Maybe you won't find don't find it humorous, if you consider the reason for that. Psychiatrists appear as enemies of humanity in other novels too.I found it humorous that in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the evil antagonists were the Psychiatrists — introbert
Right. I/we have talked about that.It is necessary, in order to keep the established elite in power, for the rank and file to hold a rigid sense of their own rightness — Vera Mont
Right. But hereses within a any system should not be tolerated. Otherwise, the system falls apart. However, in my country, the Orthodox Church calls "heresies" even Buddhists (!) and every significant minor religion that has nothing to do with Christianity. Aren't they totally nuts? I believe they have to call them as such, i.e. as if they are Christian schemes that deviate from the orthodox scheme (!), otherwise itm would seem as if they are provoking a religious war with every other religion!Thus the RC vs Jews and heretics; the Anglican kings vs the papists; the Stalin regime vs reactionaries; the Repub... well, you know. — Vera Mont
Yes, at last! The war lasted for too long!...the triumphs of science and rational thought — Vera Mont
Certainly. This is the healthy way to address the subject. Religious freedom is very important. Ironically though, the Churches and the people belonging to dogmatic religions, are intolerant to other beliefs. Very bad. I would say that they have got it very wrong, if they had not adopted this attitude for political and other reasons irrelevant to religion! (Think for instance of religious wars, even within a same country, e.g. the Bosnian war in the end of the previous century.)I don't have much use for deities, either. But I would not turn against them, nor deny access to them to people who need a spiritual reference in their lives — Vera Mont
I fully agree on and support religious freedom. Even if some people chose to "belong" to a religious denomination for other reasons than actually following it.I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter what religion one pursues (if they wish to even coin themselves by any dogma at all) because beneath all religions or spiritualities seems to be a common ground. — Benj96
Nicely said!I believe Buddha reached his nirvana, his true inner peace, by letting go of his suffering, guilt and shame. By forgiving those who wronged him and by forgiving himself for what wrong he did against others knowing he didn't understand the true way to be, and thus allowing himself the chance to begin anew. Probably as jesus did. And Muhammad. — Benj96
Yes, this is true. Buddha had chosen compassion. Quite similar. But I prefer Buddha's approach. Very "human", simple, direct, practical, no gods or even deities, etc. Christ, and the whole New Testament are very mystical and allow for a lot of interpretations, let aside the self-contraditions and other illogical elements it contains.But he chose to channel benevolence — Benj96
These looks like attributes of a revolutionary and politically-oriented person. I have read in the (very) past a few texts with these views in mind. Even that he belonged to Zealots, who I think were also amed!he would reveal truth and understanding to others, and they would love him for it, and he would naturally gain popularity and tip the balance of power in his favour. — Benj96
This is a view that may indeed well be more factual than the one presented in the New Testament. But, honestly, I don't care much! :smile:Of course the courts and governments of the time would be raging at such a person being offered authority and power that had previously been offered to them. — Benj96
He had pure faith from the beginning because the truth of the matter made sense to him. It was logical and ethical."
True. — Benj96
Well, that's nice and inspiring, yet it is still too theoretical. I mean, not quite tanglible. I, personally, cannot even imagine how it would look like.For example, what is a universal circle? It doesn't look like a particular circle because every particular circle is continuous in space and around a particular point in space but a universal circle is not supposed to be located in any continuous area of space. A universal circle looks like certain deviations from any particular circle and thus more like a resemblance relation among particular circles. — litewave
Yes, this is the other side of the story, which is more important, since it refers to the majority of people. My "uselessness" refers to the those who are not affected, who are the minority.He's been a wonderfully effective lever to move masses of gullible people into calamitous wars, as well as craven obedience. — Vera Mont
Us! :smile:Where does this composite image of the god or God come from? — Vera Mont
I believe so. I have not retained many details from my religion courses at school. I had to learn the material in order to pass the course! :grin: What I remember was that I had a lot of questions but didn't dare to as the teacher for fear of being punished! But by the time I entered adulthood and was free to have my own opinion, I had no questions any more! All that just dind't fit, for dozens of reasons. So, I have forgotten about the Genesis and the whole Old Testament, because it simply didn't make sense. And it was a useless subject.There were many more interesting subjects to get interested in.The God of Genesis wasn't omniscient or particularly fair, and didn't pretend to be. — Vera Mont
Exactly. To "no logic" I will add "no usefulness".To the hugely inflated Creator of the whole now-known universe, with all his later add-on superpowers, no logic can apply — Vera Mont
This is true. In fact, we should be just and true to each other. Besides, we all belong to the same race. We should therefore support and help each other. That is, we should be all perfectly rational beings, because we have this potential.. Yet, we are far from somthing like that. Because it is in your nature to be as rational as irrational; metally healthy as as mentally ill. And we also have to fight against physical sickness, and attacks from other species and all kinf of living organism. This is far from persection and justice, isn't it?We can make every act we do serve truth if we want to. — Benj96
Tell me if you were God for a day ... — Benj96
Would you spread your knowledge, your truth of truths, with the intent to save strangers that you have never met?[/img]
Of course I would. But this is the ideal scene. The actual scene is the opposite: a God that can and does punish us. Just listen to the priests as well as the devotional, God-fearing people. Imagine that you create a puppet --because this is supposedly the relation of God to Man-- and then you get angry and throw it down, insult it, etc. And, as a puppet it doesn't undestand why you do that. Yet, it is you who created it. Isn't that ironical if not insane?
— Benj96
Isn't this what Chirst did? If so, it means that he saw that there injustice in the world, which means he believed that His Father (as Son of God) was responsible for that injustice, did he? Because who created everything, including Man with a potential not only to be injust but also to kill his congeners?In all honesty if you aren't prepared to face injustice alone, to carry that burden for others, then you do not practice the truth, you would not know it nor possess its true power/authority. — Benj96
Can you think of the tones of ink that have been spilled on this subject since eons and that we still lack a detailed description that is acceptable by most "thinkers" --letting scientists aside-- and the only we can read or hear on the subject is personal views, most of them unsubstantiated or unfounded?What is consciousness? What is self-awareness? — Universal Student
You find it "uninteresting", and yet not only you seem to appreciate it a lot, but you have created a topic with a title based on an allegory connecting Phiosophy with Chess! :smile:I do not have much attention for chess because I find it uninteresting. — introbert
A reflex, in physiology, is an involuntary response/reaction to a stimulus. This is not debatable. But in general, a reflex is a reaction/response to a stimulus. It is usually used reference to time.What are your views on reflex (action)? — Agent Smith
Like what?There's more to simple reflexes than meets the eye, si señor/señorita? — Agent Smith
You must have noticed that I used "philosophy" within quotation marks. This indicates "philosophy-like" or "pseudo-philosophy" or even "actually, not a philosophy". And this because the word "philosophy" (quotation marks have a different meaning here) is quite abused. You just have to think how often you hear or read "My philosophy of/on/for this and that is ..." referring not to life, but to trivial things in life. And I just gave some examples of such trivial things.What would a philosophy of reading or cooking look like? — apokrisis
I have never talked about "self-awareness" (I think it's the third time you bring this up) or "high cognitive functions". These are for humans only. I said specifically "Consciousness exists in all forms of life, however elementary it is." I also said "How could these viruses travel in the organism and expand if theiy didn't have an ability to perceive (be aware of) and respond to their surroundings?"conditioned behavior does not require self-awareness or high cognitive functions. — Real Gone Cat
A machine is a mechanism, not an organism. Machines are dead objects, so they lack the drive to survive (instict of life), which is a characteristic of all organisms.Simple machines react to stimuli from their environment. Consider the thermostat. — Real Gone Cat
Before citing articles, I used simple logic. But it seems it was not enough ...Not so sure I'd include plants and bacteria though. — Real Gone Cat
English is my second language and I am a professional translator. I have also graduated from an American college.you are a little bit hung up on finding citations for terminology ... maybe it is because English is not your first language, or because you are new to the field. — Pantagruel
I have explained that shortly: "Every living organism, even bacteria, receives stimuli from the environment and reacts to them."So life is conscious, all else is not. Based on what evidence? Plants? Amoebas? Bacteria? What besides personal prejudice proves consciousness? — Real Gone Cat
This is true. There are all kinds of "philosophies": a "philosophy" of reading and a "philosophy" of cooking. There are also personal "philosophies": e.g. a programmer's "philosophy" of programming. In fact, you can add anything you can think of to "'philosophy of".Yes, but philosophy, likewise, is an overarching field. Every field has its "philosophy" - philosophical anthropology, philosophy of science, etc. — Pantagruel
BTW, I just checked "subdisciplines of philosophy" --not a very popular subject in itself-- and I read: "the core subdisciplines of philosophy: epistemology (the theory of knowledge), metaphysics (the theory of being), logic (the theory of reason and inference), value theory (including ethics, politics and aesthetics) and the history of philosophy." (https://philosophy.ubc.ca/undergraduate/ba-philosophy/major/)Similarly, I personally feel that the subdisciplines of philosophy ultimately accrue to metaphysical questions at the limits of knowledge. — Pantagruel
Not all. At least not me. :smile: Consciousness exists in all forms of life, however elementary it is. Every living organism, even bacteria, receives stimuli from the environment and reacts to them. Our consciousness is simply more complex.we all assume that other humans share the trait we call consciousness - and we deny this trait to non-human entities (sorry panpsychists). — Real Gone Cat
Unfortunately, yes.it's nearly impossible to explain why — Real Gone Cat
I'll leave this to science-fiction. Regarding philosophy, I beliebeve this is an unfounded and/or useless hypothesis. (As well as the assumption that follows.)What will we do if we someday meet a space-faring race of lizard men? — Real Gone Cat
What's the difference betwee one and many, from the moment that possibility of consciousness in any computer system is rejected? (To be precise, it's not about "computer systems" but "computer programming".)Bit what about massively parallel, mutable computing systems with multiple feedback loops? — Real Gone Cat
Better that he finally didn't! :grin:Stevan Harnad points out that Turing wished to change the question from "Can machines think?" to "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?". — Real Gone Cat
Well, well, well! You passed from simple computing systems to consiousness!!Therefore if an AI passes the Turing test (over a very large number of conversations), it is likely that the AI can be considered to be a "brain-like system", and therefore conscious. — tom111
What is the "philosophical project" you are talking about? I wonder esp. because you are not using title capitals, and therefore it doesn't look a known subject or a work (study, book, etc.) by someone. I have found, e.g., "The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine" (book), "Descartes and Husserl: The Philosophical Project of Radical Beginnings" (book) and a lot of other "The Philosophical Project of ..."My hypothesis is that the philosophical project as such is, at its heart, metaphysical. — Pantagruel
If you think that there's no purpose in doings all this or you are not sure about it, why do you keep doing it? Would you run towards something if there's no reason for doing it? Would you start learning Mandarin if you have no use of it any reason for doing it?I try to cover as much ground as humanly possible, philosophy, science, anthropology, sociology, political theory. To what end? — Pantagruel
There is no objective reality. It there were, who would be able to tell? It would be their own view (reality), wouldn't it?But isn't subjectiveness basically the filtering of an objective reality? — TiredThinker
There's no absolute knowledge. "Objectiveness" means not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. It means based on facts, unbiased. That is what we can do at best: try not to be influenced by those factors. But still, our knowledge is based on our reality, which is subjective, as I described above. We can't do better than that. So, what we call "objective" is actually subjective! :smile:Isn't the difference between objective and subjective just how well we can know anything absolutely? — TiredThinker
Oh, thought you knoew that it is not in the brain ..."... consciousness is a product of and located in the brain."
-- Alkis Piskas
If not the brain, where is it? — GLEN willows
By experiencing it! You are experiencing it, too! But most probably you just have never thought that you do! :smile:"there is an empirical explanation: Consciousness can only be experienced."
-- Alkis Piskas
And you know this...how? — GLEN willows
No, I can't. Because no one has PROVED it. And this was my point!can you name a scientists that says he can PROVE consciousness is a material substance? — GLEN willows
I sad I know that. I didn't say that anyone has or even can solved it. Yet, and I also said this too, it is a philosophical rather a scientific subject. That is why my motto is "Consciousness can be only experienced".You missed my point - consciousness cannot be solved by philosophers OR scientists. — GLEN willows
OK. I was mistaken about your intention regarding this question. Nevertheless, I believe it's a plausible question. For one thing, I have thought it myself! :grin:"There are still people asking "if we evolved from apes...why are there still apes around?" Right?"
-- GLEN willows
... it's not a good question. It's a stupid question. — GLEN willows
I know. I'm just being polite. :smile:They don't. — GLEN willows
I know that too. This is often my answer to those who believe --some of them are quite certain-- that consciousness is a product of and ilocated in the brain.consciousness is the hard problem, and hasn't been explained by philosophy or science. — GLEN willows
Well, there is an empirical explanation: Consciousness can only be experienced.When/if they find an empirical explanation for it ... — GLEN willows
:up: Good question. I have thought about this too. But I give it a slack, because there's a possibility, that --according to evolutionists always-- we have been evolved from a specific, more advanced race of apes. Yet, this remains to be proved. As do hundreds of other things regarding humans!There are still people asking "if we evolved from apes...why are there still apes around?" Right? — GLEN willows
I'm not sure where are you referring to with "holists" --medicine or philosophy-- but there's a very large part of people in the West and almost the whole East who disagree.Holists disagree, saying there's more — Agent Smith
I feel squeezed by just reading this! :grimace: ... :grin:Bring in evolution and we're further ... reduced — Agent Smith
I watched parts of this video. All 3 participants look quite brilliant, esp. Kate. So, posted the following comment:video on chemistry is called “the Hidden chemistry of everything” so that sums up his stance. Sure, we are a bag of chemistry, — GLEN willows
Why don't you ask @Agent Smith who brought up this quote? :smile:So we're just bags of chemistry?
can you source this quote for me? — GLEN willows
I suppose you mean what Wikipedia calls "Information overload (also known as infobesity, infoxication, information anxiety, and information explosion is the difficulty in understanding an issue and effectively making decisions when one has too much information (TMI) about that issue".At what point does information overload hinder our decision making? — Deus
I already said that to @ChatteringMonkey: Arguments are impersonal. Logic has no face, identity, color or smell. Which means that whoever makes a stetement --a philosopher or a layman, an intelligent or unintelligent person, etc.-- it can be judged solely based on rules of logic, sound reasoning, critical thinking and, of course, facts. A layman can make a perfectly interesting and valid statement about "existence" at any time. Only that the chances and frequency of this happening are much less than for a philosopher who knows the subject of "existence" much better and has been involved in it much longer and often. And on the contrary, they can both make invalid statements based on faulty logic and/or lack of knowledge (facts). They can be both measured with the same stick.Perhaps it’s more the norm in philosophy, but I’m talking about the rest of the world. Why don’t they in politics? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
I see what you mean here. But this doesn't match the statement of your topic "Listening to arguments rather than people".Someone's making a choice in why one wants to make a particular argument and not make others. — ChatteringMonkey