not persons thinking, beliefs are not persons believing, and reasons not persons reasoning, then they are nothing but words without a referent. There is no other way around it. — NOS4A2

:up:

Thoughts are more events than things. See the following link for information about scientists detecting thought events:
https://www.eedesignit.com/oh-no-ai-now-reads-minds/ — wonderer1

Interesting! Now, neurologists resort to AI to find answers about the process of thinking!
So they say, "If the participant is open to having their thoughts decoded, their listening to a new story or imagining telling a story allows the machine to generate corresponding text from brain activity alone."
If the decoding of thoughts is a fact, that would have shaken not only the whole scienific community but the whole world!
And also, my dreams would become true! I have been thinking of such a possibily since a very long time ago: being able to project one thoughts on a monitor! What a thrill, eh?
Unfortunetely though, this still belongs to sci-fi ...

Yet, if this some day becomes true, who can guarantee that it is the brain that creates this process and not that it just reacts --as a stimulus-response mechanism that it is-- to thoughts produced from some other source than the brain? Ha!
In fact, this is what's happening: When I'm thinking of a stressful life event willfully --not, unintentionally-- this has inpact on my body because it produces adrenaline and sensorial disorders. This of course happens in communication with the brain, which controls the pituary gland, etc. But it's not the brain that thinks of that stressful event. The brain can only receive stimuli (signals) and react to them.

Excellent presentation, Wayferer! :up:

There are more arguments about the failure of materialist philosophy of the mind than what one can imagine. For me it is a dead case. But who am I to say. Leibniz has already set the point with his "Mill Argument Against Mechanical Materialism" 300 years ago:

"If we imagine a machine whose structure makes it think, sense, and have perceptions, we could conceive it enlarged, keeping the same proportions, so that we could enter into it, as one enters a mill. Assuming that, when inspecting its interior, we will find only parts that push one another, and we will never find anything to explain a perception. And so, one should seek perception in the simple substance and not in the composite or in the machine." (GP: VI, 609/AG: 215)

Long ago, before I came upon this, I had thought something quite similar: If thoughts were produced and stored in the brain, shouldn't neurologists or other specialized scientists,ehen they open or scan the brain, be able to trace them and identify them? Yet, not only there has been the least trace of such an identification but they have not even explained the process of thought, at least not in a provable and undisputed way. As Leibniz would say, they will "never find anything to explain a thought". And think that "perception" that Leibniz talks about is much more concrete and near to physicality that thinking.

There's little reason to doubt that consciousness is influenced to some degree by the whole body. — frank

You could even say "it is obvious". A large --if not the largest-- part of consciousness depends on perception. And our perception depends on our senses.

As a starting point, consider the features of consciousness identified by the IIT project. One of them is point of view, or intrinsic perspective. — frank

Right. Integrated Information Theory --it always helps if you give the full name-- is only a perspective. Which ignores the hard problem of consciousness.

even if a person experiences a state of disembodiment, as when under the influence of mind altering substances, there's still a sense of engaging the world from a point of view, so this would qualify as a kind of embodiment. — frank

One does not have to take mind altering drugs to feel or be in a state of "disembodiment". One does not even need to be disembodied to feel and know that he is something more than his body and that his consciousness is only in part dependent on his body. One has only be aware of his body and that he is aware of himself and aware of being aware. One needs not take mind altering drugs or be in any kind of state of hallucination for that.

A challenge to going further and saying that consciousness is entirely arising from the whole body starts with observing one of the ways that humans differ from other animals. — frank

Exactly. This is how humans differ from (other) animals: Humans can be aware of themselves and aware of being aware, as I said above.

If consciousness is strictly a bodily function, we'd have to explain how it is that the body doesn't adapt, but the mind does. — frank

Exactly. Doesn't this alone create a problem to the perspective that consciousness arises from the body?
But of course there are many more ...
Even neuroscientists today admit that consciousness cannot simply be reduced to neural activity alone ...
Only a stubborn and insincere scientist will insist that consciousness is created and exists in the brain, without having to provide the least evidence (not theory) for that. Scientists who are claiming that personal experience alone is not trustworthy evidence of mental phenomena. And consciousness is something that can only be experienced!

Why then don't you remove all that you have written and just leave the reference alone?
— Alkis Piskas
Because that would deprive you of the freedom to ignore my suggestion, just as Adam and Eve ignored god's command. — unenlightened

So, I did well to obey your "command" and not read your description of the topic. Thus I will not be cast out of Eden! :grin:

(BTW, God is not human. It is created by humans.)

Please do not read this thread, it will only upset you. — unenlightened

Please do not read this comment. You won't like it.
:grin:

Why then don't you remove all that you have written and just leave the reference alone? :gasp:

The rationalism is ideal because the people that subscribe to it don't fully understand and the real is irrational because what occurs are false appeals that seem rationational based on the ideal. — introbert

Hi.

Do you mean that the concept of "rationalism" is not completely clear, and that, in contast, the concepts of "real" and "irrational", are completely clear?
But if "rationalism", which is based on "rationality", is not completely clear how can "irrationality" be?

Then, if indeed this is true, why is something that is not fully undestood considred "ideal"? In what way? What's the connection?

Can you explain all this, please?

You've said the agreement is implicit, — Judaka

Where have I talked about an "implicit agreement"?? I talked about "impicit rules and principles"! Which is wuite obvious anyway.

You have also chosen to totally ignore the element of agreement, which I repeatedly brought up and which is vital to the subject.

In short, you either cannot see my point at all or you have chosen not to, and just stick to yours. No problem with me.

And from what I have read in the comments by other members, no one agrees that morality is coercive. I'm not surprised, since it doesn't make sense. It's a very strange bias, which comes maybe from some traumatic experience(s) in your life or some serious misconception(s) on the subject, matched with an inablility to see the obvious and logical, all of which prevent you to see what morality actually is.

So, thanks for this exchange. There's nothing more for me to say.

it's not like morality is literally just conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. — Judaka

I said "in general". Which means that there are other meanings of "morality".
(Details count! :smile:)

If it was conformity, then my OP would be pointless because conformity does not require thought, one simply only has to obey. — Judaka

Well, it's not at all my intention to jump on you, but I need to comment on what I disagree with. Here, I disagree that conformity does not require thought. It is like saying that discipline, lawfulness (being in harmony with the law),and the like do not require thought. They do. I talked about agreement, remember? And agreement certainly requires thought. Conformity without thought would be robotic behaviour, blind faith and things like that. That would fit zealously religious people, people with lack of self-confidene or will, etc. And AI robots, of course! :grin:

If morality is obedience mandated upon joining a group — Judaka

Sorry again, but there's a difference between conformity and obedience.
"Conformity is the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group."
"Obedience is the change of an individual’s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure."
(See Conformity and Obedience)

there are many rules that describe right conduct that fall outside the purview of morality for me. — Judaka

Right. Because you have your own rules adn principles of morality, isn't that so? We all have. But being social beings, we need to make compromises in order to live harmoniously with other people. Isn't that right?

My OP is not about the actual following of rules but the discussion that takes place surrounding morality. — Judaka

Certainly.

If it's just a set of rules to be followed, and it's "my way or the highway" then fine, but is that what morality is? — Judaka

No, I don't think it is. Sometimes, as I already mentioned, these "sets of rules" are not even expressed, thay are implicit, kind of "invisible". Human logic, intuition, knowledge, experience, culture, and of course conscience, "talk" by themselves about what these rules are. And in most cases they are consistent with those expressed or dictated --explicitly or implicity-- by the groups, the society and humanity at large.
So, the sense of morality is created in a peson since an early age, by upbringing and education but also by one's own factors like the ones I mentioned above. Therefore, we cannot say that morarily is "coercive" or "unrealistic". Can we?

But from the moment you choose to join or stay with that group, it is only logical that you agree with and stick to those rules asd principles, isn't that right?
— Alkis Piskas
No, it's not right. As one is not forced to leave the group when refusing to stick with these moral principles as you call them. — Judaka

Correct. I should make it more clear that there are cases where one has to agree with the rules and principles if one wants to be part of the group. But see, even if one has to do a compromise, there must be always an agreement. Otherwise, for how long can one stay in group if one is in constant conflict with it? One can always try to change those rules and succeed, but this is something totally different. This is how a society evolves. There are always individuals and groups with bgf ideas and influence that change things in a society. Also, the society itself matures and changes with time. Things that were considered and faced as immoral in the past cease to be anymore. And vice versa, things that are considered moral or not immoral today were condemned in the past.

I just don't agree with your view on morality at all, but if I did, then I can see your point. — Judaka

I can certainly see that! :smile: But I appreciate a lot your directness and how you proceed to establish your views. And I believe this is why we are --or should be-- here: to express our views. (Although this is not the case for some! :smile:)