What about dumb adults, or sheeple? — Punshhh

Outbreed and out-vote them.

: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:

For the US I think the optimal voting age range for federal & state elections (re: legally eligible citizens) is 30-70.

:up: :up:

Okay, so from what I can gather from what you're saying, you're using a term "consciousness" without knowing what it means or refers to, which renders your statements using the term uninformative (i.e. "consciousness is fundamental" is indistinguishable from "gk&sbrx%y is fundamental").

For example, imagine if everyone had followed the advice of Jesus two thousand years ago and continued to for generations. We would presumably be living a better life by now. — Punshhh

Specify which "advice" you're referring to – on the whole I think Jesus' teachings were not very coherent and always morally right. Also, imo, many peoples in many places before were "living a better life" than Jesus' contemporaries (e.g. hunter gatherers ... Daoists, Confucians, Epicureans, Kynics, Stoics, etc).

Yes.

Why isn't it enough just to be "connected to" or "conduit of God"? Why "channel God" and undergo some (usually abject, mortifying, self-abegnating) "transformation to an exalted state" in order to do so? In other words, why isn't this sad and happy – tragic and absurd – life, here and now, being wholly entangled in nature itself enough to "contemplate" (practice philosophy as a way of life ~P. Hadot)? After all, insofar as nature / God is infinite (à la Spinoza), each one of us belongs to infinity and is part of the infinite.

Physical science "is misapplied science"?

The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function: Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in its literal sense of non-physical. — Gnomon

So by "non-physical" you mean abstract (i.e. non-causal, time-less & space-less)? For instance, walking is what legs do & digesting is what intestines do, ergo walking & digesting are merely abstract?! :eyes:

[T]he term "metaphysical" is often construed as religious or mystical or unscientific woo-woo. The study of Meta-physics is indeed un-scientific, in that the Philosophical exploration goes beyond the empirical limits of physical Science.

A typical cognitive confusion aka "transcendental illusion" – edify yourself, Gnomon, by at least reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason ...

NB: Btw, the term "metaphysics" literally means 'the book after the books on physics' or 'after physics' (Andronicus of Rhodes, first century BC), and NOT before / beyond "the physical" or NOT before / beyond "reason". :roll:

... consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner

How do you – can we – know this is the case?

Here's a link to a famous paper on emergence "More is less" by P.W. Anderson. — T Clark

Thanks for this link.

How is "scientism" related or relevant to my last post?

First of all, the scientific worldview holds that physical processes alone, operating through natural selection and other mechanisms, are sufficient to explain the emergence of all phenomena including consciousness and reason, without requiring any overarching purpose. Of course both Nagel and Goff object to this, but the reality is that the scientific worldview has been incredibly successful in practice, while the sort of metaphysics these authors keep pushing has done absolutely nothing to advance our understanding of the world and represents, in fact, a sliding back to the Middle Ages, if not earlier.

Second, and this is an elaboration of the point I have just made, teleological explanations simply fail to provide concrete mechanisms for how cosmic purpose would actually operate in physical reality. There is truly nothing there to be seen.
— Massimo Pigliucci

So he articulates exactly the kind of positivist dogma that I have in my sights. — Wayfarer

The biologist-philosopher's statement is neither "positivist" (i.e. only fact / observation-statements are meaningful) nor "dogma" (i.e. not defeasible or fallibilistic) but aptly describes the practices-efficacies of (a-telic) modern physical sciences in contrast to pre-modern 'idealist' metaphysics (e.g. Plato-Aristotle, neoplatonists, fideists, scholastics). The latter attempts to fill the current / persistent gaps in the former with mechanism-free – mysterious – woo :sparkle: which is an appeal to ignorance rather than lucid acknowledgements that "we don't know yet". I've no doubt Pigliucci, as well as most philosophically sophisticated modern scientists, would agree that the physical sciences are applied metaphysics which actually work (i.e. reliably generate good explanations for physical phenomena and processes).

A relativist doesn’t have to deny that moral language is of use in our world: they just deny that it reflects some absolute, God’s-eye-view or Platonic realm of moral truth. — Tom Storm

:up: :up:

Okay. You can't answer my question:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752

Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence. — Patterner

How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person – what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all?

Also, if "the brain" doesn't produce "consciousness", as you say, Patterner, then what accounts for (e.g.) every amputee's phenomenon of phanthom pain?

'To be, is to compute'. — Wayfarer

Well, "to compute" ain't intention ...

The idea is that there is no non-consciousness. — Patterner

Yes, but that "idea" doesn't define (or describe it in a way that discerns it from its negation / absence): according to you, what is consciousness?

I am saying consciousness does not cease when one is in general anesthesia ... the functioning of the person's brain does not create consciousness. — Patterner

These claims are demonstrably false.

:up:

I do not equate consciousness with sapience or sentience — Patterner

Define (non-sapient, non-sentient, non-mental) "consciousness" with an example that contrasts "consciousness" with non-consciousness.

Fwiw ...

What "makes us conscious" is the (rarified) arrangements of our constituent "particles" into generative cognitive systems embedded-enactive within eco-systems of other generative systems. Afaik, all extant evidence warrants that 'consciousness' is an emergent activity (or process) of complex biological systems and not a fundamental (quantum) property like charge, spin, etc. — 180 Proof

:up: :up:

both [non-immanent] and immanent — Gnomon

i.e. Y = "not-X + X" :eyes: :roll:

I've never experienced the indwelling presence of God. — Gnomon

Fwiw, we have this in common (although I do (often) feel – embody – what Schopenhauer calls "der Wille"). :smirk:

It doesn’t follow from this though, that there isn’t a purpose. — Punshhh

Agreed, and I stipulated it's a possibility.

I can say that consciousness may be epistemically fundamental but not ontologically so. — Manuel

:up: :up:

I once had a lucid dream where I inhabited a plant, briefly. It was like my consciousness, disembodied, was moving around a landscape. At one point, I moved into a plant and could feel being the shape of the plant and the energies coursing through the xylem tubes. There were intense colours across a spectrum, it was very thrilling. Then I moved out of the plant and across the landscape again and remember looking back at the plant and wanting to be that plant again. It was like I experienced what it was like to be a plant. — Punshhh

:cool:

In a world that gives rise to observers, meaning [may or]may not be an add-on. It may[or may not] have been that it is there all along, awaiting discovery. — Wayfarer

This seems to me a genetic fallacy, sir. Given the preponderance of evidence that "observers" (e.g. subjectivities) are chance emergents, it's doubtful that "meaning" (purpose) is anything other than a (semantic) property, or artifact, of "observers" and not, as you suggest, inherent in nature. After all, (e.g. entropy, evolution, autopoiesis) direction =/= purpose, intention, or goal. However, even if the universe does have a "meaning" (purpose), then, like the universe as a whole, such a "meaning" (purpose) is humanly unknowable (Nietzsche, Camus) – merelogical necessity: part(ipant)s in a whole cannot encompass (completely know à la Gödel(?)) that whole.

The problem is precisely that 'the equation' makes no provision for the act of observation.
— Wayfarer

In my understanding, interpretations of quantum mechanics, which do not make a provision for the act of observation are just as consistent with the mathematics and observations of behavior as those that do. — T Clark

:up: :up:

Modern science[illiteracy] tells us that our world has progressed from a dimensionless mathematical Singularity — Gnomon

Once again, this claim is false.

Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. — Gnomon

Hasty generalization fallacy (re: "creation") derived from your poor physics (re: "beginning").

So, an infinite deity is proposed ...

Appeal to ignorance (i.e. "infinite deity"-of-the-gaps) AND THEREFORE a non-explanatory infinite regress.

Have you ever engaged in an Ayahuasca retreat ... with others who will understand[understood] what you are talking[talked] about? — Gnomon

Yes, and that depends on what you mean by "understand". :fire:

I.e. common sense (socialization aka "ideology") can be corrected, or coarse-grained, by science (observations + experiments) that in turn, through reflection (critique / dialectics), can be corrected, or biases exposed, by philosophy. "And so on and so on ..." :smirk:

Scientific knowledge is a superior authority, because it's the only methodology that reaches "an intellectual consensus about controversial matters... [Armstrong] concludes that it is the scientific image of man, and not the philosophical or religious or artistic or moral vision of man, that is the best clue we have to the nature of man". — Relativist

:100:

↪Wayfarer It seems to me that everything that exists is an object, so I don't see an issue. — Relativist

:up:

Why don't you answer my question?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? — Gnomon

No one here "debates" ... "God". It's just that many folks spout fallacious apologia of their preferred, effable woo (e.g. "God", "First Cause", "Intelligent Designer" ... "Programmer / Enformer", etc) which we must call-out as, at best, unwarranted (i.e. incoherent). Expressed doubt – critique – is not "debate"; besides, I've found that woo-of-the-gapsters (like you, Gnomon & ... e.g. @Wayfarer) are too chickensh*t to actually debate (about) their "God"-idea and would rather "waste time" preaching question-begging "mysteries" to us rather than defeasibly reasoning with us.

Too many non sequitors ...

Besides, as @Leontiskos points out, the burden of proof is on you – answer my question:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752

To become a conduit for the will of the divine. — Punshhh

As per Schopenhauer, how can any one/thing not always already be "a conduit for the will ..."?

:roll:
:clap: :up:

What percentage of Americans do you think are sincere God believers? — Tom Storm

I'd be surprised if it isn't more than 50% ....

You made the statement so you should answer for it: why "the goal should be equality for humans"?

The goal should be equality for humans. — MoK

Why?

... a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. — Tom Storm

I think "a conversation about God" presupposes some idea of the real which usually is neglected and remains vague (or confused).

... what some thinkers call Panpsychism:

"Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that proposes consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality". — Gnomon

You might find my contrarian view useful – from a 2022 thread Question regarding panpsychism ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/891939

Why do you think that humans cannot find peace? Why are they not wise enough to judge properly the situation, so everybody gets what they deserve? — MoK

I suppose it's because we humans are more beasts than angels – human, all too human. Besides, the player never "deserves" the hand s/he's dealt ...

"You're on Earth. There's no cure for that."
~Samuel Beckett, Endgame

I say it is healthy to be unhappy about injustice and misery and suffering even if one is not oneself so badly off. Don't mistake compassion for sickness. Do not go to your local doctor because a child is starving a thousand miles away. There is no pill that you can take that will nourish that child. — unenlightened

:fire:

Since I was diagnosed with depression, I wanted to get a philosophical approach to why people suffer from this mental state; and on the other hand, if there is another way to get through it apart from medical drugs. — javi2541997

I suspect for some people doing philosophy causes or exacerbates (subclinical) 'depression', and so taking (short? long?) periodic breaks from philosophizing (i.e. reflective inquiry-practice) such as physically demanding hobbies (e.g. carpentry, fitness training, gardening, child/elder care, etc) might help ease the intensity (re: 'being depressed' is what persistent self-doubting feels like).

I tend to think of disinterested interest as untheorised interest, a term I've often used. Untheorised means responding to something without frameworks or training, intuitively for pleasure and, I guess with disinterest - if by this we mean minus theoretical investment. — Tom Storm

I think Kant means responding to X "as an end-in-itself" (analogous to a moral subject), but I prefer your formulation.

Arguments for or against God are really arguments about what counts as a valid claim to truth. — Tom Storm

I think God-arguments in philosophy are "really" about what is the real.

And here’s the thing: how can we ground our knowledge at all?

Afaik, foundherentism works ...

... should we even care what the average believer thinks?

I never do.

I see it as a contingent product of culture and language. Most people arrive at faith through socialisation and the intersubjective agreements held by the community they grow up in. Faith is in the culture.

:up: :up:

Philosophers only like truth. — Fire Ologist

I only like philosophies of the real.

Clearly, either you didn't read / comprehend my last post (esp. the video clip) or it's just your fatuous disingenuousness wantonly on display again, sir :eyes:

Try again: read slowly (without moving your lips) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/998557

Either Laozi's Dao or Democritus-Epicurus' Void seem to me more cogent concepts of 'fundamental power to be(come)' than the Scholastics' (generic) "ground of being" insofar as they make explicit the dynamics (dialectics) of seeking balance / moderation in daily life. Also, the Hindi concept of Brahman and school of Advaita Vedanta ("Tat Tvam Asi") as a nondualistic way of life seems far less abstract and remote (i.e. non-immanent) than "ground of being".

... a desire to shape my own life through inquiry. — J

Yes :up:

:100:

It doesn't seem to me there are that many philosophical questions. Or maybe it would be better to say that what appear to be many questions are all variations and/ or elaborations on a few basic questions ... The categories of philosophy seem to show the basic questions. — Janus

:up: :up:

... some dislike science because they think it disenchants the world. Others like science because to them, on the contrary, understanding how things work makes the world more interesting and hence more not less enchanting.

:fire:

I'm asking after philosophical justifications for this aesthetic choice.

Do you think that aesthetics in philosophy is a thing? Should it be? — Moliere

For some it's (almost) a reflex or bias. In so far as "aesthetics" is inherently philosophical, whether or not one makes aesthetic choices "in philosophy" seems to presuppose (an unconscious) metaphilosophy ...

Do you have a sense of your own taste?

Yes. I'm drawn to concise, clearly written, jargon-free texts on (suffering-based / agent-based) ethics and (naturalistic) ontology.

Why are you more drawn to particular philosophers, schools, styles, or problems?

They tend to focus on aporia which align with my own speculations or reflectively throw me into question.

Is there such a thing as bad taste in philosophy? If so, what should one do if we encounter bad taste?

I find 'essentializing' any form of bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, pedophilia, superstitions, academic quarrels, etc to be in "bad taste" and I tend to name and shame the culprit.

Likewise, is there such a thing as good taste in philosophy such that it differs from "the opposite of bad"?

As a rule, I don't 'essentialize' (i.e. reify the non-instantiated or un- contextualized) and avoid vague words or slogans as much as I can.

How do you feel about your own personal aesthetic choices?

Well, they seem to work for me ...

Do you think about how to choose which philosopher to read?

Not consciously.

How do you think about others choosing different philosophers from you? Is that the sort of thing one you might be "more right about"?

To each his own. No.

I often say that belief in God (for instance) is more likely a preference for a particular type of meaning and value which attracts us, rather than the outcome of sustained reasoning. If reasoning is involved, it tends to be post hoc.

[ ... ] there is often a clear aesthetic preference for a world with foundational guarantees of beauty and certainty.

[ ... ] notions of intrinsic meaninglessness is ugly, stunted and base. And therefore, wrong. — Tom Storm

:up: :up:

The process of philosophy is more interesting to me than the results of philosophy ... Good questions and observations that force us to look at the world differently -- that's the best philosophy to me. — Moliere

:cool: :up:

Philosophy at this point for me is mostly about doing away with bad ideas, which is most of philosophy. — ChatteringMonkey

:smirk: :up: