Comments

  • What do we know?
    ↪Torus34
    What grounds are there to believe "we are living in a simulation"? or, more precisely, to doubt that physical reality is more – other – than a simulation?
  • US Supreme Court (General Discussion)
    The court's decision on affirmative action is as surprising as its decision on abortion. [ ... ] If affirmative action is a gateway to a BA, MA, and PhD, a ton of debt, and a run-of-the-mill job (which it will be for some) the loss isn't as great as it might seem to be. — BC
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    I'm not as familiar with philosophical literature as you are, so I Googled ...
    With no formal training in Philosophy, I began from the conjunction of two modern sciences --
    My primitive understanding has evolved ...
    My personal worldview ... PanEnDeism ... rehash of outdated mind/body Dualism/Spiritualism.
    ↪Gnomon
    :eyes: :cry: :lol:
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    Non sequiturs abound.
  • The Argument from Reason
    So the question then becomes, is intelligence [adaptation] physical? — Wayfarer
    Yes.

    So, what is it that organises the elements of the periodic table in such a way as to give rise to living beings?
    Quantum computation (re: Seth Lloyd, Stephen Wolfram, David Deutsch).
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Gnomon
    :eyes: :rofl:
  • How Does Language Map onto the World?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Of course you will assume that information is physical ... — Wayfarer
    For the *Quantum Woo Crew* ...

    You're welcome, gents. :smirk:

    @Gnomon

    encore:
  • How Does Language Map onto the World?
    If we suppose that there no realist notion of language, what is it that language does when we attempt to describe reality? — Tom Storm
    Language usage orients language-users.

    (I've generally held that language is metaphorical, but then what?)
    Yep. Read George Lakoff et al.

    ... do we need a theory of language that explains how any realist claim is possible in order to accept those claims?
    Nope. (Witty's 'nonsense', re: TLP)

    If we do not employ a realist account of language (as per postmodern thinkers), what is it we can meaningfully say about this notion of 'reality' we are so fond of describing and seems to be a substitute for god?
    This depends on the language-game you're engaged in which uses the term "reality".

    ... theory of language was not possible because it falls to the self-referential paradox that it is unable to give an account of itself.

    Is this problem insurmountable or overstated?
    No. Yes. Read Witty's PI as a contextual extension (rather than critical refutation or theoretical correction) of his TLP. The latter expresses only one possible language-game (re: logical atomism) out of innumerably many other language-games suggested in the former.

    I think Hilary Lawson loses the plot – the problem of the criterion (and its ilk) arises from confusing maps with territories and then complaining that 'maps =/= territories is an intractable paradox' when it's not: in practice, a map is made by abstracting features of interest from a given territory just as language is used to discursively make explicit (e.g. problematize) the invariant, ineluctable, conditions (i.e. "reality") of their circumstance. To avoid circle-jerking p0m0 / anti-realist nonsense, language must be shown (reflectively practiced) rather than said (theorized-via-language).
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Wayfarer
    I'll take your latest non-answer as a concession to my edifying points here
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/818106 You're welcome, Wayf. :smirk:
  • The Argument from Reason
    The apparently inviolable constraints of physical laws have been transcended many times in the history of science. — Wayfarer
    Cite an instance when and where Newton's 3rd Law and/or any conservation laws "have been transcended" even once. :lol:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Discerning precisely what is meant by materialism, physicalism or naturalism can seem tricky. — Tom Storm
    They are only "tricky" for idealists like @Wayfarer who prefer to torch strawmen – mischaracterizing a speculative paradigm such as naturalism as an explanatory theory – which is far easier to do than to demonstrate that idealism is a less ad hoc, less incoherent, less subjective paradigm than naturalism, etc. Naturalism does not explain "consciousness", yet idealism – which rationalizes folk psychological concepts (often ad absurdum) – conspicuously explains "consciousness" even less so.

    And in a broader sense, many of our intellectual processes rely on immaterial entities, such as numbers, ratios, laws, and so on. Humans are situated between two worlds, so to speak - the physical world, governed by the laws of physics, but also the world of ideas and reasons, 'the space of reasons' as it has been called. — Wayfarer
    Unwarranted, question-begging, substance dualism as well as a reification / misplaced concreteness fallacy (à la platonism). Abstractions themselves do not "act upon matter" because they are not evental (or causal); rather instantiations (encoding / patterning) of abstractions (from matter) in matter act upon matter (e.g. typing on my keyboard these sentences you're reading on your screen), which refutes your dogma, sir, that "matter does not act but is only acted upon" (as if Newton's 3rd Law & conservation laws are violated, or miraculosly suspended, by "ideas"). :eyes: :roll:

    ... has anything physical passed between us? — Wayfarer
    Of course, information (i.e. instantiated patterns).
  • The Argument from Reason
    We have no knowledge or experience of any immaterial entity of process. Absent evidence, reasoned argument that such may or must exist is idle speculation and leads nowhere. — Fooloso4
    :100: :up:
  • Insect Consciousness
    Some of the materialists here get all huffy when you ask them if insects are conscious. — RogueAI
    Not "insects" per se, but entities without nervous systems (e.g. stars, rocks, cells, atoms).
  • Masculinity
    ↪T Clark
    I dispute the premise of your.question by countering it with my own.
  • The Argument from Reason
    Shall I paraphrase? — Wayfarer
    Given that I'd addressed your statement, sir, please "paraphrase" what you think, not what others think. You do think for yourself, don't you?

    @Jamal
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Wayfarer
    Let's keep things simple and clear, Wayfarer. I'm interested in your dogmatic statement about matter and have questioned you here
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/817594
    and again in my last post. Either you can answer the question I have asked or you can't. Quoting walls of other people's texts without answering my questions comes across as telling me to "fuck off". :brow:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Say if I suggested 'mind' or 'consciousness' as a hypothetical answer - — Wayfarer
    By "mind or consciousness" you're claiming, in effect, that matter is only acted upon by immateral entities or processes – is that right?
  • Masculinity
    ↪T Clark
    You mean patriarchy doesn't denote 'a disproportionate control of national governments and multi-state/national corporations (re: resource investments, allocations, accumulations, subsidies, etc) by "wealthy" members of the male gender primarily for the benefit (i.e. maintaining "traditions" of hierarchical dominance) of "wealthy & professional" members of the male gender'? :confused:
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    ↪NOS4A2
    :clap: :rofl:

    Consider again, lil MAGAt, reality on Earth One ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816567
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Janus
    :up:

    ↪Srap Tasmaner
    :up: :up:

    This is because it is my dogmatic belief that matter does not act, but is only acted upon. — Wayfarer
    If "matter does not act", then "matter" "is only acted upon" by what? Please cite an example.
  • Deep Songs

    "Feeling Good" (2:53)
    I Put A Spell On You, 1965
    writers L. Bricusse & A. Newley, 1964
    Nina Simone

    *


    "Because" (2:24)
    A cappella version (Anthology vol. 3), 1996
    writers Lennon-McCartney, 1969
    The Beatles

    *


    "Let's Get It On" (4:53)
    Let's Get It On, 1973
    writer M. Gaye & E. Townsend
    Marvin Gaye
  • James Webb Telescope
    It will be interesting to see how they fix these Six Galaxies that appear to be older than the Big Bang allows them to be, in terms of time for formation. — Manuel
    I haven't come across any evidence or learned consensus that the "Six Galaxies" are, in fact, what they appear to be. It seems more likely than not to me that they are images distorted by gravitational lensing or another spacetime phenomenon yet to be discovered in physical cosmology. 'Dark matter' and 'dark energy', respectively, seem to be much more substantiated predictions than this preliminary interpretation of 'anomalous' JWST images. :chin:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Nonreductive materialism is popular among philosophers. Which takes us back to 180 Proof’s early response, which I don’t think you’ve addressed. — Jamal
    @Wayfarer won't because he dogmatically cannot.
  • Masculinity
    Does a man and a woman have total equality under the label human or humanism, in your view? — universeness
    Maybe under the modern label of libertarian socialism there is "total equality" ...
  • Masculinity
    My earnest answer to 'what is a man or what is masculinity,' lies within the answer to 'what is a human or what is humanism.' — universeness
    In this context, terms like "human" and "humanism" seem to me about as useful as "earthling" and "geocenrrism", respectively.
  • Masculinity
    What is a real man? — Moliere
    As opposed to a "fake" man ... :confused:

    Perhaps a more probative inquiry:
    What are the functions, or duties, normatively expected of men at (this) historical moment and by (this) culture / in (this) society? And what does such an expectation 'to be a man' mean to (for) each concretely situated person?
    A socio-psychological topic, however, rather than philosophical aporia, no?
  • Pointlessness of philosophy
    Insofar as philosophy is suppositional and critical, it is not propositional or theoretical (e.g. science, history). So when did the praxis of personal reflection called-into-question by interpersonal dialectic become "pointless"?
  • Does ethics apply to thoughts?
    How you conduct yourself is what matters. There are psychopaths who are very moral people because they choose to live by an ethical code. — RogueAI
    :100:

    Does ethics apply to thoughts? Is a man evil if he has evil thoughts, and good if he has good ones? — NOS4A2
    No.
  • Masculinity
    ↪180 Proof If I'm reading you correctly you're making a hard distinction between the biological and the social in how you treat the two nouns -- a man is biologically defined, and masculinity is defined in this more psychological, spiritual, ontological, or social sense. — Moliere
    :up:
  • Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
    ↪0 thru 9
    All things being equal, we're probably fucked (e.g. anthropic climate change).

    An excerpt from a thread on "The Future"...
    In a century, civilizational collapse on a global scale – population crash to below 2 billion – due mostly to catastrophic climate instability and consisting mostly of failed states and "floating" transnational corporate enclaves. — 180 Proof
  • Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
    ↪0 thru 9
    My question suggests that civilization is inherently unstable; once they reach stability – equilibrium – they tend to (suddenly) collapse. Analogously, IMO (on geological scale), cultures are like ecological niches and civilizations are like pandemics.
  • Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
    ↪0 thru 9
    I think it's more intelligible not to conflate culture with civilization than to conflate them.
  • Masculinity
    ↪T Clark
    :up:
  • Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
    I’d offer the Australian Aborigines.
    65,000 years of continuing existence in the same place is a damn fine record.     — 0 thru 9
    For me, 0 thru 9, this example stretches the notion of 'civilization' into incoherence.
  • James Webb Telescope
    https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-could-be-a-mirage :eyes: :yikes:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Life is short, 180. — Wayfarer
    And denial is long.
  • Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
    ↪0 thru 9
    Other. :chin:

    Cite an example of a "civilization" which was not unbalanced.
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪Wayfarer
    And yet, besides a disapproving squeak, you cannot point out my error/s. :roll:
Home » 180 Proof