The natural afterlife is an illusion that occurs only at death. — Bryon Ehlmann

So is this related to the process described in the Bardo Thodol (Tibetan Book of the Dead)? Which also deals primarily with experiencing and/or transcending certain illusions at the moment of death?

Unfortunately the idea that one country can be great all on its own is now archaic (isolationism).
— Pantagruel

That would depend on the definition of great that you use. — Sir2u

I don't think so. To be great, you must first be good. A thing is good if it functions well, or performs its functions well. America is a society. So when does a society function well? A society is a complex system. The question is, does the geographical domain of America truly contain that system? Or does that only describe some of the parameters of its operation?

In the past, it was possible for cultures to exist side by side and yet function almost independently. Separation in space contributed to a separateness of identity. Points of exchange between two cultures were few and limited, trade and traders, markets, possibly some inter-marriage.

Fast forward to the modern era. The corporations which rule the world span global divides of natural and cultural boundaries. Small, isolated and under-developed nations are not permitted to evolve in peace but are economically invaded for their resources, and forced to embrace a suddenly modernized version of culture, a culture now no longer uniquely their own.

America is not the source of this cultural model, although there are those who may boast and think this is so.

America is the sum of all its inhabitants. But the lifestyle of these people is determined by the actions of corporations, aligned with no national interests, no interests but their own growth. Gradually all cultures are being smoothed into a generic brand of modernity. At one time, national identity was the most inclusive interest-group to which anyone could hope to belong. Now, global telecommunication makes it possible for each person to communicate with virtual enclaves of individuals dispersed across the globe but aligned with us in values.


No, there is no "America" any more to make great again, any more than there is a "Canada." Instead, we are a world of a million factions. Villages of rec.crafts.quilting, alt.games.chess . And alt.right, and alt.left . I wonder how many people ever think anymore of the origins of that banner, alt.right, in the usenet culture? It is "alt" because it exists in the alternative hierarchy, which was everything that was not in the mainstream comp, misc, news, rec, soc, sci and talk hierarchies. Alt.right.makeamericagreat is just another interest group, right alongside rec.games.computer, and rec.crafts.quilting.

Alt.right is just a faction of shared interests. And if it is truly alt, then it is because it sets itself apart from the mainstream, the majority. So what right could alt.right possibly have to impose its particular version of values on the rest of us, those who do not include alt.right among our chosen set of interests?

If there is a society, then its lines should be drawn around the clusters of interests which we share with each other. Sci.bio.earth . Soc.rights-human. The big ones. The ones that include us all. Share your alt.right or your alt.left values with your alt.friends . We need to save the mainstream, and the mainstream has to include everyone. Even if you are in America, you are not just an American. You have bigger responsibilities. We all do.

Unfortunately the idea that one country can be great all on its own is now archaic (isolationism). So that wouldn't be a rational message. Then again, I wonder if the great mass of people are even moved by rationality any more? Perhaps what the world wants now is...neo-rationalism?

Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations...
~Karl Marx

As of recent I have become obsessed with the concept of communication with respect to differing categories of thought. I have a couple of profound theories of what begins to happen to a group of people who are able to communicate more expressively and efficiently. — Shawn

It stands to reason that, to accomplish anything collectively, we have to agree upon it. More precisely, the extent of our collective abilities will correspond to the extent of our collective agreement and understanding. And of course motivation is an integral part of that, especially as it relates to openness versus concealment, shared versus hidden agendas, etc. Relatively speaking, insects are far more effective at wielding their collective might than humans. Perhaps we suffer from an overabundance of ego?

Descartes specifically said in his Replies attached to the Meditations that he doubted simply to find unshakable truth — Gregory

Does that minimize or maximize the force of his discovery?

↪Pantagruel it is very unlkely that thought is your central motivation. It is more likely that it is emotions. (I am not insulting or ad homing you, this is true for all of us. Motivations and desires set us in motion. ) — Coben

Hmm. Well, that may be, it wasn't exactly what I meant though. To be precise, the idea of the being of thought is my central motivation. Trust me, I've had 55 years to think about it, this one I have pinned down.

the axiom of all philosophy, the being of thought — JerseyFlight

With you to here. I don't take issue with the phantom-deity ideas, but for me it doesn't add to (or detract from) the idea that the being of thought is my central motivation.

It's good to know there's another admirer of Dewey here. I think he was extraordinarily insightful. — Ciceronianus the White

On this we agree 100% There's a man whose convictions come across with force in his writings.

Well, he set the stage, as it were. I think he made it clear he was engaging in an exercise, a contrived one that he didn't really think anyone engages in normally, purportedly for the sake of acquiring an unshakeable foundation for thought. This supposedly required him to establish an absolute certainty; something that could never be questioned. Something needed, though I don't know why he thought it was needed, to eliminate any concern that we might be dreaming, or worry that an evil demon was fooling us.

Now I suspect he never really thought there was an evil demon; he was never really concerned that Beelzebub or some other demon was making him think he was writing about Beelzebub or some other demon making him think he was writing about him, or that he was sitting in a chair while doing so in his room while doing so. That's what I think of as faux doubt. A "doubt" which is entertained solely for the sake of making a point. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think anyone seriously believes they are a brain in a vat either. And yet...that is the whole point, isn't it? Reality can be...deceptive. And sometimes doubt needs to be driven by intellect.

Let's call this one a draw.

Firstly, in what sense do you mean inclusive or exclusive?

Secondly, it appears that I'm guilty of loose terminology. There's rationality - a frame of mind - which recommends skepticism/doubt and there's logic - a method to truth which supposedly gets you there without fail. Rationality advises us to be skeptical and logic attempts to reduce error - the difference between what we think is the truth and what the truth actually is. — TheMadFool

Well, it was a question.

To me it is clear that "rationality" is a much larger concept than logic, and one which operates at both the individual and the social level. And there are many kinds of truths. Social truths can be factually inaccurate, yet still functional. As the history of humanity testifies.

So is the nature of reason predominantly inclusive, or exclusive?

If what makes a man is a dick, does having a huge dick make you a non-man? — TheMadFool

I think the argument is that the ivory-tower intellectual is not actually being mindful because he or she is neglecting critical components of practical reality. So this form of "heightened rationality" is ipso facto actually irrational.....

don't know if people realize this or whether it's being forced down our throats by countless media representations but zombies aren't considered persons - you can, in fact you're supposed to, kill them and there are no consequences for doing that.

What's missing in zombies that make them non-persons? They're mindless. It's odd then to accuse someone, say a philosopher, of living in an ivory tower when he's actually being mindful. :chin: — TheMadFool

I do not get it.

If humans are objects, then having subjective experiences is being real as an object. It would be a defining property of a the object, human. — Harry Hindu

Yes, of the object "human". Not of the object "rock" or "atom" or of objectivity per se.If subjectivity is a uniquely emergent property, then you can't say that experience is a feature of objectivity as such.

↪Pantagruel Evasion and deflection make you look foolish. Spinoza (my guy!) took down Descartes' philosophical arguments (e.g. MBP) over three centuries ago for which I've been grateful for a few decades now. I get it, Pg, you didn't get the memo and no amount of prompting you to acquaint yourself with counter-Cartesians like Hume, Peirce, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, Haack, Deutsch, Metzinger, et al will convince you of the Monsieur's errors (Damasio); so let's agree to disagree. Pax. — 180 Proof

Well, one final.

Doubt is clearly a species of belief: I doubt x is true. I believe x is true.

You do not require reasons for belief. As soon as you add a requirement for a reason for belief, you have crossed the line from belief to knowledge. This was the glaring problem with Dennett's argument that there are "no good reasons for believing in god". Maybe no good reasons for him. He has absolutely no basis for disputing anyone else's belief in anything that isn't trivially and manifestly false. Same thing with doubt.

Finally, Descartes' doubt is an integral methodological component of his philosophy, and figures directly in his arguments. So it is supported by the coherence of the body of the whole. Thus the integrity or credibility of his doubt(belief) is evidenced by the quality of his conclusions. Cogito ergo sum is a monumental achievement that rang true for an age and rightly contributed to the well-earned title and position of the "father of modern thought." You are free to dispute him, but you cannot deny him.

I think those points are probably substantive by anyone's standards.

Oh, and for the record, Dewey is a genius and one of my current top picks. Have you read Nature and Human Conduct? Moving. I'll be reading Democracy and Education when I finish with Marx in a week or so.

The "ivory tower" abode of philosophers is a different kettle of fish. I believe it's when philosophers remove themselves from reality and isolate themselves in a world of abstractions and thus absorbed give an air of aloofness to those not similarly occupied.

That said, taking into account the notion of zombies, I don't see how people who thinks zombies make sense (that's all of us I think) can ever accuse anyone of being in an "ivory tower" of abstract thought. Zombies aren't persons, right? What do you have to say about that? — TheMadFool

Yes, when philosophers believe that they can abstract reason from it's practical applications, Ivory tower is applicable.

I'm not sure what your zombies comment means? Can you elaborate?

You find Cartesian Doubt genuine, not merely idle, and answering the question above would go a very long way to demonstrating why I/we should agree with you, Pantagruel, that it's not "faux-doubt". — 180 Proof

Descartes' reasons are explained through his arguments.

Accusing Descartes of "faux doubt" means that you are not accepting the content of his arguments. So essentially, you and/or CTW are perpetrating an ad hominem against a dead man. I guess an easy target for you.....

There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle. — C.S. Peirce

And upon what do you base the assertion that Descartes did not experience this as a real and living doubt? He said he did. So you just do not believe him? Now it is a question of credibility.

I doubt that you can make me doubt the sincerity of Descartes' metaphysical doubt.

Oh shit, you guys are right! Why didnt I just ponder the wonders of modern technology to get me through! I see the errors of my ways, and now I rather do everything!! Its all changed! Its a whiole new world. — schopenhauer1

Isn't the power of choice a wonderful thing? :up:

He was engaging in an extended game of "let's pretend." It isn't clear to me that the result of the game was in any way useful. — Ciceronianus the White

As I said, the same could be said of any belief of any person, including yours, unless you can demonstrate that you're committed to it in an existential sense (which is the force I take to be behind your argument). So if you want to discount any beliefs that aren't "existentially impactful" I'll just as casually ignore your comments about Descartes.

Computers are fun. Would you rather keep track with pen and paper meticulously jotting everything down letter by letter and hand-delivering it? — Outlander

I really like this idea of setting up a pseudo-dialectic between a poor way of doing something and a better way of doing something. You're right, we have a lot of positive choices in our lives and things really could be a lot worse for a lot of people. And it is about a lot of little things, not just one big yes or no. Like life. :clap:

Now my question is what does the absence of freedom mean for ethics and how can our actions be judged if we cannot really control them. — Leiton Baynes

For me this is pretty straightforward. How can you be held responsible for something for which you are not responsible? Since we do attribute responsibility to people for actions it is pretty clear that we do ascribe free-will to them also.

Reason is that faculty that discovers, isolates, and prescribes methods/ways of thinking that are either guaranteed to lead you to the truth or, at the very least, take you as close as possible to it. — TheMadFool

Ok, that would be an idealist conception of reason as a critical faculty. However reason is also the capacity to communicate with other individuals whose orientation may range from antagonistic to co-operative in the pursuit of survival. In that context, truth may very well take a back seat to expediency, propitiation, or any number of other constraints. This is I think a good example of the "ivory tower" criticism often leveled at philosophy.

Sorry, I don't understand the construct.
The subject is an object. Yes, things which are subjects (have subjective experiences) are also objects. But having a subjective experience (which is specifically how subjectivity was being characterized, "being real for a subject,") is explicitly different from "being real as an object." Your construction lacks specificity.

Can we divorce the preference for sleeping from the pleasure of waking up feeling refreshed? Or the comfort of snuggling up in bed while trying to go to sleep? — Judaka

Very poetic notions and true...for some. Having had insomnia for several years I can attest that even sleep can be a burden.

No. A subject is an object. — Harry Hindu

I'm pretty sure I said being real for a subject is not the same thing as being real as an object. I'm quite sure I did not say a subject is an object.

I think population management is eminently sensible, given that overpopulation either causes or exacerbates the most serious problems facing humanity. I think the notion of restricting population growth based on financial status is despicable.

I would say we cannot truly doubt everything because by living we don't doubt everything. In fact, we rely on everything, for the most part unreservedly. Thus we eat, drink, walk, build things, interact with each other and the world at large every minute. We wouldn't if we had any real doubt. We doubt, really, when we have reason to in specific circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White

If Descartes' doubt is faux doubt, then equally anyone's commitment to any belief could be characterized as faux belief...unless it led to a serious commitment in actual circumstances. Unless you are practicing faux philosophy, please don't minimize one of Mssr. Descartes' central tenets. :)

faux doubt indulged in by Descartes — Ciceronianus the White

Specifically what about Descartes' proposition of radical metaphysical doubt qualifies it as being faux doubt?

Yes, they are two different things. Isn't that what I said?

I think that's what a lot of Marxist literature does, no? Filling in the gaps and using the same categories to analyse other issues. Did you have a particular thing in mind? — fdrake

lol! Yes, of course.

I've been wanting to leverage neural net modelling capabilities since I started reading cybernetics in the 90s. Now it has become pretty plug and play. NetLogo is the new standard, multi-agent based modelling and it's free. It's just about conceptualizing the model. Capitalism is rife with contradictions, and these seem like logical focal points to me.

I don't think that's possible without filling in/inventing lots of extra-textual details. Some of his arguments are relatively easy to put into a theorem-proof form though. The latter's what I'm attempting. — fdrake

Yes, it would have to be an extrapolation. What I'd really like to do is attempt to integrate a lot more social dimensions, flesh out his class-conflict in light of the intervening 150 years of history. It's a major undertaking for sure.

Are you a mathematician?

Capital Vol. 1 - Marx (reread (more mathematicising the value theory)) — fdrake

I'm nearly done all 3 volumes - I'd love to see a full blown global economics simulator based on Marx's principles.

Starting Structure of Social Action Volume II: Weber, by Parsons

Focusing on what you can change and changing it is not at all the same thing as accepting your fate. You are misconstruing and mischaracterizing stoicism. Stoicism is the exact opposite of passivity.

Illusions are real. They cause us to behave differently. They are a misinterpretation of sensory data. What they are interpreted as isnt real until you interpret it as an illusion. — Harry Hindu

Indeed. So it would seem that being real for a subject is independent of being real as an object.

Aren't the concepts "real" and "Illusory" inherently exclusive? If something is an illusion, then it is by definition "not real". So saying reality is an illusion essentially just denudes the meaning of both reality and illusion. Like saying, circles are squares.

If reality is an illusion then, to the same extent, illusions must be real.

Maybe read some Bhagavad-gita?

“The Blessed Lord said:
No doubt, you are right, O mighty Arjuna, that the mind is hard to control, wavering and restless, but by repeated effort and dispassion it can be done.”

Sounds perfect. Parsons has made a few references to Piaget and I've been looking for something. On the list. Thank you! :grin:

As the brain evolves it enables more of the mind to become manifest in a physical context. — EnPassant

:up: