In this scenario would death in the living world still be bad and something to avoid like it is now where as far as we know your consciousness ceases to exist when your mortal body expires? — Captain Homicide

It would no longer be called "death" but a passing to another realm.

This is how in the ancient times, when human sacrifice was practiced, people did not think of being murdered for the sake of the deity as bad. It was an honor to be bludgeoned at the back of the head because the deity would be pleased.

The tone reminds me of negative theology, let us get to “Reality” by saying what it is not. But we never can get there, and they come up with equally empty slogans like if only we can get a “view from no where” or if we only can get “outside ourselves”. — Richard B

Yep, pure nonsense! — Richard B

No, it's not nonsense. There is something else that needs to be added to the explanation. I've said this before already, and no one seems to care to include it as a corollary to whatever it is we claim about reality so that we don't run into that kind of issue. And that something else is the hypotheses we keep making about the world that stand the test of time and save us from perishing. If the world population now in the 8 billion does not work as evidence for you, then I don't know what would.

So, to support this explanation, please read John Locke and his argument for critical realism.

We can certainly invite each other to that reality, and not sound lame.

Edit: we don't have to use JTB in our explanation of reality outside our mind.

It's common to see attempts to break a unity that I think can't sensibly be broken. — green flag

Okay.

We can meaningfully talk about personal bias, but it's not clear that we can talk wisely about (as if we could be outside of ) human bias. — green flag

We can talk wisely about the world, if you'd like. Indirect realism does not deny the reliability of our perception -- how else could we have come up with hypotheses that we relied on for thousand of years? We don't go walk off a cliff just to prove we're mistaken. We don't walk off a cliff because we know about gravity. And gravity does not disappoint.

True, but the idea of such a naked world is itself a object within our system of references. — green flag

There is no "naked world" if it's within our system of references. We can't get outside it.

Do our senses give us an entirely complete picture of the external environment, it would seem quite clearly not; we don't see UV or Infrared, we do not hear frequencies above or below certain limits. — prothero

We have devices that can show us those. So, it's not the issue.

I'm not going to read the rest of your post. Thanks. — frank

That's fine. No harm done.

Strange. I don't see @I like sushi contributing to this thread.

Ah, so here we go.

I'm glad you folks have the same thought process, because now I could lay down the argument on the idea that what we see is indirect reality. It's reality, no doubt, but a representation. And it's a representation not because of the reasons you say.

If we directly perceive objects without any nervous interface, how exactly do with do that? Your eyes don't see things. Your ears don't hear things, and your fingers don't feel things. Your central nervous system sees, hears and feels. There clearly is an interface between the CNS and the world. Thus, indirectness appears to be the way it works. — frank

If the view is of a valley with a fine village with an old pub in it, and you can walk down the hill to the pub and enter and order a beer and drink the beer, then the view was not a representation, whereas if you just get a squashed nose and the taste of paint, it was a representation. I hope this helps. — unenlightened

Our five senses work just fine. It's not in the touching, or seeing, or hearing that we miss out on the thing-in-itself. It's our concept formation, our language, our comprehension, and all other things human that get in the way of looking at an object and not be able to undo the idea of a "tree", "moon", "triangle", "people". You can't look at a tree and see a "thing". You can only see a tree. A wood table, for example, cannot be unseen as a table. You can't look at it and see a "thing".

Our mind is enveloped in this cloud of a lifetime learning. No, I take that back. Our mind naturally forms concepts/ideas from day one. This (!) is what we can't undo. We can't get outside of our mind and see the world stripped off of names, reference, and qualities.

The question is: does indirect realism undermine itself? If you note in the image above, the indirect scenario has a guy seeing a faulty representation of the object. If this is his only access to the world, can he be an indirect realist without contradiction? In other words, if his view of the world is faulty (or at least possibly unreliable), why should he believe the impressions that led him to consider indirectness in the first place? — frank

This is wrong. It's the indirect realist that actually gets it. Their view is not "faulty", rather they acknowledge that their view is a representation of the world-as-it-is.

Also, it is incorrect to contrast the indirect realism with direct realism. The latter is also called the naive realism because the adherents take their perception of the world as the world-as-it-is.

Just for good measure, Banno's thread External world's poll has the non-skeptical realism as one of the choices. That's a fitting description of any realist.

Good. Just as we have Descartes's animal cruelty to tarnish his name, Heidegger has more serious issues.

I think there's probably no better example than fashion. — Benj96

So true. Fashion does not care about waste or over abundance.

If all possible thoughts don’t already exist in the mindscape, then where do thoughts come from? How do thoughts and ideas come into existence? It seems the only possible answer is that a thought or idea doesn’t exist until someone thinks it. — Art48

This has been argued by philosophers in meaning and objective reality. If you believe in objective reality, then meaning is out there for us to grasp and make sense of. For this to be possible, our mind is equipped with concept formation so that when we encounter something unfamiliar, we can readily make sense of it. We were not bewildered as pre-historic humans that mountains and rivers and trees exist. Our mind has the ability to accommodate new things, and understand them.

Is the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward? — Benj96

The only better way is to use less disposable things and use, instead, things that can be used for many years, like stainless steel forks, knives, spoons, mugs, and plates. We need to wean ourselves from throw-away economy.

At the risk of derailing this thread -- I think we already did, btw. I will respond one more time. The details are vast and long to discuss here.

Pliny the Younger referred to "Christianis" and "Christiani" and "Christo" in his letter to Trajan, inquiring how they should be treated, and Tacitus wrote of "Chrestianos" who were followers of "Christus" who had been executed by Pontius Pilatus. I wonder who they were referring to, really. — Ciceronianus

That word was derogatory as Pliny used it.

I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible. — Gnomon

:up: I guess I can't steal that word "quibbleable" now. You own it.

This thread was inspired by the Big Think article, which mentioned "Kant's First Antinomy". The rest is just me babbling about Transcendence --- about which, according to Kant, I know nothing. — Gnomon

I see.

It seems you're wrong. Or just confused as to historical events. — Ciceronianus

Not wrong or confused. You have to look at the time of Constantine, who made the formal acknowledgement of the Christian religion around 313 CE. The school of Stoic closed around the first century, I think. (I don't have my books anymore, sorry).

Before Constantine, it was a sect, not a religion. They were called the Nazarenes.

Currently Quarks are no longer pictured as atomic, but composite. — Gnomon

Sorry to quibble, but quarks are sub-atomic, not atomic, and considered to be the smallest particle.

Then on the non-quibble, is Kant's work really a good example to use for your topic?
If your critique is on cosmology, why not use Ptolemy and Thales? What's so special about Kant? His transcendental idealism? This is the wrong application of Kant's work.

No, not me. I have not bothered to understand it.

I'm none the wiser. — Sumyung Gui

Of course not! You never practiced Stoicism yourself. You're just talking here in the forum. Practice it then come back and report to us if you've become wiser as a result. Stoicism is not about talking -- it's doing.

.

I suppose there is a thing called adaptation -- we could take the teachings of Stoicism and use in our life.

Well, there's my answer as to why it was once a good practice.

Okay, first let's stop referring to Christianity when talking about Stoicism itself. Stoicism had gone out of practice way before Christianity was born.
Are you just confused as to the historical events?

Oh I know what it is. I'm just not sure why it's attractive. — Sumyung Gui

I left out "raised Christian" in your quote as Stoicism was prior to Christianity, as I have already said.

So, knowing it, you really don't know what's attractive about Stoicism?

According to Jordan (1987), the Stoics thought that “God, who is Nature, knows the whole system of interrelated causes and ‘what every future event will be,’ including every event in the life of each person. — Gnomon

"God" is a creative addition to the writings about Stoicism, as the movement came about before Christianity, whose conception of God is quite the religious conception we know now. "Nature" or mythological is more in line with it.

What is attractive about Stoicism tho? This is the part that baffles me. — Sumyung Gui

I studied it so I guess I can respond to this. It was practiced in daily life -- you're supposed to not be perturbed about things you cannot change and things that already happened. Do not cry over spilled milk. This is the mind over matter mantra.

You should look up the practitioners of this philosophy -- Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus. Yes, obviously, we can say -- "easy for them to say don't sweat the small stuff. After all, they're emperors and wealthy land owners. They had achieved great things." But know that Epictetus lived a penniless life all throughout his life. He lived just enough to be able to do philosophical discourse. ( He didn't write anything)

Stoicism was the precursor for the Christian religion.

You may not like Christianity, but Jesus Christ lived the stoic life as well and was truly a good, peaceful person, according to history. And yes, I saw the sample of the page where a snippet of his description was written.

Yes, I think in philosophy it could be contrasted with something like sophisticated. — Jamal

No, this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid thinking, that primitive is contrasted with sophisticated. I don't think that's what it means in philosophy. But I won't dwell on this anymore as I don't have any other objections.

Thanks.

However, in my opinion it’s pretty clear that Pinker means it in the sense I identified: characteristic of an earlier stage of development, when Enlightenment had not been brought to fruition in some way, or just when things were worse. — Jamal

:up:

But what he really means is that even if we do still suffer from some of those evils, they are relics. We are on the forward march, and it's only a matter of time before we consign them to the dustbin of history. — Jamal

I didn't get this from the passage. Of course I haven't read Pinker, but the passage, to me, did not mean they are relics. He said they are a part of natural existence and countries can slide back to them - at the expense of the wisdom of the Enlightenment. So, in essence he doesn't expect those evils to go away, but only to become latent. He used the word "pacified" at one point in his works (?)

I think we commonly mistake the definition of "primitive" as the past. I actually was first confused as to the use of the word when I came across the word in philosophy. I think in philosophy, primitive means basic and simple, as in the ordinary means of dealing with things. (I don't know, I'm trying to get to the definition that sounds satisfactory).

Anyway, very good OP!

I ramble on a bit more after that but I’ve decided to leave it out for now. — invicta

Have you heard of ...editing?

The Concept of Nature, is better, or to be more accurate, I preferred. — Manuel

Yes, that is one work I couldn't disagree with.

Welcome. :cool:

I might have preferred the adult.... — Vera Mont

Me too.

I don't have any adult thing to add to your already exhaustive list. :up:

There is a maximum lifespan for the species and a statistical lifespan over which 50% don't make it? — TiredThinker

Yeah, I don't understand the answers on this thread. Those numbers are a result of health studies as it relate to population's well-being, which includes physical and mental health, security/safety, accident, etc. They're backed by science. It doesn't matter what one thinks what age they would like to die -- we're not talking poetic, spiritual, metaphysical, or choice here.

Just the improvements in water and food safety alone had contributed to an increase in life expectancy. If your country's life expectancy is still in the 45-year old, then you're behind 2,000 years in well-being. Short and long life has real, measurable meaning.

The average lifespan is late 70s early 80s, and the maximum lifespan based on hayflick limit is about 120 although people have lived longer. — TiredThinker

The lifespan is about 120, but the average life expectancy is somewhere around 70s and 80s. Lifespan and life expectancy are not the same.

Anytime someone dies 10 years below life expectancy, that's too young to die.

Somehow, I needed to think first whether I should answer as a 5 year old or as an adult. Because look below -- it seems like children should be included in the OP:

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it? — Vera Mont

When it's my mother talking.

Has the source of the statement previously been reliable? — BC

Yeah, she was reliable in the past. If she said I'd get punished for wrongdoing, I got the punishment when I'd done something wrong.

Is the content of the statement consistent with the context? — BC

I don't know if a 5 year old can understand "context".

Is the content of the statement supported by external information with which I am familiar? — BC

I knew my father would support my mother's statement. So, my father was the external information.

Does the statement violate "common sense"? — BC

Sometimes my mother didn't have common sense -- so in those instances, nothing was violated. Otherwise, she had common sense.

Edit: I forgot to answer the last question. Did her statement violate my common sense? No. I didn't have the luxury of thinking for the sake of common sense -- it was my mother talking.

:up:

First of all, Arthur C Clarke is a science-fiction writer.

The point is that we do [not] yet fully understand nature. We do not yet know the limits of what can be done in the natural world. So, it’s presumptuous and foolish to decide something is beyond nature’s laws. True, we believe today that some things cannot be done, for instance, faster than light travel. But the list is long of things science once believed impossible which are now commonplace. — Art48

I think you're confusing discovery with construction. Humans discovered that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in the entire universe -- not just our solar system or our galaxy, but the entire universe. We also discovered that humans can't fly like birds, and to this day, no one person had flown in the sky like a bird. There are mechanics in place that sets limits on the workings of the universe. No one can walk on water without camera editing, lol.

Although I get your point -- let's wait until we have the means and knowledge to find things that would undermine what we previously believe. But again, this is discovery, not construction. Why we haven't discovered that one piece of the puzzle that could show us that there is something faster than the speed of light is because it's not there. Maybe aliens are faster than the speed of light. But aliens, if there are aliens, are part of our universe too.

If it is through experience that men acquire science and art, then can there be knowledge of what does not come from experience? — Fooloso4

He said,

Nevertheless we consider that knowledge and proficiency belong to art rather than to experience

He did not consider knowledge to belong to experience (the particulars). Knowledge, as he attributed to art has the form of a universal, conceptual, or non-concrete occurrence. Similar to Platonic forms.

Edit: lol. I misread the quote. My mistake.

Note: I'm not arguing these ideas are true. But I think they are interesting and may be true, which is why I posted. — Art48

I get your point. However, the examples of Donald Hoffman and the soccer metaphor are, to me, just variations of metaphysical views about perception. So, if I don't find these interesting, it's because I do understand the point, but not the motivation behind. Spacetime, for instance, has already been theorized as just mental construct that's limited in shape and form due to our finite existence. Nothing to gain by going against it.

But let's say the above examples are what actually is, there's nothing to change in our knowledge of the world since our knowing of it (spacetime is just a facade of the real thing) does not change our perception -- we will continue to see the world through our constitution. Our experience will remain the same.

I realize that what I've just written seems like nothing but two paragraphs of blah blah blah.

Yet another thread on perception and reality. I think we have 20 threads now concurrently.

The physical world is a representation, an appearance, on the screen of perception, on the dashboard of dials. — Art48

Okay. Then what? What is the conclusion to this observation? Surely you don't mean this to be the conclusion.