Do you have any recommendations for the ontology of mind? Any papers or thinkers I should look into?

I meant this to be the common cultural conception of human minds.

Thank you for this!!

I never meant to generalize, human minds, but you're right. How do we define our own minds, besides in opposition from those other beings?

Human minds: Above/superior to other beings

What if our entire lives, especially post-scarcity, post-industrial lives, revolve around attempting to replicate nature in some ways?
I feel the answer is likely. So I always agree with your hypothesis that it is likely some connection between creation of silicon-based 'aliens' and our own attempts at creating new life. Much of 'replicating intelligence' ie. AI/technology also has its roots in existential anguish, that is, finding ways to surpass our mortality and finite lives.

Like Camus put it, we want answers in a silent universe.
So of course we seek to find those, often in religion, because like you pointed out it is accessible to everyone in a way that science/philosophical theory may not be (though the Internet has certainly changed the reality and prevalence of scientific understanding, Nagel names this renowned new faith in science scientism).
Religion is resultant of something in the human conciseness, seeking understanding. Those who created religion/theory wanted to answer some of these empty questions (that likely, will never have a definitive objective answer) and those who follow seek not only answers, but comfort, community, and a sense of purpose.

I personally abhor organized religion, I really have strong anti-religious sentiments and can't help but lose some respect for people who blindly follow or preach Christianity or Islam. To me, it is ridiculous and has no place in the twenty-first century, but what I have learned is that I wish I could blindly believe, it would have brought me great comfort and great peace...instead I have to struggle, quite often, in finding my own meaning to my life. When my grandmother died last year I wasn't quite sure what to do, or how to think or feel, I reached an existential crisis where suddenly I felt like everything was much more finite than I had been lead to believe.. It was a very dark time in my life, one where I wish I could have appealed to religion to help me. So of course I understand the function of religion, it's not only great for keeping people disciplined and working collaboratively, but it also provides the psychic crutch needed for many to survive terrible circumstances and situations, look at the people in the Middle Ages-all the violence and war and disease, life was short, most people died and lived in abysmal conditions, of course they wanted to appeal to a God. That is not to say that today life is 'easy' in comparison, far from it, but there are newer religions that people appeal to, like the capitalist idea of success; money = highest good, or scientism ect. Religion at is fundamental, ideological basis, is still there, just in different, obscure forms than say Christianity and Islam, which again, as someone who feels very anti-religious/anti-ideology meets roadblocks regarding deconstructing it.

Apathy and disinterest are certainly powerful tools of censorship in North America-such as the idea that we are always being watched. Surveillance is something people just have come to terms with-I am in no way surprised knowing that I am likely being watched by some government agency.

I agree people are appalled by Trump's veracity and obtuse declarations-and people also like him because of it, because it is 'refreshing'. I believe Trump got elected largely due to this reason, not only because people may agree with some of his outspoken ideas, but even just because he was outspoken more generally-defying an unspoken rule in North American politics-never say anything outspoken ever. Politics is for the smooth-talkers, the vague statements, the Party lines, not for real declarations-Trump shakes the pot so to speak. I don't necessarily agree with all of his policies (nor am I even American) but given the choice between him and Hilary, he was the obvious choice. Hilary and the Clintons more generally, represent everything people have come to abhor and dislike about politics.

I also believe Trump is his own form of censorship-one of the reasons why I have no interest in pop-shop politics. "Oh Trump did this" "Trump said that" "Oh no Trump!" is all you hear in mainstream news outlets, and I feel that it is a major form of 'smoke n mirrors', meant to distract people from and obscure the real issues in the (North) American political climate, and the bigger agencies and systems at work. Take the NRA for example, by far a more powerful group and more worthy of intense analysis and scrutiny than Trump's rants, but it is not scrutinized or explored by these news outlets. I personally, couldn't imagine watching the news unironically, but a lot of people do. Concerning.

I believe American censorship of criticism works in a different way than Russian/European. People are quick to point the finger at Russia for being "authoritarian" (which no doubt they are in in many ways) but people fail to see how incredibly censored North America is as well...people may obtusely criticize Trump-to the point where he has become a national 'meme' but people do not openly criticize other parts of the government very loudly...ie. military spending, the prevalence of liberal ideology, and the censorship of radical left thought. People are very censored here in North America, but it works in different, subtler ways, I feel.

I always describe to people that philosophy is like LEGO, building your own ideas/conceptions out of other people's ideas and conceptions. The creativity aspect of philosophy is what attracts me so much to it in the first place...but it does require denizens of reading and research....and then more research, and then kind of going back and re-doing some of your other work ect.

What kind of 'book on philosophy' were you planning on writing? If you don't want to explain it here you are welcome to PM me and I'd b happy to help where I could, I have some time on my hands the next few weeks.

I appreciate your cynicism, and it is true that "scientism" as termed by Nagel-has become the new system of faith for the secular Western world. I don't think "science" will save us as much as people want to think, but rather, science is not only an 'easy' solution ie. we don't have to do much regarding our own lives, but it is also an economically viable one-yay, creates jobs in the STEM sector!! Governments and corporations can get behind it.

You made some really great points that I 100% agree with and had in mind when starting this discussion. As I mentioned earlier, so much of my generation is focused on all this pop-environmentalism that necessarily involves commodifying the ecological issues (that ironically largely exist due to this capitalist/consumerist culture), kids my age lap that shit up. One of my roommates (disclaimed: I very much disliked) was so proud when she bought eco-friendly straws-these metal, reusable straws, instead of plastic ones. It was like YAY I personally did my part to solve global warming! But idiot she was, did she stop to think about how those straws were produced? How they were transported? Obviously not. Banning plastic straws is a good step, also, as you mentioned, plastic packaging in general but due to this individual moral culpability produced by the "environmental" movement, nobody is willing to demand that, nobody sees these bigger economic incentives at play....Yesterday was Earth Day in my country, yet all my friends on Instagram's big contribution was to repost those "one like = one tree" campaign posts that companies do for fundraising and free advertising...or shared this rapper that produced some song about the earth...0 understanding of the bigger picture, and 0 initiative to protest or make any real sort of change.

This lack of radical awareness isn't just in the area of ecological understanding, but widespread to most global/political issues. "Liberalism" versus "Conservatism" is the dominant ideologies in my country, and people generally see liberalism as the Left (which it couldn't be farther from). All these Liberal movements, including liberal feminism, focus on this individual moral culpability, and the importance of slightly reforming individual actions to help "the cause", which by doing so, conveniently protects the predominant economic and political institutions of power-shielding them from blame or understanding. It's like the Tadpole theory but with regards to moral blame, not success.
Radical thought isn't allowed to be spoken of, let alone conceived and put into action. It's dismissed as 'extreme' or 'impossible' before it is even explored or taught. You're certainly right about that. My (limited) Earth day contribution was to post a list of anarcho-enviromental theory books on my social media in the hopes that others who are actually interested will take it upon themselves to research those books. The knowledge is there to be used, it's jus not allowed to be. Welcome to the benign censorship of the Western world.

Why don't we do this? Are you ready with a program which will convince people to do this, in the face of probably vicious resistance by police, corporations, the military...? Honestly, I think this is what we should be doing -- I personally don't know how to get people out to do these kinds of things.

Us old people could follow Maggie Kuhn's (founder of the Gray Panthers) advice and demand immediate changes to reduce CO2 production, or we will show up en masse in public, and undress. The last thing people want to see is 100,000 naked old people -- acres of sagging flesh, wrinkles, knobby joints, the whole bit. Well, it's still a bit cold in Minnesota, but it will soon be warm enough here and everywhere.

@Bitter Crank

I love that ^ and it is something I agree with. To start with the younger generation at least, such encouragement to protest must begin on social media, in Ontario (where I live) highschool/university students recently (albeit; misinformed) walked out of school to protest OSAP cuts...in the States students have been striking for better gun control ect. Problem is again, students and young people are not informed. The education system teaches bare minimum liberal environment propaganda so it becomes mostly a mob mentality. Also social media cares more about the smoke n mirrors game of celebrity news and mainstream pop shop politics (ie. OMG what did TRumP dO todAY!!?!?) nothing truly radical or revolutionary. When I presented on this stuff in grade 12 for a class project, I was met with mostly blank stares and confusion.

