Comments

  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    I asked you what the mind and physical are to you and you refused to answer.MoK
    What you "asked", Mok, is a red herring that lamely avoids addressing my critical objections to both your claims and how you're (mis)using "mind" and "physical" throughout this thread discussion.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    The Mind is the uncaused c[aus]e.MoK
    :roll:

    An "uncaused cause" is indistinguishable from a random event and "mind" (i.e. what sufficient complex brains do ... contra a reification fallacy of "the mind") is not random, or "uncaused".

    Experience is a separate thing.MoK
    This reification fallacy is what's confusing you. Sorry, I can't follow the rest of your post.

    The mind has non-physical properties, such as the ability to infer meaning and interpret symbols such as language and mathematics. These acts are not determined by physical causes in that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processesWayfarer
    So ... "non-physical" "ability" and "acts" are dis-embodied occurences?

    Explain "non-physical cause" (which your statement above implies counterfactually).

    that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes
    Yet ... ah, but Lord Kelvin speaks again; how dogmatic of you, sir. :smirk:

    :up:

    :up: :up:
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    That is, apart from usefulness in laying out a metaphysics, is there a truth of the matter? If there was -- if there was a correct way to conceive of existence, and/or talk about it -- how would we show this?J
    I can't discern what it is you're asking for: a conceptual definition? or a logical demonstration / mathematical proof? or a fundamental physical theory? :chin:
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    In my Epicurean-Spinozist (i.e. p-naturalist) terms: "beings" sub specie durationis are atoms of "becoming" sub specie aeternitatis void, which is why "process" (re: non-classical scale systematicity) seems rationally counterintuitive to and is often perceptually misrecognized by human "beings" (re: classical scale measurement). Imho, study Laozi-Zhuangzi (dao, taiji), Heraclitus (panta rhei, eris, "fire"), Buddha (anicca, anatta, moksha), Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius (ceaselessly swirling-swerving atoms in / of void (i.e. stasis is impossible, ergo illusory)), early Plato (Socratic method), and Spinoza (conatus (vs bondage-passions)) ... for some pre-Hegelian (non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived.
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    Things that exist I would say have real predications [sosein und sein]^ and fictions which are constructs of the mind have predications also, but those predicates are every bit the imaginary construct [sosein ohne sein]^ that the fictional object is [ ... ] The properties of "real" objects and fictional objects are not the same category of things.philosch
    :up: :up:

    Thus, we can sensibly imagine and talk about fictions (or lies).

    (à la Meinong)^
  • The Boom in Classical Education in the US
    You're mistaken. I didn't change anything; I underlined text for added emphasis.
  • The Boom in Classical Education in the US
    Anything that can improve the quality of schools should be good, but putting control in the hands of conservative ideologues strikes me as dangerous, especially these days.T Clark
    :100: :up:
  • How to define stupidity?
    I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me.unenlightened
    :up: :up:
  • The Ethics of Not Doing Drugs
    I can't say it any simpler. What's unclear to you?

    Efforts to criminalize drugs have destroyed many many lives and done a number on the countries to the South of us. Maybe it would be better to just legalize it all and addicts can do it in licensed safe spaces.RogueAI
    :up: :up:
  • How to define stupidity?
    Very often stupidity is not a failure of intelligence, it is a moral failure. Selfishness ignores the good and leads to behaviors that others find incomprehensible. As you say, intelligent people can do stupid things. This is because they use intelligence in the wrong way - they are clever. Selfishly so. Stupid behavior is often about putting the intelligence in the service of self interest, at the expense of the good.EnPassant
    :fire:
  • The Ethics of Not Doing Drugs
    I am okay with people doing drugs if I, or people I care about, are not harmedPaine
    ... or anyone other than the users themselves (either directly or indirectly as a downstream consequence).

    What is a drug, in practical terms ...?Arcane Sandwich
    Afaik, any addictive, mood/mind-altering substance e.g. (processed) sugar, nicotine, caffeine, liquor, (prescription) painkillers, etc.

    ... the Ethics of not doing drugs ...
    In disutilitarian¹ terms (of flourishing (i.e. moral good) as absence of suffering), one ought to "use drugs" in a way that prevents or reduces harm to another (and thereby oneself (re: virtue)); therefore, one ought not "use drugs" in any way that does not prevent or reduce harm to another (and thereby oneself (re: vice)).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics [1]
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to changeMoK
    Accepting that experience is real, how the experience can affect physical?MoK
    "Experience" is a feature (output?) of "mind" and mental and physical – the former either an epiphenomenon or emergent (strange loop-like) from the latter – are complementary descriptions of the manifest activities of – or ways of talking about – natural beings (i.e. property dualism¹). For example, both a stone and a human are manifestly physical but humans manifest, or exhibit, purposeful activity that we describe as mental whereas stones do not.

    A more fundamental, or metaphysical, version of property dualism is (Spinoza's) parallelism²: physical and mental are conceived of as parallel aspects of every natural being (not to be confused with panpsychism or epiphenomenalism) which do not interact causally (or in any other way) and we attribute to each natural being to the degree either or both aspects are actively exhibited.

    So whether a mental property¹ or mental aspect², it doesn't make sense to conceive of "experience" as an independent causal entity (re: Descartes' interaction problem ... disembodied mind).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism [1]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism [2]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory [2]

    Re: "experience" ...
    What is non sequiturs here?MoK
    :roll:
    I believe in De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, so no Schrodinger cat paradox, no particle-wave duality, Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is explained well, etc.MoK
    :sweat:
  • fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekend
    And thanks for all the fish.unenlightened
    :smirk:

    It must take its toll on those who have been dedicated to the site for 10yrs...
    I couldn't do it for 5 minutes.
    Amity
    Me too! :100:
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    :ok: Non sequiturs ... Whatever.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to changeMoK
    Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are invalid.

    Also, "mind" is what sufficiently complex brains do – activity / process (i.e. mind-ing) – and is not a concrete thing. "Mind(ing)" causes brains no more than 'walking causes legs' or 'digesting causes intestines'. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever of (anything like) 'disembodied mind'.

    Lastly, in nature "uncaused cause" is not unique since (e.g.) random – "uncaused" – radioactive decay causes EM static (i.e. radiation).

    NB: Read Spinoza, forget Aristotle/Aquinas.
  • fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekend
    Thanks for your dedication to the site, you will be missed. All the best.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    12February25


    SLAVA UKRAINI :strong: :fire:
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    ↪180 Proof ↪180 Proof Nice summations! :up:Janus
    Thanks!

    I was drawn to Whitehead's philosophy and struggled on and off for years to penetrate what I thought must be the sense of it, only to conclude in the end that it is pretty much vacuous, unintelligible.
    :up:

    It’s sorta hard to regard this well because @Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense.Darkneos
    :up: :up:
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions.Gnomon
    True. And yet there's a never ending bilge of pseudo-scientific "opinions" often rationalized by incorrigibly poor reasoning / bad philosophy festooned with irrelevant quotations. Lots of woo, Gnomon sir. :up: – that's 'job security' for critical forum members who happen to be literate in modern sciences and western philosophy. :cool:
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    :chin:

    I've also pointed out how "process philosophy" fails; what more needs to be "explained" that has not already been summarized ...

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    With respect to ethics, as I've stated above
    I don't think there are any "ethical implications" unique to either the naturalistic-chaotic (Dewey, Deleuze, Prigogine-Stengers) or the theistic-teleological (Whitehead, Hartshorne) versions of process philosophy.180 Proof
    Insofar as it is an a priori categorical framework (i.e. ontological paradigm), a metaphysics might constrain but does not imply an ethics, so, it seems to me, Darkneos, you're asking the wrong question – "process philosophy" is just a twentieth century (scientistic) 'metaphysics of becoming'.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    :smirk:
    :cool:

    So far no one’s been able to answer the original post.Darkneos
    How does the following fail to answer your OP?

    (p.1)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963559

    plus

    (p. 5)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/966863
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Science looks at what is, while philosophy looks at why it exists.
    @Gnomon

    Debatable
    Darkneos
    Is it though? He sounds to me patently uninformed (as you've repeatedly pointed out); after all, "why" pertains only to actual agents and not to existence and "what" pertains to descriptions, not to explanations. Much less "debatable", I (unoriginally) propose that science seeks to testably explain how states-of-affairs – physical systems – transform (e.g. hypothetical-deductions) whereas philosophy concerns reflectively making explicit the rational and/or pragmatic limits (which include describing presuppositions as well as implications or derived prescriptions) of any given explanation ... e.g. Socratic inquiries. Clearly Whitehead's "process philosophy" fails to do either well like nearly all other flavors of idealism, imo, because he attempts to do both together confusing the disciplines' distinct levels of analysis or generality.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Different histories and legal traditions 'require' different ways of addressing their respective Empires.

    Hindsight bias is completely. uninformative.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    The US Constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1788. Prior to that (1783?) the Articles of Confederation governed the (former British colonies of) 13 separate states. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was not ratified by a popular election and predates the US Constitution (i.e. founding of the Republic), and therefore, is not controlling in American law.

    edit:

    Old posts on the roots of American "fascism" ...

    (2021)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504611

    (2020)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/420051
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    America's Fascisting Around and Finding Out ...

    PSA Monday

    The real question ought to be, how did[why are] the American people get so dumb?Tzeentch
    Proudly Voting rich, Living poor since 1788!
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    United States of Kakistan
    10February25 (FAFO day 21)

    As the "deep state" is being bulldozed and replaced – with fear-muzzled, bipartisan acquience – by the Project 2025 state, I'm reminded of the world-historical power of human stupidity ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/967127
  • How to define stupidity?
    The post-2024 US election blues ...

    Addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622062

    The Five Laws of Human Stupidity
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    What happens in the dialogue between the human and the artificial [ ... ]Jack Cummins
    2020 (re: 2013) - fiction

    2025 - fashion

    "Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. "More human than human" is our motto" ~Eldon Tyrell (1982)

    :nerd:
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Spiritualism, from the evidence, appears to be nothing more than delusion.

    People [like @Gnomon] who cite the “philosophical implications” of this stuff don’t understand [modern quantum physics] well enough to do so.
    Darkneos
    :up: :up:

    But my question is about the ethical implications of it [process philosophy]
    I don't think there are any "ethical implications" unique to either the naturalistic-chaotic (Dewey, Deleuze, Prigogine-Stengers) or the theistic-teleological (Whitehead, Hartshorne) versions of process philosophy.

    Rather, as far as I can make it out, "becoming" (dynamics) is broadly conceived of as a metaphysical constraint on "being" (stasis, reification) such that, metaethically, becoming moral (via inquiry, creativity, alterity) supercedes being moral (re: dogma, normativity, totality) – and moral in the "process" sense, I guess, means Good (i.e. always striving – learning how – to treat each other (re: community & the commons) in non-zerosum/non-egocentric (i.e. dialectically holistic) ways ~my terms, not theirs).
  • Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?
    Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints.Truth Seeker
    ... and also not free of consequences. :100:
  • What are 'tautologies'?
    So, what are your thoughts about tautologies apart from the standard stuff said here?Shawn
    From Witty & co, iirc, 'tautologies' are information-free, necessary repetitions (syntax) and 'logic', constituted by tautologies and rules of inference, is a consistency metric (systematicity) that is strictly applicable to grammatical (semantic) as well as mathematical (formal) expressions. Thus, I think of logic as sets of scaffoldings for excavating knowledge from nature and/or building (new) knowledge with nature – that is, making explicit maps of the terrain (i.e. possibilities) which are constitutive of the terrain (i.e. actuality (e.g. Witty's "totality of facts")). Nonetheless, imo even more fundamental than tautologies, contradictions are a priori modal constraints on ontology (i.e. the instantiation of logic, ergo mathematics, semiosis & pragmatics (Spinoza, A. Meinong, U. Eco, Q. Meillassoux ...)) which entail 'impossible worlds', or necessary non-actuality.
  • God changes
    I assume it is true ...MoK
    Another hidden premise.

    God is by definition the creator.
    Ad hoc ...

    To make this explicit I can change P1 from "God exists", to "God exists and is the creator".
    Why not? – a third hidden premise. :roll:
  • Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?
    There's a possible world in which you did not make that OP.Banno
    Under any nondeterminist interpretation, one 'could have chosen differently', or even might not have faced the choice at all. It also works under some fully deterministic interpretations like MWI where all possible choices are made in some world.noAxioms
    The OP raises whether or not it's possible to 'change the past' of the actual world (i.e. retroactively making a choice different from the choice that already has been made); imo counterpart choices in 'parallel / possible worlds' are not relevant to the question at hand.

    So 180 Proof presumes the universe is determinate, then concludes that we cannot make choicesBanno
    My reply to the OP is consistent with compatibilism – not your strawman.

    :cool: