I tried googling "first person experience" and did not find anything useful in the standard philosophy sources.

Can you expand on this a bit - what do you mean by "first person experience" and "mental process" - and in what way(s) is a first person experience NOT a mental process?

Consciousness is NOT the mental processes, but how these mental states feel like. — Eugen

"How the mental states feel like" - IS a mental process, yes/no?

Harrumph! Metaphysics hogs all the attention on this forum.

What about meta-stamp-collecting? Meta-football? Meta-gardening? Meta-chess?

Don't these disciplines deserve the same analytical scrutiny?

read your Chomsky. — fishfry

Chomsky supports BLM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-0BmqyWJ30

I signed up for an account thinking I was going to start posting - then quickly realized I was in over my head and needed to figure out how I could fit in. It was a year before I posted by first response - and after two years I still have not done an OP. Maybe one of these years . . . :smile:

But absent those laws and institutions it becomes difficult to indict the system for racism. — NOS4A2

Let's start with an easy example. After WWII, black soldiers were systematically denied education & housing benefits, even tho the law itself was ostensibly neutral. The ability to purchase a house and/or get a college degree gave white soldiers significant financial & social advantages that they passed onto their children.

Most people would consider this to be an example of systemic racism. Do you agree or disagree?

Here is one of numerous articles you can find with a quick web search: https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits

Interesting. Can 1/9 be represented non-repeatedly in base 9 arithmetic - or some other base?

It looks to me like we're basically saying the same thing in different ways

the foundation of semantics is ostensive definitions i.e. all definitions can be traced back to a set of objects or a set phenomena that can be perceived directly. — TheMadFool

perhaps the way out of the definitional loop is somehow to point to reality — EricH

Ostensive definition
Hah! Was not familiar with that term. Hope I can remember that if I ever need it. :smile:

@TheMadFool

Not sure if there can be any resolution to your back & forth regarding definitions. You can take any word and define it - but that definition is composed of words - and those words must have definitions - etc etc etc. So all definitions are in some sense circular.

I don't have any clear way to get out of this loop. But ultimately you have to get away from your computer or smartphone and get something to eat, go to the bathroom, etc. And all the time you are doing these things you are breathing in & out, your heart is beating, etc.

So unless you believe that you are in some sort of Matrix world - or any of the numerous philosophical variants - you must act 'as if' there is something out there. What word do you use to refer to what is outside of you? Reality, the universe, existence, all that is the case, the totality of facts, etc?

In other words, perhaps the way out of the definitional loop is somehow to point to reality, the universe, existence, all that is the case, the totality of facts, etc?

Yes, there are numerous holes in this line of reasoning. . . .

Hey - haven't seen your stuff in a while. I enjoy your little endeavors - helps lighten the mood with all this back & forth that never gets anywhere.

Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question. — Frank Apisa

And how do we define the word "gods" and "reality" in such a way that the question makes any coherent sense?

Other folks on the forum have said this better than I - all religious talk is a form of poetry. Now I think that I appreciate a good poem as much as the next person. Poetry can be beautiful and it can inspire people to do great and/or terrible things. But the words "true" and "false" do not apply to a poem. We cannot subject a poem to the sort of "either this or that" analysis that you are attempting to do.

Anyway, as you can see, we're looping around here saying the same thing in different words. I'll give you last word here - if you want it that is . . . :smile:

Oh - and thank you for the kind words of praise.

"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.

What makes you think that qualifies us to know what exists? What makes you suppose that what we can perceive with our senses limits what exists? — Frank Apisa

Indeed. Humanity has been around in it's present form for, let's say, 40K years. it's only in the last 400 years or so that we're beginning to grasp our place in the universe and our knowledge seems to be exponentially expanding. Likely we know as much about the nature of the universe/existence as an ant walking across a stadium field understands the rules of football. OK, maybe a bit more.

So we can hypothesize that there may be whole modalities (for want of a better word) of experience or existence (for want of better words) that we are not equipped for or ready to understand.

But in these hypothetical futures would there even be such a thing as sentences, grammar, semantics, etc? Would there be any way to even express the sentence "God exists"?

Of course there is no answer to this question - since this question is just as incoherent as the original sentence "God exists"

god(s) exists — Frank Apisa

In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct nonsense sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.

One school of thought basically says "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.

The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.

I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.

- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth value
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -

With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" (or gods)? I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.

So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence?

