Counterfeit/fake refers to it having been made illegally moreso than its molecular arrangement, yes?

Been watching Good Girls, ? :)

Real is sometimes contrasted by fictional, illusory, or erroneous.
Other times, real versus not real is used like discovered versus invented.
Other times still, real just means exists.
Then there are some cases that overlap with objective/subjective.
All seems very contextual (and Englitch is my 2nd language).

(y)

:

CDC 6% COVID Death Rate?? | A Doctor Explains _{Here's how to actually interpret those CDC #COVID19 mortality numbers.} (8m:53s facebook av) ← a trained medical professional explains

False claim shared by President Trump that only 6% of CDC-reported deaths are from COVID-19 is based on flawed reasoning (Pablo Rougerie; Health Feedback; Aug 2020) ← fact check

Misrepresentation is this → ← close to lying (or it's bullshitting).

I'd say there are at least some grounds for positing noumena...

1. you cannot experience another's self-awareness, since then you'd be them instead ^{(self-awarenesses are indexical)}
2. so there are things you cannot experience, always just over the horizon, noumena
3. you are not everything, self-identity, individuation, self versus other
4. but you can know thereof by interaction, be it the rubble in the driveway or others

(Could likely be expressed better.)

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin: — 3017amen

In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin:

But ostriches still use their wings for other purposes like mating displays. — Harry Hindu

Hence when purpose is just use.

We often use things for which the object wasnt initially, or primarily, designed to do, but something in that design permits one to use the object in some other way but not in every way. — Harry Hindu

Surely you're not suggesting that there was a bad blueprint for ostriches, but it just so happened that ostriches found a different use for their wings?

I question the distinction and the conceit of ‘apparent’ purpose. I think it all goes back to the abandonment of Aristotle’s fourfold causation as an aspect a consequence of the scientific revolution. This wants to see literally everything in terms of the non-intentional causation that can be understood through the paradigm of physics.

Note also the implications for the nature of reason. Whereas in the Aristotelian attitude, ‘things happen for a reason’, in the modern view, things are determined by material causes - for no reason, in the classical sense. — Wayfarer

Conceit? Nah, that's ↑ just (primitive) personification, "seeing faces in the clouds", magical thinking, ... If you want to assert such intelligent pre-planning, then you have the usual burden of proof. Which is fine of course, just have to justify. Or, I suppose you could go down a semiotic sort of path like @apokrisis.

, I was thinking whether this stuff would be a better fit over in the language section.

Purpose is a language game we play to try to make sense of the world. It's useful, and it's value extends only as far as it's usefulness. — Voyeur

Maybe something similar could be said for causation...

In the house example, we start from purpose, have no hesitation to assign purpose, including when the house is not used or built yet.
In the wings example, we come to speak of purpose from observed plain use, what they do, then suppose or impose. In an alternate universe, ostrich wings have turned out used for deterring and combating predators, and so their purpose might be said to be weapons.
My heart pumps blood around the body, so we say that's its purpose, because that's what it's doing; but the purpose of an artificial heart is to replace the heart.
Some might go as far as to say that a purpose of trees is oxygen production from carbon dioxide.

Houses, wings, photosynthesis, etc are along for the ride; houses are ours at least.
Is there a faint residue of sufficient reason in such thinking, in seeing teleology via purposes (that are plain use), like the principle accidentally betrayed us?

Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one? — Punshhh

See here, here, here, here, here in a parallel thread (you can likely find others).

With "god did it" and "supernatural magic" anything goes. :sparkle:
Could literally be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing.
Might as well be replaced with "don’t know", which incurs no information loss.
Is not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, and has consistently been falsified in the past.
Literally a non-explanation.
That's ↑ not a dis/proof, but just explicates the vacuity of such utterings.

I take it you are new to philosophy, and that's perfectly fine. You may want to Google it on your own time; Subjectivity v. Objectivity. — 3017amen

Doesn't take long studies in philosophy, does it?

• x is subjective = x's existence is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions exist too))
• x is objective = x's existence is mind-independent (e.g. real)

That's not every use of the words, but those are common in philosophy.

Mr Smith agrees. :)

Agent Smith - Humans Are Virus (1m:18s youtube)

My conclusion is that the initial assertion stands. — Marco Colombini

A bit like The Emperor's New Clothes?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443851
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443873
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443892
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443895
...

(your responses have to be on point and adequate to be of much consequence)

By Jove, , you brought up necessary (possible worlds, modal logic, the usual).
If you know what you're commenting about, then you ought to be able to understand the argument in that comment.
This comment lists some of the claims it applies to.
If you're still confused, then maybe read up on it?

is that your way of saying [...] — 3017amen

Nope.
It's observing that you didn't address the argument in that comment; heck, you didn't really respond to it, just went off on your own. The argument pertains to some number of claims of yours.
_{(I suppose it's understandable that you'd rather just reiterate your own narrative, but this is a discussion, and not just anything goes, especially bare assertions shown to not hold water.)}
Furthermore, this isn't about me (at all), it's about the propositions. Not about you or me, but about the statements. (Hit the bar if you want to get down and personal. :wink:) Hence, please address what it's about.

