Comments

  • The Complexities of Abortion
    I am misunderstanding what 'dual-aspect' means in your use of 'monism'. — Bob Ross
    From my study of Spinoza, by "dual-aspect" I understand there to be (at least) two complementary ways to attribute predicates – physical & mental – to any entity which exhaustively describes its functioning.

    What is modal-ontological determinism?
    This is my shorthand for Spinoza's description of substance (i.e. natura naturans) that, among other things, consists in necessary causal relations and is unbounded (i.e. not an effect of or affected by any external causes – other substances – because it is infinite in extent).
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    I prefer more descriptive terms like e.g. immaterial or disembodied or nonphysical or spiritual or magical ... to the umbrella term "supernatural".

    Btw, back in the day, my atheism had preceded my naturalism.
  • A question for Christians
    It seems clear to me that Jesus has anticipated the self-defense/just-war question: What if someone attacks me? Do not resist evil ... I don't know how you can read Jesus's teachings as anything other than total pacifism. — RogueAI
    :100: :mask:
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both. — Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ↪Bob Ross
    You take my usage of promise out of context and then object rather than engaging with what I've actually written. For example, there's nothing about saying "I promise", which you quarrel with tendentiously. Show me how my actual reasoning goes wrong (and the addenda too which follows in the rest of the post), sir, if you are interested in discussing these matters and not just scoring points shadowboxing with strawmen. Again for your reconsideration:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    By ‘panpsychism’, are you referring to idealism? If so, then I think Spinoza can very easily be interpreted as an idealist. — Bob Ross
    I do not see how Spinozism (i.e. dual-aspect monism + modal-ontological determinism) is consistent with panpsychism / idealism.

    I would like to hear more about your irreductivist approach to explanation.
    I've no idea to what you are referring or how the above is relevant to anything I've stated.

    ... could you elaborate on your theory of explanation here?
    I've not alluded to any "theory of explanation". Interpretively describing higher-order concepts or theoretical (or formal) discourses is what we/I do when we/I philosophize; I've not endeavored to "explain" anything.
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    My point is trying to examine whether self-organizing systems, accountable for self-organizing complexity, possess purpose. Are they instead automatons? — ucarr
    No. "Automatons" are machines programmed by intentional agents (e.g. h. sapiens). Self-organizing complex systems are dissipative processes (e.g. cell replication, terrestrial climate, solar radiation, black holes).
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪universeness
    "Colliding galaxies" are, in fact, merging macro objects (i.e. astronomically complex systems of event-patterns) – a process, IMO, not just a single, discrete event. Also, abiogenesis is a (macro) process rather than an "event" as you say.
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    ↪NotAristotle
    How so?
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    Abortion is always wrong. It's not complicated. — NotAristotle
    For you it's "always wrong", so don't do it. For others, it's not "always wrong". Live and let live, because "it's not complicated" except for a*holes. :victory: :mask:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?" — ucarr
    They are measures – self-organizing complexity (i.e. entropy) – of micro (quantum) events. Anyway, so what's your point?
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪universeness
    You switched-up from "macro objects" to "future events" which I should have explicitly taken issue with.

    To clarify: I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).

    More precisely, as you know, the universe is quantum (micro) and classical (macro) whereby the latter is, AFAIK, generated according to the law of large numbers (LLN) – averaging – of the former (à la Seurat's pointillism, pixellated images of LCD monitors, holograms, etc).
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Macro, not micro
    — 180 Proof

    But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not?     — universeness
    Yes. The dynamics of the latter are constrained by (the regularities-densities of) the former.

    If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?
    Yes.

    Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?
    Not yet ...
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    ↪Bob Ross
    Yes, it seems you believe that minds are dis-embodied (i.e. dis-encephalized), Bob, whereas we know that minds are embodied (i.e. encephalized). Also, as a dual-aspect monist (i.e. Spinozist) who therefore discounts panpsychism, I do not 'equate life with mind' (e.g. bacteria, etc are mindless).
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    A promise is not an ‘is that entails an ought’, for it is the obligation to fulfill one’s promises that furnishes one with a valid deductive argument for any obligation contained in the promise itself — Bob Ross
    I don't understand your objection. Consider this SEP article ...
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    Neither. I've no idea what you're talking about; do you?
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    Here's the problems I have with personhood arguments: [ ... ] — Bob Ross
    :chin:
    A seed is not a tree. A sapling is a potential tree. A pre-26th week old unviable fetus is not a person. A viable fetus aka "baby" is a potential person. — 180 Proof
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    What do you make of the following [...] — ucarr
    Non sequiturs.

    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    "Klaatu barada nikto!"
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through, — universeness
    Insofar as atheism means theism is not true and therefore theistic deities are fictions, I am "an atheist through and through", which I've stated already ..
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/789507

    ... well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be ...
    You quote my post on pandeism out of the context of its salient qualifiers:
    A woo-free speculation much more consistent with the observed universe of natural science — 180 Proof
    ... which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not. — 180 Proof
    i.e. universe = no god/s

    Anyway, at most, I'm agnostic about pandeism (which I refer to it as a speculation, and not as a belief or claim).

    If I understand this list correctly, you are positing an eternal cycle, via your numbering of events, yes? — universeness
    Yes.

    Does event 1, 'not deity' just mean the deity is no longer involved?
    As per the wiki link (that follows), "event 1" means the deity becomes the universe and therefore no longer exists as the deity until the universe ends (event 5).

    Does event 1 'Deity becomes' suggest a 'before' when deity did not exist?
    No, just the opposite (re: event 0)

    Does this list mean that you accept that a first cause with intent is likely or 'at your most speculative?'
    No. Again, just the opposite (event 1 "fluctuates until symmetry breaks" – an acausal, random, planck-vacuum event).

    Do you think the universe is fully deterministic, ...
    Macro, not micro .
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    My vague and distant impression is that

    he didn't drain the swamp,

    he didn't build the wall or make 'them' pay for it,

    didn't lock her up,

    didn't de-rust the rustbelt, transform the economy, or bring back the good old days.

    Above all, he didn't make America great again, but made it a place where drinking disinfectant is suggested as an anti-viral, and religious fundamentalism is encouraged.     — unenlightened
    :100: :up:

    Also, he didn't balance the federal budget in four years but instead increased the federal debt by over $6 trillion dollars;

    he didn't bring back jobs from China but indtead engaged in a pointless trade war that has only hurt US farmers and drove up retail consumer prices (e.g. Walmarrt);

    plus he encouraged voter suppression efforts targetting minorities throughout GOP-controlled states while losing the US House in 2018 and losing both the WH & US Senate in 2020.

    TR45H is an utter failure, complete loser & now criminal defendant in multiple federal and state jurisdictions for the rest of his miserably narcissistic, pathetic life. :mask:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816567

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367844

    @jgill @NOS4A2
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪universeness
    re: AGI, etc ...
    It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him. — Arthur C. Clarke
    At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept.
  • Deep Songs
    Quando paramucho
    mi amore de felice carathon
    Mundo paparazzi
    mi amore cicce verdi parasol
    Questo abrigado
    tantamucho que canite carousel

    (medley) 16:42
    Abbey Road, 1969 (2009 Rock Band)
    The Beatles

    :cool: "give the drummer some!" :victory: :heart:
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    ↪Benkei
    :up: I think we take (slightly) different routes to the same ethically & legally defensible destination: "pro-choice" (I prefer pro-woman).
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ↪Bob Ross
    For more context, consider this post from an old thread "An inquiry into moral facts" ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    ↪Bob Ross
    I don't think the issue is as abstrusely "complex" as you suggest above.

    From an old thread "Abortion" ...
    In my understanding: before 24-26 weeks of gestation, a human foetus lacks intact thalamocortical circutry and therefore isn't sentient (i.e. feels pain as an independent organism with the potential for learning to anticipate pain in other organisms (empathy)) – not a person, so excising it is a lumpectomy, not homicide ... — 180 Proof

    I elaborate further ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/694450
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    This is you positing ... — ucarr
    Strawman. I've made no such posit.

    This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...
    Strawman again. I've made no identity claims. 'X indistinguishable from ~X' merely implies a distinction without a difference – conceptual nonsense, not a contradiction in terms – the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer.
  • List of Definitions (An Exercise)
    ↪jorndoe
    :up: A glossary is both more and less than a dictionary, no?

    ↪Banno
    Yeah, well ... :smirk:

    What is… — Mikie
    I prefer I use the term ...

    Being
    to denote (i) a possible object, (ii) a possible version of the world or (iii) actuality (i.e. every possible version of the world).

    Awareness
    to denote attention to circumstances.

    Consciousness
    to denote being aware of awareness (i.e. attending to a state of attention and/or an act of attending); also, synonymous with mind (i.e. what sufficiently complex nervous systems do – minding).

    Thinking
    to denote reflecting on – examining, questioning – conventions or norms, givens, assumptions, biases, desires, habits, gaps in experience or knowledge or understanding, unknown unknowns, ... and prerequisites of thinking.

    Time
    to denote the metric of asymmetric, sequential changes (i.e. events); also, experiential disappearing.

    Sensation
    to denote bodily stimulation constitutive of perception.

    Perception
    to denote environmental stimulation constitutive of consciousness.

    Mind
    (See consciousness above.)

    Body
    to denote a dynamic kinetic system causally-related to other dynamic kinetic systems that rarely is also a 'conscious being' (i.e. embodied mind).

    Good
    to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of harm and dysfunction.

    Happiness
    to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of needs and/or fear.

    Justice
    to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of civil/social unfairness, harm and dysfunction.

    Truth
    to denote a zero-degree, or maximum reduction, of undecidability, error and nonsense.
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    Sorry, I can't follow your (seemingly non sequitur) responses.
  • Literary writing process
    Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them
    - Francine Prose

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Like_a_Writer     — Amity
    Thanks for mentioning this. On my purchase / borrow list. :up:

    Kindle, but I so much prefer physical books, I hardly ever use it. — Vera Mont
    :up:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ... cosmic sentience ... — ucarr
    – of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy – thus, an empty name (e.g. five-sided triangle).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Tom Storm
    More specific to "Trumpers", are you familiar with the late American philosopher Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit? (e.g. Rupert Murdoch media properties have made tens of billions (USD) on shamelessly spewing bullshit in the US & UK, for instance, since the Reagan-Thatcher era that has helped to normalize 'populist cynicism'.) Though a philosophical thesis rather than sociological examination, the essay sums up the flagrantly propagandizing state of Western political discourse – mostly, though not exclusively, reactionary – of the last few decades and rise of cable / social media. An epilogue of sorts to Sloterdijk's 'cynical reason'. Effing 'Trumpers' are made (triggered), not born; they're demogogic cultists, not policy ideologues. Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 is a stubbornly persistent symptom that, IMO, is struggling to metastasize nationally, maybe even globally. Is that alarmist hyperbole? :mask:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Reasonable questions but is it apathy and cynicism from supporters? Or do you think many of them accept the Trump narrative as true believers in a war against a corrupt 'business as usual' political process? If this phenomenon operates similarly to a cult, then it's a highly complex situation. — Tom Storm
    In 1989 I was living in Washington, DC when I'd found Peter Sloterdijk's ominous Critique of Cynical Reason (with an effing orange cover to boot, which I still have) in an used books store near the WH and read his trenchant diagnosis of the zeitgeist of the post-1918 Anglo-Euro sphere aka "populist cynicism" (i.e. postmodernity) – the return of the repressed "losers" (Nietzschean resentment). :mask:

    A brief summary ...
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Cynical_Reason

    re: @NOS4A2 et al MAGAts :point:
    "Trumpistan! Trumpistan über alles!" :shade:
  • Literary writing process
    Now I think I'm forced to learn to write from somewhere else other than my head ...

    You are marvellous. Keep on going on! — Amity
    Thanks so much for encouraging me. :flower: :hearts:
  • Literary writing process
    I'm curious what people's writing process is. Mine may be unusual.

    [ ... ]

    How do you write?     — hypericin
    Since my first bout of Covid-19 in early 2021, I have, for all practical purposes, forgotten how to write 'fiction'. I've had to relearn how to enter that headspace and stay there long enough either to put words to paper or rewrite what I've already written. I used to be a fastidious plotter and outliner from first paragraph to the last. I couldn't start without knowing the ending first. Since my second bout in late 2021,"long covid" manifests in me as chronic fatigue and persistent brain fog.

    I no longer read for pleasure or write confidently with ease. I have had to learn how to find (or receive) images which intrigue and then improvise with or around them, either singly or together, until something like a narrative takes shape. Then I have to follow that 'idea' blindly, ignoring cliches and my expections, groping for discoveries and perplexities, the more amusing the better. I don't know what I'm doing anymore with blank page; even less so when it comes to the real craft of rewriting.

    Perserverence has been mentioned – yes, that's all I've got now, mule-stubborness to finish. I rely on perserverence more now than I ever have ... to write less and less it seems. All the stories I've written since 2021, both submitted here and not, are still only first / rough drafts which need to be reworked and extended and polished and, in some instances, followed-up with companion pieces or inserted as chapters in unwritten novel(la)s. Even though I know what needs to be done, I can't do it, not yet at least. For the time being then, I perservere in conjuring up my occasional scribbles in order to have some skin-in-the-game during the round robin of readings and appreciating by TPF's community of writers.
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    Can you firstly define what you mean by “rationality” ... — Bob Ross
    It's a symbolic practice heuristically (or algorithmically) effective for controlling behavior and / or the environment despite insufficient time and/or information – IIRC, Peirce-Dewey's conception of 'rationality': practice.

    ... and, secondly, explain how and why you ground ethics in it? — Bob Ross
    I ground ethics in rationality (i.e. inferential rules/heuristic-making) because I conceive of ethics as the study of 'the how of well-being', that is, how to reduce negations of well-being. (NB: Thus, I analogize well-being (how to reduce its negation) in ethics with e.g. sustainability (how to reduce its negation) in ecology and optimal health-fitness (how to reduce its negation) in medicine.)

    Are you saying that the moral facts obliges us to posit hypothetical imperatives?
    Yes; just as medical facts and ecological facts also oblige us to ask 'how to reduce' their adverse impacts as noted above.

    If so, then what are those facts?
    Species (e.g. h. sapiens) specific functional defects – natural vulnerabilities – which cause dysfunction or worse – increase suffering – in living individuals when such defects are neglected and/or exacerbated (via e.g. deprivation). In other words, whatever harms – is bad for – our kind.

    And how are they facts (as opposed to hypothetical imperatives themselves)?
    At minimum, they (e.g. hunger, bereavement, isolation, injury) are constitutive constraints on – limits to – (our) biological functioning.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Wayfarer
    :up:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Wayfarer
    :100: x :100: :clap: (Careful, Wayf, your 'materialist bias' is beginning to show. :smirk:)
  • The Importance of Divine Hiddenness for Human Free Will and Moral Growth
    If God is anything like the ones depicted in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic doctrines, and if your proposition is correct, free will becomes impossible, as does moral growth.

    Personally, I'm picturing a parent of small children who teaches them correct behaviour by watching through a one-way mirror as they kill one another.     — Vera Mont
    :100: :lol:
  • The Current Republican Party Is A Clear and Present Danger To The United States of America
    Some (mild) 'reflections' on the last half century of a White Nationalist-Patriarchy movement – backlash to Minority & Women's Civil Rights and Non-White immigrants – in 'Murica that is manifest in today's MAGA-GOP and its cable/social media propagandists ...
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Fooloso4
    :100:

    Some people say Trump sucked Giulani's cock — Benkei
    :rofl: @NOS4A2
Home » 180 Proof