I don't think that Murdoch is saying that metaphysics should be eliminated necessarily. She is merely describing what she saw happening in the gradual developments of philosophy in previous centuries and in the twentieth century. — Jack Cummins

So the statement below I mistook to mean that you've come across this idea from her writing, which is an argument for the elimination. If that isn't the case, and I haven't heard of Murdock until now, what idea of elimination do you find in her writing? Or is this your take? Is this your question?

The idea of the elimination of metaphysics is one which I came across in the writing of Iris Murdoch — Jack Cummins

In the twentieth first century, I am wondering how much further is philosophy going in the elimination of metaphysics. — Jack Cummins

The idea of the elimination of metaphysics is one which I came across in the writing of Iris Murdoch. In her essay, 'A House of Theory' in the volume, ' Existentialism and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literarure.she explores the nature of such possible elimination. She says, 'In the past philosophers had invented concepts expressive of moral belief and presented them as if they were facts concerning the nature of the mind and the world.' She points to the way in the which criticism of metaphysics proceeded on the basis of the ideas of Hume, Kant and Hegel. — Jack Cummins

Oh the irony!

And what does she think she's explaining this under? Metaphysics? You bet. She's not using science here, nor psychology. She's using metaphysics to argue for the elimination of....metaphysics!

Any skeptical arguments, any meta-criticism of metaphysics, any polemics on the nature of reality must necessarily use the very same tool that metaphysicians use.

f anything is an appearance it is known conditionally
We know that we act directly/unconditionally (our actions are know to us in an unconditional way)
Therefore action as such cannot be a appearance.

Schop commentator John Atwell states that this argument is not valid.
The reason is that the second premise should state " We know that we can act directly/unconditionally". that is, Schopenhauer, Atwell thinks, does not show that when we act we cannot know that we act in some other way also.

What is the name of logical error committed in the second premise? — jancanc

If Schopenhauer had made an error in his argument, I'd say let's look at the fallacy of amphiboly. But he did not.

At first shot, John Atwell sounds like he's talking about the fallacy of omission against Schopenhauer's argument. I don't think this is the case. Atwell is simply disagreeing with Schopenhauer's assertion that when we act, we have a direct knowledge of this very personal mode of expression, the action. Atwell, then, counters that not all actions are known to us directly. So, no fallacy, just disagreement with assertion.

unless killing animals is acceptable, then it's just a matter of farm life quality and killing method. — Varde

Raising animals for consumption on a large scale -- and there's no other scale because population -- will always entail treating them like inventories and goods, the process of raising them, storing them while alive, and eventually taking them to slaughterhouse will always involve cruelty because the point is profit. The most cost-effective method is used. So, it's really up to the consumers to stop animal cruelty.

Just a thought about watching live performance. I watch a lot of live plays on video.

This is a pop dance jazz number from a band I don't know. (They're playing a cover). But, notice how the girl sings with her heart and really feels the riff of the guitar player. The drummer is using electronic drum kit as this is not an auditorium performance, so makes sense. But I would like to see him play the acoustic one. The bass is awesome, too. Notice that he's playing it with the melody all through-out the song. All in all, everybody is enjoying playing it. The girl is attractive AF. The voices are harmonized well.

You also believe in clay, that it can be moulded, baked, sold, — Banno

But not sold as bread, though.

Q2) Does logic and mathematics undoubtedly indicate us that likelihood of Event 1 is higher than likelihood of Event 2? — Geerts

No it doesn't. And it's illogical to use event 1 to assess the likelihood of event 2, and vice versa. Sampling and population, for one thing? You should create event 2 comparable to event 1 by changing the variables, not the nature of the measurement or the intent.

Q3) Is it logical to assess likelihood of Event 1 lower than likelihood of Event 2? Can P(Event 1) < P(Event 2) — Geerts

Yes, it is illogical. See above.

I think you might be tempted to do this because the pop media that likes to compare apples and oranges for the likelihood of their occurrence is very reader-friendly, hence popular. But your concern is logic.

For me, it's daily meditation - the profound payoff of which took five or six years to even taste. Now it's always with me. Less so when in motion - at work or running errands, and so on - but still always with me. That took 20 years of tireless daily practice. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's the kind of "mystical" I was trying to convey when I said earlier that we could create a mystical place that adapts a positive aura. I deleted most of my post as I didn't make a connection between mystical experience and psychosis in your OP. But I read your other post, and this is what you mean.

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.