180 Proof

What emerges as fundamental are the invariances. The constraints of symmetry and then the degrees of freedom that result. — apokrisis

:chin:

I think it most plausible to consider that what we cannot introspect is 'neural', and that it is precisely it's character as non-mental that makes it impossible to introspect. — Janus

:100:

Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?

↪PoeticUniverse

:up: :up:

Do we really have free will?

Do we ~~really~~ have free will?

Free of spacetime locality (naturata)? No.
Free of situational constraints/conflicts? No.
Free of ecological-embodied execution? No.
Free of involuntary (selfish) desires/biases? No.
Free of unintended consequences (risks)? No.
Free of responsibility for uncoerced re/actions? No.
Free of coercion by other agents? TBD.

Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. — Arthur Schopenhauer

:fire:

It's not that we must avoid pains -- it's that we shouldn't be the cause of our own mental anguish; the pains aren't so bad as they stand, and the pleasures are not so alluring that we need to punish ourselves for not obtaining them. — Moliere

:up: :up:

Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?

As you stated, eudaimonia is hardly objective. — javi2541997

I don't recall stating that. In fact, I believe eudaimonia (i.e. flourishing) is objective — acquiring adaptive habits (virtues) and unlearning maladaptive habits (vices) — e.g. the Capability approach of M. Nussbaum & A. Sen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach

Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?

But my post was in direct relation to how Epicureanism was outlined by 180 Proof. And with that description I yet disagree. — javra

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1024189

Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?

↪javi2541997

https://fourphilosophies.com/epicureanism-vs-hedonism/ (re: aponia, ataraxia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics (re: disutilitarianism)

Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?

↪javra

None of your examples are the ones I gave: luxuries, excesses, wealth, power or fame (all of which cause fear of pain of losing them somehow) and therefore not "bad pleasures" per se, or "pleasures" at all.

Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?

I have not read the thread yet but ...

What are the bad pleasures according to Plato? — javi2541997

I don't know about Plato's mumbo-jumbo, but Epicurus thinks "bad pleasures" are ones which cause or increase pain (or fear (i.e. suffering)) because they are either unnecessary (e.g. luxuries, excesses) or unnatural (e.g. wealth, power, fame) in contrast to good pleasures which reduce pain (or fear (i.e. suffering)) and are simple but necessary (e.g. food, shelter, play, friendship, community). I think tranquility, not the "pleasure" (i.e. euphoria) of hedonists like the Cyrenaics, is the Epicurean (or disutilitarian) goal. :flower:

↪Gnomon

:eyes: :rofl:

Not-nothing aka "something" is, so to speak, a ripple in nothing. As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo there's always "something" (existence) too.

... a world equal to nothing is impossible

:up: I.e. nothing-ness (or total absence of possible worlds).

Do you see errors? — ucarr

I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed.

So the Real World is an "evolving structure" that has existed forever, cycling but never beginning or ending. — Gnomon

This story makes more sense – is more consistent with quantum cosmological evidence (as well as e.g. Spinoza's, Epicurus' & Laozi's spectulations) – than any of the other cosmogenic alternatives.

Does that sound like a reasonable alternative to the current scientific evidence that ~~space-time~~ [false vacuum collapse] suddenly exploded ~~from a mathematical point~~ into a complex [spacetime]?

It's not an "alternative"; (metaphorical) BBT might be just (our) observation-limit of the most recent phase-transition (i.e. symmetry-breaking event 13.81 billion years ago) in the "cycling" "evolving structure" of the universe.

Does forever causation make the Hard Problem of human consciousness irrelevant?

Well, that's a pseudo-problem at most (i.e. faux-epistemological fodder for woo-of-the-gaps idealists), so it's not even "irrelevant". :yawn:

"Existence" as such is presupposed and not proven. "Why not nothing?" As I've pointed out already, (because) nothing negates existence or prevents (its) occurrence. Besides, "the cogito" is neither sound nor a proof. In so far as existence is a brute fact (i.e. eternal and infinite ~Spinoza, Epicurus, Laozi), a 'transcendent creator deity' necessarily is nothing more than a conceptually incoherent fiction (~Feuerbach et al) living rent free in the minds of religious believers & magical thinkers. :sparkle:

However, if I am wrong (What does a pragmatic anti-supernationalist like me know anyway?), ucarr, soundly refute these three implicit points

↪180 Proof

. :chin:

"Religion is the opium of the masses" - Karl Marx.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful," - Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC–AD 65).

Most ideas that come from Abrahamic religions start with an idea that supports the belief that God exists and then uses weak logic to support it. [ ... ] Since theism rests solely on smoke, mirrors, and ~~blind~~ faith for it to work, it can be be dismissed ... — dclements

:up: :up:

At minimum, 'idealism' implies (A) that brains are 'not mind-independent' and (B) that (a priori) 'minds are substances' rather than what brains do.

↪apokrisis

Ever a drunk in recovery/reflection, I'll drink to your fact-based, autopoietic story. :up:

[C]omplexities arise in steps from that simplex; the supposed 'God' is a complexity and thus cannot be First. — PoeticUniverse

:up: :up:

:eyes: wtf ...

Formalisms are vacuous and irrelevent with respect to claims about the (non-abstract) world.

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.

Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
(1) at least one mystery
(2) created the whole of existence and
(3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in ways which are nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles").

:roll:

https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=wcp23&id=wcp23_2018_0002_0001_0025_0035

'Idealism' is not ancient. — Wayfarer

Bannings

↪Jamal

:up:

The idealists collapse epistemology and ontology [what is known is equivalent to what there is], claiming there is no substantive distinction between the two, while the materialists maintain a substantive distinction [what is known is a fraction of, or exhausted by, what there is]. — Janus

:up: :up:

I fail to see your point.

And why do you too ignore the Planck energy density that came with the radius? — apokrisis

Why do you ask?

Do you think the universe is eternal & self-existent? — Gnomon

Ockham the Barber says "Yes".

Or do you accept the Cosmological evidence indicating that Nature as-we-know-it had a ~~sudden inexplicable beginning~~ [planck radius]?

Of course.

↪apokrisis

:smirk:

Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?
— ucarr
No. Why do you ask?
— 180 Proof

Let me quote you:

God will not be completely understood.
— ucarr
X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either.
— 180 Proof — ucarr

Well, I don't see how your question is warranted by – addresses – my reply.

Comparing religious and scientific worldviews

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? — ucarr

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions..

I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it?

Incoherences and falsities.

Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises.

It only requires showing that theistic truth-claims lack sufficient truth-makers.

Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?

No. Why do you ask?

↪Truth Seeker

:up: :up:

Summary

Every major religion offers mutually exclusive [non]explanations of the universe’s origin, purpose, and future.

Science, using observation, testing, and revision, provides a consistent and independently ~~verifiable~~ [testable] picture:

Universe: 13.8 billion years old

Earth: 4.54 billion years old

Life evolved gradually through natural processes

Consciousness arises from neurological activities, not supernatural souls.

Therefore, while religious faiths differ irreconcilably in beliefs, scientific cosmology and biology converge on a single evidence-based worldview - one that continues to expand through discovery rather than divine decree.

Hence, my ~~worldview~~ is scientific, secular and vegan. — Truth Seeker

:100:

What is your ~~worldview~~?

"My ~~worldview~~" consists of (A) anti-supernatural, (B) anti-authoritarian/sectarian/utopian, and (C) anti-dogmatic commitments (i.e. constraints) ...

(2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/798898

How do you justify your ~~worldview~~?

I think 'pragmatic absurdism' (re: Laozi ... Zapffe, Camus, Rosset) best describes my day to day existential stance.

... and we [material sentients in/directly] observe that everything [materiality ~ "swirling atoms"] is active and changing. — Metaphysician Undercover

:victory: :smirk:

Math Faces God

I’m skeptical of grand narratives and the tendency to claim certainty or authority in areas where we lack real [knowledge]. When I say I am a fan of uncertainty, I refer to being content to say, "I don't [or we can't] know". — Tom Storm

:up: :up: