No you cannot. You said “nothing but” x, y and z. This is clearly rubbish unless your perspective is that all forces of nature are purely destructive … which would make the term ‘destructive’ pretty redundant if the only thing there is is ‘destruction’.

Do not make false claims and expect people to just accept them blindly.

Waste of time unless you make the effort to present sources that counter your argument. It is not exactly hard to find some source that backs up your claim but it makes for a more honest approach to show you have tried to counter your own position/s and questions them to some degree.

I do not think there is anywhere near enough of this here.

You would first have to back up the claims made (which you cannot).

Basically this OP looks like gibberish because it is gibberish. If you ere just looking to see if someone could point this out I am sure many above already have? I haven’t actually looked but hope I am correct.

Is red more yellow than fish are birds?

Same kind of question really.

Do not get fooled by words. ‘Nothing’ is generally a reference to ‘absence’. There can be many things in a room but once you have removed them there is nothing in the room. The ‘nothing’ exists in context to there being the ‘absence’ where there was once something. This is a concept that is so engrained in our lived experience that we barely give it a second thought.

The concept of a table is almost certainly nothing to an ant. An ant walking across a table is not in any way state or form aware of a ‘table’ it merely walks from one point to another with no conception of the item we call ‘table’ as a surface made for putting things on to keep them off the floor.

There are many useless/empty terms in the English language.

I do not really see why this is a thread. Equally empty and useless? ;)

No one agrees on everything. Whoever is talking about getting rid of metaphysics is essentially talking about doing away with philosophy.

If everything is just physics then it is just physics. Metaphysics originally meant on the fringe of physics I believe. Science is not a doctrine.

By understanding that our understanding is necessarily limited (Kant) we come to understand something. The limitation is what sets the precedent for knowledge.

No metaphysical conception would equate to no knowledge or understanding of anything.

No. Existence is kind of an important concept for conscious beings. We cannot just sweep it under the carpet.

I am thinking how many see these writers, especially Kant, as being outdated philosophers of the past. — Jack Cummins

Right there is a problem. Kant pretty much still holds up to this day with his work COPR. If many of those writers say that I would say they are probably pandering to science rather than making any concerted effort to delineate between philosophy and science.

Basically you are boiling this down to humans having a complex language and other animals not?

I agree. ‘Morality’ is a concept born through complex language. The objective origins of ‘morality’ would be something different from what we general call ‘morality’.

To even begin to address whether animals have some species of ‘morality’ would first require us to outline, on an objective level, what/where morality is and then be able to apply some kind of empirical unit to it that remains constant.

You would like me to have a fetish for guns I imagine. Would make life easier if everything was black and white.

You bore me. Bye

The US is no more violent, has no more mental illnesses, and has no more crime than other developed countries. — Michael

Well … no. When it comes to homocides the US is WAY ahead. I have actually looked at the stats too you know ;)

True, around 80% of those are gun related … would all of those 80% have not found another means to commit murder though? It may well level out at around the same as some European countries. It well not be the case at all that taking guns out of the equation would reduce the homocide rate to something comparable to other western nations.

Clearly more strict regulations in the US are required for gun ownership. Having gun ranges seems okay to me but simply don’t let people take their guns home? The whole thing is completely foreign to me.

Yeah … I did say my point/question was probably not relevant to the title of this thread.

I know all this. That was not my point.

Yes, clearly there is an issue with gun control. I am from a country where I have literally never seen an armed police officer let alone someone else carrying a gun.

US culture is not like other countries. I am just saying there may be a much deeper problem in US society because it is a cultural attitude held, and impressed, by the ruling body.

The US is a strange country.

This is a philosophy forum so it might be worth considering that the US has a different culture to other cultures around the world.

I am being rational. I am stating that removing guns may not really change that people want to kill other en masse in the US. Obviously the ready availability guns eases mass murder BUT it is a symptom of some unstable minds. We can speculate what causes first then maybe dig to the root of the societal unrest that causes many to walk around in fear in the US.

