M'kay. :mask:

Eyes in the back of your head is it?

Time does move backwards; or rather we move backwards through time. You can tell because we can see where we've been, but not where we're going.

Not just nationality, but every form of identification is necessarily divisive and leads to conflict. See Swift's parody of the Big-endians v the Little-endians for example. And truth is always the first casualty of every conflict.

Personally, i have to beat them off with a stick; but I don't actually hate women at all. :cool:

That's my complaint. You "consciousness" guys are bogged in the mud because you have a dys-functional conception of what its about. The mind can't make causal sense until you adopt a functional, enactive and embodied perspective. — apokrisis

Reminds me of Wittgenstein's characterisation of philosophy as "engine idling". We do philosophy to tune the engine of consciousness, but then we want to do something and go somewhere with it, and that's science or literature, or politics, or, love, or war. But alas, philosophers tend to think that philosophy is the function of the engine.

I'm super happy that you have noticed that it is at least an interesting question. I think most of us have a divided mind such that the world-and-self that is observed is not the observer, but that this division is an illusion.

I imagine God the programmer. In the beginning, God wrote the program of the world, and Ran it for a day, and was dissatisfied, So She halted the program and adjusted the parameters, and ran it again. And the morning and the evening were the 2nd day. [...] And on the 7th day, She just let it run.

This God is omnipotent in relation to Her creation, but not necessarily in relation to Her own being. She might even create an avatar, and give it super-powers and intervene in the world, appearing as a wise prophet and miracle-worker.

But to imagine that our piles of words, even most logically arranged, can oblige God to be like this or like that is magical thinking.

Because I am a qualified painter and have spent 7 yeas in a Monastery prayerfully listening to God, I happen to know that the other day he stopped time for (obviously) an indeterminate eon, while he nudged that missile away from the nuclear reactor. He quite often stops the world program to adjust things, and at least once He had to restart completely, because - well I won't go into that.

I'm inclined to with modern views on consciousness pervading the topic, but when I think about it, when I say something like "my song" when referring to a piece that I have composed, I am talking about the same emergent consciousness as I would be if I said "my thoughts." See where I'm going? It is more likely that consciousness is itself emergent in whatever capacity it is so emergent. — Garrett Travers

Whether consciousness emerges or intrudes is rather the question of the thread, and your claim that neuroscience has answered the question whilst still unclear as to what it means to be conscious has not found much favour. But My inclination would be to say that to be conscious is not merely to see, but to be aware of the seeing, and not merely to think but to be aware of thinking, not merely to act but to be aware of acting. And further, to be aware equally of not seeing and not thinking and not acting. This marks a clear distinction between consciousness and content of consciousness, which might be useful to the investigator, and answer some of those awkward questions about dreams and so on.

The emergent properties of consciousness... — Garrett Travers

Do you distinguish between consciousness and its contents?

Problem is, the collective parallel ion pulse currents in the brain don't constitute information referring to something else like in digital computers. The connection strengths between neurons can be changed due to synaps widening. — EugeneW

Firstly, Blah-blah-blah neural networks.
Secondly, it's an analogy. I am not reporting the actual thoughts of game characters.

The lesson is that within a world, everything appears to be a feature of that world, but we know in the case of digital worlds that avatars are not mere game artefacts, but take input from a human from another world. But we only know it from outside the game world. The game artifacts and avatars are not distinguishable from within. So by analogy, that there is not necessarily any detectable 'soul input', does not entail that it is all quarks and probability waves.

I have incontrovertible evidence that this thread is the product of my laptop. It appears on my screen as a result of complex processes that take place in the cpu modified by and modifying RAM and SSD. And it's just the sort of theory I would expect from a machine.


Bowser's theory of consciousness is that it is entirely digital, but Mario believes in meatspace souls that somehow inhabit or haunt the digital world and influence it.

I'm afraid Internet platforms are part of the game now, not outside of it anymore. TPF may be too small to attract attention yet, but you can bet that this "blame NATO" game is being played all over the interwebs and in traditional media as well. — Olivier5

I'm not playing it. I'm urging others here not to play it, and you are playing a feeble point scoring game against me. Don't bother.

as if the actions of the American or European states have anything to do with any any sense of cultural identification. I guess this is how fascism takes root: when people look at state actions and think: that's 'us'. — StreetlightX

Is this not the whole justification of the legitimacy of every government - that it enacts the will of the people, or at least acts in their best interests? We anarchists know it's all tosh, but then we don't try and govern.

At which point of grandmaster gamesmanship, blame is inappropriate all round. You lose the world championship - it's not a sin to be the second best player in the world.
— unenlightened

Except that apportioning blame is part of the game. — Olivier5

Yes indeed, and propaganda is part of encouraging the troops, etc. But we are not playing the game here, we are discussing the game being played.

just as you can criticize NATO for having acted in a way that provoked certain action, it should have been fairly obvious to Putin it would have done exactly as it did. If you're going to require that NATO and the EU be Grandmaster chess players in this environment and expect them to respond precisely to the strategic environment, then let's impose that same standard on Putin. — Hanover

At which point of grandmaster gamesmanship, blame is inappropriate all round. You lose the world championship - it's not a sin to be the second best player in the world.

I blame the parents.

It seems "traumatic stress" is so powerful because it forces the person to face moral quandaries for which they were not prepared for. — baker

Not moral, particularly, but quandaries, as in conflicts. So the child is dependent on the care of an adult who abuses them. that is the classic conflict in which one must remain attached to - the abuser. So the feeling of abuse must be suppressed. Likewise the fear and horror of the soldier, in PTSD.

There is the notion of 'resilience', as something that can be developed by coping with small stresses in a basically benign environment.
Because I am lazy and forgetful, I'll refer you to my old thread on the topic of trauma, where you will find more details and links:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5783/adverse-childhood-experiences/p1

https://www.opindia.com/2022/02/africans-say-they-are-facing-racial-discrimination-in-ukraine/

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/world/article/2001438803/racism-claims-emerge-as-ukrainian-refugees-throng-poland-border

Looking forward to the denazification of Europe? War brings out the best and the worst in us. Not thrilled with the UK response to the refugees either, which amounts to 'don't even try to come here unless you are wealthy.'

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukraine-refugees-priti-patel_uk_621b1c77e4b06e1cc5907767

It is connected with loss of competence and self-esteem. It is loss of a kind of sense-making — Joshs

I dare say it is. The loss of feeling is the loss of meaning and value. All I am saying is that it is not the situation that cannot be coped with, it's the emotion one has, which may well include loss of self esteem or even self loathing. And without ruling out predisposing factors such as genetics, epigenetics, social conditions such as patriarchy industrial and post industrial conditions, and the loss of social support networks of extended family and the increase of isolation and the promotion of individuality, it is generally the case that traumatic stress is the most usual triggering cause.

https://www.healthline.com/health/ptsd-and-depression

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967

https://www.psypost.org/2019/01/traumatic-stress-can-lead-to-depression-when-it-interferes-with-daily-activities-study-finds-53003

Etc.

https://psychcentral.com/depression/depression-causes#risk-factors
https://psychcentral.com/depression/trauma-and-depression

Or perhaps depression is the emptiness of the situation itself rather than a secondary response to it. It would be the feeling of the failure to cope rather than a further act of cutting oneself off. — Joshs

I'm not sure what you mean. One cuts oneself off from ones's own feelings - an internal psychological splitting.

I don't think a situation one cannot cope with would be empty. ??

But is being depressed or even anxious the human default? — TiredThinker

Anxiety is a response to stress. Stress is psychological conflict. Thus if one is in a car trying to go somewhere, but one is stuck in traffic, one wants to move but cannot move. Modern life is very stressful and the best relief for stress and anxiety is exercise.

Depression is a response to trauma. Trauma is any event that produces an overwhelming negative emotion, pain, fear, humiliation, abandonment, stress anxiety, that sort of thing. The mind, unable to cope with and process the feelings encountered cuts itself off from the feeling. Unfortunately, it does not merely cut off one negative feeling but all feelings. Life becomes empty, but with a sort of residual dread of the unprocessed traumatic feeling.

you haven't really read through the thread, have you? — Joe Mello

Yes I have. Your accusation is false.

Even you came to this thread and looked at me instead of the principle. — Joe Mello

On the contrary, both you and your principle are right there in the thread title. And I have addressed both.

Are you backing off from your claim that love is the greatest? You do not engage, sir. You do not respond. I ask again, where in all this long thread is your love? It appears from your posting that your god is miserable self-obsessed bully incapable of a friendly engagement. If the God that is love has been with you and speaking to you, why are we not feeling it but only your arrogance and contempt?

Where is the love, Joe? All your hard work and lengthy training and deep contemplation has produced an abrasive, impatient, unkind, and arrogant persona. Where in this thread is there a kind word or even a respectful word for anyone here. There is no love in you, and there is therefore no value in what you say or in all your cleverness.

Another way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to believe politicians on any side.

Try this heresy for size: the project in invading Ukraine is to force The West to undermine its own economy and any semblance of unity by imposing sanctions that will hurt it far more than Russia. Meanwhile, China will buy US and European assets at depression prices and provide such sanction busting as may be required, along with Pakistan, et al.

I hear much talk of sovereignty and democracy, but I smell oil and gas, and disaster profiteering. I fear governments are becoming irrelevant, and multi-nationals run the show.

co-operation in pursuit of mutual benefit, which is an element of Capitalism? — Garrett Travers

Co ops and Mutuals? No, mate, that's socialism. That's the stuff Margret Thatcher was concerned to privatise. Remember it well.

So for years you have been humiliating this person by waiting for them to abase themselves by asking for your charity and then giving it as though it was nothing to you when it was vital to them.

And now the boot is on the other foot and you will not humble yourself by asking for help.

Sorry, what was the question, again? Human nature?

you can't always be responsible for what others will think and do about you words and actions. — dimosthenis9

Well I am saying you can always be responsible for whatever you are aware of but that does not mean you are to blame for it.

Thus I am aware that my prime minister, Boris Johnson, is incapable of telling the truth, and I therefore respond to what he says as information about his fantasy of what he wishes folk to think is true. This means I am in effect ungoverned. This is the shit I have to deal with in my life; it is my responsibility.

At the end we can't be inside anyone's head and predict all the outcomes that our words and actions will bring to him. — dimosthenis9

We can't predict everything but we can often predict some things. Whereof one is unaware, thereof one is not responsible.

For instance, how are we responsible for other’s thoughts? It depends on whether you are a behaviorist, classical cognitivist , phenomenologist or postmodern social constructionist. — Joshs

You are telling me this, therefore you are to some extent responsible for what I make of it. I cannot see how my or your general psychological/philosophical 'ism changes the fact?

For example I tell you "I like the way your girlfriend dresses" and then your mind goes "oh so he has a crush on my girl?! Oh damn that mother fucker and he was supposed to be my friend. Fuck off I will teach him a lesson". Am I responsible for that other person's complex that leaded into his thoughts and possible actions? It's not always clear the line of responsibility I should take for others thoughts and actions. — dimosthenis9

Well you weren't to know I am the paranoid suspicious controlling type. :rage: This is kind of close to blaming the victim and I certainly don't want to even hint at going there, even if you did know what I'm like. Fortunately there is a big difference between being responsible and being to blame. The paramedic is responsible for keeping folks alive until the doctor arrives, but she is not necessarily to blame for deaths in her care, unless she made a serious blunder.

Now you know my foibles though, you would be well advised to reassure me that your comment was just a queer eye'd sartorial appreciation, or some such.

I m responsible for what I say and do, — dimosthenis9

Well if you are not responsible for your upbringing, your thoughts, and therefore what you do and say are influenced by others as parents teachers media moguls, priests politicians. I don't see how one can maintain that we do not influence each other's thinking by our speech and other actions, in which case we are partially responsible for each other's thoughts. I call you an idiot, and I am responsible for what happens next, which is you having an angry thought and maybe saying something unpleasant back to me, or kicking the cat, or whatever. and then folks will read it and they too will be influenced to some extent. "No man is an island ..."

Materialism becomes idealism.

We have eyes, therefore we cannot see -> we have brains, therefore we cannot think.

Every awareness in the world is responsible for the world it is aware of. Here is a challenge; what is your response?
— unenlightened

I m not sure I got this. — dimosthenis9

I express a thought as follows: "Every awareness in the world is responsible for the world it is aware of."

You become aware of it, and you respond. ( you could have responded by ignoring it, that is often a good response) You express vague interest and puzzlement. Either way, in your response or ignoring, you become (somewhat) responsible for what follows, ie this response to you. Which means, as should have been obvious from the beginning, that in communication, we become responsible for each other's thoughts.

Likewise, if you become aware that your neighbour is beating his wife, you are responsible for for letting it continue or doing something about it. This is simply what awareness is for; responding to the world responsibly - which is to say, with the intention to make the world better.

Thus philosophy is the very queen of professions; for there is no better way of making the world better than by increasing awareness.

Well yeah, but there are things that we are totally responsible for. Many others not.Our words and actions are some of them, but thoughts aren't. — dimosthenis9

Are your words and actions not the expression of your thoughts? Mine are. That was my first post, that i am responsible for their expression and non-expression in the same way that I am responsible for my children. Thoughts are like children, and need to be guided and looked after and occasionally restrained from doing foolish, dangerous, or hurtful things.

Every awareness in the world is responsible for the world it is aware of. Here is a challenge; what is your response?

Ah yes, I forgot to mention, I do generally post things I have thought.

I hoped to provoke folks to consider all sorts of situations where we commonly talk about responsibility. The question itself is a bit pants really, though, as though one would only be responsible for things one could totally be in control of, which is nothing at all. It is fairly obvious that one is socialised and indoctrinated and educated in ways one has no control over. but one is still responsible for what one does with the fascistic fundamentalist bullshit one is immersed in from birth - who else is going to deal with it?

To want suffering to exist because you want to see people struggle and overcome hardships, can be construed as mildly sadistic. Just because it happens to be people's stance a lot of the times, doesn't mean it still isn't a great stance to have regarding what they want to see from other people. — schopenhauer1

That is a truly bizarre comment. What I or anyone wants is beside the point isn't it? Any being that lives, dies. Any being that lives, suffers harm. to live is to die, and therefore to live is to suffer harm. To notice this fact is not sadism, mild or bitter. That is an argument unworthy of you, and smacks of desperation. I'm stopping here, because it is clear that we have again reached the nub of our disagreement, and further discussion would be pointless suffering.

Do you think there is such thing as a mild form of sadism? — schopenhauer1

Yes, and an extreme form.

Am I being not just a little sadistic in my paternal amusement? — schopenhauer1

I don't know. It's your story you tell it. I do love gardening, mind.

The former.

You, the parent, aren't creating (unnecessarily) someone else who is harmed. — schopenhauer1

Yes. I have heard your argument. I don't have to procreate, and if I don't procreate I nobody will come into being to be harmed. If I do procreate, necessarily a being will come into being who will suffer.

I think we agree as to the facts. It's the morality that we differ on. you equate harm with evil, and I utterly reject it.