:up:

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist — Art48

What God? You yourself said, correctly, that "religions do not, and cannot, agree", which means that the concept of "God" differs among them. And you confirm this later, by saying "different civilizations making up different stories about God."
We are used, unfortunately, to say "God is or does this and that", "the God", etc., as something (the existence of which is) given or absolute and/or without any reference. (That's why when I bring up the term "God", I use it in one of the following manners: "the Christian God", "the God of the Bible", "a God", "a god", "gods", "a God or Supreme Being", etc.)

Then, I guess you kind of "prove" that God --any kind of God-- doesn't really exist by reductio ad absurdum, i.e. this situation, with all these differences, etc. are a proof or indication that none of these Gods exists. Right, it is the only way to prove that something does not exist when there are no and cannot be proofs that it exists. However, this is a generalization that may not stand for all religions or, more specifically, all the kinds of descriptions of a God. One has to examine all these descriptions and prove them fallacious, imaginary, etc. Yet, one needs not even do that. The proof of the existence of something lies with the one who claims its existence. There's no meaning for me to try prove that there is no angel standing at the top of the church if I don't see any and do not believe that there can be any. Whoever sees that angel is responsible for proving it.

And such a proof --a generally accepted proof, independent of religion-- remains to be given! :smile:

***
Addednum:
Re: "Whoever sees that angel is responsible for proving it." For proving that there is indeed an angel standing there.

(Check your INBOX)

You are the only one who responded to the wish message and the nice image.
Are you human? :grin:

... Or are you the only human in here? :grin:

Convince the members of this forum that the right path of life is Bushidō. — javi2541997

I like Bushido. But, I can't convince this forum about much simpler and more essetial things! :grin:

It's philosophy of physics - specifically the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the nature of space and time, and the relation of mathematics to the universe. — Andrew M

OK. There's also a "Philosophy of kitchen", a "Philosophy of animals", ... in short, a "Philosophy of Everything".

Since you referred to Wikipedia, here is what it says about "Philosophy":

"Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy)

You can also find in there the branches of philosophy: Aesthetics, Ethics, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logic, Mind and language, Philosophy of science, Political philosophy, Philosophy of religion, Metaphilosophy.

Well, maybe this is not a Philosophy forum after all ...

n a true democracy the government should serve (all) the people, — TheMadMan

This is totally impossible. Sometimes one cannot even satisfy all the members of a family or even of a small group. For the very simple reason that people's needs differ in a lot of ways.

That is why, in a group the members of which disagree on a certain issue, a voting is carried out. And the majority wins, i.e. get what they want. Sometimes, it's not enough to have a majority, e.g. when there are more that two options, but the votes must cover a certain minimum percentage (50%, 2/3, etc.) This is what they call "absolute majority" (although the term is somehow self-contradictory.)

There is no and cannot exist such a thing as a "true democracy". True is an absolute, and democracy is relative. Groups and nations can be said to be more democratic than others.

In all our attempts to create a true democracy — TheMadMan

When and by whom was this is ever been attempted?

It is very clear that a true form of democracy hasn't existed in any government. — TheMadMan

What is a "true form of democracy"?

The word "democracy" comes from ancient Greek "δημοκρατία" (pronounced "democratia"), which comes from the noun "demos" (= people) and the verb "cratein" (= govern).
Literally speaking, such a thing is totally impossible, of course. So as a first remark, we can say that democracy is relative. And this in fact is what we see if we examine the governmental systems or schemes of various countries, but also the ruling system of any organized group. The main question to ask is "how much power people have in such a system and in what form?" Based on this, we can state that the more power people have and the more strong this is, the more democratic this system is. And the other way around.

In ancient Greece, the citizens who were eligible to vote were gathering very often in the central market, to decide through their votes about important matters of the state.



In our Western civilization, the closest we can get to that are local or national referendums. (I'm not considering elections, which occur every 4 or 5 years! These consist the most rudimentary form of democracy and have very little to do with actual people's power. Hence the large percentages of abstention in a lot of countries.) We also have local (autonomous) government administrations, but these are more representations of the state government than people's voice.

Now, the Athenian democracy is one about which I think we have more information and details than any other part of the Western worlds and even the whole world. And in fact, it is considered as the origin of democracy itself. However, in its essence, democracy must exist since the early organized communities formed by Man. But I don't see any value in studying such primitive forms of democracy ...

I'm just talking about the word "object" and it's use. The interaction I mentioned was between the two uses and meanings of the word. Mathematics and engineering have nothing to do here.

Anyway, nevermind. Too much has been already said about the subject. Let's move on.

It might appear like a very acceptable approach, to say that abstract objects are objects, only a different kind of object from physical objects, but then we need acceptable principles to set the two apart, or else we'll have equivocation between two types of "objects" in logical proceedings. As Banno indicated, this is problematic, because it presents the issue of interaction between the two types. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are right. The term "objects" I ised in saying "Numbers are abstract objects" might be confusing because it normally refers to something physical. I could use the word "things" --which is more general and can refer to anything-- but it's too commonplace and banal. So I prefer to use neither and say, "Numbers are abstract".

So, I believe we should use the word "object" only for material things, things we can perceive with our senses, things that actually exist. Thus, we can talk about objective things, which actally exist, indepedently of us, in contrast to subjective things, which are abstact and exist only for (each one of) us.

In this case, I think, there would be no equivocation, as you say, neither any kind of interaction of two types of objects.

Note: Of course, no confusion should be produced if the context, phrase or expression in which the word "object" appears, make it clear about its nature and meaning. E.g. my use of the expression "abstract objects" shows that the the word "object" is used as something non-physical, since something that is abstract can never be physical. Yet, as I said earlier, it is better to avoid the use of the word "object" altogether in these cases. Look what it has created! :grin:

math is a language that refers to objective reality, for instance, the number 2. — Art48

if the number 2 is in spacetime, where is it? And when? — Art48

With which I agree. But I think it is in conflict with your first statement, namely that numbers are objective (reality). It may be a question of interpretation ...

Anyway, this is my view on the subject:

Numbers are abstract objects. They do not actually exist.
The same applies to words.
They can be both spoken and written, but what we have then is only sounds and visual images, not the words themselves.

Numbers, like words, are not material. They only exist in our mind.

Note:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that they don't even exist in our mind:
"numbers are neither material beings nor ideas in the mind"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/

***

Addendum
Re: "Numbers are abstract objects". The term "objects" might be confusing because it normally refers to something physical. I could use the word "things" --which is more general and can refer to anything-- but it's too commonplace and banal. So I prefer to use neither and say, "Numbers are abstract".

We Are Math? — Art48

How can we be what we have created them?
Can we be Ido or Esperanto?

Mathematics is a language. The language of Science. All languages are products of human thought. They are symbols that we have created in order to describe things in our environment and communicate with each other.

In its most basic form, Mathematics is numbers. They came into existence the moment man has started to count.

Mathematics are inherent to humans. Infants start to count before even they know what numbers are. And when they do that, they come into contact with the nature of Mathematics.

However, the various systems --or what we call fields-- of Mathematics are not inherent to humans. These include algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, probabilities, etc. There also exist or have been existed different mathematical techniques, which are not even included in the list of the ones used in the Western civilization. For instance, Vedic Mathematics. All these are developed by humans, based on a multitude of conditions, with culture being the main one, as well as factors that have to do with the purpose of their usage and so on.

But the main point is this:
We cannot be the product of our thought. We cannot be our thoughts. We cannot be what we produce.

When we drill down to the deepest level of matter, we get the quantum wavefunction, ... — Art48

When we look up, at a highest level of matter, we see the Universe ...

Microcosm and macrocosm ... Small order and great order ...

We have formulated laws for both. And in some cases or from some aspects we can see a similarity.

:up: Very interesting info. I have noted down the links to check them later. Thanks.

I have never been involved in a discussion about nominalism, nor have I ever considered it much important as a subject, but I have to bring up what Wikipedia says about it, namely that "There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals – things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects – objects that do not exist in space and time." You are limiting it to the second one. But I consider it more interesting, anyway! :smile: Although, Wiki's statement falls into a kind of "circularity" trap: space and time are themselves such abstract objects; they don't really exist!

“The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, ... — Art48

Isn't it interesting that Alexander the Great's conquests ended at India? HydaspesRiver marked the limit of his conquests. He of course had died at that period and could not continue its conqueting "career", and I'm far from an historian, but I always believed that he was personally conquered by the great Indian civilization he was faced with.

So, I guess Christian missionaries faced the same problem. And, from what I know, they could not even survive long in Japan either. The Eastern civilization (as we call it today) was too strong to conquer.

So, I was just intrigued by the parallel cases ... I give way now to those who know much better than me.

Why do you ask if you don't really care about replies?

Why do you ask if you don't really care about replies?

