Comments

  • Is the real world fair and just?
    IMO 'energy' is a property rather than a 'physical substance'. A rock is not 'made by' mass-energy but has mass-energy. Unfortunately, I think that even physicists themselves sometimes indulge in some confusion about this.
    We can't say that 'fundamental physical reality' is 'energy' because 'energy' is a property.
    boundless
    :100: :fire:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Again, non sequitur. There's been no discussion of "the philosophy of physics" here. Go troll someone else, sir.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not refer to either "materialism" or "daoism" in my last post reply to Gnomon..
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Yes, and Spinozism is not a "shit-philosophy", so what's your point?
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    The Universal Field Theory :
    The U F T is not a physics theory in a classical sense. It is rather a philosophical theory explaining Why and How physical phenomena appear.
    https://theuniversalfieldtheory.com/
    Gnomon
    :clap: :lol:

    The section (in the full article) on how to test this "theory" is nothing but vacuous bs. Like "The Force" in the Star Wars movies, "UFT" is just more pseudo-science (woo-woo) stuffed inside a shit-"philosophy" sandwich. :sparkle:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    To compare the testimonial evidence of abductions to the testimonial evidence of NDEs is a complete misunderstanding of good testimonial evidence.Sam26
    Explain why you think "testimonial evidence of alien abductions" is not "good testimonial evidence". :smirk:
  • The Linguistic Quantum World
    So what I believe about myself does indeed create my world.Noble Dust
    That belief ... merely is your ego – masking oneself (i.e. being-in-the-world) – an 'illusory separation' from the world (i.e. disembodiment fantasy). A psycho-sociological fiction.
  • The Linguistic Quantum World
    What is a belief, and what is an attitude?Noble Dust
    Okay, short attention span-friendly: a belief is a fiction (until corroborated by evidence) and an attitude is a strong feeling about a belief or an experience.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    To give an analogy, I believe that if the 'ocean' is 'natura naturata', a wave is a 'mode'.Regarding 'natura naturans', maybe water itself. But I'm not sure how much the analogy makes sense.boundless
    For me it doesn't make sense ...

    What do you think about these analogies?boundless
    Well, imo they don't work. In each case "ocean" "house" "statue" are manifest, finite modes (natura naturata) and yet you claim that the corresponding infinite modes of "water" "wood" "marble", respectively, are not manifest which clearly doesn't fly. Analogously it's the 'laws of nature' – causing and constraining modes such as "water [ocean [waves]]" "wood [house [rooms ...]]" & "marble [statue [male-figure]]" to manifest – which themselves are not manifest and which reason attributes to (i.e. conceptualizes as) natura naturans. All analogies are limited in application, of course, much more so when used to 'illuminate' a metaphysics as subtle as Spinozism.

    Lately I prefer "the sun, its rays of light & their heat" (rather than "the ocean & its waves") as an analogy because "the sun" is so remote and not visibly manifest at night even though its effects of "light & heat" are always manifest on Earth (e.g. gravity-well, climate, weather, seasons, photosynthesis); and also, that staring directly at the sun with naked eyes is blinding more or less like fully comprehending 'eternal & infinite substance' with temporal, finite reason is impossible. So for me, in this limited (physical) sense, analogously "the sun" is naturing and Earth, etc are natured ... even though our local star is, according to Spinoza, just another mode (of the attributes of substance (i.e. 'laws of nature')). :fire:

    What do you think?
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    My name was taken in vain first (see the quote). Also, Wayfarer and I have been jousting for about fifteen years so ...
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    There is what amounts to a phobia (↪180 Proof ) around admitting anything which suggests the supernatural,Wayfarer
    :sweat:

    Not "phobia" so much as principled disregard for woo-woo-of-the-gaps nonsense which you've always fetishized, sir. To invoke "the supernatural" as idealists (antirealists) / subjectivists / mysterians / new agers like you, Wayfarer, often do amounts to nothing but an appeal to ignorance (i.e. this aspect of some X is (currently) unknown / (apparently) unknowable, therefore that aspect is/must be "supernatural" or "explained by mystery"). :sparkle:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    The question of the meaning of life need not and should not be forbidden from scientific inquiry, but, in my opinion, this does not mean that the supernatural has thereby earned a place at the table of what is fundamentally an investigation of natureFooloso4
    :fire: :100:

    @Wayfarer
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    :lol:

    19August24


    Harris-Walz 2024 :point: taking out the tr45h!

    Roevember is coming. :victory: :cool:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Can you give some reference/arguments to argue that he was an emergentis?boundless
    I don't know as an empirical matter whether or not Spinoza is an "emergentist"; metaphysically he's certainly not.

    Also, I would say that the holistic character present in Spinoza was absent in Democritus, Ep[ic]ur[us], Lucretius et al. This doesn't mean that one can [can't?] build a 'Democrito-Epicurean Spinozism' of sorts but I believe that the ontological primacy of the 'whole' was completely foreign to the classical atomists.
    – and, I think, "foreign" to Spinoza as well (re: infinite =/= "whole"). Anyway, apparently I wasn't clear enough:
    I see no other way but to interpret Spinoza as both an immanentist and acosmist sub specie aeternitatis (though sub specie durationis also as a pandeist, which (for me) ontically relates him to that other great immanentist Epicurus).180 Proof
    [M]y view is that sub specie durationis (e.g. Husserl's "natural attitude") acosmism seems cogently pandeistic (or consistent with classical atomism).180 Proof
    In other words, sub specie durationis I interpret Spinoza's natura naturans as ontologically deterministic and unbounded (i.e. unmanifest ... vacuum ("void")) and natura naturata as ontically chaotic and bounded (i.e. manifest ... fluctuation-patterns ("swirling recombing atoms")).

    For the sake of discussion, boundless, I concede your "holistic" point about Spinozism but only sub specie aeternitatis.

    But if 'compatibilism' is strictly deterministic ...
    ... which is why I describe compatibilism as conditionally deterministic. Neither strict determinism nor strict indeterminism are compatible with "free will / free action" (i.e. human agency).
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    Afaik, natural sciences make use of hypothetical-deductive reasoning; "abductive reasoning" is only used to evaluate rival versions of a theory (or rival theories about the same phenomenon). Other non-empirical disciplines in the humanities are mostly hermeneutical. And, imo, "the difference between science & art" is profound (i.e. explanatory (factive) & imaginary (fictive), respectively) even though both are essentially creative endeavors.
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy':

    'The word was first used by Liebniz, for Plato's ontology, to contrast with Epicurus's materialism.'
    Jack Cummins
    Lame definition. Btw, I'm Epicurean ... about (instantiated) "ideas". See here .

    from a 2022 thread Speculations in Idealism ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/715277

    Thanks. :cool:
  • Identity of numbers and information
    Reality is bound by finitude.apokrisis
    I don't grok this. :chin::

    real insofar as they can be grasped by reasonWayfarer
    Semantic quibble: ideal, not "real".
  • Identity of numbers and information
    I think ultimately the difference between information and numbers is only pragmatic.hypericin
    Afaik, it's "the difference" between pattern-strings and mathematical structures, respectively, such that the latter is an instance of the former. They are formal abstractions which are physically possible to instantiate by degrees – within tractable limits – in physical things / facts and usually according to various, specified ("pragmatic") uses. I think 'Platonizing' information and/or numbers (as 'concept realists', 'hylomorphists, and 'logical idealists' do) is, at best, fallaciously reifying.
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    The thread was intended to explore the debate over idealism, but with reference to semantics.Jack Cummins
    What "debate"? You haven't even stated the proposition in contention we're supposed to either be for (thesis) or against (antithesis). Please clarify ...

    The idea of the surreal was meant to point back to the idea of life as a dream. This was an obscure reference to the view of life as a dream, captured in the Hindu concept 'maya'.
    Dreamt by whom/what – isn't the dreamer more than a "dream" – or is "life just a dream" within a dream within a dream ... all the way down? And, besides, what existential-pragmatic-ethical difference does it make, Jack, if metaphysically (according to some ancient tradition) "all is maya"?
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Rather than provide an explanation it forecloses the search for explanations, as if a mystery behind the mystery does more than multiply mysteries.Fooloso4
    :100: :up:


    @Sam26
  • Is the real world fair and just?

    All I can do is guessGnomon
    Yes, of course, you can't even bother to rationally speculate or honstly admit you have no effing idea what you/we are talking about. wtf :sweat:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Your mind is made up, why bother?Sam26
    My mind is made up about what? You've no idea what my mind is or is not made up about so stuff the ad hominems & strawmen and stick to the questions raised by your muddled dogma.

    What is explained
    An unknown – unknowable – mystery (re: "intelligence behind the universe") doesn't explain anything because answering with a mystery only begs the question of the how/why of anything. And so my straight forward question remains, Sam, and it appears you can't answer non-fallaciously or supported by sound reasoning:

    What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"?180 Proof
    :chin:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    It depends on what you're looking for and what your questions are.Sam26
    Since it's your posit, Sam, again I ask you:
    What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"?180 Proof
    :chin:

    the source of what we are experiencingSam26
    Apparently, this "we" excludes p-naturalists (i.e. immanentists, pandeists), strong atheists, freethinkers, absurdists et al. For us, evidently and parsimoniously, "the source" is the universe ‐ natura naturans – itself; we don't bark at shadows (pace Plato). :fire:
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    So if I understand correctly what you mean by "muddles in the philosophy of ideas", the ancient and postmodern or secular and spiritual "viewpoints" are like comparing apples and oranges – incommensurable perspectives on, or interpretations of, the "sur/reality of ideas"? i.e. different kinds of maps for navigating different aspects of the same terrain (or even completely different terrains)?
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    :up: Yeah, but the devil's in the policy details ...
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    mere partial perspectivesJack Cummins
    Maybe you can clarify this phrase ...
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    I don't understand your reply to my previous post.
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    I am aware that 'real' is a human construct.Jack Cummins
    So 'you are aware' is only "a human construct"? Or 'mortality' is not nonmind-dependent (which I prefer to 'mind-independent'), or real? :chin:

    ... there is always someone in a forest.Amity
    Yes, the forest itself (e.g. "Fangorn"). :wink:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Well, Spinoza's Natura Naturata would be cover both the 'vacuum' and the 'atoms', the union of them (also, according to him, the attributes are independent from each other, so emergentism is not compatible with Spinoza).boundless
    Of course this is so ... sub specie aeternitatis.

    For instance, if a compatibilist argues that my choices are 'free' because they do not have 'external' causes but they are still deterministic, I fail to see how this can be true 'freedom ...
    If not conditionally "deterministic" (i.e. constrained by your (my) nonlinear dynamic, ecology-nested, embodied cognition), then what makes any "choices" yours (mine)?
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    I'm trying to point out that a mind behind the universe is the best explanation ...Sam26
    What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"?
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    Despite materialism and postmodern deconstruction, NeoPlatonism is making a resurgence. What is the significance of this?Jack Cummins
    Secular mysticism redux.

    What is language and its connections to symbolic forms of interpretation?
    The latter are messages – signal-to-noise ratios – and the former is a medium.

    Are ideas mind-dependent, subjective, objective or intersubjective
    constructs in human semantics?
    Yes.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Today in Trumpenfreude ...
    NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:

    26March24 – $57.99 per share
    (NASDAQ 16,315.70)

    15April24 – $26.61 per share :down:
    (NASDAQ 15,885.02)
    180 Proof
    16August24 – $23.06 per share :down:
    (NASDAQ 17,631.72) :up:

    Loser The Clown's pump-n-dump scam is down 40% in five months. Not bad for an OG grifter who even 3x BANKRUPTED A CASINO. :clap:

    *

    Biden-Harris DIJA "Boom Market":
    6Nov20 – $28,325.53
    16Aug24 – $40,659.76 :up:

    Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    "Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it." ~Albert Camus

    The Nietzschean emphasis ...schopenhauer1
    Stop with the strawman, schop. My counter argument emphasizes the following
    As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death".180 Proof
    as I've pointed out in my previous post which your (& T. Ligotti's) special pleading evades. To wit:
    there are philosophies of defiance ("unselfing") such as those mentioned above contrary to sophistries of denial ("suicide") like fideism, anti-natalism or nihilism. :mask:180 Proof

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/925895

    Creating a false narrative cannot solve the problem of suffering.schopenhauer1
    Yeah, like e.g. "anti-natalism" (i.e. destroying the village (h. sapiens) in order to save the village (h. sapiens)) – I agree, schop. After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable and reducing imminent disvalue/s. :fire:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Still my question is: how can we have some degree of autonomy if we are not separate from the Whole?boundless
    I.e. if we are more like droplets of spray from a wave of the ocean (or rays of sunlight from the sun) than e.g. passengers riding on a moving train...

    Even the 'co-determination' of some actualities ... something like Tolkien's concept of subcreation, in a sense.
    For Spinoza, no doubt an "inadequate idea" (i.e. imaginary, illusory) sub specie aeternitatis.

    it is Deistic ... specifically PanEnDeistic.

    Would Spinoza disagree?
    Gnomon
    Yes, because sub species aeternitatis Spinoza's immanent-monist (unbounded, self-organizing vacuum field-like) metaphysics is acosmist and your "pan-en-deistic" whatever, Gnomon, implies an unparsimonious, transcendent-dualist (Pythagorean / Neoplatonist / Leibnizean / panpsychist monadic-like) metaphysics.

    Fwiw, my view is that sub specie durationis (e.g. Husserl's "natural attitude") acosmism seems cogently pandeistic (or consistent with classical atomism). :fire: