I feel trapped.

If I focus on avoiding suffering, I suffer from being too preoccupied with suffering.

If I focus on becoming happy, I suffer from feeling not happy enough.

If I just enjoy the moment, I suffer later from not considering the future enough.

Is that really what you experience or are those your fears about what will/would happen if......?

I don't think that's a good interpretation of my post. If you mean, hey the universe isn't teleological, that doesn't seem to be what he is asking about....

Hunger, a form of suffering, has no ultimate purpose, but it certainly has a purpose within the the context of ones bodily health. — Yohan

And sure, one could tell him that really it had no purpose, it's just that those organisms that survived suffered pain, since pain had some benefits for the health of the organism. But I didn't feel like going further than the thread had already in assuming he was heading for an argument for theism or some other teleology. I extended what did seem to be his intention, given his example of hunger.

What is the purpose of suffering? — Yohan

If you break a bone, it hurts. You will tend not to move that area of the body if you can. This can reduce the bone tearing through flesh and causing more damage.
If someone starts hating you, this can cause emotional pain. You may try to make amends if you were a jerk. You may seek tribal or group mediation. If it matter that others, especially those close to you, are angry at you, say, you have motivation - in the pain - to try to get back on better terms.
If you touch the fire and it hurts, you will likely avoid doing more damage.
Pain from falls will encourage care in situations where the fall would be a long one.
Pain - like headaches, muscle aches, joint pain, sore throat, etc. - during common illnesses probably tend to reduce your movement and energy use, in some instances eating. Your body can focus on the infection.

That's some possible off the top of my head stuff.

My version of science does not 'uncover facts' about the universe, it provides us with tentative theories or narratives that work, until they don't. Or something like that. — Tom Storm

Lovely. Me too. And hey, I have some fringe beliefs - though often with some scientist backers out there - but I would say I have a similar relationship to models/theories/narratives. I do think experience plays a huge role in what we believe and that sometimes living as if X is true, even if it cannot now be demonstrated to be true to create a scientific consensus, can be rational, and I can point to historical instances. It is not easy having a tentative, sometimes as if, reevaluating set of beliefs. This means I have a lot of responsibility. I wish I could simply do what a lot of people do, pick my authorities and give it all to them. But fortunately and unfortunately I had some experiences while a child that showed me early on that experts in a field, a consensus, could have some serious paradigmatic problems and/or self-interest skewing their views. The school of hard knocks. This does not mean I assume experts are wrong. Hardly. I rely on experts all the time. It does mean I am more open to things that either are not confirmed by expert consensus or are denied by expert consensus. Especially if I can see a paradigmatic bias or powerful interests with influence involved. And of course I tend to turn to experts to help me understand and to critique.

Frankly I envy people who feel comfortable passing all responsibility on to expert consensus all the time. And then I also don't envy them.

I didn't read joshs response as an attack. He is generally testing the assumptions that underpin arguments here and this can seem provocative. — Tom Storm

I'm often overly cranky. I did not take it as an attack per se, but on one level a very poor response, philosophically/discussion-wise. On another rude. It's as if I didn't write other things which I did write. It took a position and instead of responding to it, plucking one quote out of context as if one is responding to the post. He may be a lovely guy and this was an exception. I just find more and more online that people seem - I stress that word 'seem' - to pick a team, often seeing the possible positions as two. And so the goal is to tear down the other team, not acknowledge nuance or complexity, and not be too concerned with the totality of what some 'on the other team' is actually saying. So, my impatience is built in large part on others. Quite possibly not fair, but I do think it was a disrespectful and facile response on his part:

If he meant to point out assumptions on my part, he probably shouldn't have made it seem like my argument hinged on neutron bombs, which I had said do not exist and also contrasted with the types of tech that neo-luddites do have issues with. He attacked an assumption I did not make. And it's pretty clear I didn't make it. And he couldn't possibly have missed my reference to guns as an example. Tech that does exist and most people are in favor or restrictions on (I mean even the NRA would, for the most part, think parents who left loaded guns on the floor ought to be punished).

Provocative would be responding to the argument I made. I might find that frustrating, if he mounted a nice counterargument, one that supported his notion that it's best to think of all tech as neutral. The provocation coming from unique arguments or examples or an innovative angle on the debate.

I responded to his earlier post with what I thought was a take that was less common at least. I didn't pull out pieces or assume things about his position, as far as I know. I certainly would have looked at that, if he'd mentioned it. I think responding to the tech is neutral argument by saying (to oversimplify) that tech ´+ homo sapian tendencies is not neutral. Or not necessarily at all neutral is a provocative line. I don't think he is wrong - I think I even said that - but that that argument has a misleading narrow focus. Tech in a storage unit is generally neutral. Tech that will be used by homo sapians, or will influence affect them cannot be simply called neutral as a rule. I suppose guns don't kill people, people do has been misused, I think, in similar ways, his argument is just at a more generalized version of that. There are ways that argument makes sense. I think there are ways that it does not.

I also tried to work on the notion that non-Neo-luddites at a practical level also treat many technologies as not neutral. And also have issues with how widespread something is used, by whom, under what conditions and so on. IOW bridging. This was completely ignored. I experienced it as a rush to a binary position. It's all or nothing. I am sure there are some neo-luddites who are like this. I don't know how powerful they are, but I doubt they are as powerful as industry advocates who want to rush products and solutions to market or use and see regulatory bodies and suggestions of caution as things to be PRed and lobbied and revolving doored out of the way. I am sure there are many people in industry with other more nuanced reactions to regulatory bodies and concerns. That they are on a spectrum of reactions.

Sure. Absolutely. I didn't my that my very simple schema was the range of reactions. I meant that some of the interactions in the thread follow the schema I outlined. And Person C, need not even find it intriguing. There can be Person D who says, I find it more likely that it is phenomenon X, which you are interpreting as A. However I don't know. I would be open to evidence should it come along. IOW various forms of 'agnosticism' using that term metaphorically for a position on phenenoma other than a deity.

And , more importantly, whether a tech is ‘dangerous’, and what makes it so, is far from obvious when it comes to the concerns of many neo-luddites. We’re not just taking small neutron bombs here. — Joshs

OK, I think that was a pretty crappy response. I also said

OK, no one is making a mistake about those — Bylaw

referring to the neutron bombs. and I also pointed out that they didn't exist. I also mentioned that we are generally dealing with tech less immediately easy to track effects.

Further, it was part of a response to your argument which was that technology is neutral, not destructive in an of itself. So, I chose extreme examples small neutron bombs and guns on the floor of apartments to counter a categorical argument that we shouldn't view tech as dangerous. For two reasons, one, we already do, non-neoluddites and neoluddites alike, consider some tech dangerous and restrict or even ban it in a variety of ways; two, as part of an argument trying to show that thinking of tech as neutral is midguided because we humans are not neutral. We already, neo-luddites and non-neoluddites, recognize this with some tech GIVEN human nature and sometimes even corporate or governmental nature (non-proliferation treaties I can add as an example for the last).

So, what do you do. You pull a quote out of its context and respond as if I did not write what I wrote directly after, then left out any response to the argument I made - iow the context and intentions of that example.

You ignore, conveniently the other example, the one with guns. Where human + neutral tech is not considered a neutral combination by many non-neoluddites.

And then throw a cherry picked example of a neo-luddite at me.

Your finale is a generalized ad hom, your psychic claim about what is really going on in neo-luddite minds.

You'll pardon me if I ignore your posts from here on out and also please pardon me for hoping you never end up on any important regulatory body.

Well, we have always made distinctions between technologies that it's ok to be in wide use - like private people get to have them, perhaps even kids get to have them, that one doesn't need specific skills or liscencing to have them, and so on.

So, a neo-luddite might see a certain technology that is being widely and think it should be limited in some or more of the ways listed above and others that did occur to me at the moment. They might notice that government regulators are in revolving door relationships with the industry they are supposed to regulate. They might think that more research should be done before the tech is used as widely or even out of the lab at all.

They also might notice a pattern where this kind of thing is happening with some regularity. Or that it is getting worse.

So, yes, perhaps there is nothing inherently wrong with a small neutron bomb. But we wouldn't want teenagers to have them. OK, no one is making a mistake about those and I don't think we have small ones yet. But perhaps certain kinds of tech are dangerous because humans are the way they are. That both communist and capitalist countries cannot be trusted to regulate them well, if for differing and pehraps overlapping reasons.

GIVEN that humans are the way they are, certain technologies are dangerous.

We can see this with children. Children are not neutral. They are impulsive and ignorant (not in any pejorative sense of the latter term). So, a gun is not a neutral tech on the floor of an apartment with kids.

Any tech becomes an extension of humans. If humans will have some tendency to do X with tech, then we can call certain tech dangerous. If we can say that about some tech being around children. We can then say that about some tech being around homo sapian adults.

Some of the problems and potential problems with tech and non-neutral humans is not easy to track and predict like loaded guns on the floor of apartments with kids or teenagers being able to order neutron bombs online, say.

And we know industry is often happy to take long term risks that they (certainly at the individual human level) are unlikely to be held responsible for. Generally the worst is they get sued.

So a neo-luddite might think that there is a general problem with the way tech gets introduced. A lack of care, sometimes with very bad consequences..

I think the problem, to put it at an abstract level is this.

Person A: I think phenomenon A is real.
Person B: phenomenon A can't be real because it doesn't (seem to) fit with current scientific models.

Person B may think they are being scientific, but they are not. And there are instances where people quite correctly said that certain phenomena were real that did not fit with then current scientific models...and they were correct. So, this kind of dismissing is speculative.

The other purpose for the quote was to demonstrate the power of technology to enable the individual. — Bret Bernhoft

I think there are very few neo-luddites who are against all technology and the original ones were not against all technology. Nor would many disagree with the idea that technology can enable humans. So, coming up with an example of when someone might need to reluctantly or not start using new tech doesn't really address the concerns of people who identify as NLs. And I would be on that spectrum.

I don't think it shows this. Does a philosophy professor really need a computer to teach philosophy? Didn't we have excellent (and of course not so excellent) philosophy teaching before computers and before computers were used like they are now? Isn't his problem more likely to do with the academic cultural habits, rather than performance in the field?

Was the story meant to show that being a neo-luddite is an untenable position?

Luddites would have no reason to complain and the machines would probably approve. — Agent Smith

Though we don't owe future potential machine consciousnesses anything (yet). Once they are here and if they actually experience life, well, I suppose we should take into account their opinions. But we could, of course, choose tech that benefits a wide range or people, be cautious about certain kinds of tech. And keep ourselves or at least the animal kingdom as the only experiencers, and take into account what is best for us. We don't have to create things more intelligent than us. At least, I see no moral obligation to do this. And, given what you call our stupidity, what we create could yes, well be monstrous and not just for us.

Maybe some money was paid under the table? It's depressing. — Bitter Crank

Or even just the sense that it is good for business, without any money exchanging hands. I was stunned by how naive even journalists were about the issue.

Other instances are genetically modified foods and livestock … it is utterly ridiculous the ‘safety’ measures that are put in place because they end up causing more damage and creating a food industry based on public opinion over public safety. — I like sushi

I'm not sure if you are pro or con by this short description, but I am guessing you are pro-gm. In the current system, in the US, the regulators are often in a revolving door with industry. They work in the industry, then for the government regulator and vie versa. There is also lobbying, industry control of research, advertising revenue influence on media and campaign finance influence on politicians. When issues like this are discussed it is often as if there was research done and industry wants to do it, then this is science. But apart from lay people influencing policy, we have monied interests influencing policy and their sense of safety

Would this mean that you think transgender people are confused? IOW they feel that actually they are not the sex they were born with and often want to align, as much as they can, their physiology with their true gender/sex.

Would you see them as confused, attributing qualities they have to 'the other sex.'` when in fact they are just non-binary like everyone else?

I've been on a bit of a rant lately about cars and electric scooters. No incredible insights to follow, but where I live in Europe many of the drivers are young immigrant or second generation immigrant men. It's like watching someone hit themselves in the head with a hammer...and hit the rest of us. They take this big loans out for speedy looking cars. And, yeah, noise, pollution, congestion...etc. Non-immigrants are more likely to use bikes, which has many good side effects. But the city is arranged for cars. Society here is arranged for cars. So it's not just the capitalists, though there are obvoiusly problems there, it's infrastructural. Of course this can be a side effect of capitalism. That the state works for the capitalists. But I wanted to bring up how society is organized for certain technologies.
Then a few years ago the elscooters came. The city had laid out a huge network of bike rentals that were fairly cheap. Then for some reason allowed the elscooter companies to come in, leave their vehicles everywhere and did not charge a fee for us of public areas for their business. Direct competition for the very bike rental set up they'd put a lot of money and effort into. Competition that does not help the health of its users, is actually dangerous, using space on bike paths despite being much faster, and using eletrical energy sources. Over time the city has started charging fees and charging for any elscooter they have to move, which is many. We've been moving backwards. More people use electrically driven things (including now these bikes that look like bikes and people often pedal in a lackluster fashion because there a battery el-driven motor in there). So, people propel themselves less

There are worse things going on in the world, but it's rather amazing to see the government encouraging less beneficial transport again to help the companies or worse.

The issue boils down to a simple fact: people want tools that can enhance (their abilities) and not replace (them entirely). — Agent Smith

I wish this was true, or better put, it is true, but to a certain degree and I wish it was more so. Where I live we have a lot of cars, and now we also have a lot of electric scooters, electric minimotorcycles and electric skateboards. So, people use bikes and walking less. Status, laziness, fun new toy effects all collaborating to move us from mobile mammals to something like burrs from burdock plants. I am far from a spring chicken, but truly like to bike and walk everywhere. People seem to dehumanize themselves for a variety of reasons and, yes, many will pay decades down the line for their technological addictions. And we pay now in varying ways, including just the pain in the ass of these speedy devices on bike paths and sidewalks, along with the more traditional mass of cars, most used for no good reason. I am certainly not a full luddite (and neither were the Luddites). I am happy to use a washing machine and a computer to some degree. There are many labor and time saving devices I appreciate and many parts of modern medicine and so on. But there is something out of control going on and I liked your distinction, which I quoted, and worry about my fellow humans and then in turn what this means for me and the planet.

Ishin-denshin is traditionally perceived by the Japanese as sincere, silent communication via the heart or belly — Wikipedia

What struck me about this Japanese concept is that there are some fairly complicated nerve nexuses around the heart and belly and that this may be more than a mere metaphor or body phantom thing.

Cell phones do something that landlines just didn't do--they intrude into every moment indiscriminately — Bitter Crank

They also reduce children's ability to recognize facial expressions. IOW they reduce empathy. To be clear, this doesn't mean they make children nasty. But if you can't tell what the people are feeling around you as well, you won't feel as much empathy.

Even Wikipedia gives some sense of the complexity.
And note, ideas like the precautionary principle entail that new tech could be used, if one was cautious about the introduction of it and how widespread and how it is monitored. Also that it tends to be some technologies and also can be very individualistic: the simplicity people who tend to remove themselves.
Others have different approaches and the extent of their goals is rather wide.

Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology.[1] The term Luddite is generally used as a pejorative applied to people showing technophobic leanings.[2] The name is based on the historical legacy of the English Luddites, who were active between 1811 and 1816.[1]

Neo-Luddism is a leaderless movement of non-affiliated groups who resist modern technologies and dictate a return of some or all technologies to a more primitive level.[3] Neo-Luddites are characterized by one or more of the following practices: passively abandoning the use of technology, harming those who produce technology harmful to the environment, advocating simple living, or sabotaging technology. The modern neo-Luddite movement has connections with the anti-globalization movement, anarcho-primitivism, radical environmentalism, and deep ecology.[3]

Neo-Luddism is based on the concern of the technological impact on individuals, their communities, and/or the environment,[4] Neo-Luddism stipulates the use of the precautionary principle for all new technologies, insisting that technologies be proven safe before adoption, due to the unknown effects that new technologies might inspire.

Neo-Luddism distinguishes itself from the philosophy originally associated with Luddism in that Luddism opposes all forms of technology, whereas neo-Luddism only opposes technology deemed destructive or otherwise detrimental to society.

I think it's good to keep in mind that a neo-luddite might have problems to varying degrees with technology. Even the original Luddites were not against all technology. So, someone seeing the amount of people who have cars and mobiles might consider this all rather ridiculous, while understanding that some people need such powerful tools, often. But they might be critical of such a high percentage, say, of children having a device whose manufacture leads to environmental problems, whose use is coupled with social problems, and could in fact, easily be replaced with its dumb, cheap, offline versions, for those kids who actually need to be able to make phone calls everywhere and at any time. A neo-luddite might think that too often technological cures are made for 'diseases' that actually would be better handled in other ways. Or they might want the precautionary principle to be used more often and generally (what with plastic nanoparticles showing up now in fish brains and perhaps, well other brains that are part of organisms that drink and eat ((I won't specifically mention examples))). They might also be skeptical about the morals of some of the GM, nano, AI companies and investors. Often technology is simply assumed to be a sort of practical extension of science with some goodwill dashed in. But a neoluddite might feel that given the lack of independent oversight (in the US in any case) and the specific kinds of short-sighted profit motive that have arisen in the last few decades, the companies that create products and devices, may not be motivated by some neutral methodology like the scientific one. Government regulators are not independent in the least and this has gotten worse.

So, it seems to me there is a broad range of positions that some will call neo-luddite, which nevertheless are not against all technology. Sometimes people will get labelled luddites, sometimes they will even name themselves that way. But likely most of them lie on a spectrum.

Logic is about the connection between assertions, assertions and conclusions.

I don't think it makes sense to say a tree is logical or my cells act logically.

It has to do with thoughts and their relations, what is justified. Unless it's symbolic logic, which is even more abstract.

1 Something's goin on.
2 It feels like it could be better. Sometimes it feels like it should be better.

Who is more philosophically significant in the modern world? — Bret Bernhoft

Hicks did have a position, a general sort of spiritual/philosophical position.
Joe Rogen has a lot of opinions, probably a few philosophical bases, like many modern people. But I don't think he's celebrated as a philosopher. He's celebrated by people with similar opinions. And he's celebrated by people who like his interviews. And his interview are very, very good. It seems a kind of like comparing lynxes and coyotes. Which one should be celebrated more? And complicated by the fact that the lync is dead.

Voting totals justify those who are in or come into office. If less and less people vote, the system is less and less justified. So, not voting can be seen as not consenting the process (on your part and to the extent you let others know, as you have done here) and also, if to a tiny extent, the voting totals. I think that can justify not voting.

A sort of side note: you ask if it is a valid political position. I think this can easily be conflated with: do you think it is ok/good/right that I do this? Which are very, very different categories. I think it indisputable that it can be a valid political position. Doesn't mean it is right. But given that we are dealing with values and incredibly complex phenomena, I think a rational case can be made for it.

Probably for most people to strengthen the position you do not merely avoid voting but also take some kind of public stand.

It reminds me a little of the way third party candidates are treated and their potential voters. This is the US I am thinking of. The moment someone announces a third party candidate, pundits and large numbers of the citizens who would vote for the candidate who will likely lose votes to the third party candidate scream that it is sabotage, wasted votes, problematically romantic and unrealistic spoiling of the election.

