I have thought about this. I would like to start a new discussion for it. If we start what I have in mind on this thread, things will get confusing for me and probably anyone else who joins it.

Is that OK with you? — Ludwig V

No problemo! Raise anchor!

I'm of the view that evil is best explained as (bad) karma. Somehow we'll have to insert this Buddhist view of evil into theism.

Gnomon
I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe.
— universeness
:100: :up:

@Agent Smith — 180 Proof

That's the catch. Religious apologists, at the end of the day, have to posit a causeless primum movens aka God.

need icon — jorndoe

:sweat: On point. Good job Vinay Prasad!

Flavor is determined by molecular structure - a certain configuration of molecules fits a given receptor, much like a jigsaw. In other words, flavor is explicable chemically.
— Agent Smith

Then why do some folk claim, in contrast to the rest of us, that the exact same herb - coriander - tastes soapy?

Taste is not entierly down to chemistry. — Banno

The mechanism of taste can be reduced to chemistry i.e. there's a theory (agonist-receptor) which can be used, albeit with imperfections as you pointed out, to explain taste. None exist for consciousness.

David Pearce (transhumanist) opened an account as a guest speaker, a year or so ago. Spent about a week answering questions and responding to comments. He has a grand vision for the future of humanity and I hope we have more guest speakers in the future as well.

This is pretty much sums up the state our critical facilities have reached now.

We're discussing the peer-reviewed results from one of the most respected scientific establishments in the world.

But the view which prevails is based on "something tells me", and blind faith in a provably industry-biased government institution. — Isaac

Every great discovery starts as a hunch! :lol:

Oops! 2005 and later is what I meant to say.

Anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, the two cut from the same cloth I'm afraid. Nevertheless, we do need to study the side-effects of wearing masks, but something tells me the benefits outweigh the harms.

Is the Buddhist idea of karma something we can turn to?

Technology to the rescue ... again? Yep, I concur, it seems possible to turn earth into a paradise, but then when yin peaks, yang is just around the corner.

Well, no. Rather if there are two identical Bruces, this is a counter instance. The issue is undecided. — Banno

:ok: Sorry, I was wrong.

I could never solve puzzles, even the simplest ones stump me.

That is, she cannot tell if she is in a symmetrical universe with two Bruces or a universe with one Bruce viewed twice. — Banno

Hence, Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles rule. Gracias amigo for the profound insight.

I can't disagree with your assessment of the situation.

Muchas gracias for including me in the list of peeps you wanted to inform. It's above my pay grade and so :zip:

OK. But it will take me a while to get things together — Ludwig V

:up:

And they lived happily ever after ...

:up: Proceed ... as planned? :cool:

I dunno if this is true/not, pulling it out of me magic hat I fear, but most airplane crashes are caused by human error and only once in a blue moon by mechanical/computer error. Allahu Akbar, I can't afford a self-driving car.

In all likelihood, Google AI's info repository is restricted to 2005 and newer.

Looking at both digital memory and analog devices, the researchers calculate that humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information. (Yes, that's a number with 20 zeroes in it.) Put another way, if a single star is a bit of information, that's a galaxy of information for every person in the world. — Science Daily

Information overload!

That's what happens to amateur philosophers (like me) - we're not up-to-date with current/latest developments in philosophy.

It doesn't matter (to me).

My two sikkas ...

It appears that there's no scientific principle, hypothesis, or theory that we can turn to to explain consciousness. As an example of a theory that explains stuff take the germ theory - it provides an explanatory framework for infectious diseases. When it comes to consciousness, even neuroscience fails to provide a theoretical model that could be used to explain consciousness.

Well, if that's what you think & believe, I can't stop you. :up:

:lol:

I know you believe Gettier found a major flaw in the JTB theory of knowledge and I would like to discuss it further with you on a case-by-case basis. The Smith and Jones case is closed - Smith wasn't justified because he didn't take into account the fluid nature of the employment mechanism he was part of. Any other Gettier case you wanna discuss?

Past errors ...
1. Must be apologized for
2. Should not be repeated

:lol:

:up:

No, really. Flavor is determined by molecular structure - a certain configuration of molecules fits a given receptor, much like a jigsaw. In other words, flavor is explicable chemically.

How do we explain comprehension with molecules and their structures? There's no chemical/physical principle we can use to do that. This is what I would call the real hard problem of consciousness because the reason why the mind is beyond science is stronger than Chalmers'. :smile:

Atoms which make up strawberries don't taste like strawberries either. Biology emerges from chemistry, Smith, not "sorcery". — 180 Proof

That's a good point, but the flavor of strawberries is reducible to strawberry molecular structure. However the same can't be done for comprehension vis-à-vis neurons and brains. Nice try! :up:

I disagree with whoever this Vinay Prasad. Plus we need to be careful about interpretation. Masks don't fail 100% of the time. Even if the failure rate is 99%, 1 out of every 100 will be protected. Now consider the fact that the chain reaction that could've been initiated by this one person has been avoided and you'll get an idea of how useful masks are. The objective of masks is not to save the wearer from infection, but to stop the geometric progression of transmission.

Non sequitur. — 180 Proof

But the property of the whole [brain] - comprehension ability - is not to be found in the parts [neurons]. What sorcery is this? :lol:

It seems your Enformationism, since it requires an equilibrium between negentropy/Enformy and entropy, is fully compatible with evil (re BothAnd) and there you rock religion's boat (religion dedicates itself to uprooting evil from society).

True, we're teleologically-oriented people and we work towards an ideal - we want, sensu amplissimo, a long (eternal), happy life, but this is exactly what The Architect and Agent Smith say we rejected in The Matrix. Hence, I suppose, me question.

:up: Search for Searle's Chinese Room Argument on the forum and it should take you to the source of this idea which I merely regurgitated.

How can a group (the brain) consisting of stuff that can't understand (neurons) understand?
— Agent Smith
Just as this sentence consisting of individually meaningless letters conveys meaning. :roll: — 180 Proof

So holism i.e. antireductionism? :chin:

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence

At an individual level, the difference may be too small to justify a recommendation to wear a mask, but in a social setting, even 1 person protected means a chain reaction of infections has been forestalled (think, I suggest, in terms of a geometric progression).

I have a memory worse than a goldfish's. Thanks to :zip:

Anway, my point is Gettier cases are interesting, but every single Gettier case I've encountered is flawed in the justification department so doesn't, in me universe, qualify as a JTB that's not knowledge. Gettier (pseudo)problems.

the whole is something other than the sum of its parts — Wolfgang

:up:

The whole is not just the sum of its parts. Neurons, individually, can't do this :point: comprehend, but, together, as a brain, they can. How can a group (the brain) consisting of stuff that can't understand (neurons) understand? :chin:

:lol:

Choose your words carefully señor. — Mexican man with moustache and a gun

We forget, we suffer!

"into this world we're thrown". — 180 Proof

I don't like being thrown. Do you @schopenhauer1? A not-so-tangential point! Really? You want what?!