So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? — Philosophim

The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real.

Are you referring to human life or all life? — LuckyR

For the topic of this thread, the discussions should be limited to human life only.

That's natural (central tendency). — Copernicus

Isn't natural tendency inherent character or states from the birth or origin of objects or agents? Normal is expected state, situation, response or character which are induced or forced via environmental, social or devised factors and systems.

in all situations? War; self defence? — Tom Storm

Yes, it is wrong in all situations. However, the situations force the wrong doings.
In those special situations, killings can and will happen, which are totally different cases from willful act of the wrong doing.

So what is acceptable? What is psychopathy? What is abnormal? What is supernatural? — Copernicus

Normality has both social and scientific origin. They are the judgements on the phenomena which fit in the realm of observed events, acts or behaviour by the set principles or expectations within the society or in the theories, principles or laws of Science.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths.

Moreover, one cannot kill oneself, if one has something or someone one loves. Love is a strong foundation for life to be keep going. Loving can only continue and is possible while one is living.

There are those that assert that a human being supervening only on physical particles and laws cannot have a first person view. That's part of what the topic is about. — noAxioms

Your reply is very sketchy. Could you elaborate more?

Why is that? :chin: — Outlander

Something and nothing are semantic place holders for objects. Until you put actual objects in there, they don't mean a thing.

Exactly what you would expect them to be, in the context of the physical world. — Outlander

That's why talking about something or nothing or true nothing has no meaning. They are just words.
When you say something exists, it doesn't say anything at all. Someone will ask you what is something? Then you have to give answer what the something is. Well, a cup exists. The something you uttered first, was a cup. Then you will be told, why do you utter a meaningless sentence? Why didn't you just say a cup exists?

Likewise nothing and true nothing doesn't mean anything at all. Because you need to present what the nothing and true nothing is in the physical world. They don't exist. They are just words. You talk about vacuum or near vacuum is nothing, but that is wrong. As soon as you say vacuum is nothing, it is something. So it is not exactly nothing. There is no such a thing called nothing, hence there is no such a thing called true nothing.

so be careful not to fall into any. — Outlander

Something, nothing and true nothing, they all are just words i.e. semantics. You need to demonstrate what those each words stand for in the real world. What do you mean by something, nothing and true nothing? What are they in material objects in the physical world?

How can there be true nothing, when nothing doesn't exist?

Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn

Where did nothing come from?

There is no mystery. First and Third person views are the way of human perception. For example, I am playing guitar and singing a song. I am perceiving my own guitar playing and singing as I am playing along and singing. I see and feel the guitar strings making sound as I intend to play, and I hear my own voice singing with my own ears. This is the first person view.

But I can record my own guitar playing and singing on my phone, and replay it after the session on my phone or upload to youtube, and watch me playing the guitar and singing. I am seeing my own performance from the third person point of view.

I was feeling that my performance was faultless and was happy with it, when I was perceiving and listening to it from the first person point of view. But when I watch the replay on the video, I might find some mistakes in the play, and feel not quite sure if I like it or not. I feel I do need more practice. This is the third person point of view.

It is the mode of perception, nothing to do with contradiction. truth or falsity.

I recall this old thread, but cannot remember the details of each and every discussions. But from my vague memory of reading in the past, they seem to be mostly in the form of irrelevant gobbledygook.

Now when I see the thread again, and by looking at the the title of the thread, "Mind created world" - sounds wrong and not making sense.

The world cannot be created by mind. The world exists before mind. Mind perceives the world. Hence it makes sens to say - perceived world. There are parts of the world which cannot be perceived, but intuited, believed or imagined. These part of the world is added to our perception via our intuition, belief and imagination.

No one can have the total perception or knowledge of the world. It is always partially perceived world, and everyone's perception and knowledge of the world is private to their own mind.

Creation sounds literal or poetic than logical, philosophical or scientific. Artists could create art objects by mimicking the real world. Ordinary folks perceives the world, scientists observes and investigate the world, and philosophers reflect and analyse the world. The world is the preexisting space we all live in. Without the world, nothing can exist.

This was my point, unless you are omniscient in your world, you are ignorant of it’s make up and origin. — Punshhh

No one is omniscient in any worlds. We can only be certain on what we perceive and sense. And some perceptions and sensations need verification for certainty. So all knowledge of the world are limited by the limitation of perception, and where it is not certain, we use our imagination and belief for constructing the concept of the world.

Anyhow, the topic here is not the world, or my ignorance on the world. It is about the proof of the existence / essence of God.

Hope in a better life sounds like living doing nothing and expect things to get better. — GreekSkeptic

Hope in a better life means that you must set your own goals for the better life, and work hard for them. There is a meaning of life when making effort for the achievement.

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

So how can something be a "first principal"? Do you agree with google or not? — ProtagoranSocratist

There are the concepts and objects that we know by reflecting, intuiting and thinking about them, rather than by physical observations, for instance all the examples listed above. The methodology and subject for dealing with these concepts are Metaphysics.

When people say "that's meta" in daily usage, they're usually talking about something in a philosophical sense...like the general characteristics, or the bigger narrative behind something. If that's what metaphysics are in philosophy, then metaphysics is a rendundant term. — ProtagoranSocratist

To me, metaphysics means more of a methodology of revealing about the world i.e. the universe. It adopts a critical reflection on the basis of the questions how and why on all the objects in the universe exist, change and behave as they do, and aims to arrive to the analytical and logical conclusions on the questions.

You see yourself standing, walking, listening and talking in the world, don’t you? So surely you can also see yourself not knowing much in the world too? — Punshhh

The concept of "the world" you are using is unclear. The world can mean the whole universe including the outer galaxies and black holes outside of the earth and solar system. Or the world could mean the earth where human race lives in all the countries. Or the world can mean your own perception and content of mind. Which world were you talking about?

and not knowing much about the world you find yourself in. — Punshhh

I was not talking about the world. I was talking about me, and God. :)

For most people, I think, if something can be true or can be false, it is objective. There's no truth or falsity to something subjective. — Ludwig V

Just because something can be true or false, it is objective? Subjectivity has no truth or falsity? I don't agree.

Do you have some example cases for your points?

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

I know God doesn't exist, because he is nowhere to be seen or heard. I know I exist, because I think. Moreover, I can see me standing and walking, and hear me talking.

For most people, I think, if something can be true or can be false, it is objective. There's no truth or falsity to something subjective. — Ludwig V

You seem to be confusing objectivity and truth. Objectivity is not necessarily truth. Subjectivity is not necessarily false.

If we are both seeing the same bus, we are seeing the same object. Does that help? — Ludwig V

Nope. Not making sense at all. No two minds can see a bus exactly same. Even if you and your pal see a bus passing in front of you, your perception and his perception will be different in some way. You cannot stand on the exact position where he stands, and your eye sight wouldn't be same as his ...etc.

It sounds like what you are calling "solipsism" is what other people refer to as single individuals. — Paine

Solipsists will say, nothing exists apart from themselves no matter what. I am saying, we don't know something or somebody exists until we communicate, share feelings, art, music and ideas, and even meet in real life forming relationships.

It is true that our perception and sensation can sometimes mislead us. But "sometimes" means that sometimes they do not mislead us. That looks like objectivity to me. — Ludwig V

I am not sure if perception can be objective in any sense. In what sense what I am seeing X is same as you are?

No, there's no guarantee. But that doesn't make them subjective. — Ludwig V

Nothing makes perception and sensation subjective. Aren't they subjective experience by nature?

There are different varieties of solipsism? How can they be compared to each other? That would seem to cancel the isolation you are reporting — Paine

I know you exist by the language we share to communicate, art and music we share, and posts you write. But that's it. Beyond that, I don't know anything about your mind, and its content. Solipsism doesn't take into account on these points. They say that nothing else exists apart from their own mind, or some might even say, their mind doesn't exist either. That is solipsism.

My point is that as long as we exist communicating and sharing on these cultural and linguistic activities, we can infer and postulate our existence and others. But beyond that, we are still in our own world. Even if I had a very intimate discussions on many topics or shared some daily life experience with someone, I would not claim I know their deep true inside feelings, thoughts and wills. At this point, we are not talking about someone's physical existence here, like Banno has been insisting to have.

I think that is all that is being said? — I like sushi

Some say Kant was a phenomenologist, quite understandably so.

I think that is all that is being said? — I like sushi

My reality is strictly constructed with my perception, sensation and imagination and belief. What I don't sense and perceive, I rely on my imagination and belief. There is no objectivity in there. Even my own perception and sensation can sometimes mislead me. There is no 100% guarantee that my perception and sensations are infallibly true. And what is more, what I perceive and sense is perhaps not even 0.0000000000001 percent of the world. How could I pretend to claim to know what the world is?

Now this is not a solipsism like some have been misled on the point. It is the critical nature of our perception, mind and reality under the philosophical analysis.

If you mean there is no physical proof of a metaphysical entity, then we're in agreement. — LuckyR

:ok:

Or I am here, pointing to the errors in your account. — Banno

You may well exist, I was not saying that you don't exist. There is a difference, and you don't seem to see the difference.

I don't have the perceptual evidence on the existence apart from your misleading posts. That is the philosophical dissection of reality. I am not taking into account all the hypes in the media about the world, and refusing to be non philosophical frame of mind of the ordinary folks on the street.

You only imagined a difference between your solipsism and the "perceptions" you imagine that you have. — Banno

If you claim that you have more than your imagination and irrational belief on the external world, then you are pretending. It is not a philosophical account.

Kant wrote his massive tome to show this is wrong. — Jamal

Yes, I agree. But I recall a book called "Imagination in Kant's Philosophy" by a German philosopher I cannot recall his name. The book was emphasizing the fact, imagination and belief is critical part for constructing reality and the external world. I was totally agreeing with his point.

I mean Banno does exist, surely he must. But I don't have any factual perceptual data on Banno. I know Banno from his posts in the forum, and that is all what Banno is to me. The rest of Banno is my belief and imagination about Banno, which might be totally wrong and fictional in reality. And I do accept my existence to Banno must be the same.

That is the reality of our reality. It is not a solipsism.

I assume you have also read Philosophical Investigations? What about the private language argument? — Colo Millz

It is still in my reading list.

If this post does not exist, then what is it you are now reading? — Banno

I never said the post doesn't exist. Where did you get that? I see the post, and I was responding to that. But I don't see you. I am imaging you might exist. There is difference between you do exist, and you might exist. To me, you are just a author of your post, and might exist. But I don't have any more perceptual data apart from it.

It is not a solipsism. You are not understanding the difference between solipsism and foundation for perceptual existence.

Moreover, that you are trying to communicate, to use language, demonstrates that there is more than your private mental state. — Banno

Private mental state is the core of your mind which is your perception. You build your extra mind with your imagination and belief. Remember the external world and other minds are just figment of your imagination. There is no actual concrete existence on these objects, but fleeting impressions and ideas.

It proves that Banno has never read Hume or Kant, and has been trying to discuss philosophy in the public forum with his very limited mind.

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

No. "God" and "existence" belong to different category of worlds. Existence negates God. God negates existence.

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced, how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

Our reality? All reality is subjective private mental state. There is no such a thing as "our reality".
Again all experience is private mental event. There is no other mind involved in an experience than "I" or "my mind.

When I say "cup", you immediately realize what I am talking about since the word refers to an idea. The sentence "the cup is on the table" contains many words; each word refers to an idea. The sentence, however, refers to a new idea, which in this case is a situation. — MoK

There is nothing new about any of those words. Everyone in the world knows what "cup" is, knows what "table" is. You were just uttering a sentence from what you saw. That is just giving a description of the content of your perception. New ideas should be something that is absolutely new, so no one knew what it was, no one has seen or heard about it before in history. That is new idea.

So, I am not able to accept the definition you provided. Wrong definition of the concept leads to misunderstanding and confusion in the arguments and discussions.

The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea — MoK

Could you give some examples of known ideas and new ideas? How does it work?

So my view would be: we should avoid unnecessary harm wherever it occurs, but we must prioritize preventing the most intense and obvious suffering. And right now, that means reducing and eliminating the killing of sentient organisms when we can live well on plant-based foods. — Truth Seeker

It sounds like you are projecting your own personal value or psychological state onto the nature and the eco system unduly and with some emotional twist. The nature works as it has done for billions of years. It operates under the system called "survival for fittest". Lions always used to go and hunt for deers, striped horses and wild boars. If you say, hey Lion why are you eating the innocent animals killing them causing them pain? And if you say to them, hey you are cruel, bad and morally evil to do that. Why not go and eat some vegetables? Then it would be your emotional twist and personal moral value projected to the nature for your own personal feel good points.

Lions must eat what they are designed to eat by nature. No one can dictate what they should eat.
Same goes for human. Human race is not designed to eat rocks and soils, just because someone tells them it is morally wrong to eat meat, fruits or vegetables because they may suffer pain, and they might have minds and consciousness.

The bottom line is that it is not matter of morality - right and wrong. It is more matter of the system works, and what is best and ideal for the nature. If it is healthy - keep them fit and keep them survive for best longevity, and tasty for the folks, then that is what they will eat.

Why wouldn't the murder of 80 billion sentient land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion sentient aquatic organisms per year by non-vegans and for non-vegans be morally wrong when it is possible to make vegan choices which prevent so much pain and death? — Truth Seeker

Some plant and fruit lovers might say to you that how could you kill the plants pulling them out from the field, cut and boil or fry them, and eat them? You are killing the innocent living plants. Same with the corns and fruits. They were alive and had souls. But you took them from the fields, cut them and boiled them, and ate them killing them in most cruel manner. The panpsychic folks believe the whole universe itself has consciousness and souls. Even rocks and trees have mind. What would you say to them?