What is the point in laying out moral edicts that are so abstract and impractical when the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, "common sense"? — Dorrian

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's why a deliberation like this below is necessary.

The idea of formally codifying the principles and issues involved in (an individual) making moral choices is reasonable and beneficial. Not because doing so leads to prospective derivation of moral decisions (which the OP criticizes and I agree with this criticism), rather that once the particular circumstances and details of a situation are known, those principles can be used to arrive at the optimal outcome. — LuckyR

A real "scales dropped from my eyes" moment was learning that Foucault was part of some marketing classes. — fdrake

:smile: You should try looking up his field of study in college.

We’ve all been influenced by propaganda — from the news to education— but the advisement industry is a particularly effective and often overlooked source of indoctrination. I — Mikie

You must not have taken a formal course in marketing to say this. The theory of marketing says exactly that advertising is to persuade or convince the public to buy this or that particular brand. Whatever image a business wants to sell, they have all kinds of posturing to make it happen.

Although, the landlord can kick you out if you break the terms of the tenancy contract or simply not renew it at the end of the contract in which case you would have to move. — Truth Seeker

Will you just shut up about this literal translation of everything that's being discussed here?
Obviously, fulfillment in living arrangement includes with it the long-term sustainability of having your own place. If you're getting kicked out, evicted, thrown out, then you still do not have a permanent habitat.

Many people would feel utterly unfulfilled without their steak, bacon and fried chicken, so I'm not sure what dietary choices that do not contribute to ill humour or health are doing here. — Vera Mont

Due to my own doing, I no longer look at food for pleasure. I find it cumbersome to eat a multiple-course meal. In fact, at times, I find organizing the meal cumbersome or eating multiple things on the table too much work. So, I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to preparing my meals.

Imho, I think, in order to live every (or most) day(s) in a "fulfilling" way, one has to learn how to enjoy – satisfy oneself with – boredom and being alone by unlearning the habit (vice) of "purpose" – social statis-seeking / ambition. Without purpose, there's no "now what?" (i.e. dukkha, angst). — 180 Proof

Wise words. Most people would never understand this.

Prove it. Tell us what time is first. — Corvus

The duration of time that it took you to respond to my post coincided with the beating of my pulse, in seconds.

Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus

Therefore, time exists.

Yeah, let's tackle this. Please provide some passages.

Having a permanent place to live is not essential. I and billions of humans don't have a permanent place to live. Lots of people pay rent instead of owning a house or flat. — Truth Seeker

lol. :smile: Okay, sorry if you misunderstood my comment. I meant, as opposed to homelessness or at the mercy of whoever has an available couch. Renting is a permanent place to live. You have the right to be there.

For me, this system of morality is less about metaphysical constructs or universal truths and more about guiding decisions to become the best version of yourself. While I hold personal beliefs that the judgment of actions is universal—shared across humanity—I also believe that to fairly judge an action, one must set aside the circumstances and intent and evaluate the act itself. — ZisKnow

It's good when one has an idea of what morality is. But I notice that, there is much less in the way of explaining the reason for contrasting the practical morality/consequentialism against the universal moral principles. Because to me, they are not in the same realm of deliberation. For example, the 'will' does not point to a concrete object that we can use when making an argument in favor of the harm principle.

Now, I think that Tolstoy made an important point about the connection of mankind with his surroundings, being nature. Here is the quote:

‘One of the first conditions of happiness is that the link between man and nature shall not be broken.’
- Leo Tolstoy — Shawn

What did Tolstoy mean by "nature"?

What do you understand to be the philosophical significance of silence? — Bret Bernhoft

No different than the philosophical significance of a tangible object that occupies space. Silence is not special in any way among the perceived objects/phenomena.

Rapid transit if I'm traveling from one city to another or from one long distance region to another. Example, the Bart, in the Bay area.

Otherwise, plane. For between countries.

There's a bit at the end of the paper that shows that theories can override our memory and interpretations even if the data is strong. — Darkneos

Please provide the lines from the paper. Maybe I missed it.

So I read about this and how our perception, attention, memory, and interpretation are all affected by assumptions that we make, and also how it poses a problem for science itself. The most troubling was at the end of the link where they say it can override strong sensation in the cases of interpretation and memory.

And...does that mean I can't trust anything science says? — Darkneos

No. The paper doesn't suggest that we can't trust science. Or the scientific method.
If you pay attention to the bottom-up and top-down (theory) influences that the paper explained, you will understand that when the evidence (facts) are strong, our theory or schema does not override this objective information. Only in cases where the supposedly objective information or facts are ambiguous, then we have the problem of theory-ladenness.

For example, is planet A a planet or a star? Earlier researchers might have missed some crucial information to declare it as a planet, so they said it was a star. But then later researchers have found this crucial information, and so they corrected the findings of the former researchers.

So, what do you think? A fever dream of mine, or do you recognize something similar happening in our world? — Benkei

Good OP. Yes, I recognize it when I look at the social media. But I stay within the circle of reality in my own little world. I observe other things happening in the socialmediasphere. And that is, a lot of it are fake, made to look like natural or normal, but often heavily edited, filtered, or photoshopped. And we, the ones looking from the outside in, just take it as if they're true.

Anyway, the following may or may not connect with your OP: has anyone of you looked at the VP of the United States and thought -- The Manchurian Candidate?
Just joking. Peace out. I wish Trump's presidency the best!

For an increasing number of people, the struggling and the striving isn't a matter of too much ambition, but a matter of bare survival. — baker

I'm gonna chime in and say, it seems like a lot of more people nowadays are simply dissatisfied with work itself. Just the idea of 'work' makes them lose the motivation. If that's the case, there's no solution. We all need to work to live.

But the root of our "aware-ing", independent of Mind (though "hijacked" or displaced thereby) is the way we are triggered to feel stemming from experience, and by that, every nano-"second" and corresponding subtle variation thereof. — ENOAH

This caught my attention, besides the OP's really good point.
This, to me, is the 'insight', which only human consciousness and intelligence can possess. The AI is denied this experience.
The 'growth' and 'maturing' that humans experience cannot be duplicated in the machine because of the inherent nature of the neural networks in the brain.

Edit: consider the learning of speech -- the sounds that are produced through the vibration of the vocal cords must always begin with the babies making unintelligible sounds.

I'm just glad he was caught with no further incident.
Thank the people at the fast food for reporting to the authority.

The shooter spiraled down to nonsense due to the social media, ended up writing a manifesto.

The shooter should spend the rest of his life in jail, but anyone losing sleep over this CEO being gunned down? I look at it like a mafia don getting assassinated. — RogueAI

I don't lose sleep over events like this. But that's sarcasm to say it.
In fact, the shooter and his supporters do not understand what causes the health care to skyrocket in price in the US. The insurance companies are not to blame for the high costs, and they're not to blame for denying this or that procedures. Tests, latest technology, astronomical hospitalization, all these contribute to the high costs of health care. And the general public do not bother to look at the charges that hospitals send to the insurance companies.

Revealing the truth without their consent would be an infringement on their autonomy. Ignorance, in many cases, can be a blessing. — Alonsoaceves

Yes. Possession of confidential information could endanger one's life. If you're out of the loop, it is often better as you have no responsibility to whatever happens.

At the same time, the level of political discourse, as well ad general interpersonal discourse, is dismally low and shallow. — baker

True.

If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? Ie "a tough pill tonl swallow". Couldn't they declare that their autonomy in not knowing/ (their choice to remain ignorant) was taken away from them? — Benj96

This is an ethics question. The obligation to inform the community. Not all information fall into the category of culpability. So, the question should include 'what harm will it cause the community if they were not informed of this truth'.

