A very stretched metaphor, at best; not an equivalence. — Banno

The parallelism of metaphor and the identity of math are distinct.

You have an identity. I'm guessing you think you cannot be in two locations simultaneously. It goes beyond a real limitation of our 3D reality. If we imagine an instance when you are in two different locations simultaneously within our 3D reality, that means the unique you -- not your and your twin -- is in Location A and the unique you is in Location B. This simultaneity of unique you in two different locations at once compels us to say: you are in Location A and you are not in Location A; you are in Location B and you are not in Location B. If you and not-you are simultaneous, then you are yourself and not yourself; in this example bi-directionally. This is not parallelism. This is paradoxical identity.

Russell's paradox lead to further developments in logic, not to its demise. — Banno

You're refuting a claim never made.

Striking resemblance to paraconsistent logic I must say. However, wouldn't the analogy work better if we take two things rather than one thing doing weird stuff in spacetime? — Agent Smith

Are you perhaps talking about, say, an interaction between two hypercubes?

You got it! Yes. That's the gist of my argument. — ucarr

:lol: I'm not sure how exactly though. — Agent Smith

If you haven't watched unrestricted axiom of comprehension please humor me and do so. The brilliant Jeffery Kaplan presents a cogent argument declaring that the problem of unrestricted comprehension of sets is ongoing; ZFC has not resolved the problem.

I see how paradoxes can extend logic, contrary to how they were traditionally viewed, as destructive to logic. — Agent Smith

You got it! Yes. That's the gist of my argument. — ucarr

So back to my original question, what are dimensions doing in set theory? What is a dimension here? — Banno

...the set of all sets not members of themselves. — ucarr

This set, as shown by Russell, leads to a paradoxical conclusion such that the set of all sets not members of themselves is simultaneously a member of itself and not a member of itself.

We can take this paradox and cast it into another, equivalent form: being in two places at the same time which means an object is simultaneously itself and not itself.

Since a hypercube, being 4D, has 3D boundaries, it occupies four distant 3D locations, i.e., the same object in four places simultaneously. This type of spatial expansion, i.e., spatial dimension, deals a fatal blow to logical consistency at the level of 3D spatial expansion. At the level of 4D spatial expansion, logical consistency, i.e., one object being in two places at once is natural not fatal.

From these ruminations we see clearly the direct linkage binding logic and spatial dimensions. Conceptually speaking, logic, which is continuity, concerns itself figuratively with dimensional expansion in the form of an expansion of logical inferences.

Physically speaking, the logic that grounds the math that measures spatially extended objects, when confronted with simultaneous occupation of two different locations at the level of 3D, descends into paradox. This is, however, a simple case of dimensional expansion (symbolic and literal) butting up against a boundary. My theory argues that said boundary is not impassable. One need simply realize paradox is a signpost signaling a boundary for set theoretical logic within a specific matrix of dimensional expansion. My concomitant theory that our physical universe is configured in dimensional matrices that progress in steps resolves the impasse with recourse to ascension to a higher-dimensional matrix.

If you haven't watched unrestricted axiom of comprehension please humor me and do so. The brilliant Jeffery Kaplan presents a cogent argument declaring that the problem of unrestricted comprehension of sets is ongoing; ZFC has not resolved the problem.

You got it! Yes. That's the gist of my argument.

Overview – We’re examining the form/substance relationship. The important questions of the role of time, persistence and God are also thrown into the mix.

...what we find is... matter with form... — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Our empirical experience of reality always finds form and substance interwoven. Do you have any empirical experience of form and substance in separation?

I argue that: form without substance is an unreachable abstraction; substance without form is an unintelligible chaos. This leads to the claim that form and substance are essential attributes of existence.

There is the question “Does language, by naming them separately, artificially separate form and substance?” If this is the case, then probably debating issues that separate them is just an undecidable word game. Each side can make endless arguments for their priority, respectively, thus demonstrating their equivalence WRT priority.

By this line of reasoning, destroy but one wheel and forevermore the wheel can never reappear. — ucarr

Let me make sure we’re not sinking into a type/token confusion here.

In my above quote, I’m talking about destruction of form of wheel as a generality, as a type of form. That means destruction of all possible actualizations of said form. After such a destruction – which I think not possible – no particular, empirically real wheel could ever appear.