Which 1) makes it even less likely the third candidate could win. If they all just shut up, who knows where it would lead. In other words it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy; 2) assumes that what is just around the bend is the only issue. What if third party candidates slowly got more and more votes? What if the two parties had to deal with a broader range of issues and lost their hegemony over time?

Basically they are damning us to lesser evil elections of the very rich and people that the incredibly rich approve of. We survived the two devils (which is a devil depends on your politics) Obama and Trump - that should cover most people's idea of the Devil, if not the Bushes and Clinton also). This short game thinking might just be a problem.

So it can be with not voting.

:up: and good luck with the living situation.

'The certainty-seeking mindset has a way of causing those trapped in it to miss out on their lives: it renders them allergic to the present, where uncertainty reigns.' — Jack Cummins

One thought on that. In very complicated situations you have to rely on intuition. Often people want to make it seem like their decisions are based on analsysis, scientitific research, deduction...when in fact we must, often, rely on intuition. My claim does not mean we shouldn't analyze, etc., but the truth is we have processes in our minds for dealing with complexity. Some are better at this then others, and we have different abilities in different areas of life. But intuition is often involved and it has to be. People in philosophy forums will often reverse engineer their conclusions. They have a conclusion, they they justify it after the fact. But in reality we use intuition and can get better at it. And this is not wrong.

I wasn't from a position of moral relativism. In abstract discussions of certainty or uncertainty and it's attendant problems we can imply or create heuristics that may actually be damaging. That idea works quite well with non-relativistic moralities. We don't want to do harm when generalizing about something. If a generalization about certainty or uncertainty can lead to harm, then it might not be correct or is only a partial truth. IOW I don't know how you got the idea that I was arguing for what you are describing in the first part below....

A philosophy which says that all is permissible would be the extreme of relativism and uncertainty stretched beyond all proportions. — Jack Cummins

In fact I am arguing against something and on moral grounds. Hey, it might hurt people if we impicitly or explicity make it seem like people need to be less certain.

Certainty and Uncertainty are not acts. To argue that rape is sometimes ok or cannot be judged because morals are mere cultural constructs is a relativistic stance because we are dealing with a specific act.

Attitudes about what one knows is not an act. Well, it could be argued that it is an act, but not in the violation of the other kind. It's an internal act/attitude.

How do we get the right people to realize which category they are in is a practical problem - and a huge one. How to get people to realize that on certain issues they are overconfident or underconfident...that's also a big issue.

But that doesn't change the problem with a simple heuristic, implied or explicit.

Also it need not be vulnerable groups who could be misled the such a heuristic. They may be well off white, straight people who doubt themselves too much, even on practical things, like their innovations. Ones that would help others, for example.

I can see that my focus may be tangential to the focus you have. From the OP it seems like focusing on when things are uncertain and what does this entail in relation to ethics and more. And in your description uncertainty is outside us in things/situations. I would say that situations and external reality are complicated and not clealry predicable and that uncertainty lies within us. As does certainty.

So when I read a quote like this...

'The certainty-seeking mindset has a way of causing those trapped in it to miss out on their lives: it renders them allergic to the present, where uncertainty reigns.' — Jack Cummins

I think it might be unclear if certainty is a mental state or a description of experiences/situations and one might draw the conclusion that the mental state is a problem. Which it can be, but not as a rule.

I'll throw out the idea that when we talk about certainty and uncertainty in a universal, abstract way I think it misses that some people need to be more certain about some things or perhaps in general and others need to go in the other direction. We can't universalize for out readers a heuristic. Battered women probably need to be more certain that something do not deserve is happening. And perhaps their vulnerablity there is also present in other parts of their lives. I think many professional atheletes need to be certain about certain things. Not to where when they miss the shot their conception of reality is challenged, but that they make decisions decisively or with certainty. Then there are other people who need to question themselves more on some or many topics. And there are tempermental factors here.

People who regularly second guess themselves, while others note they have good intuitions or make good observations.

People who just refuse consciously or unconsciously to spend some time swimming in cognitive dissonence.

I think, personally, that I have been way to uncertain. I do notice certain areas of my life where I have been too certain Or not questioned myself enough. But in general trusting myself has not been easy. Over time I have increased my willingness to be certain. It's actually scary. But I haven't become more of an ass or more dangerous or more irresponsible. In fact, the general assessment of people around me is that I am less problematic and more useful.

This may seem far from epistemological issues, but the issues and people I raise (and yes, still rather abstractly) are making assessments of what is real, what is happening, what needs to be done, using the complicated mixed bag of epistemological tools we tend to use in everday life.

And I think the same idea holds for more traditional epistemological issues. Some people need to trust themselves more and their conclusions. Some people need to notice anomolies, cognitive dissonences, their failures, perhaps even fear of being wrong....more.

it was to jackson's banning

I would say that the fact that there is no elephant in the room is the elephant in the room[url=http://].https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/719436[/url]

While I find nothing to disagree with in your post, negative consequentialism seems iike a breeding ground for anti-natalists which is a negative consequence and leads to suffering at least in some philosophy forums.

Aristotle did not come up with this expression - though he respected elephants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room
and that isn't the scenario it is used in. It's not an epistemological saying it's more of social denial, fear related one. I think Wayfarer here...

is probably correct at least about part of what is being dragged in. Though that's not an elephant as symbol 'hey it's obvious, apriori' can't you see it, it's more, well, like Wayfarer says, and generally about how we may only notice the trees but not the forest. (oh, no)
Ah Wayfarer spotted the Aristotle problem already :up:

It was interesting to see how a hallucinated use of the elephant in the room expression led to arguments using Aristotle or 'Aristotle' as a foundation.

Then Wayfarer had to come in and say the emporer has no clothes.

Oh, wait, that's not quite the right use either. Damn. My fault, not Wayfarer's.....

exactly so other appearnaces show you that there is a lag. and this is repeatable. So, there's a lag, even in an idealistic universe. Substance doesn't matter, no puns intended. Multiple observers with some technology can repeatedly demonstrate this. We don't just assume, even in non-materialisms, that first appearanced are correct. Including the appearance of simultaneity. Just like we don't assume there has to be water when we see an illusion of an oasis in the desert. It's not that the later conclusion that the first sighting was an illusion denies that one experienced something that looked like an oasis. It's just that we find, through testing, so to speak, that it can seem that way, but there is no oasis. And again multiple observers can show the problems of just taking first impressions as the case. In the case of the lag, the other experiencers with devices can notice the lag. Whose appearances/observations to we go with? Fortunately there is a way to reconcile the different observations by positing a lag. Denying there is a lag causes problems for other observers.

if someone, anyone, could do something, do you think they would do it or not do it? — god must be atheist

I really doubt fish would be making bicycles in different regions of the ocean, even if separated from each other's influence. So I don't think the analogy holds.

Think of a carpenter: he or she could make a table or a kitchen cabinet, but instead he or she starts a new religion afresh from a stale old one. — god must be atheist

He made things out of wood because people paid him, presumably, and thought they needed them. I would guess he thought people needed to hear what he said, as other humans in most cultures did, some making changes that stuck or starting things that stuck, some affecting tiny nuances, some making big changes. All over the place. Maybe one fish artist would make a bicycle but fish would view it as an oddity or wonderful piece of art. It would be very unlikely to work and no fish would be able to use it. But humans, for good reasons or not, are drawn to that carpenters work in words, many think they need it. I don't think the analogy holds.

Which doesn't require a commitment to theism to argue.

Hell, there's a very good change religions had adaptive value. Which can, of course, be quite different from truth value, or not, case by case.

I can't see bicycles having adapative value for fish. I don't see any possible argument.

Google adaptive value theism or belief in God and you will find the issue taken seriously by scientists and others who are not committed to theism as a true model. And then I'm sure by some theists also.

You will not find scientists arguing that bicyles are potentially adaptive for fish.

Of that fish seek out those who produce them.

Perhaps it is futile, but there sure is something that is not explained. Quite unlike what we can explain in relation to moving bodies. That we can explain. Consciousness no. Regardless of whether you are correct that they don't know what they are looking for or haven't defined it well. But we have this phenomenon - experiencing - and we don't know what causes it, what is necessary for it to occur. Waht has it and what does not. We do not what moves. We do not what it takes for the bones of a living creature to shift from one position to another when not being affected to do this by outside forces. We know muscle physiology and the nervous system. We do not know why experiencing is happening. Is it a mechanism? a facet of all matter? We do not know. The challenge, yes, is made hard by the fact that so far we don't seem, at least in science, to have direct access to other minds.

Look, if you just take materialism for granted and then interpret data in light of it, then you are not doing philosophy. — Bartricks

Was I doing that? Could you show where?
Just in general it would help if you integrated my response into your response to that. You seem to have restated your position, but I can't tell if it deals with my objection or not.

Philosophy is about following reason, not using reason to rationalize your prejudices. — Bartricks

Same reaction: did I do this? Where?

If a certain worldview - materialism- implies it is not present, then it follows that the evidence implies materialism is false. — Bartricks

Right, that evidence. Other evidence may support it. Your argument would mean that appearance trumps any evidence. But science, for example, studied appearances and kept studying them and found a delay. They found appearances - observations - that led to understandings of perception, how brains work and so on. These brought into question the presentness. And, in fact, they could argue that they need not have a materialist model. A decision on substance. They followed observations and found delays in the appearances.

All you are doing is rejecting the evidence on the grounds that it conflicts with materialism. — Bartricks

They are rejecting one interpretation of one kind of appearance because that is contradicted by a whole lot of other ones. Whatever the substance of reality. You would need to have an explanation within idealism, say, for why other appearances demonstrate a delay to dismiss their model.

I don't think the ego is just or even primarly about self-preservation. I think the ego is more about self-focus. Self-focus can be good or bad or anything in between. There is a sense of what I am and what I want - which may be partly delusional. There is wanting things that help us to think of ourselves in certain ways. There is the knowing that this is me and that is you. So, people with leaky boundaries - like some people who have been sexually abused - may not know what is their own desire and what is someone else's.

There is a tendency in some subcultures and even in folk psychology to view the ego as selfish (in a pejorative sense) and negative (only). I disagree, though values play a role here. A battered woman may need to beef up her ego and stop being so concerned about her husband's, yes, horrible childhood and fragile sense of self that leads to his violence. She is likely actually seeing situations through his eyes and needs. That's not her role in life.

There is a lot of confusion about empathy needing one to be egoless.

You are closest to yourself. It makes sense to prioritize many of your own needs. You are right there to take care of them.

Egoless people are not likely to contribute as much because they are damaged and suffering. Can you have a healthy ego and help other people, care about them and even put them ahead of you in many situations? I would argue not only 'yes' but that without a healthy ego you are worse at these things, though on a physical, practical level you may sacrifice yourself and give.

But it is default evidence that materialism is false. — Bartricks

I am not sure how you got to materialism is false. I get that there is an illusion of presentness. But that doesn't make materialism false. It would mean that there is an illusion about part of experience. Materialism could still be correct in the main. And in fact could simply contain this as one of the facets of materialism.
I'm not a materialist by the way, so I'm happy if you can break that old beast in a new way.
You call this presentness illusion a big black mark against the theory. But I don't see it that way. I see it as a consequence of the theory. That's it. Materialism entails that what we think of as happening exactly now is not. Some might put it differently that while the experience is happening right now, what it is representing came a tiny bit earlier.
Some materialists may find this vexing, but i don't see how it means that their ontology - the world is made of matter and so on - needs to be tossed out.

As a side note: it seems to me not being a materialist might lead to different ideas about natalism/anti-natalism. Has it? You can link me if you've already gone into this somewhere.