One auhor I should have cited as key to my thinking is one I read a few years ago: Joel Kovel, certainly anyone interested in what we are talking about here should check him out

People balk when I bring this up (at dinner, talk about awkward conversation) because they feel as if I'm taking away some kind of assumed inherent right to reproduce. I think we need to work on changing this attitude. You do not need to reproduce to make life complete, you can have a meaningful life without having children. Having children should rightly be considered a privilege, not a right, because it is a major responsibility, arguably the biggest responsibility one could ever take on in this life.

Definitely not a proponent of eugenics, at least as far as eugenics implies 'racial' purity ect. I mean anti-natalism, at least to begin with, encouraging people not to have biological offspring. People can try to be as 'eco-friendly' as possible, but the most eco-friendly thing you could do, is not produce more humans to add to the ever-growing carbon footprint/consumer basis. There are millions of children in the world who are suffering and need love, resources, ect. both in developing countries AND domestically. We must make the adoption process more accessible, and less stigmatized so very few people feel the need to produce more children. Populations by country can be supplemented with smart dispersal, based on space + available resources and economy. These are simple mathematical equations that can be used to organize people and children needing families.

Unpopular opinion: anti-natalism?

Thats a dismal outlook but I don’t blame you. I’m an undergraduate philosophy major (currently) and I get a lot of “jokes” about my useless degree, what am I going to do with my life, ect. One time in a viscious argument someone once told me “I don’t know shit thats why I’m in philosophy”. Of course, the individual was in a jealous rage at the time, but it still struck home. I think a lot of (us) philosophy majors have become so acclimatized with this assumption that we joke about it ourselves and devalue it. I love philosophy. Philosophy has saved my life. I don’t think philosophy is about “auhority” over knowledge like in the other disciplines like science ect. its not about being right. its about asking question, about pursuing truth, about saving lives and see life-in many different ways.

I really agree with your points. This kind of ties into what I was also trying to get at; my issues with individual culpability, that is, like the 'ecological theatre" concept @boethius brought up. Theres a lot of (neoliberal) focus on individual actions, like biking to work ect. which is great, but also, not really a reasonable reality for some people. Turning off lights is something easier to do, but, even if everyone turned off every light, it would be nothing compared the damage industrial corporations are doing, with regards to pollution and energy usage. Individual culpability inspires a good spirit, but it does nothing to change the framework of issues at hand, in fact, it works to shield the culpability from those who really deserve it and those who's change would be a major impact.

How do you suggest The People hold corporate's feet to the fire?

Also, I appreciate you letting my generation off the hook. While my generation might be more "Aware" as @ZhouBoTong pointed out, but I'm worried that such interest is merely getting commodified. Such as the 'eco-friendly' straws trend. I'm not sure if people of my generation are really interested in enacting change so much as matching the current "Green" trends.

PS. Thunberg's next planned global climate strike is planned for May 26. I'm mad that my schooling is done for the year and I'm no longer in high school, or I would have participated.

Interesting that you see the ecological crisis resultant of some macro-shift in political engagement. Of course I have no doubt that politics encompasses most areas of life, especially something as global as, well, global warming.
I'm a bit confused as to your point though, are you trying to say that ecological crises are some form of political propaganda? The external 'other' that keeps what otherwise would be a divided group, solid and together? Or are you saying that as a result of these ecological factors, the whole dynamic of global human interaction is changing?

I would like to share your optimism that there may be 'new insights' as a result, but so far, it seems that science is coming up with more piecemeal, stop-gap methods. I go to an environmental university, but our school is actually building an arena on the so-called "protected wetlands" that are a part of the property. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I certainly agree, it is overwhelming. Being bombarded with all these messages and warning and scientific facts my entire life, is, well, tiring.

To be fair, you didn't exactly moot my point. All I was doing was highlighting the prevalence of ideology. Commitment to anti-ideology is, as you pointed out, undeniably is its own form of meta-ideology. I'm not sure myself how to escape this circular trap, maybe enjoyment/participaition of ideology ironically? Like enjoying in spite of it's relativity?

yes they are! thank you for opening my eyes, taking me out of darkness and into the light! :cheer:

Never claimed to take you into the light. Perhaps there is not a light to be taken to? If man cannot exist asocially, that is, outside of intersubjective reality, then yes, perhaps ideology and all it entails; forms of religion, culture, is inextricable from humanity. But still, my overall point remains, what is the point over quibbling? Religion at least, if you want to involve a ranking system, is the most obtuse, and ridiculous of the ideologies that constitute human society. The fact that individuals still hold onto it into the twenty-first century baffles and alarms me.

