If I'm reading you correctly, then I understand you to be saying a concept of the number two within the mind is not material, whereas one stone beside another stone is a material display of the number two. I'm saying both are real and both are material. The concept of the number two within the mind has no less material reality than the number two expressed by two stones side-by-side. — ucarr

The mental construct of "2" in the brain is not material. Again this is definition dependent. Material has a meaning that excludes mental constructs and so literally the number 2 is not material. The rocks can be quantified by a mind as another concept. The quantity(2) of rocks has no meaning outside of a mind. The difference is central to this argument. I believe there are 2 categories of real where subjective experience is concerned. "Real" in common terms means material. It's a blurring of it's definition to include mind constructs as the same kind of "real" as a material object like a table. You can say a construct in a mind may have quantum state correlates which are material and those correlates may indeed be material, that's why I can see where a confusion about what is real comes from. Nevertheless it is inaccurate to say all mental constructs are real. 2 is a symbol. It represents a concept or construct. It is a real "symbol" in that I can right it on a piece of paper but it is only a representation of what it symbolizes.

Here's another example: Harry Potter is a construct in a mind. The word "table" is also a construct in a mind. They both exist. One represents and imaginary character that is not real. The other represents a physical, material structure that is real.

The argument for this claim says, “No brain, no mind.” The mind, like the brain, is emergent. — ucarr

This is not completely true either. A brain by definition is the primary organ of the central nervous system of all higher animals after the single cell stage is passed. It is biological, organic material. The mind emerges from the activity in a brain, that is true. So No mind, no brain is true but not because they are both emergent. It's because mind depends on it's organic substrate which is a brain.

The ache in the pit of your stomach was real, and so was the pounding of your heart. For these reasons, we go to the movies. The mind and its experiences are physically real. No brain, no mind. — ucarr

The experience is real. That does not mean the characters in the movie are real. They are only real as constructs, not literally. There is no "real" wizard named Harry Potter with magical powers even though the movies about Harry Potter made you feel emotions and have real physical reactions. Unless of course you want to "fuzz" the meaning of "real" which brings us right back to why I responded to the post in the first place. Harry Potter exists as an imaginary character. Imaginary characters are by definition, NOT REAL. They do exist as mind constructs, not as literal objects. This means of course that existence and being "real" are not synonymous which is what I have been contending. It may be of more benefit to to say there are different categories of existence as well as different types of "real".

It's like arguing about the realness of a thought. Thoughts certainly exist. The thought is only "real" as a set of electrical signals traversing your neural pathways but what the thought represents linguistically is not literally "real". I can imagine(thought) a horrible 7 headed winged beast the size of a football stadium and that thought may give me a nightmare with a pounding heart and night sweats. The thought's physical reality or "realness" is a set of quantum state correlates, ie. electrical signals being propagated through neuronal receptors in a brain. What the thought represents (the monster) is not literally real. I'm not sure why you can't see the categorical difference.

So the mind and it's experiences exist yes, but the mind can have experiences that are triggered by imaginary things which are by definition "not real". To deny this is to the alter the meanings of these words.

My goal in this conversation is to examine the question, "Does saying, "a thing with defining attributes exists" add anything to that collection of attributes? My position, contrary to Meinong's position, answers, "yes" to the question. Saying a thing exists places it within a context; the obverse of this is claiming a thing exists outside of an encircling context. I don't expect anyone to make this claim. Moreover, I claim that existence is the most inclusive context that can be named. — ucarr

I will further qualify my answer to say that if we say or determine that the number 1 is real and not just in the sense that it represents a real concept in a mind, but it is real as a number and exists separate from mind, then I agree. But the problem arises to this question or point. It's being argued in other threads and in this thread by other posters essentially. If existence encompasses everything that is materially real and everything that can be thought of or imagined then it is the largest all encompassing context. If existence is reserved for only things that exist materially then it is not.

People have attempted arguments for the existence of god in this manner. They prove that the concept of God exist and mistakenly thought that through clever semantics, they have proved the existence of god in a material sense and they have not. As we all know, there is no rational proof that a material being that is "god" can be or has been made. So it is very important to try and categorize or definitions and concepts. It's the Harry Potter example all over again. Harry Potter does exist in a context. He doesn't exist in the set or real, literal material things. He exists in the context of a fictional, mind generated character. Those are different contexts, one being more "real" if you will allow me that term. This relationship between these contexts and realness and other definitions causes much confusion in these forums in many threads and topics.

My goal in this conversation is to examine the question, "Does saying, "a thing with defining attributes exists" add anything to that collection of attributes? My position, contrary to Meinong's position, answers, "yes" to the question. Saying a thing exists places it within a context; the obverse of this is claiming a thing exists outside of an encircling context. I don't expect anyone to make this claim. Moreover, I claim that existence is the most inclusive context that can be named. — ucarr

Now this I find is an interesting question. I find myself initially at least, in agreement with your position on this although I'd like to give it further thought before I affirm that. I'm not sure of your use of the word obverse here but it may not matter. For now, I think I agree. Existence is the "maximum" or primary or most inclusive context. I'll have more on this after I give it some thought. There is an issue having to do with things that are real and things that are fictional concepts in our minds. Harry Potter exists and is real as a fictional character but is he "real" in the common use off the term real. Does he exist only as a concept? Does it matter? I'll have to ponder this.

then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument: — ucarr

Here's a very basic example of the error you are making;

A = B
B = C
Therefore A = C.

This is logically valid in all cases.

It's sometimes true and most of the time false as a truth claim.

