There is a theory of time (which I've never seen treated properly, but has never been taken seriously either)which states that time sort of flickers the way frames in a film reel do. Infintessimally small and imperceptibly small "cells" of time flash in and out with the gaps between an analogy to 'antimatter' or whatever. It's vague and science-fictiony but most are.

I can't see why we would pursue it other than a hunch, but thought you might like at least an aesthetic frame for considering other options.

A physicalist metaphysician has no problem addressing the philosophical questions he raises every bit as well as a Thomist like Feser. That science is a rational form of inquiry doesn't require a supernaturalist metaphysics to justify; the "causal regularities" he refers to can be accounted for as laws of nature (relations between universals). — Relativist

(not in pursuit of the greater discussion here - I am just motivated to ask prima facie..)
I am unsure these answers can be given as readily as you're putting forward. "Laws of Nature" just refer back to those causal regularities. They aren't actually 'accounted' for beyond that we regularly see stuff happen under certain conditions. It may well be that this is what you're getting at and I'm misreading... Because both we seem to have a similar reaction to THomism, and I agree with your final point there; I am just not seeing how you are actually answering the questions old mate put forward.. (but, that supports your conclusion, so that's fine, im just curious).

LOL, well okay that's fair! I think that's why Chalmers does (and should) get the respect his book actually commands. We don't have much to go on, lol.

Yes, I think this is a serious potentially insurmountable difference in approach. He (we (Wayf and I)) see it; others dont.

Solving a problem that isn't there is always going to look abysmal, but equally would ignoring one that is.

It sounds like you're saying that neuroscience shows that human consciousness doesn't extent beyond the brain. It doesn't show that. — frank

At the absolute minimum, it is stuck at that position. So, I think Michael's position is entirely tenable. Neuroscience doesn't indicate that consciousness extends at all.

No, are you trolling? — jkop

No, I am responding to what you are saying. There's not a lot of point quoting previous statements, and they would contradict what I'm trying to clarify (which is that there are contradictions all through this exchange...)

Why, would you prefer extraordinary conditions? — jkop

I have addressed this and why I've honed in on it. You seem to have missed:

To see it is a biological fact, just how nature works, and some of us may have better eyes than others.
— jkop

This is, in fact, to say there is a 'correct' way of viewing hte world, biologically. Someone looking at 430THz of light, and seeing Blue, is 'wrong' (whether that's a physical aberration or otherwise..). — AmadeusD

If this is the case, then there's a strict contradiction in your approach. You are insinuating there is no 'correct' way for the human vision to apprehend colours, but you want colours to be "out there" independent of our experience? Pls hlp lol.

Fair enough. If you find a glib use of a clearly inapt term "anti-scientific" rather than a bit of fun, I'm unsure where to go :P

And this opens up the possibility of 'consciousness surviving the body" hehehehe. Let's not though..

Ah, fair, that was very much insufficiently clear. Where i put that, I just mean to indicate that we don't know (which ironically, is Carroll's view, elsewhere) and 'miracle' is a placeholder for whatever the answer is...could think here of the breathe-in-breathe-out view of the big bang, but we don't know whether or not that's the case. It would solve the 'miracle' is my point. Anything that answers the question is the 'miracle' until it's found.

Why difficult — jkop

Because of the remainder of my post...

where does that idea come from that there could be a 'correct' mode of seeing? — jkop

The majority of your responses seem to indicate this. That colour is mind-independent and that the eye and mind must be in order to 'accurately' apprehend the 'colour' out there (this is plainly wrong, though) seems to be baked-in to your position on this.

Would you ask if there is a 'correct' mode for digestion? — jkop

Yes. When my tummy is being funny, i digest 'incorrectly' because of an aberration in the alimetary canal somewhere. Generally, these can be found, diagnosed and treated (though, that's not relevant). This can be applied to vision. I'm asking if you position is that this applies to colour. It seems you want to say no, but...

To see it is a biological fact, just how nature works, and some of us may have better eyes than others. — jkop

This is, in fact, to say there is a 'correct' way of viewing hte world, biologically. Someone looking at 430THz of light, and seeing Blue, is 'wrong' (whether that's a physical aberration or otherwise..).

colour perception is all about neuroscience — jkop

Are you suggesting that the science of vision doesn't explain Red? Then how can you claim what you've claimed?

the colour is the bundle of lights and pigments that emerge as a colour when seen under ordinary conditions — jkop

I smell Tuna...

