Does this make sense?

Fortunately debilitating depressions hit less than, say, half the world's population.^†
Therefore they're not necessary conditions.
Therefore unnecessary suffering exists.

^{† that's not the actual number, it's just for the sake of argument}

Some measure of relief can be attained from medical science or whatever research.
Humans can sometimes help, where indifferent nature (or some supposed deity) has produced unnecessary suffering.

Hey , I notice you didn't quite respond to the dilemma; it consist in two incompatible possibilities.
Which one would you like to entertain, the strong or the light assertion?

(By the way, the problem of evil is different.)

Is all suffering (without exception) part of the plan of this supposed deity you mention, or is it up to us to come up with relief as best we can (e.g. medical research)?
I can tell you what's readily evident, you can't miss it: we already do medical research, educate veterinarians and social care workers, put in place negligence laws, etc; sure doesn't seem that relief from schizophrenia is "coming from above" as it were.

5. consistent with a largely indifferent universe, and non-teleological biological evolution

But, hey, maybe you can somehow justify that all suffering (without exception) is warranted?
(If so, then what the heck is the deal with teratoma anyway?)

, the opening post mostly seems like some (self-serving?) postulates without justification.

Anyway, we can't talk about atheism without first having talked about theism:
You make some fantastic claims.
You call yourself theist.
I don't believe your claims.
You call me atheist.

1. there are good people and other animals suffering
2. either all suffering, without exception, is warranted (strong assertion, all instances)
3. or there exists some unwanted suffering to do away with (light assertion, some instances)
4. it stands to reason that there is unwanted suffering, that can possibly be relieved by humans (like some has been)
5. consistent with a largely indifferent universe, and non-teleological biological evolution

Other than civilized societies, what — anywhere — cares about me/you/us?

Well, the gravitational effect of Mars on you, around the time of your birth, was significantly less than the spoons you were fed with. Likewise for other effects.
Don't see many spoonologists, though. I guess astrology is just more esoterically mysterious'ish, and has a bit of (murky) history/tradition, something like that.
So, it's back to "some nebulous unknown force or influence", or whatever, that can't be differentiated from "anything goes". Having been embraced by New Age'ers, along with numerology and such, should be an indication.

astrologers have more influence than the stars do — http://skepdic.com/astrology.html

[...] I wash my hands 1327 times a day. — Baden

Keep doing that and your hands might end up smaller than Trump's.

In history:

♍ Virgo | Aug 23 to Sep 22
You will die alone, unmourned, and unloved, but because you do it on live television, you'll still manage to be considered a success.

♑ Capricorn | Dec 22 to Jan 19
Someday in the future, humanity will have a healthy attitude toward sexuality, but until then, you have an idea that could make you incredibly rich.

♒ Aquarius | Jan 20 to Feb 18
You are about to embark on a great journey across an infinite ocean of possibilities, unless of course the more cynical theories about the afterlife are correct.

Astrology. What's not to like?

Your Horoscopes (courtesy of America's Finest News Source)

♓ Pisces
You will never be able to explain to anyone's satisfaction how all those chickens could just appear out of nowhere.

♈ Aries
Your fear of change means that spending the next few centuries in a block of ice will be extremely soothing, at least until the New Reformed Xalfraxian Alliance thaws you out.

If you can doubt, then doubt can exist.
If doubt cannot exist, then you cannot doubt.

If you're doubting, then doubt exists.
If doubt doesn't exist, then you're not doubting.

@cincPhil, how would you justify 1 and 2? (They seem kind of creative or inventive, depending on definitions alone.)

That is why I prefer to say, "Independent of human opinion." — cincPhil

Note, though, liking freedom and disliking harm are not opinion, not arbitrary or ad hoc, not mere whims of the moment or discretionary. There are shared, involuntary elements involved.

Should I let the child die because I dislike pain, and I want to live? Similarly, should I let the child be captured beacuse I do not wish to relinquish my own freedom? — cincPhil

It's not just you that like freedom and dislike harm, it's us. Morals are social, and not reducible to self-interest alone. But their existence are dependent on a minimum degree of (individual) moral awareness. Suppose the assailant in your scenario is a lioness, and instead of you a grizzly is present. Then, due to absence of moral awareness, moral action become moot.

