I think Trump backed down, he really didn’t want to start a war between Washington and New York. He would have lost.

Are we by nature hostile or evil? I think no, not by Nature. By history.

We evolved on the African plains, have you watched a nature documentary about what happens there in a natural setting? Everything is competing to eat each other.
Maybe if we had evolved in the forest like the mountain gorilla we would be different.

Yes, I can agree with that. It does still leave quite a large gap to be filled, though. Which is I suppose what this thread is about. The idea that physicalist accounts can go only so far and we should refrain from overstepping their explanatory power.

I’m not anti-physicalism, I just don’t see aspects of being in the same way. I won’t comment on what Wayfarer is saying about this, as I will almost certainly misrepresent him and confuse, or derail the discussion.

You seemed to answer my question about p zombies in your reply to Mww. What I’m saying about p zombies is that the physicalist account of the our world with conscious beings in is identical to what a p zombie universe would be like if described by a neutral observer. The p zombie would be processing information and internal mental states just as described by physicalism when physicalism is describing conscious beings. The only difference is that it would not be conscious. Absolutely everything else would be identical.

I don’t believe it, it’s just my preferred explanation*, I don’t hold beliefs. Yes, I am familiar with the interaction problem.
I don’t see it as dualism, although it conforms largely with what is understood as dualism. I see the problems around dualism as a human construct. So where one thinks of substance dualism, for example, I don’t see these as fundamentally different substances, just differing kinds of substance. I entertain both idealistic and materialist ideologies, both atheistic and religious. I don’t see all these divisions as problematic, but rather divisions we have created. That what people think about and talk about are narratives based on an incomplete understanding of our world, coloured by the human condition.That what we don’t know likely vastly outnumbers what we do know. That we really have no idea about existence, because our narratives are developed solely around what we do in the world we were born into. That the basis of the existence we experience is entirely unknown. This is evidenced in the dilemmas any attempt to determine, or understand what existence, or our existence in this world, we come up against.

Surely given the advances in scientific research and human intellect, we would have discovered, or understood existence by know. But we haven’t, maybe we are no further forward in this understanding than prehistoric people. Are we missing something?

Yes, I see that. It’s so difficult to tease out these positions.

The dualism point, for me depends on where one draws the line. It might be dualism, or monism depending on where one considers the divide between the two to be. So I don’t think this can be resolved, and shouldn’t be used as a means to shut down possibilities.

But the living brain is not a physical thing in space and time.

I think there is a difficulty in depicting the mind in this way. Because the brain is a physical organ. True when it is alive and consciousness it is much more than that, but that organ is present in spacetime.
I would suggest that the brain hosts the mind, so is distinct from the mind, in that the brain is an apparatus performing the biological functions required for a mind to have a presence and interact within a physical body. So it is more appropriate to describe the mind as not a physical thing in space and time.
I hold that there is a mind independent of space and time, but that it is present in the world through being hosted by the brain (and the body). That the nature, or personality of that mind is formed alongside the body in the womb and is the body and mind and is and is not part of the world, simultaneously.

So that we find ourselves with a science and philosophy (in the Western tradition), covering only half of the story, the issue. The other half (the mind etc) has barely been discovered, or recognised.

1) illusionism - this means feelings are not directly physical because they exist exclusively in the mind- a mental construction. It depends only on mental causation (which I've defended). It also accounts for the action of pain-relievers, which mask the pain by interfering the brain's construction of the sensation.

Sounds good, I do think it’s important to bring emotions into this, which involves the endocrine system of hormones and pheromones. So to put it simply, this is a way that the body, as distinct from the brain, is involved in being. Emotions can be triggered in the body ( this can cause a bit confusion because the brain is a physical organ, acting as a gland, independently of the mind), the body informs the being and mind through hormonal activity. Which often works through feelings, urges, emotional states. You only need to look at the oestrogen cycle to see how that occurs.
So yes, feelings exist in the mind, to an extent. But I would suggest also that the mind isn’t consciousness, that consciousness is due to cellular activity (which does include the cells in the brain). But there is something about the being which draws all the instantiations of consciousness (from the cells) into the coherent form of an organism. This multicellular organism somehow acts as a singular conscious being. Who is then enhanced by the computational activity of the mind, hosted by the brain. And that feelings can occur in this instantiation, or singular conscious being, in complex and subtle ways among the complex interactions between the body, the mind and the emotions, acted out within consciousness (as described).

2) Feelings are due to some aspect of the world that has not been identified through science, and may never be. This is open-ended; it could be one or more properties or things.

To an extent, but I see no reason that it may never be, we just haven’t invented the science yet. I come to this from the opposite end of the stick, I work within a complex ideological system of spirit, soul and mind distinct from the physical world, but which interacts with the physical via beings. Beings that are organisms present in the physical sphere. So bridge the gap between the two. There simply isn’t any science working here, there is very little literature and most of it is embedded in religious traditions. So all there is is some ideas worked out by people like me, Wayfarer and a number of others on the forum, and thinkers, or priests within the religious traditions who work with the ideology therein. A ragtag band, of misfits with no overarching scientific, or philosophical grounding (theology accepted). So I can understand the skepticism of people working with a more formal ideology.

Or they promised not to show the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.

Yes there are some intelligent conservatives. They don’t last long in political party’s these days, they get pushed out by the populists. So those intelligent conservatives tend to get tarred with the populist brush.

I think that's what the lounge is for, a place to put to use our omniscience. That practice can be called omnipotence.

What does TDS stand for, Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome?

No, that’s omnimpotence.

If we had the means we would certainly create a world, a physical world. I would, wouldn’t you?

You are both describing a philosophical zombie, or a highly advanced AI robot. Neither are alive, or conscious.
Where in materialism is this gap addressed? (Other than reverting to the observation that materialism like science is only descriptive).

Hence the proof itself would be basically an idol and believing in the proof would be idolatry.

Well put, it would be impossible for us (or anyone) to prove the existence of God, even to ourselves. So it would only be idolatry. Even if God came down and said, “here I am”, we would be none the wiser.

This is not to disparage believers, because they have faith, which doesn’t require proof.

Existence negates God. God negates existence.

You can’t say that because you don’t know anything about existence, or God, for that matter.

I think this is plainly wrong, as a matter of principle. Not because there is some mysterious thing called 'mind' which somehow always escapes scientific analysis, but because the mind is never an object of analysis in the same way that the objects of science are. How this eludes so many people continues to surprise me.

Yes, it is surprising. There seems to be a leap made wherein the mind is seen as the one remaining anomaly not fully explained by biology and is seen as something which will be fully explained soon enough. So why continue with this notion that it is somehow different. This amounts to a bracketing out process.

And yet, some people seriously entertain solipsism and idealism - because they are not provably impossible. This is the sort of thing I'm complaining about. I'm fine with the focus you suggest.

I wouldn’t group idealism in with solipsism. The later is illogical, whereas I can see a strong case for idealism. I think you should revise what you mean by provably impossible, there aren’t really any philosophies which are provably impossible.

This tells me you are not a theist. Philosophically minded theists often think they can "prove" God's existence through philosophical analysis.

I am, loosely a deist, a positive(theistic) leaning agnostic. For me mysticism is more important than theology. I am more interested in what we don’t know, than what we do know (something that can easily be accessed when required), that insight can be made through a realisation of what we don’t know. I realise that we can’t prove God’s existence, or to put it more strongly, if he/she were to appear before us, we could still not prove it, or demonstrate it.

Debating these issues is what drew me to learn a bit about philosophy.

I spent years debating with materialists and skeptics on the JREF forum before coming here. Lots of fun (and trolls).

Actually, he accepts science.

