Time is the rate at which state A changes to state B, or at the very least it is the order, state A is prior to state. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see. If 'time' is the rate, what is the medium of change? As in, what actually represents the change (given the causal order requirement, such as 'cause' can be used here), as opposed to it's ratio compared to ...other changes?

To say something happens 'more quickly' than something else seems to infer that there's a ratio OF something.. 'change' isn't an actual thing, so just wondering what is being referred to there.

I think i saw zero films from 2023.

That is why no single change constitutes time — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely, even a single change represents the same as many.. It still has to 'traverse' from state A to state B - which is, as i take it, what constitutes time here..

Rewatching BBC Sherlock - about to hit His Last Vow - potential the best television episode of all time ;)

That's a whole 'nother level. I've never seen anything like it. — Leontiskos

This version is also utterly incredible.

:smirk:

I’m afraid I can’t. As stupid and belligerent as the affair might have been, the political class has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have unleashed on the country. For a few hours on January 6th they weren’t. — NOS4A2

Fair enough. I guess i'll take you describing Jan 6 as pathological as a win though lol. To note: that's exactly how BLM proponents feel.

Right. Richard Dawkins became popular, atheism became fashionable, atheists started debating with theists all over the place, and then atheists found that it was easier to argue when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position. — Leontiskos

This is painfully bad commentary but as you are Catholic, it is unsurprising.

Bleeding Sun - Samuel Sagan

Process and Reality - Alfred North-Whitehead.

I do think that's fair.

But can you not see that a direct attack on the Whitehouse (literally storming it, occupying political offices and stealing government intel - lets leave aside whether Trump wanted that) is absolutely a serious, serious problem that raises it to a similar level of undesirability?

@Wayfarer Oh come on, the sandbox is fun!! LOL. No. I agree with you. The insults aren't good.

Yeah. But the absolute best case you can possibly make, given the facts (and let's assume Wayfarer is being naive here.. I know you do, but I don't) is that the entire system is fucked, no one likes it, and we're bound to have these events under such a divisive and intense social milieu. I fail to see how there's any appreciable difference here.

Which I'd agree with. I see "BLM riots X Jan 6" as a coin with heads on both sides. They relevant demos hate each other, and act accordingly. It only makes sense they would be comparable and equally illegitimate, undesirable and clearly dangerous.

There is no article at your link. No idea why, as it's there under the same title

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.%2C%20the%20capital%20of,Floyd%20riots%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C.

The riot I was speaking about in particular was the assault on the whitehouse — NOS4A2

Which one? Super-unclear if you're cryptically referring to something other htan Jan 6.

They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection — Wayfarer

No, not at all, they aren't equivalent. The BLM protests are morally worse on your account by way of resulting in more damage, more death and more net-negative for society.

That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. — Wayfarer

This hits me as viscerally ironic... You're defending death and destruction because its on the side you agree with? Both are civil disobedience, so im not sure what empirical difference you intend to use to make the moral difference obvious.

Who is saying that riots and civil disorder is a good thing? Comparing the BLM protests to the attack on the US Capital aimed at over-turning the election result is classic Trump 'whataboutism'. It's not going to go unchallenged. — Wayfarer

Hmm.. As noted, they are not analogous, but they both intended to upend institutional power systems, they both resulted from essentially conspiratorial thinking fanned by politicians (who actually took part, for BLM), to take power FOR those politicians.. including burning courthouses and they both resulted in net-negatives for the USA in huge ways. There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse.

I think the other thing to note is that anyone speaking this way is partaking in the culture war. In that case, I think the comparison IS apt. They represent polar opposite demographics, and the mechanisms were very similar.

It's no attempt to ignore Jan 6 and its implications and resulting effects on society. But the comparison is not as ill-apt as you seem to posit.

The attack bears no comparision to the 'Black Lives Matter' protests you're referring to, as none of them amounted to an assault on the Capitol. — Wayfarer

This is difficult. No, they are not analogous, but the BLM protests caused MORE damage and 19 people died.

