Anti-Realist metaphysics — Michael Ossipoff

There is something real which the Mind observes. Each Mind will necessarily see something different since all is in continuous flux (evolving as duration).

As some sort of pedogogical training tool, logic is OK. But the longest standing tradition is direct observation of patterns in nature which goes back eons, to pre-historical times, across all cultures, and continues through modern philosophical thought. It is the only method that allows philosophy to move forward. Logic goes round and round.

1+1=3 is possible. — bahman

This is a symbolic convention. It is not logic.

As a an aside, there are no two things that are exactly alike so we are doing arithmetic everything out of convention.

Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic — bioazer

Who says? Your Logic course professor? Logic is a game, not philosophy.

In any case, Mind is infinitely more real than "The Laws of Nature" or "Emergent Illusions".

The reason I embrace Mind as First Cause it's because it is right there, within everyone. There is no need to develop or appeal to outside causes such as God, gods, Laws of Nature, or a Big Bang.

It is interesting though that people do attempt to downplay or eliminate their own minds in favor of some active outside force that hypothetical it's guiding them or determining every action. I often wonder why? I can only think that people are more comfortable with outside forces guiding them, a la parents.

Yes I can agree with that, also is it not due to the fact that the mind is what conceives of existence to be? And if it is conceived within the mind then it is has the same properties of mind. — Fumani

Yes, I agree that it is of the same stuff.

Okay that makes sense, so are you implying that the mind is not solely linked to organisms? That inanimate objects are capable of possessing a mind? — Fumani

Inanimate objects are debris of the mind. Life is gone. Possibly just a bit left which would be the decay half-life. Life can recycle February by consuming it, e.g. minerals.

There are other options. I, for example, don't believe in gods but rather the creative impulse of the human mind, the physical being but a manifestation of the mind.

A reasonable and practical way of understanding science is to recognize it as a giant industry being driven by desire for money where most participants just "go along". The exaggeraters are placed in key sales, fund-raising, marketing, and management positions. They do what's necessary to bring the money in. No different than any other industry.

This is bred by the human condition to differentiate things, look can we not agree that mind is an intelligence that assists the organism to navigate its way through existence? — Fumani

I would say mind is the organism appearing in different subtle form. It is continuous from the most ethereal to the most solid and extends out without a clear boundary.

Right off the bat, just observe how the mind moves the physical body when issuing intent (movement in a direction) when it has made a choice. But, it is not controlling anything, it merely was willpower to try to move in a direction. Results are all always unpredictable - but at times more probable that others.

This would be highly speculative to the nth degree, but given that we are c attempting to understand the Universal Mind, it could be anything, anywhere, observable and not. It is the nature of the neverending exploration of the Mind by the Mind. Dreams are quite interesting.

But I think that the roles of gods in morality should always be considered because that is one of the biggest sources of moral influence. It gives the impression he is going to pick and choose fairly arbitrarily from moral ideas he likes from sources he respects based on his leanings. — Andrew4Handel

I agree with you about the roles of gods. The speaker may pick and choose but it's of no matter. You aren't listening for indoctrination but rather to possible learn something new that will enhance your sense of nature. It is all about expanding ones own observations in all directions, not just the subject matter the speaker presents. My guess it will open paths into a new line of inquiry.

I would call this jumping to conclusions. I read the synopsis quite differently. It sounds interesting and explorative in nature, inquiring into the similarities and differences of cultures which might lead to interesting new observations. As I said, we all have our own experiences (biases) and beliefs and philosophy leads one to recognize their own as well as others.

We are Mind/Memory. And we are evolving. Machines aren't mind. They are tools created by our Minds. We even create myths that we are machines. Imagination moves in all directions.

Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics. — Starthrower

Of course people can hold whatever beliefs they have, and even burning at the stake may not change them (apparently).

But if one wishes to learn more about life and nature it may be possible to do so by developing greater skills in observation (not logic). With observation, one can recognize patterns and become more connected to the nature of life and the nature of nature. It's like being a detective.

I am not precluding the possibility that someone might choose to be dormant in life and just hope some epiphany may materialize, and if someone tried it out and it's successful, it would be great to hear about it.

examine all the evidence without bias and to resort to strict logical analysis. — Andrew4Handel

How does one examine without bias? Did you recognize your own in your OP?

Observing patterns allows for new insights into the nature of nature. We all carry our experiences (biases) into all inquiry. The trick is to observe them all.

People in their life may seek First Cause in order to better understand life.

Belief in a First Cause can take many forms, e.g. God, Big Bang, the Dao, and the enumeral versions that exist in all cultures.

For me, the beginning is Mind. The Mind that we observe everywhere in the universe in all of its forms. The exploration of Mind reveals many interesting and practical ideas for navigating through life, physical, mental, and spiritual. Life is interesting because it is being explored.

Nice game.

My question: what is sentience? What makes something capable of thought? And are we, as humans, capable of true thought? — Starthrower

Sentience is us. We are Evolving Minds that create and learn. This is Evolution.

Is rational thought possible without language?
Similarly, is thought structured after our language? Do people speaking different languages think in inherently different ways? — bioazer

There is no such thing as rationale thought. It's whatever.

Thought without language is most certainly possible. Artists, for example, think in terms in imagery, symbols. Language is a device for sharing thoughts.

It's not language that forms thoughts but rather it is experiences which are reflected in languages. First and foremost, it is always experiences (memories).

I believe the c way to study philosophy is to have a Question that you want answered and then do inquiry into all fields looking for answers. It is only through way that one can grasp the feeling of the philosophy. You have to walk the same path and not just read about the ending. It takes more time, but you get a much deeper understanding of nature and life.

To a very large extent Western academic philosophy is more of a game than an inquiry into nature the nature. Course work mundane relying mostly on studying the same philosophers over and over and use using the same game of logic to find "Truth", which of course everyone disagrees about.

Philosophy has lost its purpose because it has left itself no purpose. It has ceded all rights to inquire into the nature of nature to "science", having been taught (force fed) that only science has the real tools and knowledge to understand life. Hogwash. Science has the worse tools and the greatest biases, yet there is no one left to watch the hen house, while philosophers play their logic games. What philosophers should be doing is studying life, all of life, with a critical eye and revealing new ideas and thoughts about the nature of life. The Mind is constantly evolving. Where are the new thoughts? Suppressed?

There is inquiry going on here and there (e.g Stephen E. Robbins, Jimena Casales, Rupert Sheldrake) but it is quickly marginalized or quashed by the materialist police leaving philosophers only to play the game "Does God Exist?".

I wonder how it must feel to really believe that their own thoughts and actions are totally determined. To be just a puppet of some mystical Laws of Nature. I mean to REALLY believe it and to understand that everything one does and says is absolutely meaningless. Then go through the motions of life and then that's it.

But those are the exceptions — Michael Ossipoff

There are many forms of exaggeration (even in the pop books) and most everyone just goes along with it because why put their neck out on the line. Anyone who protests is quickly ejected. No different than any profession where big money is at stake. Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. Just pretend it's not happening.

You can't blame them. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course I can. They are subject to greed and over self-aggrandizing like any other human, maybe even more because the stakes are higher. It's not as it it is Determined that they should exaggerate by some Laws of Physics. They do it because of who they are. There are BS artists in every field, and the best get the most money and most advancement. That is the nature of industry. Money is what counts.

Right. Trust them scientists ... to exaggerate all claims.

Neuroscience of free will, to me implies we really don't have free will.
"One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. With contemporary brain scanning technology, other scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice."

Our premotor cortex moves our bodies before we are even have made the decision to move. I very much think we have an illusion of free will. — FlukeKid

My guess is that the scientists are suffering from determined illusion.

We have to be rational because the world is rational. — TheMadFool

All you are doing is stating a belief which is what logic is all about. Stating a belief and then stating some observation as ever evidence of the belief followed by a conclusion that follows the belief. Logic is self-fulfilling in all cases and proving logic with logic is just a subset. It is the belief that creates disagreement, always.

Without a belief it is just stuff we are observing which ultimately may form a pattern to create a belief.

Did Dennett say "We can decide" at 4:30?

Brushing Dennett's pretzel philosophy aside.

We all have beliefs, some we care about more than othekrs, and we look forward recurring patterns of these beliefs (possibly shared with others) that we might call evidence or some confirmation. But beliefs change as does evidence as we evolve.

Where in the equations does it talk about biological aging?

GTR

As I said, numbers can take many forms. It is all how we envision them in memory.

What spaceship engines. The people on Earth don't see any spaceship engines. They only see that they are accelerating away from the little spaceship.

The spaceship person is in a coma.

Sorry, you can't stick spaceship engines in the equations. But I'll double check.

You mean the force of gravity. Yes, that is pretty much everywhere.

Fine. While you are waiting, why don't you do some reading also.

Yeah, you're right. I have really found a weakness in myself here.

I just see red and get intolerant. — Dlaw

Don't we all?

When in your mind does an attitude become so offensive to you that you can't feel empathy?

Possibly I'm too upset. — Dlaw

It's alright to feel offended. That is also part of being human. Sometimes I walk away. With a family member, I try to understand. It's different based upon the situation. But in all cases, I recognized I am with another human with all of the characteristics of humans.

Regardless of what's accelerating the spaceship, it's being accelerated to (and from) high speed with respect to the Earth — Michael Ossipoff

Or, a person on Earth could look at the spaceship and conclude that the Earth is accelerating away from the spaceship.