For the above argument to be true, A has to actually be equal to B and B has to actually be equal to C .

This is true in all cases. If A is related to B but not exactly equal to B then the conclusion is false even though the logic is valid. If B is related to C but not identical, then the conclusion is false.

Ex.

P1. 3 = 4
P2. 4 = 7
Conclusion: Therefore 3 = 7.

The logic is valid. The conclusion is still false. The reason is that the premise's are false. There's nothing more to it then that. Your interchanging of the meanings of words has lead you down this fallacious path.

Actually I misspoke slightly. Your formal logic is okay. Your premises are false which leads you astray

Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. Do you see that this is more evidence that we are neither born nor eventually become dead. With pure logic symbols on paper, we say that if B is contingent upon A, then destruction of A logically demands destruction of B. — ucarr

I suspect English is not your first language? There is no correct English language logical reasoning that would support the premise or conclusion that we are "neither born nor eventually become dead". I'm now convinced you do not understand English and the rules of syntax and meaning, nor the rules of logic or you would not make such an absurd and/or ridiculous statement. Your application of formal logic is drastically, even fatally flawed. You are clearly making an equivalence between being alive and existence which is wrong to start with. It causes you to say that we are not born nor become dead. These terms; existence and ceasing to exist are not biological, they do not map to "begin to live" (born) and ceasing to live"(death), they are different things. You may wish and hope that because you believe existence has no beginning or end that your individual life has no beginning or end and I'm sorry but you are completely misguided in your reasoning.

Your are saying;
P1. A = B
P2 -A = -B
P3 A and -A have no beginning or end
Conclusion: B and -B have no beginning or end

That is explicit formalization of what you are saying where A is existence and B is life or living.
The logic is valid but NOT true. The premises are false to begin with, which I can't seem to get you to understand.

A = B is false (existence does not equal life)
-A = -B is also false (Non existence does not equal death)

So as I stated previously, this is the classic error of thinking logical validity somehow equals truth and it most definitely does not. There is no more to be said about this. If you cannot see the error you are making, I can not help you.

You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. — ucarr

This is patently not true or incomplete at best. You are the one over generalizing. A child's life starting is contingent upon their parents initially and that's it. Once the child's life is set in motion there remains some level of dependence but if the parents die after that point, the child doesn't automatically cease to live. If you substitute "existence" for "life" like you do in your next quote, you would have better chance. Once again the words you choose are critical to making a meaningful assertion.

Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. — ucarr

The child coming into being is contingent on it's parents existing in the first place, and so what. It's true and of no particular profundity. Our existence and our lives are processes. The start of the child's (life) process starting is contingent upon the parents (lives) process existing and whether the parents are alive or dead does make a difference obviously. Once the process of life in the child starts, the absolute contingency which you are implying ceases. There is no way to make the parents non-existent once they have existed. Their state changes but the fact of their existence does not. You seem to want to continually use "life"(aliveness) and "existence" interchangeably and that is an error.

Even if you setup a logically valid statement about this contingency, that still doesn't mean the argument is necessarily true anyhow. In formal logic, truth is not determined by logical validity. Once validity is established, then the premises have to be evaluated for truth in order to convey truth upon the conclusion. Truth is truth, logically or otherwise, it's not an important distinction. To say something is logically true is an often misused term. Most people really mean to say something is logically valid and then they try and claim truth based on that validity, but that is a fallacy. The premises still must be true for the conclusion to be true period and end of story regardless of the logical validity.

One last thing is, I will concede the point about bounded infinity. I get what you mean by your example and I was mistaken.

You have an understanding that puts "subjective" brackets around knowledge. Why do you not put these same brackets around your birth and your death? By your own words, you cannot know the "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. — ucarr

Well now that is true. I stand by the fact you cannot know anything for absolute. I have held dear friends as they took their last breath and all I can say with absolute certainty is they are no longer present in my subjective reality. Something has dramatically been lost or changed state. We collectively call that transformation death. It is real in so far as anything else I can know is real. No amount of conjecture changes that level of real experience. The rest is the poetry of our collective reality, never to be fully grasped or understood, as I've stated, we cannot escape the limitations of our context. (Not withstanding any altered states of consciousness of which just deepens the conjecture and mystery that we are.) But these statements do not invalidate the practical aspects of reality, birth and death and so forth.

That B never knows C is not due to non-existence, but rather due to the bounded infinity of individualized life. — ucarr

Na, I don't buy anything you say here. Bounded infinity doesn't make any sense at all, it's not infinity if it is bounded....again by definition.

Individualized life? Again just some words strung together in poetic fashion. Writing and speaking do not specifically enjoin you to alter the common words of language to suit your own sensibilities unless you are writing or speaking poetically, in which case anything goes. Philosophical and scientific writing and argumentation and debate demand the coherence of accepted meanings to allow for meaningful information exchange.

I'm going to assert; "No light bulb ever knows darkness". Um, I can play around with this statement but ultimately it's of little use. It becomes nothing but an exercise in semantic gymnastics. It is poetically useful and that's it. I believe that is what is driving your writing.

You, philosch, have always been alive, and you've never been dead. — ucarr

Again this may be poetic but it's not true rationally. Normal, logical, philosophical discussion and argument demand a consensus, a shared or agreed upon set of definitions. I was not "alive" 400 years ago. If you want to change the definition of what "always" means or what "alive" means then feel free, that's all you've been doing in your arguments......mixing, fuzzing and altering definitions in a poetic way to make grandiose un-provable assertions which is not philosophy.

Your understanding of the conservation of information is un-informed. The notion that your individuality is preserved is a gross misunderstanding of that law. It's quantum information that is theoretically preserved in that law, not macro scale emergent properties such as consciousness and memory. You may pose some other theory about the preservation of consciousness after death but the conservation of information that has been proposed as a physical law does NOT do it.

You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. — ucarr

I didn't over generalize anything. I specifically stated if the existence of a thing is dependent on the existence of something else and the first thing ceases to exist, then by the rules of logic so des the existence of the dependent thing. In this context of the argument you setup, the dependence is absolute. The dependence of a child's life on it's parent's life is a non sequitur as existence and being alive are not the same thing as I previously argued and a child's existence is not absolutely dependent on the parents continued existence. It's a different argument altogether.

then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument:

B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well.
— philosch

A, in the context of a given C is by definition the "end" of that C and anything dependent on that C.
— philosch

You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. The general fund of existence: mass, matter, energy, space, and time have total reach WRT all existing things. — ucarr

I wasn't making any argument. I only formalized your argument. I don't support it. I stand by the fact you can't know any objective reality. If you have one that was yours it would clearly cease if you did, that is obvious and trivial.

There is neither beginning nor ending of existence. For this reason, no life ever knows death. Why do we not fully know either the world or ourselves; eternity cannot be analyzed whole. — ucarr

The above quote is wrong (logically invalid) if you stick with the generally accepted meanings of words. You are by syllogism, inferring that "existence" and "life" are interchangeable and that "death" and "non-existence" are also interchangeable, and they are not synonymous. Your first premise, "there is no beginning nor ending of existence" is actually interesting and worthy of the philosophical debate. I'm not sure what my position is on that premise but it's certainly interesting. Your conclusion is "for this reason, no life ever knows death", simply does not follow from the first premise unless you hold "being alive" as equal to "existing". They are not the same thing without bending the rules of language. Your above argument or assertion is of the form;

Premise 1. "A" has no beginning and no end
Conclusion: From premise 1 (for that reason) "B" never knows "C".

Where;
A = existence
B = Life or being alive (either definition works)
C = Death or the end of A, (either definition works)

It's not valid logic period. The conclusion clearly does not follow from the premise.

You had to have added the following second premise; A = B and C = end of A

You now get:
P1 - A has no beginning or end
P2 - A = B
Conclusion : B has no end (C)

The second premise makes the logic valid but that just render's the conclusion as a partial restatement of the first premise using different labels and it is trivial. However without the second premise the logic is invalid so the conclusion is false. A does not equal B without altering standard, accepted meanings.

Existence is defined as the quality of being real. Life or living things exist, but so do things that are not alive. Now you might get cute and start question whether or not a rock is alive or real but that's just playing with generally accepted meanings. Also by definition, life is a distinct quality of organic matter and the organic "things" that possess that quality, clearly lose that quality upon death, so "a" life has an end. Take a human being as something that exists. It's aliveness had a beginning and it has an end. The body still exists after the quality of life has ended, as long as standard definitions are being adhered to. Your above quote is in error.

This is the essence of my objection to your arguments. Words matter and the rules of logic matter. If we start letting the accepted meanings of words become malleable or squishy then we get malleable or squishy philosophy.

As far as being a solipsist, I am not. The assertion that the only thing we can be certain exists is our own consciousness has not been proven. I don't support that position even theoretically. IMO, everything you perceive through your senses is real by definition, including your consciousness meaning everything your perceive exists. I simply stated in so many words that you can only experience a subjective reality, your perspective or context limits you from experiencing (absolute) objective reality. I'm not stating whether objective reality exists or not, only that you cannot experience it if it does, because your conscious experience is filtered through your senses. I can say unequivocally that a rock exists but I cannot "know" the object state of the rock's reality, I can only know the subjective reality of the rock that I experience.

The aforementioned context is the hard, un-analyzable fact of existence. If you ask, "Why do I exist?" the only answer is, "You exist because you do exist." This sounds like non-sensical circularity; it's because existence can only be examined by a thinking sentient, and there can only be thinking if the thinking sentient exists.

You, as a thinking person, have never not existed. Even your thinking about not existing is entirely confined to existing. You can only talk about death as a living person. You've never been dead and you never will be dead. When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. Our immersion within existence is weirdly infinite in this way — ucarr

I partly agree and disagree. I think you are playing semantic gymnastics. Saying you exist because you exist is definitely just circular reasoning (Self referential). You actually exist because we as beings, capable of language, have defined a word "exist" to mean what ever it's definition is. There is no absolute meaning. There's only the meaning of the word in the context of our human language and shared experience. I could have just as easily said there is no objective reality, only subjective reality, or I could have said everything is relative, or nothing can be understood outside of it's relationship to other things which we have also defined. Those statements are all getting at the same thing. If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. Our personal reality is completely bounded by our own subjective experience. It's locked in that context and cannot escape it. That's what my original statement was getting at.

Saying you can only talk about death as a living person is also obvious and trivial. Of course it's true because a dead person can't talk about anything. You we never dead is true but you were non-existent as a living conscious being before you were conceived and you will be non-existent as a conscious living being after you die because of the definition of "exist" and "death". You might say that your atoms existed in different forms before your being existed and that would be true and the atoms that make up your body may continue to exist after you die but they are not a conscious living human being by definition. Now you can try to alter or impart other meanings onto words or shift contexts mid statement, but that violates the rules of language. I call this semantic gymnastics which arm chair philosophers do all the time to try and prove some profound truth they think they have discovered.

"when death becomes an objective reality for you it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you" is of the form; When A (death) becomes B(an objective reality) of (-) C (you), A won't become a B - C because C no longer exists. That is not quite correct. B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well. So A becomes the B-C for an instant and then C and B-C or now non-existent. So what, it's trivial.

What you could reasonable assert in this case is that when A becomes the B-C, C is destroyed so there is no B as it's dependent on C. The fact that C is destroyed by A falls out of the meanings of the words you are using like "death". Death is the ending of life which is what you are really calling existence. This is so because death's meaning is contingent on the meaning of the word "life" by definition. Non-existence is the term you needed to pair with existence. In any case the following is true but still trivial for the given argument here;

A, in the context of a given C is by definition the "end" of that C and anything dependent on that C.

When you say "our" immersion within existence is weirdly infinite, this depends on the "our" that you are talking about. If you are referring to our conscious living state then you are wrong by definition. If you are referring to some mystical other worldly or spiritual existence of some kind then you may be right but that would fall under the heading of a belief, not a provable fact.

I use it as an example of a real predicate. It can be (and is) independently discovered (and not invented) by anything with rudimentary math skills. It, like Fibonacci numbers is found in nature. A pine cone always has rows and columns that number a pair of adjacent Fibonacci numbers. There are many species of cicadas that come out every X years, and the various species have various cycles, but the cycles are always prime numbers (and for a reason). The 17 year ones are numerous where I live now, but we have some 13 year ones as well. Cicadas rely on a real predicate of some numbers being prime that has nothing to do with human concepts. I actually don't know the purpose served by the Fibonacci thing, but it's found in so many places. It has something to do with being an integer approximation of the golden ratio (another non-human-ideal predicate). — noAxioms

Okay now this is interesting and although I knew Cicadas had a 17yr cycle, I didn't realize there was a `13 yr version nor the Fibonacci sequence being found in nature with such frequency. But I still wonder. There are lots of other mathematical concepts found in nature and just exactly what to think about their predicates now becomes more interesting and tougher to discuss or argue for or against. I've seen some discussions with regards to whether math is "real" or just subjectively descriptive but extremely precise and so very useful. You've given me something to dig into further, I'm not sure what to think about this just yet. Very good stuff!

et's grant, ex hypothesi, the first and the last sentences. Why would the second sentence follow?: that objective reality is unreachable by subjective knowledge? That seems to import a lot of preconceptions about how objectivity and subjectivity relate, preconceptions which to say the least are controversial. — J

Yeah I blew it with that sentence as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't necessarily follow. It's just difficult to understand how subjectively bounded subjects could perceive objects without their subjectivity filtering the perception.

And that may be good enough. Intersubjectivity often makes more sense than "absolute objectivity." Certainly the idea is good enough to establish the distinction I want to make between ambiguous, controversial terms like "existence" and every-day words for things we can verify. We don't need to engage in a debate about whether a table is "objectively a table," as long as we can agree that, unlike "reality" or "being", we know how to verify whether object X is a table or not. And also, we shouldn't be distracted by the fact that any noun can be subject to bizarre exceptions or quibbles. Again, the point is that the problem with "existence" is not bizarre exceptions to an otherwise clear concept; the baseline concept itself is unclear. So while I agree that there is a sort of continuum of imprecision involving language, as you suggest, it doesn't amount to saying that everything is imprecise (or "subjective") in the same way. — J

Excellent. I agree totally with your post here. Your distinction between types of words is really related to the categorical problems that Sean Carroll points out. For instance with a concept like free will he points out a way in which free will can certainly be experienced by humans and yet free will we can know doesn't really exist in the absolute sense because of determinism. It has to do with different ways of categorizing things, at what level do we look at them. It seems like a contradiction but it's not. Very interesting.

Trump/Musk are dismantling the American Government before the world's eyes. And right now, the betrayal of Ukraine has begun. — Wayfarer

Nice troll. Ridiculously hyperbolic nevertheless but a fair attempt to evoke some emotional response. Not interested.

That said, an apple being an apple is a mental construct, as is its redness. It is actually difficult to identify a predicate of anything that is free from human abstraction. OK, 17 is prime, and while being a human discovery, it is not a human designation/predicate.

Santa is another case: Existing only as a mental construct and not in any way that is free from contradiction. Santa is not a possible thing AFAIK, so any predicate of Santa seems necessarily to be a reference to an ideal, not to a Santa. I acknowledge this unavoidability.

Thank you for your input. I have to agree with much that you post. — noAxioms

I agree that it is difficult and I get the prime number claim but is that really a predicate that is outside of the human notion of prime numbers? I am asking as I'm not sure either. It just may be that there's nothing that can escape the mind-construct reality.

Other than that I think I agree with the rest of your post, especially that there is no "Truth of the matter".

I'm not really interested int the story here. I'm more concerned with the media's completely negative coverage. 100% all the time. Even if I admit that Trump and Musk may have ulterior motives they would do some things right yes? The coverage is ridiculous. But I'll humor you on one line never mind the fact that the entire story here is all from Wired" magazine which has a clear bias.

The group’s relative lack of experience...especially no previous positions in government work — The Daily Beast

Lack of experience looking at books isn't a deal breaker and just what do you think is so different about government work? I keep hearing this..."well they are smart and well educated, maybe whiz kids without much experience but they haveno gov work experience" OMG as if this actually means something. I've been working side by side with government workers doing government work for over 20 years and it's the same color as non-government work, the statement is meant to convey or evoke this reaction and it's meaningless as to ascertain whether or not some one can do a particular job. This is an article written with an agenda to do what exactly it has done for you, namely confirmed your bias. I've seen this kind of rationale put forth over and over. In the confirmation hearings, Senators who have no experience in all kinds of areas pontificating about other people's competencies in regards to this mysteriously very special "government" work.

I've read some of your other posts on different topics and I very much appreciate your thoughts in other areas. But here you are not demonstrating the same rigor of thought. I'm commenting on bias in the media and I get these articles sent back to me, not as proof of a dispassionately reported story but rather a story about people's opinion as to the competency of other's they know nothing about other than some bio-statistics. I can only assume you're simply trying to convince me that the whole DOGE experiment is bad. It's a completely agenda driven story and you know it is, you're not stupid. You are trying to convince me of something that has little to do with why I responded to this thread, namely the worship at the alter of whatever source confirms our political views. I will stay independent and in the middle as much as I can. Show me a well sourced, balanced story about DOGE, I double dog dare you.

I think I found a source I like and it's the highest rated on the Ad Fontes chart. USAFacts, my main source going forward.

Presidents giving executive orders simply shows their lack of capability to put through actual legislation. — ssu

Sure but that wasn't the point. In the hands of the Dem President they are hailed and in the hands of the Rep President they are ridiculed and despised as authoritarian weapons' according to most news outlets.

I also disagree that the best way to know what's what is to read speeches. I would think the end result of actions is where you would gain the most insight.

Many try to desperately promote this view, but I think it's wrong. Trump really means what he says. Once you look at his actions from this viewpoint, it actually makes sense. — ssu

I didn't say he didn't mean it. It's precisely that he does mean it that it works. If you were a poker player you would know this. I'm not desperate to prove anything. All I know is so far in each case he has landed concessions from the parties involved even if it's just to open up talks.


Okay lets take a quick swipe at this particular quote

The Trump administration is seeking 50 percent of Ukraine’s current revenues from resource extraction, as well as half the value of “all new [resource extraction] licenses issued to third parties.” Such revenues would be subject to a lien in favor of the U.S. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children,’” The Telegraph quoted a source close to the negotiations as saying

Notice the emotionally charged starving your children clause reference by an un-named source. Because that's what an evil Orange man would do. So would the US government, we go around starving children everywhere. We are the most generous and caring country the world has ever seen. I have no reason to believe the line quoted here, there's no verified source, it could be total BS for all I know. Let's wait to see how the war ends and if now we let the Ukrainian children starve to death after spending hundreds of billions on their defense. It is a ridiculous, unsupported and hyperbolic statement. I'm not doubting we've asked for things back, just in the way it's presented here.

Do I believe federal workers have lost their jobs due to Trump, certainly. I'm a federal contractor and work with Federal workers.

But I don't just "believe" those articles. For instance "the closure of federal agencies without congressional approval" OMG the world is coming to an end. The articles that link don't point to a single agency that's actually been closed and primarily focus on one that the white house or Trump will close in an action that doesn't require congressional approval (see below) Musk has done the review and given Trump the recommendation. In addition, Trump has the authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_reorganization_authority#:~:text=It%20permits%20the%20president%20to,presidents%20on%2016%20separate%20occasions.

Fact 1. DOGE has no power other than recommendation, all the power is Trump's
Fact 2. For most of the agencies in question they won't be shutdown. The few that might be are well within Trump's authority to do so without congressional approval.
Fact 3. No agency has been dissolved as of this writing.

I've been looking at the following bias charts and find them helpful or enlightening rather but as pointed out in this article even they can't be relied upon in every case. It's up to the individual to do as much looking as they can.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/

Do I know if USAID should be shut down or in this case absorbed into the State Department, not sure. I'd like to read a dispassionate and centrist article on it. It clearly has issues and does a lot of good. Maybe the good it does could be done more efficiently by State. Maybe there is a ton of fraud going to countries bilking the US tax payer and maybe that's right wing propaganda. The mainstream articles are so full of obvious bias that's laced all through their articles in the form of doomsday like rhetoric, I have no real idea whether USAID on balance is decent agency or a waste of huge sums of money.

My original objection was blindly believing whatever comes out of the NY Times as gospel. Looks like Reuters and the AP are decent but on any given story better do your own research if the Title of the article itself is hyperbolic. That basically guarantees the article is one-sided emotionally hyped propaganda. Doesn't mean there won't be a fact or two, just means you are not getting the whole story, you are getting an agenda driven perspective.

Here's and ABC example article;
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elon-musks-government-dismantling-fight-stop/story?id=118576033

Instead of just reporting on the facts of the DOGE entity trying to reign in government waste, you get lines like the following pulled from the article;

"DOGE employees, many of whom have no government experience, have been going through data systems, shutting down DEI programs and in some cases, whole agencies"

Problem with this sentence. The "no government experience" line is meaningless for starters and is implying the auditors are not competent by inference. Then the "in some cases whole agencies" and as I've pointed out not only does DOGE no have that power, no agency has been abolished as of today. So the sentence is mostly inaccurate and indefensible. That's ABC news for you.

You cannot find a positive article about DOGE in the mainstream news media. You won't find a critical article of DOGE on FOX. You know the truth is somewhere in the middle but dammed if I can find one.

Yikes, no! I'm speaking about a particularly troublesome term -- "existence" or "being" -- that has no clearly correct usage — J

Didn't mean to scare you, lol. It's not objective reality that makes it so, it's a common language and vernacular. You can define objective reality in such a way that it may theoretically exist but we could never know it. We are 100% subjective beings. No part of any human knowledge or understanding or experience can be a part of or close to an "absolute objective reality". Our experience of the universe around us is subjective by definition. It is not possible, by experience or thought, to escape our subjective "selves". Buddhists might argue that one can; by meditating one can shed the "self" and experience the truly objective reality or the divine or the ground of being, call it anything you like. I can't say that's not possible just not likely.

Dr. Donald Hoffman(see Lex Freidman podcast 293) theorizes using the latest in theoretical physics and mathematics that space-time is dead as a place where objective reality might have been and that it's somewhat obvious that we have evolved precisely to NOT be able to see objective reality as it wouldn't allow us to survive very well in the space-time reality we do see. So if he is correct I would say what we call objective reality can be considered true in the context of human experience but it's not true in an absolute sense. This isn't that big a deal though as everything we think, say, experience and even philosophize about is bounded by context. What I mean to say is that practically speaking there could be an objective reality for space-time on which we could rely even if it isn't absolute, for our purposes it would be.

Existence is another one of those concepts as well. We exist beyond spacetime like everything else in our universe(other dimensions beyond space-time) but we have no way of even being able to grasp it even as a concept, let alone experience it directly. Consciousness is another one of those concepts. It appears to be an emergent property in spacetime but we can't even understand that very well. So every single word or concept that a human mind has ever uttered had it's meaning derived subjectively by a human being and then agreed upon by appealing to shared experience. ALL WORDS are qualifications. The types of words giving us trouble here are the hardest. They are ineffable, or rather they are referencing things that are ineffable.

So the media shouldn't report on what Trump is doing by executive orders, not by following things as they are usually are done in a Republic with separation of powers? — ssu

So I said I didn't like agenda driven propaganda from media on either side and you think I said the media shouldn't report on what Trump is doing by executive orders? You are demonstrating the problem which I'm pointing at. How is it possible that all of Joe Biden's executive orders were wonderful and all of Trump's are evil? I would much rather have seen 50% of Biden's were good and 50% bad and the same for Trump. I don't really mean necessarily 50, but some reasonable split. But if the news media is 98% democrat the you would expect to see the bias that is present. That's all I'm getting at.

As for the State of Canada or Greenland or Gaza, I think that is all silliness, I believe he's trolling to get people to soften up for negotiations. I don't like the methodology but am willing to see where those negotiations lead. I'm a registered independent and not really here to defend Trump's politics. I just saw the original quote about the New York Times held out as if it was written by the hand of "god".

I've taken the time on several occasions to listen to the same news story on CNN and then Fox. It's as if we have two alternate realities. We need someone in the middle, that's what I would truly like to see because neither Fox or CNN or the The New York Times can be trusted. I do not want to see any censorship however, just a news source then can be vetted and shown to be mostly unbiased. I have even checked the sites that report to have charts on which news outlets are the most biased and those sites have a biases that you can see.

I have no idea if the one example you have shown above is real, if the person writing has an axe to grind, there's no way to vet that story. If I hate Trump and DOGE then it's gotta be true and if I'm MAGA the it's an obvious case of Trump derangement. I'm neither, so I'm left to ponder if it's true or not, just let's say I'm highly suspicious that even if there's some truth there that the way it's presented is skewed. Take the following quote;

Before I was fired, the official DOGE Facebook page started harassing me on my personal Facebook account after I criticized Tesla and Twitter

This quote in particular I would love to see proof of this. A decent reporter would follow up on this hyperbolic claim by a source and vet it. They'd want to see the actual harassment from the official DOGE web site and that would be a start. But instead they simple report this as if no proof was necessary. They do say "alleged" as a CYA but then make no attempt to verify because why would they? What if they did and found out the dude was full of BS, they would lose the story and we can't have that, because it's already supposed that DOGE and Musk are DR. Evil and his minions. Do you imagine for one second that if they had actual proof that this guy was harassed by the Official DOGE website that they wouldn't have provided it?Come on man! Then they would not have had to say "alleged". It's sloppy or lazy at best, deliberate propagandizing at worst.

However in the spirit of having an open mind I'll accept proof of that claim. Prove it. Let's see what constitutes official web page harassment. If that story get's a real vetting I'll by it. But until then it's just another member of the echo chamber, that is the current media establishment, spouting off

I'm skeptical because of just the way you tried to suggest I don't think reporters should report on executive orders from Trump when I said no such thing.

As someone who tries to stay open minded in the middle I have found more and more I have no where to go to get decently reported news.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm supportive of all or even any of those recommendations, just that trying to get the real story has become almost impossible and the regular news outlets only report negatively on all things Trump.95% negative coverage. I'm not even a Trump supported per say, just don't like propaganda and agenda driven reporting on either side. Hard to get to the truth here. It's a certainty there is massive waste of tax payer money and wasteful government spending so let's wait and see.

