So I guess, if anyone went through something like this, what did you do? What should I do? — rossii

Time moves on regardless. You DO have the ability to train your brain to rethink your choice to live life as a curse. You will miss a lot of cool stuff and you will not witness any positive progress humanity might make if you are no longer here. It seems to me that your greatest enemy lies within you and it is that which you can decide to fight or succumb to. You are not the first to experience this challenge and you will certainly not be the last.
No-one can prevent you from wasting your life. Why don't you use your life to help others as much as you can, if you are simply living it as a curse anyway, and you are unable to challenge that mental state, then focus on being of service to others.

Terms like 'transcending' and 'beyond,' must imo, ultimately regress towards / and land at, the notion of 'transcending' spacetime or the cosmos. Same with 'beyond.' For me, such notions are irrational and absurd.

'Meta' for me is far too broad, to be of much use, when added to a word like physics.
To me, 'physics' and 'not physics' is far better.

Meta is a prefix from the Greek μετά, which can signify “more comprehensive”, “transcending”, “change”, “alteration”, or “beyond”. It can also mean self-referential, as in a field of study or endeavor that examines its own principles or methods

@Count Timothy von Icarus
@ucarr
When reading both of your responses to my posts, counter points were forming in my mind. I was building my arguments, so that I could take each point you both made and offer a response to each.
I will still do that if either of you would find that approach, the only fair way to progress our exchange. I have no doubt you will both have many interesting responses to my responses.

It then occurred to me that a better route may be to ask two 'connected' questions.
So, I though I would try that more simplistic route first.

1. Do you think the universe is deterministic? and if you do, I would appreciate a little detail as to why.
2. Is random happenstance real? Do you think there is 'intentionality' behind quantum fluctuations or are quantum fluctuations an example of that which is truly random?

If the universe is not deterministic and random happenstance is real, then does it not follow that a chaotic system becoming an ordered system which gets more and more complicated, due to very large variety combining in every way possible, can begin and proceed (eventually returning to a chaotic state via entropy) without any intentionality involved?

If the universe is fully deterministic, then to me, a prime mover/god/agent with intent etc becomes far more possible and plausible. For me personally, this would dilute the significance of life towards that of some notion of gods puppets. So, my personal sense of needing to be completely free, discrete and independent of any influence or origin, involving a prime mover with intent, will always compel me to find convincing evidence to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt,' that such notions are untrue.

Does this begin to clear up the issue? , . — FrancisRay

In fact scientists usually endorse three metaphysical conjectures. First, that materialism is true. Second,, that naturalism is true,. Third, that materialism is naturalistic.It's a very muddled set of views that requires entirely ignoring metaphysics for the sake of not rocking the boat. — FrancisRay

Thank you for the detail you provided and your book recommendation. It seems to me that philosophy, like most other fields, including my own of Computing Science, contains a great deal of overburdened nomenclature and we will just have to all live with layperson and expert, interpretation or/and novel interpretation. No chosen definition of such terms seem to be 100% fit for purpose. Especially a term like metaphysics.

I think @Fooloso4's advice is wise:

I think it more helpful to determine what someone making the argument for or against materialism or naturalism or metaphysics means. Rather than the meaning of terms, what assumptions about the world, our inquiries, and our understanding are at issue. — Fooloso4

I will attempt a response to your recent post on this thread tomorrow Count Icarus as it's Friday, it's 4:30pm here and It's beer and good cheer time! Cheers fur noo!

Thanks for your useful response. I appreciate you passing your academic philosophy expertise, over the issue.

Why do I think that there are many questions that we can't answer? — Sam26

Well perhaps I did not make my point clearly with the wording I chose. I was trying to ask you why you are only sure that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that an afterlife exists, and that's all you are sure of.

I don't know if all species go to an afterlife, probably not. It seems that certain animals do though. — Sam26

So have you ruminated as to how you think the choice would be made for 'qualifies for the afterlife?' and who or what system would do, or has been doing the choosing?

Why would you think that there is some burden for me to explain the nature and structure of the afterlife? — Sam26

Your claim that the afterlife exists, was a very strong one.

I think the evidence is overwhelming — Sam26

If I claimed to you that I have overwhelming evidence that time travel into the future is available right now! Would you not expect me to provide some details of how it works and functions or would you just accept that my argument that I have personally experienced it but I cannot reveal the details or tell you what is going to happen due to a universal time prime directive (ie, those involved would kill me) speaks for itself. Would you suggest that such a claim, based on such evidence was absurd?

I think that space is, at least partly, an aspect of what we experience in an afterlife, i.e., as we move from place to place. — Sam26

I am writing a book called Stage II (stage 2) about an afterlife, but it only happens for approximately 1 in every 100 million humans. Just an interesting story (I hope,) nothing more. Where, how, why and the purpose of the stage II ascendents was fun to imagineer. Perhaps I didn't imagineer anything. Perhaps I was receiving Stage II communications, directly to my brain! :yikes:

However, I do think the logic of my argument is very strong. So, it's not about robustness, but about the strength of the argument. — Sam26

Yep, perhaps you could write all your musing on the topic down in story form, and you might start a new religious/theosophist movement. I doubt my Stage II book (whenever I finish the f**ker) will start a new movement to rival the biggest growing new religion, 'The Jedi,' but I remain a dreamer. Perhaps your afterlife book, would be better and do better than mine.

I was tempted to not respond to your questions because many of the questions I've already answered several times in this thread. But I guess, one more time won't hurt. — Sam26

I appreciate the time and effort you spent Sam26!

Indeed. But I do think there is a troubling tendency to try to divorce evolution from all intentionality. I had to spend a very long time explaining to someone reviewing a paper I wrote why it is that natural selection, as applied to corporations, languages, elements of states, people groups, etc. can absolutely involve intentionality. It's like, somewhere along the line, to avoid mistakes about inserting intentionality into places it doesn't belong, a dogma was created that natural selection necessarily can't involve intentionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But the examples you mention above, corporations, languages(at least those used by humans and human made machines), people groups (I am not sure what 'elements of states,' refers to), involves intelligent human design, so yes, they would involve intent but I am unfamiliar with any compelling scientific evidence that there is correlation between such examples and natural selection.
Evolution is merely a measure of, or a record of, how species have changed over time. Natural selection is also just a measure of which species survived environmental change, and why. I cannot perceive any intent in those measures.

Obviously, people choose who they mate with based on intentional decisions though. Many animals are also picky about who they mate with. They also only mate if they survive and they only survive based on intentional choices they make. Intentional choices change the environment which in turn affects future selection pressures — Count Timothy von Icarus

The choices made are often bad ones or unfortunate ones or are purely based on instinctive imperatives, rather than intellect, and so many individuals don't survive. There is no intent in that system, random happenstance and a measure of fortune/luck, that individuals made the correct 'instinctive' move, in a given scenario, is a matter of probability and circumstance and not intent.

Processes like self-domestication, particularly the high levels of self-domestication that humans enacted upon themselves, don't make sense without appeals to how individuals of the species make choices. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't get your point here. Such choices have nothing to do with evolution or natural selection imo. As soon as individual intent becomes the controlling mechanism over such as purely instinctive reactions, natural selection gets replaced with intelligent design/intent. Natural selection does not terminate completely but its role is much reduced.

Normal domestication is an even more obvious example. A cow is, after all, a product of selection by the enviornment, which contains humans who intentionally bread it into livestock. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again you yourself highlight human design and intent, taking over from natural selection in the case of cows, dogs, cats etc. From Fauna Facts:
Cows are not man-made, but their evolution has been heavily influenced by humankind. Although cows originally existed naturally in the wild, the first cows were nothing like the cows we see today. Humans have shaped cows to be as useful as possible for us over the centuries, creating hundreds of unique and specialized cow breeds.
This is human intelligent design, no natural selection involved, only human artificial selection, which indeed has intent.

Intentionality plays a role in selection, but the selection process itself is initially not intentional. It is only intentional to the degree that life develops intentionality. Once that exists though, once a lifeform is using intentional problem solving to decide how to survive and who to mate with, then evolution is necessarily bound up with intentionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The underlined words are where we differ I think. Evolution is very very slow. As soon as a lifeform demonstrates intent as a consequence of being self-aware, conscious and intelligent, rather than a creature driven via pure instinct imperative only, then at that point, intelligent design reduces evolution to a very minor side show for such individuals. It then becomes much more possible that such individuals can make themselves extinct before natural selection or environmental happenstance does.
A big rock from space could still always send the Earth back to a molten mess and evolution and natural selection would be back to square 1 and become the only game in town again as far as an abiogenysis or panspermia event to spark any new flora and fauna, happening on Earth.

The rest of your very interesting post, attempts to evidence the proposal that evolution and natural selection, still plays a very significant role in how a species will develop, after it has gained the ability to demonstrate meaning, purpose and intent to the level that human beings currently can. I remain unconvinced (but I am still open to the idea, as my main expertise lies in Computing Science only) that is true.

I typed "is materialism considered an extreme metaphysical position?" into google and got:
Materialism is not considered an extreme metaphysical position. It is now the epistemological position that the methods of physics are such that they will finally map the structure of the universe. Materialism is a metaphysical thesis in the sense that it tells us about the nature of the world.

I asked chat GPT the same question and got:

The classification of materialism as an extreme metaphysical position depends on the context and the perspective of the person evaluating it. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, including questions about the nature of existence, substance, and the relationship between mind and matter.

Materialism is the philosophical view that everything that exists can be explained in terms of matter and physical processes. According to materialism, the physical world is the only reality, and mental states or consciousness are by-products of the physical processes in the brain. This view rejects the existence of any supernatural or non-physical entities.

Some people may consider materialism an extreme metaphysical position because it excludes any consideration of non-material or spiritual aspects of reality. From a religious or spiritual perspective, materialism can be seen as reductionist or overly simplistic, as it does not account for phenomena that may fall outside the scope of the physical world.

However, from a scientific and naturalistic standpoint, materialism is often seen as a rational and valid approach. Science relies on empirical evidence and observable phenomena, which align with the materialist perspective. Many scientists and philosophers argue that the materialist worldview has led to significant advancements in our understanding of the natural world and has provided a reliable framework for scientific inquiry.

Ultimately, whether materialism is considered an extreme metaphysical position or not depends on one's philosophical, religious, or scientific perspective. Different philosophical schools and belief systems will have diverse views on this matter. It is essential to consider various perspectives and engage in open discussions to understand the nuances of different metaphysical positions.

I therefore consider your view that materialism/naturalism are extreme metaphysical philosophies, very much contested.

Naturalism and materialism are very similar imo. I note the difference, as proposed by such as:
'Naturalism and materialism are two philosophical concepts that differ in their approach to explaining the world. Naturalism states that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena or laws, while materialism argues that all that exists is matter, only matter is real and so the world is just physical. The difference between the two is that materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function'

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, materialism and naturalism are metaphysical positions. But, for me, that seems to clash with what science is. Science is the study of the natural, material universe, is it not? Physics used to be called natural philosophy, yes? But Physics is not metaphysics. Where Is my thinking wrong here?
I have no academic qualifications in philosophy, so perhaps those who do, can easily clear this up for me? @180 Proof? @Fooloso4?

Obviously there are questions that can't be answered about an afterlife — Sam26

Why do you think that is the case? It seems to me that the only question about the afterlife, you are convinced by 'overwhelming evidence,' that you can answer, is that it exists.
99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth, are extinct, but do they all still exist in an afterlife? Or is it just humans that were born after ....... BCE? CE?

And yes, I've mused over many of these questions, and will continue to muse over many other questions. — Sam26

Can you offer any conclusions from your musings regarding the nature and structure of the afterlife?
It seems to me that becomes your burden, based on your claims.

Just because the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean you can convince anyone or everyone of the conclusions that logically follow. — Sam26

Well, I personally find ${E=M{C^2}}$ very convincing, as it demonstrably works.
Do you think such as NDE's are as robust as ${E=M{C^2}}$?

If you had understood what I said about cogency this question wouldn't arise. — Sam26

Can you help me understand what I have not so far understood about the term 'cogency' in the context you employ it? Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity.

As for my demonstrations, as you say, I've given them in the inductive argument. I guess you don't understand inductive arguments or you would've asked me this question. — Sam26

How about this:
An inductive argument is not capable of delivering a binary, true-or-false conclusion. This is because such arguments are often based on circumstantial evidence and a limited number of samples. Because of this limitation, an inductive argument can be disproven by a single negative or weak sample.

You can disagree with the argument, but the argument speaks for itself. If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow. — Sam26

So if I argue that unicorns and fairies exist because I communicated with both, during my own NDE then they must both exist as my argument speaks for itself (you know that is a logical fallacy, right?)
I think you are overburdening the law of identity:
From Wiki:
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz claimed that the law of identity, which he expresses as "Everything is what it is", is the first primitive truth of reason.

If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow. — Sam26

Well, at least you are willing to offer readers the choice between these two conclusions, even though you try to burden the choice you make available with (as I suppose it is).

Intentions and teleology are internal and essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

I find all teleological assignments to lifeforms implausible.
A wolf did not get sharp teeth because it needed them. The sharp teeth evolved not because of evolutionary intent, but due to the process of natural selection, working over a very long time.

I think you are simply placing 'intention,' too close to the origin process for the universe/cosmos.
The intention of a lifeform emerges and develops in complexity, over time, reaches a maximum and then dilutes and terminates, due to entropy, over time. Intention is relative and localised. I see no universal or cosmic reference frame for intention. Intention is emergent, not inherent.
I do have some common ground with you, in that given very large variety in very large combination over a very large time duration, life becomes more and more likely but I don't see any teleological based universal intent, as some underlying prime mover. Your proposal of some emerging networked totality of intellectual, sentient life, that could be labelled 'god' at some instant of time, way, way in the future of this universe, is for me, compelling, but not significant, as I think such will probably coincide with the end of this universe, as I think it will take at least that long for the god label to be correctly applied to that emergence (or perhaps within this Aeon cycle, as in Penrose's CCC).

Carl was 100% correct imo. He simply insisted that we just don't know the full origin story of the universe but he insisted, that that was ok for now. He further insisted that science and only science has provided us with all the useful, valuable information we now have regarding the origin truth. Theism has bore zero valuable information regarding the origin story. Carl simply suggested that the rational path is therefore to follow science and follow the evidence and reject the woo woo.

I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. — Sam26

A bridge too far! Have you mused in any way regarding the form, structure, place, physics, biology, chemistry etc of this afterlife?
Do you propose for example that one of the physical rules of this afterlife you suggest, is that those who experience it, are unable to communicate in any effective way, with us?
Do you propose that everything that's alive and dies on this little mote of dust planet, experiences an afterlife?
Was there an afterlife before humans existed on Earth?
Did the dinosaurs experience an afterlife? Are they still alive in this afterlife?
How about the other early hominids, such as the Neanderthals or Homo Habilis etc?
Do you muse about how this afterlife functions as a 'society?'
Can you offer some of your musings regarding 'a typical day/duration in the life of an afterlifer?'
Was there no afterlife during the at least 8 billion years that there was no Earth or could other aliens have made up the afterlife and still do contribute to the afterlife population (which must be enormous by now)
Do you think you die again, at some point in the afterlife?
An eternity of afterlife could become torturous no? Immortals can't even kill themselves, ever, that choice has been removed!!!
I am bemused by your claim that you think the evidence of an afterlife is overwhelming?
I have many, many, many more questions about the nature of the afterlife experience but if your evidence is overwhelming then you must feel quite confident that you can convince the majority of the human race that the afterlife is fact. What demonstrations can you offer?

As I kvetched earlier, the world's obsession with the US could use some whittling down, for your sake and ours. — T Clark

Yep, I think the human race needs a new 'role model' of what we might consider a better civilisation to aspire to. A better way of living as a human community. There don't seem to be many historical or current suitable candidates. Perhaps we still need a lot of new thinking to imagineer one that might be palatable to a significant enough majority.

But what are numbers and words? Are they forms of qualia or simply forms of human expression and understanding? How may numbers, symbols and language be seen as independent 'realities' or as aspects of human consciousness and the attempt to construct pictures or explanations of 'reality'? How do symbols function in the interplay between the numeric aspects of understanding and the hermeneutics arising from linguistics? — Jack Cummins

I would go with 'forms of human expression,' as numbers and words are fundamentally, glyphs. Tools humans use to communicate. I do think that such 'tools' would be applicable anywhere in the universe however.
The complexity in the universe does seem to form from simpler constituents over time.
Very large variety in a very large number of combinations will lead to increased complexity.
Would you agree that this is also the case in creativity and the arts. No early human could create something as good or as complex as a Greek sculptured statue or a painting like the Mona Lisa?
Do you think that the creativity of an individual human, starts off quite small, may grow significantly if focussed on and the aptitude is present. Then it reaches a maximum and either stays at that maximum or dilutes. Do you think any scientist or artist can always be better than they were at a point of their life, others looking back on their life, call their 'best period?'
Entropy always disassembles complexity back to its constituent, separate forms.
Would you agree?

It's interesting that I have always considered numbers as symbols.
It what way do you separate the two concepts of number and symbol?
From Wiki:
Roman numerals, the Brahmi and Chinese numerals for one through three (一 二 三), and rod numerals were derived from tally marks, as possibly was the ogham script.

Tally marks or representations of 1 have supposedly existed since around 35,000 years ago.
There have been many suggestions regarding what they physically represented, from a tree trunk to a Greco-Roman architectural column. Whatever the truth is, it seems to me that the earliest number system (tally marks) were symbolic and did represent some common object from the environment of early humans.

No. Trust me when I say that most people still see the UK (or just England) as a progressive economy and nation. Yes, Brexit was a mistake, but it doesn't imply that British society went backwards afterwards. There are other nations in this world that are worse than the UK, just see Latin America and Africa. — javi2541997

Well, we simply disagree on that one. I never find the argument that there are 'worse' in existence, a valid reason for excusing bad and regressive national policy. The existence of a more intense wrong does not make the wrong you do any less wrong imo.

This is the point where I always disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. Whether the Spanish and British should "pay" for whatever is not a problem/issue of modern societies. — javi2541997

I equally respect your position. We would never progress in anything, if we all had identical viewpoints.
I don't suggest the British and Spanish 'should' pay for their colonial history, I am insisting they have been paying and they will always be paying for a long time yet. They/we, remain somewhat marred by much of their historical behaviour, as a culture. But as I said, all nations have such legacies, to a lesser or greater degree. From the vile Chin/Han, Spartan/Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Roman empires (to name but a few ancient examples) to the horrible Prussian, Ottoman, French, Spanish and British empires to the American treatment of the indigenous peoples of those lands, The German, Italian and Japanese shame of fascism., to the Russians under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot etc, etc. To modern day horrors such as the Russians under Putin.
I know that many people have many positive things to say about each of the 'empires' or 'cultures' I have mentioned above. But, I hold the opinion that they were all net negative forces in the story of the progression of the human race towards 'my' concept of what I think humans can be. So, this is only my personal viewpoint, and only has any currency, for those who hold the same or similar opinion.

I hope the Trump horror in America does not result in anything like these historical backwards systems, as to a large extent, we still live in a global balance of power, within which, America is probably still, the most significant player. I hope that balance shifts soon and for ever.
I think it's very bad, if we still live in a world where if America sneezes, we can all catch the flu.

Imagine if I been told, "hey do not visit London or Glasgow because of Brexit"
This sounds stupid as hell, right? — javi2541997

Both London and Glasgow voted against Brexit, so yes the logic of not visiting Glasgow or London for that reason, would be a bit logically skewed. However, I think it is absolutely correct, that Brexit has severely damaged Britain, particularly on the European stage. I think most European progressives now see Britain (probably England in particular) as a rather backwards and regressive place, that does not deserve their respect or patronage.

As you suggest, it is wrong and illogical, to tar an entire nation of people with the same brush, but all nations have a global image, based on their historicity compared against their current political and social trajectory.
I always considered the American people, to be, in general, in the final analysis, 'progressive.'
I currently consider American society, regressive.

Is the current circus in America a schism or was my younger view of 'all things American,' naive?
In contrast to @T Clark, I have two American nieces, but that whole family left America and now live in Scotland and they took that decision because of their conclusion that life in America had taken such a general downturn.
They would go back to America to visit but I think they would plan where to visit, based on such as:
From: The federalist papers.org

The state that loves Donald Trump the most is West Virginia, where 61 percent of the residents approve of the job he’s doing. In addition to West Virginia, there are four western states where Trump’s approval rating remains high: Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska; five southern states; Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas; and two midwestern states, both North and South Dakota.

I maintain my view that the whole Trump circus, has damaged the global image of America as a nation of rational thinkers, in ways that will endure for a long long time. I do think that in the future, the call of 'president Trump,' will be used as a hammer against any future attempt by any American group/government to politically guide, on a global platform.
The British and Spanish will forever pay for their legacy of colonialism.
All nations do have some sort of historicity that does not compliment or enhance their ability to be a role model for the human species, on the global stage, and that is fair imo.
I think Trump, and his movement is fast becoming one of the most destructive and corrosive forces against the image of 'all things American,' on the global stage and the longer the circus is allowed to continue, the more long term damage to American societal culture, as perceived by global observers, will occur. Those Americans who state they 'don't care' how the rest of the world perceives them, are fools indeed imo.

it makes no sense – wastes time and effort – to wonder or fixate on where the flame goes when a candle blows/burns-out. Walking the path – living one's life (with courage & dignity as an end in itself) – is the destination, not some ... "afterlife". — 180 Proof

:clap: As Mark Twain also pointed out, such is as pointless, as wondering about your personal state, "beforelife."

As this political circus in America continues, I honestly think that the legacy of Trump will be that he, (via his supporters and the political cowards in the republican party) has managed to reduce a country and a people, that were hitherto, considered by most Europeans as the 'champions/leader/main defender of the free world,' to comedy and complete ridicule. I wonder how many people in the world still respect all things American?

:up:

I broadly agree, but as you do to, I accept the moderation. For me, its simple, respect the borders, or expect a deserved angry retort in kind. No one likes to accept the role of punchbag, physically or textually. So, don't expect me to. I will take part in a 'slagging match,' if that's what you need.
It's very easy, especially on such an anonymous site. If ya wanna light fires then you may also be burned!
According to google it was Marcus T. Cicero who said, As you have sown so shall you reap.

This sort of puzzle always interested me. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I love sentences like this. As long as folks like yourself, feel this way about scientific questions then my hopes that our species is worth its survival costs, is reinforced.
I would be depressed if you had typed something more like, 'God knows all the answers to that which puzzles human, so I choose to 'keep the faith' and choose to stop calculating.'
I am glad and grateful to famous theists such as Georges Lemaître, who chose to keep calculating, despite his theism.

E.g. quarks and leptons are the fundemental forms and everything else emerges from this austere ontology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Platonist-like conceptions of physics center around things being fundementally mathematical. E.g., of quarks Wilzek says "the it is the bit," as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, what do you think of evidence such as from The Nobel Prize in Physics 1990:
The discovery was made when protons and neutrons were illuminated with beams from a giant “electron microscope” – a two-mile-long accelerator at SLAC in California, USA. The inner structure was interpreted to mean that quarks form the fundamental building blocks of protons and neutrons.

and from LHCb discovers three new exotic particles
The international LHCb collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has observed three never-before-seen particles: a new kind of “pentaquark” and the first-ever pair of “tetraquarks”, which includes a new type of tetraquark. The findings, presented today at a CERN seminar, add three new exotic members to the growing list of new hadrons found at the LHC. They will help physicists better understand how quarks bind together into these composite particles.


I include this, not as proof that quarks exist (although I think the dominant view in physics, is that they do) but just as an attempt to assign more significance to such objects as quarks, than 'as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities.' What for you, does 'spaceless' mean, in the context of the 'Wilzek' quote you used. I assume you mean Frank Wilczeck, 2004 nobel prize winner currently at MIT.
I don't mean I had prior knowledge of him, I just got that info by typing your 'Wilzek' into google.

If you do not communicate successfully, that IS your problem. Granted: there are people who manage to misunderstand a simple phrase like "Good morning". But quite often when posters are misunderstood, it is the poster's fault, and the problems are typical of writers in general. That's why publishers and newspapers employ editors. — BC

I think that all you do with statements like this is offer succour to sophists.
As you confirm yourself, interlocuters are not always honest in anyway shape or form.
It is NOT my problem, if a third party thinks I have failed at explaining my position to an interlocuter.
I have experienced many occasions as a teacher, when some in the class understand the lesson and others don't, either because they have chosen not to, or they genuinely have tried but just don't get it.
I will make concentrated/focused effort to engage those students who don't get what I am saying, on a one to one basis during class time, or offer them more help during a lunchtime or such (this is offered via the PM system on TPF imo).
But those who have chosen not to understand because it does not suit their own agenda, will continue to claim they don't understand your position, regardless of how clearly you try to describe it.
It is rarely as open and shut as some claim. As a third party, you might well claim that I don't 'communicate successfully,' but other 'third parties' might think I do.

Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. I don't quite know why he's not stating his case more clearly. Perhaps a vague concept at the beginning--God & Christianity Aren’t Special--has hobbled his thinking. — BC

The fact you refer to him as 'Moderator Mikie,' is (in the context you use it,) a cheap shot and a rather pathetic one on your part.
As an interested participant in @Mikie thread, I think I have understood his main points, after a little clarification.
1. All religions should be assigned the same priority, when it comes to its inclusion in debate. Christianity should not be prioritised in the way it is, in western theological debate.
2. Christians themselves should not be given any priority platform, just because their religion has had the biggest impact in the country they are living in/speaking in.
3. By using the term 'let it go' in bold. I think Mikie was suggesting to Christians in the West in particular that they should stop trying to occupy this 'priority platform' they want to have in the west and atheists would be wise, if they refused to help them maintain such a platform as Mikie thinks they are doing at the moment.

If I am wrong here then I am sure @Mikie will type so, PDQ.

If I misunderstood you, and you are not condemning religion holus bolus, then perhaps we have no argument after all. — Janus

I don't like to quote a well abused line by almost all UK politicians but, 'Let me be crystal clear on this.'

I do think that the human race would benefit greatly if all theism and theosophism was abandoned, as the BS I think it is. But, religious belief can absolutely help some individuals in their personal lives, when they are facing trauma. It can also compel some people to be more altruistic towards other people. I have theist friends and neighbours who I would place in that category.
I don't debate the topic with such individuals in quite the same way as I do with strangers here on TPF.

In the final analysis however, I do agree with the Carl Sagan quotes of:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
“Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.”

Based on the opinions you express on many topics in your posts. We probably do have more common ground than ground we contest. I actually find myself arguing more with atheists, than I do with theists because being an atheist does not prevent you from being a racist or misogynist or xenophobic nationalist or capitalist or tory etc, etc.

No, I just mean accepting some points for the sake of argument. We do the same things in proofs by double negation; assume x and see where that leads us. Taking a claim seriously just means not putting it on par with Santa Klaus and sports. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I broadly agree. I am willing to travel down a path such as 'ok, lets assume Jesus was a real boy, then.....' etc. But it becomes rather ridiculous when we take a path such as, ok, lets assume Jesus did come alive again after being dead for three days...... Well ........ I might even take that path, if the argument was that Jesus was secretly injected with borg nanoprobes, from one of the drones (who was also using a Klingon cloaking device) from a time travelling borg cube, and that's why he became alive again.
Now there's a fun episode of Star Trek the evanhellicals would probably enjoy ....... or would they?

Things like Plato's forms, now called universals, are part of a larger class of entities in modern philosophy called "abstract objects." These include propositions (descriptions of the world with a true/false value), numbers and other mathematical objects, and some other types. They are still very popular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for that info, Any info that adds to my knowledge of modern philosophy is welcome.

They're even popular among physicists. Penrose has a quote to the effect of "the Platonic realm of numbers seems more real...," and you have theories like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which posits that the universe is a mathematical object, or "It From Bit," that the universe is composed of information, which are quite popular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, there are typings such as:
Does Penrose Go Beyond Mathematics?
Roger Penrose has been very open-minded about (as it were) Platonic seeing when it comes to such things as “beauty” and “goodness”. Despite that, he’s never done any detailed work on any of these strictly philosophical issues. Much of what Penrose has said has been the result of interviewers pressing him on subjects which aren’t his speciality . (In most cases these have been attempts — by such interviewers — to get Penrose to backup their own prior views — see here for a perfect example of this.)
From: https://www.cantorsparadise.com/platonist-roger-penrose-sees-mathematical-truths-61a45840fe00

So I am not so sure about Roger's true position on Platonism.

Plenty of people have wanted to do away with universals but it isn't easy. Partly, this has to do with set theory and using properties to decide who goes in which set. But there is plenty of opposition to them too. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But universals are metaphysics not physics, yes? I find it easy to dismiss the suggestion that 'greenness' or 'chairness' or 'darkness' etc are 'universals' but from the standpoint of physics and not metaphysics perhaps something like 'motion' is a real universal property, rather than a metaphysical one. Is anything in the universe absolutely still, in all reference frames?

In that case, don't take a simplistic view, but instead a nuanced one, and condemn the nefarious purposes and not religion as a whole. It's pretty obvious that most things in human life have both positive and negative aspects. — Janus

Perhaps its your assessment/interpretation of my postings that cause you to judge my viewpoints as simplistic. That's not my problem, it's more your inability to interpret my postings in the same way I do.
I fully accept that this is a very common circumstance, that we have no choice but to each endure in our own way.

There are no absolutes; I’m absolutely certain of it. — Mikie

Paradox is such fun!

False analogy. Irrelevant. — creativesoul

It's better to offer your argument and your evidence before you state your conclusive opinions.

Humans are not computers. — creativesoul

Computers are an attempt to simulate/emulate the human brain.

Boolean logic is not equivalent to native tongues/common languages. — creativesoul

It what way? Based on what evidence?

Common language acquisition is not optional. So, the comparison is a false analogy on its face. That's enough, really, to dismiss the counter you offered. — creativesoul

I stated that networking is optional, not common language acquisition. Don't accuse me of a false analogy I did not make and you just made up.[/quote]

There is no "I" without common language. — creativesoul

So to you, the deaf, dumb and blind kid has no 'I' before they learn to communicate through touch?
Helen Keller had no inner notion of an 'I' identity before she was tought to communicate through a common language of touch? Is that what you think?

There is no common language without shared meaning. There is no shared meaning without a plurality of language users. There is no plurality of users without others. Hence, there is no "I" without others. There is no "I" without a belief system replete with self-identification stemming from common language use. — creativesoul

I disagree. If I was placed here at birth and was maintained by a lifeless system until I was able to take care of myself and I never experienced or communicated with another human, in my life, then I think I would still be able to experience an 'I' identity, as different from the flora and non-human fauna around me.

None of this refutes the existence of "I", — creativesoul

We agree on that.

Rather, this is only meant to help you recognize that the statement "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is false on its face. It doesn't. It cannot. It's impossible, because you cannot unlearn common language while continually using it. You cannot 'disconnect' all of the meaningful correlations that you've long since drawn between language use and other things, including the use of "I" and yourself. — creativesoul

Well, thanks for 'trying to help me, ' in the way you suggested but I think your arguments are incorrect for the reasons I have already given.

All this only to say that our brains do not function separately/independently from each other. Language bridges the spatiotemporal gap with shared meaning, shared belief, shared thought, shared understanding. If your brain functioned separately and independently of every other brain, you would not even have the capability to say so. — creativesoul

Again, incorrect, imo, for the reasons I have already given.

I said religion-related discussions, not discussions between theists and atheists. — T Clark

Then I assume your complaint does not include atheists here on TPF. I discuss religion and theism, as an atheist so any theist discussing religion with me, is a discussion between an atheist and a theist!

That was my point - all religious discussions are not about whether or not God exists — T Clark

I agree, they are also about some of the more pernicious affects on the day to day lives of human beings in their local communities and at a national, international and even global level. Do you accept that such pernicious affects exist?

I'm not surprised. You think anything that shows disrespect for religion is good, no matter how badly thought out or weakly argued. — T Clark

But that view is easily thrown right back at you. 'You think anything that shows respect for religion is good no matter how destructive religious doctrine is in the lives of many.'

I assume you have zero respect for TV evanhellicals, trying to part vulnerable people for the small amount of monies they have.
I assume you have no respect for a catholic hierarchy that tries to protect paedophile priests.
I assume you have no respect for religious doctrine that proposes that believers who just comply and don't question are gods 'chosen' and all atheists/apostates are damned.
I could write a big list here. But I am sure you are already aware of such.
Do you not think its folly to 'respect' all aspects of religion, regardless?
Your claim that atheists do not respect religion to the standards you would like, is not strengthened by the fact that you show constant disrespect towards the atheist position imo.

To some extent, I think the hostility toward religion here leads to the low quality of many religion-related discussions — T Clark

Have you watched any of the online debates/exchanges between theists and atheists that you consider high quality. If so, can you provide an example link? I would enjoy watching what you and some others on TPF consider a high quality exchange between atheists and theists.
FWIW, I personally thought @Mikie's thread was a good one.

@Mikie :lol: Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic! Are you and I the only two accused of such so far? Probably not!
I might be in front of you as I had more than 1 accuse me so. Yay!

It's also pretty much impossible to discuss ancient and medieval philosophy without reference to the religions of the time — Count Timothy von Icarus

Seems reasonable to me.

And I'd argue it's impossible to understand what these thinkers are saying, and engage seriously with them without taking the religious claims seriously. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, I'm not sure I would use the word 'impossible' but understanding what ancient and medieval philosophers and theists were saying when they were alive is certainly very difficult as they have been dead for so long, so we only have what memorialisations they left behind or what others claim they said.
I don't know quite what you mean by 'taking the religious claims seriously?' Are you including their claims of witnessing supernatural events?

At the same time, considerations of things like Heraclitus or the Patristics' conception of Logos, etc. will tend to show that philosophy still contains plenty of this flavor of speculation. I don't think you can have philosophy without it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My knowledge of the term Logos only goes as far back as what I have read about Plato's use of it.
I personally think the platonic idea of the existence of such as an ideal chair or an ideal philosophy is BS. Do such proposals still hold value in modern philosophy?

Many people experience thoughts as someone else's in their heads. This would be enough to doubt the 'I am.' — Tom Storm

I think 'I' can be perceived as singular or as a collective, without destroying the independence or individuality of me, myself and 'I' as an individual thinking agent with intent and the ability to create meaning and purpose. This is what cogito ergo sum, indicates to me and divine hiddenness is evidence that no god exists that can demonstrate cogito ergo sum and 'I am that I am,' in my opinion, is a very poor, irrational and incoherent competitor to cogito ergo sum.

A computer program is a singular program, but it's also a collection of code instructions. Each instruction is singular but is a collection of binary digits. Each binary digit is singular but represents a range of voltages (in the case of BInary digiT 1) and the absence of any voltage but over a collection of moments or durations of time (for the case of a BInary digiT 0). A human though is singular but also involves a neurological process, involving many separate events. Each event is a collective of ......., and on and on we go.

All such paths must eventually lead to quarks, quantum fluctuations, and a regress back to a cause for the origin of the universe, which an individual can choose to push back, much much further, into cyclical time aeons, using something such as Roger Penrose's CCC. You can also just decide that the posit of an eternal cosmos or 'energy,' is the only final solution. If you want to insist that is what god is, then I, as an atheist, am ok with that. I would accept that rather meaningless label. It's only when someone insists that such a god, is an absolute thinking agent with intent, that I start to accuse them of irrational thinking.

thinking is occurring and not also the latter part therefore I am. — Tom Storm

So would you be more attracted to 'thinking is occurring (as a presupposition), therefore I probably am?
To me, the best we can do individually, is analyse what we 'think' we know, and assign our own personal level of conviction/credibility towards the available positions. I am 99% convinced that me, myself and I exist. I am still quite attracted to the fact that I genuinely experience 3 contributors, when I think about an issue. They debate the merits of a point. Overall, I could call them a collective that I refer to as 'I.' But, I am also happy to call them me(Rcomplex), myself(Limbic system) and I(cortex.) This is in no way novel, but it does seem to match what goes on inside my head.
As you say, we are not discussing real neuroscience here but, as I said, I have always experienced these three contributors. Do you have any commonality with that experience?

The evidence that currently exists which refutes and/or falsifies the claim that "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is the very words you used. Language bridges the gap between your brains. It connects them. Connected things are neither separate nor independent. — creativesoul

A computer can act forever, as a stand alone device. A human brain can also function as a completely stand alone device (hermitical human). You can connect computers together in a network by wired or wireless means and allow them to communicate, via language/code. Human brains can also network via language/code, yes. But, networking is optional, and is not evidence that refutes the existence of 'I.'

"chutzpah"? — BC

Wow! is that how you spell that word I heard Judge Judy say a lot when I used to watch her show?
I had always assumed it was something like 'hootspur,' :lol: Sorry @Mikie I didn't mean to make an unrelated point on your very interesting thread. Just a wee throwaway post, please ignore.

But in the narrow case I mean, I think it’s treating Christianity as special and is a waste of time. — Mikie

Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?'
How about scientists such as Richard Dawkins, is he also a philosopher?
Why do they spend so much of their time disavowing christianity in particular?

Which is also to acknowledge the culture and beliefs of the rest of the world, and thus that we shouldn’t give Christianity special treatment. — Mikie

I fully agree with your point about not giving any religion 'special treatment.'
If your general advice to theists is, 'its time to get rational and move on,' they I fully agree.
If your more important message is, don't discuss gods and religion on a philosophy forum, then I don't agree.

I know there are many descriptions of philosophy and I have a beginners knowledge at best, of academic philosophy. I would still suggest that discussion of theism/religion in philosophy can be found within:

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
SIMILAR: reasoning, thought, wisdom, knowledge
A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
"don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy"

Also, if 'philosophers' did not debate the merits/dangers/social and political effects of theism/religion and its applications within human civilisations, then imo, philosophy as a subject would become less important to improving the human experience, than it is now.