So you're "absential materialism" (or "strategic incompleteness") is Kantian?When we speculate about the nature and content of this world, of course we’re doing it within the scope of NI. This leads me to say we don’t and can’t really know a non-NI world.
In that case it wouldn't matter one wit that you'd lived here. :mask:Had I lived in the States, I wouldn't vote. — Tzeentch
:victory: Yes, the next POTUS sure did.Kamala won that debate. — NOS4A2
:up: :up:Trump is the greater evil. Don’t overthink it. — Mikie
:smirk:Well that was fun. Now about that genocide… — Mikie
Clarify this phrase (in context, of course). Thanks.the omnipresence of cons — ucarr
Are you asking whether or not the world lacks subjects? or lacks subjective aspects? Insofar as subjects are self-reflexive, adaptive objects (which are 'entangled' to varying degrees with (all?) other objects), the unambiguous answer is 'the "objective world" also has subjective constituents'. Anyway, perhaps you can clarify precisely what you mean by "objective" – are you using it as an epistemological concept or a metaphysical concept?Is a purely objective worldout there? — ucarr
Yes. Or maybe we have received their signals but our systems lack the sensitivity and/or bandwidth to distinguish those signals from the cosmic background noise (e.g. maybe they use neutrinos rather than EM waves). That would also filter us out as still too primitive (e.g. one of many Kardashev Level less-than-1 species) to reveal themselves to.The fact that we have not received any signals does not mean that they are not out there, it just means that we have not received signals. — Sir2u
Whether or not it is (I don't think it is), the OP clearly doesn't use "truth" that way.Isn't truth a metaphysical concept? — T Clark
:up: :up:Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;) — I like sushi
Btw, barely a century of terrestrial technoscience, our so-called "Fermi Paradox" seems wildly premature. — 180 Proof
Of course; but I didn't claim or imply otherwise. There are virtuous circles and vicious circles, and the latter are self-refuting ones (e.g. OP's definition of "relativism").Not all self-reference is self-contradictory. — T Clark
Well maybe, TC, but the OP posits epistemological positions (on "truth"), not metaphysics.Relativism and objectivism are metaphysical positions.
Yeah, that's ancient neoplatonism ... subjective idealism (Berkeley), monadology (Leibniz) or absolute idealism (Hegel). This anti-realist thesis is conceptually incoherent (like 'panpsychism'). Read Hume & Q. Meillassoux/R. Brassier.Consciousness and existence being linked biconditionally is radical conjecture. — ucarr
I've neither claimed nor implied this.You don’t allow that causation is a part ofthe physics ofnature.
No, it is inferred (read Hume ...)Is causation an emergent phenomenon? — ucarr
It could not be anything else (read Epicurus or Spinoza ...)Or Is it just partof the physicsof nature?
Your willful ignorance is stunning, BC. :sweat:I don't believe Zionism is inherently correlated to Jewish religiosity.
I don't think ... — BitconnectCarlos
And therefore if relativism is true for some and not others, then it is self-refuting as a claim (i.e. relativism is relative ... "truth is subjective" is subjective ... :roll:). This is incoherent, of course, and not a viable, or reasonable, alternative to 'objective truth' (so the OP's poll is a false choice).And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. — Cadet John Kervensley
This doesn't follow since "right and wrong" are use-claims (i.e. evaluations, selections, preferences (re: plurality)) and not truth-claims (i.e. propositions (re: objectivity)) – not to be confused with "relativism", pluralism is objective (i.e. many different paths through / maps of the same terrain, or many different perspectives on / aspects of the same thing). Btw, there are reasonable conceptions of 'objective morality' such as (e.g.) moral naturalism¹.For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative.
Of course. "Consciousness", such as it is, at least is an effect – output – of neurologically complex body-environment interactions. In other words, imo, mind is nonmind (i.e. causal nexus)-dependent, or causally emergent phenomenon. How can it not be (sans woo-of-the-gaps idealism (e.g. "disembodied consciousness"))? :chin:Does causality exist in a world without consciousness? — ucarr
No doubt, as a post filled with strawmen & non sequiturs show, you're a willfully ignorant apologist for zionfascism. :shade:I stopped reading here. — BitconnectCarlos
Lovely. :flower:Thread Title: People Are Lovely
To the degree they are interesting (i.e. unfamiliar), I agree.— 180 Proof
Well, that's an interesting perspective :chin: — Amity
Familiarity breeds ... "bizarre and beautiful spider" bites.The unfamiliar certainly holds its attraction, as can the familiar.
Or mistaken identity – shock of recognition – (like "seeing a ghost"). Btw, I don't care for musicals. :meh:Your words had a strange effect. I thought: 'strangers across a crowded room'. First Love?
The latter (truism) doesn't justify, or imply, the former (disbelief).I don't believe the main physical domains can be reconciled without consideration for the role of the observer - we are not separate/isolated from the system we wish to understand. — Benj96
Why? Suppose what we call "observer" is only an aspect of "the environment" that "interacts" with other aspects of "the environment", then there is no "boundary". Consider Carlo Rovelli's RQM ...[T]he "physical" observer MUST interact with the "physical" environment at some boundary by some set rules and principles.
To the degree they are interesting (i.e. unfamiliar), I agree.People Are Lovely — Amity
As I've pointed out already ...Can a number have an application to matter and yet have no connection to matter? — ucarr
In this sense, I think so: a map is an abstraction from aspects of the terrain (e.g. regularities of nature) that is instantiated in some other aspect of the terrain (e.g. observers' brains-discursive practices).Does a map have some type of relationship _connection with/to terrain?
Syphilis.↪NOS4A2
You're kind of likeSisyphus— frank
Well, imo, that's because both are pseudo-problems generated (mostly) by 'philosophical grammar' and not themselves scientific, or empirical, problems. Re: embodied metacognition (+ property dualism) contra disembodied "consciousness" or "will". :sparkle:the hard problem of consciousness and free will [will] not go away — Jack Cummins
So what? For the sake of this discussion, only what we – you and I – think about these topics is relevant no matter how informed we might be by other sources. Stop hedging and think things through for yourself. :chin:various authors use the idea differently
Many of the important thinkers were speculating
may be insufficient
4Sept24 – $16.98 per share (-36% past month) :down:NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)
31August24 – $19.50 per share
(NASDAQ 17,713.62) — 180 Proof