Each object, wheel in your example, is unique, with a proper identity all to itself, as indicated by the law of identity — Metaphysician Undercover

Your above quote tells me you’re talking about form of wheel as a token and not as a type.

By materialist principles the concept of "time" is tied to the activities of material things. If material things are moving, time is passing. Therefore under this conception of "time" there is no time without material things. God however, being the creator or cause, of material things, must be prior to material things and is therefore "outside of time" according to this conception of "time". That of course appears to be incoherent, to have something (God) which is prior in time, (as the cause of time), to time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

In making your argument here, you’re presupposing God is in time and, moreover, that time WRT God is insuperable. You need firstly to establish the logical necessity of this supposition. If you can do this you will then be in position to establish the logical necessity of “God prior to time” being incoherent.

But this just demonstrates that there is a problem with the materialist conception of "time". When "time" is tied to the material existence of things, in that way, the possibility of time which is prior to the occurrence of material things is ruled out. Then the actuality (form) which is necessarily prior to material objects as the cause of their existence, is rendered unintelligible, as "an act" without time is incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is Platonic idealism. At its center stands Plato’s realm of ideal forms, of which material likenesses within the everyday world are imperfect and transient copies.

Clearly, you think tokens of form can be destroyed, but not the postulated Platonic types from which they’re supposedly derived.

This throws us into examination of the “essence precedes existence” premise.

As a metaphysician, you’re a Platonist, an objective idealist.

So, you think time is metaphysical in the sense of immaterial. Also, you’re a dualist in the sense of immaterial things, forms, being the causes of material objects.

Once God is confined to time, some questions arise: “Did time precede God?” “If time precedes God, doesn’t that imply God has a cause other than God?” “If God and time are co-eternal, doesn’t that imply time was not caused by God, a contradiction of God as creator of all?”

The unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory states that to every condition there corresponds a set of things meeting the condition: (∃y) (y={x : Fx}).

For example, the set of all sets—the universal set—would be {x | x = x}.

Central to my argument is: the set of all sets not members of themselves.

...when we talk about material objects we are talking about matter with form, and form is what is created and destroyed. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting and insightful. I don't think I would ever think of it.

form is what is created and destroyed — Metaphysician Undercover

Does form exist without substance (matter)? This would have to be the case if form is destroyed and matter not. However, if this is the case, then a given form, once destroyed, could never reappear at a later time. By this line of reasoning, destroy but one wheel and forevermore the wheel can never reappear. You don't believe this do you?

If form and substance are inseparable, when a material object is smashed up or vaporized, is there any more destruction of one or the other? Is it that, instead, form and substance are really just reconfigured endlessly?

"God is self-caused" is incoherent because it would mean that God is prior to Himself in time, and that seems to be contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Talk to just about any Christian and she will tell you God exists outside of time.

Talk to just about anyone and she'll tell you God, by definition, cannot have a creator other than God. So God, by some means, must be self-created.

self-caused — ucarr

This is synonymous both with 'uncaused to exist' (i.e. eternal) and with 'self-organizing' (e.g. vacuum fluctuations, biological evolution). — 180 Proof

This is helpful. Thank-you.

You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really. — Darkneos

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing. — Darkneos

Okay. Metaphysics calls for a special type of assumption: an assumption that resembles an axiom.

Everyday assumptions are refutable: We had been working on the assumption that the murder took place after midnight. When the detectives proved it happened before midnight, our defense of the suspect collapsed.

Unrestricted comprehension within the domain of 3D leads to paradox: inconsistency. Unrestricted comprehension across the duet of 3D_4D leads to expansion of hypercubic space with preservation of consistency. No paradox and no need to rejigger the rule.

While we're talking about it, got any idea what a 4D paradox looks like?

What are dimensions doing in set theory? — Banno

With the above help from jgill, I acknowledge the authority of your point, Banno.

Frege and Russell wanted to reduce math to {first-order logic + set theory} by declaring that numbers-as-numbers are sets: the number 4, for example is a set.

The first rule of set theory: unrestricted comprehension, Russell showed, leads to paradox.

The set-theoretical rule of restricted comprehension, an adjustment configured by Russell and others, aims to return math and set theory to consistency.

Kaplan, in the video for the first link in my OP, argues that mathematicians cannot effect this return to consistency. He shows that the predication of grammatical logic, like the set-theoretical logic of math, ends in the same paradox. He adds that working around it with restricted boundaries declared by fiat does nothing to change this.

The gist of my OP is my argument for recognizing the first-order logical consistency of unrestricted comprehension by utilizing the ascending sequence of dimensional complexes as steps that collectively establish said consistency.

The crux of the steps argument is the premise that paradox is the binder that connects the steps and preserves consistency across them.

If each step is a domain, then the boundary of a given domain is reached when a boundary definition, such as the set of all sets not members of themselves, contains paradox. The paradox tells us we have reached a dimension of higher-order than the scope of the domain and therefore, to preserve consistency, we must expand the collapsed dimension. This expansion moves us up to the next higher domain (step) of dimensional expansion. Within this higher domain, the paradox of the previous domain is resolved by expansion of the previously collapsed dimension. For example: cubic space being in two places at once is paradox whereas hypercubic space being in two places at once is not.

Preserving the consistency of unrestricted comprehension, as you may have noticed, resembles the technique by which calculus makes approximations of negligible imprecision of irrational dimensions such as the area under a curve.

What are dimensions doing in set theory? — :sad: Banno

A set is just a collection of any type of things.

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? — ucarr

Create or destroy some matter. — 180 Proof

Yes, sir! On it, sir!

I don't think we know enough about reality or the universe to know that all things have causes or even what causality amounts to. — Tom Storm

I agree with you. Reality? Whew! It's one of the important reasons I go to bed every night. "I don't wanna be conscious right now." 'Course I have dreams whilst mind is vacationing. I must say, however, my nightmares are few and far between. Causality: Hitchcock made a fortune blowing fog over it.

...the emotional need for universal narratives that can save humans and make sense of everything constantly overwhelms us. — Tom Storm

Yeah. It's at my throat more often than not. That's why I pay money to the sales-person. Happiness around the next bend for the price of a ticket is just exactly what I wanna hear.

Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science. — T Clark quoting R. G. Collingwood

Is it your understanding from the above that assumptions_presuppositions cannot be refuted?

Every material object has a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? For example: do you think caused and created are two different things?

The cause is prior in time to the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think the {cause ⇒ effect} relationship always implies a temporal sequence? For example:

This immaterial cause is what is known as "God". — Metaphysician Undercover

If someone claims God is self-caused, how would you refute this refutation of {cause ⇒ effect} is always temporal?

Il est facile de voir que ... — Agent Smith

Qu'est-ce qui ne va pas, c'est facile à voir?

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls? — ucarr

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls?
— ucarr
No. — 180 Proof

Do you categorically reject common sense?
No. — 180 Proof

The question: Is there a key that unlocks all doors? — Agent Smith

Are "all doors" actually locked? — 180 Proof

:lol: I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith

I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith

Another one of The Architect's macguffins. Remember, Smith: "There is no spoon" (i.e. there is no Matrix). :smirk: — 180 Proof

A chilling wind blew across Manhattan that afternoon as they wheeled Malcolm out of the Audubon strapped atop a stretcher. A delay held up the departure of the ambulance for long minutes as little Chuey inched through the milling crowd up to the great man now supine. “I’m not dead,” he told the pop-eyed boy. Was his smile charming the frigid air? Heck. Only the red film covering his teeth suggested anything amiss. “You believe me, son?” “Ain’t got not beliefs,” snorted Chuey. The eyes of the annointed started slowly closing, a calming peace now spreading across his face. “Best answer. Receive my blessing. Assalamu Alaikum.” Something made Chuey speak. “Wa alaikum assalam.” Loud banging sounds as the stretcher collapsed into the speeding-away ambulance. “Ain’t got no beliefs,” Chuey repeated. And then, “but now I got reason to act like I do.”

I'm indebted to you for letting me query you in-depth. I've benefitted much from the experience. It's been an education for me. I hope we'll dialogue again.

Why do you surround vulnerable and souls with quotation marks? — ucarr

I quoted your words. — 180 Proof

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls?

