Dennett is right about some of the things he says*. You give the example of fire as an experience and fire as an actual thing in itself. But Dennett is wrong to extend this to all conscious experience. For example, suppose you listen to a piece of music. The pattern of the music changes, repeats, increases or decreases in tempo and so on. This is what we experience. Is Dennett to argue that there is no corresponding changes, repeats or changes in tempo out there in the objective world? If not, where do these patterns and changes come from? He must be arguing that they are purely internal inventions, which is ridiculous. If there is someone playing a violin and we are listening what is creating the pattern, the violin, or our brain?

Likewise with patterns in language. You are conscious of what I am saying. Are we to argue that the content of this post is purely an invention of your own brain? If it is, communication is impossible, which is clearly not the case.

*But just because some conscious experiences are subjective does not mean all conscious experiences are equally subjective. The degree of subjectivity varies greatly.

Consciousness is so hopelessly defined it is hard to know what a person means by it. Dennett is probably talking about consciousness by way of the five senses. But isn't the mind conscious independently of the senses? People need to agree/disagree on this issue even before the discussion begins. Thereafter the discussion is in terms of physical consciousness or the mind's awareness or both. But if people are to make sense they must agree on the terms of the discussion.

Either wisdom has to be dramatically accelerated somehow, or knowledge had to be slowed down dramatically, or some combination of the two. — Hippyhead

Science by itself won't provide wisdom. Something else is needed.

It is a pity that wisdom is not inherited — Skeptic

So it needs to be found somehow...

As I understand it, we’re really saying “all objects with this structure have these properties”, but that’s technically true whether or not there “really” are any objects with that structure at all. — Pfhorrest

Such as Odd Perfect Numbers https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/eulers-odd-perfect-numbers-theorem-82a393baa883

The only hope is that wisdom will keep pace with scientific knowledge. Wisdom before knowledge and wisdom before power, otherwise there is great danger.

I'd prefer to refer to what you call the "n-dimensional" as non-dimensional. — Metaphysician Undercover

Whatever the case may be, if there are two mathematically different universes then detection is when a trace effect is left on the interface between the two universes. But quantum time must be in the equations somewhere.

There is simply no way back to empirical reality from here. — Jim Baggott

lol. The multiverse is quantum fiction for fantasists.

A mathematical device with an astounding ability to predict experimental outcomes, even at a statistical level, demands explanation. — Kenosha Kid

I agree entirely. But compare it to ordinary statistics. You might argue that, statistically, 11 left-handed bachelors will enter a shop over a period of, say, 3 days. But are left-handed bachelors aligning their activities with your mathematical model? They are effectively acting in a random way.

I presented it as a need for two distinct concepts of space. You present it as a need for two distinct concepts of spacetime. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it was Niels Bohr that said it is meaningless to say where a particle is before it is detected. But 'where' is referring to a position in physical spacetime. If the particle, before detection, is in quantum spacetime Bohr is answered with 'It is nowhere'. Nowhere in physical spacetime. It is 'elsewhere'.

What is detection? We should have a rigorous definition of detection-

Detection is where an event in quantum spacetime leaves a trace effect on physical spacetime.

A trace effect can be a spot on a photographic plate. This trace effect is located in physical spacetime: you can point to it and say where it is. But where is/was the event that caused it? It is 'elsewhere' but nowhere in physical spacetime.

The salient point here is that the trace effect is necessarily in physical spacetime. Since the detection apparatus is a physical object in physical spacetime it cannot be otherwise.

So, what is happening here is that an n-dimensional event in quantum spacetime is projected onto the surface of a 4-dimensional physical spacetime. Say n = 10. This means 6 dimensions of information are lost because a 10 dimensional event is compressed into 4 dimensions.

This is one of the reasons why the ontological status of the wavefunction is doubted. — Kenosha Kid

The idea that it is a real thing gives rise to all kinds of nonsense involving reality splitting into multiple universes etc. It seems to me to be a convenient mathematical device, nothing more.

Allow me to ask you a question. For the sake of argument let's define time as 'a mathematical description of events in space'. Relativity is such a description that describes macroscopic events in ordinary physical space.
But what about 'quantum time'? If the mathematics that describe change in the quantum world are different from the mathematics of change in the physical world then are there not two (space)times? Quantum time and physical time? Are the mathematics of quantum change sufficiently different from relativity to justify the idea that quantum particles live in a different spacetime?

I just finished reading Carlo Rovelli's book The Order of Time which is an attempt to argue that time is a function of entropy. His arguments are very weak and confused.

Penrose is one of many theorists who have concluded that they are the same arrow of time. — Kenosha Kid

Just because both arrows point in the same direction does not mean they are the same. Time in the physical world has to do with mass and the speed of light. I don't see how heat flow can determine this.

Once you have an infinite number of tiles you can create a non periodic pattern. Working with only 1 and 2 you can have-

121121112111121111121111112...
How many ways can you arrange 1 and 2? You have

1, 2 and 2, 1

How many ways can you arrange 1, 2, (1, 2) and (2, 1)?

you have-

1, 2, (1, 2), (2, 1)
2, 1, (1, 2), (2, 1)
2, (1, 2), 1, (2, 1)
2, (1, 2), (2, 1), 1 etc and the combinations become infinite as you get more ways of combining the new sets that arise out of previous combinations.

To abstract means to 'take from' $abstract \subset concrete$. In this example concrete = mind. I don't see how there can be abstraction without mind. Even the null set cannot be such unless there is a mind to know it.

Shouldn't it be "The barber shaves Everyone who does not shave himself"? At any rate, this is a superficial 'paradox' because the statement is not, and cannot be true. It is a lie. Even in terms of set theory it is superficial because it assumes the is a "set of all sets..." but the entity that contains all sets is not and cannot be a set, yet it exists* so the assumption that this set exists is what causes the paradox. The entity that is 'all sets...' is an infinite set of sets, discussed here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8334/russels-paradox

Lichtenburg: Thinking is occurring. — Tom343

Russell said something similar. But as well as thought there is the knowledge that there is thinking. There is focal point that knows there is thought. Who/What is saying 'Thinking is occurring'?

He is just so logical and mathematical with his arguments, I always try to come with counterarguments to what he says but what he says simply makes a lot of sense — rickyk95

There are many consistent, logical tautologies that make sense but are not truth. Truth and nifty models of the world are not always the same thing. Personally I find his world view monstrous. He even tried to justify torture.

It is not just the fact that the ego wants something of it. "Intrinsic" beauty exists only if the individual - or in the case of the crowd, the individuals - and his ego decides that it has intrinsic value — Gus Lamarch

In that case there is, in your opinion, no objective value in anything. That is what I disagree with.

This vision of yours is tied to the prejudice attributed to egoism, so maybe you see the ego as a cancer, a parasite that destroys everything it touches; the ego is seen as something "evil", dark, which brings disgrace — Gus Lamarch

I don't think ego is always bad. And I do agree that it can be a motivating force but it can become bad. But it is not the only motivating force. I believe values exist beyond the ego and beauty is not something that depends on the ego to exist. Otherwise only ego-centered people could appreciate beauty.

Some of what you say is true. Ego can be a motivating force but so can greed, hatred, love, fear...
You will find many examples that seem to support your view but I can see many examples that support my view; namely that external values can be a motivating force.

The ego is only a point of view of the world. It is not a thing in itself. It is a focal point. And the only values it can be associated with are those values it has appropriated for itself. But those values exist independently of the ego, otherwise it could not appropriate them.

For example a rich and successful man may take great pride in his riches. But he is not rich because he is great although his ego may tell him he is. He is rich because riches exist independently of him. For the most part, he just got lucky. He appropriated riches to himself and imagines he has them because he is great.

A beautiful woman thinks she is beautiful: she thinks she is beautiful. But that is not her. It is natural physical beauty that she is associated with, again by luck and chance and no greatness of her own. But she is vain. Her ego tells her she and her physical beauty are the same thing. This is illusion. All vanities and ego-centered thinking is illusion. And yes, there is something parasitical about it because the ego cannot have value on its own merits. The ego is desire: a desire to possess. The man says "These riches are mine" the woman says "This beauty is mine. It is me." But all that is really happening is that these people are in a fleeting relationship with values, riches and beauty that exist independently of them.

This sentence doesn't make sense because you ignored my argument in a previous answer, that love is also born out of the human ego. — Gus Lamarch

But this ignores my contention that it can easily be verified that there are things that are beautiful and of value and our admiration of them is simply a recognition of their value. You are saying that nothing has intrinsic beauty or value unless the ego can get something out of it. I disagree.

How egoism will be projected depends on the will of each being, however, I agree on the questions of what the monstrous masses are, what I call as "negative-egoists". — Gus Lamarch

I think it is more correct to say that the ego attaches itself to the things we love: this is what possessiveness means: the ego wants to possess what should simply be loved. I don't disagree with you in the sense that the ego insinuates itself and looks for food. But this insinuation is not necessary to appreciate beauty or value.

how can an ego be great if it is not complete? How can it be great if it needs something from the outside? You cannot even justify this thread. — JerseyFlight

I read a bit about Ayn Rand. I think her philosophy is nothing more than simple psychoanalysis: made up stuff that is easily refuted.

The dynamic between the love of something for its own sake and egoism is at the heart of the human condition. Some things are so sublime they almost command our admiration with no reference to the ego.

But as I said, the ego attaches itself to almost everything we love purely.
The scientist begins with the love of science, but the temptation towards fame and vanity insinuates itself and the scientist is distracted by worldly fame. Likewise the artist begins with a passion for art but the personality insinuates itself; fame beckons. But fame and fortune are not science nor are they art. They are of the personality and the world. They are ego.

The ego wants to take possession of the object of love. This is a problem.

Also, there is the force of necessity acting on us. We need to eat and have a home and survive and these necessary pressures force us back to number one, ourselves, because we must preserve ourselves and survive. Even the most egoless person must survive and look after number one, out of pure necessity. This is also a problem. We are driven.

The ego is insecure and fear driven; it wants to take and posses things that should be free. Life should be free of all bondages but the ego wants to take possession. This is what the ego is, a desire to possess. But every ego knows it will eventually fail.

Your argument fails where you claim that "egoism is the denial of what is good". Good is simply a projection of the egoism itself — Gus Lamarch

Beauty is part of the good. Surely it does not need egoism to exist? Surely things have value in themselves. How could they need someone's ego to confer value upon them? The good involves recognizing that things in themselves have value. We can love the beauty of the stars without egoism. Love is, in fact, the opposite to egoism.

Another point is that if someone values themselves - egocentrically or otherwise - then why does another person not have value also? Are we to say that the only person who has value is the ego and nobody else has value?

Life is a communication between minds. To be alive the ego must go beyond itself. Life and the love of life, is beyond ego and does not depend on egoism. In fact ego is corrosive of life and love because life looks outward, ego looks inward. Ego is the beginning of evil.

The problem isn't truth. Its applying "truth" to something that doesn't make any sense to begin with. — Philosophim

Yes. It is the same with Russell's Paradox. The paradox begins with "The set..." but the thing under discussion is not a set at all (the paradox shows it can't be). Yet, it exists as something that is not a set. In fact, the paradox arises out of the assumption that a non existent set is a set; the paradox is in the way the proposition is stated: "The set..."

I proposed the use of a set of logical functions to indicate the kind of speech-act being made, especially distinguishing the direction-of-fit aspect of it, so that that part of an expression can be separated from the propositional content of the speech-act, the idea that the speech-act is about. This is primarily because all of the rest of logic is about the relationships between those ideas alone, independent of whatever we might be communicating about some attitudes toward those ideas. — Pfhorrest

Language is not, generally speaking, as rigorous as logic. One should not confuse the two. As you say, it is the logical relationship between ideas that count, not the subtle variations in how we convey ideas by language.

There would be no fool's gold if there were no gold. — Wayfarer

:100:

Again I repeat, being altruistic is not a bad thing, but it is just a more "cordial" way of projecting your egoistic accomplishments on others. — Gus Lamarch

That argument asserts that there is nothing outside the ego that has any intrinsic value in itself: that only by way of satisfying the ego does it have any value. This is demonstrably false since there are many things that can be loved purely because they have intrinsic value. The love of science, mathematics, art, literature, another being, nature, life itself...egoism is a denial of the good.

The logical end of egoism is insanity; left to its own devices, unbridled, it becomes megalomania, tyranny, pathology and ultimately evil. The psychopath thinks the whole world is there to satisfy his ego: nothing has any value unless it serves his grotesque selfishness. The psychopath is a complete narcissistic failure who fails to recognize the intrinsic value of life.

I don't see why we need an ego to value anything outside the ego.

So, the more one loves, the more egoistic one becomes? — javra

Not necessarily. Love may be pure in the beginning but the ego is an opportunistic leech; it tries to appropriate everything, even love, to itself. What begins in innocence becomes corrupt by the ego.

empathy is nothing more than a tool to project your own ego on others — Gus Lamarch

Empathy/love/compassion is to understand and value something beyond the ego. It is spiritual maturity.

There needs to be a distinction here between thought and the concepts and images produced by thought. Thought is the energy of the mind. The mind has being because it is alive. The intellectual products of thought are abstractions and models of reality, they are not all of what thought is.

I don't think one can flatly state that God is an invention of the mind or a mere thinking process. This is a proclamation that needs to be justified.

The Deity is a formation of thought, it is not a concrete substance. — JerseyFlight

Thought is being 'I think, therefore I am'. Being is God. The power of thought is God, in our minds. When the mind thinks it moves through God as a fish moves through the sea.

Hitler brought himself into power through the zealous actions of a minority. — JerseyFlight

It was the banks that brought him to power. https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/hitlers-bankers-finally-face-up-to-their-sorry-past-26400645.html

I do it because ideology is dangerous, it destroys lives and sabotages democratic freedom, paving the way to irreparable systems of violence. — JerseyFlight

Like state atheism?

The Communist Party engaged in diverse activities such as destroying places of worship, executing religious leaders, flooding schools and media with anti-religious propaganda, and propagated "scientific atheism".[50][51] It sought to make religion disappear by various means.[52][53]

Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution)

More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death.

a government-sanctioned demolition work crew drove a bulldozer over two Chinese Christians who protested the demolition of their church by refusing to step aside

Human Rights Overview reported in 2004 that North Korea remains one of the most repressive governments, with isolation and disregard for international law making monitoring almost impossible.[134] After 1,500 churches were destroyed during the rule of Kim Il Sung from 1948 to 1994,

The Mongol leader at that time was Khorloogiin Choibalsan, a follower of Joseph Stalin, who emulated many of the policies that Stalin had previously implemented in the Soviet Union. The purge virtually succeeded in eliminating Lamaism and cost an estimated thirty to thirty-five thousand lives.