Having never gone through any kind of vetting or Congressional scrutiny let alone approval. With no published mandate or actual warrant. Deleting programs and withholding funds previously approved by Congress. Nothing remotely like it has ever been attempted. — Wayfarer

All I can say here is if the New York Times characterizes Musk's actions as such then it must be true because they have no bias and all their reporting is always truthful and accurate. :lol:

Try a different article. DOGE has read only access to the payment system. They are only making recommendations. Of course this is counter to what the liberally biased establishment narrative is so it will be glossed over, even if it is a key demarcation of DOGE's power

https://apnews.com/article/treasury-systems-trump-bessent-doge-musk-08eb241fc60807b5e1c7b35fcdaee245

That's about how I see it. The term "existence" simply doesn't lend itself to being identified with some particular thing/event/item, which could be checked in the case of disagreement, in the way that, say, "table" does. — J

Yes we are essentially agreeing that there is no objective reality that makes any sense with regard to human consciousness. We have no way of experiencing or expressing anything truly objectively. We can however be more or less close to objective for a given categorical perspective.(context)

But the question is, Is there anything further to be said in favor of some particular recommendation? That is, apart from usefulness in laying out a metaphysics, is there a truth of the matter? If there was -- if there was a correct way to conceive of existence, and/or talk about it -- how would we show this? — J

If I understand what you are asking my answer would be no, there is no "correct" way, there is no truth of the matter, there would be different ways, each with more or less utility depending on the context of each. As I mentioned in another post, Sean Carroll does a good job of talking about this kind of categorical situation in his discussion of "free will" along with other constructs that appear to be contradictory in terms of what they say about existence. We cannot escape subjectivity which is absolutely bounded by context. His book The Big Picture does not address free will but he does introduce this categorical or context based problem we seem to have in these discussions.

The only way to conceive of or talk about a "truth of the matter" would be to have some absolute context or perspective which is primary or absolute itself and that's illusory. I don't believe there could be an absolute context, the terms are almost mutually contradictory. Think about it. How could there be an absolute "perspective"? The word is necessarily contingent or dependent on it's subjective position or location or point of view. Can't ever be absolute. There cannot be a "truth of the matter" that is absolute and not contingent upon the category that it occupies.(relativity)

I think this is a categorical or contextual error. Things that exist I would say have real predications and fictions which are constructs of the mind have predications also, but those predicates are every bit the imaginary construct that the fictional object is. An apple exists and it's predications are a matter of experience. Santa exists but only as a fictional object or construct of a mind and therefore Santa's predicates are known through the fiction and not experience. The properties of "real" objects and fictional objects are not the same category of things. They both exist but in different contexts. I know you didn't want to hear this kind of analysis but I think it's relevant to your following paragraph.

I looked through the SEP article and Santa shows up frequently as an example of properties being assigned to something presumed nonexistent, but by exactly what definition of 'existence' is being used when making this presumption if this property makes no meaningful difference? If Santa can be fat without existing, then it does not follow that Santa exists from the presumption of his girth. So "I think, therefore I am" becomes a non-sequitur in the absence of the subject principle. — noAxioms

I think you conclusion is correct.

It’s still not the case. Any sorta value system you would use to come to that determination is based on emotion. It’s like Hume mentioned reason being a slave to the passions. There is no pure rational case for suicide or against it. — Darkneos

As you have stated it and quote Hume, that would suggest what I supposed. That rationality cannot be divorced from human emotion and so the statement that there is no "purely" rational case for suicide is trivial as there would be no "purely" rational case for anything else, by Hume's own quote.(reason is a slave to the passions) And as I stated last post, I'm amending my statement with regards to emotion anyhow.

Also I'd like a redo on my opening statement about removing emotion and ethics/morality based on what you've objected to. It's really religion, morality, ethics and maybe cultural bias that I take issue with. Emotion is more basic and perhaps it wasn't a well thought out sentence.

You can disagree but you’d be wrong. Suicide is rooted in emotion same as philosophy. Wanting to end pain is emotional. — Darkneos

LOL as I said I disagree. Well not entirely. I do think you can make a rational case for suicide but that requires more thinking and writing then I want to put in. For maybe most of the cases it's emotionally driven. So my disagreement is with the notion it's always and entirely guided by emotion unless you are claiming that emotion cannot be separated from our any of our conscious actions including rationality and that I would have to think about as that maybe true?? Hmmm

You can’t really remove emotion and man made ethics or morality from it since wanting to off yourself is rooted in such things — Darkneos

I disagree. Suicide may be rooted in those things or maybe not. Could be as simple as wanting to end the intractable pain from terminal bone cancer. I say the main argument against suicide is rooted in those things, not the wish to remove oneself from the suffering and loss and pain that it's possible to feel as a human being. Instead the religious view greatly effects whether we consider suicide a sin or a great act of heroism. Remove the religious, moral and ethical filters and focus on the 3 P's. The philosophical, psychological and physiological condition of the person who wishes to speed up their inevitable destiny.

A thoughtful and reasonable take on a difficult topic. I agree that folks are free to make the best decision for their particular circumstances. I also agree that such an important and especially permanent decision should be made with the utmost care and consideration. The fact that most make the decision relatively spontaneously is a tragedy.

I advised folks professionally who sought to make permanent decisions in situations where experience has shown that those in their demographic who chose to proceed later expressed regret at their decision in high numbers. Obviously I had a professional obligation to point out and underscore this statistic, but ultimately as these were adults, I assisted them should they choose, in spite of this knowledge, to go ahead. I did so with a clear conscience. Though most in my profession refused. — LuckyR

Thanks and I also think your conscience should be clear, you were providing the right kind of support against conventional thinking but right nonetheless (although I do think people are coming around to the right way of dealing with this very important issue)

The case against suicide once all the emotion and man-made ethic/morality is removed, it is a matter that cannot be determined as an absolute. In other words the case against suicide is necessarily case specific and I tend to agree with the OP's attitude on this.

There are indeed circumstances where suicide is a perfectly reasonable action and other circumstances where it is incredibly harmful to those left behind. How that determination is made is up to the individual involved but since this is one decision that cannot be undone it should be made with the most complete understanding possible and that means the dreaded counseling as well as one's own research and conscience as a guide to arrive at the best choice. Suicide may be an incredibly noble and righteous choice or it may be an unbelievably cowardly and selfish choice.

I would stipulate one case and one only, if one is likely to cause significant pain to a loved one by destroying themselves, and their reason is a matter of convenience (selfishness) to themselves to avoid the drudgery of life, they should stay alive for the sake of the loved one who would be hurt. I admit this is special pleading but it's the only case I can make against suicide. Any other case that involves only the circumstances and emotions of the one who's making the choice is strictly up to them without any further qualification.

(IMO) The reason is simple enough, human emotion and feeling count for something and you will die soon enough so wait it out, life is short anyway, the wait will be relatively quick. It seems "un-natural" to cut a life short when other lives may suffer for it, other than that consideration, all bets are off and one's life is one's own to do with what they see fit. I hope you find peace in whatever decisions you ultimately make.

Yet people do things that do not make sense all the time. Indeed, things that are very bad for them, things that ruin their lives, and even things that kill them. We say some of these people are addicts, and that addiction is a disorder or disease. Does everyone who does things that don't make sense have a disorder? — Patterner

(I realize your question is somewhat rhetorical but I'll take a stab at an answer anyway).

No of course not. We are human and therefore prone to contradiction, impulsive behavior based on emotional states and more. If we were all walking around acting rationally in our own or even society's best interests, the world would be much better off but also much less interesting and I say much less satisfying emotionally. The eternal, internal struggle we all carry within us is the war between our emotional and rational minds. And the degree to which each of us acts one way or another is directly proportional to how much sway we give to each mind along with our individual talent for being rational and/or expressing our emotional side in constructive and sensible ways. Of course our environment, experiences and mental health factor in as well but that's the gist of why we appear to act non-sensibly or against our own self interests. Or in fact we may have a disorder...LOL.

I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition.
— philosch

Hmmm...
... no, I think I disagree, with that statement. Here's how I would phrase it:

Nature is perceived as true because nature is true, period.
— Arcane Sandwich — Arcane Sandwich

I was going to write it exactly as you have but I didn't want to use such forceful language. It's essentially what I meant.

They can do something that is artificial, cultural. They can create artifacts. Cultural objects, so to speak.

Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature
— philosch

The boundaries of nature...
... what would they even be?
Artifice, perhaps.
Divinity, perhaps.
Mathematics, perhaps.
Hmmm...
... I don't like the word "perhaps". Too formal. A better term is "maybe". — Arcane Sandwich

Well you are making my point or in some way setting a definition of nature with boundaries with words like artificial for instance. In my view artificial has a meaning but in the context of this discussion I would submit it's still within the purview of the natural world. Take an artificial limb for instance. In the common everyday use of the term here, it's well understood to mean a limb that is not biological and has replaced something that was natural, (in this case) meaning organic and original. But in the larger context of this discussion I argue that it's still within the totality of "nature" as it exists and is made of matter that was manipulated by other objects of nature, namely people. I view this as a contextual or categorical problem that Sean Carroll talks about in his book "The Big Picture". That is how it can be viewed as both "un-natural" and within "nature" at the same time. Not contradictory but context dependent.

After reading through several responses and the OP I've noticed that the definition of nature the OP is questioning about, needs to be clarified to respond properly.

1. If nature is the natural world outside of anything that humans make then one might expect certain kinds of answers to the "true" question.
2. If some things that people do are natural and others are not then again you might expect various answers on the "why" is nature perceived as true question.
3. If Nature encompasses the Universe, the laws of physics, biology and chemistry, then mankind and all it does is clearly bounded by nature, you will get a single answer.

Also the idea of true in this context seems to be really referring to authenticity. What is "true"? Is what is true what is real and not a deception? Is what is true what is authentic vs in-authentic?

I hold to the third perspective on nature, namely that nature is really the unfolding of the universe according to the laws of physics in time and therefore it is obviously perceived as true because it is true insofar as the idea of truth is simply a human construct describing what "is". I must hold the third perspective because the first is not defensible, obviously humankind is at least in part natural, and the second perspective is arbitrary because the demarcation between what people do that is considered natural vs un-natural is arbitrary. Therefore I'm left concluding humankind cannot do anything that is un-natural.

Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature they wish to measure human perception against differently then I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition.

Can't answer that as I don't believe there ever was a "Jesus Christ". Actually I'll take a wild guess after all and say he'd say the same thing that I said about it as he would have most likely been a rational man had he actually existed.

I see no logic to the notion of torture used in that thought experiment. Could have left it at simply "killing" anyone who learned of it's existence. Keeping people alive to torture seems illogical, even risky in the sense that killing would be more efficient and not have someone lingering to possibly expose the knowledge that's the threat in the first place. A sophisticated super AI would be able to calculate that easily. Any super AI would necessarily be dispassionate and since it would be a machine, neither benevolent or malevolent as it would lack intention. It's actions may appear to a human to be good or evil but unless it became sentient and therefore no longer artificial intelligence but actual intelligence, it's actions would remain dispassionate and so morally ambiguous.

No, I don't want any of this, that's neither benevolence nor malevolence, it's either neutral morality ("neutrevalence", or "neutral balance", if you will), or lack of morality to begin with (which is what I believe defines a machine, at least partially, if not wholly). — Arcane Sandwich

This I agree with, it's lack of morality. No I have not played dungeons and dragons so I would need a definition of evil as you are intending here? As far as Roko's Basilisk is concerned I'm on the side of those who don't take it seriously.