To some degree, sure, but framing it that way is some extremely bad interpretation. That there are gaps in knowledge doesn't require invoking God. But it does require some novel thinking, at times. That's all I'm indicating. It's not Carroll's field... If God comes out of that exercise, i'd be a surprised as you.

In other words, isn’t being the same person throughout space and time an essential element of what it is to being a human? — Thales

I think we'd have to solve the fundamental problem: What does personal identity consist in?

There are various views:
The bodily continuity view (think: body=identity)
The psychological continuity view (think: memory/disposition=identity)
The further fact view (think: soul or a materialist equivalent=identity)

They all fail to describe much of anything we take to be our 'identity'. I think most people intuitively take the further fact view. But it is very, very hard to maintain outside of strictly religious, supernatural frameworks.

I'm unsure Zeno has much to say here. His paradox you've picked out takes time to be made up of indivisible points which doesn't seem to be the case at all.


There is the additional view that the above is nonsense, and we must only consider personal identity to be a set of dispositions, arbitrary or curated, in a person's behaviour. Your 'identity' could be 'demisexual aromatic nonbinary transgender neurospicy Unicornkin" in this sense though, so I think it's a cop-out to the actual problem of figuring out what makes 'me' 'me' over time.

On order to take metaethics seriously, one has to look, not to the concept, the understanding's counterpart to the living actuality, but to just this actuality. The proof for this lies in the pudding: putting one's hand of a pot of boiling water, for example: NOW you know the REAL ground for the moral prohibition against doing this to others. — Constance

This is a non sequitur for the ages. I did warn about this - continental philosophy is rhetoric only. That's why teenage boys are still finding Satre interesting. We all go through a death on the way adulthood - pretending these self-involved, preening narratives are somehow extrapolable is a serious mistake, and probably a good portion of why this type of 'philosophy' is both derided readily, and defending vehemently. But this is like defending Christianity because it pulled you thruogh your divorce. Arbitrary.

but there is no (ontological? metaphysical?) relationship. — ENOAH

There isn't even a moral relationship. It's just a confirmation of the intuition that one probably shouldn't boil one's hand. That isn't moral.

Fair enough!

the colour is the bundle of lights and pigments that emerge as a colour when seen under ordinary conditions — jkop

Hmmm this seems a really, really difficult account to accept. Is this to say that there is a 'correct' mode of seeing, and anyone who sees 430THz and does not accept they are seeing 'Red' is objectively wrong, or has retarded(in the medical sense) vision?

Unfortunately for parts of your account, there are some fairly glaring issues. Michael has picked up on one (but I think been less-than-direct about it):

These colours are percepts, they occur when the visual cortex is active, and all of this happens when awake as well. — Michael

If your take is correct, then the same experience is being had by the mind when dreaming, even if this is 'artificial' according to your view(memory, or some such being utilized by the unconscious mind). How is the colour actually outside the mind, when there is no possible way to even indicate that it is 'the colour' without this mind-bound experience?
I don't personally have a fundamental issue with saying 'colours' are simply (arbitrarily) defined as their wavelength of light, rather than any experience they invoke. But this doesn't seem to be how the word is used in every-day language.

The events on earth suggest a negligible commitment to the welfare and happiness of creatures. — Tom Storm

As noted earlier though, if any personal God is 'true', we are wrong to think this way. We are simply not listening.

:up: :up: Perfectly summed up imo.

What is "bad faith" is having liars claim they know what they're talking about without having studied Marx and then having an idiot weigh in with a judgment out of the blue that nobody really cares about. — Benkei

What a bizarre level of irony. That said, it's clear you have an axe to grind. I'm sure you'll continue through several more failed states.

One baked-in element of God is His moral correctness and the source of ethical and moral truths. We would have to be wrong on (in fairness..) almost every conception of a personal God, and most others too. The entire point of God is to provide an ethically-inarguable framework. The subsequent discussion/revision/updating of those frameworks speaks to the nonsenseness of religion, imo.

Is something good because the gods will it or the gods will it because it’s good? — schopenhauer1

In my view, this discussion (Euthyphro, Liebniz) is fundamentally erroneous. We have the texts. Either see to the texts (which in Judeo-Christiandom are extremely clear - God dictates ethical truth, not recognises it) or accept that they are not foundational texts. I don't really understand why one would ask the question, unless you're seriously considering a supernatural God and want to square your discomfort with that position. In that case, navigating one's discomfort might be required to live a fulfilling life, but it clearly flies in the face of the texts.

You deem 'suffering' as 'bad' (or rather "Boo!") knowing it is your subjective emotions talking. — I like sushi

It's hard to commit to a formulation of this part, but I think this is a bullet to bite, in terms of its vagueness. Yes.

How then can you state, in any serious way, that something is 'right' or 'wrong' — I like sushi

I don't see a problem. I'm an Emotivist. That's what 'right' and 'wrong' mean.

But you seem to be saying "it is 'wrong' (boo!) for me" not that it is out and out wrong (Boo!) for everyone or that there is anything dictating what is objectively viewed as 'right; or 'wrong' other than commonality of emotional expressions. — I like sushi

A lot here.
It is wrong for anyone(currently, anyhow) as far as I am concerned. Enforcement of that policy can only apply to me based on my ethical views.
(my view is that..)There is nothing that could even begin to dictate what is objectively right or wrong (in the meta-ethical sense of the term "objective"). Those words don't have objective bases.
The basis is necessarily one's emotional disposition (maybe predisposition? This could in a very weird and unsatisfying way open the door to a more-objective ethic) as there is nothing else which could inform us.
The commonality of emotional expression is probably hte best way (:optimal) to work toward policy. I don't take this to indicate anything truly ethical. But it does indicate the overall moral vibe of a society/culture.

It is interesting how this, in part, appears similar to moral naturalism rather than moral scepticism. — I like sushi

Could you expand? My understanding of Moral Naturalism is that it more or less indicates that morals are evolutionarily-required aspects of human development, which I don't agree with.

...what I previously expressed as harbouring a 'Moral' stance of AN rather than an 'Ethical' stance of AN...I think we could argue back and forth a bit more but it may be mostly a semantic issue given that emotivism is hard to articulate (a serious flaw of emotivism). — I like sushi

Hmm. Pretty hard disagree. I think in these exchanges I have navigated through that suggestion pretty well. The fact that I don't think I should be forcing other people to adopt my view doesn't make it less ethically-driven. Not doing much about it is a dispositional fact of my mind or, to be a bit more sanguine, a practical necessity to not hating my life and hte world I live in.

I disagree that Emotivism is either hard to articulate, or flawed in any meaningful way (beyond causing discomfort, that is - but that's baked into the position so LOL). But that would make sense if it's my position, so just noting this for thoroughness.

IF that's how you see yourself mate, be my guest. I just think you're dull and self-obsessed.

There was an opinion piece published in Scientific American, by physicist Sean Carroll — Wayfarer

Let's say these two sources are not ones I would go to for discussions on anything remotely philosophically interesting.

How does it interact with ordinary matter?

This is his only question that doesn't carry all his suppositions. And it's been a live one for a long, long time.

But that is not what 'most people have in mind'. — Wayfarer

Agreed.

So, I myself don’t much like the terminology of ‘consciousness surviving death’ — Wayfarer

Thanks for explaining. I guess i Ignore stupid self-restricting positions like Carroll's. Obviously, he's an authority on what he does know - which is physics after the free miracle :P

Looks like @Hanover has covered it, but on any conception of Bad Faith i'm aware, you coming here to say this instead of talking to your wife about hte underlying tension you're feeling is bad faith, in regard to the marriage. If that's how you feel, don't shirk it to a forum of intellectual ner-do-wells.

The "formatting" helps you illiterati read and maybe even comprehend the post. Btw, you're welcome. — 180 Proof

It doesn't. It both makes it distinctly harder to grasp what you mean by all the random, nonsensical formatting - and It makes you look like more of a narcissist than does your content. Which is wild, particularly given the tone of this response I've quote LOL.
Your lack of self-awareness is absolutely astounding.

Absolute banger. Good to see some eclectic tastes showing up here..

If "Higher Morality" (God's morality) is so sadistically bad for its creatures, what does this say? — schopenhauer1

That we're wrong. That's baked into the description, really. If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong.

I was right. As usual. — Mikie

I cannot be overstated how utterly bereft of reality this is. You had to eat crow about Biden the same f'ing week this took place (i.e the ass. attempt and ensuing up-tick for T-Ump. ).

And that's maybe because the whole model, which again is foundational to the modern world, has radical deficiencies. — Wayfarer

I'm unsure it matters what came before this suggestion. It is clearly true, and leaves us with quite a bit to catch up on.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement as to what "freedom" is — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is a red herring on your part. We are clearly talking within a context. We are not randomly picking out versions of 'freedom'. We're talking about hte 'freedom to choose'. If a choice is literally not metaphysically possible, how could you apply a metric like 'freedom' to whether or not one chooses it? This seems to be practically nonsensical.

freedom means unrestricted — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely not. We have both made extremely clear why this is erroneous way to approach this issue. It makes it look (pretty heavily) as if you're wanting to define-out any version on which Dan and I are relying for our positions, instead of simply noting that they don't cohere and so we're probably talking at cross-purposes. I tried to solve this in my previous reply.. No matter.

You are defining "freedom" as already restricted, and that is incoherent in relation to how we actually understand "freedom". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it isn't. This is such a bizarre claim.

Because of this fundamental disagreement about "freedom", I think the point is highly relevant to freedom, and you think it is not at all relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I have noted, even on your conception of Freedom (or, from my POV, your restricted version) this doesn't hold any water whatsoever. If your version of 'Freedom' is 'unrestricted' then you are frollicking in the AI world. We are, in fact, metaphysically bound to accept the 'restrictions' of time on our ability to make choices. This removes possibility. It does not restrict freedom. It removes, entirely the possibility to chose anything at all. This last pair of sentences holds in both of our accounts. I have no idea how you think you're getting around this by simply saying "Freedom is unrestricted". Then again, you did agree that my not having gills "restricts my freedom" to breath underwater, so I may just need to walk away from this.

The problem here... — Metaphysician Undercover

This isn't a problem and the quote you've used to respond to aptly dispatches this objection.

Have you never found yourself in the middle of doing something? — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't quite understand what you're asking, based on the other content of the responses to this point. It seems you're wanting me to agree that a moment in time can be, in fact, a free-floating 'something' in pursuit of another free floating 'something' ad infinitum such that no act is ever complete because you're always acting (the other possibility, below my response to this).
Again, I have answered the objection within the quote you've used. An act is noted in totality. Either you made a cut (let's say into an apple) or you didn't. You didn't "halfway" cut through the apple. You either didn't get to it, or you cut exactly how deep you cut. You are never 'part way through' the act.
The other version you might be asking is "Doesn't your psychology pick out the timespans of acts as you carry them out?". The answer to this is "sometimes" and yet the previous objection holds. Just wanted to make sure I didn't ignore this.

But this is contrary to experience, which demonstrates to us that acts take place at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is actually direct, on-point support for what I've just responded with. Acts happen "in the present" and are not divided into "past" and "present" parts. That is correct, experience tells us this quite directly.

Haha, you reject 'empirical fact' when I bring it up, with reference to Hume, now you employ it — Metaphysician Undercover

I have a fairly big hunch you're making this part up.

Freedom does not mean 'one could have done otherwise', it means 'one can do whatever one wants'. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good grief. Okay, this will be my last reply because this is out the gate wrong.

You say "I simply do not have freedom in that pursuit", and you pretend that this does not mean that your freedom is restrict in that respect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Because they are not coherent points to have made together. If Freedom does not obtain, it cannot be restricted. This is plain language now, come on.

then what does it mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

I means exactly what I've pointed out several times (beginning to think you're skimming these posts on your phone maybe?). Freedom does not obtain in that scenario. There is no freedom. It cannot be restricted. But, you seem to think that Freedom applies to things like "I want to be one of several Water Gods of a Triverse that doesn't exist". Hehe.

Wouldn't you think that simply not having freedom in all those other pursuits constitutes a restriction to your freedom? The way you are using "freedom", like Dan, is simply incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't. If you do not understand it, so be it. I really don't mean to sound rude in these posts, but its becoming obviously I do/will come across that way. I think you're being a bit obtuse.

I find that a joke, considering that the way you use "freedom" is simply incoherent. And, the fact that you refuse to recognize that acts are occurring at the present, instead of insisting that all acts are in the past. . — Metaphysician Undercover

This is both an incredibly bad reading of all that's been said, and a pretty good indicator you're not looking to understand.

So be it. Take care my friend :) I shall not engage this one further, I don't think.

Largely, the suffering the AN refers to is a result of hte higher consciousness of humans. Though, some ANs absolutely go as far as to insist we should look at reducing wild populations of most animals. I think that's a bit of an 'unofficial' position some take though. It's not one for me for two reasons:

1. My current understanding of (most) animal psychology is either not good enough to assume, or leads me to believe that hte relevant animals do not 'suffer' the way humans do, but experience an aversion; and
2. I don't think we will ever have a very clear understanding of the above issue outside of some higher animals and fish.

If I could clearly understand 1. above to indicate that animals, on the whole, suffer the same way humans do, I would probably assent to your point.

You do this actively or only when questioned about your AN beliefs? — I like sushi

Not always directly on-point to AN stuff, but whereever it seems applicable to the discussion (several versions of a vague 'ethical' discussion would do this and hten, yes) and whenever I'm specifically prodded on the issue.

I am assuming you are a moral realist? If not how does this fit into your views on AN? — I like sushi

I am a pretty staunch moral antirealist (hence noting I am an Emotivist, to the degree that I will commit to an existing label). I don't think this has any affect or effect on my AN positions beyond noting that they are 'my' ethical beliefs. My meta-ethical position doesn't really give me any room to pretend i'm the arbiter of truth, no matter how sure I am that I have the 'right' idea.

This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. — I like sushi

Not quite, no. I do think it would be better if people were ANs to the point that I believe people should not have children. This is proscriptive, and is an ethical position.
Perhaps I need to be clearer: I have ethical positions I never intend to enforce on others. If you look at all the arguments and conclude "Not good enough", fine, but I'll think you're wrong and would try to persuade you otherwise. I do not have to commit myself to arguing with everyone who has kids to hold an ethical position such as AN. Practically speaking, what is the point in that? Just Stop Oil are a joke for a reason.

Impose antinatalism — schopenhauer1

Wrong. Enforce. I would impose the reasoning on anyone who would listen. Enforcement is a step too far to my mind.

) Impugn others who don't believe in the rightness of antinatalism — schopenhauer1

Impugn "intellectually". Very different to impugning their ethics in my view. I think other people should not have children. Would I purposefully insinuate this to people? No. I'd prefer to suffer in silence on this issue unless asked. I wouldn't assert someone's mind was wrong (in terms of some kind of retardation(in the strict sense)) for not agreeing with my ethical position. Please keep in mind, though, I am an emotivist to the degree that i have an actual Ethical view.
I don't believe my ethical framework can be enforced. It should should be followed by me. No, this is not morality, but it is a bit of a get-out-of-jail card because it basically is a meta-ethical theory that asserts there is no objective morality. Moral theories in general don't make any sense in this light.

umber 2 seems a non-sequitur or self-refuting. — schopenhauer1

Not at all. Possibly the exact way you worded it, it would be, but not once you've read the above paragraph.

However, being on a philosophy forum, and defending the position, would in a minor way be "impugning" those who are objecting — schopenhauer1

Not intellectually. I think you are morally deficient if you're intent on having children, though.

LMAO that may be a good move

Right right, yes you've adequately cleared up the confusion there.

If your premises are true, you can only have a valid argument be sound, that's right.

If a discussion revolves around a piece of information that is easily understandable and available online, both sides lost the debate before it even started. — Lionino

Tell that to the Lounge.

As one, I can say confidently this is not the case. It is a clear entailment of AN thinking that the eventual non-existence of humans is preferable and an ethically correct outcome. They do believe people should not procreate. This is as prescriptive as one can be conceptually speaking.

My views are odd - because I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons) but I don't take anything seriously enough to think this is a view I could enforce. And nor would I want to. I have better things to do. Thsi is an intellectual position that I do believe in, but as with all of my positions, I think they apply to me. I can simply think one has their reasoning wrong without impugning htem intellectually.

Hell, I have two kids. That doesn't mean I don't feel guilt every moment of my life for that.

Sorry *Trump voters

Yeah I think there's one problem with that: — Mr Bee

This wont have much effect on voters if the see the former issue in stark lighting.

Trump has always been hypocritical - including calling Republicans the dumbest people in the world three decades ago (roughly) and that this is why he'd run as one. No one cares, it seems.

Yeah; but, why give the sound-byte? Concepts like these really ruin reputations if not elections.. — Shawn

Agree - even supporters might think.. hmm, not under my banner.

Someone needs to tell Kamala not to promote equal outcomes — Shawn

This shouldn't be on anyone's list of anything worth promoting.

Yes, that's entirely fair.