It is interesting to see how people from US react when living in Europe. They feel safe. Is the fear due to guns? Maybe. It would seem to be the most obvious reason people are scared knowing so many people have guns. I am just asking if there is something else being missed.

I’m not from the US and find carrying guns bizarre. I am not interested in your politicking or attempts to paint me whatever colour suits your biases. I don’t care for it in the slightest but go ahead and continue if you want to be met with silence.

This is an assumption that it is THE underlying factor.

Like I said, what if guns were taken out of circulation yet the degree of violence continued with cases of stabbings that effectively made little difference to the kill count?

Maybe it more or less something to do with items like education, wealth disparities and employment. Maybe lack of paid holidays? Extortionate healthcare?

Blanketing the issue with ‘guns’ seems a tad naive to me. I can see it is useful as a device for political haranguing to gain votes though.

Note: I understand the title of the thread is aimed specifically at gun control. My point is why everyone is obsessed with this debate rather than focusing more carefully on what drives someone to kill in the manner they do in the US whilst in other countries this kind of thing is rare.

Maybe threat of violence? Like the ‘nuclear deterrent’ idea … it is a stretch though.

In the US the problem in society seems to run far deeper than people shoot each other because they have access to guns. If the guns were removed would we see more knife crime? If so then the problem is the people and having guns does not make someone kill.

Remove/address what is driving people to commit such insane crimes would be a better path to take rather than blaming guns for violence.

Regarding Quote 02 above, I answer by declaring we humans, unlike the automatons, possess a self who, described functionally, maintains a personal POV of events as reported via the senses & the cogitating mind. — ucarr

That is the problem. Where is the physical evidence for consciousness? What does ‘consciousness’ do? This is in light of understanding that it is perfectly for a philosophical zombie to exist (without disrupting our understanding of nature).

This and what you say after leads directly to Husserl:

How does our scientific process, based mainly within objectivism, render an objective profile of subjectivity? In facing The Hard Problem, have we arrived at the limit of scientific objectivism? — ucarr

.

Generally there are attempts made by cognitive neuroscientists adopting phenomenological approaches (Husserl’s phenomenology). I believe Husserl was on the only rational track but it by no means extinguishes the Hard Problem just frames it in a different light that allows some form of possible approach to aspects within it or related to it.

My personal view is that it is more likely a problem of definitions and/or category errors. Subjectivity can not be ‘given’ to another as someone else cannot be someone different. Piecing together the intersubjectivity does allow us to shed some light but I think it is ridiculous to believe we can ‘know’ in any complete sense and so the Hard Problem is more or less an extension where epistemic questions can play around.

I’ve extended that indefinitely as I regard you as a troll and/or manic.

You will not be getting any responses from me in the immediate future (months+).

There is a difference between something that is naturally implausible and something naturally impossible. The supernatural, by definition, is something that defies the natural order of things.

We can most certainly mistaken something highly implausible for something supernatural. The main difference being when this happens the supernatural dissipates and nature remains as nature.

Beyond the laws of nature and beyond the known laws of nature are two different things. Maybe all supernatural ideas are just natural items yet to be unveiled.

Anyone who thinks Belief is a key part of practiced science is delusional.

The term ‘belief’ can be used in different ways so it is probably worth understanding the different ways in which this word can be used:

- I belief I live on Earth (maybe used in sarcasm or as a pedantic statement to outline the possible limits of sceptical thought).

- I believe intelligent alien beings with thee heads live on The Moon because someone posted a story about this online.

- I believe in god.


These are three very different different uses of the very same word. Conflating the uses of the term is a mistake.

I have heard the silly argument that ‘believing in science’ like believing in a deity. Absolutely not, because when people state they ‘believe in science’ (if they do so with sense) they just mean they understand the practice of science and how and when it can be reasonably applied to help understand and question the world we live in.

There may be a good reason to belief in a god for some people, but it is reason itself that underpins the practice of science as an ever changing and ever developing system that builds upon refuting itself at each turn. This is not to say that scientists cannot be ‘dogmatic’. It makes sense that science has a kind of ‘dogmatic’ feel to it in some ways because when a new idea comes along (ie. General/Special Relativity) the mainstream will brutally attack it putting the onus on the theory to provide a means of supplying evidence to back it up.

