Knowing what things are is not (just or even necessarily) knowing what they are called; it is knowing what kinds of things they, what uses they have, what they look like and so on.

An example of an affordance is a dog knowing what its food bowl is. The bowl has meaning for the dog insofar as it recognizes it as the place food will be presented. — Janus

But the way I see it, the dog doesn’t know what its food bowl is - it may respond to ‘its food bowl’ in relation to the meaning you attribute on its behalf based on your observations, but it doesn’t follow that the dog is aware of meaning inherent in the object, because there is no meaning inherent in an object. The meaning is attributed by us as observers to the relationship between the dog and the object as a special bowl or place.

But to the dog, it could simply be an objective relationship of value connecting the organism to a food stimulus, and/or to a valued source of that food stimulus (ie. its owner).

Would we need observer(s) to make the formless have form and therefore lead to concrete events that could lead to the birth of our universe? — Devans99

Um, how about that timeless spaceless photons made everything at once, in no time, and so we must now be experiencing in a time-dilated broadcast of our portion of everything. — PoeticUniverse

Here’s an attempt to articulate my view of the ‘birth’ of our universe - although it may seem vague because it is speculation based on awareness (and I don’t have the ability to confidently apply maths or logic)...

Nothing can even start to happen without potential, so we have to assume that, before there was anything else, there must have at least been potential as a timeless 5D experience.

Something is deemed to ‘exist’ (in any dimension) only when something/someone is aware of it. An observer/measuring instrument is required to decohere the formless, but a timeless 5D experience (being everywhere and everywhen) has the capacity to be aware of itself - regardless of whether it can recognise this as itself.

It is perhaps a big leap in thinking to suggest that potential’s awareness of potential led to the BB or other 4D universe-forming event. I’m not talking about self-awareness as we understand it, or in any multi-dimensional sense like animals or humans are aware, but a one-dimensional, vague awareness of more. At this point there is nothing but awareness: no relation to anything, no up, down, left or right, no time, etc. - all of it is only potential.

If you can imagine sufficient energy to actualise a photon’s full potential - except that this actualisation consists of photons and other 4D events across time, each with their own formless potential energy/matter.

So these 4D events interact with each other, decohering into 3D particles. Each of these particles interact with other random particles, choosing to be open or closed to that awareness, to the new information presented with each interaction that the universe consists of more. And so on - effectively creating spacetime and the physical universe in the process, yet without time having ‘begun’ as such.

Some interactions result in chemical reactions as 4D events, developing the capacity to interact more than once in time (while the reaction lasts) and thereby integrate information. This is where the potential for life begins, and where an awareness of time starts.

Is it possible to imagine an eternal being of space but not of time (4 spacial dimensions say). It would be in all possible states simultaneously. It would have no past or future, yet it would be causally efficacious and would have always existed.

So with this model, the 'eternal realm' would be 4 spacial dimensions, one of which maps to our time dimension. If we were to look on that realm through time-based eyes, the eternal being would appear to be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously. — Devans99

A photon potentially exists everywhere at once until it is observed/measured by a subject, but not everywhen. It exists in both time and space - formless, but not timeless. A photon is not a 3D object, but a 4D event, along with life and energy - whatever we experience in time, but has no form (only potential) until it is intentionally measured/observed. It is our awareness of these 4D events that enticed science to explore the universe in relation to time.

So when we consider something that is timeless, in my view it must also be formless - existing everywhere/when in both our time dimension and our spatial dimensions, yet unpredictable in either. Only when it is valued by us (an event interacting in spacetime) does it collapse into a 4D event: an experience that impacts on our awareness, with which we can interact. Whatever we name this 5D experience, it entices us to explore beyond a 4D universe: to interact with the universe in relation to value. To search for what else is potentially valuable that we cannot (objectively) observe/measure, yet we can open ourselves to subjectively experience in time as 4D events.

I hope I’m making sense here. It isn’t easy to explain.

This is an interesting way of looking at self control.

I tend to look at control as a perception: your capacity to do anything is dependent on your level of awareness, connection and collaboration in relation to whatever you seek to control. So self control depends on how aware you are of the many systems that connect and collaborate to enable you to get out of bed in the morning, achieve in your exam, play video games, etc - and what these systems require in order for you to continue to achieve what you want to achieve.

So I imagine you feel a lack of control because you are dependent on a lot of systems and relationships that enable you to play your video games and study that you are perhaps not fully aware of. When these systems make demands on your time or effort that you didn’t account for, or cease to work for you, it feels like you have no control. But the more you are aware of these systems that support you, and the more you connect and collaborate with them - recognising what they need to continue to support you - the more in control I imagine you would feel.

So perhaps next time you have nothing to do, take a little of that time to get to know, connect with and support those systems and relationships that give you so much time and energy to play your video games. Just a thought.

The application of Normative ethical relativism to the lay person tends to go something like this. "You can't say x about culture y, that is just how they do things, you can't tell them they are wrong." So; A) there are no universal norms and B) ideas of moral right or wrong are relative to the society in which people are raised and in which they live. Doesn't B sound a lot like a universal norm? Descriptive ethical relativism is fair game as it's utility lies in describing the ethics of ours and others cultures in a more wholesome manner. There is really no compelling argument to make use of relativism as a prescriptive ethical methodology because it sheds no light on what we as individuals should be doing with ourselves.

So the ethics of adaptive pragmatism are grounded in a function of ethics. I define the function is to collectively keep humanity safe for as long as possible, so I start to look toward science. — Mark Dennis

I think I get what you’re saying. We can talk about ethics as relative, but if we’re planning to make use of the study of ethics, we need to discuss ethics in relation to a particular value position. So we tend to define the function of ethics in relation to our current definition of ‘the greatest good’ - which is still subjective, but in the broadest way we can cope with and still sleep at night.

Ok. What if we define the function of ethics as to increase awareness, connection and collaboration? How does this shed light on what we as individuals should be doing with ourselves?

I see two possibilities:

1. Energy/matter was created in the BB via the zero energy universe hypothesis
2. Energy/matter existed timelessly and entered time at the BB (likely candidate for the start of time)

Both respect the conservation of energy. With the 2nd, the energy/matter has 'permanent' existence. — Devans99

I have a question:

Given what energy/matter is in time, how would you describe its existence in a timeless state?

No it doesn't. Imagining things from different points of reference isn't the same thing as being at that point of reference. — Terrapin Station

Haha - no, having a point of reference isn’t the same thing as being at that point of reference. We can’t fully experience (in a human way) what it looks like from inside the rock - neither can the rock, mind you. I recognise that we are creating a perspective based on information we’ve already integrated from other experiences/sources, but isn’t this what we do whenever we perceive a ‘rock’?

This ‘point of reference’ you refer to forms only a part of perception. The mechanisms of perception - receiving sensory data via light or sound or touch, etc where nerve signals are sent to your brain, etc - do not constitute perception of a rock. They do, however, constitute sensory data, which is integrated with existing information within the system, and together these form a human perspective, from which a ‘rock’ is perceived.

What I’m trying to say is that, while I agree that something exists outside of our minds, and it is not ‘unknowable’ as such, it is not a rock, either. From as broad a perspective as I can imagine, it is closer to a subset of interacting events than it is to a rock. I’m not saying we shouldn’t call it a rock, but I think we should at least acknowledge that we’re not ‘seeing things as they are’: that ‘rock’ is a human perceptual concept of the world that both informs and limits our understanding of what we are seeing.

I can honestly say I do not think I'm suited toward direct debate with the intolerant and while I can make a point of understand and empathising from afar, I do not have the temperance required (Yet) to do that in a direct way, it would just become a circular shouting match at some point I'm sure. — Mark Dennis

I think there are very few who don’t struggle with patience in direct debate with intolerance. But in the same way as you accept diversity in other areas, it’s not a matter of empathising, but of recognising that what leads them to intolerance is what leads us to be intolerant of their intolerance...and so we are struggling with the same issues. We are not so different.

I think having the courage to step into a world in which we have no sense of control, in which we must rely on our relationships with others to achieve anything, is one of the hardest things we do as human beings. Power, influence and control are illusions - everything that happens requires awareness, connection and collaboration, and literally nothing else. But every political system is built on these illusions, as are all of our social and economic systems.

I personally have experienced a sense of perhaps arrogant duty toward attempting to gain political office. Yet some of the very institutions one would have to enter have been made inherently corrupting. Now, you might say this shows lack of strength of conviction but in reality it's a desire to toe the line between being just, righteous and being self righteous. — Mark Dennis

I think people seek political office, economic or social standing because they have ideas of how to ‘fix’ their world. But the more our awareness broadens, the more we realise that it’s not that simple - anything we do is going to impact negatively on someone or something, somewhere in the world. What most of these systems and institutions manage to do is help to narrow the view so that the more we achieve, the less we are aware of the negative impact. Rights are separated from responsibilities, and you’re soon shielded from the full impact of ‘your’ decisions by those who either believe in what you’re working to achieve, or who benefit from it - and it gets harder to tell which is which.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this and am very open to suggestions of analytic prescriptive ideas. What do you think I or others here should do other than have these collaborative discussions with each other? — Mark Dennis

Yeah, I’m not sure I can help with analytic prescriptive ideas. Awareness, connection and collaboration is a bottom-up approach. It starts with a brutally honest look at how we interact with the universe, and challenges any and all suggestions of power, influence and control - even over our own bodies. We cannot be tempted to attribute them either to ourselves or to others - they don’t exist, period. This is supported by current science, but it can be difficult to accept, because it exposes us entirely - both in terms of our dependence and fragility, but also our capacity as humans and its accompanying responsibilities.

However within a human universe of discourse there are some things which are objectively valuable to all of us and when you are serving the collective you are serving yourself too. — Mark Dennis

How do you justify ‘objectively valuable’ while restricting discussion to a ‘human universe of discourse’? Does this mean that ethics is not relevant to our interactions with anything that operates outside of this ‘human universe of discourse’? How does this impact on environmental ethics and the value of certain ecosystems?

While I’m not impressed with the attitude of @god must be atheist in this discussion, I can perhaps see what he’s trying to get across in relation to ethics. In my view ethics IS relative. There is no ‘objective’ value, no uniform treatment of what is considered eternally valuable in the world. This doesn’t render ethics useless as such, but it does require us to look at structuring ethics in a similar way to how physics is working to structure time: as an additional dimension to reality that is relative to one’s experiential position in the universe.

In my view the application of ‘good’ or ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ should be recognised as terms relative to a particular cultural, historical, national and/or ideological viewpoint. While it may appear as if there are some things/events that are viewed as ‘good’ from all possible human viewpoints right now does not make it objectively or universally good. Time is relative to one’s position in space, but ethics is relative to one’s journey through spacetime, so it’s a whole lot more complicated.

Sorry for the long post.

My point was that all time-based models for the origin of the universe ultimately fail - they result in an infinite regress of events - which is impossible - only something timeless can be the basis for everything in existence. — Devans99

And yet time is what we experience. I’m going to recommend Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ here again - it explores the relativity of time to this point you have currently reached in suggesting eternalism as the ‘only’ credible option (from a physics standpoint), and then proceeds to rebuild our notion of time in the light of quantum theory (or more precisely quantum gravity).