In this case which is more important? The integrity of the truth or integrity of free will? — Benj96

Neither. The ethics of information includes the deliberation of whether there is a need to disclose or not.
Sex offenders must register that they are a sex offender as a public record. If they are living in a community whose residents are not informed of this fact, then the residents are denied the information regarding the history of this person. It's your task to weigh the sides of the affected parties.
On the other hand, white collar criminals do not have a required registration, neither do thieves. So, there is that.

Hence the need for antinatalism as an ethic. — schopenhauer1

I'm gonna be the devil's advocate here and side with you.

To me, the psychological crisis that people have talked about -- and I think all philosophers had gone through it -- is the realization of our mortality: life will end soon and we question whether life could have been better. Although it is only a temporary phase in life, it is one of the 'sufferings' that we would have to experience, as any normal human being would have. If we are being honest to ourselves, we would pass this information on to our children -- someday, they, too, would have to experience the same thing.

That aside, all studies point to the idea that 'population control' is the best thing to solve a lot of human problems. But as long as we believe that procreation is a fundamental right, population control is sometimes successful and sometimes not. We just cannot get a grip of it because of the "fundamental right".

It is frustrating for me sometimes when dealing with Christians, because they very often seem to get stuck in arguments over Christology or the supernatural aspects of sanctification or atonement, when all I want to do is think about how to orient my heart properly. This seems good and beautiful to me, so I'd be interested in doing it with or without the promise of supernatural reward. — Brendan Golledge

Since the precursor of Christianity was Stoicism, it is not surprising that the element of the divine powers or the Cosmos is embedded in the Christian belief system. The Stoics believed in Fate -- the swing of one's luck towards good fortune or bad fortune. If you act according to the divine principles, you have a better chance of receiving good fortune.

Hopefully this indicates you now understand the point being made in the text, that space and time belong to the subject himself, so that when there isn’t a subject there aren’t those necessary pure intuitions that belong to him, precisely what Kant meant by the disappearance of the one entails the disappearance of the other. — Mww

I just reiterated what was in the text. How could you have missed that, too?
That's what I was saying. This is crazy when you're agreeing with me, but you don't know you're agreeing with me.

What society as a whole needs is to get rid of the post-truth scam artists eroding the status of knowledge. The media literacy of being able to understand who's who and not fall for scammer narratives is key to healing society's relation to knowledge. — Christoffer

Yup. We are in the age of misinformation. When the whole society is focused on number of views or clicks, that's what we get.

Having said the above, one does envy the life of the ancient stoics, to a degree. They were not preoccupied with the social life of the modern era. Instead, they met, drank, had discussions on the events of the senate, were consulted with since everyone in Rome was in one way or another affected by the Greek philosophers. I don't know what more to say, am I moping here? Maybe I should resign myself to feeling inadequate in terms of my coping strategies. — Shawn

There is, indeed, a big difference between the ancient times and today when it comes to the bombardment of our life with social media. So, you try to cope using the means that are fitting for today.
For example, there is no more "vanishing" to a remote, uninhabited island (unless it's a tv show). Even if you isolate yourself, if you have a computer, a phone, or tv, then you're bombarded.
The key is mind over matter. A lot of what you see online are fake. Misinformation. Exaggeration.

Given minor differences in translations, yes, he is, and no, they are not. Mode of perception is not perception, and neither space nor time is ever an appearance, but only that which is in space and time, is. — Mww

Again, misreading.

We have therefore wanted to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things that we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be, nor are their relations so con­stituted in themselves as they appear to us; and that if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, then all the constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as ap­pearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. — Mww

Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.e., prior to all actual perception, and they are therefore called pure intuition; the latter, however, is that in our cognition that is responsible for it being called a posteriori cognition, i.e., empirical intuition. The former ad­heres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different for different subjects. Even if we could bring this intuition of ours to the highest degree of distinctness we would not thereby come any closer to the constitution of objects in themselves. — Mww

Please follow their argument to the fullest. It is easy to get lost with two paragraphs almost repeating themselves line by line.

Space and time are its pure forms which we can only cognize a priori. (not in themselves). This is called intuition which adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily. The things we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be. And if we remove our own subject, then all relations in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear.

There. I rearrange the lines of their argument for easy understanding.

The 'forms of intuition' - namely, space and time - and the world of appearances exist only in relation to the subject's cognitive faculties. If the thinking subject were removed, what we understand as the empirical world would also cease to exist because it is dependent the structures of human cognition. — Wayfarer

Correct. The world wouldn't disappear if we disappeared.
Here we can also bring in Wittgenstein. The the limit of the world would be disabled as well.

It's the same point that Kant was making, about how time has a subjective component, arising from the awareness of duration. — Wayfarer

No, it's the bit where Kant says 'were I to remove the thinking subject, the whole world must vanish'.

I looked up the exact quote:

"Now space and time exist only in the subject as modes of perception. If we remove the subject, they vanish as well, as do all appearances. Nothing can remain that is not, in its own way, an object of experience." (Critique of Pure Reason, A42/B59) — Wayfarer

It's a misreading. Kant is not saying here that space and time vanish as soon as the subject vanishes. Look again. "space and time exist only in the subject as modes of perception. Because to Kant, even space and time are only appearances to us. If space and time are perceived, then they are object of experience only. If we remove the perceiver, then there's no object of experience, is there?

It just now caught my attention that there seems to be a pervasive agreement among thinkers in this forum that the way the world reaches our consciousness, which is different than the way the world actually is, constitutes an automatic error or subjectivity on our part.

When is it subjective? If the construction of our eyes is such that the cones carry the photo pigment and communicates with the brain when light waves enter, which causes us to see colors, then how is that subjective?

No kidding. Just the kind of thing that will trip up your average "realist". — Wayfarer

Apologies. I thought you were one.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a kind of 'dual perspective' at work in understanding this question, which is deep question. There's common sense realism, in which we are just individual subjects in a vast world. But there's also the philosophical understanding of the role of the mind in constructing the world. — Wayfarer

Fair enough. In so far as the use of language influences the way we see the world, then yes, the mind plays a role in constructing the world.

I would take that remark seriously if you demonstrated any grasp of the point I'm making. — Wayfarer

It's a trick question in philosophy. Wittgenstein talking about the world and the subject.

"The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of the world." — Wayfarer

W stepping outside to talk about the subject. If what's he's saying is correct, then he is incorrect. It is a paradox.

It seems to be more than just lacking high level communicative capabilities. That they are unable to form complex thoughts and reasoning.

What exactly is going on here? What in culture and education fails to form these abilities? — Christoffer

The intelligence of a collective group or population can change. This has been discovered by historians. Reading comprehension, depth in understanding, and ability to construct complex written or spoken narratives can be undermined by technology, among other things.
So, then the question becomes, can a reduced intelligence be the cause of a downfall of a culture? Yes! We've seen over histories that cultures/kingdoms had risen, reached their glorious era, then vanished.

Has the complete subversion of the needs of consumers been accomplished? I'm no Marxist; but, one has to really think about how your needs are being subverted by the calculus of rational self-interest by those who profit the most from making or changing laws the most. Actual individuals don't have the time or resources to make or change laws, special interest groups do, as well as the rich, funding them. — Shawn

Have you studied behavioral economics?
The power of the consumers lies in their decision to spend and where. And that affects what products and services to produce.

True "flourishing" comes from resignation, withdrawal from engagement with others. Social engagement leads to more attachments, and more conflicts, and more frustrations, litigations, manifestations, allegations, contortions,
and complications, in short, drama and disappointments, all of which serve only to entangle the individual further in the suffering. Withdrawal is the first step in peaceful denial-of-will. — schopenhauer1

Those are the monks. There are people who practice this way of living.

Physicalism is reductionist by definition. Why? Because it methodically excludes or reduces what may be deemed anything other than the physical to the physical. Physicalism is 'the view that all phenomena, including complex processes like consciousness, emotions, and social behaviors, can be explained without residue in terms of physical components and laws—typically those of physics and chemistry—without requiring additional principles or explanations'. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure where you got that definition.
I haven't looked up the fitting definition for this purpose. But it certainly isn't what you define as physicalism. Reductionism by design denies other existents except for one thing. Whatever that one thing is. That is not what physicalism suggests. I already mentioned this before -- physicalims doesn't deny gravity and consciousness or the subjective experience. It denies that there is an unexplained gap between the physical and the intangible, subjective experiences.

It is of course true that when it comes to phenomena such as gravity and the composition of massive bodies, then physicalism is a sound assumption (which is the 'methodological' aspect). But the extension of that methodology to the problems of philosophy is what is objectionable about it. — Wayfarer

I see where your objection is -- that physicalism implies that there's only one explanation for both the celestial bodies and our consciousness (which is rightly the domain of philosophy). It doesn't. There are types of matter, just as there are types of existents. What physicalism denies is that there is no explanation at all for the mind or the consciousness.

Actually, I was thinking of mereological nihilism, that there are no true part whole relations, and that arrangements of them are ultimately arbitrary. Thus, the world contains no cats, trees, stars, etc. These only exist in the mind. There are only a few fundemental fields (perhaps unifiable, in which case there is just one thing). This seems to make "saying true things about things" virtually impossible. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Okay, you can hold this view, but it doesn't undermine physicalism. I wrote above to Wayfarer that physicalism can be all inclusive, except for the belief that there is this divide between our consciousness and our body composition.

My guess, which is mostly based on how other "problems in the sciences," have progressed, is that the terms currently applied need to be radically rethought. That's just a guess though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with this.

Wow!

Consciousness, like memories, is not a thing. It is a status that happens when our neurons get stimulated repeatedly. Our individual, unique memories, which we fondly call subjective are made possible by synapses. — L'éléphant

On that view, wouldn't flight also not be a thing, since it is just "cells in wings responding to chemical signals." The same for "running," or "life" itself (and so also for each instance of living things?) Yet, since we have already successfully mastered heavier than air flight, we know that the principles of flight were not to be found in studying the organelles of cells in the wings of all flying animals, nor in their DNA, etc. (at least not most easily). Indeed, one can build a flying machine while being largely ignorant of the biology of flying animals so long as one understands the principles of lift, etc. that all those animals physiology takes advantage of. The same seems true of running and swimming, or even language production, and perhaps it is even so for conciousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess we can a draw a Venn diagram and show that all of the above would be inside the circle of consciousness. It goes without saying that all of that would require consciousness.

In philosophy, depending on what philosopher you subscribe to, a thing is something that has 'wholeness' and perceptibility as its core features. No one, at least that I know of, has defined consciousness as a thing.

But then we are at risk of dissolving all things and having only a single universal process. IMO, the solution here is to realize that things (substances) have relative degrees of unity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If by dissolving all things and having only a single universal process you mean 'reductionism', there is no risk associated with using the view of physicalism, in my opinion. I understand that there are some members on this forum that detest the word reductionism. I myself do not care about this idea. I don't support it. Physicalism is not a reductive theory. It is a foundational theory that purports to show that the world cannot exist without matter or the physical components.
And I say this, gravity is there because of the forces of masses. Yet, we cannot see or touch gravity.
So, the only thing one is risking by holding the view of the physical is, they let go of the ideas of the magical phenomena, about which an explanation is impossible. Gravity is not magic. Consciousness is not magic. They can be explained and traced back to the origin.

In my reading, it seems that objections to physicalist theories of mind tend to largely center on the appeal to the physical being used to drag along other suppositions, e.g. a sort of reductionism — Count Timothy von Icarus

Vide supra.

So, the point I was trying to make is, there really isn't a gap between the subjective and the material component of our experiences. The million pulses that have to happen in order to retrieve an image of an apple or a tree is not magic. It's just misunderstood, I think. Our consciousness of the world is in the form of a picture or story, but that's not how our brain stored it.