I don't know that it's possible to come up with a set-in-stone cost-benefit analysis that would determine what action to take. :) It's simple enough to determine that the child ought remain free and unharmed, however. The trolley problem, for example, seems to show that moral actions in general are not decidable. Implications for the hypothesis that there are objective morals?

Anyway, I'm thinking that an evil mass-abuser in your scenario would find themselves in trouble.

On common usage, subjective is roughly mind-dependent, and objective mind-independent.

1:

The conditional seems like a non sequitur, and requires justification.

Some define God as a mind, implying that morals are subjective.
(Barring special pleading and word magic (trying to define things into existence).)

2:

Requires justification.

We can assume that anyone likes freedom by default. (Including non-humans.) This informs morals.
We can assume that anyone dislikes harm by default. (Including non-humans.) This informs morals.
Liking and disliking are subjective.
Thus, morals are subjectively informed (in part at least).

Moral awareness is a prerequisite for moral action.
Awareness is (part of) mind.
Thus, morals are subjective.

3:

Objective versus subjective morals is misleading, possibly irrelevant.

Go figure, @Wayfarer, it's almost like there is no capable, knowing, willing hotel manager. I wonder why.

Poor kids. At least St Jude is picking up the slack (please don't tell them you're arguing that the kids' suffering is actually warranted).

Suffering is an inevitable aspect of physical existence, because whatever is physical is necessarily subject to decay, disease and illness. — Wayfarer

Evidently so. Just what you'd expect of a largely indifferent world.

Incidentally, going by common theism, there exists a heaven that's free of suffering, implying that suffering is not a necessary condition, albeit just reserved for some (or so it is claimed by some, those very same ones).

But, this was just an example of not arguing by deduction alone.

Deduction alone can only explicate what’s already contained in premises, yes?
So, in a sense, of course valid reasoning is begging the question.
Though it’s interesting when surprising conclusions are reached, or something implicit in the premises is laid bare.
Mathematics tend to go by revisable axioms with rather complex implications, that are not clear from the get-go.



An example of an argument that’s not purely deductive (copy/pasted from elsewhere):

1. There are good people and other animals suffering [†]
2. Either all suffering, without exception, is warranted

^{• strong/comprehensive assertion (all instances); heavy onus probandi
• a large number of human activities are unwarranted [‡]
• if your doctor/veterinarian/dentist tells you that all suffering is warranted, then what will your reaction be?
• if someone tells you that all activities such as those mentioned under [‡] should cease, then what will your reaction be?
• poorly justified, possibly unjustifiable (indiscernible) (N)}

3. Or there exists some unwarranted suffering

^{• light/limited assertion (some instances); modest onus probandi
• a large number of human activities are warranted [‡]
• justified by available evidence and obtainable consensus (discernible) (Y)}

4. Thus, it stands to reason that there is unwarranted suffering

^{• what else is there to go by?
• consistent with a largely indifferent universe and non-teleological biological evolution
• where the contrary involves disproportionate appeal to “the unknown” (all, not just some)}

Soberly considering available evidence uniquely suggests an indifferent universe. Other than civilized societies, what — anywhere, including the Moon, the North Pole, Sahara, the Mariana Trench — cares about me/you/us?

<sub>[†] The Black Death, The Spanish Flu, “the child missing out and suffering due to cancer”, “the priest wasting away due to debilitating migraines”, HIV/AIDS, schizophrenia, epilepsy, depression, suicide, delusions, infant epidermolysis bullosa, crippling birth defects, polymelia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, dementia, teratoma, toxoplasma gondii, … — this includes animals other than humans

[‡] Doctors, nurses, dentists, social care workers, veterinarians, hospitals, medical science, research efforts towards relief, WHO, UNICEF, WWF, negligence laws, The Hippocratic Oath, … — not many doctors would state that “the child missing out and suffering due to cancer” [†] is warranted — among these there are caring, loving, willing (but not omnibenevolent), capable (but not omnipotent), knowing, aware (but not omniscient) people — there are present moral actors</sub>

I already know that I can be the only solipsist, whether solipsism is or is not the case.
Solipsism is a performative contradiction, for example:

1. morals are social
2. solipsism is not social
3. morals are inconsequential to a solipsist

Self-reference is among the usual suspects (read: pitfalls) of idealism.