Common sense.

It's also "common sense" that the Earth is flat and the Sun rises and sets and hammers always fall faster than feathers, etc. — 180 Proof

com·mon sense | ˌkämən ˈsens |
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters: [as modifier] : a common-sense approach | use your common sense.

-- The Apple Dictionary

Do you categorically reject common sense?

pan·psy·chism | panˈsīˌkizəm |
noun
the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.
-- The Apple Dictionary

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too? — ucarr

Yes. — ucarr

Why do you surround vulnerable and soul with quotation marks?

Panpsychism? — 180 Proof

Common sense.

I just don't enjoy being scared. — Ludwig V

Yeah. Likewise for me. However, when friends pressure me into going, I must admit I get entertained (thrilled) and educated. I think the director needs to possess a masterful sense of how far to go. Pushing it way out there is scary_thrilling, then going another step or two affords a transcendent experience that's educational; any further and it transitions from entertainment to suffering, a no-no.

One of the Hannibals, wherein Hopkins has a stir-fry meal at the expense of Liotta, that was transitioning from entertainment to suffering. Hitchcock never made this mistake.

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too? — 180 Proof

Yes.

Soul as defined in the context of my four statements connects to two essential attributes of an innate identity of a self: a) unavoidable; b) invariant

Example: a paramecium, when observed under a microscope, avoids an electrically charged probe that causes it pain. Sensitivity to pain and the ability to suffer, I submit, manifest the baseline identity, i.e., manifest the soul of all sentient beings. Since all sentients suffer pain and seek to evade it, it follows that, WRT sentients, these attributes are: a) unavoidable; b) invariant.

I believe emotional and general language is extremely useful and enriching as long as it does not supersede the physical reality underneath it all. — Philosophim

Okay. Abstract concepts expressed in language can never take the place of the physical reality language describes.

Essences capture feelings that objects do not — Philosophim

Okay. Realism directed at physical objects posits them as mind independent existences whereas essences are phenomenalist abstractions that arise from observance of objects.

The latter can be emotionally gratifying, perhaps giving rise to exultation and a sense of overarching spiritual oneness, but they have no causal impact upon the former.

I'm seeking your thoughts on my four statements. — ucarr

What are those statements (link)? — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/779178

Sorry for the late response. — Philosophim

No problem. Thanks for taking time out from your busy schedule.

I'm not sure what you're asking me here — Philosophim

I'm seeking your thoughts on my four statements. This you have now done to some extent.

All of those things are reactions of your brain. — Philosophim

Okay. I see you regard soul as presented in the context of my four statements as being a psychological term. No doubt I'm talking about emotions arising from everyday experience.

Neuroscience doesn't deny the powerful feelings we have about the world such as purpose and love — Philosophim

I recognize the truth of what you say.

Its just that's the source of where it all comes from, and is not an ethereal ghost. — Philosophim

Here I understand you to be saying the brain is the source of the described experiences, not the soul. Moreover, you're implying such experiences are grounded in a physical brain, not an immaterial entity labeled soul.

soul | sōl |
noun
1 the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
• a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

2 emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance -- The Apple Dictionary

Do you think there's a meaningful distinction between soul as spirit and soul as concept, even with both posited as immaterial?

As I see it, our conversation, an interview in which you answer questions, has to date distilled five big questions:

01) What is the ground of consciousness?

— RussellA

In the world are elementary particles, such as electrons, and elementary forces, such as the gravitational force. My consciousness doesn't exist independently of these elementary particles and forces... but has emerged from them — RussellA

...my consciousness is inextricably linked with the elementary particles and forces that make up my body. — RussellA

If consciousness is an inherent part of these elementary particles and forces, then this suggests neutral monism, in that that both minds and physical entities are constructed from more basic elements of reality that are in themselves neither mental nor physical. — RussellA

Your answer says elementary particles and forces -- and their emergent property, consciousness -- have their ground within a neutral monism that is neither mental or physical.

02) What is consciousness?

As regards the hard problem of consciousness, as an animal such as a cat, dog or donkey could never understand the European Commission, no matter how much it was explained to them, I don't think humans could ever understand what consciousness is. Even if a super-intelligent and super-knowledgeable alien visited Earth, and tried to explain the nature of consciousness to us, we would still be incapable of understanding. We may be able to learn more about the role of neurons in the brain, but what consciousness is would still elude us. — RussellA

...your take on the problem of consciousness is that for humans the correct position is necessarily agnostic in the strict sense of knowledge-not. — ucarr

More a "theist" as regards a belief in consciousness, in that I know that consciousness exists, but I don't know what it is. — RussellA

Your answer says humans relate to consciousness as an act of faith in the existence of something unknowable.

03) What is the interrelationship between mental and physical?

Perhaps the mind is like a wave on an ocean, where the ocean is the world. — RussellA

Your answer says mental and physical are integral parts of each other.

04) Is there free will or fate?

Even though the world may be deterministic, the Butterfly effect shows that the world is too complex to be able to predict in the long term...a minute localized change in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere. — RussellA

Perhaps because of the chaotic complexity of the world, only a computer the size of the world could undertake any such calculation. — RussellA

Arthur comes to learn that the Earth was actually a giant supercomputer, created by another supercomputer, Deep Thought...Deep Thought was then instructed to design the Earth supercomputer to determine what the Question actually is — RussellA

Your answer hedges ambiguity somewhere between determinism and chaos. Your quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy suggests the quest for this answer will mire itself inside an infinite regress.

05) Can life arise from non-life?

panprotopsychism [says]...fundamental physical entities, while not themselves minded, have special features that give rise to conscious minds when they are arranged into a sufficiently complex physical system. The mind emerges from these fundamental physical entities under certain, and mysterious, circumstances. — RussellA

Consciousness therefore has some degree of grounding in chromosomes and genes? — ucarr

Yes, in that as consciousness is grounded in chromosomes and genes , these are in turn grounded in elementary particles and forces. — RussellA

Your answer, because it refers to question 01), has two parts: firstly, it pairs neutral monism with panprotopsychism: neutral monism says the ground of consciousness is neither mental nor physical whereas panprotopsychism says the ground of consciousness is physical; 02) secondly, it says mind (life) emerges from these fundamental physical entities under certain and mysterious circumstances. In summation, your answer says emergence of life from fundamental physical entities is mysterious.

I have a theory that in many (but not all) instances, the more you delve into anything, the more it can seem reasonable - whether it be Islam or existentialism. Once you get to know the conceptual framework and the nomenclature, it is easy to be seduced by worldviews, especially if a few key ideas already align with some of your encultured views and preferences. — Tom Storm

I agree with this.

I have no problem with definitions and classifications. The issue is how far can you push these to arrive at intrinsic qualities. It's these I am skeptical about. — Tom Storm

Thanks for this. It's a clarification useful to my understanding.

Are you an essentialist? A theist? And why? — Tom Storm

I'm not an essentialist. I just learned of its existence through my dialog with you, so I haven't committed to it. However, I do find it interesting and I can see, in a tentative way, how it is useful as an educational tool. If one assumes humans are alike essentially, an efficient curriculum can be established. As you say, however, it's not wise to go too far in making all humans the same.

I was brought up in the traditional Christian Church. Also, I've been best aided with some of my biggest problems in life by Christians. I'm in no hurry to kick them and their beliefs to the curb.

Having said that, I must now confess that as I gain understanding of atheism -- and a lot of other isms -- I'm delving deeper into the need to think over Christianity closely. Thinking over Christianity closely seems to be my main motivation for coming to this website.

I have no particular commitments to views on human nature and I am fairly certain I am not an essentialist. — Tom Storm

If you have some sympathy for non-essentialism, can you assess nihilism and the range of possible identities it affords humans? Being ridiculous for a moment, let me assert humans cannot become cats.

I don't know what moral logic is. — Andrew4Handel

No intention to convey anything fancy. I simply meant wanting to correct something believed to be immoral.

I don't know if all ideology has a moral component. — Andrew4Handel

If you'll accept a take on ideology in the sense of ideal, which is to say a principle to be aimed at, then you can see how ideology, in this sense, contains a moral component.

Camus seems to just be highlighting that what motivates people is meaning rather than facts. — Andrew4Handel

In response to your above quote I'm wondering if you're distinguishing meaning from fact by connecting the former with intentions and goal-oriented behavior.

Science could be used to enhance life but it has also been seen as robbing life of meaning and turning us into automatons to be manipulated. — Andrew4Handel

In this above quote I see a swirling complexity of thoughts including: much of the value of human life rests upon the foundation of meaning_purpose; scientific facts either erase or defeat meaning_purpose; science is sometimes weaponized against humanity in the form of dehumanizing manipulation; freewill is essential to the type of human power that leads to meaning_purpose and fulfillment.

In the end this is all going to be filtered through personal consciousness which I think leaves us with an existential dilemma concerning meaning making. — Andrew4Handel

Here I see meaning making as essential to human quality of life. If this is partly true, can you elaborate on the role and importance of meaning making and also upon its existential dilemma?

I'm often reminded of the painting "Landscape with fall of Icarus". It seems brutal, but somehow necesary. — Ludwig V

Yes. Although Alien has terrified me, I generally favor bold exploration into new territory, hazards notwithstanding.

Why does my opinion matter? — Andrew4Handel

I'm seeking your thoughts on self-sacrifice for sake of ideology.

I am citing Camus on the power of ideology to motivate versus science. — Andrew4Handel

Do you accept conventional wisdom that says ideology typically contains a moral component?

Furthermore, do you believe moral logic trumps scientific logic as motivator of the fight against evil?

Are you telling me mind is a discrete unit within a system we call world? — ucarr

Not really, more that the mind is an intimate part of the world, along the lines of the article Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism by Donovan Wishon. I'm somewhere between panprotopsychism and neutral monism. — RussellA

Is this type of thinking non-binary WRT the physical/mental binary?

if appearance of randomness can be conquered, will the debate be resolved in favor of pre-determination? — ucarr

Yes, in principle, the future could be calculated, though the computer needed to analyse the world would probably need to be as big as the world, taking chaotic systems into account. — RussellA

Is this a way of saying an analysis of the world, as it becomes viable, merges into the world. If so, is one of the implications that analysis of world is finally just self-referential world? From this does it follow that the self-referential part of world is exampled by humans?

Some will say a concomitant of your above quote is an embrace of the notion life can arise from non-life. — ucarr

Yes. This goes back to neutral monism, which is the doctrine that both minds and physical entities are constructed from more basic elements of reality that are in themselves neither mental nor physical. — RussellA

Is it correct to say these neutral basic elements are in reality to some degree alive and that, therefore, it's meaningful to talk about degrees of aliveness? If these two things are real, then the life/non-life binary is displaced?

In the above statements I perceive you to be telling me innate knowledge is a kind of genetic predisposition for knowing certain things. — ucarr

Yes, exactly. — RussellA

Consciousness therefore has some degree of grounding in chromosomes and genes?

A car when driving on a road is external to the road but is still dependent upon the road. — RussellA

The mind_world interface is something like the intricate tessellations of an M C Escher drawing? A tile -- in this case reality -- covers a surface -- earth -- with no overlaps or gaps?

As regards the hard problem of consciousness, as an animal such as a cat, dog or donkey could never understand the European Commission, no matter how much it was explained to them, I don't think humans could ever understand what consciousness is. Even if a super-intelligent and super-knowledgeable alien visited Earth, and tried to explain the nature of consciousness to us, we would still be incapable of understanding. We may be able to learn more about the role of neurons in the brain, but what consciousness is would still elude us. — RussellA

I see your take on the problem of consciousness is that for humans the correct position is necessarily agnostic in the strict sense of knowledge-not.

Skepticism is not the only possibility. How about trivialization - reacting to information and then forgetting it quickly - which prevents ever really thinking about it? Or treating info as entertainment - infotainment as they call it? Or knowing all about what's going on the other side of the world, and ignoring what's going on your doorstep? — Ludwig V

Today's world indeed. And moreover, the fact of trivialization is not trivial.

...people will sacrifice their life for an ideology. — Andrew4Handel

Do you think this is a good thing?

I don't have reason to believe in this idea of essence or even understand what it means... — Tom Storm

Okay. Essence is not one of your favorite words. Other people talk about it, but such conversations have never drawn you in.

