Speak for yourself... — Cornwell1

I am speaking for myself, about my general impressions of human beings. I'm wondering why, for example, national economies were turned over to the purpose of mass murder during the first and second world wars, and here we are faced with an actual existential threat, and the most that could be wrung from COP26 was an aspiration to use a little less coal someday, maybe!

Again, speak for yourself. — Cornwell1

More like - to myself. I emailed various politicians and media organisations at COP26 about Magma Energy, and got no replies. I write about it here, and on twitter - and it's like screaming into a void. So now I'm trying to understand why no one is interested in the seriousness of the threat, or the huge opportunity there is in a genuinely adequate solution.

I look beyond my own sad self, though I'm not always sad. You should show some responsibility to truth here! I wonder sometimes even about the beginning of our universe and beyond. I agree we have a cosmic potential. though lying and cheating is no vindication of non-existence. On the contrary, it is a confirmation of existence: Mentior ac fallere ergo sum. — Cornwell1

Hold a map upside down and see if you get where you wanted to go. Lies don't work. They are unjust and dysfunctional. Both cause and effect and evolution dictate - if you're wrong, you're gone. If you're lying, you're dying. Reality will not be brooked. We can't con our way into heaven. Resposnsibility to scientific truth is the only way to secure a propsperous sustainable future.

Human beings are miserable, selfish, mendacious and quite often malicious. They won't struggle to secure human existence, firstly because they themselves are mortal - so who cares, and second, because they view existence as a chore! They won't look beyond their own sad selves, recognise a responsibility to truth, and act to secure a prosperous sustainable future - nor see beyond, to the concievably cosmic potential of human intelleigence. They'll lie, cheat and steal unto oblivion; finding vindication in being entirely worthy of non existence!

We all know overpopulation is a problem that is only growing, by 2050 we will have to feed 10 billion people. — Schrödinger's cat

I do not know that. I don't believe overpopulation is the fundamental nature of the problem; but that it's a very wrongful and dangerous mode of thought. I believe the fundamental nature of the problem is the mis-application of technology, and that, applying the right technologies we could sustain a large human population indefinitely.

The key technology is magma energy, shown by nasa in 1988 to have truly vast potential; over a thousand times global energy demand just from the US alone. Lavishing this energy to meet all our energy demands carbon free, plus, capture carbon, desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, and to recycle all waste, over-population would not be a problem. We'd also have to farm fish, and protect the forests while developing wastelands for agriculture and housing - but, the real problem is not too many people. Rather it's that we have not applied the right technologies to sustain human population.

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.


Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988
Pub Date: 1987 Bibcode: 1987STIN...8820719D Keywords:
Geothermal Energy Conversion; Geothermal Energy Extraction; Magma; Wells; Energy Technology; Geochemistry; Heat Exchangers; Site Selection; Technology Assessment; Two Phase Flow; Energy Production and Conversion

p.s. quad: quadrillion btu. Global energy demand is approx. 650 quad.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract

Riiight. Let's go to a slaughterhouse or an abortion clinic where we can observe the "the miraculous nature of everyday reality". — baker

I eat meat, and I respect a woman's right to choose - if and when she commits to the economic life changing, body morphic trauma that is bringing another life into the world.

I've worked in a slaughterhouse - chickens, but still, I eat chicken. There's nothing like hot chicken breast on brown bread with mayo. It produces a transcendent, almost orgasmic pleasure in me. And it does strike me as miraculous all these ingredients can be harvested, and cooked together in various combinations, that provide endless delight to the human palate? How could evolution possibly have designed plants and animals so consistently improved by cooking, and so wonderously edible?

I think one has to respect a woman's right to choose, precisely because we are the only animals who cook, rather than simply eat. An animal killed in nature suffers a worse death by far than humane slaughter at the hands of humans; and there's a parallel to a child brought into the world unwanted - in that, your bleeding heart humanity would be the cause of greater suffering of which you'd wash your vegan pro-life hands.

Maybe one day, we'll transcend this material veil of tears; I think, hope, pray, humans have that potential, but if there's a heaven to discover, or create - it will be humans that find it, not chickens!

It would be easier for you to convince me that you know enough, if you did not begin by declaring overpopulation is not a problem. — Athena

Overpopulation is not a problem...if we apply the right technologies. Currently, population is unsustainable, but that's because we have applied the wrong technologies. It all comes down to energy. You say:

China has a very serious water supply problem, and places, where the water supply is from melting glaciers, will not be able to sustain their populations when the glaciers are gone. — Athena

It's technologically possible to desalinate water to irrigate land to produce food. The problem is the energy cost of doing so. Had we developed magma energy from the 1980's onward, we'd now have limitless clean energy to spend, and so population wouldn't be a problem. Blaming the existence of people opens the door to nightmares. It demeans us all; and is perfectly hypocritical - for surely, you assert your right to exist. So you imply someone else should sacrifice their existence for you. And just so, you say:

Where I live there is a huge homeless population and poverty is a more serious problem because rents are so high, and none of this would be so if we were not dealing with overpopulation. — Athena

Why do you suppose it's the poor who are excess to rerquirements? Surely it's you, with your two houses, each with a three car garage, jetting off on three foriegn holidays every year - that's more of a problem in terms of sustainability than some homeless guy. It's your lifestyle that's unsustainable, not his! We need to apply the technologies to sustain your lifestyle - starting with magma energy!

Do you really mind if there are less cars, less campers, less drones, less cameras, less washing machines, less kitchen aids, less stereo amplifiers, less microwave ovens, less roads, less fences, less light bulbs, less plastic bottles, less perfumes, less electricity wires, less computers, less experiments, less tools, less lasers, less production of useless stuff, etc.? — Cornwell1

Are you personally prepared to go without some or all those things, or is it other people who should not have what they want and need? I want the things I have, some of which are on your list, so I'd have to say - I do mind, yes! The things I've bought employ people, who in turn buy things. The trick is to have the energy to spend to recycle all waste - mince everything up, and then process it back into constituent elements for further manufacturing. That's why we need limitless clean energy, and the earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing so much energy it will still be hot when the sun goes supernova in about 5 billion years.

You're not impressed by the above arguments about an infinite series of big bangs? It does seem absurd that something has existed forever with no explanation. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I cannot write anything that makes sense - the idea that the universe 'came into being' seems just as crazy as the idea it exists eternally. I wish it would all just go away! But then what would there be? Nothing? How can there be nothing? How can time not pass? How can space not be space? Even empty space is space! And, if it's not empty - what is it full of? None of it makes sense!

The energy coming from a fusion reaction is higher than what you put into it. The kinetic energy of two hydrogen nuclei in a fruitful event is less than the energy coming out. So clever engineering can make it work. — Cornwell1

I don't think so. The goal is a self sustaining fusion reaction; and I think the 'free energy' of huge gravitational forces is necessary to a sustained fusion reaction. Otherwise, inevitably, you have to keep pumping energy into the system, and that's always going to be at a loss because perpetual motion machines don't work. I'll gladly admit this is but a layman's opinion; I cannot do the math to support my intuition, and may well one day be required to eat my hat. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Here I'm lost. Less production means less energy means less impact on nature. — Cornwell1

...means more people, with ever less resources to share between them!

What seems more far-fetched:
(1) something from literally nothing
(2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I usually enjoy a good polling, but this question is a choice between logical absurdities, with no good reason to favour one absurdity over another. I haven't voted yet, so I don't know what the numbers are, but my guess would be about two thirds - something from nothing, and one third, an infinite past. Neither of them make any sense. I don't know what would. The universe is weird. It's like a prison with no bars; we exist, suspended between the infinitely big and the infinitely small, with no 'edge of the map' from which we might imply the nature of existence. It's bizzarre. Forced to choose, on the basis of cosmic expansion, I'll say something from nothing. The Big Bang Theory, but that's not to say I find it satisfying.

Then why they still trying? You can make it happen in a bomb, so why not in a plant? — Cornwell1

The short answer is, I don't know why they are still trying to harness nuclear fusion. Maybe for the same reason people climb mount everest - because it's there. Maybe because of the hundreds of millions in grant money. Who can say. I also don't know how a fusion bomb works. Let's have a look. According to google, it doesn't work.

"Is a fusion bomb possible?
Despite the many millions of dollars spent by the U.S. between 1952 and 1992 to produce a pure fusion weapon, no measurable success was ever achieved."

But here's why I think fusion energy cannot work, economically, in earth gravity. Imagine the gravity of the sun, compressing hydrogen atoms together into a dense plasma. If a fusion reaction occurs, it releases energy, increasing the density of the surrounding plasma, forcing other atoms to fuse - and the result is a sustained fusion reaction.

In earth gravity, the only way to force atoms to fuse is to pump in vast amounts of energy, to reach temperatures of 150 million degrees celius - ten times hotter than the core of the sun. This plasma is so hot it will vaporise anything it touches, so must be contained with electromagnetic fields - again, using a considerable amount of energy.

When two atoms fuse under these conditions, it does not increase the probability of further fusion reactions. Every fusion of two atoms is forced by the input of energy, and is a singular event - or series of singular events; and it's like in a petrol engine - when setting off, it requires more energy to go from 0 to 5 miles an hour, than from 25 to 30.

Without the gravitational density of plasma, forcing atoms together, such that a fusion reaction increases the probability of further fusion reactions, in energy terms, they are always accelerating from zero with every singular instance of fusion. Thus, the energy input, to create and contain such high temperatures, will always exceed the energy output.

Or you can consume and produce less. — Cornwell1

No. I explained why this approach cannot secure a sustainable future. Poor people breed more. They have larger families. At the same time, less energy means it gets more expensive and harder to do everything. Society crumbles while population explodes, and that will not end well. Famine, mass migration, war. Why would prefer that to a prosperous sustainable future - based on limitless clean energy from magma?

Fusion could already have been economically if only enough effort had been put in it. — Cornwell1

No, that's not true. There have been many, very expensive attempts to develop fusion energy over the past 50 years. The latest attempt is ITER; you can read about it online. The adage regarding fusion energy is that it's been "five years away for the past 50 years." And just so, ITER is saying 'five years and we'll have cracked it' - but IMO - they never will. I do not believe fusion can work in earth gravity.

Solar cells can get more economical still. You can put them on every roof top or even in the dessert. — Cornwell1

The energy produced by wind and solar is low grade; and to transmit energy along a cable takes a lot of umph, and also degrades by about 10% per 1000 km. So you build a solar array in the desert - you can't transmit the energy anywhere, and there's not even any water to store it as hydrogen. In some circucmstances, solar is a very useful technology, but it cannot supply global energy demand. Regarding solar roofs, etc, you can look online yourself and find endless stories about people suing companies and banks over loans taken out to install solar panels that didn't deliver the promised savings.

Hydrogen can be made with the aid of that energy and truly green cars produced. On my birth island in Italy, magma heath is used for saunas. Who knows what will happen if you tap magma energy for the whole Earth? Nobody. The best solution: lower the energy consumption. — Cornwell1

If you have less energy, then everything gets more expensive. It's more expensive to do things, because everything we do requires energy. If you don;t maintain something, it falls apart. Plus, poor people breed more. Lowering energy consumption implies a spiral of poverty, driving overpopulation, driving greater poverty. That can't end well.

That sounds wonderful and I watched a show last night about Bill Nye the Science Guy and his fight to get religious leaders to accept science, We all need to picket this place at the top of the tourist season https://arkencounter.com/ . It is a theme park presenting a full-sized Noah's ark as though this were science. The people who present this park, and visit it, are the enemies of science. They are climate change deniers. Or perhaps we could find out which churches in our neighborhoods are climate deniers and ask to talk with them about global warming? — Athena

That's one way to go, but do you really want to disenchant people who believe in God as part of their identity and their purposes - but who have no power to craft energy policy? Are you going to look a little old ladies in the eyes and tell them - there's no such thing as God? And even if you are willing to be that cruel - how do you know there isn't a God? I don't know if God exists, and I know I don't know!

It is not strange to me that things are getting worse, because the ancients saw the end as a time when there was more life on earth than the earth could support. We are there. The mass of humanity has overwhelmed the earth's ability to support it. The world seriously needs population control and it would be nice to do this with reason, instead of killing the excess humans in our countries and making war on other countries. The refugee problem around the world is the reality of overpopulation. — Athena

I could not disagree more. Over-population is not a problem at all. The misapplication of technology is a problem. I live in the UK, and population density is relatively high by global statndards, but less that 2% of the UK land surface is actually built upon. Globally, it's going to be less than that. So, if humans can live sustainably - there's no lack of room. And magma energy can give us all the energy we could ever want - we could deslainate sea water, pump it inland and make the deserts bloom if we so chose. So over-population is not a real problem; it's a consequence of the scarce, expensive and polluting fossil fuel energy we continue to use. It limits what we are able to do.

Here, we're philosophers. We volunteer to have our ideas tested to destruction. Similarly, polititians and industry have a responsibility. I seek to convince you, and politics and indisutry that a prosperous sustainable future is possible - that humankind can live long term by harnessing magma energy and using that to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. If we applied those technologies, we could bring 3 or 4 billion poor people into the first world economy - sustainably. The economic opportunity is vast, and we're missing it because of an addication to fossil fuels!

You can harvest the wind too. Or solar energy. And use hydrogen to store the energy and make it portable. Only water will be waste. Not to mention fusion energy. — Cornwell1

Wind and solar are not reliable, nor heavy duty enough to meet our energy needs. The UK, where I live would need about 20,000 windmills just to meet demand for domestic energy. They cost about £25m each, and last about 20 years. You'd bankrupt the country building them, and wouldn't complete construction before that first ones built would need replacing at the same cost. Worse, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow, or blows too hard, you always need a full fossil fuel back up generating capacity.

Solar is no good where I live. It's not light enough long enough. It's dark at 3pm in winter.

Fusion will never work economically in earth gravity. I'll explain why if you want to know.

Magma energy is the right technology for a lot of sound reasons. It's heavy duty, clean, and essentially limitless.

Hydrogen storage is a good idea, but wind, solar, fusion, not so much.

Without scientific truth, economy wouldn't have grown as devastatingly as in the modern world. — Cornwell1

This is helpful. It shows me you haven't understood my premise. The 1634 trial of Galileo divorced science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. As an understanding of reality, science was suspect of heresy. As a tool, science drove the indistrial revolution - and technology was developed and applied for power and profit, not because it's true!

Yeah, well, what's more to say about it. — Cornwell1

At least, that you understood the premise. What I write makes sense to me, but I have no idea how it's recieved by others. I don't know if I'm communicating effectively without feedback on what you think I mean. From your response:

"

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

I can deduce one of two things, either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. So I explained the premise again; that it's not technology that's the problem, it's the wrong technology that's the problem. And your reply:

That's still technology. — Cornwell1

...still doesn't tell me whether I'm communicating effectively, because I don't know if you understand, but disagree, or don't understand. That's disappointing.

Now you say:

You might consider technology an art, the material expression of knowledge, and assign high value to state of the art technology, but it is embedded in a larger reality. It's a fact that if the presence of technology increases, and knowledge grows, they will reinforce each other exponentially, a fact supported by economic growth models. You might have a clean energy source, say the Sun, fusion, or magma, like on Island (where the world's first hydropen pump station opened up), you might recycle all you use, but if technology's presence grows exponentially, no technology in the world will be sufficient to restore the disturbed balance. Only a stable presence of tech can prevent disaster. Maybe a technology that doesn't grow but changes. — Cornwell1

...and, I'll tell you straight up that I don't understand what you mean by this. I understand all the words, I can read the sentences, but the idea you are seeking to express is unclear.

For my part, I'm talking about solving climate change by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, and trying to understand why we haven't done that already.

That's still technology. — Cornwell1

Your post is disappointing.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse
— karl stone

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. It's science used as a tool, in pursuit of ideological ends, rather than developing and applying technology for reasons rational to a scientific understanding of reality. For example, Trump Digs Coal, because it creates jobs and revenues, but ignores the global threat of climate change.
Magma energy technology is possible, and could supply the world's energy needs and much much more, without greenhouse gas emissions. So it's not technology per se - it's putting national economic interest ahead of scientific truth.

Hmmm...my mind is involuntarily thrown to Descartes, doubting the validity of his senses, even as he constructs propositional statements about the reality he seems to experience via the senses. Is it not implicit in the proposition 'the mouse ran behind the tree' - if my senses are not decieving me? Is not belief - different from knowledge in this regard, that belief is at the same time, supposed to be true, but uncertain? And does not the propositional nature of belief exist in this uncertainty? That so, the question devolves to one of, what is a proposition and what is a justified true belief; resolved by a series of scientifically controlled experiments to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, if in fact the mouse is behind the tree. Then saying the mouse is behind the tree is not a proposition - it's a statement of fact.

It kind of reminds me of Egypt and thinking it is the pharaoh's job to prevent chaos from destroying the harmony with nature that is essential to staying out of trouble. — Athena

I'm not sure I should be pharoah; cultural appropriation and whatnot! I'm thinking more along the lines of philosopher king of the world. But I'll settle for philosopher.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse. In my view, the chaos we see is the causal consequence of acting at odds to reality. Religious, political and economic ideological concepts do not describe reality as it really is - science does! Acting on the basis of ideological concepts we act at odds to reality, and as the disparity between our course, and 'true north' becomes ever wider, the chaos increases.

Magma energy is a viable technology. It was proven by NASA in 1982, in a series of papers entitled The Magma Energy Project. I cannot be certain the project was not developed because of the vast national and economic interests in fossil fuels, but science showed limitless clean energy is available, and it hasn't been developed. That was over 40 years ago, and in the meantime - global population and fossil fuel use have doubled.

My hope, recognising this relationship between the validity of knowledge, as a basis for human action, and the validity of the outcome - will allow us to have our cake and eat it. I'm certainly not suggesting we tear down the churches, banks and borders, to start again from scratch, making all our representations conform to strict scientific rationality. Rather, my hope is that recognising the significance of a scientific understanding of reality will create the authority to do that which is necessary to survival; namely, develop magma energy to meet all our energy needs, plus power carbon capture and storage, deslaination and irrigation, and the recycling of all waste - allowing for a prosperous sustainable future.

How about philosophy that ties into cutting edge science, like cognitive theory or perceptual psychology? As an adherent of ‘scientific method’ I would assume you try to keep up with actual research results in such cutting edge fields. — Joshs

Shockingly, no - I do not. I did read Piaget on developmental psychology, with reference to Freud and Jung, but more for an overview of the feild. Generally speaking, I take a behaviourist approach - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably thinks it's a duck!

Ha Ha... thanks for the heads up!
If what you say has any element of truth within it then perhaps, over time, I will be less concerned about being able to hold my intellectual ground during dialogue with all comers on this forum. Hopefully, I will also never ossify and always maintain an open mind towards the viewpoints of others. — universeness

There's often detectable traces of truth in what I say, and here it's the idea that in-depth knowledge of a philosopher's works can become a prison for the mind. I think that's true. So don't let people browbeat you with appeals to authority. I also believe there are, what I call 'obscurantists' - who, for a variety of reasons, seek to make things as complicated and obscure as possible.

I am so going to steal the term 'intellectual masturbation,' I don't seem to have encountered (I refuse to say 'come across it'..oh,...I just did) it before. It is a great descriptor for the smug look I have often viewed on the face of one protagonist when they think they have just scored an intellectual point against another. I think I will be using that term when I see that look in someone's face again. I think its a great counter. I admit to secretly feeling that way myself, when in debate but I have always felt a little ashamed afterward. Or at least, it makes me question my own motivations and priorities when dealing with others around me. — universeness

You seem to have an agile and enquiring mind, but come across as a bit uncertain of yourself. I just wanted you to know, in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.

This reminded me of Wittgenstein. — Joshs

I was required to read Wittgenstein at university, and loathed him almost as much as I hated Heidegger. I consider them both 'obscurantists' - whose jargonistic philosophy creates devotees. All this 'being in the world, and sein und dasein - is metaphysical hocus pocus. Any philosophy worth reading begins with epistemology; and the epitome of epistemology is scientific method.

Oh, sorry. Accidentally tagged you. — Garrett Travers

Well I guess it's better than deliberately ignoring me!

You consider philosophy to be asking questions. Very well. — Garrett Travers

Do I?

Here's what I think happens after death; the same kind of nothing that pertained for all time, before I was born. Accepting that makes my life special; and the sustainability of human existence a must. I see my existence in terms of a torch bearer; my personal obligation is to use the gifts shaped and passed onto me by the struggles of all previous generations, to secure the future for all subsequent generations; and in this way - I serve myself in the present.

I don't know enough of the academic details put forward by a wide enough range of past and current individuals who claim or have been given the label 'Philosopher,' to call myself one. — universeness

I take issue with the idea of a philosopher this statement implies. There are people on this forum who have extensive knowledge of what, usually - a few particular philosophers have said, but who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. They are devotees, not philosophers - and if you're not careful, they'll induct you into their cult!

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Illustration: Because politicians can be split into separate camps, belief in truth defines what a politician is. — Garrett Travers

No, but I'm describing what a philosopher is. You wrote:

Here is the definition of philosophy: The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. — Garrett Travers

How is that inconsistent with saying:

a philosopher is someone who believes truth matters; either, because truth must be understood, or because truth must be obscured, and who constructs arguments to one of these ends! — karl stone

Morality is a sense, like humour or aesthetics, inculcated in human beings by evolution in a tribal context. Moral behaviours were an advantage to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe composed of such individuals - competeing with other tribes to survive. This can be seen in chimp behaviours - where they share food, and groom eachother, but further, remember who is likely to reciprocate, and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Religion, law, politicis, economnics are expressions of this innate moral sense.

the miraclulous nature of everyday reality
— karl stone

is extremely adept at disguising itself — Wayfarer

If by that you mean reality is complex, then I agree - which is part of what makes it so astounding. There are 26 letters on a keyboard, from which can be constructed about 200,000 english words, that can be strung into a virtually infinite number of meaningful sentences. Similarly, there are 118 chemical elements, and four fundamental forces - and that's before we get into quantum physics, from which all the diversity of life on earth is written. If you're not amazed by that - and feel some yearning need to string up philosophical fairy lights and set off fireworks to make reality special, then you're missing something!

I'm going to assume you are a high school kid. Go well, Son. — Tom Storm

More solid evidence you're an idiot!

Well that's all very amusing — Tom Storm

Is it? Did I do a funny? You'll have to point it out to me! Maybe I can do more!!

do you have any views worth defending or do you just make bold claims?

I do, but it doesn't feel like I have a receptive audience! It's more like I'm being heckled!
— Tom Storm

What is a scientific truth? How is it true? — Tom Storm

Do you not know? How absolute is your lack of knowledge on this subject? I haven't the time or the patience to give you lessons in scientific method and epistemology!

So, because you think philosophers can be separated into camps, means you think a belief in truth defines what a philosopher is? — Garrett Travers

....yes!

Not a terrible attempt at doing a reading of my OP. But I did mention there I was a half-arsed secular humanist. It might pay you to speculate what the other half might be...Here are the questions that have so far led to 26 pages of divergent responses. Why don't you have a go at something substantive? — Tom Storm

The other half is also arse! It's half-arsed, as opposed to fully arsed. It's not half arse half-man! That aside, I have my views about the nature of reality and consciousness - if that's what you mean by something substantive, but I'm more interested currently in how the so-called enlightenment period - I thought you were alluding to when I clicked on the question; clearly described as such with great optimism, in time amounts to your half arsed, secular humanist soulless physicalism? Because to my mind, scientific truth is far more amazing than the fairy stories of our dim distant ancestors!

Here is the definition of philosophy:

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

With this definition in mind, does your conclusion change at all? — Garrett Travers

Not in the least. I think philosophers can be divided neatly into two basic camps, claricists and obscurantists. They'd both claim to be engaging in the above activity, but only the former does so honestly. The motives of the latter group vary, from intellectual masturbation through to religious protectionism via various political motivations. Hence:

a philosopher is someone who believes truth matters; either, because truth must be understood, or because truth must be obscured, and who constructs arguments to one of these ends! — karl stone

Just what is it that constitutes a philosopher? Of course, I have come to conclusions about the subject, but let's chat about it, because I want to view the opinions of my fellow peers. — Garrett Travers

To my mind a philosopher is someone who believes truth matters; either, because truth must be understood, or because truth must be obscured, and who constructs arguments to one of these ends!

I clicked on the question expecting a discussion of secular democracy and scientific rationality; but quite the opposite. For the author, the enlightenment I imagined he spoke of amounts to:

a soulless, physicalist world, — Tom Storm

...framed in contrast to some spiritual quality he can only imagine exists. Maybe clinging to fantasy casts the world as solulless physicalism, obscuring the miraclulous nature of everyday reality with gaudy decorations constructed from human imagination.

Snips and snails and puppy dog's tails!

Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, “. . . the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires.”

So, I guess the answer is yes, truth is needed, but truth is defined differently in pragmatism. — T Clark

I have some symapthy with your perspective on a human level, it's true because it's useful and useful because it's true. But then, what do you mean by useful? And so you resort in the end to Malsow's heirarchy of needs, in the same way one might resort to asserting the existence of an objective reality. As a pragmatist, isn't it more prgamatic to defend reasonable assumption against unreasonable scepticism - than to admit, we might all be brains in jars being fed electrical impulses the brain interprets as reality, but so long as one cannot see the join, truth qua Truth is irrelevent?

As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings. As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. Philosophy that does not meet this standard is not useful. — T Clark

I perhaps need to think more carefully about what exactly you've said, but philosophically, doesn't epistemological pragmatism devolve to an infinite regression that can only be brought to an end by asserting something is true? Then you're right back in the epistemic trenches with the rest of us, asking 'what can we know? and, how can we know it?'

I am wondering how the discussion would go if we thought the Creator manifested our reality by giving chaos order and that human activity can either maintain that order or destroy it? — Athena

With regard to the thesis set out in the opening post, ten pages ago, ideally, I think it's our responsibility to understand what's true, and act morally with regard to what's true....not necessarily 'because God says so' but because there is an objective reality that's a web of cause and effect relations, and acting on valid knowledge within a causal reality is necessary to valid outcomes. For instance, imagine a criminal in court - who tells lies. If those lies are believed; the court may act morally, but the verdict will not be just. Valid knowledge of reality is necessary to morally valid outcomes; but also functionally valid outcomes. Imagine a technology based on principles that are wrong to reality. It won't work.

It's the same with the world. Nature is one big machine, and we're a faulty cog insofar as we are wrong, causing a system wide dysfunction. It's scientifically possible to solve the climate and ecological crisis. The earth is a ball of molten rock containing an effectively limitless amount of energy, we could harness to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, and so balance human welfare and environmental sustainability very much in our favour. Nasa proved this in 1982 - but somehow 'The Magma Enenergy Project' was quietly discontinued, and 40 years later, global population and fossil fuel use have doubled, and Trump Digs Coal!

If you see things in terms of chaos and order you end up with totalitarian government, but if you see things in terms of knowing what's true and doing what's right, you get morally valid outcomes that work!

Russia is intending to hold naval drills off the coast of Ireland in about 1 month's time. Amazing opportunity. The bulk of the Russian navy gathered in one spot, and the bulk of the Russian army in another. Two barrages of cruise missiles, and the whole thing could be put to bed. Or trigger thermonuclear war! Meh! Doomed by climate change anyway!