The most difficult part is not what you listed. It's that to accept the current world is no more than an illusion, or our daily knowledge delusional experience. If you have come across Plato's Allegory of the Cave, would have found that some best noble minds of both the West & East agree fundamentally (astonishingly).
It's deep-root truth which is untestable, you take it or leave it by yourself. If this is not passed, we can't continue.

Under that light: reincarnation is just a chain of big drama episodes, or dramas. Every living object (arguably non-living too) assumes a role, e.g a President or a cockroach, based on the being's own causally behavioral history where each episode is a chapter. Economy achievements how splendid are just on stage.

There are beings who can exit the reincarnation cycles but this requires too much insight into it to perceive. But also turns back the problem #1: self or self-less? Only vagueness around this to what it ultimately is. Falun gong doctrines do explain about it using metaphysical models same as superstring's multiverses, but it's also too complicated by words to elaborate.
Regardless, to exit reincarnation, i.e venturing through soul cleansing under any form of asceticism, one needs to have a strong leading prime from within which(who) is not delusioned by any surroundings.

you just replaced the word "harm" with "suffer" with no further extent I'd
assume. So the point stays but I don't think there's enough interests in theism, I just mentioned it for otherwise.
Meanwhile, the 7-8 billion compound view should be the upper limit and though not absolutely sure, it's safe to say it's likely not the same as your (or any agent's) group's "harm" view. I mean it (the "harm" view ) is not valid in a wide enough scale to be promoted.

we are talking on the ground of "meaning", otherwise nothing makes sense and I should withdraw.
The whole point is harm is only subjective to a particular witness and can be dynamic when we shift to another. Subjectivity makes sense only within the consensus group. The larger the group, the more sense it is.
But even with the largest group, say 7-8 known billion currently, it's nothing compared to divinity for a theist group.

@schopenhauer1 , let's clarify which of the below cases are covered by your word "MUST":
1. a child must do homeworks under his mom's push
2. a thief must go to prison due to the sentence
3. one must eat because of hunger
4. the driver must take a right turn to avoid falling off the cliff
5. the roulette ball must fall in one of the 38 slots

I guess you asked why there are imperatives? or most fundamentally why things interact at all so there will then be reactions?

If considering only for conscious agents, then you have constraints from the society and environment that you'd better follow. As you have free will you can opt not to, say opposite of #4 and the consequence may be severe.

Also, it seems likely that it is the only way to actually view anything, no matter what subject. — Waya

Yes, I concur. But if this is true, then objectivity is just another form of subjectivity, is it not?
Objectivity is most popular in the science community that spreads out into the outter world. Now I have a feeling, like yours maybe, that the latter is now a crazy fan even more than the former originator. Therefore most discussions tend to pray on "objectivity" over and over.

boils down to three assertions — Possibility

my question may due to not getting what you wanted to say:
how about the case "I choose not to eat this food"? which of the 3 categories would you place it?

What is harm? Just an unfavorable to certain witness. If we unite all into a compound witness, it's a different scenario but to a further extent, under views of higher beings if there were, it's a completely different scenario.
On the other side, "no life" state is invalid in any sense from the very ground. At least there then no meaning is possible.

Any coin has two sides, so golden mean is always the answer for the best, no extremes should. Lives flourish themselves so any intention to put them under control, either direction, is discouraged.

Why do we feel like we have free will? — christian2017

well if all is about feeling then no debate, it's quite intrinsic one feels he has free will when say his nose is itchy and he can move his hand to ease it. Of course when mentioning feeling or subjectivity, it doesn't matter either way.
On the other fronts, hardly any studies have been able to confirm either way, neither.
But vaguely speaking, because any kind of determinism appears to be just approximate, rooms for free will must be there but very limited.
P.S: You seemed to weigh chemical reactions against laws of physics, in fact the former is covered by the latter.

they are also humans and the least human should have some level of philosophy I'd trust.But nowadays in the consumptionistic flow, one has less freedom to speak up, compared to say, Renaissance period. For example, scientists need budgets for their projects and better keep mouths shut whenever unnecessary. Having said that, due to specialization of any study subject, a physicist should inherently have less philosophic thoughts than a professional philosopher.

We should turn that around too, make people understand that so-called scientists who don't understand the intellectual underpinnings of what they do are just technicians. — T Clark

Can there be the case where some well-thought scientists think certain philosophical statements make more sense than their modern science's reach, but who do not dare to speak out loud? I have that kind a feeling after watching video interviews of big physicists. I also read some where that people change position (they used the word "retreat to a safer position", such as agnosticism) under harsh media attacks (provoking/luring questions).

But 'where' is the 'domain of natural numbers?' — Wayfarer

Numbers, or any kind of symbols, were in the mind of C.S.Pierce who said some thing like this universe is full of (if not all) signs. Have you come across semiosis?
My interpretation is that every surrounding we acknowledge is no more than a sign. Some can say that rock on the side road is not because it's been there and will be without your mercy. But how do you know if it's the same rock yesterday - given it may have more or less atoms due to dusts on the road or itself's friction with the tarmac?

Physicists are looked down on in philosophy forums too — I like sushi

I could hardly imagine how. Can you share an example?

it wasn't connected to his evolutionary cosmology — apokrisis

in deed your above quote is from a letter of him to Williams James. The majority of his quotes are scattered over different kinds of media but I do think all are connected, much like his philosophy about the continuum - Synechism. He also said "I do not agree with you that my papers about the evolution of the Laws of Nature are the best things I have done."[/i] (C.S.Peirce) and "I think unquestionably my best work has been my Logic.". This really helped me to grab a knot from his web.
The information conveyed in any of his works is massive and cannot be plainly elaborated in a small article or even book. It seems his doctrines such as triadic reduction, synechism, infinitestimal and even his flatly established religion (in the same letter he also mentioned people had scoffed at his religion so he would refrain from expressing it)...have yet to be duly understood.

he was more Buddhist on this score — apokrisis

wow, if you happen to have a public link, kindly share. I found only this content http://www.gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm#aq1 ("I think we must regard Creative Activity as an inseparable attribute of God." C.S Peirce.)... there maybe more pieces but let another time to connect them together.

Just to play fair with the thread, numbers are in mathematics which is in turn sub-semiotics. I am not sure the last has been maturely explored but math is thought by Platonists as another world. Even the "semeiotic" sounds much to do back with Plato's Ideas, now with a better weapon of Synechism.
If the multiverse-like metaphysics is accepted then we can perceive such a Cosmos that circumscribes it in. Old story while I find your posts more interesting and will switch to enquire about Peircean buddism or non-Peircean symmetry, where possible.

For symmetry, I am not sure you have come across talks similar to these https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-do-we-search-symmetry
I drew a note that fundamentally deep down, symmetry is quite empirical and approximate. It's useful in many talks but we have to recognize its limitations and avoid it at extremes.
Being aware of no symmetry from Peirce, I think if we still need to linger on it, we may want to analyze Synechism, not only Tychism.

And now you don't need some purposeful and transcendent creator. — apokrisis

There are too many things going on here but I would like to start with an inquiry on the above statement: specifically is it Peircean or not? I haven't found anywhere Peirce expressed atheism or the like. Or maybe I didn't follow you correctly.
The next maybe another inquiry about your support of "symmetry" concept, but let's set it aside for a moment.

it must have some basis in reality — Wayfarer

but is there any argument saying if it was there then we couldn't have missed to pick it up?
Arguments stay debatable for ever. Agnosticism is right to a certain extent.

any kind of 'proof' or rhetorical argument, will always fail. — Wayfarer

yes, proofs of either way. It's beyond human knowledge capability for sure, specifically if we know our limits at all. I think even none of famous scientists can bravely be honest on this subject instead of hiding behind the falsifiability shields.
"The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty." (Darwin - 1873)

Thanks, I need to learn more to understand the extent you introduced but the reason I said so was due to my subscription to Godel's own view:
So the following disjunctive conclusion is inevitable: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310).

i.e I am against the scientific trend to treat human as a classical moving machine, especially what inside the brain or thoughts.

OK so let's forget science for a minute, though we'll soon see its role, ironically, as a hindrance to the course.

what's the whole issue — Posty McPostface

"No great philosopher has espoused solipsism" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/) that's why it's so difficult to linger about. We need to pick up one author in order to analyze instead of the just so called solipsism. Descartes is obvious because of his influential name and many have attributed the philosophy to him.
There is the first problem: Descartes asked for a prerequisite that readers/analyzers must meditate along with him- how many of us can properly? This must be emphasized because the problems raised are so profound that people chose to avoid them. No good enough conceivable reasons such as being far from "common sense" or "egocentric"...etc except for the fact they are on the edge of philosophy, even knowledge in general. Any deviation from the provenance regardless of how subtle could be misleading. Anyhow we are about to apology him for violating the convention and jumping in his mouth for what may not be supposed by himself.
"I think, therefore I am" is how he took the first clue of knowledge - only "my" mind is of certainty, nothing else. Going further to claim nothing else exists, like does solipsism, is a deviation therefore implausible.
The mind's counterpart he considers is the body which is totally different to the mind and so their relationship has still been problematic. How can the immaterial mind interact with the material body? Descartes even refused to give a resolute answer, saying vaguely it doesn't require such proposition. On this account, Kant's solution was "a vis activa" which is a kind of mediating force between. Kant also introduced "transcendental" about the mind, a debateful concept which implies something beyond experiences. I would say both Descartes and Kant are big figures in philosophy but Kant had gone a further step. They appear to be in different manners but deep down they identically refuted empiricism.
Since Kant's years (Enlightenment epochs) human knowledge has biased towards scientific empirical methods more and more - the deviation has been so vast that even the most rational thinking could be challenged or simply ignored. No wonder why solipsism has such a fate.
To be fair, solipsism goes too far without restraint. Looking back at Descartes, his claims were more of a first person cognition in meditation. He sees what other may not or cannot see, perceive or even comprehend. Nevertheless what he saw was quite limited that he could not reach the end of elaboration, saying with respects how sophisticated it was. Keeping in mind he was first a scientist of some noble extent, is also to imply that for him science should be such a trivial tool as anything else he would make use of. Kant was a bit different in contemplation and we can see him as self-enlightened like he explained what enlightenment is. Is that any close to a kind of meditation? Maybe still so far that his "universal" and "transcendental" notions are also about to wear out.

still too broad. Can we pick critical philosophy as a start? Kant, say.
But you wanted something scientific which needs researches. Let's pause for a moment to check if this article is of your interests:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5200943/

My first question is why you weigh a philosophy (Solipsism) against a branch of psychology science (Cognitive distortion)?
Parts of philosophy have become sciences but not all, so in fact the unconverted are out side of science's reach.
Let's take an example: Galileo believed in heliocentrism but the Church denied it. He would have been badged as insane because the Church controlled legitimate science at the time.

I mean we need to break it down to smaller questions.

choose to define a life/person as a thing — A disturbed person

why not? sounding peculiar doesn't mean refutable. In fact, it's even more consistent to treat every "what" as from the same unique ingredient which you can name it whatsoever a thing, a thought or even an ahah. So life as an abstract thing is perceivable.

Does this mean that all of this is me? — A disturbed person

you have gone too far by this assumption if you are not accepting there are others than yourself. At least your clothes are not yourself by any sane means even when you are "in" them someway.

there is no limit — A disturbed person

Nope, there is one way to know the relativeness, not rigorous but easy to exercise: without you if it is still what it is, then it is not you. Now this in turn is much more delicate and profound than it appears. For example, your hair when cut off, or your tooth...are they you? we can have longer debates over that and it will lead to interesting scenarios.

If I took enough painkillers and looked the other way and someone cut my finger, it would make no difference to the mind weather of not my finger is cut. — A disturbed person

yeah, this is one of the interesting scenarios.
Similar to the Heap Paradox: how many straws to make a heap? it's completely subjective. Similarly what are all the things that make you who you are (or what you are)? Also somehow subjective because it's overly complicated.

There may also be some plausibility in the reason that most of the thoughts throughout a section of a life can choose to access the same piece of information from the memory part of the brain. I don't think this is important either as the same could be said for all thoughts that are on the internet, but you don't see helping some of these thoughts as self interest if you are currently on the internet. — A disturbed person

I don't follow

is sufficient enough to say that they really are me — A disturbed person

in usual sense but not sufficient. How is sufficient is again subjective.

So why would the fact that I feel like I am my life, despite only experiencing my thoughts at this moment, be a valid reason to suggest that I am my life, but the fact this this brain feels like it is all conscious minds that were ever in Serbia, not be a valid reason to say that it really is all the thoughts that ever existed in Serbia? — A disturbed person

it's the fact to you only, not to your doctor or any alien and they would classify you as a psychological patient. We should not be overly confident in science so I can only say it's up to you to believe in yourself or another doctor or alien.

can't pick a time where a thought becomes another thought — A disturbed person

if you can't then you can only say you can't. Possibly others can, who knows. But it's true that you can not always control your thoughts so if you think it's not you, then again subjectively it's factual.

long term happiness usually requires short term sacrifice to achieve — A disturbed person

there's no good statistics, it's once again your and others subjective perception. There's no proved rule it must happen that way. Causality can only be comprehended within a very limited spacetime or context.
It's equivalently possible that sacrifices are finally worthless or happiness just comes without your own efforts (whose then we may never know).

It's much harder for me to do things I don't like if I accept A because I feel the thoughts from my later life that experience the benefits of this are not me. — A disturbed person

now this is the most important part. Your behaviors will finally define "what" you are and more. Even when you say you did bad things because some alien spirit controlled your brain. It's always only you who are responsible for that you become, nothing else is.
Are you saying you don't want to fulfill your duties because you are not sure what "your" future prize is?
Then you must have believed in things like do good get bad or vice versa. Again it's subjectivity and only you can decide.

most of nature is in an unhappy/uncomfortable state — A disturbed person

again your subjective perception, others can say the opposite. Nature is in any possible state. A hungry rabbit hunts for food doesn't tell you anything about him being happy or unhappy, just because it happens naturally. But if you find that living creatures are suffering, you are making the first step to a religious door.

if by getting a place at a university it means somebody also does not get that place — A disturbed person

you are assuming too much authority. Do you think you being on the earth at all is depriving somebody else's place? Throw that thought away immediately. You are responsible for your self only, all others are just secondary.

vast majority of people have not thought about this in a logical and unbiased way — A disturbed person

again you are claiming too much without second thoughts.

People are more likely to believe something if they want it to be true, and the more they want it to be true, the more biased they are when coming up with reasons for it. — A disturbed person

no, because it's easier to apprehend to them. Perceptions compare what's being received with what's already been in - innate or established. So again, your thoughts and behaviors are crucial because they gradually build up a strong foundation for or against what's next to receive. That's called being biased.

I think this is the main reason that people are religious — A disturbed person

people are religious because nothing else makes sense to them.

I think this is also the reason that most people who have thought about self identity don't come to the conclusion of option A or B — A disturbed person

2nd time I can't follow you

so long it's just that I think about this theory — A disturbed person

not long enough to make it a theory. What's your ultimate goal through all this elaboration then? get rid of what are in your head? not that simple.

I do not believe that disembodied cognition is possible — creativesoul

nothing is wrong with a belief, the question is whether you are fixed or still want to explore mystical/super natural things?

a starting point into their own philosophical position — creativesoul

if all you have are definite answers or belief, then you have no philosophical position because philosophy explores the unknown. In other words, you need to have questions that are not satisfactorily answered by any knowledge so far. That should be a very good starting point.

OK then I must now accept it as rather a supernatural phenomenon than something clear cut, that serious people don't seem to have pleasures to analyze. It's a surprise so few decent researches about it, probably they cannot do much due to that super natural reason, though no claims it's super natural.
The only one decent name I found is Baron Reichenbach who discovered the earth's magnet field that was accepted. Ironically In connection to this somnambulism, his researches led to Odic force and was badged as uneducated and deceitful - what a praise.

yeah, it's clearly not resolutely sorted out, such a big problem of free will - because of disagreements in experiments setup, data or conclusions...etc so we still have chance to go on it.

And how will we ever know? — Abdul

so we will never know is the easiest answer, not in anyway feckless.

Still, exploring a simpler example may help somehow:
A computer programmer knows there's the "runtime" unknowns, at least when the data is not fully predicted as usual. Would we perceive the program has free will, bearing along a lot of if-then-else decisions?

Another second thought:

God knows what you are going to choose — Abdul

why does he need to know? maybe he can but is he supposed to watch you all around? More probable is if he accidentally follows you, then probably he knows how your will and actions are being laid out, not strictly before or after. What changes would that suggest to the whole dispute then?

so according to your lines, a semi awaker can perform as best as himself awken, because he is exploiting parts of what he has? Are there cases sleep walkers do something they cannot repeat even with huge efforts, having awaken? How do those count in?
PS: will read the article, thanks.

a professional article for it
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#BeyoFata

our attentional capabilities — apokrisis

I never can fully understand sleep walkers phenomena. Can the set of habits and attentional capabilities be used to explain them?

I was simply suggesting you pick up a metaphysics with a school name you prefer to discuss such a big topic as about mind, soul...etc but it's up to you.

If you said it has a yard in the quantum physics ground then I would have been in agreement. With only that spot it doesn't sound the best choice to stand on physics and talk about mind.

and decide opposite — bahman

are you assuming ample of autonomy or free will?
why would you choose to go right or left in your daily routes? what would happen if you now reverse all?
That's so you can think about the consequences of absolute free will.

you need to choose a ground of belief to talk about it. It's too big a question.
Let's start with this point

but we can always see the physical effects that it has on matter. — Fumani

does that mean you can still stand on the ground of modern physics and talk about mind? I doubt very much. What we "see" is not always a good proof.

what you mean by "incomplete" — Janus

must say I am in no position to criticize them. Kant was tenacious in his imperative view and there must have been his allies around so we can say a few believers of such universality exist. However, the number of skepticals may be a lot higher and finally the opposition side must be overwhelming (are you on this side?). So Kant must have missed something if he were infallible.
There are implications here and there that equality is fundamental and if you take if off, all would collapse. Kant's years were the maternity for equality notion and he might have assumed this as a fundamental basis. At least on this point I wouldn't agree equality is something material or even hypothetically "complete". Equality in our real life is a bloat. I borrowed the "incomplete" terminology from Godel's incompleteness theorem and strongly believe it's relevant (there's another thread on this forum on the thoerem).
By the way, Benjamin Constant was refuted by Kant's defense, would we need to look at his incompleteness?

I now see what you meant is similar to Godel's introduction passage in his 1931 paper. It's just an example he stressed the contradiction within a formal system. But it's not all Godel's theorem (1st one) is about. If that answers the question?
1st one says a computerizable set of rules cannot prove all statements of itself. The 2nd is stronger, saying it cannot even prove itself as consistent.
Well that to me broke down any miracles maths had attained. Now if the plain arithmetic cannot be stated to be consistent then what can? nothing on earth. This is exactly a fatal blow to Hilbert as pioneer supporter of maths.
Finally if nothing is consistent then where should you place your trust on?

OK if not, why 1. can be done?
G is provable means it can be proven either true or false, how come "so G is unprovable"?

cool, thanks. I found the criticism with the murderer/Natzi scenario (originally by Constant?) incomplete. But ironically Kant's defense was too. Probably it reaches the edge of philosophy and there's no resolute solution? How do you think?

Have I got it right? — TheMadFool

Are you equating "true" with "provable"?

So, why single out religious faith for our criticism? — TheMadFool

I believe you have been satisfied with the reasons given so far. I read the most apparent answer is because thinkers consider it as "that whereof we cannot speak".

If I am asked, I'd say plainly people don't want to talk about it because it sounds naive in the face, or sort of. Plainly we are very limited and we don't know our limits, just vaguely that we are. If you agree with Plato's Allegory of the Cave, this is exactly what I mean.

it doesn't work — Janus

can you educate me why not for Kan'ts imperative? I love Kant by the way and would be interested in any points unmatched.