Yep. Time to pack up and leave.

:up:

I don't think Netanyahu ever intended for Gaza to go back to the way it was. I think he wants the refugees to leave Israel. Or die.

:up:

Which he denies exist. Saw an extended interview with him the other day. His views on consciousness are frankly embarrassing to me. It's as Galen Strawson says you need to be trained to believe in this eliminitavist lunacy. — Manuel

I thought maybe he'd eventually come out of it and join the rest of us.

Could you give a little more detail on why a reductionist would have the burden of proof? — Mark Nyquist

If I'm a functionalist, I would tell you that there is no hard problem. Phenomenal consciousness is fully explained (or explainable) by science in its present state. So I'm telling you that it's wrong to try to separate phenomenal consciousness out as a separate item to be explained.

The conceivability of the p-zombie shows that we can't assume that functionality covers phenomenality, because we can conceive of the former without the latter. To make the functionalist case, I'll have to demonstrate exactly how phenomenal consciousness is generated. Science hasn't done that yet.

I mean, if we are talking about conceivability, it's also conceivable that the mind of supreme being exist, absent anything else, that is, no matter, no physics - no "material substrate". — Manuel

Sure. The conceivability of p-zombies demonstrates that a functionalist like Dennett (assuming he qualifies as a functionalist) is only providing possible scenarios. He isn't providing an argument for functionalism. In order to do that, he'd have to actually show how phenomenal consciousness works.

It is not a-priori evident that non-conscious things with complex behaviors should be evident or obvious at all. — Manuel

But it's conceivable. The fact that they show up in sci-fi demonstrates that. This means a reductionist can't shift the burden to a non-reductionist. The reductionist has the burden of proof.

Sorry, Frank - I've flipped the thread to "what is the best argument against physicalism"... — Banno

That's probably the best way to see what physicalism has to say for itself. Thanks!

That's a very good question. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think it's had as much time to mellow — RogueAI

Islam does have a fair amount of ideological ease with militancy because its central figure was a military leader. I'm having a hard time drawing a line between what Hamas just did and Islam, though. There's a missing piece of the puzzle. I don't know if we'll ever know what actually happened.

Religious extremism. What is yours? — RogueAI

What's causing the religious extremism?

What is your answer to this question?

Muslim terrorists often strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up, taking as many civilians as they can with them. Orthodox Jews don't. Why is that? — RogueAI

I don't understand the point of this question. Could you spell it out?

How about a wave of enlightened secularism? More than a wave, a tsunami. — BC

I think those features of Abrahamic religions were stress responses. Secularism has enjoyed a happy period where stresses have been put at arms length in various ways. If those stresses come back, the same kind of weird images will start growing out of the crevices of secularism like lichens out of a rock.

Show me something that doesn't originate from matter and energy. What third type of substance would it be? — Philosophim

Energy isn't a substance, though:

So, choosing monism as a necessity, all that's left is to call whatever remains something, and here we just choose, I think "physical", right understood, is less problematic than mental or ideal. — Manuel

:up: Nice.

I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin. — Philosophim

Does this follow from an argument? Or is it an assumption?

ou've shifted the emphasis to the Talmud because you know the Torah is not eschatological (in contrast to the Quran, which is claimed to be pure revelation from God and goes into deep detail about the afterlife and punishment.) — BitconnectCarlos

The way Jews absorbed Greek and Persian eschatology was by reading it into the Torah. The idea is that the OT is in code. We discover God's message to us by unravelling the numbers and words. The one book that was intended to be eschatological is Daniel.

Orthodox Jews may believe in a world to come, but they are not "apocalyptists" — BitconnectCarlos

Do you know what's meant by Messiah? :eyes:

Orthodox Judaism is not a death cult like Hamas or fundamentalist Islam. — BitconnectCarlos

Yea, that's probably true. Christianity is the king of all death cults, though. Nobody does dark and gruesome like Christians.

Murder is condemned in all religions and the Hamas murderer-rapists will be accountable to God. Hamas does it from hatred, sadism. They are bred to be sociopaths in a culture which glorifies death and revenge. The Palestinians deserve better. — BitconnectCarlos

Well at least you've narrowed your condemnation from all Muslims down to Hamas. We're making progress. :up:

The weirdly prophetic perspective that has resulted from being willing to seriously consider physicalism. — wonderer1

What is it? What is that perspective like?

:blush: Thank you.

I think maybe I would also say that without some additional distinctive structure beyons current scientific hypotheses then the metaphysical idea that everything is mental is just as vague and empty as the idea everything is physical. — Apustimelogist

:up:

If you want some meat on your worldviews, you can't go wrong with physicalism! — mentos987

It this coincides with this:

The very successful use of scientific method in the West, and reductionist arguments as possible explanations of seemingly non-physical phenomena. — J

Wouldn't you have to argue that physicalism itself is successful? Is that possible?

:up:

But out of curiosity, if you had to give an argument for physicalism, what would you say? I guess you'd have to bypass the semantic issue.

And of course there's a difference between conversations among ancient rabbis versus what is actually used for instruction to a congregation. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh good. Did you know the same thing is true of Muslims?

We're told not to place our focus on it — BitconnectCarlos

That's good, because Jewish apocalypticism is basically about a deep, raging hatred of Gentiles. It's the kind of hatred that twists the soul. Rabbis would debate how long a Gentile needs to be tortured in Hades in order to make the universe right, while Jews sit at God's right hand in heaven and look down on the screaming. If you didn't know about this, I would strongly suggest you get a textbook on the Talmud to give you a better understanding of the history of your religion.

The point is, there are still Jewish apocalypticists: they're Orthodox Jews. In the same way, Islam and Christianity both have populations of believers who are waiting on the end of the world (Jews call it the World to Come) and their place in heaven.

For a long time, the Rabbis only believed Gentiles are tortured in Hades. They eventually decided it might be possible for a Jew to receive that kind of judgement. That was the beginning of a little healing. Oppression is a monster-maker. Being full of rage is a natural part of the process. Keep that in mind when you're trying to understand Hamas.

No, I need to go to synagogue today where I will surely hear my rabbi lecture about how to get to heaven and attain my 72 virgins. You know, because, the Hebrew Bible is just full of eschatology and certain knowledge of the afterlife. :roll: /s — BitconnectCarlos

Jewish eschatology pervades the Talmud. Do you even know what that is? :eyes:

Where is my error? I contend 1) that Islam, as reflected in the Quran and Hadiths, is more eschatological than Judaism and that 2) Arab Muslims have engaged in vast colonization. Both seem right to me. — BitconnectCarlos

Both are wrong. Both are issues that could easily be settled by referencing religion scholars and historians. I guess I don't understand why you need to debate it with someone rather than just look it up. I worked the last three days and I need to clean my house up. Can you just go to the local university library and get some books?

For the secular western mind - very foreign. Islam is more eschatological than Judaism. Eschatology is featured extensively in the Quran and the Hadiths unlike the Hebrew bible. Christ was heavily eschatological but that faded over time with Christianity. — BitconnectCarlos

Christian and Muslim eschatology both come from Jewish version. Apocalypticism exists in all three religions to this day, with Orthodox Jews manifesting it.

I'm just giving you a heads up here: you've expressed quite a few false opinions up to this point. I think you might be interested in looking into the history of the Abrahamic religions further. I think if you asked in the shoutbox, you'd get some good suggestions as to where to start.

Seems to me these kinds of views seem most usrful when you have something to contrast them against like dualism. — Apustimelogist

I think it would follow from this that physicalism is essentially monism, since there's no clear distinction between it and idealism, or Thales' theory that it's all water. So you agree with that?

I wonder if these views, rather than a metaphysical view, maybe could be seen as closer to like an loose grouping of scientific hypitheses about the absence of certain type of things like extra-mental things and against things like parapsychology, cryptozoology, pseudoscience (pseudoscience maybe just being more like a label applied to certain ideas that are considered false but are still discussed as true in some fringe communities). Arguably the same denouncement could be said applied to methods too. — Apustimelogist

I think the distinction comes out of the history of ideas: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Physicalism is specifically the antithesis of idealism, which once dominated the western world. Would you agree with that?

Can I be a metaphysical physicalist? At least until convinced I can’t be? — Mww

So it's just the grounding for your worldview, right? You don't need an argument for it.

I'm a methological physicalist – excluding 'non-physical' (i.e. stop-gap / fudge factor) concepts and entities from models, or explanations, of aspects of nature – who thinks 'metaphysical physicalism ' (re: SEP article) is superfluously reductive. — 180 Proof

:up:

He would not feel so all alone
When everybody must get stoned.

I'm not arguing that there is no motivation. I'm explaining that I have no motivation to be moral and am asking others why they have it given that there are no practical benefits to being moral. Is it entirely a matter of principle? — Michael

Yes, it's a matter of starting assumptions.

I am only arguing that if moral realism (specifically ethical non-naturalism) is correct then moral facts don't matter. — Michael

Right. And I agree with that. But when you went down the trail of motivation, you overlooked the fact that motivation is rooted in ideology. If you want to argue that there is no motivation, then you're immediately pitting yourself against ideologies that define moral in such a way that the motivation is built in, such as Stoicism, where goodness and health are the same pursuit, or Calvinism where the reason you were born is to glorify God, so it's your life's mission.

I don't care if I ought or ought not promote happiness or if I ought or ought not cause suffering. I'm going to promote happiness and not cause suffering either way. — Michael

So there are ideological contexts in which that doesn't make any sense. What you can do is invite others to accept your context. You aren't presenting an argument that requires that they do so.

For instance, a Calvinist will say the only reason for being moral is to glorify God. It doesn't guarantee you entrance into heaven, or anything else. You aren't presenting an argument that shows that it's wrong to look at things that way.

I'm not working under any cultural framework. I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that Moore's ethical non-naturalism is correct: that "this is immoral" doesn't mean "this causes suffering". As such, it isn't a truism that suffering is immoral. — Michael

You have to have some sort of framework or context for the usage, otherwise there isn't any meaning to your expression. You could just be a hard deflationist about it, so you think the word serves a social function, but otherwise has no meaning. Is that how you mean it? Or what?

I'm concerned about promoting happiness and reducing suffering. I don't care whether happiness or suffering is moral or not. — Michael

If you were a Roman stoic, you would say the latter is tied up in the former. What is the cultural framework within which you're using the word "moral?" You have to have some sort of context, otherwise it's language on holiday.

What is my motivation to be moral? — Michael

You might be concerned about whether your existence makes the world better or worse.

Did you happen to look at the graph on the Wikipedia page? Look at what happened to the temperature at the beginning of the
— frank

I did. — Merkwurdichliebe

What did you make of that?

You kind of sound like you're on acid.

Hi Frank. I am not sure whether you are being ironic or gullible — Agree-to-Disagree

That's the quintessential truth, Ruth.