The distinction between past, present and future is not an illusion. It is the temporal structure of the world. But the temporal structure of the world is not that of presentism. The temporal relations between events are more complex than we previously thought, but they do not cease to exist on account of this. The relations of filiation do not establish a global order, but this does not make them illusory. If we are not all in single file, it does not follow that there are no relations between us. — Carlo Rovelli

There is nothing mysterious about the absence of time in the fundamental equation of quantum gravity. It is only the consequence of the fact that, at a fundamental level, no special variable exists.
The theory does not describe how things evolve in time. The theory describes how things change one in respect to the others, how things happen in the world in relation to each other. That’s all there is to it. — Carlo Rovelli

Potential energy does not exist without associated objects that possess the potential? So to my mind, potentiality by itself does not shed light on the origins of energy/matter, it is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter. Maybe you could expand? — Devans99

This is a common view derived from Aristotle/Aquinas. Are you sure of the direction of causality here? If we are aware that an object possesses potential, then where did that potential come from? If it is only a consequence of the presence of energy/matter, then how did this energy/matter come to be present except through potential?

Potentiality: latent or inherent capacity or ability for growth, fulfilment, etc.

The 'IS' would be the one and only permanent thing, it necessarily being in a continuous transition, and thus never existing as anything particular, even for an instant, as befitting its necessary nature as eternal in that there is thence no point for it to have been designed, leaving it to be not anything in particular, as if it were everything, even.

Properly speaking, only the 'IS' “exists” and all the rest “happens.” — PoeticUniverse

Potentiality is not something different in each object/event, but has a unity in multiplicity. It is existing on its own, and is necessary to the existence/creation/development of the universe.

Potentiality is inherent in all aspects of the universe in time, across time and yet remains eternally unchanged - it is only awareness of it in time and with respect to each object/event that changes. Its latent quality is directly related to the awareness of its existence in relation to objects/events. Once we’re aware of that existence, we interact with it as inherent potential: we assume it was always there.

Potentiality is both scientific and non-material - although it is rarely discussed as a unitary concept (unless you count the dismissive/passive nature of descriptions in Aristotle/Aquinas). Potential energy, for instance, is ‘something’ that is scientifically predictable, and yet is ‘nothing’ in spacetime until it effects change. In quantum physics it can be predictable in limited conditions, but is unmeasurable in its purest ‘form’.

What's good in and by itself? Love of your country? Love of your mother? Love of your spouse? Then you get into immediate contention of what's good if someone has a different coutry of his or her own, or differnt mother, or different spouse, and you at the same time have to share resources that are not enough in quantity for all involved.

I contest therefore, based on the above, that there can be a uniform deontological agreement, This renders deontology useless.

Outcomes? I save my country, my mother, my spouse. Even at the detriment of your country, your mother, your spouse.

Again, teleology can't have a uniform agreement. This renders teleology useless. — god must be atheist

This seems like a ridiculous argument. A lack of uniformity doesn’t render either useless - anymore than the fact that there is no uniform time rendering time useless.

Just to make it clear (I know you're not commenting on this, but I could see things going off track easily), when I use "perspective" in this context, I'm not talking about the conscious perspective of a person. I'm using the term in more of a "point of reference" fashion, which is why I often try to substitute that phrase instead. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I’m with you there. You can substitute ‘perspective’ with ‘point of reference’, and what I’ve written still makes sense to me. But you’re reducing ‘perspective’ to 3D physical space because this is where we commonly talk about seeing things ‘as they are’. It’s a static snapshot of the universe as it is, sure - but is that what we mean by ‘seeing things as they are’? Is our use of language restricting our capacity to understand ‘reality’?

It's not possible to see "everything" about anything. There are a number of simple reasons for this, including that (a) at any given moment, you can only experience one perspective, and all perspectives are different at different points of time, (b) you can't experience any perspective that's not your own, and most are not your own. This includes that you can't observe the rock from the surface of the rock, you can't observe it from inside the rock, etc. (and each point on the surface, the inside, etc. is different anyway). You can obviously observe the surface and the inside, but you're not doing so from the perspective of being the surface or the inside. It's always from a perspective that's in an extensional relation to it instead. — Terrapin Station

At any given moment, you can only experience one point of reference in 3D space. But unlike the rock, animals have the capacity to interact in 4D spacetime, to experience a temporal aspect of the world. Over time, and with the help of memory, most animals can develop a point of reference that enables them to ‘perceive’ and interact with the rock as a three dimensional ‘object’ in spacetime.

We only know that ‘all 3D perspectives are different at different points of time’ because we can perceive the world in 4D spacetime - we can make sense of the world regardless of our position in space. As we map space in relation to these different reference points of time and interact with everything in relation to how we experience time, we realise that our experience of the universe in relation to time is not universal - we interact with the universe in time from a particular reference point that determines our perspective of everything regardless of our position in spacetime. This reference point relates to how we evaluate each 4D event or interaction.

Science enables us to ‘observe’ or measure aspects of the rock from the surface of the rock or from inside it - to gain a perspective of what the rock looks like from the inside - because we have the capacity to perceive this evaluative aspect of the world. This is the aspect of hierarchy, of numbers and mathematics. This is how we can relate two events occurring at different times, giving us a broader understanding of the structure of the universe in spacetime.

So the question becomes: is 3D space really ‘as things are’, and everything else is in our minds, OR does the universe consist not of 3D things as they are, but of 4D events as they occur? Or does it in fact consist of 5D subjective interactions as they are observed/measured?

Is 3D space considered reality because everything else we can physically observe in time interacts with it in roughly the same way, thus verifying our perspective?

In other words, we don't see things as they are from a particular location at a particular time, we see things from a particular location at a particular time from a particular brain. And that brain dimension is missing in physics and in the minds of those who think they see things as they are from a particular location and time. — leo

The way I see it, there are two additional dimensions: one relates to value, and the other to meaning. We experience the world not just from a particular perspective in spacetime, but also from a particular evaluative perspective. This perspective comes from the unique sum of our past interactions across spacetime. So too, we experience the world from a particular perspective that positions each of us uniquely in terms of how all our evaluations of experience interact to construct meaning.

Agreed. And many of these instances of tectonic trouble or failure originate from within - someone working from the inside is fast positioned outside the organisation when their efforts to effect change or accountability threaten the status quo, as you suggest. But then that’s the price of change. It’s rare that anyone working for change emerges from it unscathed, but it’s also rare for these tectonic shifts to occur without clandestine support from within, whistleblowers, etc.

In my view it isn’t power or influence that topples institutions or changes the status quo: it’s awareness, connection and collaboration - capable of transcending borders and infiltrating the hierarchies that work to protect those in power.

For me, being open to communication with racists just provides a platform for their ideology to reach others and it is a risky thing to engage in. — Mark Dennis

I understand there is risk. It’s risky to engage in anything. It’s risky to value freedom of speech. If your aim is to avoid racism, then your intolerance for racists may achieve this in your limited perspective, but it achieves little in reducing hatred and intolerance, in eradicating racism. It only helps you to feel more in control of your ‘safe’ little world. Combating intolerance with intolerance is small thinking.

How would you respond to the justifiable intolerance of dangerous criminals, murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like? Or my biological intolerance of things that may make me ill?
— Mark Dennis

As you say, intolerance of criminal behavior and disease is justifiable. — Bitter Crank

There is a difference between intolerance of criminal behaviour and disease, and intolerance of criminals, murderers, rapists, etc. One involves calling out the behaviour and insisting on alternatives - the other involves labelling a person and vilifying or discriminating against them based on this label. This second behaviour is not justifiable, and understanding the difference is important in relation to policies.

As for institutions being to blame - it’s a convenient barrier we hide behind so discriminatory behaviour can’t be attributed to us as individuals - “I’m just following policy/doing my job”. You can direct intolerance towards institutions as a scattered effect or as an organised resistance, but you can also get informed and connected, and effect change from the inside.

Fear of being enticed to the ‘dark side’ by engaging with those with whom we disagree highlights the weakness of our convictions. Understanding where someone is coming from in their discrimination is not siding with them - it’s recognising that the issue is not as ‘black and white’ as we like to think it is.

If you’ve ever tried to draw from life with little to no drawing experience, you may notice the discrepancy between what our eyes see and what our mind ‘sees’. We will draw a line where we understand a boundary exists, even though our eyes see no such line. Many people who claim they cannot draw are simply unable to recognise or reproduce the difference between what their eyes see and what their mind tells them is there.

"Presumably the goal of things like mindfulness, or philosophy, or even education in general, is to lead us down the path of managing our own prejudices, even the pre-conscious ones." I'd agree to this. Does this mean that amongst people who have the opportunity to simply know better, even the pre-conscious discrimination should be treated with the same intolerance as racism? — Mark Dennis

Intolerance is precisely what opens the door to discrimination. Having the opportunity to know better and making use of that opportunity do not necessarily go hand in hand, unfortunately. You can lead a horse to water, and all that. To discriminate against ignorance is the same as discriminating against autism, in my opinion.

I think any form of intolerance is destructive - including ‘justifiable intolerance’. Meeting pre-conscious discrimination with justifiable intolerance doesn’t fix the problem - all it does is promote intolerance in general. The solution to intolerance/discrimination is compassion and connection, collaborative achievement and increased awareness - all of which require tolerance in the face of intolerance.

Not everyone sees the world the same way as I do. That doesn’t make them wrong, although it does render at least one of us unaware of information - usually both. Intolerance is a refusal to be open to new information from a particular source.

The way I see it, I can’t change their mind if I don’t know how their mind works.

If I ever did hypothetical have a child I would have no problem understanding that they are not me and will have separate and individual desires. I would not expect them to endorse any of my values or consider me an expert in anything simply because I had a reproductive capacity. — Andrew4Handel

Ha ha - this is not as easy as it sounds, and it’s not because you have reproductive capacity, but because you are responsible for their actions as well as yours (despite your ability to influence such actions) until such time as they are aware of and prepared to take responsibility for their own. Until such time as you are in this position, you are not qualified to pass judgement on the expectations of parents with regards to the desires and values of their child.

But the overall issue is that at some stage most humans can withhold their consent from anything. Your position apparently relies on a complete failure of your imagination so that you cannot imagine that anyone other than yourself could have differing desires and values. — Andrew4Handel

Refusing to accept a situation up to this point is not withholding consent. You cannot withold consent for something that has already happened - whether or not you were capable of consenting to it at the time. But you are within your rights to personally withhold or withdraw consent to the continuation of a particular situation - you do that by resisting with your words and your actions. What continues beyond that resistance is where you take responsibility for your words and actions, and anyone who denies your active/vocal resistance is held responsible for their words/actions within the social/political structure. But you have to take into account that refusing social responsibilities is accompanied by a loss of accompanying rights within that social structure. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

A unconscious person can not express their consent on whether they would like their hand stuck in a fire. Unconscious people can never express an opinion so this period of inability to voice consent does not entail any rights or justifications for someone else to do something to them

Your positions entails that as soon as someone is unconscious or asleep then their inability to consent justifies whatever you do to them. — Andrew4Handel

No - as soon as someone is unconscious or asleep then their inability to consent shifts the entire responsibility for the situation to whoever consciously exercises their right to act. If you are asleep in a fire and someone pulls you out but in the process allows your hand to be burned, then who is responsible for the injury? This is where the law makes money, and the rescuer often regrets his decision to act. But in my opinion you cannot then withhold your consent to being pulled from the fire, nor to having your hand stuck in a fire, because (being unconscious at the time) that consent was not yours to give. Like it or not, that ship has sailed. If you consent to life after the fire, then you consent to living with a burnt hand, and you regain responsibility for your situation. If not, you can explore your options to resist the future, but you cannot change the past.

Consent is about the future, not the past. It doesn’t justify actions - it determines who’s responsible for a situation going forward. Whoever exercises their right to act must take responsibility for their action. If the law says you have no responsibility, then whoever acts towards you or on your behalf at that point assumes responsibility for your actions as well as their own.

I think parents can be held accountable for the life they created but I don't think anyone can be held accountable for their own existence. I think creating another existence is special responsibility and an endorsement of life but simply existing isn't. — Andrew4Handel

As a parent, I think we are held responsible for establishing a life that is sufficiently aware/prepared to take responsibility for its own existence. This is true of any species - but there is much more that we must learn from each other in order to exist as human beings. I also think that parents (particularly in societies where daycare and school systems assume much of this responsibility) are often unaware of or misinformed about their responsibility, and so they often fail to achieve this. The child then grows up unprepared or unwilling to assume responsibility for their existence when they finally realise that no-one ever gets a choice initially.

I think perhaps there has been a separation of our rights from our responsibilities that confuses this issue of consent. When children are given rights, there are responsibilities attached to them. The idea that we should ‘let kids be kids’ pressures parents to give consent for their children to have certain rights without the accompanying responsibilities. A 15 year old girl, for instance, has every right to get herself into a position where she is no longer legally responsible for what happens to her body. In these situations, is a parent supported in with-holding the rights of their child until she is sufficiently aware/prepared to take this responsibility?

If consent is ‘permission for something to happen or agreement to do something’, then in my opinion it’s insufficient to describe the mutual agreement entered into for any sexual activity, and isn’t going to solve the issue of rape or sexual assault. Sex is not uni-directional, despite how it’s commonly portrayed. So it shouldn’t be a case of my giving consent to an activity, but of two people entering into a social agreement.

To put it very mildly, rape and other sexual assault occurs when there is a disagreement between parties on their rights and responsibilities in relation to each other. That ‘no means no’ is insufficient suggests that we’re not dealing with mere consent, but with a more complex social agreement. Not just what am I saying yes to, but also what does he think I’m saying yes to? Am I agreeing to just this action, or to everything he might assume is a ‘natural’ follow-on? Can I change my mind if I don’t like it? Can I stop if I’m in pain?

Sexual acts could be seen as a social agreement where all rights have accompanying reponsibilities. If she is no longer taking responsibility for her actions, she has relinquished her right to act. But if he accepts (or takes away) the right to act or speak on her behalf, he is then responsible for her situation as well as his own actions towards her. If she takes back that right, it is no longer his right to act on. If he accepts the right (freely given or not) to act in a way that may potentially cause her pain, he is responsible for the pain that he causes.

What should be very clear is that both parties have the capacity to accept or refuse the right and accompanying responsibility - this is what is often overlooked. What they should not be allowed to do is accept the right without the responsibility - or refuse responsibility without relinquishing the right.

But I don’t think this is how society currently views consent and responsibility.

I think this discussion comes down to the meaning of ‘strength’. I agree with @god must be atheist that the role of ‘external’ support in fostering a personal perception of strength is key. The idea that strength has a purely internal source is a misleading one that perpetuates this drive towards independence, autonomy and influence, which is ultimately destructive.

But this strength is not be found in the ideology or social structure itself - it’s in the connections and relationships it enables us to develop.

Likewise with the sex trade: the strength the industry provides for women that was missing in Afghanistan, Congo and Bosnia during the civil war, for instance, is not in the role of the industry in wider society (which in many respects seeks to oppress the potential of women in general and inspire men to drive towards independence, autonomy and influence), but in the connections and relationships it enables women to develop within the industry that help them increase awareness and achievement within a social structure which ultimately treats women as objects.

Domestic violence emerges within a social structure that isolates women from relationships that can increase their sense of strength, but this social structure also perpetuates the false perception that a man’s only source of strength is himself, and that his self-esteem comes from his ability to control his environment as an independent agent. By isolating his environment (his wife and family) from external influences, he attempts to create the illusion that he has maximum independence, autonomy and influence in at least some part of his world.

If we are to help women and men, humanity or the future of our environment, we need to challenge the idea that our aim is to attain maximum independence, autonomy and influence - as individuals or as groups. The only way we can pretend this is productive is by denying the existence/relevance/value of anything we cannot control.

I believe time is a creation. Causality requires the minimum of one uncaused, brute fact to act as the tip of the causal pyramid and cause everything else. It is only possible to exist as an uncaused brute fact if you exist outside time; existing 'forever' inside time is logically impossible (cannot exist with no temporal start). — Devans99

If you want an ‘uncaused brute fact’, then in my view what you’re looking for is potential. You might name it ‘God’, the source, a ‘timeless thing’ or whatever you want, but the way I see it, potential is all that exists beyond space, time, value and meaning. It’s surprising how well suited it is to the role, though, when you think about it.

The BB seems to support this view - it looks a lot like the start of time what with time slowing down due to the intense gravitational field. — Devans99

Slowing down relative to what and where? I don’t see what time dilation due to a gravitational field has to do with the apparent ‘creation’ of time.

Yeah we certainly disagree here. You're neglecting the difference between relationships, of which not all require thought/belief, and drawing correlations between different things... which are thought/belief. — creativesoul

One is establishing a relationship between two events, and the other is being aware of the relationship established as an event/entity, in relation to other relationships. Calling it ‘thought/belief’ only distinguishes it from the same process at a lower level of awareness.

Still, one instance only of BBs over the last 14 billion years seem to place it firmly in the unnatural camp (using the above definitions). — Devans99

No, it doesn’t. Your definition says ‘greater than 0% probability’. That means you only need ONE instance to place it above 0% probability. A probability of 0.000000000000000000001% is still greater than 0%.

That suggests to me that the additional dimension of time was discovered rather than created? — Devans99

Yes, it was discovered - by humans. But all animals (and many chemical reactions) have at least been aware of it to some degree.

The creation (or discovery) of time, the FTA, etc... seem to imply a timeless intelligence external to spacetime. I would define that as an unnatural intelligence. — Devans99

I’m not sure what ‘the FTA’ refers to, but this ‘unnatural intelligence’ you’re talking about is human intelligence. We have the capacity to interact with the universe beyond what you refer to as ‘nature’. We can integrate information acquired from beyond our capacity to physically interact with the universe: from the far reaches of space to billions of years before we even existed. You can’t tell me that’s not at least a capacity for timeless intelligence external to spacetime.

Correlation is the only process by which we attribute meaning. I suspect there's an equivocation of the term "correlation" at work on your view. One sense for the process we use to attribute meaning, and one sense to characterize the results of certain command functions in computer language(and other 'systems', perhaps?). — creativesoul

I see what you’re saying, and I recognise that I haven’t been very clear.

Correlation can refer to the process of establishing a relationship between events OR to the relationship itself - neither of which is, in my view, equated with meaning or the process of attributing meaning. The relationship IS a process, so I guess that’s where the confusion occurs.

As a process, correlation is not dependent on thought/belief, language or self-awareness. It only requires the capacity to integrate information, and so it can occur at every level of awareness, to varying degrees. This, I think, is where we differ. That being said, it is a key component in the more complex and multi-dimensional process by which humans attribute and construct meaning.

Correlation is the building block of the universe - without it, all we have is potential.

Meaning, on the other hand, is a dimension of awareness in which we interact with the universe across and beyond four-dimensional spacetime. Language enables us to both integrate information and interact with events by establishing relationships (correlation) across all six dimensions (including a fifth dimension of value). Like sensing and evaluating, language is a set of correlations itself that help us to navigate meaning in relation to the lower dimensions, and to increase our understanding of this entire conceptual space in which we can now interact with the universe. The more we develop this capacity, the more information we can integrate, the more we can interact with the universe across these dimensions, and the more we can achieve.

One does not build meaning inside one's head and then transmit it. Building meaning is part of the complex interaction one has with the world. Hence language is not mere communication. It is an integral part of the self-referential complexity that creates oneself, the other, and the various things in our world.

This looping is not simple; it is strange. It traverses from level to level, between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics unexcused. It provides the illusion of free will. It is not limited to the self, nor the mind, nor the body, nor the various items that together make up the physical world. — Banno

I agree with you here. In my view, language is not moving information from one head to another; It is not mere communication. It is how we navigate the dimension of meaning: a means to integrate information, but more importantly to interact with the universe across spacetime and beyond it, to achieve, build structures of meaning, transcend or challenge value structures including the self, and even seek awareness beyond meaning.

Of course it sounds off - if you’re going to chop up the sentence like that. Try this:

There is a tendency to reduce [our understanding/explanation of] the process [by which we make meaning] to the individual neural connections in the brain [or, more generally, the physical correlation of information].

But the way I see it, meaning is not only correlation - it’s much more than that. If we equate meaning with correlation, then we may find ourselves arguing about whether or not DNA has sufficient agency to attribute meaning, for instance.

Correlation is only part of the process by which we attribute meaning. In my view, systems can still correlate and integrate information without being fully aware of meaning, let alone having the capacity to attribute it - even if the system acts as though the information is meaningful. This why I use the term ‘correlation’.

I would argue that you are a human and therefore not unique in the sense you are a class of human (your DNA maybe unique but you are still an instance of human). In the same way, a supernova is a natural event - they are all slightly different but fall under the same class and there are multiple instances of such events - so they have the signature of a natural event. — Devans99

To say that an event is ‘natural’ because there are multiple instances of such events in the same ‘class’ has a certain meaning for you. But it has no objective meaning - these are your evaluations based on your relationship to the meaning of these terms, not traits inherent to the events themselves. That’s fine, unless you’re using these terms to make statements which you believe to be objective.

This is why I asked you clarify whether by ‘unnatural’ you meant supernatural or metaphysical. I don’t find that your use of ‘natural/unnatural’ reliably communicates what you mean in this context. To me, it comes across as an arbitrary evaluation based on what ‘natural’ means to you. Likewise, the ‘class of human’ is not something inherent to me as an event, but a meaning attributed to the event by other ‘humans’. They are not objectively definable terms.

If you’re going to discuss cosmological events in relation to what exists ‘beyond time’, you need to get a clearer picture of the multi-dimensional structure you’re referring to, and how you fit into it. In my view, for instance, I am attempting to navigate at least six dimensions that I’m aware of. In this perspective, ‘beyond time’ is not located outside the universe for me.

My opinion is that creation of a dimension is a discontinuous process so it looks unnatural. I find it hard to fathom a natural explanation for the creation of time. Again that is not evidence enough in itself for a creator, but it adds to the weight of evidence. — Devans99

I think perhaps you’re looking at it wrong. Consider how one might move from ‘Flatland’ to 3-dimensional space, for instance. It’s not a matter of an intelligent agent ‘creating’ another dimension, but of first interacting with something beyond what we understand, and then gradually developing awareness of it despite the lack of understanding. This is how I believe time ‘started’.

Other considerations:

- Nature always tends to equilibrium if left alone. We are not in equilibrium. It suggest to me that some sort of intelligence must exist which is the reason why we are not in equilibrium.
- I believe the fine tuning argument is basically sound and points to an intelligent fine tuner.
- The classical cosmological arguments point to the first cause being a self-driven agent, which seems to me to require intelligence.

So I believe there is an intelligent agent as the creator of the universe - on weight of evidence. — Devans99

What do you mean by ‘intelligent’? This is another one of those words that appears to have the same meaning for everyone, but on closer inspection the conceptual space it occupies can be very different, depending on how you understand and evaluate, in this case, ‘the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills’.

I believe the fine tuning argument points to a level of intelligence (or at least a capacity to develop intelligence) inherent in all matter. And I believe the classical cosmological arguments point to this inherent capacity. In my opinion there is no need to venture beyond what is ‘natural’ for your ‘intelligent agent’ - on weight of evidence.

Natural events come in pluralities. The BB is a singleton. Therefore you cannot claim it to be natural. — Devans99

I don’t follow this. Are you suggesting that unique events cannot occur naturally? That because I am unique, for instance, I cannot claim to be natural?

I think your use of natural/unnatural as a dichotomy here is unhelpful. Natural implies either innate, instinctive, expected or not man-made. What is the purpose of declaring the BB to be not natural? Are you suggesting a metaphysical aspect? A supernatural one?

There are many argument that time has a start. One is that the existence of anything at all in the universe requires a brute fact - IE something uncaused. Brute facts can only exist outside of time (they exist without tense - they just 'ARE' - they have no cause because they are beyond time and thus beyond causality). — Devans99

I happen to agree that ‘time’ is finite - I just don’t agree that this points to a non-natural creation of the universe. I also think that for something to exist ‘outside of time’ or ‘beyond causality’ does not make it ‘unnatural’.

That is is idiotic - the BB created nature it did not happen in nature. You can't just define reality as 100% natural - you have to demonstrate that with logic or evidence - this is a philosophy forum.

I will give you a better definition. Something that is natural has a greater than 0% chance of occurring naturally - yes? Then if time is infinite and the BB is natural, by that definition, there should be an infinite number of BBs at each point in space. There is only one BB. The following conclusions are therefore unescapable:

- The BB is not natural
Or
- Time has a start

Either way points to a non-natural creation of the universe. — Devans99

No. You cannot claim to have such a comprehensive understanding of nature for you to conclude beyond all doubt that the BB does not have a greater than 0% chance of occurring naturally. Plus your suggestion that ‘time has a start’ shows a lack of necessary understanding of the nature of time in relation to physics. Read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’.

I gave you evidence for the BB being unnatural. Your response is to claim it is natural without offering any evidence. That is hardly convincing.

All the matter/energy in the universe, packed into a single point in space. What exactly is natural about that? How could the universe get into such a state? All I can think of is gravitational collapse, but that would result in a black hole and black holes do not explode (nothing can escape a black hole). So I think there is no obvious, natural explanation. — Devans99

You’re assuming here that ‘natural’ is the current state of the universe as we understand it, when in fact ‘natural’ is the entire process of the unfolding universe - including the BB - whether we understand it or not.

to integrate it into an existing set of correlations,
— Possibility

I don't see that this helps. It just replaces meaning with correlation. — Banno

No, it doesn’t - it’s more complicated than that. There is a tendency to equate meaning with correlation and in doing so reduce the process by which we make meaning to the individual neural connections in the brain. But that’s only a small part of it.

Meaning refers to the whole process: from receiving the information to making the many intricate relationship connections with existing knowledge, to then using what results in how we interact with the world. It is a multi-dimensional relationship between information, correlation, knowledge, thought/belief and actions/words.

We transmit information, we share knowledge, but with meaning it’s more a matter of finding common ground or conceptual ‘space’. A word points to a particular meaning, and even though another person (the listener) can appear to ‘see’ a similar meaning to which that word points, the process that makes that meaning for the listener may be a very different structure to the one that led to the word being spoken. In order to ensure we’re talking about the same meaning, we look around the words - at the context, intonation, attitude, body language - at whatever correlations we can find that will help us construct the conceptual space in which that meaning is situated.

I think you might be misunderstanding the use of the word ‘common’ here.

If you had read the article by Chesterton you would understand.

I think you’re viewing the word as used by the British as a synonym for ‘uncouth’, ‘rough’, ‘impolite’. — Brett

No, I don’t think I am. Chesterton refers to the ‘Common Man’ as the uneducated, but then says the ‘Uncommon Man’, the supposedly educated aristocracy, have been the ones responsible for making the mess by being ‘unintelligent’. He’s setting up a contradiction, and you can interpret it one of two ways. Either the ‘Common Man’ is subject to a case of the blind leading the blind (in which case the dichotomy is false), OR it isn’t education that distinguishes this dichotomy, but making use of the increased awareness from what education/experience they have.

I was mostly with you until the last sentence, which dips back into the condescension I referred to. — T Clark

How is it condescending? I’m certainly not saying that having to live off the money I make and raise kids (both of which I am currently doing) renders me incapable of self-reflection. I am ‘common’ and inauthentic when I fail to reflect on, question and critically examine who I am and what I do. This is not just a matter of circumstance, in my opinion - it’s a matter of awareness, not necessarily affluence or college education.

My father was forced out of school at 13, spent time living on the street, etc before raising five kids on a meagre postman’s salary - rain, hail or shine for 30 years. He spent much of his spare time educating himself - before the internet - and continually reflected on who he was and what he did. He was hardened poor, and yet most ‘uncommon’.

I'm not certain, but I think this thread may be the most pitiful I've read on the forum. Condescending, ignorant, naive, arrogant, disrespectful. Pitiful. Have any of you ever worked for a living? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated? — T Clark

Chill.

Personally, I don’t like to use the term ‘common man’. What I was referring to was how I interpret the term in relation to the attitude of those who use it. Yes - it can be condescending, arrogant and disrespectful. The term often implies that the person using it does not see themselves in it. It is a way of being self-reflective without including the self. It connotes pity rather than compassion, and implies that the author’s ability to comment on this aspect of being human elevates him from being one of them. In truth, unless we are continually self-reflective, this term refers to all of us most of the time.

So I don’t agree that there is an ‘uncommon man’ as such, either. It’s only in those moments when we think about who we are and what we’re doing that we become ‘uncommon’ - a bit like Heidegger’s authentic mode of being.

I follow what you’re saying here, and I agree with what I think you’re trying to convey - but I think the quibbles about the meanings of words here are valid.

It’s difficult to get past this idea of ‘independent things’ while referring to them in relation to this concept of the ‘whole’. When we refer to a concept, it’s really just a set of correlations in relation to that set. But when we refer to a thing, we do so without reference to its various correlations, either internal or external to the set.

Things and concepts therefore exist in different dimensions of awareness - they can interact (we can talk about them together) through abstract thought and language, but in order to do that effectively, we need to accept them both as concepts: as sets of correlations in relation to each set.

A set is not a ‘thing’ - it’s only a way of understanding certain correlations and not others. It doesn’t imply independence or complete unity - neither does it imply either separation from or even the existence or non-existence of anything outside of that set.

I tend to interpret the ‘common man’ as simply a lack of self-reflection. It is who we are and what we do when we aren’t paying attention to who we are and what we do.

In my understanding, information is the correlation itself. Knowledge is the capacity to make use of that information: to integrate it into an existing set of correlations, which then interacts with the world.

So I agree that language is not moving information from one head to another. Language is a set of correlations through which we can transmit other correlations among sets of correlations.

It is how we understand the nature of correlations at various levels or dimensions that confuses the issue. Some sets of correlations we consider to be things or entities, and tend to ignore the fact that they consist of correlations at all. This is because, despite what information we now have (ie. what correlations we have integrated), it requires less effort to interact with the entity than with the set of correlations. Other correlations we refer to as ‘concepts’, and recognise that interacting with them as an entity or ‘thing’ can lead to inaccuracies that render the interaction counterproductive.

Language enables us to integrate correlations across a number of different levels or dimensions of awareness by treating everything as ‘conceptual’. Ignoring the multi-dimensional aspect of these correlations is where language often runs into trouble.

Okay. Then if they have term ‘females’ in their name then doesn’t it follow that they represent the views or conditions of females. What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women? — Brett

.

But feminism is not aiming to represent the female view. Rather it is the advocacy for women's rights on the grounds of gender equality. Feminism aims to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.

AFA aimed to repeal restrictions on gun ownership in the US by claiming to represent the female view. They were not advocating for women’s rights in particular.

The statement identifies gun control as a means of oppression, especially of women, and desires it be resisted. — AJJ

The statement is an appeal to fear and hatred: side with those who support ‘the possibility of armed citizens’, OR be associated with Palestinian suicide bombers, Taliban and anyone who kidnaps women for rape and sex-slave trade. This isn’t feminism. It’s a false dichotomy.

If they have the word ‘female’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of females. Otherwise they’re concerned citizens. Why include female in your name otherwise. — Brett

No, if they have the term ‘armed females’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of armed females. That’s not the same as being feminist.

There’s something about this that just doesn’t add up. Your position seems to be that if you believe you need a gun to feel safe then the problem is with you, that it’s with your perception of the world. As if you’re projecting your subjective fear onto the world at large, which is not as you see it (and you comprehend this), and that it’s really a peaceful loving world and there is no, or little, chance of anyone out there with malicious attitudes ever coming into contact with you. Does it also, then, mean that there is nothing to fear out there but fear itself, that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. Where does this begin and end? — Brett

I’m not implying that it’s really a peaceful loving world, or that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. My position is that interacting with the world as if you should be afraid is not going to reduce malicious attitudes or fear - it’s going to add to it. Brandishing a gun doesn’t say ‘I am not afraid’ just because it incites fear in others.

The OP question is what it means to have freedom. I’m not disputing the fact that we don’t have completely free will, and I did say as much. But within that experience where our will is not completely free, there is still freedom - and more than we want.

A prisoner is still as free as they choose to be - just not in exactly the same way that you and I exercise our freedom. You can focus on the bars, or you can focus on the opportunities provided. That was my point.

And your ‘esse’ is only as rigidly defined as you decide. I think this idea that our character is entirely decided for us and then we are either allowed or not allowed by circumstances to ‘choose’ our pre-determined character is a failure to make effective use of our creative capacity as human beings.