Comments

  • Public Displays of Mourning
    Why do you think this happens?Vera Mont
    For some, I think it's a proxy for grief in their personal lives, just like it can be easier to talk to strangers about personal troubles.

    Is it confined to a related group of cultures or is it world-wide?
    I don't know, but I suspect it's more wide-spead than not.

    Do you do this yourself - follow the procession on screen, or leave flowers and messages at the site?
    Nope.

    What do you think about the practice?
    I haven't given it much thought.

    How do you feel about it?
    Nothing expect I hope it's cathartic or helps those who need such public rituals.
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    Well, (your) mind is nonmind-dependent unless solipsism obtains (which, of course, it does not).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    "Stand back and standby!" :point: 22 years for Seditious Conspiracy, etc.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-sentenced-jan-6-attack

    Jack Smith's coming for you, Seditionist-1. 4March24 – "Be there. Will be wild!". :lol:
  • God, as Experienced, and as Metaphysical Speculation
    In a similar sense as @FrancisRay's question: how can we know that what we "experience as God" is in fact "God" (especially if "God" is not one discrete fact among all other facts)?
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    How is this not property dualism?Bob Ross
    Dual-aspect monism is ontological whereas property dualism is epistemological; I prefer the latter but I think it's more precise to characterize Spinoza by the former.

    Are you, then, a necessitarian?
    Spinoza certainly is. I'm a compatibilist and contingentarian.
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    Since I seem to be misrepresenting you, let me just ask for clarification: are you claiming that these promises are moral facts because (1) they are mind-independent (as biologically embedded into us as organisms) and (2) also obligations? Is that the idea?Bob Ross
    Yes, more or less ...

    In any group of sufferers, suffering engenders an implicit promise to reduce each other's suffering as much as possible; this implicit promise is a fact (i.e. human eusociality) and it is moral (i.e. optimizing human well-being) because it constitutes participation in soliciting help and being solicited to help reduce suffering.
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    So I am failing to see how I misrepresented you ...Bob Ross
    Well, your quote cherry-picks its emphasis (indicative of uncharitably reading me out of context again) by missing / ignoring the following...

    To suffer is also to desire help to reduce my suffering; but there are only other sufferers who can offer, and effectuate, (some) help. This desire, or need, for help, however, implicitly promises to help others to reduce their suffering. This promise is natally prior to reciprocity, contract, cooperation, etc; it's implicit, fundamental, and inheres in each of us being individual members of the same species with the same functional defects (re: physical & psychological homeostasis) which if neglected or harmed render an individual dysfunctioning or worse [...]180 Proof

    In this eusocial-existential context, the fact of suffering is not 'value-free' – it's the disvalue – and therefore Hume's guillotine does not obtain; thus, again I refer you to the following article on "promises" with my stated reasoning on moral facts* in mind:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/

    *à la ecological facts & medical facts
  • 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
    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?
    "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
    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?
    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
    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 itselfBob Ross
    I don't understand your objection. Consider this SEP article ...
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    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.

    "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 science180 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?
    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
    :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
    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
    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)
    :up: A glossary is both more and less than a dictionary, no?

    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 dominding).

    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?
    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)
    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: