But I am inclined to agree with Berkeley, and predict that many of the objections to such ideas will be lapidiary, although we'll have to wait and see. — Wayfarer

But why? (agree, predict, ...)
Minds are parts of the world, there are things that depend thereupon, but (literally) everything? :brow:



@Nelson E Garcia, not really seeing any (good) responses to inquiries.

What would then happen if we "actualized" the Moon (or each other) differently?
What about new discoveries? Are they somehow actualized unconsciously...?
If only I could actualize covid-19 immunity for my mum. What's with the constraints? [...]

Oh, keep in mind that what you don't know can still kill you. ;)
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to universalize self-dependence.
Kind of haphazard, unwarranted, questionable, ...

the substratum is independent of mind but it does not amount to existence, it pre-exists — Nelson E Garcia

I take my previous statement back, the plot is now diluting.

What would then happen if we "actualized" the Moon (or each other) differently?
What about new discoveries? Are they somehow actualized unconsciously...?
If only I could actualize covid-19 immunity for my mum. What's with the constraints? [...]

If things were wholly of my own making, actualized, then I couldn't really misunderstand or get something wrong about them. I'd know already. Something's amiss, @Nelson E Garcia.

Very good — Wayfarer

Not really. (I guess there are reasons only 4.3% of academic philosophers go down this rabbit hole; dead end.)

there is no existence without mind actualizing it — Nelson E Garcia

What would then happen if we "actualized" the Moon (or each other) differently?
What about new discoveries? Are they somehow actualized unconsciously...?
If only I could actualize covid-19 immunity for my mum. What's with the constraints? Oh yes, I'd like a word with whoever actualized the virus. Maybe they could just go ahead and uhh unactualize.

Apollodorus, the external objects are a synthesis of the external substratum (which lacks any details) and mind. Mind is not an “observer” (since there are not traits that can be observed) it attributes details to the substratum and then identifies the attribution (at the external location of the substratum targeted). — Nelson E Garcia

The plot thickens. :)
Well, is this "substratum" then existentially mind-independent?

they have to have some explanation for how brains produce consciousness — RogueAI

I guess so?
Presently, "don't know" seems to be the honest response, the only honest response, at least as far as any comprehensive understanding goes.
(And that makes for some dishonesty out there, doesn't it?)
There are reasons to associate minds and bodies, though, pretty good reasons.

Yet, theism doesn't explain this sort of thing either.
Typically, the response is a bit like that of idealism: mind is instead just assumed to be irreducibly basic, and so not explainable in terms of anything else in the first place.
With theism, there's that vague "supernatural" or "magical" type undertone as well, which could be raised to explain anything, and thus explains nothing.

Levine's explanatory gap / Chalmers' consciousness conundrum seems to stuff a wedge in between either explaining the other (which isn't a contradiction, but rather a gap), yet that's not related to theism in particular.

Just asserting that we can't acquire more understanding (say, in some sort of "physicalistic" terms), even in principle, won't do.

There's a worthwhile distinction to make here.

Stories: Here gods/God are various narrated characters, found in religious texts and such. These are more elaborate (and often include divine intervention), and adherents go by rituals, commands/rules, impositions, fate designations, they have public aspects (and advertising), etc.

Definitions: Here gods/God are defined by apologists, and definitions may vary. Some are results of apologetic arguments. Some do not differentiate, say, theism and deism, and some are more panpsychist or Spinozist (or whatever) than others.

The distinction matters because people have different attitudes towards the two.
Additionally, the former category is typically where we see social impacts, be it in politics or interfering in people's lives or some such, so these warrant more attention.
Also, you cannot derive the former from the latter.

I'd suggest setting out what's meant so as to anchor goalposts and minimize ambiguities.

@Benkei, I'm wondering if lessons from other campaigns could be re-used.
Maybe, say, child labor, or something? Don't really know enough about it though. (NCLC, UNICEF, UN, AI)

Morals are subjective in the sense that they're existentially mind-dependent.
Morals are objective in the sense that they're not random (ad hoc, arbitrary, discretionary, mere matter of opinion).
So I just voted subjective. Not convinced that subjective-versus-objective is all that relevant, though.

By and large, we (humans) have two legs. Exceptions are rare, and we might explain them in some way. Does that mean "two-legged-ness" itself exists wholly and independently of all else...? Not really, at least not in any discernible way, and it's not necessary anyway. Similarly, morals can be existentially mind-dependent and shared among such minds, without existing independently thereof.

Does it make sense to speak of morals for ...
• a person torturing a rock? No (bit creepy though)
• a rock torturing a person? No
• a rock torturing another rock? No
• a person torturing another person? Yes
Which suggests that morals are of and applicable to persons, to experiencing social minds.

Maybe not the best examples, but, anyway, ...

Contrive a possible world in which a contradiction occurs: in which both P and ~P are the case, in some direct fashion. then in that world, since (P & ~P) ⊃ Q, anything goes. That is, any and every assertion is both true and false.

That is, in a world containing a contradiction, reason becomes impossible. — Banno

Not just that, identity (p ⇔ p) is gone, and meaning (whatever is said could mean anything and the contrary). Seems rather meaningless. Or more pertinently here, God is meaningless.

What you need to "get" is that believers don't see you (or any critical person, whether theist or atheist) as someone with whom to discuss their beliefs. It seems that to them, it's a bit like discussing one's underwear with strangers in the street. Not something a decent person would do. — baker

Don't know about @tim wood specifically, but otherwise I beg to differ.
There are preachers, proselytizers, priests, imams, pujas (and indoctrinators) just about everywhere doing their thing. Often enough they refuse to carry their onus probandi, heck, at times they insist what your epistemic standards have to be. Then they have their faiths interfere in other people's lives, politics, etc.
But, never mind this comment if you're having a 1-1 chat with @tim wood, nothing to see here. :)

not accidental or coincidental but intrinsic — Wayfarer

Right, yet that doesn't really answer the inquiry in this context.

(Seems a bit like kicking the can down the road.) — jorndoe

Is it by coincidence/accident that goodness is intrinsic to God?
There aren't any particular conceptual barriers otherwise or to the contrary; we just end up back at the Euthyphro.
Anyway, maybe (this incarnation of) God has no particular say.
Incidentally, the Manichaeists had their own take, which is somewhat better, in some ways at least.

By the way, Rahner's idea and similar could, in principle, be grabbed by anyone, and has.
The Muslims say that everyone's born Muslim (Noah, Jesus, you, I, aliens?).
We might say that anyone is just born neutral, good, bad, and anything in between, and then may become Catholic, Sunni, whatever, or not, and do deeds that are good and bad (anyone can concoct/hijack a narrative).
If something is surmised to have been installed by God, then why not just drop the extras (God) and say that the "something" is intrinsic to (our experiencing) minds, analogous to most of us having two legs?
This one at least has evidence going for it, but what's it mean for the take that Craig expresses (if anything)?

Anyway, I don't see a particular way out of the Euthyphro yet.

, anyone, does Craig's response mean that God's goodness is coincidental/accidental? (Seems a bit like kicking the can down the road.)
On another note, what does Craig's identity (God himself = the paradigm of goodness) mean for people doing the right thing (irrespective of their beliefs)? Coincidental/accidental? Say, do they somehow become part of God or something (un/wittingly)? Surely Aboriginal Australians did some good things before being polluted with ideas of Craig's God, err before the European invasions.

I suppose, if you don't reinvent the wheel, but build it as taught, then you're both a builder and also in a great position to find flaws. And you'll have saved time, too. Might even have time to build wagons. And carts. :)

The sky is the limit

:D Just a couple of observations:

Yes. Morality is not a human construct. Some things are. My house, my trousers, my money. And some things aren't. Morality being one. — Bartricks

No argument, no justification, bare assertion.

Jeez, why oh why don't they teach philosophy in schools?? You probably know another language and some algebra, but no philosophy, right? Unbelievable. Ethics is, by its very nature, the most important topic possible, yet they don't teach it in schools, with the result that it is only a tiny philosophical elite who know that morality is not a human construct (and we've known it for thousands of years). The rest of you are fated by your ghastly over-confidence and ignorance to spend the rest of your lives convinced - utterly convinced - that morality is a human construct on the basis of incompetent reasoning. I'd feel sorry for you if ignorance wasn't such a cozy blanket.

Now I will enlighten you if you want, for I have gobs and gobs of expertise and I can assure you you're wrong about pretty much everything where morality is concerned. But it will be very unpleasant for you - you do realize this? — Bartricks

"You dumb, me smart, I know" takes up 87% of the post, still nothing shown, topically content-free (184 wasted words).

Anyway, carry on, never mind me, nothing to see here.

none of this seems to upset you or your God — praxis

And children suffer and die from cancer, without having had a chance to live. :(
Doesn't seem like reality is where people see their gods.
What about yours, @Apollodorus?

During Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian.
Not quite equal numbers of Protestants and Catholics, but close enough.
That's about 19 on a street with 20 people.
Think about that for a moment.

• Religion in Nazi Germany (Wikipedia)
• Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)

45% think it is necessary to have faith in a God in order to be moral — Banno

They're wrong.
Moral awareness, and becoming an autonomous moral agent, isn't particularly related to theism.

Depends on the hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy. If they have a materialist content, which they tend to do, then yes. — Apollodorus

You mean a guitar to play, flower seeds and a garden, a book to read, ...?

I think we have paid attention.

However, if countries with higher GDP per capita are less likely to tie belief in God to morality, this would appear to confirm the position of theists, viz., that the wealthier people are, the more they are inclined to believe in material possessions and less in God.

Otherwise put, man cannot have two masters, it’s either God or Mammon (Matthew 6:24). And the rich often go for the latter. The article seems to support this. — Apollodorus

Do interests in hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy count as belief in material possessions?

, and more or less denied by the theists that Hick speaks on behalf of (and Craig, Chaturvedi, ...).
Apropos salvation, you're not going to find many Christians accepting Quran 4:157.
What does Hick have to say about salvation?
Remaking "the elephant" needs coherence, which means a good lot of vacuuming.
You're not going to accept contradictions, are you?

, I concede some of my comments; much too hasty.
The two researchers brought quantumatics in to amend the blockverse with blurry causation, in order to make better room for Christian/Biblical salvation — becoming saved by volition.

It's a stretched exercise in Christian/Biblical apologetics (with good benefits (y) ).

Anyway

What about the truth of the matter? (Isn't that what we're going for?)

Pretty bummed. I got the stupid shot and have not noticed any increase in my 5G signal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:D Sure the damn conspiracy theorists

Let's try something else then, though still applicable to salvation (by Krishna, Jesus, Allah, or some such).

Doxastic involuntarism is easy enough to exemplify, i.e. a belief is not particularly "freely" chosen as such. That's typically belief formation from (convincing) evidence/reasoning, though faith may also have been chosen for you (indoctrination). It's the most common formation of beliefs, and seems to be the default/fallback position these days.

Doxastic voluntarism, i.e. to "freely" choose a belief, is more questionable, and examples seem more conditional. If taken as a methodology, more or less any belief is up for the taking; the methodology itself appears like a truth-maker instead. If there were (sufficient) reasons/evidence, then we'd move towards involuntarism, so voluntarism does not differentiate as such. This position was more common back in history.

