This strikes me as a "robot question," where a robot asks about a phenomenon that the robot doesn't experience but is trying to gain some understanding of.

As others have pointed out, we don't all have the same brain. Just like we don't all have the same nose or toes or hair, etc. And we don't all have the same mental or brain abilities, just like we don't all have the same abilities to lift weights or play a guitar or even breathe with the same lung capacity.

As a nominalist, I don't believe that we ever experience the same emotion on two occasions. Terms for emotions tag a range of different feelings. And it's often a matter of just how we've conceptualized an emotion, just how specific and/or nuanced we want to try to get, tempered by how difficult it might be to communicate those nuances, especially since we can't simply point to an emotion. Different cultures have terms for emotions that might be difficult to understand from another culture, or where a word might be lacking in another language. Examples (which you can look up) include schadenfreude, obhimaan and saudade. Here's a list of some others: https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/10-extremely-precise-words-for-emotions-you-didnt-even-know-you-had.html

You might find this interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_classification

:razz:

But it's grounded in a belief system, is it not? — Wayfarer

I wouldn't say that. It's a moral exhortation. Moral stances aren't a belief system, since moral stances aren't even true or false. We could say that it involves a belief that there are others to treat some way, but I wouldn't say that's a "belief system" or that it's indicative of one.

Atheism also isn't a "belief system" or even necessarily a belief (if we accept the notion of "negative atheism").

When you're driving a car daydreaming and run a red light and crash into someone is that your conscious or subconscious? — 3017amen

Daydreaming is a conscious mental phenomenon. So is awareness while driving, although simple awareness is not the same sort of mental phenomenon as imagining or fantasizing.

Regarding atheism as a belief, it sounds like another religion, doesn't it? — 3017amen

I wouldn't say so. Religions are "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" or something similar. Religions aren't just any arbitrary belief.

The specific belief in question was 'treat others as self', — Wayfarer

I wouldn't say that's a belief. It's an exhortation. Beliefs have to do with thinking that something is the case.

Sure, volitional existence. — 3017amen

Say what?

As a goal you chose Atheism LoL — 3017amen

Atheism isn't a goal for me. It's simply a term for a belief I have.

I don't buy that there are any subconscious mental phenomena.

That would be false because your goal is to seek the truth. — 3017amen

No. I don't have a goal to seek the truth unless I'm consciously thinking "I have a goal to seek the truth."

You don't have goals that you're not aware of and focused on as goals.

Then there's no reason to believe them, — Wayfarer

To believe them? It's not clear to me what you're referring to. To believe what?

I can't tell if that's a yes or no.

So for example, I just thought, "I can't tell if he's answering yes or no." I didn't think anything about a goal.

That's what I'm left with if you say that humans have no goals. — 3017amen

You only have a goal if you think about something in terms of a goal. Are you saying that every single thought you have is in terms of a goal?

Why not? Couldn't one have a goal of Nilhilism? — 3017amen

If you stop thinking about anything in terms of goals and purposes you're not going to have a goal of nihilism. You'd have to have "I have a goal of nihilism" as a conscious thought in order to have a goal of nihilism. But obviously that's not the case if you're not thinking of anything in terms of goals or purposes.

Is that Nihilism? — 3017amen

No. It doesn't have anything to do with nihilism.

In any case can a human eradicate their goals and purposes? — 3017amen

Of course. Simply stop thinking about anything that way.

If someone thinks about it that way. Again, goals and purposes are not the same thing, though.

The idea that (it's true that) a human should (or shouldn't) have goals or that there's a purpose to having goals.

Or are you asking what category errors are in general?

If in general, see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

But it still begs the question why should a human have goals? For what purpose? — 3017amen

There are no shoulds or purposes other than thinking about things in those terms. So you're looking for an answer that can't be had--it's a category error. People do think in terms of normatives and purposes and so on. It's simply a contingent fact of brain evolution. There's no purpose, there's no "should" to brains evolving as they did.

There's not just one reason for it. Some of it is just curiosity about other people and what their lives are like.

Sometimes it's a way to live vicariously through that person, who might have a life that's unlike any you'll ever have--a lot of celebrity gossip is of that nature.

Those are just two examples of reasons people can be interested in it.

No, because if that person does not want to fall in love (in that case), there consciousness will turn yet to another unfulfilled goal/purpose. — 3017amen

"No such purpose" is a different phrase than "No purpose." "No such purpose" means that they do not have the purpose in question if it's not consciously present. It doesn't mean that they won't have some other purpose in mind.

However, some people think of nothing as a purpose. They may have goals, but they don't actually think about those in terms of them being a purpose.

It's easier for me to just re-post at this point. — Isaac

How about trying to not come across like an annoying asshole? Maybe that would work.

When I watch that I'm just waiting for that part where I have to start shooting people. (I like playing video games.)

To me, he exhorts: although his essay is written as a description of the way that Cannabis works on a mature mind, I came to the conclusion that in reality, Rushkoff is being hortatory, telling us, "Use Cannabis in order to break free of the constraints of bourgeois/white privilege mentality; use it to see clearly what is really happening in the world, and stop pretending that your life style isn't part of the problem; use it first and foremost to know thyself better." — uncanni

Sounds preachy and kind of elitist or snobby to me.

I did read some of it, but it doesn't really appeal to me.

So in addition to your reading comprehension problems, you think you know what someone has in mind better than they do.

So since you have no answer, — 3017amen

Saying I have no answer, when I'm giving you the answer but you're just saying it's not acceptable without explaining why it's not acceptable doesn't really work.

At any rate you ignored this post:

Someone only has a purpose to fall in love and procreate if they intentionally think, "I have a goal or purpose to fall in love and procreate."

Otherwise there's no such purpose for that human.

Do you agree with this?

I'm guessing, by the way, that there must be some apologist who forwards an argument based on the idea that traits (including abilities, etc.) that are not evolutionarily necessary or advantageous are inexplicable, so "God must have done it"?

Morality also includes modalities such as "permissible," "recommendable," "optional," etc.

With respect to things that are morally obligatory or impermissible, free will is still relevant in that you can choose to take the morally obligatory action or not. If you do not, then you've chosen to not act morally.

I like a woman with teeth.

Most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. — 3017amen

Re the post I just made above this, someone only has a purpose to fall in love and procreate if they intentionally think, "I have a goal or purpose to fall in love and procreate."

Otherwise there's no such purpose for that human.

Do you agree with this?

Example: most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. Is that instinct or higher consciousness or both? — 3017amen

Re this, instincts aren't purposes. Purposes are ways that we consciously think about something. As I explained, it's a motivational, goal-directed manner of thinking. If you don't have in your conscious mind, "My purpose for x is y," or "My purpose is to y," then purposes do not apply.

We're at an impasse. You are not answering the existential question about the why's of existence. — 3017amen

As I say here, there is no why other than this:

"The only reason that those things exist [such as purposes] is because it's stuff that brains can do, and natural processes can and did result in the formation of brains as they are. There's no additional 'why' to it aside from that."

You'd have to explain why, in your view, that doesn't answer why something like purpose exists as a way we think about things. Can you explain that?

So let's do this first:

Your point alludes to cosmology. I'm talking consciousness/cognitive science. So, can you answer why human's have purpose and why that's important? — 3017amen

This is why it's important to not bypass some posts.

Re why humans can think about things in terms of purpose, I said this, in response to every potential question of this sort:

"The only reason that those things exist [such as purposes] is because it's stuff that brains can do, and natural processes can and did result in the formation of brains as they are. There's no additional 'why' to it aside from that."

Also, countless times now, I've explained to you that there need not be any importance to any trait that arises. That's not to say that thinking about things in terms of purpose isn't important, but it's irrelevant whether it's important. It could be a detriment, and it could still have arisen and persisted.

You contradicted yourself from your earlier statement that there is no purpose. Then you said human's have goals. — 3017amen

What I wrote was "The world in general has no purposes." In other words, outside of humans thinking about things that way, purposes do not obtain in the world. And then I mentioned teleology (I mentioned it being bunk). Teleology is "the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise" or "the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world." That should have given you a clue what I was saying with "The world in general has no purposes" if that sentence alone was not sufficient. (You're not another Aspie, are you?)