What about essential? Do you sometimes find practical uses for this form of the word? Consider this example: The Jack London Reader: Essential Reading for Action-Adventure Enthusiasts. Is this usage something you can respect, perhaps even make occasional use of?

humans are pretty vulnerable - being fragile and silly animals and all that. — Tom Storm

For me all knowledge is made by humans and has limitations. — Tom Storm

If a sarcastic and witty friend said to you, "Foolishness, fragility and spouting off are essential parts of human nature." how would you reply?

Your Knowledge/knowledge couplet is metaphorically illuminating. They're like tectonic plates rubbing against each other in a perennial state of (creative?) tension.

This tension, I'm tentatively imagining, has much to do with adaptation of sentient being to environment.

knowledge is time-based... there is a difference between what is the case and what someone knows. — Ludwig V

Oh, my gosh! This is why adaptation requires constant updating. This is why the info overload of the cyber world is killing people via stress.

The interaction between the two {Knowledge/knowledge} is crucial to the Gettier problems, though it hasn't been discussed in what I've read. — Ludwig V

I'm guessing with the time factor added into the mix, the math-based logic of Gettier Problem gets a lot more complicated.

It may be that human sentience is nearing a boundary line with permanent info-overload making skepticism a necessary defense. Consider the racial and gender phantasia now essential to political correctness and the pushback of staunch nativism.

As regards the Venn Diagram, the mind doesn't overlap with the world, the mind is part of the world. — RussellA

Are you telling me mind is a discrete unit within a system we call world?

...forces are mindless, although not random. — RussellA

This is a good and important clarification.

I don't believe in spontaneous self-causation, — RussellA

Is this a way of saying, in part, every existing thing has an antecedent?

I believe that every effect has a cause and the world is deterministic. — RussellA

Is this a way of saying every state of a system, say nature for example, is inevitable? Moreover, does this allow us to say that if we had unlimited powers re: analysis of the true causes of events, no matter how complex, we'd eliminate the future in the sense that we'd always know every possible state of a system?

Randomness is a human concept for events that are too complex for us to analyze what is happening, a system may be chaotic but it is still deterministic, whereby effects are preceded by causes. — RussellA

Is apparent randomness the loose cannon in the perennial debate {free will vs. pre-determination}? Per your above statement, can you answer the following question: if appearance of randomness can be conquered, will the debate be resolved in favor of pre-determination?

Is it your belief the world caused you? — ucarr

Yes. The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years and it is believed that 4.3 billion years ago the Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. — RussellA

Some will say a concomitant of your above quote is an embrace of the notion life can arise from non-life. Do you embrace this notion?

Your rational mind, however, operates independently of mindless external world, creating knowledge of sense impressions a priori. — ucarr

Not really. Innatism is the doctrine that the mind is born with ideas, knowledge and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, Empiricism, is that the mind is a blank slate at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses. — RussellA

...innate knowledge does not mean that the person has been born with such knowledge, just that such knowledge wasn't expressed. Innate knowledge requires experiences to be triggered or it may never be expressed. For example, a person is not born with the knowledge of the colour red, but are born with the innate ability to perceive the colour red when experiencing it for the first time — RussellA

A human's innate knowledge, in other words a priori knowledge, is the end product of over 3.7 billion years of evolution, ie, Enactivism

The rational mind has grown out of the world, and is therefore not something separate to it. — RussellA

In the above statements I perceive you to be telling me innate knowledge is a kind of genetic predisposition for knowing certain things. It is a kind of seed of consciousness genetically embedded within the brain. Certain specific empirical experiences, acting like water and sunshine, cause the seed of consciousness to sprout into practicable knowledge.

Do you find my assessment acceptable?

For example, a person is not born with the knowledge of the colour red, but are born with the innate ability to perceive the colour red when experiencing it for the first time — RussellA

Optional Question -- Since the below question concerns a complex subject that needs its own separate treatment, you may not want to answer it.

Once the person has the empirical experience of seeing the colour red and she remembers it, and, on top of this remembrance, develops additional impressions and, on top of these, develops additional evaluative and judgmental thoughts, her mind is now operating independent of external world?

This personal POV of an enduring self, WRT the logical determinism of science, as you probably know, now carries the label: The Hard Problem (of neuro-science).

Do you have anything to say about this?