Faith runs counter to the intellectual attitude that simply admits that one does not know.

“Faith is not, as theologians have claimed, a virtue, but a vice, unless a number of conditions can be fulfilled.

I would add a third condition; that faith does not condone, let alone encourage, an action that is repugnant - such as sacrificing one's son.

The conclusion, that faith is not a virtue, seems unavoidable. — Banno

There is no condoning or encouraging an action here - there is, however, trust that there is more to the prescribed action than it appears.

Faith does not replace knowledge - it enables action despite the uncertainty that comes from a lack of sufficient evidence to support a prediction. When someone emigrates to a new country, for instance, they’re acting more on faith than on knowledge.

Faith is acceptance of an authority - a text or community. Faith is irrevocable; merit comes from belief despite the evidence. — Banno

Testimony is not the same as authority - this is a misunderstanding of faith, albeit a common one. And merit comes from action despite the evidence.

Then address this:
Faith, as I understand it, is the acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community. The two, in fact, go together, because if the sacred texts are taken as guides to practical life, their authority is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials whose role is to interpret them. In the Judeo-Christian tradition for instance the very notion of “the Bible” as a single entity depends on the various authorities throughout our history who have established the canon. However impressive individual books may be, to see them as elements of a single revelation containing some or all of the other books is already tacitly to accept a religious authority that defines the canon. — Banno

He’s referring to a tradition, which in itself is not authoritative. It is the enforcing of authority, not faith - in tradition, text or community - that is the error of institutionalised religion. Accepting the interpretation of a sacred text is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials who interpret it, but this has nothing to do with faith.

Faith is defined as ‘trust or confidence in something or someone’. It’s not something you can enforce on or demand from others. This is evident in the story of Abraham, who was touted for his unfailing trust and confidence, that was subtly different from blind obedience. ‘Fear of God’ is mistaken here for obedience to authority, but any illusion of ‘authority’ is given freely by Abraham, not demanded or taken by force. Abraham’s understanding of what God appeared to be asking of him notwithstanding, his trust or confidence in God (and more importantly in the promise made to him of countless descendants) showed in his reply to Isaac’s question about the offering: “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering” - that the sacrifice would not be his only son. An earlier account of Abraham questioning God’s plan to destroy Sodom demonstrates that God was not an ‘unquestionable authority’. But there’s a distinction to be made between questioning someone and doubting them - especially if it protects your own interests.

And this:

Faith, as I understand it, is the acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community. The two, in fact, go together, because if the sacred texts are taken as guides to practical life, their authority is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials whose role is to interpret them.

Moving beyond exegesis, faith places the faithful beyond reasonable discourse. They are to believe regardless of the evidence, and follow their religious officials.

Fundamental to the Abrahamic religions is the myth of the binding of Isaac. That story extolls blind obedience to authority. This evil is the cornerstone of religion. — Banno

It is a (mis)interpretation of the binding of Isaac as ‘obedience to authority’ that I think you may be referring to here in describing the ‘evil’ of religion.

I’ve found that accepting the testimony of a text (sacred or otherwise) is quite different from accepting the testimony of a religious community’s interpretation of that text. Belief regardless of evidence (faith) is not the same as blind obedience to authority, but this false equivalence is a common error in Abrahamic religions - and I think that there is as much in their text aimed at highlighting the distinction as there is interpreted to support an equivalence.

In my view, this ‘evil’ is more the cornerstone of institutionalised religion.

Existing and existing meaningfully...

Do you draw and maintain that distinction? — creativesoul

Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility.

I never said it was. I did say that time is a measurement which means that believing that time exists independently of your mind would be an illusion. Change is more fundamental than time. Time is a type of change. — Harry Hindu

Sorry for the confusion - I’m not suggesting you did. I agree with you - I’m referring what you said back to the OP...

So, what exactly is the relationship between the two, change and time?

Possibilities:

1. Change implies time

2. Time implies change — TheMadFool

Is time an illusion? — TheMadFool

...for those who may have missed it.