Jeremy, the great Bentham, father of utilitarianism, proposed a simple mathematical formula called the felicific calculus — Agent Smith

I just had a look at the subject of felicific calculus in Wiki and found Bentham's "algorithm" quite interesting, I don't know if anyone has ever examined the subject of "pleasure" in such a detailed manner. And, if we consider that pleasure is closely connected to ethics, then we can say that this "algotithm" applies also to ethics, in general.

However, this is only an effort to "quantify" pleasure, and by extension, ethics.

An algoritithm involves computation --that's why I used the word within quotation marks-- and quantification involves measurement. And none of the factors involved in the formula --except for duration-- are measurable, at least, not to a sastisfactory degree. So, the model presented by Bentham is a method of evaluating actions on a relative and quite general basis. And even then, it is quite difficult to compare two actions in order to judge which is exactly more ethical (or unethical) than the other. We can only have an idea about this. So, in fact, this method or model can only serve as a description of the factors involved in the identification of an action in terms of pleasure or ethics.

Anyway, this was a great contribution to the topic, @Agent Smith. :up:

I think yes, in literal, absoulute terms. Something is either true or false. There's no intermediate state. We cannot say partly or partially true in absolute terms. E.g. We can say "This is partially true", "This is half the truth, "This is not the whole truth", etc. but this will influence the outcome of a case, in favor or against it. But these are not decisive statements if we are to establish the truth of the case, e.g. in a court.

As for your example "If not A then B", it cannot stand by itself, in general. A context is needed. And even then it may true or false (Here we are! :smile:). E.g. the statement "If am not native, I am foreing" stands (it is correct, true). The statement "If am not American, I am Greek" does not stand (for obvious reasons).

I think that the "Refutation" is unfounded or anyway incorrect. Why should Logical positivism be itself justified? It's a method or system, not a statement or argument. Only the latter can be justified and proved to be circular, i.e. fallacies.
Likewise about "Caveat": Criteria are not statements or arguments to be justified etc.

So. as I see it, there's no case here.

I vaguely feel like I might have asked this already but can't find it. — TiredThinker

Not improbable, if time is circular. The time has returned to a point for you to ask this question again! :grin:

Well, my view of time is that it is neither circular not linear, since these things apply to physical things, and time isn't. Actually it is not even non-physical. It simply isn't anything at all. It only exists in our minds as a concept and used for description purposes as well as a dimension for measuting movement and change.

This is quite funny. The video stops exactly after the psychiatrist's question "Is there an awareness of the dowingness of the brain?" That was indeed a very starling question coming after 45 minutes in a discussion that had nothing to do with brains. I guess that Krishanumurti was startled too and asked himself at that point, "Brain? OMG. What am I doing here? Why am I addressing to this guy? He doesn't have a clue of what I am talking about ... He can't see anything else than a brain!!"

Indeed, as does the 90% of the people in here.

On the other hand, Krishnamurt has had quite interesting and inspiring meetings with David Bohm.

Anyway, I think that bringing Krishanumurti --one of my favorite philosophers since 50 years ago-- in here must baffle --even upset-- quite a lot the "audience"! Esp. if they watch the video. He's soooo far away from the general climate in here ...

As for me, this was a nice breath of change. Thanks a mil! :smile:

Indeed so.

Everyone knows what time is. — Raymond

Do they? Or do they think they know? :smile:

That's why I wonder what the big mystery is. — Raymond

Well, I don't think that it is a mystery: it is not something kept secret, neither something obscure nor something puzzling. No one questions what "time" is, since this word is deeply rooted into our minds and lives since ever. We are talking about it ... all the time. Right. Like in this expression, time has a lot of meanings and uses. We also personify it, using it as an entity, in phrases like "Time goes by", "Time heals", etc. And we treat it as something that we even own: "I have no time for this", "My time is limited", "My time or your time (different time zones)?", etc.

But the essence of time escapes most people, even philosophers and scientists. Yet, Heraclitus had shown --2,500 years ago-- in the best way possible the essence of time, and without even talking about it: "Everything flows". "You can't walk into the same river twice." Perpetual movement and change. So, the actual mystery is why have we kept on chasing a phantom since then! :smile:

This is the risk one takes when one agrees to see a psychiatrist! :smile:
In this case the woman's delusion might well have been a "prophesy", i.e. she might have foreseen that the psychiatrist would chase (through justice) her to confine her to an asylum. :worry:

And this is contradicted by their doctrine that we create our lives fully and should take responsibility for our own births. — Gregory

Excellent point, and you are well justified to question this (apparent) contradiction, which indeed seems huge: on the one hand, the Buddhist doctrine of "non-self" says that that there is no unchanging, permanent self or essence that can be manifested in any phenomenon. One should recognize everything as impermanent. On the other hand, it talks about ethics, karma, rebirth, etc. which can only refer to a person, an individual, separate unit. Yet, we meet the word "person" repeatedly in Buddhist texts. But I have never seen defining what that person is. There’s no even an independent soul or spirit in Buddhism. The only thing I remember having read is that it is the consciousness that is reborn. Well, who is the carrier of that consciousness?

Now, I used the word "apparent" in parentheses, which means it is seems a contradiction only to the uninitiated. Although I have read tones of books and other texts in Buddhism and listen to a lot of lectures --but in the long past, when I had not yet matured in philosophy-- I never questioned what you are questioning in this topic of yours. I had found a lot of useful things and ideas that were enough for me to keep me happy with my acquaintance of Buddhism! (BTW, I still respect Buddhism a lot today and consider it the best bug religion in the world.) Yet, I have not studied it officially and in depth so that I can explain this apparent contradiction. Which, evidently, does not actually exist, and I am certain that those who have studied Buddhism can certainly explain it. Otherwise, Buddhism would not stand in time. (Christianity stands too, despite all its actual contradictions, but then it is a dogmatic religion.)

This is contradicted by the idea that Nirvana is now, is here. — Gregory

Your second contradiction is also justifiable. But again, I believe that people who have "officially" studied Buddhism could easily deal with that too! :smile:

For example it is not wrong for me to eat a chocolate bar and it is not wrong for me not to eat one. — Andrew4Handel

Iit is not wrong for me to drive a car and it is not wrong for me not to drive a car. Iit is not wrong for me to write this comment and it is not wrong for me not to write this comment What's the issue here?

Yet there are rules ... It would be wrong for you to eat a chocolate if you were a diabetic. And it would wrong for me to drive a car if I suffered from Parkinson or other disability that impedes driving.

Then, what does all that have to do with the title of your topic, "Deciding what to do"[/b?

Really, what's your point?

I'm still struggling with the issues involved with consciousness. — GLEN willows

I what way are you "struggling" and why? What is your adversary?

The most pressing for me is how - if consciousness isn't entirely a function of the brain, and is somehow outside the brain - that wouldn't invoke the mind-body problem? — GLEN willows

I believe, yes. that would invoke the mind-body duality. But if you feel you have to struggle with that, it means that you either don't grasp it or you don't accept it. It doesn't make sense to you. It is not real for you. And if, as you say it poses a "problem" for you, well, it is this maybe the adversary you are struggling with. For one reason or the other you resist to it.

I don't think that this can be resolved by just getting involved with concepts and general thinking. An extroverted attitude is needed towards this subject. Posing practical questions help. E.g. "Who is conscious right now, me or my brain?", "Who has thought about and composed this topic, me or my brain?", "If I have a brain can I also be a brain?", "Can a stimulus-response mechanism, such a a brain, observe, be conscious, think, rationalize, solve problems in life, imagine, be creative, play music?" And so on

]Is it ethical for technological automation to be stunted, in order to preserve jobs? — Bret Bernhoft

Until now, the dilemma was presented with the opposite situation: Is it is ethical to fire people because job automation? ("Job automation" being the practice of substituting technology for human labor to perform specific tasks or jobs.) And it made some sense. The same case was presented a few years ago with "human cloning", which also posed an ethical dilemma.

The case though that you are presenting here --which is the opposite of the above, as I said-- is somewhat vague. I personally have a difficulty thinking that stopping or slowing down technology in favor of the human life can be unethical! Because, while firing people poses a problem of survival and well-being, the opposite --i.e. keeping people at their jobs-- supports these two elements.

Now, I can't remember right now a case where technology was stopped or slowed down because of ethics involved, but there must certainly be a few such cases, because, as I said, it makes sense. Technology development in the vast majority of the cases, supports human life in various ways. An in the remaining cases that it does not favor people's lives, as, e.g. in the case of firing people that I mentioned-- it is almost inevitable in our times, to a point that does not poses an ethical problem. As is the case of a company that has to fire a number of people in order to survive itself.

Finally, job automation exists since ever. Technology was always used to replace routine tasks by machines. Remember a time in the very past that people were used to carry messages from one place to another, travelling very long distances? Then, these "human pigeons" or messengers at some point they well replaced by elementary post oppices, as in ancient Rome, using chariots, etc. Then telegraphy was invented and no human was require to transfer messages. And today, we have Facebook's Messenger! :smile:
I don't think that any of these developments created an ethical problem to humans. Rather the opposite. Imagine, if they were stunted in order to preserve those messengers' jobs ...

