But I only get the mystical sort lately — ZzzoneiroCosm

Edit: I just saw your other thread about mystical experience with psychosis.

None. I'd like to be the person to take care of you during your neurotic-psychotic experience.

What does it say about us humans, that all our swearwords mean either a man or womans genitalia, excrement or a sexual act? — Razorback kitten

Because the most vile expression a human being could do to another is sexual in nature, which has nothing to do with having sex, but violence in the severest degree. This actually might come as surprise to most of us. It's not stabbing a person 50 times, it's not stealing their life savings, it's not taking away their homes or every possessions they have -- it's sexual violence, which translates to control over another. Is it any wonder that it would manifest in swear words when at the heat of the moment, we're pissed at something?

Posting a link to something and saying, read this. — Jackson

This is acceptable if another poster is asking for supporting works.

My pet peeve: Someone posting swathes of paragraphs, a lengthy, well-formatted explanation or whatnot, but just missing key ideas.

Using works that have been discussed/published before is key to a discussion so we don't re-invent ideas (like re-inventing the wheel when there are already loads of literature about the subject).

By the way, we already know that the theory only can go so far (at the moment), since it relies on relativity for the most part. If relativity was to be falsified, then it could take big bang with it. — jorndoe

But you're forgetting, relativity does not prove the big bang, it only supports some testable hypotheses. I said this in another thread, there is no proof for the big bang. Only evidence that's testable.

By the way, I don't think it's in the cards that intelligent design can (ever) derive, say, the 10 commandments, that one should pray to the Sun for inspiration and atonement, that Muhammad was the (final) messenger of Allah, or whatever. That's the marked gap from these sorts of apologetics to the (elaborate) religions that have adherents. — jorndoe

I was typing up a follow up post to mine and meant to say that people should stop cutting corners by inserting "god" as their conclusion if they want their theory to be accepted. It doesn't mean that they have to sacrifice their belief that it is god. But they have to rework their thesis if they want to be taken as scientific. I mean, they should write it so that the only logical conclusion is god (that is, if they want other thinkers to follow this conclusion). I don't know. I'm throwing some ideas here.

For intelligent design to become a scientific model, there would have to be falsification criteria, the more the better. — jorndoe

Not necessarily. The big bang does not have falsification qualification, but it's scientific.

The most common objection to ID seems to be that it does not produce any testable hypothesis, and thus is “outside” of science (thus perhaps it would better be argued in a philosophy class). However, what bothers me about this is if science must be testable, then much of cosmology would also be considered inappropriate for a science classroom (no multiverses, no accounts for natural laws-all those would similarly be outside of science and therefore not belong in a science classroom either). — Paulm12

Good point of contention. In math, there is a point at which we cannot determine an exact answer to a problem due to the enormity of the amount for which we don't have the proper device to calculate -- at least not yet. I forget the terminology they use. But, maybe @jgill knows something.

Intelligent design could be reworked as a paradigm shift (this is a special expression for something that requires rework of assumptions, hypotheses, and conclusions of a framework) so we have something to use to explain the unexplainable, for example the WHY questions of the universe. Of course, the issue is the testability of assumptions, etc. So this would have to be handled by theorists. But there should be an attempt at least to make room for something that science cannot fully explain due to lack of testable assumptions. Sans proof, ID, just like the big bang, should be accommodated but with a paradigm shift.

What am I comparing it to?

The mind. Science can explain the brain and brain processes, but not the mind using proof. Know this.

I always thought that anything we are compelled to learn that has nothing to do with the preparation for the apocalypse should not bother us too much, if at all. If we don't like it, then, compare it with someone not liking art or music and move on. I'd be bothered if the life skills that would save me and others at the doom of humanity are denied from me.

I brought up Marx because he is a well known observer of capitalism, which is what this thread is about. You said you were struggling with understanding this thread. I think one reason could be that you’re unfamiliar with certain analyses of capitalism upon which much of this thread takes for granted. — Xtrix

I discovered that I was struggling understanding this thread because of Streetlight's incorrect attribution of what makes capitalism a capitalism. And I'm not wavering from it. I made my point and if you disagree with it, then I agree that you disagree.

So what if marx is a well known observer of capitalism? You eschew someone who studied or has a phd in economics. Yet you bring up marx here. Make up your mind for the sake of honesty, and not just to win on this thread.

The fact that you weren't thinking of it was my point, really. — Xtrix

Could you tell me why that is surprising to you? Why should I be thinking about marxism in this thread? It's not an economic system, just so you know.

If anything an education in this matter, on average, would make it harder to understand this thread. — Xtrix

Why would this be?

I read the post. Then I went back to the first place that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't make sense. His theory U is not defined; his proposed definition is circular, so such questions that mention it are nugatory unless we first fix that definition. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yeah. He's defining U in terms of T.

If the argument is that the occurrence of life explains the occurrence of consciousness ... I'll be parting from the debate. My intuitive gut belief is that life and consciousness are correlated. But I can't provide you with a proof of this. — javra

That's what we're trying to answer. Because humans evolved from animalistic awareness to intelligent humans. For example, homo sapiens?

This is his question, which I'm interested if anyone could answer it:

My question is this. How do we add the reflection schema to a theory such that the proof predicate Prov_U() includes the reflection schema itself. Would the following do the trick?

P8: P_1 & P_2 & … & P_7 & Prov_T(⌜phi⌝) → phi — Newberry

Please read his entire OP.

Nevermind.

Quibble in placement of words. Nah.

I do not think we know what human intelligence is. — Jackson

I'm linking a thread here where there are articles linked to support biological changes leading to intelligence of humans.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12484/the-decline-of-intelligence-in-modern-humans

It means, as we speak, AI remains to be a computer. Until someone had created a human with human minds, let's keep this discussion within the reality of what we have available.

At any rate, I still hold these questions to not be answerable via biological evolution per se. — javra

You can't talk about evolution without the biology. That's what evolution explains -- the biological changes in humans.

No, but I think AI will be a different kind of thinking and not merely computing. — Jackson

Until then, let's stick to reality.

Sorry, but AI intelligence is not the same as human intelligence. I've also been outspoken about this in another thread. We can't say that computing is the same as thinking.

This is a significant change in argument. The OP, to which I responded, addresses evolution as explanation for consciousness - not biology. There's a very distinct difference between the two. — javra

Biology, evolution -- whatever it takes.

I've posted links in this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12484/the-decline-of-intelligence-in-modern-humans

I need to revisit those articles, as I'm not sure if they're adequate as sources of how intelligence (hence consciousness) developed.

What you provide is not an explanation of how consciousness comes about via the mechanisms of biological evolution - in brief, natural selection acting upon mutations. — javra

No I have not provided you with the how. I've only been talking about examples of consciousness. So, we can proceed then to discuss how biology is the reason why consciousness exists -- as a start.

What is lacking in our accepted definition/description of consciousness? Because I'm good with it. But if you're not, what's your definition of consciousness in humans, in animals?

So what's your opinion if we only stay within Newberry's parameter?

You're not mentioning philosophy, which I think is of greater importance than the disciplines you've mentioned. — javra

Oops, actually, I meant to include Philosophy there. I didn't review my post. But yes, I agree.

Sure, but we don't know this via our inferential knowledge of biological evolution, right? — javra

Uhm, yeah that's what I meant -- we do know through the inter-disciplinary studies. Tests and studies show this.

To be clear, my question was that of “how does biological evolution explain how consciousness comes about, this when biological evolution (as theory we employ for explanations and predictions) does not of itself provide us with an explanation of what is conscious and what is not conscious." — javra

They do. Let's cite some studies from the medical community. For example, the consciousness of babies is defined as that recognizing the mother's voice and face, then later awareness of body parts, etc. As adults we are aware of our own mortality and what is death. So, we are aware of the future and what happened in the past.

Tell me, what is it that's inadequate as explanation in your opinion? Let's start there.

So I'll ask: How can the mechanics of biological evolution explain how consciousness comes about when it cannot provide an explanation of what does and does not have consciousness? — javra

What does and does not have consciousness is an inter-disciplinary topic covered by biology, psychology, and specialized areas such as neurology. Of course, different levels of consciousness exist among living beings. But human consciousness is the most understood -- so I only referred to human consciousness.

And your question has been answered. It's hard to have a discussion when one starts with "what does and does not have consciousness", because we know humans have consciousness.

So when presenting someone not familiar with the hard problem, or even has really grasped it (and is not of a mystical bent), they will quickly answer: "Because evolution has created it!" when asked, "Why is it we have sensations, thoughts, feelings associated with physical processes?".

How does one actually get the point across why this is not an acceptable answer as far as the hard problem is concerned? — schopenhauer1

This is, again, confusing the how with the why question by those who answer the question that way. They're answering the how thinking they're providing the why answer. Philosophically, we cannot answer why humans have sensations, consciousness, and feelings. We can only answer the how humans became this way -- through mutation, evolution, etc.

My question is this. How do we add the reflection schema to a theory such that the proof predicate Prov_U() includes the reflection schema itself. Would the following do the trick?

P8: P_1 & P_2 & … & P_7 & Prov_T(⌜phi⌝) → phi — Newberry

You can only if P8: is defined in your theory. Otherwise, do equivalence or some other logic axioms. Or embed Prov_T() in Prov_U().

Obviously, advertising qualifies as a pre-existing relation, so that the exchange cannot be called an impersonal exchange. The type of relation which advertising is, needs to be further expounded to draw out the affect which it has on the exchange. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Advertising to the public does not create a legal or binding relation with the audience. You could ignore advertising. I think it's clear from the definition here that those relations that would create personal relations are ones that are binding -- financial obligations, for example, as in loans or extension of credit.

Two things. First, and least important - it is a mistake to conflate command economies with 'socialist economic systems'. — Streetlight

I did not. My use of "or" means that you could take any one of those listed to use as example. I hope we are clear on this-- command economy is not the same as socialist economy.

Second and far more important: a command economy is the opposite of impersonal exchange: it thoroughly personalizes (or rather, socializes) a market such that exchange in a command economy are precisely not spot exchanges. Market 'control' by a central state means precisely that such markets are anything but impersonal, and that exchanges under such conditions are embedded in social and political relations which dictate them from without. So it is wrong to say, as you have, that impersonal markets are features of command economies. I don't say this in any kind of defence of command economies. But it does point to a misunderstanding of either impersonal exchange, or command economies on your part. — Streetlight

Then you are changing your definition of impersonal exchange, which is against the rules of argumentation. Again, an impersonal exchange exists in command economy. The target buyers do not have to have binding relations with the authority in order to purchase, nor a personal relations must exist in order to make the purchase. I think we need to revisit the definition of command economy. Just because a government controls capitals and production, it doesn't mean that the public must all be bound one way or another.

Capitalism does not succeed in creating impersonal markets, The personal relations are just disguised, so as not to appear as part of the actual market. Consider advertising for example, it's nothing but a personal appeal. This we call marketing. — Metaphysician Undercover

For purposes of expediency, let's stick to the description below that Streetlight provided, see quote below. I'm cool with it. So, if that is so, then capitalism and other economic systems do necessarily form impersonal markets. Not to be confused with market economy whose umbilical cord is tied to capitalism. As you can see, the latter is a special term given to describe what happens in capitalism.

A market is, first and foremost, a site of what might be called impersonal exchange. It is ‘impersonal’ insofar that those who participate do not, for the most part, have any pre-existing obligations, bonds, or relations to one another. This ‘impersonal’ aspect of markets is what makes it different to say, gift economies, where gifts might be exchanged in order to keep up good relations between tribes. — Streetlight

command economies aren't market economies. — RolandTyme

I don't know if you're directing this to my post. But my response to this is, at the moment I can't entertain inchoate comments as this thread has too many important points and already several pages long.

So, I decided to self-diagnose the affliction I contracted reading this thread ( :sweat: sorry for lack of a better metaphor. I posted previously that I did not recognize the kind of capitalism I had in mind when reading Streetlight's OP and succeeding filling-in on this thread).

That said, I really like threads like this because there's truly a great effort made (on the part of Streetlight) in bringing out issues that require understanding of nuances.

Here's my objection to the prevailing sentiment within this thread:

Yet even here, neither the generalization nor the reproduction of the conditions impersonal production is enough to get us to capitalism. One further, crucial step needs to be taken. ....

It is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. And this, ultimately is the difference in kind between markets and capitalism. Markets bear upon issues of exchange: how goods move from one set of hands to another. Capitalism..., cannot be understood apart from issues of production: of who and what is it that stuff is produced for. — Streetlight

I am challenging the bolded sections of the passage above because these are simply not what define capitalism. Rather, they occur despite capitalism. So, my confusion is brought about by these two features that were already present in other economic systems that are not capitalism.

So what are these other economic systems that somewhat resemble capitalism except in the most crucial, essential way? The socialist economic system and planned economy or centrally planned economy or command economy, among others. Mode of production and impersonal markets are features of these economies, too. Except that there is a central authority that makes the decisions as to the production and distribution of goods. So, the shift in decision-making and control are what distinguish these non-capitalist economies from capitalism. Put another way, all economies have the generalized impersonal markets and production for market. So the truly distinguishing features aren't those, but who has control and decision-making over production and distribution of all goods and services. (There's a lot to unpack here, but I hope this vague description drives the point).

Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding? — Xtrix

Thank god I wasn't thinking of Marxism. And I don't know if this is even relevant to say, but I took economics in graduate level and political economic system in the undergraduate level, so I'm pretty sure my confusion did not come from that.

Am I the only one to understand that the "why?" question is invalid only when looking at it through a scientific framework. So it is not that the question is silly, rather the framework is inappropriate. — M777

Funny in science, the why overlaps the how and in an attempt to satisfy questions of the why, they would proceed to again explain a phenomenon in terms of how. Why does it rain? Because when water vapor collects in the clouds and precipitation....

So with my Pessimist philosophy, I have distilled the idea that Comply or Die is a feature of the human condition. Basically, this means that we either comply with the conditions we are situated in (socioeconomic in particular) or we will die a slow death due to not playing the game correctly or simply outright suicide (outright rejection of the game). — schopenhauer1

Is there something about being in a position that one must do X for their survival that is callous or problematic? — schopenhauer1

No, questioning it is not problematic, or even putting it that way is not problematic. I mistakenly believed that this thread is about an alternative reality where people are not compelled to produce.

A lot of human conditions are set and no alternatives exist for those who want a different condition.

I do believe it can be objective, in both an Epistemic and everyday, ordinary sense of the word, for the reason that acts of kindness, v. .olunteer service, donations, assumptions of responsibility, manifestations of human decency take place daily in this world. That is evidence; that is data to be ordered and explained by a logical framework, a system, that would constitute the seeds of a genuine scientific theory.
In fact I would go further and claim that if one considers Psychology to be a science, then that branch of Psych that deals with matters of ethical concern, namely Moral Psychology, which employs experiments to establish correlations, assigns degrees of reliability to its findings, indexes and dates its conclusions, admits that those are all tentative and subject to further investigation and update, etc.,ethics is already, in a sense, science!![/u — Marvin Katz

I'm on board with this! If moral psychology is recognized as testable, verifiable findings on morality, I am a subscriber. I already reject relativism -- this is a sorry-ass approach to morality. But pluralism can be incorporated into your paradigm. I think it is already.

I suppose talking in extremes doesn't amount to a productive discussion. There is a point to a discussion, and that is the satisfaction of an inquiry, albeit imperfect. That's productive, even if we don't solve the world problems, we get satisfaction in answering an inquiry. But while you pinpoint an extreme -- no one should be compelled to produce -- the lack of further discussion as to what could happen in the future is missing.

And Tom, precisely those two quotes are what kept me in confusion, among other explanations here. So, I'll try to read up on capitalism. Thanks.

I think this is the first time in my posting on this philosophy forum that I have not successfully gotten the gist/understanding of the OP and further exposition on the OP on this thread. (I read the thread three times) And I don't mean to say that this is the fault of Streetlight. I mean, my reading comprehension, for some reason, is low when reading this thread. I take this seriously; and I don't have an answer. I'm sure this is a well thought-out thread.

Edit: I wanted to participate, but I'm at a loss for words due to my not understanding most of it.

@Benkei mentioned something about the perpetuity of corporations -- that they are a separate entity, existing with rights of a person, which should be discussed here. I related to that, but the response had again put me in confusion. So, there's got to be a gap in my understanding of this discussion. Which embarrasses me. :zip:

Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with.