Ofc I'm on some fantasy rant here. But I enjoy dabbling in wild metaphysical speculation — Benj96

I think this topic betrays the underlying current of art which--like it or not--drives all philosophy.

Also, ultimately, if it were a Simulation (which I have no reason to believe) then our efforts to prove or disprove are absurd give the "Simulator" would likely be utterly other than us and our comprehension. And yet we toil.

Which I guess brings us back to art.

it is impossible to produce a complete representation or simulation of Mona Lisa.

Yet many people seem to believe that the whole universe, or at least our experienced part of the universe, is or could be a simulation. — jkop

Interesting, your discussion of "representation." I do not believe the universe is a simulation.

And I don't believe our experiences are or are a part of a simulation.

But I am entertaining the thought that our experiences are representations (or at least structured thereby/processed thereby). No need to elaborate now. But does your adamant position regarding simulation preclude that?

Could it be, Nature is not a simulation. We are not in a simulation. But--to be very brief and simplistic--because all of our knowledge is "delivered/processed/constructed" by representation (of the presumably real thing--like your Mona Lisa), we are necessarily "closed off/boxed off/inaccessible to" the real "thing;" causing this (problematic) intuition that our experiences are "appearances/projections/illusions"? Hence, the idea in popular culture of the Simulation.

And though I am far from understanding the physics..., maybe even the scientist/mathematicians who so theorize (about a simulation), do so because they are inevitably using our representation based experiences to uncover reality, I.e , to uncover always "the Real thing" of things. And yet, those representations necessarily box us off from that real thing (just as the painting necessarily boxes us off from the real Mona). This inevitably causes them to arrive at calculations and conclusions suggesting we must be in a simulation. While, really, it is because they are only examining representation, and they are only using tools of representation.

I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism — BitconnectCarlos

You could start (and end) with his letter to the Galatians. But as I said, I don't think Paul was being antisemitic per se. Paul himself, Jewish, and likely a Pharisee.

What I think Paul was doing was responding to a mixed Jewish and gentile faction who insisted that gentile followers of Jesus must adhere to Jewish laws like circumcision and abstaining from pork and other unclean meats. Either, 1. He was sincere about his Christology that Jesus as Christ atoned for humanity, and emancipated it from law *see letter to Romans. Or, 2. He was an "evangelical" genius who realized the Greeks were more compelled by high christology than eschatology, purity laws and sacrifice.

But I'm either recalling or hypothesizing (read Gallatians and you might see why) that Paul's diatribe against the "Judaisers" was used as a weapon against people of the Jewish diaspora, particularly after the Empire converted to Xtianity. At the very least, it (unwittingly) painted a picture.

I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews — BitconnectCarlos

Of course contrary to the teachings of the so called Church, and with respect to that perspective, many have taken a historico-critical approach. And while I am not up to speed, I recall that both the gospels and epistles need to be understood in their historical (Pre-The One Holy and Apostolic Church) context. And--even unashamedly to the authors--you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.

We now view it as having recorded history. But to them it was a document glorifying a movement (and the authentic Paul Epistles were mostly addressing instructional concerns of his associated church communities) . The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly. As didactic. But also to set-up the system their way (the way we do still today; though it embarasses us). These are the bad guys so we depict them that way. And their depiction emphasizes their opposition. The Gospels were written after Paul had already established himself in the early church. The "negative" depiction of Pharisees and Saducees was not to record history, and almost certainly not to garner hatred against their own race and heritage as a whole, but to express that the new movement has at least loosened adherence to Tanakh and other traditions, displacing both with the person of Jesus, now truly "the Christ," and that (naturally) the establishment, Pharisees and Saducees opposed that.

I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.

Revelations/The Apocalypse, which emerged much later, does the same but more cryptically, and now, shifting its focus with respect to their opponent, Rome.

Arguably, just as the Gospels and Epistles are misused to "justify" antisemitism; Revelations has been misused by Protestant factions to justify anti-Roman Catholicism.

What goes around, eh?

Knowing what philosophers do in the academic field is a first criterion to separate cheap mysticism, pseudoscience and youtubers from serious philosophy. — David Mo

I agree with you that that is what it is, and I fully agree with and cannot argue against the functionality of it.

But tragically, a thing all of humanity can turn to for clarity in a complex universe of constructed and competing Narratives, is just another closed institution. It must. I know. But is there no refuge from prejudice? No "place" where we can judge the institutions?

And if you say, that's why you have freedom of choice. You judge which philosophy is reasonable to you. Well, still I must confine myself...and If you say, you judge all philosophies, judge philosophy etc. Yes, but it is already implied, built in, I, a pseudophilisopher* am necessarily wrong.

*I am not "sulking" I'm being honest.

Philosophy is not based on authority but on the exercise of personal reason. — David Mo

Ok. But I still agree that philosophy proper must adhere to the methods and conform with at least a reasonable finding accepted by academic philosophy.

We think we're ok with personal reason, but, without judgement, I've seen personal reason attacked often for not adhering to accepted methods of academic philosophy. Is that qualifier just implied?

Philosophy is academic philosophy. The rest of us are adults playing cops and robbers. (honestly).


I honestly liked the rest of your observations. I didn't want to reiterate for each, the obvious qualifier, "within the institutional confines."

The happy note, which I can already tell you have similarly implied, is the unqualified can benefit both by reading and discussing within the confines, provided they are careful not to pass themselves off as philosophers; and, by crossing the bounds (a thing which an ordained member of the institution cannot do for risk of excommunication) and exploring things so called pseudo.

If it used to be the love of wisdom, I guess it's now the love of the analytic brain. — Noble Dust

Yah. I think you're right. But dont tell anybody, or it's over (the way I'm reading it--for what is the brain, but us?).

Wisdom, in turn, is not merely some set of correct opinions, but rather the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest

I agree with that. Would you entertain this read of that? Maybe it is implied in that, I don't want to presume either way. Feel free to shift your read of what follows into metaphor if it is easier to work with.

And now my offer:
Would you agree that both so called wisdom, and its pursuit move about in the "world" projected by/within uniquely human mind(s). Any "appearance" of pursuit even, let alone uncovering/possession of Reality or Truth, is just that, a re-presentation of something (no longer) accessible (or only accessible in the being (of) it, in the present; only knowable (objects of pursuit) as representation in the moving about of time).

And how that relates to what is philosophy, is that--and now it is a metaphor--philosophy is an almost infinitely complex/layered literary analysis of what human Consciousness has and continues to project in time or History. "discern[ing] the true from the false, the good from the bad... the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given
question"

Ones way of thinking or consciousness is indeed "ones philosophy". You get where I was coming from though. :D — Outlander

Actually, I did. And I was content to stay there. I think you were right, philosophy is not "ones philosophy." I think (I'll carry on as though I'm sure, but I'm just projecting thoughts) the latter's use is casual, it could mean one's disposition, rules one lives by, worldview, morality, etc.

But as for what is philosophy? I hope we stay at "saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed" At least that expresses an aspect of philosophy proper. For me, at least, an impactful and "foundational" part.

what is your (or anyones) thoughts on saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed? — Outlander

Ok, yah, that. Sorry.

But is a reflection of ones conciousness necessarily philosophy? I could be young and never question anything with my deepest thoughts — Outlander

Isn't by "consciousness" not necessarily my deepest thoughts? Because you're right. But rather, a reflection on that thing, consciousness, and the whats of it ?

We must eliminate those who are intent on the murder of innocents. Killing them is not murder. — BitconnectCarlos

Bitconnect, I'm an admirer of your thinking on other threads, outside of this (perhaps personal(?) and understandably so) one.

I'm just saying, I don't know if you're feeling ganged up on, and resorting to an F U response, but it doesn't appear to be helping your cause.

Now, I already know anyone of us could come up with arguments against Hamas, their "mission" and their ideology. But why not admit the tragedy of the death of so many innocents (yes, I mean the victims of Hamas, Palestinian civilians) and abhor it, and then justify the actions with strong reasons presumably demonstrating inevitability? Do you not see the violence in that contradictory statement? "the murder of innocents"

Again, I am sure Hamas is wrongful, and malicious. But a statement like that cannot be made with ease. I can't imagine any human scenario where that statement could be expressed functionally. Sure, you and I might think it absurd in this case, but I always reserve the what if, the just what if the other side thinks they're doing the same thing? Is one right? Who gets to say? Are they both right? Is that not a path to mutual destruction, extinction? Isn't the only functional truth that they are both wrong? That is, that the statement is wrong?

Anyway. This is an excruciating moment in human history. It feels like watching your siblings, who thoroughly despise each other, and likely, on some level, given each of their traumas, despise themselves. And they're no longer arguing, not even just shoving, they're literally plucking eyes, and strangling each other.

Should our conversation really be about who's right, while big brothers everywhere cheer them on to over power each other?

Anyway, I absolutely know this might be personal and please know I am sensitive to that, and if I have not been, it is only out of ignorance.

I'll continue to relish our fruitful dialogue in other rooms!

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife.
However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

I think, if there is (a) god(s), and our conventional constructions hold true, that god(s) would "see" through our self-serving reasons. In that sense (albeit, I'm speculating) an authentic atheist might garner more divine favor than a self interested adherent (albeit divine favor is not the point of religion).

In any event, theism (or "mysticism" , deism, agnostic theism, pantheism) and so on, might be as rational a mechanism as any, in "places" in philosophical pursuits where one is left having to fill "gaps" with an externally independent/atemporal/first mover etc.

On the other hand, atheism seems rational when we restrict ourselves to empirical methods, etc.

To me there are "regions" of religious thought in history which necessarily overlap with and inform philosophy (particularly moral/metaphysical) and can shed light on "truths" which for one reason or another, philosophy has overlooked.

Finally, for me, many of the arguments which this age raises against (a) god(s), stem from a mistaken expectation that god(s) are for gaining favor/reward, and avoiding suffering/punishment; that god(s) has to be active in, and "care" about, the things we care about: actively alleviating suffering, intervening to prevent "sins", choosing sides, etc. These, and questions like "why are wars so often in the name of religion?" are strictly human concerns tainting religion, giving rise to "fanatical" (angry and hostile) atheism.

To me, I do not have to profess to be a Christian to appreciate these words from its founder regarding the "proper" religious perspective on/relation to god. After telling his disciples not to seek worldly favors from god(I.e., the alleviation of suffering) he exhorts them to only do this, "seek [god's] kingdom [domain/realm/dimension/truth/reality]" and leave worrying about the world to the world.

you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points. — Corvus

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I've been reading much, and especially not all the religious books. But I had already agreed with you about a rich analysis being needed before making any final judgment on
religion.

hah! :up:

I don’t see it as a fork in the road, you going one way, me another. I think we are standing around a table looking at the same object from two different sides, each conjecturing or dabbling in the other viewpoint. — Fire Ologist

And maybe that is expressing the closest approach within "reason" i.e., before the inevitable firewalls: paradox, contradiction (inevitable; not the kind from poor reasoning) absurdity . That each of us is constructing/expressing the same Truth(s) in (varying degrees of(?)) approximations, (as if/because) from different viewpoints.

By the way, lest you thought otherwise, I wasn't disregarding the statement about as real as everything as a "manner of speaking," in any way demeaning the statement. I was assuming, as you might note from my return to an edited version, that you meant "as real as everything" as a phrase like "might as well" or "better than nothing."

Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions. — Corvus

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? — Truth Seeker

The problem is, like philosophy, science, social sciences, and humanities, some of it inevitably reveals itself to be fiction, some has a much longer life span. Even math. 1+1=2 will likely last for eons. Sure, I'm a bit tongue in cheek, but I can at least imagine some genius will come along one day in "human history" and change the conventional thinking.

The current western narrative at least focuses on the contradictions in religion, signifying a turn in the Dialectical battle in which Science has only recently made headway, but continues to face threats (Fanaticism, Theocracolies, Fundamentalism and Traditionalism).

But I, a single lone random individual, am amazed at the parallel truths "expressed" by so called religion and "discovered" by philosophy grade metaphysics and morality. These parallels are found in so called religious concepts since the dawn of civilization, but certainly since the last half of the first millennium BCE, and some of them not reaching western philosophy to a similarly rich degree of analysis until post Descartes.

Distinguishing “beliefs” from the objects the beliefs are about (such as a self), and distinguishing these from “illusions” are all just illusory “distinctions” not to be “believed” and therefore you give me nothing to go on. — Fire Ologist

This is not intended to be remotely flippant, but, yah, they are all just illusory distinctions and therefore no one needs anything to go on. That is our condition. The truth isn't staring us in the face nor as plain as the nose on my face. The truth is--it's comical--(oops, note that I am speaking with the passion of one who thinks they have discovered something and not--no matter appearances--as one who thinks themselves an authority; which in the end, again highlights our (seemingly) inescapable "predicament," the irony, comical)...the truth isn't those things, it is my face and my nose.

We don't even have to "know" this, we are this. That's how (and you raise this appropriately when you ask (in another thread? (apologies, this thread)) how can we reference the world to one another and denied its objectivity?) we are aware of the real world; not by knowing it. By being it.

And yet we toil with concepts and with words, why? Because that's the structure and "nature" of the projections. They are dynamic and autonomous. So called we, you and I cannot help but share so called objects. It's a built in desire leading to the prosperity history enjoys today. I say celebrate that and carry on. Out of such sharing came tge Eiffel tower, Emancipation, Peace, Love, and the Mona Lisa. Yes, too, war, bigotry, and WMDs. But difference too is a mechanism of the movements of history. We cannot share one without sharing the other. Dialectic.

Anyway, the Body, the Real world which we are, I suspect is also One. Aware-ing Universe. But that, as you imply in your poetico-logical rhetoric above, is just Mind's illusion.

The only way to ponder about objectivity is to posit a mind or a self, but the only way to posit a self is to be able to distinguish identity at all, and the only way to talk about identity is with metaphysics about bodies, which becomes a battle between being and becoming, which leads to question language and logic, etc… — Fire Ologist

Yes. And though we diverge, because otherwise how the hell are we going to construct history together? (Don't cringe, I mean a locus of history as small as your or my Narratives). It is our seemingly iron strong consistency here which is most relevant to the OP. You have, in my mind, answered the question with that statement.

From of that River, a billion tributaries flow.

The mind is a chameleon, a whisper of a fleeting thing, sure, but for flash instant moments, as real as anything else. — Fire Ologist

Compellingly enough put that you opened my mind up to how, I think, I can agree.

Again, I could explain it a lifetime but I'll be deliberately vague (hope can be cowardly).

Mind is "becoming," we agree.

As real as anything else, I'll respectfully disregard as your using a manner of speaking. Why? Because I say everything else we can know is Fictional because it is projected to the aware-ing Body by mind.

But, for flashing moments real. Yes. It is Real, in the present, when it affects body into feeling or action. But only in that instant, and not in the preceding or proceeding projections. And sadly or happily, "we" move right along with the projections.
Why can "Mind's processes" be real in those present instances where it affects the body? Because Mind has its first cause and final effect in its natural source. Put very simply, the projections are images stored in memory (first cause). The "destination" is as code to trigger Body to a conditioned response, feeling or action,(final effect) followed .

The paradox IS! — Fire Ologist

and, therefore, you give me nothing to go on.
(As Obiter Dictum: I'd guess mind may have been silent enough for your body to have attuned to the present at the nanosecond which gave rise to that exclamation. But I won't go there)

Self is still something distinguishable from the liver, the lungs and other parts, if it is body at all. — Fire Ologist

Self (the one that speaks and is spoken of), to me, is neither body nor body part.

There is no "self" of the Body. There is aware-ing Organism, aware-ing it's present doings whatever they be, x-ings.

regardless of what the self is, the paradox is that it certainly exists, and certainly cannot exist — Fire Ologist

Again, where it matters most. Full agreement.

The Subject, the Self of Mind exists, but as a projection (you may reject second half)

That Self cannot exist in the present, it can never know nor be tge real being, the aware-ing Body, the presumed "real self" because it moves incessantly away from it leaving projections for the latter to "suffer" or
"enjoy"

No need to dispense with any part of this as mere illusion. — Fire Ologist

And here again our tributaries flow their separate ways, still drawing from the same river.

Enjoy!

But further, by saying this, it is a fact for you, me and all minds - so we know something objective about minding. We can’t escape the objective either - argument twists again - again the paradox rears its ugly head. — Fire Ologist

Agreed! You are right. There are both subjective and objective provided human mind is processing/projecting the world. I revise/advance my thinking to, ultimately there is no subject, no object. Or, there are subject and object(s) when "we" are from the perspective of "about the world." But from our true and natural perspective, from "in the world," we cannot (do not) speak of subject/object, let aloneca distinction. (What are your thoughts?)

I disagree that knowledge needs to first pass any test. — Fire Ologist

Yes. My habitually loose speech. In my mind I am already happily settled on that knowledge--(with your assistance in clarifying for me, or, at least my presumptuous reading of your assistance) being about the world/not in it--is not an uncovering of any truth present in being, but a projection of constructions (becoming). So my "test" suggestion was "rhetorical."

Yes but take out the world and think about when mind 1 connects with mind 2 (as we sometimes do on this forum). Maybe we don’t know if what we say here reflects the mind independent world when we speak of some third thing, but when mind 1 agrees with mind 2, then mind 1 knows the object in mind 2’s mind. So mind 1 knows of two things: mind 2 and the object it expresses in agreement. — Fire Ologist

Yes. I agree fully. And this reaffirms your clarification regarding the "presence" of the objective, within that framework which, as you correctly say, is "our" framework; not just this forum as you gently posed to spark my attention, but pretty much "everywhere."

Without regard to (what I must only imagine to be the perspective of) the so called real world, one coulofsafely say, of course there is objective knowledge, and thus, "shared subjective" is superfluous. Am I reading you right?

The very fact that we can disagree or agree means that to each of us, there is an objective world that we each measure ourselves and each other against. — Fire Ologist

Will definitely ponder this further.

Even if the objective world is constructed by minds, this world can be shared which means it isn’t only in one mind, and therefore, the objective world is still there, has to be there. — Fire Ologist

Subject to what comes out of re-thinking the above, currently I have settled on an "answer" to that. And you are correct that we diverge. It is more complex than the following statement. But briefly, that which is shared is already a unified system, the projections of a system, I've referred to as History. Part of its projections are the mechanisms projecting individual subjects standing in for the individual bodies "in which" (but not really "in") any given locus of that system/History is embodied.

The process you correctly describe, 1+1, and we can all agree, is not really separate units sharing information mutually but individually uncovered from the real world.
Rather, that process is how History moves. Minds are not isolated embodied entities,
but a free flowing system permeating in
spite of bodies.

Or you think you are possibly totally alone, not event meaning anything you say to yourself. — Fire Ologist

hoping the above explains why I am
not troubled by solipsism (quite contrary, there is no separate self.)

If you reply to me that you deny any objective medium is known, and I acknowledge back to you that I disagree with you, you’ve proven to yourself that my mind is out there in an illusion as an objective fact - which then means you can’t honestly say to yourself that all you know is an illusion. — Fire Ologist

Good foresight. I do think that I cannot "know" any objective world. But I do not deny that I have "access" to it. As I say, I have access to that real world by being. It is just that the instant I contemplate it, I seek to know it rather than be it, thereby displacing "my" truth with my projection.

However, I trust your logic; and that it is more precise than mine. So either you might one day explain it in a way which finally triggers me to belief, or I might arrive there as I continue to review it.

Thank you

We only know the self inasmuch as we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea that there it is an entity with an identity. When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

a "sense" of self. What if it's stop right there? I don't like the word "illusion" but it's being used in this thread. So, if you replace "sense" with "illusion", we need not proceed to the equally illusory "idea that there is an entity with an (equally illusory) identity." There is an illusion of self.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, — Janus

Correct. Statements about entities with identities, and mine above, attempting to qualify that statement. But why stop there? With the exception of empirical science, which operates under the hypothesis that its method of testing yield truths in the phenomenal world*,

*and if empirical science or conventional activities were to claim, or if we should conclude on our own, that their processes yield ultimate truths about the real world existing independently of the world projected by mind, then 1. That is an untested hypothesis, 2. Our hypotheses even about the so called real world remains untested.

In a word, if it's anything but hypotheses we are after, in every academic discipline, art, and day to day activities, we have a problem

When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving. — Fire Ologist

I agree. There is no being in Mind's projections. There is only the movements of becoming and the concomitant temporary settlements (beliefs), mechanisms creating all of our illusions.
.

That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us? — Janus

I agree here too. It is a pickle to be a real self that can’t be by itself, fixed and distinct as everything real is moving and dissolving any attempt at staying a unified identity.

We selves are living paradoxes. — Fire Ologist

I agree with both of you on those points, partly to my surprise. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your views (I understand your views differ from one another on detail too). I wonder if having read my comments, you are surprised I agree with your statements?

It is a necessarily twisted topic. (Jokingly) It’s as if someone set up a firewall to prevent its penetration.

The paradox of being a human: the self is, AND the self cannot be. Or with more texture: my sense of self is a sense of something that is already sensing and therefore, is real, AND, nothing I sense has a clear enough structure to be identifiable to be known as “real”, such as a “self”. — Fire Ologist

Yes. That actually encapsulates my beliefs too.

Paradox of being human. The Fictional Mind thinks it is real, functions in knowing, but has no access to Reality. The Real Body is real aware-ing, and has no concern for knowing. The knower is ineluctably making up the knowledge. As soon as it gets close to reality, it is blocked by paradox.

The self is... the Body.
The self [which] cannot be...is the Subject, yet
Only the self which cannot be desires to be.
Because the self that is, is being, and only being.

but what I subjectively know is that my mind is in a larger world apart from my mind, so I have knowledge of objective facts.

So I don’t see why we need to assert fact 3 (no accurate connection) — Fire Ologist

But if that "subjective knowledge of objective facts," is itself not what it proclaims with the word "knowledge." (I am already with you that this is seeming like a twisted "argument," veering off course from conventional logic and reasoning. I submit that that cannot be avoided. In fact, that it cannot be avoided, coincidentally supports the very twisted argument)

Knowledge itself, needs first to pass the test that it is what we conventionally think it is, a revealing, discovering, uncovering of facts/data/truths. "I can only participate in it through exploration and discovery...". I currently don't believe that to be the case.

If the "objects" of "knowledge" are

"constructed and projected" by (no.1) mind, following an autonomous conditioned process of "dialectic"

and are at best representations of the so called objective world, and not "discoveries" following exploration of the real world independent of Mind (no.2)

then we are back to having no connection possible between mind and the objective world (no.3).

My addendum to that is,

1. some intuitively or reasonably read things like sollopsism, nihilism, etc. From no.3. But we are the real world independent of Mind. We need not bridge the gap between mind and Reality, because we, as beings, organisms, like the rest, are that reality. Only mind desires access giving rise to this and all discourse with its projections.

2. within the domain of Mind, the question becomes, are we utterly alienated subjects, or is there "shared subjectivity." And to that I say, Mind is one and in its domain subject/object do not point to separate beings, each with its own "in itself" etc. Rather they are mechanisms functioning, and projecting "selves"/thises and thats/not this but thats/and objects out of selves, not I but It.

You have mind one over here, and mind two over there. If they are to share anything at all between them, they need some object to share. — Fire Ologist

The object they "share" is itself, Mind, not a thing but a dynamic process moving as History, stationed within billions of fully permeable loci, because bodies provide the infrastructure and feedback for conditioning, the feelings, and the means for action. And embodiment cause the subject to stand in displacing the Body, creating the long evolving illusion that we are separated and our self identity and all of its object associations are real. But only the Body is real; a being in the real world independent of Mind.

The denial of objectivity (mind independent reality) in itself makes all speech and thought meaningless. — Fire Ologist

Yes and that's why mind evolved such illusions as subject/object, because mind is speech. We have subject/object, and all qualities to make speech "real"; not the other way of viewing it; not subject/object must be real because we speak.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96

Facts are great. Sure. But they're easily dispensed with little incentive to understand from where or why they arise — Benj96

Totally. To add to your observation, I have found that, not only is it fact based rather than "skill" based; but, the "skills" which are taught are not focused on how to think, but rather, how to grow up gainfully employed, even for kids at elementary levels. Of course, I am not so naive as to deny the value; but, like you, I think teaching how to think must be a priority, beginning in early years.

I referred to that in a previous comment. — Lionino

Apologies.

If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction. — Corvus

Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals]

My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church — the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church. — Lionino

Ok, I did read that in your previous comments. Perhaps I superimposed a more polemical tone in how I read some of the "cloudier" language. Since that's your point, yes. While I think there's room for debate, I have no problem accepting that, and proceeding "aesthetically" as you say. Of course the so-called Bible from which I derive my heretical interpretation is a Church doctrine and therefore by definition any interpretation inconsistent therewith is heretical. I'm contrite for being so fixated that I didn't hear you speaking that simple undeniable truth.

However, two worthies of mention (unless more arise quickly enough)

1. Some interpretations following an independent reading might coincidentally be orthodox. I'm not suggesting the result nullifies that the process was aesthetic. I'm noting that it is reasonable to be flexible about the process if the end result bears orthodox "truth." It might even be viewed favorably as "independent" confirmation. Of course, for what that's worth to the Vicar of Christ which needs no independent verification. I'm just saying...

2. In fairness, the question, what kind of influence has Xtianity been? Does not necessarily call for an orthodox, or theological/ecclesiastical process. Or am I mistaken? In fact to have to answer that question, and associated ones like the role of the historical Jesus, within those confines would be futile. The answer is the Church is God's fiduciary on earth, period.

One would have to proceed historically, as sociological, or, as you said, aesthetically. So though you may have only been after that point quoted above and nothing else; and though I stubbornly bypassed it, I'm not sure why, when the historical Jesus was raised, it would be relevant to insist upon an ecclesiastical perspective, other than to point out, as information, that the ones you were commenting upon happened to be following an historical-critical approach potentially unsanctioned by the self proclaimed catholic and orthodox Church (again, no offense. I recognize much good in thd Church, that is not my focus)

I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"? — Lionino

Yes, I now see the distinction. And, trust you see why it's not relevant (unless as info...). If the OP asked has the Harry Potter series been an influence of good, you would not insist that any analysis of restrict itself to an orthodox reading as intended by the author. Even an analysis of the very text.

From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y. — Lionino

Yes. And I reiterate that you unblocked me on the first part, i.e. you can stop at mistake. But as a side note the second part raises an interesting variation which doesnt effect my acknowledgement of the first part, but may have implications. The point of the church is to dictate truths we must believe. There is necessarily no room for analysis. JK Rowling has written fiction. In fact, there are many who might argue her intent ought not shape our analysis. And as an author (I dont know) she might encourage creative analyses.

Our question in the OP is more like the analysis of fiction. Quick and simple illustration. These are not intended to follow any strict format of logic nor speak to the OP.

Q. Has Xtianity been a force of good?
A. No. It hasn't followed its own teachings.
Q. How so?
A. Jesus says love your enemies, there are
examples where they have not.
Objection. You can't speak to what Jesus says, you're not the Church.

That's what it seems like you are asserting.

You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively?

I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree with both points above. From my analysis which I acknowledge may or may not be orthodoxy,

1. Yes in the synoptics J can get pretty gnostic. I do not think agnosticism is not orthodoxy necessarily because the former did not conform to the historical J or the early church I.e., first 100 years of the C.E. It was a struggle for dominance of the early Church's opposing "interpretations" gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, etc. An earlier version of that is the struggle between Paul who thirsted for the spread of Christ to the so called Greeks vs those so called Judaisers who insisted that Torah etc be strictly adhered to. Though a compromise appears to have been made, Pauls language (which I would argue was far from antisemitic, but rather, along the lines of, hey brothers, if we're going to spread this thing, we need to let up stuff like circumcision and pork)** arguably, the tragic first seed of Xtianity's shameful history of antisemitism.
EDIT**I don't mean it was fine to insist to his fellow Judaens that we should abandon circumcision and pork. I'm saying that was a concern he was willing to bypass in his desperation to spread the new religion among the gentiles. And tragically from the early Church to very recent times, Paul's choices contributed to corrupt antisemetic interpretations of "the gospels," obviously both Jesus, Paul, and the majority of tge first Apostles, Acts and thereafter, were Jewish, and continued for a while to identify as such.

2. I agree Thomas doesn't "contradict" the canonical gospels, it expands with a multitude of gems which are vague enough that they ready themselves for
many interpretations.
Addendum: thank God it was left out of the canonical gospels.

Hence, its meaning is expressed. — jkop

In our conventions that's an acceptable statement. I'm suggesting on an alternative analysis its "meaning" is (temporarily) "constructed" in the expression, by the effect it has upon the participating bodies--feeling--belief--action. And these constructions--that is, "meaning"-- is not a static and in itself thing, but a fast moving train making brief stops.

I like Ice cream has countless subtle effects upon parties from stop to stop. And while a statement like porcupines are ptickly "appears" not to be moving (because we think it is confirmed by our senses).* Meaning is neither static nor ultimately real.

*I am not saying we cannot trust our sense, or that the latter is not Real. I'm saying the statements immediately surfacing following sensation, I.e. perception, is a process of constructing functional but fleeting meaning.

Or, meaning is not expressed but constructed repeatedly in the process of every expression, internal or outward.

What I'm meaning to say is one looks at a random dead body and the Truth of that, whatever it is, just is.

But the instant one thinks or expresses "that is a dead body," one/we think they have expressed an objective truth (and we have set up "shared" criteria long before that encounter which triggers that label).

Then those who believe all truths are either subjective or shared subjective (the latter being "objective" analysed at a closer level: simply the shared criteria), simply recategorize the thought triggered by the encounter as subjective and a silent, "to me" is implied before the statement (to me that is a dead body)

All "three" perspectives (objective/shared subjective/subjective) "think" a Truth has been expressed; and, think the matter for (philisophical) analysis lies in the "truth" (of it) and "who" made it or "who" does it directly effect.

But I'm saying the matter for (philisophical) analysis is neither. It is only "true" for the process attuning to it, and only because of the habitation to the criteria we share. And subjective or objective are more criteria constructed and shared.

The matter for (philisophical) analysis is in the "what" effect the statement has on the parties involved in the process. If it is functional for all minds involved in that tiny locus of moving history to temporarily settle there--that is a dead body--then it is true. If one party entertains a contradictory statement "I saw her breathe", that statement is brought into a new cycle of dialectic until the parties settle on a new functional belief. And so on.

The reason it may be functional to analyze the process in that way is because it doesn't just apply in encounters with statements about empirically testable so called truths, but to all truth statements, projected
internally or into the so called world. So that when I say God is only the god of Abraham or of Krishna, and a million people
agree, that is neither subjective nor shared subjective, but a settlement upon a statement as (temporarily) functional. And the same goes with statements like "roses come in a variety of colors." No where are these Ultimate Truths, subjective or objective. Everywhere they are statements settled upon by an individual or a group because it is functional to so settle.

I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon. — BitconnectCarlos

Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. It presented too "mystical" a Jesus and ignored the urgency of the parousia which the early church was fixated on.

But not because there is anything antithetical to the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels, right?

Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino

We've had our back and forth earlier and I was content to adjourn. But I am truly confused by your insistence and am curious to understand.

I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. Why? The Church has given itself that authority. Or do you think it to be truly ordained by (a) god?

If I'm not mistaken, you claim you're not even a Christian, yet confidently further restrict the Church so ordained, to just the Catholic one (you realize yet there are Orthodox and Protestants who would think otherwise--and as I said, I was raised Catholic, and have no bone to pick. Its just hard to believe you are seriously taking this stance).

You might be technically correct when you state that if you are against Xtian dogma you're not a Xtian, just as for Buddhists. But even if that were the case, I can't believe you're seriously claiming (as you seem to have been) that one who doesn't adhere to that Church's dogma, has no business formulating opinions about, and discussing, Jesus in a way which differs from such teachings.

Even in something as technical as math or science there are variations and progressions. Even the global "Church," as in the severed Body of Christ, has come up with several interpretations of Jesus. So, your insistence is confusing.

And if your reply is anything like "You can say whatever you want about Jesus, its just not Xtian, or accurate," I'd say that's not what most of your replies sound like. They sound like your saying You can't say anything about Jesus unless it conforms strictly with the teachings of (what?) the Roman Catholic Church as dictated from time to time by the Vatican?

And further, while you are correct to an extent about the ancient Catholic church compiling the Vulgate, precursor to the "Bible," that may give them authority over how their flock interprets the gospels, but not in any way a monopoly over the "right" interpretation. And note, copies of gospels, the letters of Paul had been circulating among the Churches in Greece, Italy and tge Levant long before there even was a Catholic Church. So what if I said I was formulating my hypotheses from those manuscripts in the Hellenic Greek in which they were written? Would that release me from the fetters of the Institution, and free me to think of Jesus in the ways those readings inspire?

With respect, it sounds like either you are repeating a polemic in support of the Catholic Church (in which case, all power to you) or you have so much contempt for the whole thing that it suits you to relegate all talk of Xtianity, Jesus included to authoritarian Dogma, institutional religion, the way some non-Muslims wish to insist that you cannot be a Muslim and not believe in the more fanatical version of Jihad.

Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. And I assure you, I'm trying to understand.

I wouldn't know about it unless I find your body or someone else finds your body and tells me about it. So, your dead body would be a shared subjective truth for everyone who sees your dead body. — Truth Seeker

Lest you think I misunderstood (or, I'm case I did) in the scenario above, I would say death and its body are what they are. The moment a member of the living expresses "that body is dead" or "that's a dead body" whether as a thought to themselves or a statement to an other, the "thing" of that expression is not (surprisingly, because we are habituated to "think" otherwise) in its truth, objective or otherwise; but in its function. That's what both words and the so called truths they express are "there for," and believing them or not is the effect of that process. There is never any real truth to be found, because the process is an empty train in motion. No static subject to anchor (substantiate) it, no object to substantiate (anchor).

The shared subjective truths are often referred to as "objective truths" but are not actually objective. — Truth Seeker

I agree with a variation/qualifier (unless, I misunderstand and I simply agree).

My qualifier is that there is neither subjective nor objective truths. Just the expression and hearing of "shared" "truths," constructed by history and reconstructed for expression and re-expression in history.

Expressions of truth are not static, wholes, determinable independently etc etc. That's how they are not "objective." They are fleeting, empty of any essence; parts in an interdependent dynamic process, ("history").

So called "truths" are incessantly moving; even if some, like the truth about the sum of two rational numbers, move astronomically slowly; while others like the truth about what is stylish in clothes move quickly.

The raison d'etre of so called truths is in their expression, and how they function to trigger further movements in that process, and ultimately feelings and actions among real living bodies and their species. That's how they're not "subjective."

Even inner thoughts or expressions of truth never shared with a single other (a doubtful scenario) are expressions intended to find their place or function in the world of others, and are not purely subjective.

Why would I even say "purple is the most beautiful color?" Ultimately not for its "truth" but for how that statement functions internally in so called "my" mind or outwardly in the world.

I'm not expressing truths ever when I am expressing; neither subjective nor objective. Rather expressions are performing a function.

When I say "your subjectivity", I guess and hope that you will be able to find in yourself what I mean. Actually this happens continuously whenever we communicate and use language, even when we communicate with ourselves, which is when we just think. — Angelo Cannata

Its subjective mode of existing doesn't prevent me from expressing it in epistemically objective ways. — jkop

Consider there's no real subjective/objective, but, rather only expressing. Words are projected into the world "I like Ice cream," and received by other. The "meaning" was never an inherent, stable, in itself thing. As Angelo implied, I don't even know what "I like Ice cream" means when I think it, let alone say it. It is expressed and heard as a process which will have an effect. If the speaker, in the next movement says the listener was wrong in the latter's "interpretation", that too is the process described. If a redescription is expressed, same. And so on.

But that hypothesis (if even acceptable) doesn't (I believe) address the OP. The OP describes a very special scenario. It may even be referring to a rare moment where that hypothetical process described is "interrupted." Where the given body is temporarily suspended from that process and faced with only a real feeling not yet displaced by that process and its construction of meanings and functions.

You don't have any words to describe your idea — Scarecow

A possible "explanation": you are describing a scenario where an unfamiliar feeling arises in your body. Your mind is at a loss to describe it because, unlike most feelings, it hasnt followed a well conditioned process, isnt habitual or conventional, and hasn't already been displaced by well tread "ideas" or words. (When the feelings displaced by many variations of sadness are triggered, the words are readily available to describe the feeling, and it is clear that it is rooted in a feeling, for e.g.)

The reason it seems like an idea more than a feeling in your hypothetical is because, albeit less familiar (or not attuned to), words still played a role in triggering the feeling, and words immediately clamor to the surface to construct meaning out of the feeling. Those "early" projections are the "idea." They might be vaguely related to the words first triggering the feeling. But they are insufficient because the feeling is novel. So you are at a loss for words.

Maybe off topic, and chances are I am wrong from a scholarly "Kantian" perspective, but I sense that is what Kant was describing regarding the "Sublime," only without the benefit of a century of psychoanalytic theory, functionalism, and Zen (for "Westerners").

Also off topic, but there is, I believe, a "what to do" with that feeling. I wonder what would happen if, in such novel feelings, one try (though this could be impossible, like in the though experiment "don't think of monkey") to silence the flow of words--by attuning solely to the feeling. Instead of constructing meaning/trying to put it into words, be (the) feeling.

And why do I say all this? Because I don't think one could have an idea without some form of representation/signifier. If not words per se, at least numbers, shapes, symbols, images. Things which can be re-represented in words. At least more than what I assume you were getting at.

The existence of the stability and the limit conditions on each emotion combine to make all other models or ideas, including the one you just offered, impossible. — Chet Hawkins

Ok. Please, how? Not just the one I proposed. How does it close the book on everything?

For the left and right TO EXIST at all is immoral. There should be only moral balance. So, you cannot should halfway. If you start with the perfect moral shoulds, there should be no left and no right, let alone each of these 'teams of delusion' working for their side only, which is what happens. — Chet Hawkins

And (not having reflected deeply on it) this is not the sort of thing I need convincing. What I still cannot comprehend is why that statement must be true pre-human existence; why it is absolute, a law of nature. But I'm going to re-read.

Not a single idea on these pages is original.
— ENOAH
I disagree. I think many of mine are. — Chet Hawkins

You may be thinking relatively. What I mean is that you did not simply learn English literacy, reflect, and come up with these ideas.

It is caused by each of the three emotions in specific ways, fear-cowardice, anger-laziness, and desire-self-indulgence. That is all. — Chet Hawkins

I'm grinning admiringly at your "That is all"
I sense you might not even mean that is all for moral choice, but maybe for the structure and movement of reality. Why? Even if you were accurately describing the mechanisms at play in moral choice, why are they not functioning within a (for lack) "greater" system?


"

sounds like you believe that subjective nonsense?! Do you? — Chet Hawkins

What you were referring to was my recognition of a contradiction in my current leaning. That is, if choices are the result of autonomous processes of cause and effect (triggers) and yet, I recognize that within that system we yet have a duty to act morally. How? My answer was that the duty and the actions in accordance therewith are also movements within that system. And I admit as of yet I cannot articulate further. But in another thread I reached a belief that certain paradoxes might be the result of having reached the boundaries of the system and at a precipice of truth.

I very much detest the type 4 delusion of the need to be special. — Chet Hawkins

Ok it's good I have the chance to clarify. I didn't mean people sharing in this forum as a class. I mean, in response to my self posed question--what triggers us to duty and responsibility if not having a good moral nature-- and i say the mechanism which leads us to make moral choices comes to us from others who simply share the right statement at the right time and it fits (like people sharing statements here. I may read something which triggers me in a certain direction not even intended by the writer).

[There’s no point in "going along with it" because it sounds intriguing. Is it compelling? Please indulge me. It is something I need to understand before I settle upon it, continue to play with it, or defer it indefinitely. I prefer settling. But I respect your time and appreciate the agony you felt pushing through until sleep pinned you. So please take your time.] that is, should you wish to reply]

I thought I already gave YOU the rundown. — Chet Hawkins

Thank you. You did. But I am as yet far from having mastered it. And anyway, I wanted to see how it ties in specifically here. Sorry if I seem to be exploiting.]

the real nature of reality is trinary, between these three emotions. — Chet Hawkins

"Emotions": are you entertaining any version of universal awareness/consciousness, then, at the root of/the source or essence of reality?

These balances are laws of nature.[/quote


So, if not universal consciousness, is it that you are using the word "emotion" (which triggers associations with consciousness) because that is the "word" available. But I need to look at it from the source--Laws of Nature. The triad (more like trinity, as they are three "forces" in one?) are not literally "emotional" but are the Laws which ultimately manifested in us as these three emotions (right?).

— Chet Hawkins

these are emotions, the working parts of moral or immoral choice. — Chet Hawkins

EDIT: The middle of this is my reply; not your quote. I cannot fix it.

Oh. OK. Choice functions as these (so called) emotions? The triad is both what structures moral choice (noumenally?) independent of human mind/existence; and its (moral choice's) function?

You'll likely answer as we proceed. But why must it be the Laws of Nature? Im ready to settle on that these three structure and move choice But isn't it just as possible that these are the Laws of human Mind? I won't argue the point. My intent is to understand yours. But when I offer alternatives as I just did, these are where I need better comprehension or more convincing.

How does morality relate then to natural law, to physics? — Chet Hawkins

I should've read on.

PERFECT balance — Chet Hawkins

Ok. I've referred to the expression of your ideas as poetic. Now I am fully confident having read the overall structures of your insughts that there are layers upon layers of complexity which led to the projection into the world in its poetic seeming form. Yes that aspect draws me in. But in this paragraph I respectfully say either the poetry is so distracting that I am missing the how-we-got-there; or you're describing it only poetically. Because--I repeat, I know you have reasoned the laws and dynamics--what I'm reading sounds like epic mythology: in the beginning the forces of desire and fear battled it out and anger emerged to balance the two and all of our current morality are projections of that battle etc.

I'm wondering, is it actually that? Out of Being emerged these actual emotions?

If so, would it not make even more (not equal) sense to say that out of human language emerged these now dynamic and law following emotions which form the basis of human moral choice? Why bother even looking for parallels in physics. And as for order and time, I say damn right these too emerged out of human Mind and only for human mind. But again, not now.

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free?
— ENOAH
That makes no sense. It is either free or not. There is no in between. — Chet Hawkins

Off topic of understanding your hypotheses (who knows, topic might shift if you raise further questions) but to be concise.

An in-between is choice itself is a "final" (for that event effecting the choice) mevanism in a process which runs not by the free wilfully movements of a central being (I.e. the so called self), but runs autonomously in accordance with evolved and well tread laws and dynamics. The end result is the function of the countless triggers which got it there. Like Dominoes falling. But unle dominoes no body set them up, each trigger is the result of a preceding trigger right up to the so called final settlement at belief, and in many cases belief is also choice. Choice then triggers the body to feel and to act. There was no free will, but there was also nothing pre-determined. In between.

People WANT to believe that morality is subjective because then they do not have to own up to truth. — Chet Hawkins

I am genuinely surprised at how often variations of that have popped up. I think there might be value in psychoanalysis for the roots of philosophies. But not as an argument against in this way. I could say people want free will to be true because their ego's are terrified at the thought of its own futility (the accurate view us, BTW, not that the ego is futile. It serves a function. Just not the one our Narratives have brought it to, I.e. not the center of being).

Inanimate' matter is NOT inanimate. It is choosing. — Chet Hawkins

See? I love the sound of that. And God! I want to be convinced. But I still believe choice evolved etc


.

And we have REAL evidence. The genuine happiness that is a consequence of a BETTER step towards wisdom and morality exists and is demonstrable in every case — Chet Hawkins

And I say, briefly, the happiness is not some ontological real pre existing force. It is a result of the right choice (right defined by convention, learned by trial and error, conditioned response) triggering happy feelings. Then why choose immoral? Because by the same process they trigger other feelings, power or pleasure related feelings. And that individual was constructed to trigger such feelings. It was written on her "soul" She had no choice. But not fatalism nor nihilism. If some series of triggers came along and fit just right, she might choose happiness over power in the future.


I'm going to stop here and read the rest of your post. Again, thank you.

There is nothing greater or less than nothing, because if not, then that would mean that nothing isn't nothing. That is the most we can possibly understand. — Echogem222

Back to more conventional philosophy. Parmenides settled on all is one because of his construction that nothing can proceed from nothing meant there can't be a beginning (and therefore end) Thus all has always been, and always been as one. The multiplicity of things are illusions projected by One.

So, is the resolution to your, and all paradoxes, simply that paradoxes are not to be approached as things to resolve with logic. Paradoxes arise out of projections of Truth but are not true (to use a classical way) in themselves? They take us to the outer ranges of logic and leave us on a single precipice surrounded by what we think must be an empty abyss.

Your fittingly melancholy flavored conclusion "that's all we can understand," applies to the "domain" of the projections; before we arrive at the precipice, where we must abandon understanding. It turns out, its not meloncholy, but cause for celebration, the paradox and its irresolvibility! Truth is "beyond" the domain of understanding; the realm of multiplicity. It certainly cannot be harvested out of logic, nor anything involving the use of Language, arguably a projection twice removed.

The value in understanding this "paradox" is to better understand what the word "nothing" means since many people think that nothing means something which can be understood, something that other things cannot logically come from, when in reality, it's just complete non-understanding. — Echogem222

There is nothing greater or less than nothing, because if not, then that would mean that nothing isn't nothing. That is the most we can possibly understand. — Echogem222

This--my remark to follow this preamble--is not conventionally philosophical, and as for logic, it is necessarily not that. But in my estimation it is philosophy, only it is philosopy not "thought," but "done"---(if properly executed) by the Body. I am sensitive to the fact that it may annoy (already), but who knows, it may not. So, as a well intended arrow shot in the dark,

Your topic--your struggle to resolve the paradox--has an affinity with Koans (in Rinzai Zen). Explaining would be counter productive. I'll just illustrate with a classic by Hakuin,

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

To which the answer is an abrupt, shallow inhale, followed by a joyful long exhale expressing, simultaneously with a blooming grin, and the breath, all barely audibly, "riiiiiight."


Necessary addendum: anyway that's how my body felt after reading those statements I quoted above.

nor does anyone since their number's growing as we speak. I can't tell if you were kidding. Either way, sorry for the confusion.

We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. We just can't have it killing again. We don't feel it really had a choice, for whatever reason, and don't hate it. — Patterner

Yes. In fact we regret having to "punish" it. So what makes us, the conceited ape, so different? I believe it is only that we use "language," and that language has evolved into a system of such complexity in its storage in the human brain that its laws and dynamics (though awesome and functional as hell) have displaced the truth.

And we "believe" what it says. And it most conventionally says we have freedom and responsibility so we believe it.

Of course all of which creates the deeper problem that believing we have no free will is equally a dictate of that language and it's process. And I haven't settled comfortably yet with how to resolve that seeming paradox other than to say settling at the point of paradox must be the closest we can get to the truth inside that system of Language.

All because we are not simply subject to our pasts and physical factors, like storms and avalanches, bees, asked dogs.

Except we are. — Patterner

...and there's that paradox...that precipice of truth?

Even under LFW, we are guided by our impulses, knowledge, assumptions, etc. — Relativist

We can learn from the consequences, and this can result in better decisions in the future. — Relativist

Yes, and that too, the "learn from" and "better decisions" are mechanism which evolved in the so called decision making process, so that when we "learn" and when we make "better decisions" of course, we (falsely) conclude it was our freedom which allowed for it. But these are functions of Mind which move "for" "us" but there is no individual particular of that "us" guiding that process and pulling its strings.

implications of determinism...[are] that they have zero responsibility.
I disagree because this sense of responsibility is a part of our mechanism, and contributes to our choices. — Relativist

I think you are right. It seems to contradict "itself" but the "reason" there is ultimately no freedom (in the more or less conventional way we use that word) is because like, as you say, responsibility, choice and free choice are built-in mechanisms of that process which temporarily ends in a "decision" action or idea. You might say we have freedom and responsibility but they just happen as steps in an overall autonomously moving System.

I note that I may have taken liberties with my expansion on how I interpreted your
point. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood.

Did your past state determine that your present state would exclude that line? — NOS4A2

:ok: Nice!!