Going back to the two schools of thought I referenced earlier? You might say that of course fictional characters do not exist so this sentence is false - but to my way of thinking any sentence in the form "[some-non-existent-fictional-character] exists" is incoherent based on the definitions of the words.

I cannot make a blind guess about the sentence"God exists" any more than I can make a guess about "[n-leggedness] drinks procrastination". Does at least one [n-leggedness] drink procrastination? Do no [n-legednesses] drink procrastination? All are nonsense questions.

“Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time.”

From Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut

They will never get to a hundred percent. — Gregory

That's hundred percent correct. I suggest avoiding getting on an airplane because the laws of physics could change and your plane could crash and tunnel into the center of the earth. Same thing about driving in a car - you could be going down the highway and the car could turn into a giant caterpillar and eat you. In fact, you could turn into a caterpillar before you finish reading this sentence.

You never know anything with 100% certainty.

Wha...? What was on the curriculum? — SophistiCat

Hard to re-collect - that was 50 years ago. For whatever reason, even tho I was a physics major, it was a liberal arts degree - I took Philosophy 101/2, World History, French Literature, Art History, etc.

Well, that's a crap answer and not even a good joke. — SophistiCat

It was funny at the time. Guess you had to be there . . . . . .

True story. Back in the 60s - that's the 1960s, not the 1860s - I was an under-grad Physics major. Thermodynamics was not on the undergrad curriculum. To compensate, the department had one of the professors give an optional lecture on the Laws of Thermodynamics.

At the end, during the Q&A period I asked how it was that the universe had such a low entropy value. The professor's response??

"When God created the universe he created the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

The whole class laughed.

Just for the record, I have no religious beliefs. And I also was - and still am - a very mediocre Physicist.

If Donald gets more apples than Joe, he's going to drive up to your house (or apartment) and dump a truckload of toxic waste in your front yard.

Then he going to takes everyone's apples away from them except for people he likes.

Again with the mental gymnastics. — StreetlightX

I do mental gymnastics every day - it's part of my exercise routine.

voting for someone tautologically implies support — StreetlightX

We are all responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of our actions. We can predict with reasonable certainty that a second Trump term will be a catastrophe for the US and the larger world. With Biden, at least there is a chance of improvement.

In a perfect world we would not have to choose between two deeply flawed candidates, but - as the saying goes - we need to accept that there are things we cannot change. I wish that the Democratic Party had found a better candidate, but if it comes down to Biden vs. Trump, I will hold my nose and vote for Biden.

That said, even if we go with your notion that voting for someone tautologically implies support, there are varying levels and degrees of support. You can like certain things about a candidate and dislike others.

If you would otherwise vote Democrat but are staying at home or voting 3rd party because of your dislike of Biden, then you are tautologically casting a vote for Trump.

Ah. Got it.

So now I’m getting ready to petition that the 2nd amendment get replaced with something that actually makes sense, hence, I’m giving people who are concerned with the issue a chance to say what they would like it to be instead. — ernestm

You're thinking too small. I suggest a petition to put all bad people in jail until they become nice.

The Antichrist is a fictional character - so that is not on my list of concerns. :smile: I'm also not concerned if he turned out to be an alien, lizard person, or member of the Illuminati.

I'm not following your response. Perhaps you missed my previous posts where I made it clear that I will vote for Biden over Trump no matter what.

Shouldn't you also trust the devil you know at this point? — boethius

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO — Frank Apisa

etc etc

Well Frank seems to disagree with you, but in this case I already know both the devils very well :smile:

Pathetic. — StreetlightX

I agree. It is pathetic that I have to make this choice. A second Trump term will be a catastrophe for the US & the world. I would vote for a trained seal over Trump - provided that the trainer was a Democrat. I wish the dems could find a better candidate than Biden.

If Biden were to shoot someone on 5th Avenue I would loudly call for him to withdraw from the race. But if he is the candidate, I have no choice but to vote for him.

I'm not happy about it, but Biden is clearly the lesser of two evils.

I'll go one step further - I'll vote for Biden over Trump even if Biden were to shoot someone on 5th Avenue.

The difference between me and the Trump supporters is that I would not glorify Biden and ignore his flaws.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." — Wheatley

I guess it's OK if the other gods are behind him. :smile:

Here's what some physicists are saying

I won't pretend that I understand all of this

Banned alcontali for religiously-inspired extremism. — Baden

I was wondering why I hadn't seen him recently. It's too bad - I was having some interesting exchanges with him. He had a unique point of view - sort of an Islamic Chomsky-ite. And very knowledgeable about math.

Edit added: I'm not criticizing your decision.

Define "god" first, then I can try to answer. — Nobeernolife

Have you looked into Ignoticism? That seems closer to what you are saying that atheism.

For example, the religious community has its own marriage and divorce laws. We will not consider whatsoever to ever adopt someone else's views on these matters. — alcontali

While there are a few edge cases where religious beliefs can be factored into a decision, here in the US secular law has precedence over religious law.

I didn't see a definitive answer to either of my comments/questions.
1 - System must be open source'd
2 - At a minimum, this system would have to allow for different branches of Islam.

As I said previously, and for what it's worth, I encourage you start this project of mapping the Quran into a formal language such as Coq. A couple of things :

Open Source
As you have noted, this is a massive project beyond any one person's capabilities. This wold have to be a cooperative effort.
Must be open to all religions
Even if you were to limit this to Islam, you would still have to allow for the different branches/traditions of Islam to translate those theorems specific to their choices of Hadith & Sunna. Compared to the task of converting the religious text into formal syntax (and speaking as someone who has worked with relational databases) this is trivially easy - just add a few high level keys to the database. And once you have done this, any religion could make the attempt to formalize their religious texts.

This would be very cool. And if - as you believe - the other religions are unable to formalize their religious texts, this would prove how superior Islam is to other religions. Yes/no?

BTW - just to be clear - I most emphatically am not volunteering to assist you in this. . . .

So you would be mapping the text of the Quran into a set of symbols with no semantic content?

OK. We are saying that in some sense Islamic law is a formal system. However, I think you would agree that it is not a formal system in the same sense as in math. I did a quick search and pulled out this from a different thread:

Mathematics is pure symbol manipulation, i.e. language expressions. It does not take any sensory input. Therefore, it is pure reason. — alcontali

This seems accurate to me. So when we say that Islamic law is a formal system it seems to me that we are making an analogy: Islamic law mirrors some /many of the attributes/behavior/qualities of a formal system. Your thoughts?

My responses are likely to be slow in coming - real life is taking up most of my time these days. I can maybe squeeze in a half hour here or there.

A formal system is a list of axioms.
Such formal system is always augmented with a choice of logic system, which is by default first-order logic. — alcontali

I could quibble with you over the definition of a formal system. Is a list of axioms by itself without a mechanism to generate theorems a formal system? I'm not qualified to answer that question, but if I had to maker a guess I'd say no.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to attempt to work within your definitional framework. Let me echo back in my own words what I think you are saying:

1) The Quran contains the axioms of Islam. These are transcendental in origin (your words) and not subject to question or dispute.
2) The Sunnah contains the theorems. These theorems are derived from the Quran, but they also rely on the Hadith for supporting evidence.
3) Finally, there is Fiqh which - quoting WIkipedia - "is human understanding of the divine Islamic law as revealed in the Quran and the Sunnah". So this is sort of the day to day interpretation of the Sunnah when the need arises to handle situations that cannot be easily decided by the Quran or the Sunnah.

There are multiple versions of both the Hadith & Sunnah and different denominations of Islam use certain versions and not others. Regarding the Fiqh (and again according the Wikipedia) there are "four prominent schools (madh'hab) of fiqh within Sunni practice, plus two (or three) within Shi'a practice."

I know you are deeply suspicious of organized schools of thought (since they typically become politicized) and consider yourself to be ghair-madhhabi - so no need to re-state that :smile: .

At this point in the conversation I just need to know if my understanding is reasonably close for an outside observer.

I may be misunderstanding you (or there may simply be gaps in my knowledge of Islam), but from where I'm sitting there seems to be a contradiction in your writing.

Here's what you said in a response to @Nobeernolife:

You see, Islamic law is a complete formal system with rules concerning morality. — alcontali

However, in your last reply to me, you stated that the Quran - and presumably all the laws therein - consists only of axioms. I think you would agree with me that a list of axioms does not constitute a formal system.

Are there an additional set of laws in Islam that are derived from the Quran? Perhaps analogous to the Talmud?

Sorry - I wasn't clear. What I'm looking for is some axioms of Islam.

OK, fair enough. Can you give me a few axioms - in plain language if possible? :smile:

If there is a more comprehensive list available - again with plain language explanations if available - you can give me a link to check out.