What does it mean for salvation?
If faith is chosen for the person involuntarily (by indoctrination or something), then they can't really be accredited or blamed; they were assimilated, and belief revision may take more evidence/reasoning than in other cases. ^(†)
If by doxastic voluntarism, then more or less anything goes; belief is just chosen.
I don't think doxastic in/voluntarism is a strict exclusive-or, though I do think involuntarism would have to be involved here.
Any number of diverse (mutually inconsistent) religious faiths have equally diverse devout adherents, apparently with equal conviction and dedication.
So, anyway, going by the usual salvation schemes, some (supposed) "ultimate" arbiter would have to set the record straight for all to see?
What about the truth of the matter? (Isn't that what we're going for?)



^(†) There appears to be some sort of proportionality between incorrigibility and fundamentalism:

more radical participants displayed less insight into the correctness of their choices and reduced updating of their confidence when presented with post-decision evidence — Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs (2018)

our findings highlight a generic resistance to recognizing and revising incorrect beliefs as a potential driver of radicalization — Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs (2018)

• W L Craig's uniquely Christian explanation contra pluralism (or one of them): How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (5m:19s) (there's a bit more variety than suggested, e.g. not all Buddhists believe the exact same, but no matter)

• Philosophical Implications of Religious Pluralism (2016)

It's a thesis in theology — Wayfarer

It's a stretched exercise in Christian/Biblical apologetics (with good benefits (y) ).
Which is fine I suppose.
Tags apart from Tales‘R’Us: #quantummechanics #time #salvation #jesus #bible

we suggest ways in which Indefinite Causal Order may facilitate developments in the metaphysics of time, all the while remaining cognizant of the fact that any such conclusions inevitably require some form of hedging one's bets

If the B-theory is true, this has significant repercussions for both morality and soteriology.

(1) Conclude that salvific change is impossible on a B-theory, and that therefore the doctrine of salvation must be rejected altogether.
(2) Try and reconceptualize the mechanism of salvific change so that it is coherent within a block universe.

, looks like you copy/pasted from the bottom of their paper?
Cited papers via ‪Google Scholar‬ are linked at their names above, check'em out.

Anyway, I'm not sure this quite counts as philosophy, definitely not science.
The McTaggart stuff, sure, philosophy, the rest is Christian/Biblical apologetics.

On an infinite past, time is complete at any moment if complete means that nothing's missing.
If complete means finite, then we've just shown what we assumed.

It's not difficult to derive counterintuitives.
Deriving a contradiction (p ∧ ¬p) is the task, though, at least it is if an infinite past is claimed impossible.

, I'm sort of thinking that perception itself is temporal or process-like (comes and goes, interruptible), and what we perceive (along with locations/distances, the located/distant) is change moreso than time.
I might be thinking wrong, though.
_{(I guess Hume, Kant, Russell left some imprints decades after reading and mostly forgotten.)}

cannot find the reference — Cuthbert

I had a couple of references, but they keep moving around...

• James Harrington
• Craig Skinner

Don't think it's contradictory (implies a contradiction, p ∧ ¬p), but it is counterintuitive.
Why would the backward recitation end at one time and not another, any other?
A definite earliest time means a definite age (at any time), so why this age and not another, any other?
Weird.



What's violated here seems to be the principle of sufficient reason.
Skinner writes "Take your pick"; maybe "Pick your poison" is better?

, not quite sure I agree with the quote.
I perceive/sense location and distance, which are different from the located and distant (like objects), and perceiving/sensing this takes time.
My coffee is out in the kitchen, some meters away, not everywhere, anywhere, nowhere, but somewhere.
I perceive/sense change when fetching it (and that I do, consistently).
None of this is the coffee, and neither is it existentially mind-dependent (no more than the coffee, if you really must).
Spatial differentiation is perceivable/sensible, yes? (hm not sure "sensible" is the right word here)
Or at least so it seems? :)

I don't think there are any purely deductive proofs either way.

We could start with an anecdote attributed to Wittgenstein:

Wittgenstein overhears someone saying "5, 1, 4, 1, 3. Done."
He asks what that was about, and they respond that they just finished reciting π backward.
"But, how old are you?"
"Infinitely old. I never started, but have been at it forever and finally finished."

Seems to violate our intuition and the principle of sufficient reason. Fair intuitive argument.
OK then, a definite earliest moment it is, a t=0 if you will.
The Big Bang stuff gives an age of about 14 billion years of the known/observable universe.
If we were to humor the cosmological argument (of religious apologetics), we're led to believe there was an "outside", "atemporal" cause of it all.
Yet, then the question is why 14 billion years, and not some other age, any other age actually?
Seems to violate sufficient reason again.

Everywhere, counterintuitive implications everywhere? Should we just make stuff up? Drop sufficient reason (in this case at least)? Are we back to square one? A non-infinite "edge-free" universe?

The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited
David Gorski
Science-Based Medicine
May 2021

Bit long, but, anyway ...

Look what they have for sale over at Amazon:

Miss Me Yet Trump Flag

Trump Miss Me Yet T-Shirt

*ding*ding* :)

I remember back to my first experiences of consciousness and free will and see his I've seen science make things. — Gregory

What? — Banno

I gave up as well.
(Wasn't that English is my 2nd language after all.)

@Gregory, you're not really saying much here.
If you raise doubt about substantially well-established models, then you'll need something substantial, a "what if dragons" ain't that.
If you promote substantial belief, then you'll need relevant and proportional justification.

Ever heard the term “Sheikh Jarrah?” That’s the name of the neighborhood at the center of the recent Israel-Palestine flare up. It is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem inhabited by mostly Palestinians who became refugees when they were expelled from a West Jerusalem neighborhood (Talbiya) after Israel captured West Jerusalem following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Conversely, Jewish families were also expelled from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and resettled in West Jerusalem neighborhood of Talbiya. Most Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah have lived there since the 1948 war (nearly 70 years), and likewise for Jewish families in Talbiya.

After the 1967 6-day war, Israel expanded their occupation to East Jerusalem. Following the occupation of East Jerusalem, court battles have ensued over the Sheikh Jarrah properties, by groups of Jewish people claiming to have owned the property before 1948. Using right of return laws, attempts are being made to expel the current Palestinian residents and replace them with Jewish residents. The problem is, the same right of return is not being extended to these Palestinian families regarding the homes they were evicted from in West Jerusalem in 1948. In fact, right of return laws *only* apply to Jewish people in Israel, so Palestinians who have been expelled and displaced for various reasons over the years have no right to reclaim their previously owned property.

Courts have thus far ruled in favor of the Jewish families claim to the land in Sheikh Jarrah, ordering that they are allowed to charge rent to the current Palestinian families living there. Obviously, the Palestinian families do not believe they should have to pay said rent and have tried to fight it. They're losing that fight, and barring the Israeli Supreme Court stepping in, it's likely that many Palestinian families will be expelled from their homes by the Israeli government in the near future.

Ever wondered why the conflict flared up recently? It wasn't random acts of terrorism, rather, it was in response to these court battles. It was in response to demonstrable ethnic oppression.

This is one example among many of why it is being argued that Israel is an apartheid state. Obviously, it was wrong for both Jews and Palestinians to be expelled from their homes in West and East Jerusalem, respectively, in 1948. But both groups were compensated with comparable homes in their respective new areas in Jerusalem. Fast forward to today, and Jewish families are using ethnically discriminatory right of return laws to expel Palestinians from their homes. And what’s worse, this is taking place in East Jerusalem, an area where Jewish right of return should not apply and Israeli courts should have no jurisdiction anyway!

Folks call this a “dispute” and say it’s complex, but, imo, that’s far too charitable. This is a land grab. It’s part of the ongoing settlement expansion that enflames tensions in the region. If you’ve managed to make it this far, thanks for reading. This is why I'm so outspoken about how this conflict is far different than the caricatures you’ll find among many biased, ignorant Israel supporters. A fair and objective look at this circumstance shows this is yet another case of war crimes, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing by the Israeli government. — JW

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (Wikipedia)

, is conservation of momentum causation? Maybe, maybe not? Maybe if you stretch your notion of causation enough.
Add gravity into it all, and we're getting more into causation.
And with those two, you've taken a small step towards modeling the Solar system.
Given such (overwhelmingly) established characterizations of (celestial) mechanics, you'd have to get into some heavy-duty skepticism to deny the scientific consensus (heck, you might be converging on solipsism).
As an aside, I've noticed a few people out there going down this sort of denial, only to turn around and declare that a Jewish carpenter supernaturally walked on water a couple thousand years ago in the Middle East. Weird.

Exemplifying science-denial ...

'Injecting doubt': How hard-core COVID vaccine deniers could impact the 'moveable middle' (Sharon Kirkey, Edmonton Examiner, May 2021)

In a way, the doubling down, entrenchment, aggression seems to be a form of backfire effect.

Pros of science: iPhone
Cons of science: A-bomb
Pros of religion: Grace
Cons of religion: Jihad — praxis

(y)

Science pro: all-but doing away with tuberculosis and related suffering
Science con: self-guided long-range mass-destruction missiles (with triggers in a human hand)
Religion pro: virtual leash on (would-be) crazies
Religion con: doubtful (and mutually incompatible) grandiose truth claims

It is something to celebrate. — Banno

(y)

Also some of the tracking, using old methods (back to the 1800s?) and new tech.
Learning more about spreading, now including some focus on aerosols.

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-embracing-the-science-on-airborne-transmission-is-key-to-preventing/
• https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210511123622.htm

Tu quoque, ? :roll:
You didn't catch on.
You yourself mentioned that LoVe feeling.
As if that is somehow external to the lover.

I suppose 'my atheism' is derived in part from fear of theists who take their bullshit literally and thickly spread it wherever they go. — 180 Proof

Yep (y) Somehow they just don't trust their deities to speak for themselves
(then they pretend to speak on behalf of their imaginary friends, then they pretend to be telepaths knowing that others fear their imaginary friends, ..., weird)

Because one you don't feel that yourself,so its disingenuous to tell me. Two,I can disagree with someone if I feel their feelings are mistaken. Some people claim they haven't felt love. Is that a proof it doesn't exist? — Zenny

Why would anyone care what you feel? (I don't mean in a cynical sense)
It's the moment you preach that your understanding of your feeling is equally applicable to everyone else, universally even, that we'll need a bit more than your words about your feelings (and not charged rambling and raving).

• https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/520013
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion

I'd say that science is descriptive of what is, whereas ethics is proscriptive, about what we want.
So, science just informs, which happens to be good, because it can inform ethics. (y)
The two play different roles, yes?
Out at the edges of stabilized models, it's clearer that scientific results are tentative/provisional in principle.
And so it takes more science for us to smarten up more (assuming we can), as long as we don't mentally replace reality with the models.
What we do with it, is another matter, though doing away with ignorance and errors seems good enough, after all, what we don't know can still harm or help us. (y)
Science being informative sure has transformed societies/lives over time.
(n) science deniers.
Incidentally, in my adventures, I've found that "scientism" more often than not is the (misused) go-to buzzword when people wish to shun objections to poorly justified assertions, or someone whining when their dear-held belief has been found wanting. (n)

Actually, that's an interesting statement. I tend to believe that fear can work in both directions. Some people believe in God as a result of fear while others may deny God's existence out of fear that he might actually exist. — Apollodorus

Maybe some such disbelievers can be found? An odd kind of wishful thinking?
Doesn't seem all that likely, though, or at least uncommon.
Plenty reasons to disregard the Vedic Shiva, the Avestan Ahura Mazda, the Bhagavad Gitan Vishnu, the Biblical Yahweh, the Quranic Allah, Eru/Ilúvatar of The Silmarillion, ...