None of which addresses the (simple) deductive argument, . :)
There's not even any reference thereto or mention thereof, instead you run seem to with a script that you could have posted as a response to more or less anything.
In fact, it follows logically that your (relatively) lengthier commentary has errors, I'll just say non-sequiturs (take it as an exercise to spot them).

Bit of backpedalling there, , ?
The modal logic — possible, necessary — aren't about you, I, homo sapiens, the universe we know of, in particular.
Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic. And that's intuitive as well. Why on Earth would anyone think that consciousness figures in all possible worlds, must be? There's an element of self-elevation, of conceit in that.
What may or may not be necessary specifically for us, Earth, the observable galaxies, this (no hypotheticals, skip modal logic), is another matter. And, either way, the rubble in the driveway is evidently not conscious. In the case of a human life (like us), we can track things from start to end, what was involved, needed, etc.
These claims ...

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist. — 3017amen

... are hence overstated as shown.
I suppose we might ask the old existential problem, why something, why anything at all? Why Yahweh and not Shiva? Why Shiva and not panpsychism? Why ... and not The Force? ...? And, technically, the modal logic dispenses with most postulates of something necessary. Not consistency though.

, I'm guessing it was due to repetition, but that's just conjecture on my part.
Maybe if something new and cool was added...? (Or just something different...?)

consciousness is not necessary for existence — EricH

This assertion fails — Punshhh

Why? It certainly fails no less than

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

Rather

1. necessity = holds in all possible (self-consistent) worlds
2. say, R³ is a self-consistent whole, a possible world, non-contradictory
3. consciousness does not figure in (the boring) R³
4. consciousness is not necessary

@EricH's assertion is therefore justified moreso than @3017amen's.

Right, .
Bridging the gap seems a bit out still.
Supposing we could, could we then also disprove solipsism? (Vice versa?)
There seems to be a relation of sorts anyway; implications of "a bridge" might shed light on other things.

My red is an occurrence. A part of me when occurring.
Seems nonsensical that my red could be your red exactly.
Though, when occurring as a consequence of interaction with something extra-self, you might partake in a similar interaction with that.
Et voilà, we can use verbiage like "red" when talking about those experiences of those things. (y)
So, it's not so much that "my red is the same as yours", more that there's enough interactional stability that we can find coherent ways to talk about it.

_{• we can correlate such experiences with wavelengths/frequencies of light to a fair extent
• synesthesia is when such interaction triggers additional, uncommon experiences
• color blindness is when someone can't differentiate colors that others commonly can, opposite tetrachromacy}

So still nutn' then, . Just raising a whole lot of ignorance, pretending it entails ... Jesus.

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge? — 3017amen

Still nothing? Here's the exercise again. And an earlier one:

Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love — jorndoe

"TRUMP INTERVIEW" — A Bad Lip Reading (5m:2s youtube)

:D

, or there are just things whose existence is independent of me. *ding*ding*

Only dogmatists and platonists put forward their opinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion. — Asif

There is no truth independent of human perception. — Asif

Kind of odd that we sometimes get things wrong, then, and sometimes discover (distinct from invent) new things.
Self-elevation. Subjective idealism. Gross. (n)

What would give you that impression? I'm a Christian Existentialist and proud of it lol! — 3017amen

Seems like you were championing agnosticism. I guess not?

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge? — 3017amen

^{(Memory loss? Short attention span? Scatterbrain? ...?)}
Linked right in the comment, you can't have missed it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443074

Should we take the sentiment that you promote to be agnostic theist, @3017amen?
Noticed you didn't take up the challenge, despite continuing talk about consciousness.

Two rather different propositions:

• life and consciousness came about in the universe, consciousness can come about in the universe
• Vishnu/Yahweh installed and installs consciousness in biological lifeforms in the universe

The former is a matter of (neutral) observations, the latter is, well, a kind of (fantastic) story-telling.
We don't have exhaustive knowledge of life consciousness whatever, but we do know things thereof.
If anyone claim they can justify the latter beyond mere religious faith, then please go ahead.
@3017amen? (this would work, rather than passive-aggressive rambling) (y)
The truth of the matter has no dependency on whatever some humans happen to believe or not.

In Christianity Jesus existed — 3017amen

I thought you were making claims independent of whatever some humans believe or not? :brow:
It's not like beliefs make it so.

, could you at least try to stick with the comment? Your response indicated that you didn't quite read it (or didn't understand it, or didn't want to understand it).

Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? — 3017amen

No.

Repeating: ad hominem is typically when someone's argument is dismissed because of their (perceived) character, or something similar that's irrelevant to their argument, a kind of non sequitur.

I'm not following you — 3017amen

Seems like it. (Alternatively, you don't want to.) Try again?

So, , those nebulous indeterminate definitions typically put forth by faith apologists (and I think some were posted earlier in this thread) means nihilism? Odd. I doubt that's what they wanted.

