We have sin. — plaque flag

I've argued elsewhere if sin is doing something against God's will, then it is impossible to knowing sin because God hasn't bothered to make his (or her) will known. All we have is various preachers giving us contradictory stories about what God wants and doesn't want.

'Field excitations' are events, I think, not "acts" (i.e. intentional agency). — 180 Proof

Good point. However, I don't mean act as intentional agency.
An event can be seen as the act of the field.
The field is doing something as opposed to when it's in the unexcited state.

Brahman. Dao. Democritus' "void". Plotinus' "the one". Ein Sof. Spinoza's "substance" Schopenhauer's "the will" ... Meillassoux's "hyperchaos" ...
I haven't seen Meillassoux's "hyperchaos" before. I'll have to look into it.

My view is that there is no conceptual equivalent for the uncreated in the modern lexicon. — Wayfarer

I've seen energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) used in that way but, of course, there are differences between that and Buddha's unborn and the One of Plotinus. The idea of one principle that underlies the universe is the object of science's search for a theory of everything. So, we have multiple concepts which, thought dissimilar, seem to point to a monist view of the universe.

I’m merely asking you to entertain for a few minutes the idea that Jesus was just a normal human being who had some good teachings about how to live. — Art48

I don't think so. For instance, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef is reported to have taught support of "evil" by not resisting "evil-doers" (re: "turn the other cheek" Matthew 5:38–42, "love your enemies" Luke 6:27–31, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" Matthew 16:24, etc). :brow:

Not a "word" preached against marital rape or incest, against slavery, against executions, or in favor of thinking for oneself – nothing but teachings on how to live self-abegnating lives like "sheep" to be flocked and fleeced by "the shepherd" for his piously mysterious (i.e. "revealed") purpose. — 180 Proof

I hear you. He had some truly atrocious teachings.

For instance, the Old Testament in two places says a child who curses a parent must be put to death.
• Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.—Exodus 21:17
• For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.—Leviticus 20:9

There are two places in the New Testament where Jesus specifically cites those Old Testament laws with approval!
• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Matt 15:4
• For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Mark 7:10

And his teaching about disease being the result of sin and demons set medicine back a few centuries.

But I don't deny he had some good teachings, too.

↪Nickolasgaspar
These are not steps in a philosophical method, they are branches of philosophy, areas of philosophical study. What you might find in a college philosophy course catalog. — Fooloso4

I agree. Calling them steps of a method implies a certain order that must be followed. For instance, beginning with epistemology, we'd have epistemology then physics then metaphysics then aesthetics then ethics then politics.

But it's trivial to find philosophers who never wrote about about one or more of the "steps," who, for example, never wrote about aesthetics or ethics or politics. In other words, they didn't follow all the steps of the philosophical method. And consequently what? That they aren't genuine philosophers? That they weren't genuinely practicing philosophy?

Me thinks not.

If evolution is only a part of the "headset", how is it that it can explain that we are evolved conscious agents? — Banno

Because evolution is in the headset, it explains what happens in the headset.
But "conscious agents" is Hoffman term's for what lies beneath the headset.
Can you rephrase your question?

Some "goals" are moral and some are not; how do we tell the difference? — 180 Proof

Human flourishing is one, admittedly vague, answer. But it's far superior to the Bible's "morality" which says "witches" are to be put to death and which gives specific rules for the buying and selling of slaves.

Tallis' argument is clear. Hoffman claims on the one hand that "There are no such things as objects as they are usually understood as discrete items localized in space and time". But such objects are the very basis of the theory of evolution, and of science more generally. Hoffman thereby undermines the basis of his own theory.

Hoffman uses objective reality to deny objective reality. — Banno

Untrue. Hoffman says objects and spacetime are part of the headset, which implies that evolution is, too. There's no contradiction.

Science, so far, describes the headset. Hoffman is trying to discern deeper structures which project into spacetime and gives us objects, evolution, and, most importantly, the taste of chocolate. :)

Science, as we all learn, can't give us an ought from an is. — Tom Storm

At the risk of diverting this thread, I'd say that science + goals can give us oughts.
Think of science as a map. I want to go from A to B. There are rivers, mountains, and private property between A and B. So, I look at the map and plan my optimum route. If I want to get to B as quickly as possible, I ought to drive the turnpike. If I want to take a scenic route, I ought to take highway H. Etc.

The gulf between theory and practice is one of the things which makes us human. — Tom Storm

Do scientists have a gulf between theory and practice? If science says plutonium is deadly, do some scientists nonetheless carry plutonium in the pockets? Religion claims possession of the Truth (with a capital "T") but I'd say science respects the truth much more than religion.

TheMadMan — TheMadMan

Yes. And I like the Fromm quote.

Tom,

Most Christians say they believe God commands us to love our enemies and forgive seventy times seven. Yet when 9/11 happened, I don't recall any Christian saying we should turn the other cheek.

I'm NOT saying we should have turned the other cheek. I'm merely pointing out that there's an enormous gulf between what Christians (and other religious people say) and what they do, possibly in the Christian case enabled by the lofty view of who Jesus is.

Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general?
Sure. Why not? You can find good ideas anywhere, even in a fortune cookie.

Are they helpful or do they do more harm than good?
Both probably, as quality of articles may vary.

Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism?
If you were evaluating the source, rather than the ideas themselves, then maybe yes.

Can it even be done better than the philosophers and spiritual leaders from which it derives?
Absolutely. Not everyone understands "eschew obfuscation" but most people understand "strive to speak and write clearly".

if life is evanescent and everything is eventually forgotten, then the moment matters more. — Tom Storm

Yes. There is a similar religious view that we can experience God only in the present (for us, the past and the future exist only in our thoughts and memories), so we should try to live in the present. Buddhist monks have a similar view. I read once that most people will habituate to a bell that rings periodically, but that some Buddhist monks do not; their brain waves show they hear each ring, as would be expected from someone who is paying attention to the present.

What do others think about the role of death in their lives and the concomitant role it plays in their philosophical speculations — Tom Storm

Perhaps the fundamental issue is the transitoriness of life, not death itself? Perhaps death merely forces us to confront the fact that life is transitory?

I’m in my 70s. The world of my childhood is gone. It’s a memory. What do I recall of my tenth year of life? Very little. And hardly anything of my first year. I recall more of my high school years, but that world is gone, too. The building itself has been torn down. Many classmates are no longer here.

What did it all mean? True, it contributed to who I am today. But if I lived eternally, the contribution would become less and less. At age 1,000, what occurred in my tenth year of life might not matter much. At age 1,000, I would have had much opportunity to resolve any traumas from my early years. At age 1,000,000, I’d expect the impact of my first few years to be minimal, even infinitesimal.

If everything I experience is eventually forgotten and everything I accomplish is eventually gone, then what is the point of my life? If I find religion’s answers unconvincing, the question may lead me to philosophy.

Fear of death may prompt us to address the transitoriness of life. Once we have made our peace with that fact, then death may be easier to accept.

“Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.”
― Susan Ertz :lol:

How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

Our consciousness receives seven inputs: the five physical senses of touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound, emotions, and thoughts.

But if all I can directly experience of the physical world is sense data: i.e., sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste, then how can I experience a tree? Without a special “tree-sensing” sense, how can I possibly experience a tree?

The answer is I do not directly experience the tree. I directly experience sense data. I see, i.e., directly experience, patches of brown and green. The brown patches feel rough; the green patches feel smooth. My mind retrieves the idea of a tree from the mindscape. Or, if you prefer, my mind creates the idea of the tree. In any case, all I directly experience is the thought of the tree, along with the physical sensations of touch and color.

The tree I experience is a mental representation of the physical sensations that I experience. My idea of the tree represents the sense data I receive. That the tree is a material object in an exterior world is a (quite logical) conclusion, but it is not what I directly experience. What I experience is the mental idea of a tree. My idea of the tree and the physical object called a tree are two different things. Similarly, a city map has lines which correspond to city streets. But the map and city streets are two different things.

The tree I experience is a mental representation. I do not directly experience an external material world. Rather, that world is an idea which makes sense of what I do directly experience: the five physical senses. Similarly, when I watch a video on a computer or TV monitor, all I experience are light and sound. Based on the lights and sounds, my mind accesses ideas such as people, sand, ocean, clouds, etc. I experience the monitor’s light and sound, and the ideas that my mind accesses. Similarly, I experience the world’s lights, sounds, odors, tastes, and tactile sensations, and the ideas that my mind accesses.

In the process of perception, we objectify the physical universe. We experience only sensations (physical, emotional and mental sensations) but we think object. “Tree” is a representation, something our mind creates to explain what we do experience: the sight of brown and green, the feel of rough and smooth.

One talks of mathematical discoveries. I shall try again and again to show that what is called a mathematical discovery had better be called a mathematical invention. — Wittgenstien - Richard B — Wayfarer

Questions for Richard B

If addition was invented, who invented it?

Who invented the distributive law, i.e., that, for example 5*(3+7) always equals 5*3 + 5*7 ?

The birthday paradox of probability says that given 23 people, there is a 50% probability that two will have the same birth day (but not necessarily the same birth year). With 75 people, the probability is 99.9%. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-probability-birthday-paradox/

Who invented the birthday paradox? AND how did the inventor of the birthday paradox arrange it so that when I had about 23 people in one of my probability classes and decided to demonstrate the birthday paradox, that about half the time, two people had the same birth day?

I want to meet these inventors. Who are they?

For Leibniz, monads are the basic building blocks of the universe, and all things, including physical bodies and even human souls, are made up of monads. Each monad has its unique qualities, which determine its specific nature and behavior. Monads do not interact with each other directly, but rather each one reflects the entire universe within itself, creating a harmonious pre-established harmony.' — Wayfarer

A point of difference from monads is that Hoffman's conscious agents do interact to form a compound agents.

And overall, it leaves open the question that if, as he says, all of the objects of experience are simply icons, then what is the reality? — Wayfarer

Conscious agents are his model of reality, but, he admits, probably not the last word. To paraphrase: He expects his theory is wrong but it's mathematically precise and in science we make mathematically precise models so we can tell precisely where we are wrong, and then try to devise a better theory.

Carrier is an atheist and a Methodological Naturalist (NOT a materialist) — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, I believe you're correct.

His understanding of metaphysics is much different from mine. Since that is the aspect of philosophy that is the most important to me, it made the rest of is points unconvincing. — T Clark

Carrier is an atheist and a materialist. I felt similar to you at times. But, overall, I liked what he said and found it interesting.

How do immaterialists invoke evolution? Doesn't evolution imply physicalism? — RogueAI

Here's one way.

There is a deeper non-material reality which we perceive as physical matter in spacetime. (Hoffman's headset metaphor). The deeper reality is not static; it changes. From within our headset, we perceive those changes as evolution.

Jasonm,

What do you mean by “mean”? It can signify various things.

Under one definition, meaning is created when two people agree on the significance of a sign or symbol. For instance, the meaning of a red traffic light is to stop and wait until it turns green before proceeding. Notice, in this case mean doesn’t inhere in the red light itself; it is only our agreement that creates the meaning of a red traffic light.

With this definition, there can be no meaning to my life if I haven’t already agreed on what the meaning is.

Meaning is also used to mean purpose, but the two concepts are distinct. The meaning of the red traffic light is to stop; the purpose is to regulate traffic and prevent accidents.

So, what do you mean by “meaning of life”?

Instead of defining meaning, another way to address the question is to give a few sample answers, not answers you necessarily want to defend, just answers that give a hint as to what you mean by the “meaning of life”. For instance, the meaning of life is to love; the meaning of life is to attain salvation and spend eternity with Jesus; etc.

We can learn to navigate the empirical world more or less effectively, but if our perception and understanding of the empirical world were at odds with the underlying real nature of things it seems reasonable to think we would not do well.

So it seems reasonable to conclude that there is some kind of isomorphism between the world we perceive and whatever world production, beyond and independent of human experience, that is really going on. — Janus

Hoffman's icon and headset metaphors seem to contract the idea of an isomorphism. For example, moving the icon from top left to top right does nothing to the file.And the correspondence between dragging icon to the trash can and the zeroing of bits seems nebulous.

but more about the motivations behind the particular ways these ideas appear in contemporary concepts, like the mindscape. — Jamal

OK, fair enough. But surely it's natural, given science's prestige, to wonder how concepts discussed for millennia relate to science today.

since our perceptions allow us to navigate the world fairly smoothly, it is reasonable to assume that they are giving us more or less accurate information. — Janus

I guess that depends on how how you define "accurate information". Are you saying that since we nourish ourselves, reproduce, and manage a little entertainment as well, this means our senses must be providing us with accurate information? Even single cell organisms manage to nourish themselves and reproduce, therefore "navigate the world rather smoothly". So does the capacity to entertain ourselves imply that we are getting accurate information? Not really, because in general fiction provides better entertainment than fact. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point.

Here's my two cents.

since our perceptions allow us to navigate the world fairly smoothly, it is reasonable to assume that they are giving us more or less accurate information . . . . — Janus

, , , about how to navigate the world fairly smoothly. But does it follow our perceptions give us accurate information about the world? Don't optical illusions, criticisms of naive realism, etc. show it does not?

I can’t shake the thought that the controversies over what exists are motivated by a fear of irrelevance in the face of physical science. — Jamal

Try shaking harder. :) These questions were discussed long before science existed and are interesting in themselves. P.S. I like your chart of thing/process, abstract/concrete.

From Wittgenstein's "Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematic"
I 168, "The mathematician is aninventor, not a discoverer."
II 2 "But the mathematician is not a discoverer: he is aninventor." — Richard B

Do you have a response for people who do not take Wittgenstein's writings as gospel?

We will probably never stop trying to figure out exactly what an idea is (what we mean by 'idea.'). I think they exist (whatever exactly that means), and I think they are at least like blurry equivalence classes. — green flag

I don’t see how ideas can be equivalence classes because the elements of an equivalence class are logically prior to the class. For instance, the integers are logically prior to the even numbers. For 2 to be a member of the equivalence class of even numbers, 2 must already exist/subsist/be defined/etc. The elements of a set are logically prior to the set (aside from sets defined self-referentially. But such sets lead to logical problems, for example, the set of all sets.)

Many previous threads discuss idealism in general, rather than Hoffman's views. Nothing wrong with that but it leads to the following question: Do Hoffman's Icon and and Grand Theft Auto metaphors necessarily imply idealism?

I think not. I think they can be taken as supporting indirect realism: icons, steering wheels, etc. are our mental representations of transistors and voltages which really exist. Evolution has tuned us to see the icons and steering wheels so we can survive; if we saw wavefunctions, reality would be too confusing and we'd end up as lunch for some predator.

Hoffman himself theorizes a deeper reality of conscious agents. He uses another analogy. Twitter is a community of millions of conscious agents. The deeper reality is similar to the interactions between twitter users.

What is occurring in Twitter right now? The entire reality is too complicated for us to comprehend. But we could see a summary. To use my own example, imagine a heat map of the U.S. where each city's twitter activity is represented from blue (low activity) to red (high activity). The objects of our universe are like the colored cities on the map; they represent reality but are not in themselves reality.

That is not something reducible to sensations. — Wayfarer

The seven sensations and ideas exist. Ideas are not reducible to sensations, but sensations can communicate ideas.

1. What is an "arithmetical fact"? That we use a human invented symbolism like "2+2=4" and that this has rules of use, and has application in our world. OK. Or, do you mean "2+2=4" is a fact because it corresponds to some eternal idea. I reject this later position as metaphysical nonsense. — Richard B

The Pythagoreans were shocked to discover that the square root of 2 was irrational.It is an eternal fact that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers. That fact was true before the Pythagoreans discovered it and it will be true for all eternity. You seemed to be taking the Mathemetical Formalism route, which is a minority position among working mathematicians, most of whom accept Mathematical Platonism.

I have a M.A. in math and did 2 years of Ph.D. work but didn't complete it. For me, Mathematical Platonism is an empirical fact. Irrespective of symbolism, the square root of 2 cannot be expressed as the ratio of two whole number; that's a fact. Moreover, there was no time in the past and there will be no time in the future, when that fact is/was false. Similarly, there is no largest prime number; never was and never will be.

2. What make "arithmetical facts" true? — Richard B

That they logically derive from accepted axioms.

He believed that these abstract objects existed independently of the physical world and the mind, and that they had a different kind of reality that was not reducible to either physical or mental phenomena. — Wayfarer

Yes, and we come to know these abstract object via mental phenomena, i.e., thought.

I'll offer an open invitation to anyone who would like to defend Hoffman in a debate thread. — Banno

Accepted.

Hoffman is not saying there is no material reality out there, but that all we know about that presumptive*1 reality is the images in our minds — Gnomon

Agree. However, Hoffman is trying to model reality in terms of "conscious agents." So, while I don't think he specifically denies material reality, he is working on an alternative based on consciousness. He says the hard problem of consciousness was one of the things that motivated his search for an alternative to materialism.

↪Art48
I'm pressing the point that there is a difference between reality and existence. That there are things - they are not actually 'things' - that are real, but that they don't exist, in the sense that chairs and tables and other objects of perception exist. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer,

Thanks for your response. Perhaps we differ on the following fundamental point. In my view, chairs and tables and other “objects” of perception are theoretical constructs, i.e., ideas. I do not directly perceive a table. Rather, I directly perceive rectangular, brownish patches of light and the idea of a table arises in my mind. If I touch the “table”, I experience the hard, smooth tactile sensation I expect the “table” to have. If I rap it, I hear what I expect to hear. Similarly, in a mirage I directly experience a shimming sensation that I associate with the idea of water. But if I try to take a drink, I realize my idea is wrong.

As the brain in a vat thought experiment demonstrates, objects are theoretical constructs that make sense of what we experience. A brain in a vat could have exactly the same sensations as I, have exactly the same ideas as I, believe it is experiencing the exactly same exterior world as I, but nonetheless be mistaken: it would in fact be experiencing no objects at all, only sensations.

So, in my view, I directly experience sensations: i.e., the five physical senses, emotions, and thoughts. Everything else is an idea that makes sense of my perceptions.

Therefore, my sensations have a more secure epistemological status than a theoretical construct I create to explain my sensations. My ideas certainly have reality and existence. Matter, maybe, maybe not.

It neither begins to exist, nor ceases to exist, because it does not, in fact, exist. — Wayfarer

Is there a word you prefer instead of "exist"?

I'm asking how exactly does an idea like 2+2=4 cease to exist. You seem to say it dies when the last representative in its equivalence class dies, but don't address how the last idea (or any idea) could cease to exist. — Art48
It seems to me that, without realizing it, you assuming what you want to prove. — green flag

Do you believe ideas exist (or subsist or whatever word you wants to use). If no, then end of discussion. If yes, then do you believe an idea can cease to exist? If no, then end of discussion. If yes, then how?

1. We needs to recognize that humans invented the symbolism of “2+2=4”. Other symbolism could be used, and I am sure other humans have used different symbolism. — Richard B

The symbolism seems to me entirely irrelevant. The idea 2+2=4 can be represented in Roman numerals, binary notation, the Babylonian number system, etc.

I have seen it and it does not address the issue. It goes against what he is saying, if he is giving evidence that our senses mislead us, why trust the evidence? It too is misleading. — Manuel

We should take the evidence seriously but not literally. When we play Grand Theft Auto, we see appearance not the reality of transistors, etc. But we aren't misled because that's what we need to see to play the game. We can trust our senses, i.e., what we see on the monitor, when we play the game. But appearance and reality differ. Does that make sense?

Manuel, Have you watched the video? I think it addresses your points.

And what are computer bits an icon for? — Joshs

In the metaphor, the icon represent the objects we see and the bits represent the deeper reality.
So, the bits are not an icon but reality (or, at least, a deeper reality).

It is a big step and probably the cause of much discussion in this thread. That 2+2=4 is eternal is one thing. That the play Macbeth is eternal is quite another. Which I argue for in the original post in two steps.

First, once we admit a thought exists (or subsists or "is" or whatever word someone wants to use), it's difficult to see how it could go out of existence or cease to be.As I wrote to green flag above, "I'm asking how exactly does an idea like 2+2=4 cease to exist. You seem to say it dies when the last representative in its equivalence class dies, but don't address how the last idea (or any idea) could cease to exist."

IF we allow that thoughts don't go out of existence, then we either say 1) a mortal man such as Shakespeare can create something eternal, or 2) the idea has always existed.

2) implies the mindscape.