Comments

  • Philosophy is for questioning religion
    ↪wonderer1
    :up:

    For the religious, IME, philosophy is a rope around their necks more often than a way to pull themselves out of themselves. Thinking for oneself, like courage, is much much harder for most than ritualized make-believe (i.e. false hope).
  • The matriarchy
    Would society be better off as a matriarchy? — Benj96
    A scarcity-driven society? No. A post-scarcity society? N/A
  • The Debt Ceiling Issue
    The Dems + 5 or more Repubs will force a vote in the US House and they will pass a bill to raise the Debt Ceiling. The US Senate will pass that bill within 24 hours, and then the Congress will recess for Memorial Day. McCarthy will still be the Speaker for a while longer and POTUS will sign the law by the first of June. US Federal Budget negotiations to resume in earnest in the Fall. The sky isn't falling – even though Federal Indictments of Putin's Bitch seem imminent followed by Fulton County, Georgia Indictments in July/August. :party:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    What are you talking about?
  • Philosophy is for questioning religion
    "Cosmic purpose?"

    If there is one, I think it's an inexorable and ubiquitous process like gravity: whether or not we "know" it, we cannot not fulfill this "purpose" because we are infinitesmal, ephemeral constituents of the cosmos. As the cosmos goes, so we go necessarily. :point:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    settled science — Wayfarer
    What's that? :roll:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    :up:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    Good luck with reading Metzinger when you get around to it. My point of mentioning his work is that it disproves your assertion that "there is no scientific account of the unity of subjective experience". Whether or not it's correct is another issue altogether.

    Btw, I'm not going to "explain" anything science related to you – especially re: cognitive science – given your repeatedly demonstrated misunderstandings of modern natural science as somehow, you quixotically believe, corroborate your idealist-mystical (i.e. supernaturalist) worldview. I dispute your claims with actual facts or sound arguments when I can and let our disagreements stand for others to interpret.
  • Why Monism?
    ↪Janus
    :up:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    Their remains no scientific account of which neural systems are able to generate the subjective unity of experience. — Wayfarer
    On the contrary, sir – for example, (my preferred "scientific account") Being No One (or its non-technical synopsis The Ego Tunnel) by the neuroscientist, philosopher & (afaik) practicing Buddhist Thomas Metzinger. I'm sure I've cited him and his works many times in our exchanges over the years, but apparently you're still incorrigibly stuck on your 'idealist' dogma. :sparkle:
  • Why Monism?
    For example, ↪180 Proof has made his implicit emotional reaction explicit, as in the post above: "@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential." — Gnomon
    Your silly projections aside, Gnomon: given that X is "immaterial" (i.e. not instantiable), what (non-trivial) difference does this X make (i.e. how is X consequential)? :chin:
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    If one reduces themselves to physical harm towards those that wish to do physical harm, then are we really any better? — Benj96
    Maybe not, but we can refuse to be worse by doing nothing to stop those a*holes from harming anyone. Watch out for that pacifistic false equivalence, Benj – it has only ever encouraged bullies, segregationists & fascists.
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Philosophim
    :up:
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    ↪T Clark
    I don't respect misogynists or those who defend them.
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    ↪ChatteringMonkey
    :up:

    ↪Benj96
    Yeah, big fat tongue in my cheek ... but I am intolerant of the intolerant (even antisocial with regard to the antisocial), what I call 'responsible freedom' (i.e. engagée). IMO, radicalized violent misogynists / racists / fascists ought not to be coddled or excused, medicalized or given any quarter whatsoever.
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    How would one go about defusing that? — Benj96
    In 180 Proof's utopia, we'd castrate and/or lobotomize incels. Or maybe, less invasively, heavily medicate the shits with opiods & sedatives. I suppose the more bleeding-heart lefty factions would advocate for the least fiscally responsible solution: AI-Companions (age & body type-specified gynoids / androids à la "pleasure model Replicants"). However, like porn, even fully immersive VR "sex-on-demand" likely won't scratch the incel's misogynistic itch for long. :strong: :shade:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    This is exactly why dualism is called for. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes, property dualism (or reflexive monism) but not unparsimonious substance dualism.

    ↪Christoffer
    :fire:
  • About Freedom of Choice
    Either there is no "free will" or there is no "God" or there is neither; therefore, there is no problem of reconciling "free will" with "God". — 180 Proof
    What? But suppose there is both "free will" and "God"? Then "God" allows time to branch-off human time (i.e. futurity) from "His" eternity whenever we act – our gate infinitely widens but for us "His" narrow gate becomes infinitesmal. :naughty:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    No it [immaterialism] does not entail solipsism. — Bob Ross
    Well, Bob, this is how I see it:

    If one only "knows" ideas because there are only ideas, and if ideas are properties of minds, and if each mind is an idea, then all minds are properties of each mind or, in effect, one mind. QED. — immaterialism, ergo solipsism
    This is just like pixels in a hologram each of which containing all of the information that constitutes the hologram (à la Leibniz's monads).
  • Why Monism?
    ↪Janus
    :fire:

    @Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential.
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    Thus, we cannot know whether or not this "transcendental" (subject / mind) is anything more than a convenient fiction (i.e. confabulation)? :roll:
  • Name for a school of thought regarding religious diversity?
    ↪Hallucinogen
    :roll: Words used in a theory doesn't mean that those words are theories.
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ... transcendental in the Kantian sense. — Wayfarer
    So is this "transcendental" conception of 'mind-dependence' also mind-dependent? :chin:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    We can form no meaningful idea of what exists in the absence of the order that the mind brings to reality. — Wayfarer
    So a starlight, for example, from distant galaxies (or the CMB) that predates by millions (or billions) of years the human species – it's capability of "mind" – is not a "meaningful idea" or a "real" (mind-invariant) referent?
  • Do People Value the Truth?
    It's a survival machine. In order to survive, it [a brain] requires information; it must construct a mental model of its world.
    — Vera Mont

    I think this opinion is wrong. The desire to believe, to know, and understand, is not based in what is needed to survive.     — Metaphysician Undercover
    :lol:
  • Name for a school of thought regarding religious diversity?
    ↪Hallucinogen
    And your point is –?
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    Pansychism [ ... ] matter is fundamental but that matter is conscious, whereas analytic idealism is the view that mind (i.e., consciousness) is fundamental ... — Bob Ross
    I see. You're advocating immaterialism (which entails solipsism), not (just) panpsychism.
  • Philosophy is for questioning religion
    Interesting how nature, once 'the created', is now imbued with the power of creating itself. — Wayfarer
    Only in (primitive) 'creationist'-based cultures; however, not so according to Brahmins or Daoists (or, for that matter, either classical atomists or Spinozists) for whom nature itself is eternally naturing (à la autpoiesis).
  • Does the future affect the past?
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    Under analytical idealism, the entirety of reality is fundamentally mind and is thusly conscious: not just animals. — Bob Ross
    Analytical Idealism is not a form of pansychism. Furthermore, could you please elaborate on why you think such? — Bob Ross
    Explain why you have not just contradicted yourself, Bob. Thanks.
  • Why Monism?
    ... to hold an imaginary ... — Mark Nyquist
    Okay, a step away from talk of the "immaterial" to the "imaginary" is progress. But how do you "hold an imaginary" X? A map of Middle Earth, for example, is instantiated on actual paper, but that map does not correspond to an actual place.
  • Why Monism?
    ... contained in my brain as an immaterial representation ... — Mark Nyquist
    This confuses me. Please clarify how an "immaterial" Y is "contained in" a material Z.

    ↪180 Proof If you are a monist ... — Mark Nyquist
    I am an emergentist (re: holism), not "monist" (dualist or pluralist).
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    The physical world is representation, not the thing itself. — schopenhauer1
    Suppose "representation" is the "thing in itself" (just as the tip of an iceberg is also an iceberg) ...
  • Why Monism?
    You could observe me in either of these states, but you would not be able to know for sure whether I was conscious of what I was looking at, at the time. — Janus
    Using proper brain scans and algorithms one could easily observe your real-time un/conscious-states.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119943/
  • Why Monism?
    Where do you sit on the notion that maths is Platonic? — Tom Storm
    Numbers are abstract objects (or structures) which are real only in so far as they are physically instantiable. I guess this view makes me more Aristotlean (hylomorphic) than Platonic-Pythagorean (supersensible).

    Would mathematical Platonism quality as immaterial?
    Yes; ergo, IMO, a fiction.
  • Name for a school of thought regarding religious diversity?
    ↪Hallucinogen
    Sure. That mis/use, however, doesn't make atheism itself a theory.
  • Why Monism?
    On the other hand, if we each know from experience that we are conscious, then it must also be observable in another sense, the difference being that this other kind of observation is not publicly confirmable. — Janus
    Human babies develop a 'theory of mind' that is strongly correlated to their "publicly confirmable" observations of others' behaviors. As for one's own "consciousness", or subjectivity, I think it is only assumed and not observed (any more than an eye sees itself seeing). My "publicly confirmable" behavior strongly correlates to others' 'theory of mind' as applied to me (and one another) and, on the basis of the persistent circumstantial evidence, I don't have any observational grounds to doubt or disbelieve that I am (at least, occasionally) "conscious". Do you? As far as I'm concerned, 'eliminativism' is only a research paradigm which treats "consciousness" as a counterintuitive "user-illusion" that deconstructs the incorrigible basis – "conscious" – of our folk psychology (i.e. practical woo) in order to publicly investigate (an) objective physical structure of subjective information processing (i.e. experience).
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    My answer to you asking the question* would be that it is not the chemicals, but the loss of the chemicals being arranged grandma-ishly that I am mourning, because I really liked the effect of the chemicals being arranged grandma-ishly. — wonderer1
    :cool: :up:
  • About Freedom of Choice
    Either there is no "free will" or there is no "God" or there is neither; therefore, there is no problem of reconciling "free will" with "God".
  • Philosophy is for questioning religion
    ↪Jamal
    :up:
Home » 180 Proof