On June 14, 1926, President Calles enacted anticlerical legislation known formally as The Law Reforming the Penal Code and unofficially as the Calles Law.[146] His anti-Catholic actions included outlawing religious orders, depriving the Church of property rights and depriving the clergy of civil liberties, including their right to a trial by jury

the Mexican government persecuted the clergy, killing suspected Cristeros and supporters and often retaliating against innocent individuals.[151] On May 28, 1926, Calles was awarded a medal of merit from the head of Mexico's Scottish rite of Freemasonry for his actions against the Catholics

Calles' insistence on a complete state monopoly on education, suppressing all Catholic education and introducing "socialist" education in its place: "We must enter and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

The People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual elimination of all religion in Albania with the goal of creating an atheist nation, which it declared it had achieved in 1967. In 1976, Albania implemented a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda.[14] The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes, such as cultural centers for young people. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946.[14][15] Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.

The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions, particularly Theravada Buddhism.[18] Over the four years of Khmer Rouge rule, at least 1.5 million Cambodians perished. Of the sixty thousand Buddhist monks that previously existed, only three thousand survived the Cambodian genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion

The amount of revolutionary research and progress in psychology, in the last 20 years alone, is breathtaking. — JerseyFlight

A great deal of psychology is a tautology; they have renamed and relabeled many elements of the psyche and bleached it of spiritual reality. What is the psyche? Ask a psychologist. I doubt that many of them care much so long as the tautological edifice is self sustaining. At least Peterson realizes it is not an abstraction.

1) The role that religion plays in poisoning life — JerseyFlight

What do you mean by this?

JerseyFlight — JerseyFlight

I think what he is saying - S. Weil says something similar - is that abstract intellectual cogitation will not resolve the issue. One must find something better.

"But is there any coherent alternative, given the self-evident horrors of existence? Can Being
itself, with its malarial mosquitoes, child soldiers and degenerative neurological diseases, truly
be justified?... I... don’t think it is possible to answer the question by thinking.
Thinking leads inexorably to the abyss." — JerseyFlight

I think this needs to be put in context. What does he mean by 'thinking'? Trying to think it through and come to some kind of conclusion or resolution? Perhaps he is right in this but it is a good thing to think and see that 'naive' thinking won't resolve the issue; there is no Eureka moment. He goes on the say-

thinking collapses in on itself. In such situations—in the depths—it’s noticing, not thinking, that does the trick. — JerseyFlight

So things can be resolved? When thinking ends, being begins. Being is a more exalted form of thought. You might be interested in Simone Weil's 'The need for roots' which deals with these issues.

how ever do you get out of this circle once you enter in? — JerseyFlight

If the intellect is to discern truth its only hope is if it is allied to consciousness.

The bottom line is that you are going to believe what you want to believe — JerseyFlight

I disagree. My beliefs are convictions not the fulfilment of unconscious desires. Of course you can say 'How do you know that if your desires are unconscious?' But you can refute anyone by positing unconscious motivations for what they are saying.

you have already admitted to the futility and bankruptcy of thought. — JerseyFlight

I would not say thought is futile. I'm saying abstract 'rationalizations' cannot answer realities that exist in the realm of consciousness. Religion is about awareness and intuition. Going the intellectual route is a poor choice when it comes to resolving these issues.

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. — EnPassant

Here you have not transcended the presupposition of the criteria of radical skepticism. — JerseyFlight

My statement is slightly tongue-in-cheek. But it has truth in it; the intellect is labyrinthine. So is philosophy.

dp

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death — JerseyFlight

Looked him up on wiki. Honestly, he just takes the "immortality project" and runs with it. It is so easy to do this. You can take some psychoanalytic notion and fit the whole world into it. Like Freud's Oedipus and Electra complexes. You can easily build the whole world around them and make a convincing theory. Here goes-

Psychonalysis is an "immortality project" in the sense that the practitioner wants god like knowledge of all things and pretends to be able to map the human mind; unravel the greatest mysteries of the mind and thereby achieve immortality by way of god-like knowledge.

the thinker doesn't even realize, in the process of thinking thus, he has departed from reality to wander through an abstract aesthetic. — JerseyFlight

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. Truth exists in the realm of consciousness. The a/theist's rationalizations are post hoc. The real issue is more subtle.