As mentioned somewhere, mind is typically used as an umbrella term, including the likes of, or synonymous with some of: (1st person) experiences, qualia, (self)awareness, consciousness, sentience, thinking, ideation, feelings, pain/joy/love; mind = such activities of our individuated selves. So, mind is the means by which we understand things, talk about the world, etc, in the first place.

Idealism then strides right ahead and situates mind as the fundamental constituent of literally everything, i.e. self-elevation, since it's already a prerequisite for any thinking about non/idealism and such cognitive activities.

Is there an alternative to self-identity, in this context? Not as far as I can tell.

For that matter, we already know self-reference can be troublesome (like paradoxes).

Either way, consciousness comes and goes, starts and ends, and there isn't anything in particular that unconsciousness is like. The bulk of available evidence (by far), will have it that mind is contingent on something else. When some think that they themselves, or their mind, is persistent/ever-present, they're evidently wrong.

Suppose we've found some adequate and sufficient understanding of something, for now at least.

It seems conceivable that we could then come up with numerous other (much) more complex, but otherwise adequate and sufficient, accounts.
We could even keep on inventing some, just for the heck of it, perhaps with increasing complexity.

We might also find a simpler, adequate and sufficient account.
Simpler typically means less chance of error / higher chance of subsequently discovering errors (and easier to comprehend).

While considering all this, it seems like parsimony is a reasonable heuristic.
Not a guarantee of getting things right of course, but reasonable nonetheless.

Yeah, I hear ya' @SophistiCat, though it's kind of a gray area.
There are definitely lots of psychoceramics out there, and some (are bound to) seep into here as well.
My first thought is to have a sub-forum where fringe, questionable posts and such could go.
But of course moderators are humans too; having experts in every area around isn't feasible.

I think the inquiry requires further demarcation to be answerable.

If "possible" means logically possible (or non-contradictory) alone, then no, not everything logically possible is bound to be the case. An analogy:

1. in an infinitude of numbers, there are every kinds of numbers
2. there are infinite whole positive numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}
3. therefore there are negative numbers among them (from 1)
4. contradiction, 1 is wrong (however intuitive it may seem)

Same argument for the negative whole numbers {..., -3, -2, -1} and 1, the even numbers {0, 2, 4, 6, ...} and π, etc.

It goes further than that. As it turns out, ∞ is ambiguous if you will. In fact, there are infinite different kinds of ∞, of all things.

If, on the other hand, we're talking our (physical) universe alone, then things become much more complicated. We don't know exactly what our universe is, let alone what's (physically) possible for our universe.

Our understanding of nature is indistinguishable from nature. — Hanover

Well, my understanding of the rubble in the driveway is part of me, the rubble is not.
I guess me being rubble-omniscient might be a different story.

That said, I am continually nonplussed by the general hostility toward idealism displayed by the philosophical and scientific communities. The only explanation for it that I can see is that most philosophers and scientists are positivists who lump idealism in with what they would regard as "magical thinking" or what have you. — Thorongil

Nah, I think there are several reasons.

Mind is typically used as an umbrella term, including the likes of, or synonymous with some of: (1^st person) experiences, qualia, (self)awareness, consciousness, sentience, thinking, ideation, feelings, pain/joy/love.

Idealism, in short, will have it that everything is mind, rather than minds being parts of the world.
Why would anyone think so?

This old post incidentally gives a bit of context.

Anyway, mentioned "Quantum Idealism" (and proof of The Trinity) seems over the top.

Apart from what the messages are about (ships, distance), is there anything other than their representations (inscriptions, morse) and their mental renditions (sentry, officer)? — jorndoe

No - but there doesn't need to be, for the point to be made, which is that the physical form and the medium in which the information is transmitted can be entirely changed, but the meaning remain the same. How, therefore, could the 'meaning of the information' be physical? — Wayfarer

So, the representations fall into Landauer's category. What about the mental renditions thereof? (Don't they have "physical" dependencies at least?)

Apart from what the messages are about (ships, distance), is there anything other than their representations (inscriptions, morse) and their mental renditions (sentry, officer)?