Then on your next point. I might be mistaken, but if you're claiming God does not exist in a proposition, you have to defend it. — 3017amen

I asked you per what do you have to defend it. You said per the rules of formal, including propositional, logic. I challenged you to a wager: find a logic textbook that says anything like "If you claim that P, then you have to defend it" and you win the bet. The reason I made that challenge is that you've made a number of statements about logic that suggest that you don't understand what logic is.

In your case, you contradicted yourself on the topic of Purpose — 3017amen

Sure. So start with that. What did you take to be a contradiction (presumably some P (some proposition) that I both asserted and denied)?

And secondly, you didn't understand basic deductive/formal logic in defending your claim that God doesn't exist. — 3017amen

Re that, I proposed a wager. Would you make a wager about it?

but over the years I have encountered the no free will crowd over and over and over saying that there are no non-deterministic processses that support free will. — Coben

They'll express that they're dubious about quantum mechanics supporting it if someone brings up that the consensus view in the sciences isn't that the world is strongly deterministic.

Certainly some people bring up qm because that's been suggested by some a a possible mechanism for free will (Roger Penrose being the most famous example probably), but usually people bring up qm as an example of it being incorrect to say that the sciences posit that the world is strongly deterministic.

And no, I didn't read the rest of your post. I mean, come on. You just said you weren't going to bother me any longer and then you post something that looks like it's approaching 1000 words where we're just nitpicking about nonsense. Being unable to stop oneself from posting long crap seems to be another Aspie trait, by the way.

No, but it does mean that the behaviour is at least present here — Isaac

No, it doesn't. I'm not saying that it's not present here, but you can't glean that it necessarily is from what I wrote. "Online forums like this" simply refers to this being an example of the sorts of forums I'm talking about.

In online forums like this — Terrapin Station

Right, and aside from you being an Aspie in your interpretation of that, it still doesn't explain this additional reading comprehension problem (see? that's all it is with you, a long string of reading comprehension problems in post after post), because "like this" doesn't literally say ONLY ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD AND ONLY IN THIS THREAD.

Even if you're being literal about it being online, rather than that being an example, I've not only been chatting and messaging back and forth with people on the Internet since 1994, but going all the way back to about 1980 ("about"--it might have been 1979 or whatever), I was interacting with people "online" via bulletin board systems (BBS).

Even if I were saying "only on this board" for some dumb reason (why would the extent of my conversing with others about this be this board?), are you implying that you've studied every interaction I've had with others on this board?

If I can't write a phrase such as "like this" to literally denote "this is the sort of message board I'm talking about" and have it be understood by someone who is supposed to be able to understand things literally, then what could I possibly write that you wouldn't misread? And then you wonder why I don't want to get into long philosophical discussions with you?

So it's not a claim about anything within your personal interactions. — Isaac

Oh, I'm glad you know that better than I do. Next time I wonder what exactly I'm claiming I'll check with you.

Yeah right, that's why you've been banging on about how the scientific consensus view is definitely not deterministic, — Isaac

The reason I brought that up is because it's what the "no free will crowd" always relies on (that's not literally saying 100% of the time, etc.). The reason we keep going over it is because you can't read and you want to bicker.

Yes, and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. No one in the no-free-will crowd has said anything like a claim that it is. Everyone acknowledges that some models in science use stochastic equations, everyone acknowledges that quantum mechanics is not convincingly deterministic. — Isaac

Good to know you've followed my interaction with all manner of different people for the past 40 years.

These are direct quotes. Both specifically reference using the deterministic (or non-deterministic) nature of science to support/deny free-will. — Isaac

No. Reading comprehension error. " "Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic" is my philosophical view. It's not claiming to be based on some scientific view. I never said that, and never suggested it. My views are definitively NOT views that kowtow to anything like conventional views in the sciences. I rather strongly disagree with many conventional views in the sciences.

Great !! So far I'm up on the Atheist 3-0 and counting LOL — 3017amen

You're not even addressing most posts/most points or questions in those posts.

It's addressing the question in pointing out that asking about experience is irrelevant if one is positing that there are non-experiential things. In that case, existents aren't exhausted by talking about experiential things.

If you're saying there is something that's not experiential then you can't say that all existents are experiential.