The issue is not with Islam in particular, but with religion, or even more generally, ideology. Islam is just one example (albeit a predominant one) of how ideology works, not only to hinder human welfare, but to create such absolute dogmatic following that the factions will split among each other, thus reinforcing cohesion and group facilitation within the ethnic/religious/political group. Thus you get Muslims vs. Christians, Russians vs. Americas, Communists vs. Capitalist ect. ect. If anyone has read 1984 by George Orwell, one will see how this works to maintain perpetual war and conflict, thus resulting in the ultimate subjugation of the people in the groups from realizing the relativity and true purpose of their beloved dogma.

Religion is just one example of such ideology, culture plays a role, often ideologies are begot by cultures, and as Gramsci noted, ideologies beget (and construct) culture of their own. All of this is ideology, and intersubjective. It is not objective, absolute, or eternally universal/material in any sense. It is not subjective either (usually), felt only by the qualia of the experiencer. It is created among people's intersocial interactions, and exists to these subjective individuals involved in these interactions, seemingly objective to the individuals as well.

Which ideology is more "moral" is therefore a ridiculous question, seeing as it is just that, relative and intersubjective ideology, there is no 'true' value, and there certainly is no real comparison between any. They are all ideology-what other implications could there be?

Obesity is not a “one card” issue. Meaning that being obese is not just a random occurence, it is the result of systemic issues present here in North America. ie. a terrible healthcare system (US), price of healthy vs. unhealthy food, poor quality of food/life in general/poverty and other mental issues present even before the obesity began (many times weight gain is a symptom of various mental illnesses). The lifestyle here, culture, everything pretty much promotes unhealthy eating and an unhealthy lifestyle. Obesity is also genetic, not necessarily meaning people are born obese but rather due to bone size, ect. are predisposed to b le overweight and thus at risk for what we would call “obesity”. Genetic also = environmental meaning that most likely if the individuals family members are all over weight the environment influenced these genes; unhealthy eating, poverty ect.

I do certainly agree with your statement that obesity can be a form of self harm, and certainly this obesity in many cases comorbidates with mental illnesses that only exacerbate the issue,
making it almost impossible to escape. I hold that obesity is not the CAUSE per say of self harm or these issues but rather is a symptom/form of self harm of a bigger problem more generally. Self harm in all its examples is the individal attempting to regain control of their lives/feelings ect. and it becomes an abusive cycle.

Some people have described philosophy as a poetic science. I'm not really sure. These kind of questions come up in discussion a lot with my friends who are in the 'hard sciences'. I've always seen philosophy as the physics of social sciences, kind of strange and super abstract, but ultimately affects all the other disciplines of social science (history, sociology, politics ect.)

And oh wow, I'm moving to Swansea so I'm not really sure where that is in relation to the rest of Wales!

Your post made me smile. Philosophy is so impossible to wrap your head around at times, not only because it deals with abstract and varying concepts, but yes, because of all these seemingly inconclusive conclusions. People I know have jokingly described philosophy as "hitting your head against a rock over and over and coming up with different reasons why its bleedings", it is, as Camus explicitly elucidated, a Sisyphusian struggle.

Also reminded me of a quote; "Philosophy is for those who have moved beyond any simple certainty"
-George Grant

Point 2:
You're misinterpreting the solution "it answers thousands of scientific questions we've been wondering about for ages" religion provides, as proof of its necessary existence. Religion certainly answers these questions, or the "silence of the universe" as Camus wrote (read him!) but that doesn't mean it's true by any means

Point 4: I often interpret prayer as a form of confirmation bias. People in desperate or unfortunate situations are driven to attempt to do anything they believe could help alleviate their suffering/situation, and thus find hope in prayer, which likewise, now they find 'hope' in their life. Faith as psychological tricking.