You’ve set the limitations - ‘never’ and ‘always’ - by using a six-sided die. Take away these imposed limitations, and uncertainty returns.
— Possibility

I was just wondering at the way the notion of absolute certainty is part of a subject dedicated to uncertainty. To me, that's like describing theism as a position in atheism. It seems odd that we can describe good as a variety/strain of bad. That's what I mean. — TheMadFool

Probability is not really about uncertainty, per se. Potentiality is about uncertainty. Probability is a solution to, or consolidation of, uncertainty - it quantifies and then reduces all potentiality to a single value: between a 0 limit of ‘never’ and a 1 limit of ‘always’. In doing so, it ignores, isolates or excludes qualitative potentiality, or any possibility that cannot be quantified.

You’ve set the limitations - ‘never’ and ‘always’ - by using a six-sided die. Take away these imposed limitations, and uncertainty returns.

As pointed out by the op, "events" implies time. (1. Change implies time). So interpreting QM from the perspective of "events" does not remove time from the interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

The aim is not to remove ‘time’ from the interpretation, but to restructure our understanding in a way that doesn’t separate ‘time’ and ‘change’. I think Harry said it well:

There is change and then the measurement of change, which is time. How long did it take for the apple to turn from green to red? Seven spins of the Earth on it's axis. Time is using change to measure change. — Harry Hindu

So it isn’t 1) that change implies time, but 2) that time implies change. But, as Rovelli points out, this doesn’t mean time is an illusion.

This interpretation simply fails in its analytical extent, because it does not separate an activity (which is a description of what things do) from the thing which is engaged in the proposed activity. A proper analysis recognizes that an event cannot be fundamental because of this conflation of the description with the thing being described. The description (activity), is a product of human understanding and cannot be fundamental. That's why I said we need a proper separation between the features of space and time, regardless of what general relativity gives us. — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re working from an assumption that ‘things’ are fundamental, but I think this is as misguided as an assumption that ‘events’ are fundamental. Because they’re both products of human understanding. The interpretation isn’t aiming for analysis - that work has been done. Rather, it acknowledges that we cannot separate the human understanding of physics from physics itself without finding that point at which we interact - and that point is not between ‘things’ and a description of what they do, but between ‘events’ and a description of their potential.

When it is the case that something exists, it is not possible for that situation to be any other way. Things don't do both, exist and not exist simultaneously. The ONLY possible way to not exist is...

...not existing.

That's what it means to say those things. Saying otherwise ends in self-contradiction. Saying both that something exists, and that that same something possibly doesn't exist is self-contradictory. — creativesoul

I’m not arguing that a relation that exists meaningfully does not exist, only that the nature of its existence prior to a creature attributing meaning is indeterminate. I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.

But if we can say something that appears contradictory, then we can think about it, and it’s at least possible that we can relate to it prior to language use, beyond the necessity of significance or potential, perhaps even meaningfully - exploring possible distinctions and relational structures between significance and meaning.

Relating all this back to the OP...

It is neither objective nor subjective; neither internal nor external; neither material nor immaterial; neither physical nor non-physical. It does not have a spatiotemporal location. It causes and/or leads to actions. It evokes feelings, and affords memories. It facilitates language creation and it's subsequent use. It's the key of all successful communication. It's the aim of all translation. It emerges by virtue of drawing correlations between different things. It exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it. — creativesoul

And I now recognise that it’s not meaning, but thought that you’re referring to.

Thanks for your patience. I got there eventually :blush:

Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them? — creativesoul

Short answer: no. I’m saying that there’s no way to prove that the meaning/significance attributed is or is not the entirety of its existence without attributing meaning/significance as a limitation. You can say that your cat’s water source is not the entirety of the aquarium’s existence, but in doing so you are attributing your own meaning/significance to the relation.

By the same token, I can be aware that causality as temporally defined is not the entirety of the relation’s existence, but I cannot prove that its entirety exists according to the meaning I then attribute to it as a self-conscious subject.

I will take a look at the many other posts you have added when I have more time.

No I don't equate duration with change, that's why I suggested a short duration of time when no physical change occurs. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn’t think so, which is why I posted this quote. You’re interpreting QM with a linear concept of time as a given, but it’s possible (and arguably more accurate) to interpret QM without time: from the perspective of the world consisting of events (rather than objects) that change in relation to each other. Because the idea that we can “keep the conception of time separate from the conception of space” is an attempt to cling to the continuity of ‘time’ despite General Relativity.

What I said is contradictory is the notion that time is discontinuous, along with the notion of a "ceaseless process of change'. "Discontinuous" implies a stopping and starting, which is contradicted by "ceaseless". — Metaphysician Undercover

All this does is highlight the inadequacy of language in talking about change and process without time.

I see this as a baseless assertion. Since we have no indication of exactly what time is, there is no reason to considered it to be discontinuous rather than continuous. And if we conceive it as continuous, despite the fact that Rovelli says this is not possible (it is possible because we have no indication of what time is, therefore there are no such restrictions on how we conceive it), then there is no such "jumps" as described. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well spotted. The quantisation of time is a theory being developed in quantum physics (part of loop quantum gravity) that I’m not entirely on board with - there’s something missing, and I’ve reason to believe it has something to do with affect. The reason Rovelli’s book appeals to me is that it presents a description of time, inclusive of quantum physics, which brings these discrepancies between the facts and the physics to the surface for philosophy to explore. What I’ve quoted here is from a summary of the book’s journey. The ‘if’ and ‘should’ at the beginning of this paragraph set the theoretical conditions for the assertions that follow.

But I will point out one thing with your comment: in declaring this a contradiction, you seem to be equating ‘duration’ with ‘change’.

It is not possible to think of duration as continuous. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

But this does not alter the fact that the world is in a ceaseless process of change. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

I see change as a relational structure, and duration as a measurement capacity.

What you’re describing here, then, is NOT a situation where you have ultimate authority. That’s just something you tell yourself to make you feel better. Most marriages and families work like this - it’s your spin on it that makes it appear as if you are the rational, overriding authority, when you’re really not.

When you don’t care, she’s ‘allowed’ to have authority. When she panics or it affects her, she is expected (and relieved) to defer to you, but when you feel more responsible - ie. when you panic or it affects you - then she is still expected to defer to you.

Here’s the difference: your Queen recognises when she is affected, and tempers the subjectivity of her thinking with an alternate perspective. This enables her to develop a more objective approach to the situation, understanding that neither perspective is more rational or objective, but that collaborative interaction between them increases rationality and objectivity.

Your interpretation, on the other hand, is to attribute ALL the affect to your wife, and imagine yourself as THE purely rational and objective position. When your panic or affect is undeniable, you portray it as ‘responsibility’ or level of importance to YOU.

Go back through what you’ve written, and see where you’ve juxtaposed your ‘competence’ ‘responsibility’ or objective ‘need’ with her ‘panic’, reliance, ‘forfeit’ and ‘desire’.

This is why it's portant to have a flexible authority, like a Queen. One who is willing to reason in any given situation. Ie you can question the law and seek to change it. — Edy

Which is why the false concept of ‘ultimate authority’ is a dangerous one.

The importance of understanding that there is an ultimate authority is very necessary, and I believe its dangerous to teach them otherwise. Ie if you break the law, you will be punished. — Edy

I disagree. ‘If you break the law, you will be punished’ is not about the importance of ‘ultimate authority’ - it’s about the consequences of our actions. There is a reason why speeding is against the law, and the punishment is to deter actions that can have more serious consequences. There is more affect in this relationship between law and punishment than we’re often willing to admit.

My children are raised not just to obey the law, but to be aware that their actions can have consequences and affect others in ways they won’t necessarily understand - but there should always be opportunity for them to develop this understanding. When they exclaim ‘that’s not fair!’ I expect them to come up with a reasonable argument against the ruling, and be willing to hear us out.

But affect is an important aspect of this, and both parents must be willing to acknowledge fears and worries that motivate decisions - not just to each other, but to children as they mature enough to understand and share responsibility.

@TheMadFool

The ‘quantisation’ of time implies that almost all values of time t do not exist. If we could measure the duration of an interval with the most precise clock imaginable, we should find that the time measured takes only certain discrete, special values. It is not possible to think of duration as continuous. We must think of it as discontinuous: not as something which flows uniformly but as something which in a certain sense jumps, kangaroo-like, from one value to another.

In other words, a minimum interval of time exists. Below this, the notion of time does not exist - even in its most basic meaning...

The substratum that determines the duration of time is not an independent entity, different from the others that make up the world; it is an aspect of a dynamic field. It jumps, fluctuates, materialises only by interacting, and is no to be found beneath a minimum scale...So, after all this, what is left of time?

...None of the pieces that time has lost (singularity, direction, independence, the present, continuity) puts into question the fact that the world is a network of events. On the one hand, there was time, with its many determinations; on the other, the simple fact that nothing is: that things happen instead.

The absence of the quantity ‘time’ in the fundamental equations does not imply a world that is frozen and immobile. On the contrary, it implies a world in which change is ubiquitous, without being ordered by Father Time; without innumerable events being necessarily distributed in good order, or along the single Newtonian timeline, or according to Einstein’s elegant geometry. The events of the world do not form an orderly queue, like the English. They crowd around chaotically, like Italians.

They are events, indeed: change, happening. This happening is diffuse, scattered, disorderly. But it is happening; it is not stasis. Clocks that run at different speeds do not mark a single time, but the hands on each clock change in relation to the others. The fundamental equations do not include a time variable, but the do include variables that change in relation to each other. Time, as Aristotle suggested, is the measure of change; different variables can be chosen to measure that change, and none of these has all the characteristics of time as we experience it. But this does not alter the fact that the world is in a ceaseless process of change. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

Well, they seem to be thought experiments. Shouldn't that do the trick? — TheMadFool

So...there are only impossible cases? In that case, I’m going to side wth MU on this.

Thought experiments can’t demonstrate your claim that “there are cases when no change occurs”.

Incorrect. For there are cases when no change occurs but time still passes by. However, it seems, on such occasions, a case can be made that time is no longer relevant (to the object that doesn't change) i.e. it would be as if time didn't exist at all. — TheMadFool

Have you provided examples of these cases?

Let's get to the heart of the matter.

Suppose someone claims the red ball, R, moved i.e. changed position but then you inspect it, it's still in the same position. Two possibilities: 1. R hasn't moved or 2. space has no effect on R i.e. R lies outside of space so to speak. If there are other ways of making sense of this, please feel free to make me aware of them. — TheMadFool

3. The observer claiming that R moved has changed position themselves in relation to R, without being aware of it. Like claims of a geocentric universe.

Likewise, if a person asserts that the red ball, R, has experienced time then there must be some way of determining that, right? — TheMadFool

Sure: BE the ball...

...and the first thing that crosses my mind is change for without it, as I've been saying, time can't be perceived and/or experienced. Why? Well, if R doesn't change then there's no difference between R at time T1 and R at time Tn where n > 1 and another way of putting it would be that time is stuck at T1 or that time didn't elapse at all - the bottom line is that for R time no longer matters. — TheMadFool

If R is incapable of experiencing change, then it is incapable of experiencing time. There is no way around this. If this is the case, then R is irreducibly conceptual: its existence is only ever potential, and neither you nor the other observer can make any claim about a change of position.

I'm trying to fidure out of masculinity and authority are synonymous in a nuclear family. — Edy

I can understand that your household politics seems to operate most efficiently (from your perspective, I might add) with you as the ultimate arbiter. But I think it’s presumptuous to assume this structure would work best with every nuclear family, or even most.

Your Queen is only free to exercise her authority under your authority, not at any time. If it conflicts with your feelings (yes, you do think with your feelings, too - you probably don’t acknowledge them as your feelings, though), then any authority she thought she had means nothing.

I have said previously that masculinity becomes toxic when it is defined, particularly by ignoring, isolating and excluding aspects of experience - like dissent, or feelings. There is no such thing as a consistent, unquestionable authority. What passes for ‘top authority’ is only every a fluid and limited perception of potentiality. I’m fascinated that you describe your 16 year old daughter as excluded from your family. Is this so you can continue to perceive your own authority as ‘unquestionable’ within your nuclear family? I worry for the plight of your Queen once all your children become adults...

I don’t think parenting is about being fair and equal, but I do think it’s most effective as a partnership in negotiation. It’s also about recognising that the authority you think you have by right has been attributed to you in temporary ignorance of alternatives. Part of growing up is realising that your parents’ authority is as fallible as any other - including your own. Teaching a child that some authority simply cannot be questioned is perhaps a dangerous thing. Teaching your daughter that this type of authority is synonymous with masculinity may be considered irresponsible.

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning?
— Possibility

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’.
— Possibility

These two contradict one another otherwise, because you said what you claimed could not be... — creativesoul

Sorry - I was getting ahead of myself, and messed it up. :yikes: It can be said to exist - if something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it possibly exists in the absence thereof - and also possibly doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no way to prove it either way, because proof requires the presence of a self-conscious subject. So your claim that it cannot be said to exist in the absence of a self-conscious subject prompts the question: from what position is this claim being made (who’s to say), if it cannot be made in relation to a self-conscious subject?

You’re assuming that R experiences
— Possibility

What exactly do you mean by "experiences"? I hope not in the sense like a human experiences, subjectively? — TheMadFool

I could ask you the same question...

1. Change implies time: Makes sense. Whenever change occurs, time elapses. Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time? The simple fact that change can be numerically ordered as, for example, 1st the apple was green and 2nd it became red would mean that the order must occur in some context and that context, to my reckoning, is time. — TheMadFool

Makes sense from the human experience of time. It really makes more sense to say that the experience of change implies the experience of time.

Consider now, that R is moved i.e. its position is changed. According to 1 above (change implies time), since the position of R has changed; ergo, R has experienced time too. — TheMadFool

You’re projecting your experience, here. Since we would experience change in R’s position, we would experience change on behalf of time. But there is nothing here to show that “R has experienced time” except our own predicted experience of change.

Entropy is not time. It's change and while, yes, change implies time, some things don't change or if that doesn't suit your worldview, imagine a changeless object, say C. C would appear to be trapped in a moment/instant - as if time didn't elapse. Many movies depict the stoppage of the time as objects freezing at one spot and in one position and this, to me, is indicative of the intuition that if no change takes place, the effect is the same as time stopping or becoming nonexistent. — TheMadFool

We’re not saying that entropy is time - it’s the ignorance of change that occurs when we assume an ‘object’ to be changeless, simply because we don’t experience change.

The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. The aquarium was not meaningful to the cat until the cat drew correlations between the water in the aquarium and the satisfaction of her own thirst that drinking water can provide. Now, the cat goes to the aquarium whenever she wants a drink of water. The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful(significant) to her. — creativesoul

The aquarium is meaningful to you as an aquarium, but is now meaningful to your cat NOT as an aquarium but as a water source. From your perspective, it’s both an aquarium (existing as such in its entirety prior to becoming meaningful to your cat) and a meaningful relation as a potential water source for your cat.

If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought. — creativesoul

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’.

I highly recommend Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’. It will flesh this question out nicely for you.

So, if R changes position, R experiences time because of that but R also doesn't experience time because it has durability-based properties that don't change. R is both inside and outside of time. Contradiction? — TheMadFool

You’re assuming that R experiences. As an observer, you’re aware of the difference between R at T1 and R at Tn, but there is no reason to assume that R experiences any difference from its change of position.

Time is more about awareness of change than change itself.

At the most fundamental level that we currently know of, therefore, there is little that resembles time as we experience it. There is no special variable ‘time’, there is no difference between past and future, there is no spacetime. We still know how to write equations that describe the world. In those equations, the variables evolve with respect to each other. It is not a ‘static’ world, or a ‘block universe’ where all change is illusory. On the contrary, ours is a world of events rather than of things.

This was the outward leg of the journey, towards a universe without time.

The return journey has been the attempt to understand how, from this world without time, it is possible for our perception of time to emerge. The surprise has been that, in the emergence of familiar aspects of time, we ourselves have had a role to play. From our perspective - the perspective of creatures who make up a small part of the world - we see that world flowing in time. Our interaction with the world is partial, which is why we see it in a blurred way. To this blurring is added quantum indeterminacy. The ignorance that follows from this determines the existence of a particular variable - thermal time - and of an entropy that quantifies our uncertainty.

Perhaps we belong to a particular subset of the world that interacts with the rest of it in such a way that this entropy is lower in one direction of our thermal time. The directionality of time is therefore real but perspectival: the entropy of the world in relation to us increases with our thermal time. We see the occurrence of things ordered in this variable, which we simply call ‘time’, and the growth of entropy distinguishes the past from the future for us and leads to the unfolding of the cosmos... — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

:lol: :lol:

Fair enough, but in the context, the writer is discussing Habermas' late-in-life re-evaluation of the role of religion in the public square. What he's saying is that Habermas recognises 'something missing' from secular rationalism and liberalism. That 'something missing' can't be defined in secular terms - otherwise it woudn't be missing! — Wayfarer

That’s arguable - perhaps not in terms of secular rationalism, at least. I’d agree that religion has a role to play in challenging the ignorance, isolation and exclusion of affect (particularly in terms of ethics) from rationalist or logical reasoning, but so does art (in terms of aesthetics) and quantum physics (in terms of consciousness). What I think is missing is a dimensional aspect to secular rationalism that’s inclusive of qualitative potential.

I’m distinguishing between the relationship structure it defines and the more complex relation it refers to.
— Possibility

What does the term "it" pick out here to the exclusion of all else? — creativesoul

In this statement, ‘it’ refers to the word. It wasn’t very clear, though. I’m distinguishing between the meaningful relation (how the word is defined) and the relation that exists prior to meaning (what the word refers to).

The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference...
— Possibility

I'm not following. Are you referring to the word? Mentioning the word's earlier use? Are you talking about the word or are you using the word as a means for talking about the referent of the word(what the word picks out)? — creativesoul

I’m using the word as a means for talking about what the word refers to in relation to how the word is defined.

From Wikipedia: “Causality is influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect).”

Here ‘causality’ is defined by a potential relation to spatio-temporal structures. This is the meaningful relation. What ‘causality’ refers to, though, extends beyond this particular potential we meaningfully relate to. So we’re aware (a priori) that the relation exists prior to (or beyond) this meaning, but we have insufficient information to structure that aspect of the relation within the concept. So we assume a uniformly infinite temporal extension to the relational structure based on the information we do have. And all subsequent debate regarding our understanding of causality as a relation has been trying to refine this assumption.

It looks like there's been some substantial revisions and/or additions to the last few replies...

I've yet to have re-examined them. Need to prior to saying much more. — creativesoul

?? No revisions from me...

I’m distinguishing between the relationship structure it defines and the more complex relation it refers to. The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference. You’re effectively defining a meaningful relation with a word, and claiming it exists as defined prior to meaning. But how would we know that from our perspective? Who’s to say the relation exists in the same manner beyond the meaning we attribute to it?

Who's to say that all thought, even thoughts that are frank contradictions, aren't mathematically describable. That possibility shakes the very foundation of quality as a notion. It's like a digital computer, an AI, having thoughts about quality - whatever those thoughts may be, it's ultimately a combination of 1's and 0's. — TheMadFool

Well, I’m not one to dismiss possibility...

‘Mathematically describable’ doesn’t eliminate the notion of quality, though - we still have to interpret a mathematical description in a qualitative relation to the world - as thoughts, words or actions - in order to do anything with it.

A computer’s input and output is qualitatively structured - but the information system is quantified and reducible to a binary instruction code of 1s and 0s. Human consciousness is the other way around: our input and output are quantifiable, but the entire system operates in a qualitative relational structure. This ensures the most effective use of energy/information resources across the system to achieve homeostasis. The human system of information is reducible to a four-dimensional instruction code of attention and effort known as affect. That’s pretty complex for a basic code.

I don't think you grasp what's being written. Some more connections need to be made.

Causality is an example of a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to meaning. Spatiotemporal relationships are another. Shame is a relationship that cannot exist in the absence of a self-conscious subject.

Are you really asking me who's to say those aren't the same relation? — creativesoul

Or perhaps I’m just approaching it from a perspective that you’re struggling to relate to - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time...

In my view, you’re referring to relationship structure. ‘Causality’ as signifying a meaningful relation ignores the limited understanding of relationship structure to which it refers, and claims to signify the whole relationship. The ‘relationship that exists in its entirety prior to meaning’ here refers to an ‘event horizon’ of sorts: awareness of a more complex qualitative structure that transcends the meaningful relation we define as ‘causality’. Same with ‘spatio-temporal relationships’.

‘Shame’, on the other hand, signifies a meaningful relation that recognises a limited understanding of the relationship structure - it’s subjectively determined. A more complex relationship structure exists prior to meaning, of which ‘shame’ describes our variable (affected), self-conscious perspective.

So, I’m not suggesting that ‘causality’ might be the same relation as ‘shame’. But if you’re after an example, then I might suggest that ‘causality’ and ‘will’ refer to the same relationship structure... but that may be another discussion entirely.

That leaves us with only the completely made-up elements in fiction. Interestingly, we come to the realization that fictional things are simply uninstantiated combinations of real objects e.g. a unicorn (imaginary) is a horse (exists and quantifiable) and a horn (exists and also quantifiable) and ergo, by extension, unicorns are quantifiable — TheMadFool

Unicorns are only quantifiable within a particular qualitative or relational structure - horse plus horn does not necessarily equal unicorn.

Mathematics appears to be purely quantitative, yet it, too, relies on a qualitative structure that is integrated into our potentiality, and applied as we relate to the sums.

I will return to a joke I remember from school: ‘one plays one equals window’. All this does is mess with the qualitative structure of mathematics - which we often take for granted.

This is what seemed to trouble Einstein so much about quantum physics: the need to write ourselves back into the scientific picture in order to make sense of the world. To recognise that the potentiality of human self-consciousness is the qualitative structure necessary for science to even make sense, let alone achieve anything.

I should have further qualified... some things... are in relation to a self-conscious subject, and cannot exist in absence thereof.

Edited to add:

Oh, never-mind. I already had properly quantified that claim. — creativesoul

Yes, I got that, but it doesn’t answer my question. If some relations can exist ‘prior to’ meaning, and some cannot exist as a meaningful relation in absence of a self-conscious subject, who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning?

In other words, is ‘meaningful’ an inherent property of some relations, or a possible attribute of all relations?

Currency is the process, and money is the symbol. Its value is an agreement determined by its relation to other processes: exchange, production, demand, inflation, etc. and likewise the value of other processes (including human beings) are largely determined by their relation to it.

But human beings have an ability to restructure their relation to the process in a way that no longer requires the symbol. It is the significance of the symbol in relation to the currency that deteriorates, while the currency itself simply changes form. Bartering is just a more localised agreement of valuing currency.

The problem is that a political structure that welcomes all worldviews into the marketplace of ideas, but holds itself aloof from any and all of them, will have no basis for judging the outcomes its procedures yield. Worldviews bring with them substantive long-term goals that serve as a check against local desires. Worldviews furnish those who live within them with reasons that are more than merely prudential or strategic for acting in one way rather than another.

I’ve been reading along, but this quote caught my attention.

I would have thought that the political structure itself is the basis for judging the outcomes, and that there exists a broader relational structure (the marketplace of ideas), the awareness of which enables such an entity to ‘hold itself aloof’ - ie. remain variable at the level of value and potential.

It is in this ‘marketplace of ideas’ that we develop a self-awareness of local affect (valence and arousal) in relation to ideological structures, and the influence this has on our constructs of belief, knowledge and reasoning, both as a political structure and as a human being.

I do not just mean that things exist in relation to a self-conscious subject, but some meaningful relations certainly do, and cannot exist in absence thereof. — creativesoul

But can they possibly still exist simply as relations, regardless of meaning?

Incel fantasy, alas.

The rule is big muscles and/or big wallet. Romance is nice and flattering, but a girl has to be practical. — unenlightened

Well, that sounds to me like an incel grumble.

There is no ‘rule’, and even if there was, I can assure you that’s not it. Romance IS nice, from my experience. And a girl doesn’t have to be practical about attraction or dating.

There are lots of smart women attached to dumb men. You have heard of the attractiveness of "bad boys", right? — LuckyR

Attraction to the ‘bad boy’ is not really a sign of intelligence in women, per se. The diligent, studious or dutiful young woman is often attracted to the ‘bad boy’.

Guys, you need to watch more teen films. The air-head socialite girls all go for the football jocks and the intelligent girl, who always wears glasses and has a bad hairdo and no makeup, goes for the maverick loner who is ignored or bullied by everyone else. Intelligence doesn't come into it, you have to be a maverick loner, preferably with tragic problems and odd parents, if any. — unenlightened

TBH, I think this is not far off. Intelligent women are attracted to puzzles they can’t solve - incongruities and contradictions. A maverick who defies expectations is the perfect candidate. If you can demonstrate that negative assumptions she may have about you are wrong, then you’re off to a good start.

Here it is the Puzzling Fact. "A person cannot think verbal thoughts without speaking those thoughts aloud." This fact is a well known fact among psychologists and might be known to you. — Ken Edwards

I don’t think the conclusion drawn from the experiment is accurate. I will accept that there is a relation between thinking about words and actions required to speak those words, and that often when our attention and effort is concentrated on thinking about the words, we tend to also go through the motions at a minimal level.

But I don’t think it follows that a person cannot think about words without speaking them, and certainly not aloud. I think the movements help to focus attention (I think @Banno alluded to this), but they aren’t necessary.

I am wondering. Do intelligent women ever find average to a little bit slow men attractive? I know they say if you're the smartest person in the room you're in the wrong room. But do intelligent women always need a guy that challenges them mentally? I find intelligence and an open mind attractive, but it doesn't feel like I qualify for those women. It often feels that I am stuck amongst women that question very little in the world and don't try to figure things out. — TiredThinker

FWIW, I’m not sure there’s a particular qualification to attract an intelligent woman. If you’re curious enough about the world and are prepared to challenge yourself mentally, then I don’t imagine an IQ test is required.

It’s not the size of the intellect, it’s what you do with it.

The real question is whether you’re prepared to appreciate and encourage her intelligence without it threatening your sense of your own potential or confidence in keeping her interested. A man humble enough to ask questions and show interest when he’s not even close to the smartest person the room will always outshine both the man who’s trying to prove he’s the smartest person in the room and the one who’s trying to bring the conversation down to his level.

A woman confident in her own intelligence isn’t necessarily looking for intelligence in her partner - she already has that. The idea is that you complement each other’s place in the world, not reflect it. Of course, this has implications in how you spend your time together, but then that’ll always be a negotiation, won’t it?

Well, let's look at it from a complexity/simplicity angle. The only example that I can come up with off the top of my hat is mathematical. Calculus is more complex than basic arithmetic and if someone were to tell me that they're taking a course in calculus, it goes without saying that they have basic airthmetic under their belt, assuming of course that this someone isn't pulling my chain and/or isn't insane. In short, a level of complexity implies that a certain level of simplicity has already been achieved.

P-zombies are simpler than normal humans for they're missing consciousness. That should mean that since humans are not only possible but also real, p-zombies should also be possible. — TheMadFool

The question is whether a human can exist in physical exactitude without consciousness, or if consciousness is integral to our physical human existence.

So I don’t think this answers the question. That we have reason to believe a number of less complex physical structures have consciousness suggests to me that p-zombies may not be possible after all.

I’m inclined to view consciousness not as a quantitative level, but in terms of a qualitative or relational complexity. In your analogy, it’s a difference between ‘understanding calculus’ because you understand the symbols, or because you understand the sums.

Possibility is a starting point, but to be honest I don’t think we can avoid the starting point being a binary or contradiction of some kind. So possibility/impossibility.

There is much to recommend this. Except that it applies to every male from the age they become aware of their sex and learn to insist on a blue toothbrush not a pink one. Some of us are quite happy to say that gender roles and identities arealways toxic from the beginning, along with racial, and other socially imposed identities.

Thus I am a man, and therefore whatever I am is part of maleness and whatever I do is part of maleness, and there is nothing to conform to and nothing to perform. On this view, there is no achievement, no winning of the woman, or finding a place in the dominance hierarchy - I haven't had a fight for 58 years, but ain't I a man? A gay man is a complete man and a straight man is also a complete man, and a transvestite is a complete man. A celibate monk and a gigolo are both complete men.

But masculinity confines, restricts, imposes, on all men a single image to which one must conform or face penalties - sometimes the death penalty.

But one must remember the source of this language is the political talk of women. And in practice, the emphasis will be exactly what is being presented by some here as the essence of masculinity - domination, aggression and violence, domestic abuse, and at the extreme, rape. — unenlightened

This ‘political talk of women’ is aimed at drawing attention to the limitations of cultural definitions of ‘masculinity’. The aim of highlighting domination, aggression and violence, rape, etc should not be to present it as the essence of masculinity, but rather to offer a critical perspective of certain male behaviour considered ‘acceptable’ or even ‘valuable’ within cultural structures that fail to consider the perspective of women.

I think that masculinity becomes ‘toxic’ once it is defined - particularly by ignoring, isolating or excluding aspects of experience.