let me put it another way: your support of mind dependence comes from the fact that everything we know has to come through a filter of human consciousness. But that would be true even if the world really existed in a mind independent way.

So since it would have to be true either way, it doesn't support the case for mind dependence.

That honestly feels like a cop out. Of course it's interpreted by us - everything we know and think has to come through a filter of us first. That doesn't mean we have to conclude reality is mind-dependent.

Imagine cockroaches gain sentience in 10,000 years. Everything cockroaches believe will also have to come through their filters, their interpretations. Should they believe reality is cockroach-dependent? I don't think so.

if evolution has shaped us to see reality in a particular way, that implies there was a reality there prior to evolution.

I mean, scientifically speaking, the history of life on earth starts a few billion years after earth came into being. If it's "consciousness all the way down", what does that say about those billions of years prior to life?

I accept that the way WE see reality wasn't "reality" back then (and arguably isn't "reality" right now either), but we still have sufficient evidence that "back then" was as real as right now. So with no conscious agents around to create that reality, what's the story?

(I recognize this isn't the engagement you're looking for, and isn't very great for conservation, but) I really love Wolfram's approach to everything in that second link. I line up with him so much.

Look, you clearly have an intense distrust and dislike for the right wing — AmadeusD

Asking you to justify why right wing morality is "obviously more well developed" isn't about intense distrust or dislike. Someone saying left wing morality is "obviously more well developed" would need similar justification. You haven't justified it. The only thing you've said that comes close to a justification is that their mortalities are more similar to each other, closer to each other, than the myriad flavours of left wing morality. Conformist, or "conformed", morality isn't what most people mean by well developed, and philosophically it's clearly not a virtue. It's not a vice either, it's just nothing, it's meaningless. You can't judge the quality of a morality based on how conformist or not conformist it is.

I'm not. Im answering questions about why the right seem more coherent, and well-developed. I think a well-developed morality can be a virtue, for what it's worth, and I hazard a guess you wouldn't disagree. So what the heck is this question doing? — AmadeusD

You start the paragraph with "I'm not" but end by confirming that you are.

Bonkers

why are you talking about aggregates? So well developed just means more "conformed" as a group, why are you talking about it like it's a virtue? And talking about it like it's obvious this whole time, why in the world would it be obvious that well developed means "more conformed"?

Your entire approach to this conversation has been nothing short of bonkers.

if that's not true knowledge, then nothing is

What I am questioning is how we can make claims of knowledge about it. — boundless

We can only do our best to figure out the stuff we have access to. If that's not knowledge then nothing is.

I think, yes, of course we could in the end be brains in vats, but I don't think that level of Skepticism is worth thinking about much (at best it's worth occasionally acknowledging), and then we just move on with the human endeavour of trying to figure out what we can about our world.

Part of what I sense is that there's a reluctance to allow for "knowledge" of non-fundamental things. Can I have knowledge that water is made of H2O even though I know that neither water nor H2O are fundamental? I think I can.

One might still assume that our cognitive functions are useful, i.e. have a pragmatic goal. — boundless

You think it can be useful without having any correspondence to reality at all? Note that correspondence isn't like direct realism (naive realism?). You can say "my experience corresponds to things in reality" without saying "I'm experiencing reality raw, as it truly is, without any intermediary processing".

For example the experience of hearing music. The emotions I feel in response aren't out there in reality, but when I hear sounds they correspond to real frequencies and amplitudes in differential air pressure. You're suggesting that not even that kind of correspondence exists?

"Surely, that ambiguous of a question isn't being asked?" — AmadeusD

You really think it's ambiguous? You say something is obviously true, I want it detailed why it's true, and asking "why do you think that's true" is ambiguous? I don't get it.

think one aspect that strikes me as clear rather than esoteric as most are, is the incredibly widely shared nature of Conservative morality — AmadeusD

So they're more conformist as a group, sure, I did anticipate that in a prior post, but that doesn't mean as individuals they have more well developed morality, does it? Two lefties could have very different senses of mortality from each other, but each individually have a well developed idea about what is and is not morally acceptable. You know what I mean?

This is what I see in Conservative morality. Those aspects come out when I speak to a conservative about their moral positions, despite disagreeing with a large proportion of the actual moral statements they would make (or, have, in the conversations I have had). — AmadeusD

But you still aren't saying why. What about conservative morality matches those aspects specifically? What about non-conservative morality doen't match those aspects specifically?

If you define kindness as "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate", I still don't know why you think saxophonists are 'obviously more kind than flutists', right? I know what you think kindness means, but I don't know why you think it applies more to one group than another. Same thing is going on here. I know what you MEAN by 'more developed', but I don't know why you think that's true of that group, and it's certainly not obvious, any more than it should be obvious why saxophonists are more kind. Right? Is it obvious to you why I think saxophonists are more kind?

you just quoted yourself describing 'well developed' again, and once again NOT explaining which aspects of conservative morality make it more well developed than more lefty / liberal ideals.

That's like saying "saxophone players are obviously more kind than flute players", and I ask, "why do you think that? How is that obvious?" and you just keep replying with a definition of kindness, "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate"

Good, I get kindness is "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate", so WHY DO YOU THINK SAXOPHONE PLAYERS ARE MORE OF THAT!?!?!?!??! Don't keep repeating what kindness means, tell me why you think saxophone players are more kind than flutists. Repeating the definition doesn't explain why you think that. It's only the beginning of the explanation, you still have the entire rest of it to go.

I think I was pretty clear. Youre just saying it's obvious that it's well developed and everyone should agree, that's not good enough. That's just begging the question. Why do you think that? So far you've described what you mean by "well developed" twice, but have dedicated next to 0 words specifying what about conservative morality matches that description.

So I know what you mean by well developed, fantastic, I still don't know why you think conservative morality is more well developed. It's not obvious, I don't take it for granted like you do, so talking about it like it's an obvious fact anybody should agree with just doesn't make sense.

you are describing "well developed" in general, not saying why conservatives match that description. You're taking it for granted that your point of view is obvious, and not even attempting a justification.

You've said what well developed means, you've insisted that conservatives match it, but you haven't shown why you think that. Don't keep telling me what well developed means to you, show why conservatives match it and others don't.

Yes, you can. Are they coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking.
Again, you can disagree with the positions, but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument. If you don't think well-developed arguments are possible, then I concede. — AmadeusD

None of this is specific about why the group you're saying is "more developed" is more developed. It honestly just looks to me like, rather than them individually having "more developed mortality", you're getting the illusion of consistency because as a group they have a much more conforming, uniform morality.

But if course a group being more uniform doesn't mean the morality of the individuals in that group are more developed.

what does this even mean? "more developed"? You're talking about it like it's some objective fact, like you can measure how developed a set of political values are... I don't think so mate.-

as opposed to real things which are not implemented at all. — noAxioms

Is that so? I don't think I would say that. Is a real steak not implemented in the physics of the situation?

If an apple didn't have objective existence it wouldn’t be an apple. Without descending into abysmal nonsense, we must grant that for a thing to be give a name presupposes at least that there is a thing, or at the very least a possible thing, to which a name can be given. — Mww

We can meaningfully talk about experiences of "things" and the possible reality in which those "things" don't "exist".

The bald white guy eats a steak in the matrix, and talks about how he knows it's not "real". So most people can conceptually distinguish between real things, and experiences that seem like they're experiences of real things but in fact aren't. Right?

How, then, do you hope to persuade a listener? — Wayfarer

What he's saying is kind of why it's so hard to persuade people.

Like I think back to how much trouble Corvus had (and still has) understanding why denying the antecedent doesn't work as a logical operation. In his mind, no doubt, it makes perfect sense, because the meaning he's assigning to logical operations themselves are not the meanings everyone else is assigning.

And even though the meanings everyone else is assigning are more in tune with each other, they are still not identical.

Yes, I can.

There can be countless factors that I may consider and take into account.

My point is, that every factor refers to what I like the most. I like good feelings and dislike bad feelings. — Quk

Ah okay well that makes sense then, have a good day

In my understanding, a physical language per se is purely a communication protocol for coordinating human actions, that is to say physical languages per-se do not transmit information about the world from the mind of the speaker to the mind of the listener. — sime

With this start, I didn't think I was going to be impressed with where you were going with this. You surprised me though, and I'm now a step towards agreeing with you. Extremely interesting perspective.

you can't imagine a scenario where it's rational to choose Bach when you like his music less? I can...

Where is your line? What puts something on your list of 'probably doesn't exist' besides human fictions? — noAxioms

I don't understand what that has to do with anything

I found not one contributor that put forth something that wasn't essentially 'what exists is what we see', which is too close to 'because we see it'. — noAxioms

What we see an emergent artifact of what exists, not *actually* the same thing as what exists. But even if it was what we see, it seems like YOU are making the logical leap of "because we see it", not the people who you are talking to.

The title of this thread is irksome. So you disagree with some idea, and that means *no one* really believes it? Come the fuck on.

Growing up, I heard so many Christians insist "nobody is really an atheist". I even once heard an atheist say "nobody really believes in any gods". Both of those statements are equally absurd.

Yes, people out there really believe in a reality that isn't dependent on minds. Yes, other people out there disagree with that. Yes, people really do disagree with each other. The question shouldn't be, "do people really disagree with me?", obviously they do, the question should be "why do they?"

Don't be so arrogant to think only your beliefs are the ones that anybody truly believes. People believe all sorts of things.

let's just see what chat gpt has to say about that...

How many people seeking to read, research, find voice in self and others will turn to AI when writing e.g. a philosophy essay? — Amity

It's already happening a lot. Human creativity is undergoing a huge change. It might even be on the path to disappearing...

they think the flash came before they pressed the button. — Patterner

Absolutely bonkers

I suspect AI needs to do things in order to be like us. Maybe it can't understand like we do if it it only has theoretical understanding. — Patterner

Well yes, and it does. I'm pretty sure the process of training is involves a whole lot of asking the ai for an output given some input, and giving rewards as they give more of the right kinds of outputs.

I'm not completely sure I agree that a person born locked in wouldn't ever be able to make sense of their sensory inputs, but his reasoning makes complete sense and I wouldn't be massively surprised if he were right.

I've experienced a lot of things in my life, but I really can't say that I know what it's like to experience time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if time isn't the thing we experience, so much as it is one of the things that must exist to facilitate experience. Whatever you experience, you experience in and through time. I don't think you can have an experience in just a snapshot of existence. Things must change in order for experiences to happen.

And if the properties we know of cannot explain subjective experiences — Patterner

But what if it's not the properties alone that explain it, but instead the processes that the properties enable?

Properties alone should, I think, not be seen as the place for all explanations.

I'm surprised mr Craig's opionion matters at all to anybody in this thread. Who cares what some random religious apologist thinks about time? I wouldn't consider him to be a relevant expert.

honestly the rest of the forum should be ashamed of themselves.

What do you think? — NotAristotle

I think if Bob2 spontaneously likes something different from Bob1, then... that's random. That like doesn't seem to have come from anywhere. There's no tangible reason why Bob1 didn't like it.

Straight up presentism is 3D, but other forms like growing block and moving spotlight are 4D models. — noAxioms

"moving spotlight" may have a 4d view of the universe as a whole, but still a 3d view of the present moment, just like presentism, right?

I consider 'moving spotlight' to be a form of presentism - maybe you could call it "weak presentism", because instead of it saying "the present is the only thing that exists", it's saying "every time 'exists' in some sense, but the present ESPECIALLY exists, exists in some unique elevated way".

ah the plant chapter, that was honestly fascinating.

Oh, okay, so they DO posit a universal aether reference frame, got it. Yeah I agree. Presentism would require there to be a singularly true reference frame.

I thought you said they don't have to resort to supposing a universal Aether frame. Your answer to why they do't have to suppose that, is because... idk what you're saying. It sounds directly contradictory. It sounds like you're saying they don't have to suppose it, but it's required for their stance to be true.

but the opposing position doesn't have to resort to this by supposing a universal Aether frame that can be seen as an objective present or a 'physical' absolute simultaneity marker. — substantivalism

Why don't they?

cool, glad you're enjoying it. What's the cliff notes for that convo with chamovitz?