So, I don't think there's a question of ethics involved here.

"Introduction," as used in my sentence, refers to a classroom situation wherein students are tasked with bringing a fully conscious mind to learning the reasoning behind the syntax of their native tongue. — ucarr

This is very good! Was it applied in your school? Is it applied in schools in general in your country or any other country you now? (If yes, please name it.)

Learning to speak and write with conscious intention to articulate well-formed sentences, as guided by conscious grammatical manipulation, marks the beginning of conscious logical thought for many, if not all. — ucarr

Yes, this process is carried out consciously. But my point was that school grammar is not learned with any kind of specific connection or reference to logic, i.e. explicitly.

Like many, I've spent much of my life speaking my native tongue by ear, without giving much thought to grammatical manipulation towards best communication. — ucarr

OK, so if undestand well, you didn't have the experience you referred to in your "introduction", but you mentioned it as an ideal scene. If this is so, I fully support such an idea.

I see myself paving a path to further study in symbolic logic. I take this to be a general truth for humanity. — ucarr

Nice.

Grammar introduces all speakers to logic — ucarr

I don't agree with this statement:
1) Logic does not need to be introduced. It permeats all things in the human mind. Even before we learn to speak and certainly before learning grammar.
2) A lot of things are based on or connected to and use logic. Grammar is just one of them.
3) Grammar can be used by both speakers and writers, as an automatic process, i.e. without using logic consciously, even if it's structure --because it consists of other elements besides a structure-- is based on logic.
(I don't remember --and I don't think in general-- that in school grammar is learned with any kind of specific connection or reference to logic.)

There never has been and never can be any war between ideologies, methodologies or belief systems. — Vera Mont

Googling warfare of science with theology, one gets 4,380,000 results! I have a whole folder in my PC about this subject from a time in the past that I was interested in the subject. Most probably, this subject --although of a huge importance-- has never come to your attention. Strangely enough.

You must have. Religious terrorism; systemic denial of scientific evidence; curtailment of human rights; racial strife; economic disparity; and of course... actual war.
Other than that, we're just squabbling, polluting the landscape, spreading disease and accelerating climate change. IOW, BAU. — Vera Mont

"Religious terrorism" (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx) is irrelevant to science, and it speaks mainly about anti-terrorism.

"denial of scientific evidence" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366896/) is irrelevant to religion(not even the word is mentioned).

"human rights" (https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/) is irrelevent to both science and religion!

What is all this? I was talking about the war between science and religion.
Please don't waste people's time, @Vera Mont! And focus on what is discussed.

Plenty of psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists draw from Buddhism or are Buddhists. Buddhist psychiatrist Mark Epstein springs to mind. — Tom Storm

Of course there are. All kinds of proffessions contain Buddhists in their ranks. But I don't think that a Buddhist psychiatrist will be of the kind I mentioned, although this is not impossible. We are talking about "numbers", not individual cases. And I talked mainly about massive human abuse. And of course, for godssake, I didn't say that all or even most psychiatrists, of any religion or no religion, are of the kind I mentioned. I believe they are the minority. But enough big to produce human damage. And, I emphasize, more than any other medical --or, in fact, any other-- profession, in general.

But, anyway, I brought up Buddhism in the context of religion, not psychiatry.

We have an extremely rude person here, @ToothyMaw, who is either a psychiatrist himself, of the kind I mentioned, or a fanatic pro psychiatrist. A perfect example of what I was talking about.
Of course, I expected reactions from some people, but not such as that! Despicable.

Here's what I just read from this person, which I reproduce (copy-paste) below, before it is deleted or edited:
"Holy shit you need some help there, bro. Most mental disorders in the DSM are fake? Psychiatrists are behind every massive human rights abuse? And that fucking picture - do you even know that they put you out for ECT (not ETC)? Are antipsychotics truly equivalent to lobotomies in your mind?
Shut down this fucking thread, please. I mean goddamn.
edit: I mean I'm laughing, but holy shit"
(Re: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/750911)

Priests spring to mind. How do you feel about Catholic priests who are also psychiatrists? — Tom Storm

I feel very bad! It's awful! In my country, Orthodox priests also are asent to Germany to become to study psychology. I have not heard anything about psychiatry. But even the need to study psychology shows the failure of the Church to handle the spiritual needs and problems of their parishioners and in general to give useful advice to anyone in need.

Religion should not look necessarily like that. E.g. Buddhism doesn't.

Thanks. Wow! That's a lot of homework!

The war is back? In what way? Have I missed the news? :smile: