Comments

  • Faith
    ↪Paula Tozer
    :up:
  • Faith
    One might even argue that philosophy (if we include political ideologies) may have been been responsible for more deaths than any other pathway. — Tom Storm
    I don't think "philosophy" has been to blame for mass murders, etc so much as dogmas have (i.e. unthinking, or rationalized, obedience to authority / tradition / popularity / superstition ...)
  • To What Extent is Panpsychism an Illusion?
    For instance our senses largely point outwards, towards the world, so I am unable to see what is going on behind my eyes [ ... ] If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body [and brain] I’m sure consciousness wouldn’t be a such a mystery, and ideas like panpsychism wouldn’t even be entertained. — NOS4A2
    :up: :up:
  • Idealism in Context
    ↪Janus
    :100: :clap:
  • Idealism in Context
    I think [Berkeley] believed it to be a completely useless concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
    For him, perhaps it was; but nonetheless "matter" is very useful as a working assumption (like e.g. the uniformity of nature, mass, inertia, etc) for 'natural philosophers' then as it is now; certainly, as we know, not as "useless" of a "concept" for explaining the dynamics in and of the natural world as the good Bishop's "God" (pace Aquinas).

    ↪Apustimelogist
    ↪Apustimelogist
    :up: :up:
  • Idealism in Context
    I reject the idealism/realism dichotomy — Banno
    Yes, I agree, if only because it makes no sense to conceive of "mind" itself as merely "mind-dependent" (or in Berkeley's sense as "perceived"). Exception: "the mind of God"? – imo an unwarranted, even incoherent, assumption.

    The way I see it, the fact that we all experience the same world can be explained only by a collective mind we all participate in or an independently existing material world. We cannot know which alternative is true, the best we can do is decide which seems the more plausible. — Janus
    :up: :up:
  • Idealism in Context
    A lot of "quantum" gassing (as expected of an 'idealist/antirealist/supernaturalist' thread discussion).

    To paraphrase @Banno:

    bad philosophy –> bad science –> :sparkle: :sparkle: :eyes:
  • Idealism in Context
    ↪Wayfarer

    Not really sure what this is trying to convey. The[re] are several coherent realist perspectives on QM which don't invoke any form of collapse, such as Bohmian, Many Worlds, Stochastic mechanics and possibly others. Your response just seems to me like someone pretending that these theories, which all reproduce the correct quantum behavior, don't exist. You have clearly put yourself in an echo chamber where the only releva[nt] opinions on QM are those of subjectivists, wooists, relationalists.     — Apustimelogist
    :100:
  • To What Extent is Panpsychism an Illusion?
    To go back to fundamentals: I guess one thing you need to do is to define "consciousness", after which, you may find that the question is more easily answered. Until you do that, no answer is possible. — alan1000
    :up: :up:
  • Idealism in Context
    ↪Apustimelogist
    :up: :up:
  • To What Extent is Panpsychism an Illusion?
    The belief in objects having rudimentary consciousness goes back to animism. — Jack Cummins
    :up:

    from 2019 ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/355107
  • Idealism in Context
    As d’Espagnat famously observed[assumed], quantum physics suggests that “reality is not wholly real” in the classical sense presupposed by scientific realism. — Wayfarer
    Perhaps, as "Schrödinger Cat" as well as e.g. Einstein, Popper, Hawking, Penrose, Deutsch et al suggest, "quantum physics" provides an extremely precise yet mathematically incomplete model of "reality" – how does quantum measurement happen? – that is (epistemically?) inconsistent with classical scale scientific realism (re: definite un/observables / locality). I suspect, 'absent solving 'the measurement problem', physicists like d’Espagnat make a metaphysical Mind-of-the-gaps faux pas.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Ya, right, "I'm projecting." — Sam26
    :up:

    ↪bert1
    Yes, I forgot ...
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    P1: Extensive Testimonial Database - Millions of individuals across documented medical settings report near-death experiences involving conscious awareness during verified clinical death (estimated 400-800 million cases globally, with over 4,000 detailed firsthand accounts in academic databases). — Sam26
    • Evidence of those "millions of individuals"?

    • "Estimated 400-800 million cases" how and by whom?

    • "Over 4,000" is a three-five orders of magnitude smaller sample than the alleged "millions" and consists of highly unreliable¹ "first hand accounts" instead of objective corroboration by controlled experiments – what about scientific evidence?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony#Reliability [1]

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260108004012 [1]

    For me, until the questions above are satisfactorily addressed, the first premise (P1) is, at best, incoherent and, therefore, your inductive argument is not sound very weak (i.e. not credible).

    P4: Objective Verification Protocol - A substantial subset of cases includes independently corroborated details ...
    • Lacking controlled experiments?

    For me, the fourth premise (P4) is incoherent and, therefore, your inductive argument is not sound very weak (i.e. not credible).

    P5: Optimal Testimonial Conditions - Reports satisfy established criteria for reliable testimony: immediate temporal proximity to events, firsthand rather than hearsay accounts, credible sources without apparent ulterior motives, and systematic documentation by medical professionals and researchers.
    Nonsense ... (see both links below P1).

    @Philosophim Your critique of my work reflects a surprisingly limited and elitist perspective on philosophy, misrepresenting ... — Sam26
    You're projecting again, Sam.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    the inductive argument. — Sam26
    Hume? Keynes? Popper? ...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#Formulation_of_the_problem
  • Language of philosophy. The problem of understanding being
    Philosophy deals not with an object, but with its concept. And since philosophy speaks about the world .. — Astorre
    This is confusing. Maybe you mean 'philosophy speaks about the concept of world'?
  • How do you think the soul works?
    I am not sure that the idea of spirit can be disregarded completely in thinking about the idea of soul. — Jack Cummins
    Like Spinoza, I "disregard" body-mind (i.e. matter-spirit) substance duality. Conatus is inherent in nature – this worldly – ontologically immanent (Deleuze).

    Hegel saw spirit as being imminent in history and in his understanding of 'mind'.
    By geist, Hegel means 'cultural and social development, or process, of humanity's self-consciousness' (e.g. weltgeist ... volkgeist ... zeitgeist).
  • How do you think the soul works?
    ↪Null Noir
    I think the primeval idea of "soul" is most rationally conceived of as conatus¹, even though the latter is, like life itself, impersonal and ontological-immanent (re: natura) whereas the former tends to be personal yet spiritual-transcendent (re: supernatura).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus#In_Spinoza's_philosophy [1]
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    ↪Philosophim
    :100:

    ↪Philosophim
    :up: :up:

    @Sam26
  • Artificial Intelligence and the Ground of Reason
    ↪MoK
    :up:

    Returning to the ideas of Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, AI is deprived of temporality and finitude, it is deprived of living experience. Today it is a complex algorithmic calculator. — Astorre
    :up: :up:

    the nonsensical idea of a theory of everything, which is the idea that the universe is infinitely compressible into finite syntax — sime
    :fire:

    Vincent J. Carchidi, “Rescuing Mind from the Machines”(link)

    This essay, published in Philosophy Now ...     — Wayfarer
    Thanks for this. :up:

    https://philosophynow.org/issues/168/Rescuing_Mind_from_the_Machines
  • The Problem of Affirmation of Life
    Life is one of the most complex and concentrated existences the universe contains. It is a set of chemical reactions that does not merely burn out, but seeks to renew itself for as long as possible. And as such we, life, make the world into something so much more existent than it would be had we all remained inert carbon. — Philosophim
    :up: :up:

    How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails? — kirillov
    Only some statements "can be justified" (e.g. by how things happen to be) and not facts such as "suffering". As Epicurus points out: one's actions (i.e habits) can either increase or decrease (or both) one's own suffering and/or suffering of others. "The meaning of life"– its value or "justification" (if there is such a thing) – as Nietzsche says, belongs to the world, or nature as a whole, and not to any one of us who suffers. We are beings-in-question (from suffering), so how each being answers individually and communally (for suffering) is what matters first and foremost; thus, courage (contra hope (or despair)) is the 'foundation' of all other virtues (i.e. habits which decrease suffering). Amor fati. :death: :flower:
  • On Purpose
    "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good" [WOO]. So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural [WOO], in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. — Gnomon
    :sweat: i.e. WOO-of-the-gaps (from ... appeal to ignorance)

    NB: bad philosophy –> bad physics –> :sparkle:
  • The Question of Causation
    It is a mistake of category to believe that 'mental' is divorced from physical reality. — Philosophim
    :100:
  • On Purpose
    Perhaps - but, ironically, the whole question of the mind-independence of the fundamental aspects of nature has been thrown into question by this objective process. — Wayfarer
    If so, then it is not an "objective (mind-independent) process"; otherwise, "thrown into question" is only subjective (i.e. a mere interpretation). Scientific realism (à la Deutsch)** – contra "shut up and calculate" instrumentalism / positivism – makes more sense (and is more parsimonious) to me.

    **bad philosophy –> bad physics –> woo :sparkle:
  • What are the philosophical perspectives on depression?
    Our emotional state is usually in reference to what our expectations are. So, if you want to have the maximally positive emotional state, it is rational to lower your expectations to the minimum. I think a lot of misery in life comes from having high expectations which are not met. — Brendan Golledge
    :up: :up:
  • The End of Woke
    Wokism is just a collection of leftist overreactions and eccentricities. That's the actual punchline. — ssu
    :smirk:
  • The Christian narrative
    When you hamstring God by saying, "well, it might be metaphysically impossible for God to do that", you're making God sound very impotent. I get why Christians like Leibniz do that, but it's a very weak ad hoc move. Prima facie, this is obviously not the best of all possible worlds. — RogueAI
    :up: :up:

    ↪RogueAI
    :smirk:
  • Why Religions Fail
    In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed.
    — Art48

    I hope that helps.     — Art48
    Not really. I think "religions disagree" because they seek answers which rationalize or are permissible in accordance with prior conclusions (dogmas). To the degree different religions share prior conclusions, it seems their questions tend to converge on similar (or equivalent) "truths", and vice versa.
  • The End of Woke
    ↪Number2018
    :up:
  • The Christian narrative
    You can't pardon the person that victimized you and be just: that would be mercy at the expense of justice — Bob Ross
    Your 'theory of jurisprudence', Bob, has nothing to do with the Christian metaphysics (magic) of "blood sacrifice" used vicariously to forgive ancestral "sin" – bronze Age sanguinary nonsense (re: e.g. "John 3:16" ... "1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4, 14, 17" ... The Nicene Creed). :mask:
  • The End of Woke
    ↪Number2018
    My post-Marxist political stance is Old Left, or prioritizing the economic justice movement (e.g. democratizing workplaces, management & ownership) over social justice-identity politics aka "woke" policies such that the latter are historically situated, or grounded, by the former. Outside or in lieu of the movement – especially during the last half-century of Thatcher-Reagan neoliberal globalization – "wokeness" (like p0m0 discourse) has become reactionary to the degree it has failed to propose coherent alternatives to and practical resistance against populist support for rightwing, illiberal regimes.
  • The Christian narrative
    Presumably there is a theology that explains[EXCUSES] all this...
    — Banno

    Theology can explain[EXCUSE] anything...     — Tom Storm
    Theology is not philosophy.

    Theology starts with a conclusion, and seeks to explain how it fits in with how things are. It seeks to make a given doctrine consistent.

    Philosophy starts with how things are and looks for a consistent explanation.

    Theology can't say "That's inconsistent", and so eventually has to rely instead on mystery.     — Banno
    Each biblical reference here supports the methodological point that theology presupposes its conclusion. — Banno
    :100:

    ... the idea of God's sacrifice. — Bob Ross
    This "idea" is just a myth ... since, after all, it doesn't make any sense to say an 'Absolute, Eternal Creator' can "sacrifice" (i.e. suffer a permanent loss of) anything.

    [W]hat is at stake is not rational.

    It's why the replies from believers consist mostly of repeating doctrine rather than responding to the inconsistency. [ ... ] When face[d] with the profound, inexpressible, existential mystery, the rational response is I don't know.

    But silence is difficult.     — Banno
    :up: :up:

    The Catholic Church [Christian myth à la St. Paul, St. Augustine] teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die (people saw him walking around three days later), and most people didn't get saved. — frank
    :pray: :smirk: Amen – sixteen centuries of canonical nonsense.

    I was talking about legitimate debt. Are you suggesting that the idea of sin is illegitimate? — Bob Ross
    Imagine that you knew someone [mortals] was in debt to you [God] so much money that they [mortals] never could pay it back. — Bob Ross
    It's a "debt" so great that God could not forgive it without "human sacrifice"? :roll:

    According to Christianity, when you sin you offend God and you cannot repay that sin; so God, out of love, offered Himself to repay that debt so that you can repent.
    A "God" whose "love" is so shallow that it's easily "offended" and requires mortals to "repent" ... Mortals are set up only to "Fall", we're "created" sick and yet "commanded" to be well (C. Hitchens); IMHO, this "divine" extortion-"Plan" is not all-benevolent and therefore not worthy of worship (re: faith).

    ↪Bob Ross
    The act of torturing yourself or others is evil[or stupid].     — MoK
    :up:

    ↪frank
    :fire:
  • Why Religions Fail
    ↪Art48
    ... "the truth" about what?
  • On Purpose
    [ ... ] Meaning that the stark object-subject divide that characterised modern thought is now being challenged by science itself. — Wayfarer
    And yet, no doubt, this "being challenged by science" is an objective process. :zip:
    .
  • On Purpose
    The idea that the universe is purposeless is a modern invention, arising in the early modern period ... — Wayfarer
    Greek atomists proposed this "idea" a couple of millennia ago.

    That is briefly described in the OP under the heading of ‘The Great Abstraction’ — which is precisely what it was.
    :chin: So what was Platonism (re: the forms, universals) if not a "great abstraction"? or Pythagoreanism?

    ↪Janus
    :up: :up:
  • On Purpose
    we don't know anything transcendent, and this is so by mere definition. — Janus
    :up:

    ↪Janus
    ... i.e. a composition fallacy.
  • On Purpose
    If life has a meaning beyond mere survival it consists in the volition to thrive [ ... ] If there is a good we all strive for it is potence. Potence is naturally desirable (considered good) and impotence is naturally undesirable (considered bad). — Janus
    :fire:

    The idea of a transcendent meaning is incoherent ...
    ... like e.g. disembodied mind.

    All meaning is immanent and relative to life as lived.
    :100:
  • The Christian narrative
    Did you ever try to accept it without understanding it? — frank
    Of course not, there aren't any compelling reasons (other than wishful thinking / childish habit) to do so.

    As the song says "If you believe in things / that you don't understand / then you suffer / Superstition ain't the way!" :victory: :naughty:
  • The Christian narrative
    How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this? — frank
    My high school Jesuit teachers had advised me to pray for the Grace to accept (without comprehending) the sacred Mysteries. Well, I couldn't lobotomize myself and thereby permanently gave up God – the zombie rabbi on a stick – "for Lent" (i.e. eliminated supernaturalia from my ontology aka "magical thinking") forty-five years ago.
  • UK Voting Age Reduced to 16
    What about dumb adults, or sheeple? — Punshhh
    Outbreed and out-vote them.

    ↪I like sushi
    :up: :up:

    We all know we are all stupid, and stupider still when younger. Why fan the flames of political ignorance? — I like sushi
    So true. :smirk:
Home » 180 Proof