(the links are the same page, but address the two issues separately on it)

*slinks away*

Yeah, it's not great :( I want to learn!!

Not at all. It irks me a lot - But its not his circus if i say something stupid.

I've stated and clarified my position. My apologies if it's still not clear enough. You antinatalists seem to worry yourselves about what you can't change or control and thereby make yourselves more miserable than you need to be, then spread that self-inflicted, pointless misery in order to have company. You wish were never born, or 'that is a better to never have been born', and yet, like other antinatalists, you're very much still here – apparently, surprise surprise, you'd rather suffer than 'not to be' – oh, but that's self-refuting, ain't it? Well anyway, good luck with all that, Amadeus – tediously spoon-feeding ain't my jam, so I'm off to find a more substantive topic to chew on. — 180 Proof

You did not. And no surprise. "you anti-natalists" LOL.
You do not understand anti-natalism.

And while I respect your position (above) your incredible need to condescend is suspicious in the highest, given you haven't accurate portrayed the anti-natalist position.

Ive had his position explained to me, and respect it. If i've said something dumb, it must be super-challenging to address it after several years of doing it for other people.
It's unhelpful for me, but he has his reasons :)

Ok, so I got back quicker than I thought - for a specific reason.

I suffered DiD for several years. Kastrup's analogy is absolutely incredible to relate to.

Time exists, but not in the way the would-be time travellers think. :D — Corvus

Fair enough.

If you established your own country or created your own world, then you could run it with that, suppose. — Corvus

My point was more that if we counted from the Big Bang time might have some relevance beyond social time-keeping. If the year we're using is based on the very first change that ever occurred, its much more palatable, I think, to take it as 'something'.

Really enjoying this.

I don’t see why this would be the case. We can induce what ‘the good’ is from its instances, just like how we induce what a triangle is from its instances; and we can use our current knowledge of ‘the good’ to make informed decisions about what can be classified as such. — Bob Ross

Doesn't this pre-supposes knowledge of the Good? As best i can tell, unless you're going to employ Platonic Forms, you can't induce what the Good is from instances. There is no concept for it to match to; just other like-instances based on your presupposition - which makes that induction false.
Triangles, on the other hand, can be understood a priori and an instance matches the concept.

The analogy i would use here (while trying not to ruffle feathers - its just extremely apt) is the definition of 'woman'. It has become popular for this exchange to take place:

A: What is a woman? (What is the Good?)
B: Anyone who identifies as a woman (Whatever you identify as The Good)
A: What are they identifying as? (What are you identifying 'it' as?)
B: A woman. (The Good)

Round, and round we go.

Non-moral intuitions are used to determine the category of ‘the good’, no different than how we non-morally intuit the concept or category of triangularity. — Bob Ross

I see these as very much different. The concept of a triangle is prior to intuition, allowing us to perceive a triangle. Morality has no such basis.

Think of it this way, — Bob Ross

Thank you; that made it very clear what you're saying. All of those attributes have moral valence to them. So, I'm finding it hard to understand how rejecting 'good' behaviour while acknowledging it is 'good' is not a moral choice. I realise you're trying to say 'Good' is not a moral category, but using your analogous example, it seems to be so.

acts which care about life to the maximal extent possible; and 'the bad' as the negation of it. However, I freely admit that inductions are not necessarily true and that this method of inquiry is sort of scientific. — Bob Ross

There we gooooo. Wasn't so hard, was it? ( i kid). Though, in light of the objections i've laid out, I can't see any reason to suspect the induction to Good and Bad is even serviceable. As you say, its grey, and there's no one-size-fits-all. So, in this sense, where's the fact? "X is good" wont be true for everyone - or even most people - I realize you've acknowledge the lack of normativity, but I can't even see how this gets us to moral facts per se. A fact is stance-independent right, but noting something is 'good' IS a stance. I think you're shoehorning a definition in(that of 'good' without moral valence) where it can't fit.

This means, that this view affirms #2 only technically insofar as we are talking about non-normative moral judgments; which means that this view is a sort of hybrid between realism and anti-realism, whereof it does affirm that there are moral facts, but none of them are normative. I am not sure what to make of it yet: it definitely exposes my deep anti-realist sympathies. — Bob Ross

As above, I am unsure that this is the case, as the theory is written. Also, as above, I note the non-normative nature of the theory - which certainly helps. You're not trying to establish oughts. Just good and bad, as moral facts.

However, the idea that someone can reasonably say "I will actively avoid doing good* things" and on your account, that would be A-moral - seems a bit incongruous. If something is objectively Good, how could we avoid the normative command to behave in line with the Good? I guess i'm finding it really hard to take that 'Good' is devoid of a moral stance - particularly if it means maximizing care about life (as murky as that concept is, i grok what you mean). It does not seem as if you could possibly have an a-moral stance on something objectively good or bad.

*I import your usage of 'Good' as someone objectively discernable.

:ok: Righteous.

I wonder though, if they can’t use language….or if they don’t do what seems to be congruent with the use of language….what do they use? — Mww

I'm unsure I grasp entirely what you're asking... But from what i can tell, thinking in images OR words is required for meaningful cognition. What else do we have? I do both, at different times.

haha. No. If you don't get it, far be it from me...

Before I respond to this with anything substantial, please do something other than hit-and-run - WHY is it nonsense? Give me an example that exceeds the global birthrate, which could reduce suffering in any meaningful way?

I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be — Vera Mont

Can elaborate on what sense in whcih you think this is the case? cause, like.. they are the United States?

In other wods, antinatalism as speculation or (voluntary) policy does not positively affect the quality of the lives of those who are suffering here and now.Thus, what's the point of opposing (human) reproduction (which can ony make most sufferers suffer even more (e.g. despair))? :mask: — 180 Proof

Hmmm, I don't think this goes through.
I recognize AN fails to address current suffering, but it's not intended to. Anti-natalists in my experience harbour fairly extreme sympathy for current suffering, outside of their AN views - and that's actually what lead/s to the view.

If there are 8bil people currently suffering, I want that number to stop growing - otherwise, dealing with current suffering is futile - because it necessarily just racks up, and racks up and racks up with every new birth(is the position.. im not at all claiming that as capital T true). The position says that every new birth increases suffering. So, your point is somewhat moot. There's nothing to be done about current suffering.

Appended, and asking something different:

Choosing (as I inadvertantly have, btw) to defy one's biological drives, or genetic programming, in order not to breed ... — 180 Proof

Good to hear ;)
I have inadvertently fulfilled mine LOL. I feel, and have never felt any drive whatsoever to have any children and have to psychologically prepare myself every single day for parenthood. I regret it, and feel bad for my child every single day. This is my burden.
My wife, however, wants ninety kids (exaggeration - but is physically unable to have any more than the one she has (we have one each from previous relationships). That is her burden.

Is there a catch to this?

↪AmadeusD You might like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal — RogueAI

Awesome, thank you! Getting it to while i work. Very long, so don't expect me to come back any time soon - or at all LOL

fair enough. I'm just responding to these specific comments - I'm not making an argument for or against physicalism. I was just pointing out that language can't be utilized by everyone in their mind - as with 3D abstraction.

Then i cannot see what the futility is in relation to?

I get your point, but it can’t be a dialogue. It’s just the brain keeping you informed that it’s still working. — Mww

I'm not quite sure what you're addressing 'internal dia/monologue' is definitely a metaphor - but many people are unable to form sentences in their mind at all https://www.iflscience.com/people-are-weirded-out-to-discover-that-some-people-dont-have-an-internal-monologue-54881

is pulling your leg. — Banno

Or their own... which i find to be the case with those types of answers. Tail chasing.

:ok: Bang on IMO. But, once again, this is a 'poetical' take. It's fun in that light.

Why can’t everyone do it? What’s the catch? — Mww

Thats the kicker, huh? Why can't everyone do it. Same with internal dialogues..

so I'll post a revised version for you to check out and poke at — Philosophim

Ok, fair enough - will keep an eye out.

The idea is that we don't know if there is an objective morality. If there is though, I find all moral questions boil down to needing the foundation of "Should existence be" or "Should nothing be"? — Philosophim

Agree (though i have further thoughts.. heh).

Bold: Cripes; yeah fiar enough. My initial thought was 'that's incoherent' but i reflected a few minutes and I actually think this is very, very reasonable and a problem not-oft dealt with. Thank you for that.

all other moral questions are moot — Philosophim

Do you mean by this, that they are ipso facto immoral given that being is immoral? Or that they just don't matter because there's no possible way to answer accurately?

Your New List
(im not great with any kind of formal logic, so bear with any serious mistakes in my comments here please!)
I would understand the claim 'nothing should exist' as better repped. by "existence shouldn't be". Otherwise, I find room for existence to me moral, but anything existing to be immoral (including the statement). But if existence itself shouldn't be (as an objective moral claim) we are already too far gone to make a comment on it. We exist :)

If it is F that nothing should exist, and something SHOULD exist, how can we get to a moral agent from 'something'?

Thank you :)

Is the position such that the failure to address current or past suffering is somehow invalidating the attempt to prevent future suffering? Or is it a way of saying 'the present is inescapable' such that looking at the future to prevent suffering is futile?

The excess of consciousness is the "Human".. So to me, it is about bad faith trying to constantly keep away from the existential implications of this.. that we need to deliberate our way into being "caught up", that we know of our own dissatisfaction and must find ways to cope with it. — schopenhauer1

I hear your point (i think) and that's reasonable... But what i quoted seems to contradict, and place this effort in the 'not-human' category. Unsure what to make here, as I grok what you've said but it doesn't seem to follow from the material quoted.

Unlike other animals, we are self-reflective, ripped asunder from a mode of being that other animals have access to. We instead have as I said:
That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. This is part of that ever-discussed "human condition"- the excess of consciousness.
— schopenhauer1 — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make any sense to me: 'being' isn't a choice. We can't get 'caught up' in being. It is the case that we 'are'. If we don't engage in any of these practices, is the suggestion that we 'aren't'? Realise there's poetics here, but it seems incomprehensible without a bit of translating.. and maybe im being cynical about that.

Just emphasizing our unique isolated condition as opposed to the rest of nature. We developed self-reflection which puts an extra level of burden and responsibility upon us- one where we have to choose which mechanism to give us ballast. — schopenhauer1

Again, I just don't understand how this is anything but an existential whine. I agree, we have a unique condition - but I have no idea why this imports any kind of extra responsibility or a 'need' to choose any kind of mechanism. As noted, I don't think these things are needed. It seems you might?

Again, the "exile from Eden" imagery. — schopenhauer1

I guess from here, I would just restate my conclusion on the passage. Appears divorced from anything really beyond fictional sentimentality.

What would have to be done to live this new mode of being, cut off from being "in the moment", a fully existential being. Self-reflective, wholly different in kind, even if evolved from the same mechanism. — schopenhauer1

Sorry? I guess, if you feel there's a 'need' to overcome the human condition this makes sense to you. It doesn't amke sense to me.

Older times, being a mode of being like how other animals live. — schopenhauer1

Sure. I would just restate my take. It appears to be an extension of New-Agey nonsense about a Golden Age. That somehow lacking self-awareness was better, and we're jettisoned into self-consciousness (from where?) as if set adrift on an ocean with no oars. Seems silly to me.

Ok, so I need to read Kastrup. I did not know about the analogy with pipes/water but I already felt the way the intended intuition about pipes/water as computational feels - but about the brain/neural networks. Viz....:

But this is magical thinking. You'd have to ask yourself the question: how, precisely, does the mere addition of more of the same pipes, valves and water, lead to the magical jump to conscious inner life? Unless you have an explicit and coherent answer to this question, you are merely engaging in hand waving, self-deception, and hiding behind vague complexity." — RogueAI

Bravo Kastrup. Has also jumped my hitlist, along with Ryle.