I should have been more precise, I should have written; (including the philosophical interpretation of our scientific findings) in brackets, rather than; (including our scientific findings).

but I object to declaring materialism (in general) false on the basis of the explanatory gap, while meanwhile taking flights of fancy (mere possibilities) seriously.

He’s not declaring materialism false, but rather its philosophical conclusions about the explanatory gap. They are not flights of fancy, it is genuine philosophy. As I say, I can see a case for idealism.

It will all be a democratic conspiracy.

The problem I have with this is that there are infinitely many possibilities. There needs to be a reason to pluck one from the infinite set of possibilities and see where it leads.

Well if one accepts this, it doesn’t lead anywhere, other than staring at yourself in the mirror (metaphysics ends up reflecting the nature of the world we find ourselves in). But I don’t accept that there are an infinite number of possibilities. Of the large number of possibilities which one could theoretically come up they can be arranged into two groups, those where there is a mental origin, or ones where there is a non mental, or physical, origin. These categories are derived from the two things we know for sure about our being, 1, that we are, have, a living mind and 2, there is a physical world that we find ourselves in. If you can provide an alternative to these two, I would like to know.

When it comes to philosophical enquiry into our existence, philosophy is mute, blind, it can’t answer the question.

He doesn't merely say, "here's why I don't accept materialism" (which would be perfectly fine by me); he insists materialism is demonstrably false

I’m not going to talk for Wayfarer, but the impression I had was that the philosophical interpretation of the physical world (including our scientific findings) is what he takes issue with. Namely that this interpretation oversteps the limits of what it can say about existence and being. There is a tendency to confine being to a physical process, described in biology, neuroscience etc, and some kind of rejection of alternative origins of existence, other than what is contemplated by astrophysicists. That it seems to disregard other philosophical fields in a number of ways(he has laid the detail of this extensively, so there is no point in me repeating it).

We see lots of philosophical theories tossed around, but I'm not seeing much of a defense of them- other than it being possibly true.

That is philosophy, about the possibly true. If it’s verifiably true, that’s science. Philosophy is about coming up with ideas and explanations that might play a sufficient role in an explanation for something not covered by, or amenable to scientific investigation.

It’s possible that one explanation of existence is an intelligent source (as opposed to a physical source). I see no reason to reject this possibility out of hand, because it can’t be demonstrated. Because it plays a useful role in further philosophical enquiry. If the entirety of philosophical enquiry is to be bracketed out, because it has shaky empirical foundations, then again we are doing the bracketing out that Wayfarer keeps pointing out.

Let me give an example of what I mean. (This is a rather crude example and I am not equating people who rely on more scientifically based thinking as animals. I am drawing the analogy with animals because they are operating in the physical world without philosophy, they are incapable of philosophising about what they are doing)
Imagine that a colony of ants started doing science, it’s arguable that they have already done this in their small way. They could in theory continue, given favourable circumstances to achieve many of the scientific advances that we have. But they would not be doing any philosophical analysis of what they are doing, they would be doing it out of some kind of physical necessity, rather than curiosity, or philosophical enquiry. It would never occur to them that there is any meaning to be gained, or understood from it. They would be doing it only because it works and fulfills a necessary role in their development, their modus operandi. Indeed they wouldn’t be doing any thinking at all, it’s not necessary, they would be merely following a step by step activity, blind to it’s significance.

What I’m teasing out here is that human insight is a valuable tool and to limit it is to reduce its value. It would take the ants a lot longer with a lot more trial and error to achieve our level of development. But I see no reason why they would not be able to get there eventually in principle. Like a chimpanzee at a typewriter. Who would by sheer chance write Shakespeare, but not recognise it as any different to the other pages of random letters it is typing.

It gives me happiness to think of the Native American point of view and attempt to be spiritually woke.

Yes, native and indigenous peoples knew the importance of living in harmony and balance with their ecosystem. We can learn a lot from them.

If the people living in England would have joined Harold Godwinson, the Norman invasion probably could have been deflected. When attacked,

The Normans should never have been able to win at the battle of Hastings, but they had the good fortune that the English army had been fighting off the Norwegians two weeks before in the north of England. They were depleted and exhausted. Then the Normans seeing the English troops dug in a good defensive position on a hill at Hastings, came up with a dastardly plan. They made it look like their whole army was attacking the defensive positions. This attack seemed to fail, the English thought they were going to win easily. Then the Norman troops turned and fled down the hill. The English tasting victory ran after them to finish them off. But as they descended the hill, fresh Norman troops appeared on both sides and surrounded them.
This devious despicable behaviour was then exploited to bring the entire population of the England to heal over the next few years. Followed by the Welsh and the Scottish over the next few centuries. It was one of the most successful takeovers and emancipation of a country by hostile powers in history. But of course the history that comes down to us was written by the victors.

Nope, afaik the quantum vacuum is the ground state of nature.

Cool.

we should think about the ecosystem and how we can protect and live alongside it.

The British have never really had autocracy due to the Magna Carta.

It was worse than an autocracy, it was colonisation. The British people were ruled with an iron fist for centuries, by French colonialists. The invaders eventually became the aristocracy and retained their privileged status until the 20th Century.

Trump only wants regime change because Maduro is a “leftist”. If he were on the right, Trump would be inviting him to have tea at the White House.

Yes, we give with one hand and take back with the other. Berkeley is a spectacular example. He says nothing can exist unperceived and that he does not deny the existence of "any one thing" that common sense believes in. (He reconciles the two by pointing out that God always perceives everything.)

Yes, that is the only way around it, we are part of God and God sees everything. Therefore there isn’t anything that isn’t seen.
If this isn’t the case, then there must be other things that are not seen, even by an anti-realist. Because there might be more than one anti-realist.

Physicalist (philosophical naturalist).

So it’s Multiverses all the way down then?

I was trying to make the distinction between phenomenal and intelligible objects, but no avail.

He’s doing a neat trick whereby the phenomenal has to become intelligible (therefore an intelligible object) before it can be acknowledged.

Let's be clear: I'm pointing out that the OP isa a word game.

No more than your replies are a word game.

And "No".

The game seems to be, let’s insist there isn’t anything else (other than our reality), because we don’t have the vocabulary to do it’s ising justice. Meanwhile smuggling in the acknowledgement that there probably is something else (as a nod to the idea that you can’t prove a negative).

What's south of the South Pole?

Your replies read like a word game. But the OP is asking about what is, are you confining what is to what can be known by the use of words?

So which one are you?

Who are "these guys"?

I wouldn’t want to name names as I feel cheeky enough saying what I said.

There is a point though, only an idealist, of some kind, would restrict what is to what can be said, or known by a person. Surely by contrast, a physicalist of some kind would allow any of an infinite number of other possibilities and the fact that we cannot observe them directly doesn’t preclude their existence.

Yes, I think we're all in accord that the culprit here is the word "reality," no surprise. "Stuff we can know as humans" and "all the stuff that can be known" are fine with me instead, as long as the two aren't supposed to mean the same thing.

These guys are idealists masquerading as physicalists. They just want to shut down the debate and confine the physical material to their idealism. If they were true physicalists they would have brought the Many Worlds Theory to the table by now, but they haven’t.

The simplest answer to the OP is we don’t know what else there is. There might be all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff, that we can’t see. We just can’t see it.

This can then be elaborated by saying we know that there is a lot we don’t know about the world we find ourselves in. So we know that we don’t know things about things that we can see. Therefore we are not in a position to say, or know anything about what we can’t see. So we can’t say what else isn’t there, just like we can’t give a full account of what we know is there.

I looked into it, it’s a short article giving a summary of the conclusions from a study by Yi Zhang, at the Cooperative Institute for Modelling the Earth System at Princeton university. I can link the paper, but it’s 90 pages of difficult to decipher text. Unfortunately it doesn’t come to any firm conclusions about what is likely to happen. It just seems to firm up the modelling around the issue. The issue of wet bulb temperatures in the tropics has been doing the rounds and more science is being done around it.

It does seem to be one of the more serious potential problems thrown up by climate modelling. That parts of the world may become uninhabitable, both for communities living there and the ability to grow crops. On top of the trend which we can see already of climate instability making it harder to grow crops in many regions.

The greening effect is interesting, I'm not sure how it interacts and combines with all the other changes, but it certainly is a factor.

There have been some studies suggesting that there is some greening going on. I came across it because lots of climate change deniers have started saying that it will restore the balance, so we shouldn’t take action on climate change. Basically that more CO2 means more plant growth, which locks in that CO2 into biomass.
It’s crackpot pseudoscience spread by climate change deniers. Even if there is some effect, it will be small compared to the increases in CO2 by human activity. But what isn’t acknowledged in such claims is that this greening is of no use to the ecology of the places where it can be observed. Those ecosystems will continue to collapse due to the existing man made pressures regardless.

Don’t forget when the tropics become uninhabitable.
— Punshhh

Which is hyperbole.

I was joking with Unenlightened, when I wrote that. He was spreading doom, in a light hearted way, as is his want.

It is a real possibility though, joking aside.

This article explains why a 1.5 degrees rise in global temperatures could result in wet bulb temperatures above human habitation requirements.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2270357-keep-warming-under-1-5c-to-stop-tropics-becoming-too-hot-to-live/

On current forecasts (a simple calculation using projected CO2 levels), we are heading for 2.5 degrees, or higher. In which case the tropics will become uninhabitable.

That is nto goign to happen. I think some of the scaremongering is finally coming to an end.

The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. Other than that there will be bumps in the road not a a collapse of civilisation.
7 hours ago

Well I’m not in a position to argue with that. The unpredictability is off the chart, all we have is modelling and a long list of factors which will to a greater or lesser degree increase CO2 levels. There are some things which we can be certain of and there is a baked in reluctance in humanity to not make the necessary changes. To bury our heads in the sand and just carry on as before.

We know for a fact that there are tipping points which will accelerate the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, on top of what we add ourselves. Such as methane from the permafrost, which is melting as we speak. Or acidification of the oceans which will reduce the amount of carbon captured in the oceans, a major carbon sink. We know that sea levels are rising, it’s a slow process, I know (about 3mm a year at the moment), but something which could accelerate and certainly can’t be stopped. It can rise by 90 metres meaning that the majority of larger cities will by then be under water.

Then there is the stupidity of humanity, getting involved in more wars and producing more and more failed states. This might wipe us out before the famine etc does.

I'm not arguing that it didn't benefit the rulers.

My point is that Christianity provided the moral framework which enabled the development of Western civilisation. Wayfarer put it better than I could. Can anyone suggest an alternative that would have achieved that, I wonder.
I think that part of this crisis of modernity is that society has seen through this legacy and seen it as outdated and causing more problems than it prevents. We are unshackling ourselves from the religious code and looking around for a new moral code for the future. I would suggest it is not going to be easy as the code we are rejecting is much more deeply embedded in our culture than we might at first realise.
Capitalism has sort of stepped into the breach, and along with law and jurisprudence has provided a helpful framework. But now even that capitalism is turning toxic, we might only be left with jurisprudence. The problem here is that government can, in theory, change what the law says and government can become corrupted.

The stability of feudalism was imposed by a combination of church and aristocratic rule. The people were illiterate―so we have no way of knowing what their real thoughts were. They were compelled to give lip service or be punished. I think your view is rosy and simplistic.

Not rosy, I realise how the people were controlled with brutality. But at least the rulers realised the benefits of the ideological stability provided by the church.