Which ones, for instance? The one that is said to only be able to account for 4% of what must be 'out there'? Or the one which posits infinite multiverses beyond any hope of detection? Or the one that posits infinite parallel worlds? Were any of them the ones you had in mind? (Incidentally, the word 'cosmos' originally meant 'ordered whole'. I think the fact that this definition is now contested, actually mitigates against your claim.) — Wayfarer

Relativity, inflation, Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams, ...



(I'm not big on appeal to etymology.)

In return don't confuse storytelling with science. — Rich

(Y)

Since I just posted this elsewhere, here's a (really) brief summary:

• science is self-critical, model-disproof-seeking, bias-minimizing model → evidence convergence, where tentative hypotheses can be derived from the models;
  evidence, observation and experimental results accumulate, models converge thereupon;
  methodological;
  per se the most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history

These days we have some pretty good cosmological models.
The methodologies carry no promise of omniscience.

If these experiences do reflect a metaphysical reality, as I believe they do, then it seems that consciousness itself doesn't reside in the body at all, but resides and is dependent upon a separate energy source. — Sam26

What might "a metaphysical reality" be? And "a separate energy source"? :o
(I'm guessing you're using the terminology differently from what I'm used to.)


(Y)

But why address this as “extra-stuff”. It is no more extra than is the mind-stuff causally tied into the brain-stuff. Question then is, can the normal stuff of mind yet be when separated from the normal stuff of body to which it is normally causally tied into. — javra

The extra stuff isn't quite the same as mind, as best I can tell. I tend to use mind as an umbrella-term, covering the likes of experiences, qualia, thinking, ideation, love/feelings, headaches, self-awareness, consciousness, all that.

Suppose you’ve gotten yourself a headache. No aspirin at hand. Instead you go scan yourself, fMRI or whatever the latest may be, doesn’t really matter. You now have two different angles, the experience of the ache, and a visual overview of your gray matter (need not be visual alone). If only the angles differ, in an ontological sense, then what makes them different? Understanding the scan, in this context, would converge on understanding the headache; a straight identity is not readily available, or deducible. The headache itself is part of your self-experience, or, put simpler, just part of yourself — bound by (ontological) self-identity, regardless of any scans or whatever else. Others cannot have your headaches (identity), but others can check out the scans (non-identity). Hopefully the scan will not reveal a tumor or the likes, which would otherwise explain the headache.

The sensation of the headache is mind stuff (and phenomenological, part of you); the scan is not mind (more empirical if you will, not part of you). Does that differentiation work? If yes, then what of that extra stuff?

There is no way anyone knows what happened when it happened before any recorded history. In fact, I dare say it is impossible to say what happened an hour ago. — Rich

Don't confuzzle knowledge and certainty.
To know something you don't have to know that you know that something (ad infinitum?).
Seems a bit impoverished to turn to Last Thursdayism as an argumentative device. :)

(sorry for my absence; the thread was intended for general discussion in any case)

There are a few kinds of propositions.

p = all swans are white
might once have been thought true, until black swans were found. Known evidence was consistent with p, yet anyone might have claimed ¬p without deriving a contradiction. p at least seemed truth-apt, however useless the claim may seem.

Sagan's garage dragon is another kind of claim, or at least further evidence-immune. It seems impossible to differentiate whether the existential claim is true or false. Perhaps it's possible to discover a means by which to find the dragon, or lure it to make it's presence known? :) (Neutrinos, first found in 1955 by Cowan and Reines, can be rather difficult to deal with.)

p = there's an invisible spirit/ghost that keeps an eye on you at all times
could be further along this path. Can't think of any evidence that specifically differentiates p and ¬p.

I guess there's broad agreement that solipsism isn't particularly dis/provable (in a purely deductive sense). Or take whatever other incompatible -isms you fancy, doesn't matter in this context.

It's trivial to immunize claims (as alluded to by Sagan). At what point do such claims become differences that make no difference (if they do)?

So, at large, there's energy dispersion in the universe towards heat death (an equilibrium in an expanding universe), countered temporarily in some locales due to blazing suns that radiate energy (cf the fluctuation theorem), energy that can be temporarily accumulated (locally) due to photosynthesis. Great conditions to get some biological evolution going (while it lasts anyway). (Y)

But, when we look close enough, we find both chaos and order, and whatever in between, in the universe. Universality is a great example of a kind of emergence, with no particular intervention or guidance as such.

Still, we're not nature-omniscient. Atoms, for example, are not idealized bouncing billiard balls. We don't know atoms or whatever exhaustively.

Teleological evolution seems a bit like predestination (though more than 99% of all species ever having walked the Earth are now extinct). I find it oddly self-elevating to think of (what we know of as) life, or consciousness (as we know it) perhaps, as some sort epitome or pedestal of what might come about naturally in the universe. Why...?

It seems there may be a sharpshooter or two among us here.

If we suppose all kinds of monkeys typed away at random for who knows how long, then they might produce Much Ado About Nothing after a good long while (21157 words). They might equally produce all the same letters and punctuation in some other order, rendering gibberish in English, or maybe even something syntactically correct in some other language. And they might produce whatever other poetry or nonsense or a scientific masterpiece for that matter.

Yet, beforehand, each of all those productions had equal probability of being produced by the monkeys. It just so happens that we like Shakespeare (well, some do), and so we attribute some special significance to that particular production (which presently has a probability of 100% of existing). Of course Shakespeare wrote in a more specific context than our hypothetical monkeys. It's easy enough to find nonsense produced by humans as well.

If you had a 1000 monkeys, and typewriters, I think you would get a whole lot of broken typewriters with shit on them — Wayfarer

:D Comment made my day.

In the news:

After 15 years in a vegetative state, nerve stimulation restores consciousness (Sep 2017)

This seems like a reasonable place to start:



Post above have some links.

The holographic principle have been hijacked by some folks out there. :-}

• Quantum woo (RationalWiki article)
• You Aren't Living in a Hologram, Even if You Wish You Were (Ryan F Mandelbaum; Gizmodo; Jan 2017)

I had to look that one up. Learned something new today. (Y)

lead someone down the garden path = mislead, deceive, hoodwink, or seduce
Source: Wiktionary

lead sb up the garden path = to deceive someone
Source: Cambridge Dictionary

Trump, or Wayfarer? It worries me that you should dream about either. — Banno

That was a @Wayfarer dream. I just dream about slapping you, without apologizing for any injuries. I'm bad that way. ;)

, let me rephrase that: don't expect @Wayfarer to apologize for Donald Trump's bruise the next day, if he slapped him in a dream. ;)

, don't expect me to apologize for your bruise the next day, if I slapped you in a dream. :D

Doesn't the atheistic monist have to deal with the same question of when consciousness (i.e. that something extra) begins and ends during a life cycle? — Hanover

I'm thinking everyone does (a/theist mon/dualist)... I don't think anyone have a really comprehensive understanding of mind (per se). That said, there are simple characteristics we do know.

Some emerging research:

• Mind-reading program translates brain activity into words (Ian Sample; The Guardian; Jan 2012)
• Scientists Use Brain Waves To Eavesdrop On What We Hear (Peter Murray; Singularity Hub; from the Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology; Feb 2012)
• Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep (Horikawa, Tamaki, Miyawaki, Kamitani; Science AAAS; Apr 2013)
• Researcher controls colleague’s motions in 1st human brain-to-brain interface (Rajesh Rao, Andrea Stocco; University of Washington; Aug 2013)
• Brain decoding: Reading minds (Kerri Smith; Nature; Oct 2013)
• Mind-Reading Computer Instantly Decodes People's Thoughts (Tia Ghose; LiveScience; Jan 2016)

Hey, a truly humorous depiction of an entire philosophical stance. Nice! — javra

Probably the wand that gives it a humorous flair. :)

There are any number of oddities though.

When is this extra stuff installed?
What difference does it make?
What the heck is this extra stuff anyway?
Did Neanderthals have it? Homo erectus? Homo ergaster? Bats?

there are literally millions of consistent reports of people having experienced out-of-body experiences that can be objectively verified — Sam26

A wee tiny detour?



You don't find it the slightest suspicious that out of body / near death experiences somehow report seeing something, even though their eyes were safely back in their body...?

Alien abduction stories at least report seeing with their eyes.

We tend to explain phantom pain, synesthesia and confabulation a bit more down-to-Earth, for example.

The PhilPapers Surveys turned out rather differently:


What gives?

Seems that religious substance dualism adds something extra, something entirely independent, to our lives:



Can this sort of thing be justified?