God is consciousness — 3017amen

One more definition...? By all means, add to the ridiculous amount of definitions. :) I wonder how many definitions can be found on this forum alone. Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), your oceanic feelings, "the great unknown" (or "unknowable"), personified nature, ... What a circus. No wonder there are things like ignosticism.

Since the term was first invented, atheists have been trying to make their blind guesses that gods do not exist seem like something other than "beliefs." — Frank Apisa

When gods were (are) invented, others have asked (ask) the inventors "Why the tall tales?" ;)

Jesus was known to be part God — 3017amen

It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man — 3017amen

Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history — 3017amen

More tall tales, stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after whose demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ... Taking this stuff to be literal history is where uncritical naïveté gullibility malleability credulity "seeing faces in the clouds" (mentioned by @Punshhh) is applicable.

, I don't think you read the comment right.
The vague definitions are for epistemic evasion. Do you call those definitions nihilism?

There are gods for all occasions. Most people, past and present, disbelieve/d the vast majority of them or never heard of them; they never show anyway, and sure aren't shown.
That leaves vague nebulous generic broad sketchy indeterminate definitions (because there are only definitions left), which evade epistemics, often enough by design.
Most have elements of personification imposed upon them, a bit like fossilized animism (and perhaps a bit like "seeing faces in the clouds" if you will).
Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, incidentally something of which there are many examples, those kinds of existential claims are easy enough to come up with anyway.
Does that warrant worship? Obsession?

Listen,there is zero proof of covid 19. The test are bogus. Even by your own medical science covid has not fulfilled any of kochs postulates. To say nothing that germ theory is an unproven totally inaccurate assertion. [...] — Asif

wtf? :D

, you're putting far too many words in atheism's mouth. :)

from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’ — define atheism

Jedi are supposedly atheists, albeit of a rather odd sort.

Agreed, but so what? — Hippyhead

'cuz no manner of human fabulation makes it so; rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts.

Implications of G's foreknowledge of our world is one thing, G's own freedom another.
G does not have time to have freedom (or "free will", if there is such a thing).
Can G find the free will to change G's own mind, after already having been omniscient prior?
Supposedly, G always has perfect (fore)knowledge, so G can't ever change G's own mind.
Here omniscience means no freedom.
Furthermore, if G is "atemporal", then G cannot have freedom.
There is necessarily a disconnect between atemporality and temporality; anything strangely atemporal cannot be subject to causation, for example; there can be no atemporal listeners as it were.
Is there a possible world, for which G changes mind?
If yes, then G can change mind; if no, then it's impossible.
This stuff goes for any G by the way; Shiva and Yahweh are just among the casualties thereof, unintended manmade casualties.

Seems you want to refer to "the unknowable", ?
I don't think a whole lot denies that there are unknowns. Surely I'm not omniscient, since otherwise I'd know that I were.
Wanting to eff the ineffable and make it into a religion no less, is already striding too far from what was already asserted.
With reasoning ruled out, evidence ruled out, human abilities ruled out, ..., there isn't a whole lot left, not epistemic anyway.
Perhaps there's a kind of "spirituality" in embracing "the unknown" after a fashion, yet that's about one self (not "otherworldly" sentient almighty super-beings).
Besides, this is a far cry from the (vast) majority of religions, elaborate religious faiths that people declare in public (with a lot of social consequences), that they declare apply to all of us, heck everything for that matter (the universe pales in comparison it seems). And, if I'm understanding your sentiment (which I probably don't), they also declare that you're wrong.

The measure of wealth in a civilized nation is not the currency accumulated by the lucky few, but rather the strength and resonance of social relations and the bonds of reciprocity that connect all people in common purpose. — Wade Davis

Maybe such a social ethic is where the US lost out.
I'm guessing poor or lack of good, general education is a factor, but that's just conjecture on my part.
US elections always seem to have a disproportional focus on taxes.
I have personally interacted with your "good American Baptist soccer mom" that has the hots for Trump in public (in some cases more or less regardless of what he says and does, by their own admission), seemingly intelligent fools that cite the Constitution to justify trampling COVID-19 health protocols, ... To me, this gives off a whiff of adults that never became adults.

Is there something - anything - positive in this? — Banno

I guess it depends on what the replacement is or will be.
Dominance by the Chinese regime or Russia sure doesn't seem preferable.
I wouldn't count the US out yet, though.

OK , and welcome to the forums. So, what warrants dis/belief anyway? (Or some such preachery indoctrination proselytizing, for that matter?)

, has to do with when an adult's non-naïveté or epistemic attitude demand that they take such claims into account in their lives, has to do with dis/beliefs, that their epistemic attitude and real life are consistent. By the way, I thought there were some overlaps with your non-committal agnosticism and the existential/universal propositions, or maybe I misread.


_{(what to (not) believe, ..., The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps), solipsism, dream thought experiments, intangible hobs that can control the weather, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings, Last Thursdayism, ..., what about stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after his demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ...)}