Someone sounds like Vicky Pollard.

Masculine traits are not exclusive to males.

In terms of opposite poles over nurturing children can produce highly dysfunctional adults just as much as tyrannical nurturing can.

Toxic behaviour comes from both sexes just as often in my experience. Basing ‘bad behaviour’ on any singular psychological trait is ridiculous too. Masculinity in and of itself is not a bad thing at all the problem arises when there is lack or excess in other areas.

No one can be too masculine or too feminine because in and of themselves there is nothing ‘toxic’ about either.

Psychotic episodes can present in many different forms by way of many different triggers. When it comes to diagnosing someone as bipolar or schizophrenic it is not exactly an easy task because people can, and do, have episodes that look very much like these.

It basically comes down to stressing the body/mind. Alter states of consciousness are trigger by a severe stress - be this culminated over prolonged periods of time (anchorites and such) or brought on by some kind of trauma (strokes and forms of severe psychological stress).

It does not take long to see that every religious prophet was exposed to such stresses.

Anyone answering in such a blase way is missing the point.

Looks like a problem of ‘why’ and ‘how’. Meaning we can fairly confidently state that consciousness has arisen through evolutionary processes of some sort (the ‘why’ of consciousness) but we cannot address the intricacies of the process or get to grips with demarcating what exactly is meant by ‘consciousness’ (the ‘how’ of consciousness).

Chalmers philosophical zombie is one of those hypotheticals that many misrepresent/misinterpret. He merely states that it is not hard to imagine creatures on another world living as we do today and doing what we do yet having no consciousness whatsoever (there are no known rules of physics that state this could not be possible). From there it is then a question of asking what is the difference between us and them.

That is the simplest way I know of that outlines the so-called hard problem of consciousness so tell them that. If it doesn’t interest them it doesn’t interest them. The common entrenched reactions of many in my experience on forums like this is to shout ‘fantasy’ and walk away … let them walk away.

I’d be inclined to say the greatest factor is probably interest. Women, in general, are just not that interested in more abstract realms as much as men. Women tend to go for caring jobs or jobs that involve more social interactions.

The question of why there are more women in mathematics than philosophy may be more or less due to there being concerted efforts to encourage women into mathematics and no effort has been made for philosophy (as it is not exactly as highly regarded as mathematics in the public eye).

If you found my post hostile that is on you. If every word you read is preconceived as being ‘hostile’ then it can look hostile.

I can only tell you my post was made because I thought there was something to talk about. If not I can leave just as quickly as I came.

One noticeable difference is that US Presidents, bare minimum, play at believing in god whilst in the UK a Prime Minister is mostly mocked/ridiculed for outward/semi-vocal religious faith (eg. Tony Blair).

There is no reason not to believe that we will be able to produce vat grown meats of extremely high quality. Until that day comes I guess you are stuck.

It is a nebulous term. The UK is classed as a ‘non-secular state’ in some ways yet religious institutions seem to hold far more sway in the US, which is classed as a ‘secular state’.

I just roughly demarcate in terms of political influence and sway over court and governmental proceedings … which leaves the UK in a somewhat contrary position as the Royal Family has legal power yet they keep these powers by not actually using them and remaining ‘neutral’. In the US it doesn’t take a genius to see that religious views play a large role in leaning governmental powers one way or another.

The term ‘god’ exists. How it is used and what exactly it may or may not be referring to would, by itself, show if any kind of proof was possible.

Most often people just say ‘it is obvious, look at the flowers and the sky’ or some such reference to the wonderment of nature. It does not appear there can be any proof of some ‘deity’/‘being’ but we can at least request a more precise definition of the term that tries to steer away from ambiguity.

This can obviously be a problem because if someone asked you to define yourself it would not really be all that easy as you may not know where to start. If the question is refined better then we might get further … for instances asking for a definition of yourself in respect to your occupation, family, or hobbies.

In a rather simplistic manner a great number of people encapsulate ‘god’ as ‘life’ in general. So think of your question as asking them ‘to prove life’ … that is often why the response is incredulity at such a silly question.

Nothing is really ‘religious’ by the same line of argumentation.

A tax office is a secular building. A church is a religious building.

Morality is not owned by religious institutions anymore than it is by secular institutions.

There are many areas where you can argue for some item of human experience being partly secular or partly religious. In political terms secular - which I believe is where the term is most commonly used today? - means the state keeps figures of religious institutes away from governance of the state. It is not an absolute as most things are not unless they are abstractions.

For instance the UK is a secular nation yet it is ridiculous to state that the religious institutions play no part in the broader political environment. I would say that religious institutions have far less sway in the UK than they do in the US though.

Whoever this Fumerton is they sound rather silly or you are misrepresenting their point … whatever it is.

If I see a table in front of me I do not question it as a table. If my hand goes through the table then I understand I am hallucinating. If I believe I can put my hand through a table when everyone else around me says there is no table there that is a delusion. If I see a rainbow in the sky it is an optical illusion.

The idea that we can ‘know’ in some absolute sense is clearly ridiculous and why I said it sounds rather silly. We do not look at every object in day-to-day life and question its existence. Anything brought into conscious attention can be readily questioned with some degree of skepticism.

Maybe he was asking how we regulate our skepticism and get on in the world rather than being constantly constipated with doubt about everything? That can fairly easily be accounted for through neuroscientific studies, that show how we are novelty seeking beings. What is ‘ordinary’ is roughly categorised as ‘existing’ and not worthy of any high degree of skeptical attention - unless it errs from normal experience in its appearance in some way. This is why when we walk into a room in our house we tend to notice if there is a chair overturned, yet on a junk site an overturned chair will unlikely draw our attention as it is something we are likely to see.

As for studies where people have taken hallucinogens there are reports that such experiences feel ‘more real than real’ and we could perhaps put this down to a novelty overload of sorts. Things that grip us so profoundly open up our perceptual doors and allow for the comparative drudgery of day-to-day life to spring into a newfound light and gain potentially more meaning along side the novelty of the experience.

I imagine a few people here have experienced something quite extraordinary in life that made the whole world around them look/feel somehow ‘different’ and ‘more new’.

Apocalypse means ‘to reveal’ btw. There have been numerous revelations in human history.

To follow that. The OP is more or less framed at living in civilised society. We can choose to leave one way of life and live another. There are undoubtedly a variety of hurdles that basically boil down to ‘fear’. That is a problem we have to cope with in some manner or another. It is how we falter and learn to imagine a new way and open up new doors.

It is clearly a ruse to use the term ‘comply’ here if he then says in the next breath that there is no choice. We cannot comply if there is no choice. We either live or die whilst trying to live. There is no ‘choice’ in this matter.

This is an example of being muddled.

If we cannot do otherwise then we cannot do otherwise. Yet you say we ‘choose to work’ … that is contrary. We literally must do something (work) to live … be this to gather food or hunt.

We can live or cease to live. We are most certainly compelled to live in almost every circumstance.

This is not a moral problem as all because it just is as it is. Like someone else jokingly mentioned we cannot rationally call ‘gravity’ immoral and think it will be accepted by others.

Humans judge other humans in some moral/ethical capacity. There is literally no judgement to be had beyond the realm of conscious beings.

I would still like to understand what difference you see between ‘life’ and ‘the game’ if any? I assume you must see a difference or your reasoning falls flat.

They are useful for removing a callus.

I’ve never met a callous rock :D

If you replace ‘game’ with ‘life’ then you are wrong.

Calling ‘life’ ‘the game’ is where I disagree. I guess you think the term ‘life’ is different to ‘the game’. If so what is the difference?

I do not see any moral problem or any gun to head? What situation is anyone creating? Are we actually ‘creating’ said ‘situation’ if there is some overseer with a ‘gun to our head’? I don’t believe this it what you are saying just showing it is rather nebulous.

I don’t see a clear thought expressed in what you have said. It is a mishmash and I think you could use more literal terms to help clarify whatever it is.