So how does that answer any of the relevant talking points we've been talking about? — flannel jesus

Let me summarize things, burning the Quran is an offense, and any offense is the subject of punishment.

What is offense, if not just a feeling? Isn't offending someone just making them feel offended? — flannel jesus

According to Google: "An offense is a criminal act, while violence is the act of causing physical harm. Violent crimes are a type of offense.".

I see!

so if homosexuality offends someone, the homosexual should be punished? — flannel jesus

Homosexuality does not offend me. Some people feel otherwise.

cheers mate! :) I thought you were from Germany! LOL! — Arcane Sandwich

Why Germany? Did you realize that from my accent? :razz:

Should all offenses be subject to punishment by the laws? — flannel jesus

I think so.

Anytime you offend anyone? — flannel jesus

I think so.

Where are you from, MoK? I'm from Argentina. — Arcane Sandwich

I am from Iran. Glad to meet you here!

Right, exactly, not violence. That's what I'm saying. — flannel jesus

Violences also defined as actions that are intended or likely to hurt people or cause damage to them. I have no problem using offense instead of violence when it comes to insult. Anyhow, burning the Quaran is an offense in my opinion and it should be the subject of the punishment by the laws.

EDIT: Do you speak German, MoK? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, but not without using Google! :razz:

ok so no part of the law says it's violent. Even if you go to jail for slander, say, they won't consider you a "violent criminal". — flannel jesus

A violent criminal is someone who commits crimes that involve the use of force or weapons to injure or kill others. We are talking about insult here.

Thanks, mate! :)

And which part of that law says the insult is violence? — flannel jesus

Violence is a term used when you harm someone. This harm could be physical, such as murdering, or verbal, such as insult.

So everything that is prohibited by laws is violence? — flannel jesus

Every violence is prohibited by the laws.

and no, insulting isn't prohibited by laws in those countries. Insulting is actually pretty generally allowed. — flannel jesus

Then please Google "insulting", "laws" and your preferred country. This is the result I found for Germany: "In Germany, "insulting" someone, legally defined as "Beleidigung," is considered a criminal offense under Section 185 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), meaning you can be punished by a fine or even imprisonment for up to one year, with the penalty potentially increasing to two years if the insult is committed publicly or through assault; essentially, the law protects a person's personal honor from verbal attacks."

Is this a general belief of yours? — flannel jesus

No, it is not only a belief.

Offending feelings is violence in general? — flannel jesus

Insulting is prohibited by laws in all well-developed countries. It is prohibited because it causes emotional distress.

Why would you consider burning a book 'violence'? — flannel jesus

Because it offends the feelings of the believers in the Quran.

If it's violence, then does that imply Muslims have the right to self-defense from that violence? — flannel jesus

In my opinion, they don't have such a right but they think otherwise!

I don't think that violence can resolve any problem, whether it is in the form of burning the Quran or stabbing the guy who burned the Quran since violence just invites more violence. It is only through discussion that we can agree on and know the Truth.

Ok, no problem, and I hope we can discuss other topics elsewhere. Have a good time mate!

I am afraid that I am so busy with too many things right now. I am not even sure if Hume's works are relevant here. You are more knowledgeable than me and if you think that his work is relevant then opening a new thread is due to you.

I am not familiar with his work so I don't even know how to start a new thread on the topic. So please, open a new thread and I would be happy to join you there.

I agree. I didn't follow the climate change thread but I agree that sometimes it is need to open another thread to keep the focus on a specific topic.

I think if the purpose of this forum is to learn and teach things through the discussion then we have to be open to ideas that are not correct, nonsense, or even rubbish. People come up with some ideas they think they are correct. It is only through a discussion that we can show them that their idea is incorrect, nonsense, or rubbish. So, I think we have to be open to people's ideas. The trolling, insulting, and talking off-topic is another matter though.

Will discuss about Hume with you, if you start a new OP on the topic. Discussing Hume in here would be likely grossly off-topic — Corvus

It is off-topic on this thread! It is not off-topic on the other thread!

Any questions on Hume's topics? Start a new topic. — Corvus

I am not an expert on his work so please feel free to open a new thread and I would be happy to join.

I have read enough of Hume. I have a wall of the other books I am reading, and have no time to read Hume again. It is you who seems in desperate need to reading Hume, because you keep asking the questions which the answers all laid out in Hume's books written almost 300 years ago. — Corvus

So you cannot report your understanding of his work yet claiming that he addressed my questions?

Why was your definition not in the dictionary? — Corvus

The Google dictionary gives another definition as well. Anyway, I am happy to call myself a person or agent. I already defined what I mean by agent anyway. Let's put this aside and focus on your understanding of Hume's works.

I am not sure if agent is a technical term to mean what you mean. But if you said you are a person, then it would have been clearer. :D Carry on my friend ~ — Corvus

I am waiting for a quote from his book or your understanding of the book.

An agent is also defined as a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect. Anyhow. You mentioned that you have a physical body that calls it a person. That is all right to me.

Of course you did. But as I am not an agent, I was looking around me, and in me and in my mind to see if I am an agent. I couldn't find any impressions or ideas matching an agent at all. At this point, I was wondering what made MoK to imagine I was an agent. — Corvus

No, I didn't. I asked whether you are an agent. By agent I mean you are physical with a set of properties. So, again, are you an agent? Yes or no.

I thought it was obvious. This is what I mean. The answer is in the book by Hume "A Treatise of Human Nature". Having not read it causes folks in confusion and mystified state of their knowledge on the obvious facts. Thoughts are also perception. — Corvus

Could you please quote a part of his book on this matter or elaborate on your understanding of his book?

I am not an idealist. I don't belong to any of these isms. My ideas are flexible depending on what topics we are talking about. I am perceptions means that when I try to find my own self, all I can find is a bundle of perceptions about me i.e. perceptions on the body and the content of mind. There is nothing called an agent in me at all. You need to read Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature to understand this point. — Corvus

I didn't say that there is an agent in you. I said whether you are an agent by this I mean you are physical with a set of properties.

There is no place called memory. Maybe there is biologically and physically, maybe you can locate where the memory functions happening in your brain. But I suppose it would be a topic of brain science, rather than Metaphysics. — Corvus

The existence of memory is very relevant to the philosophy of the mind.

When I can remember something, I call that function of mind as memory. — Corvus

That is called recalling memory.

The object which is remembered is called "the content" of memory. — Corvus

Correct.

Again you need to read "A Treatise of Human Nature". Everything that appears in your mind is perception including ideas and impressions on the external objects in the world, the contents of memories and imagination, feelings and sensations, emotions etc. They are all types of perception. — Corvus

I call all of these experiences rather than perception. Please do not offer me to read a book on a topic that does not address my points.

Mind is, again, a bundle of perception. If you don't have perception, then you don't have a mind. You just have a body. Mind needs its body where it is generated from. When the body dies, the mind evaporates too. — Corvus

So, how could you have coherent thoughts and memory if the mind to you is just a bundle of perception?

I put "minds" in quotes. I don't believe a "mind" is an object that exists. Rather, a brain engages in mental activities (perceptions, moderating between stimulus and response intentional behaviors, deliberations, learning...). IMO, experience is the constant flow of these mental activites, which entails changes in the brain — Relativist

I have three questions for you: 1) How experience can affect the brain knowing that it is not a substance, 2) Do you believe that physical motion is deterministic and is only based on the laws of nature? and 3) If yes, then how could the brain be affected by experience?

Now you tell me what you mean by "experiences". — Relativist

A conscious event that is perceived by the Mind and contains information.

Emergence doesn't end up in Epiphenomenalism. — DifferentiatingEgg

It does. If not please explain how experience can cause a change in matter considering that the state of matter is subject to change by the laws of nature and experience is not a substance.

"Experience" is a feature (output?) of "mind" and mental and physical – the former either an epiphenomenon or emergent (strange loop-like) from the latter – are complementary descriptions of the manifest activities of – or ways of talking about – natural beings (i.e. property dualism¹). — 180 Proof

What do you mean by the mind here? Property dualism explains the experience's emergence (weak emergence) but cannot explain how the experience can affect the physical. Therefore, we are dealing with epiphenomenalism.

A more fundamental, or metaphysical, version of property dualism is (Spinoza's) parallelism²: — 180 Proof

You don't want me to believe in parallelism, whether the Spinaza, Leibniz, or Malebranche versions. Do you?

physical and mental are conceived of as parallel aspects of every natural being (not to be confused with panpsychism or epiphenomenalism) which do not interact causally (or in any other way) and we attribute to each natural being to the degree either or both aspects are actively exhibited. — 180 Proof

We know that change in the physical is due to experience. Spinoza's version of parallelism does not explain this since he was not aware of the change in the texture of the brain due to experience. It does not explain how experience is possible; it just says that it is.

So whether a mental property¹ or mental aspect², it doesn't make sense to conceive of "experience" as an independent causal entity — 180 Proof

Experience is a separate thing. It is not the direct cause of change in physical but the change in physical as I mentioned in OP is due to it.

(re: Descartes' interaction problem ... disembodied mind). — 180 Proof

I am not defending Descartes here. I have my version of substance dualism.

Define "experience". — Relativist

A conscious event that contains information.

Similarly our "minds" are altered by sensory perceptions and by its own inner processes. — Relativist

What do you mean by the mind here?

Am I an agent? No, I am just a bundle of perceptions. — Corvus

So you are an idealist. So you are not made of physical?

Do I have certain experience? I do. But I need to dig out the past events which are dead and gone now from my memory, and then package into concepts called experience. — Corvus

How could you have memory? Memory must be stored somewhere.

It is a kind of reduction of the past memories into the conceptualised concept called experience. — Corvus

How could you construct any coherent thoughts if you are mere perception? Any coherent thought requires a memory of ideas you experienced in the past. It also requires a process on the memory as well.

Does it exist? Experience only exists in one's mind. Could we call it as existence? You tell me. — Corvus

What is the mind to you?

I don't jump into a thread where the OP has been engaging discussion with the other folk. It wouldn't be fair to the party criticised by more than one debater, whoever happens to be criticised, supported or condoned in the debate.

That action would be like ganging up with others like the gangs in the streets, and wouldn't be fair for the lone defender. It would not likely yield true and fair conclusions, and anyone ganging up in the debates are not neutral or genuine debaters. Waiting for 1:1 engagement is my etiquette in debates. I am quite happy to wait, and take things easy and slow. — Corvus

I have no problem being criticized by many. It would be nice of you if we could continue this discussion in another thread since our discussions relate to that thread and your question could be a question from others.

You know philosophical debates not all about proving one is right and the other is wrong, one is better than the others, one knows more than the others etc. That would be pointless psychological masturbation.

Philosophical discussions are for pursuit of fair truths by all parties involved in the discussions motivated by mutual fairness, good spirits and eudaimonia. — Corvus

Correct.

Well, frankly I don't know anything about your experience, hence it would not be meaningful to agree your experience exists. X cannot exist, if X passed and belong to the past, or if X is unknowable. So "MoK's experience exists." would be a meaningless statement to me, unless MoK tells me what the experience is about MoK was meaning.

I know my own experience which need to be conceptualised into linguistic form, if someone wants to hear about it. — Corvus

Yes, let's focus on you. Could we agree that you are an agent and have certain experience?

Since you don't know what Emergence is, you equate it to monism... — DifferentiatingEgg

I know what emergence is and I think we discuss the consequence of accepting that emergence of consciousness from the physical, namely epiphenomenalism. Epiphenomenalism is unavoidable if you accept that the physical move on its own based on the laws of nature and consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Consciousness is a phenomenon and a problem within materialism but it is not a substance. Therefore, even if we accept that one day we can explain the emergence of consciousness and solve the Hard Problem of consciousness, we are still dealing with monism since consciousness is not a substance.

Back to my question now: Accepting that experience is real, how the experience can affect physical?