erious question - Do music and visual art "support an independent metaphysics?" — T Clark

Maybe yes, maybe not, it is difficult to say, because a concept like "metaphysics" which encompasses many other ideas, to be authentic, would need to contain some ideal that is no longer found in the generic metaphysical perception.

Personally, I believe that every essence that constitutes "aesthetic perception" and "art", is nothing more than the method that we - beings in a conscious existence - find to project unto this existence, something that is still not comprehended - emotions.

What is "beautiful" is only "beautiful" because such an object of worship projects into existence, the substance of the concept of aesthetics - like music, poetry and visual art, for example -.

What is metaphysics in this context? If the discussion is to be whether poetry have it or not, then we - I - need to know. Anyone? — tim wood

"The world of the hidden ideas of poetry"

I think that poetry, or poesis, is a different way of viewing the world and, in many ways, is more about intuition than logic. It also is about language to capture images and it could be seen like painting In words. — Jack Cummins

The point precisely quoted in your passage, and which is the same subject of my inquiry, is "if poetry contains an authentic metaphysics, how can it be evidenced?", since, if the argument that "yes , the concept of "Poetry" includes a metaphysical substance", why the "method" by which the substance is evidenced, becomes indifferent to the analysis of the poetic text itself - if done through mystic language, such as Ismail I, Selim I, etc... -?

"Poetry" and its "individual metaphysical ideal", in a way, can only be discovered through the indirect and non-objective analysis of it, since, being a concept completely supported by the subjectivity of human emotions - in this regard, " aesthetics" -, a scientific and "mathematical" analysis would not result in absolute results, as there are none.

I am very interested in the philosophy of Hegel, but I think that he is rather rejected within many circles of philosophy. I have began reading his 'Phenomenology of Mind', which is, of course, so different from the ideas of phenomenology as understood by many thinkers. — Jack Cummins

The "inteligentia" is lost during the construction of Hegel's dialectical thought of perception of reality, and they end up giving up or even, in the most decadent of cases, categorizing him as a "metaphysical romantic".

Hegel's idea is the structuring of a conception through dialectics, which comprises and sustains an answer to the "Reason" - or spirit, as Hegel would prefer - of existence, and as incredible as it may seem, most of his "scholars" - for over 200 years - still question whether "History" is the conclusion Hegel reaches at the end of his work...

duality. — Jack Cummins

You might understand the concept of "duality" as completely mystical and even "theological" - and in short, with some reason, as the concept was developed in its long history, by Man's subconscious need to justify his momentary acts, and completely unjustifiable acts, of complete irrational insanity - however, my perception of such a concept is based on a dialectical metaphysical understanding of Egoism - therefore existentialist - perception of the individual as a Being, therefore, for me, Man is comprehended by reason and irrationality, and the harmonization of both parts, makes peaks of prosperity reach the species, however, only with individual purpose, such a dichotomy can be consciously controlled and manipulated.

"A boat can only sink if the knowledge of its ideal past and its non-ideal present are projected to the future of existence through the purpose of preventing it from sinking, just as Man can only be rational/irrational if he is aware of his own past and present, and empower both as purpose for the future."

Would you push the bar further up? Attain more. Buy more. Achieve more. Do more be more. — Benj96

The only absolute truth of humanity is that "it - humanity - will only be fully realised, when it becomes the purpose and end of its own aspirations".

In resume:

When - and only when - Humanity = Ontology (Existence), that we'll have attained, bought, achieved, and did everything that we could possible want.

Until then, only angst...

I think you must be referring to some other Ciceronianus, unknown to me. — Ciceronianus the White

We can discern and discover that we speak of the same person by the indirect evidence of his - aka, your - belief in a "substantive intrinsically law".

Any correspondence between the Law and the Good is surely coincidental... — Banno

:ok:

Law is not synonym with Good.

Indeed we favor those laws which protect our - individual - moral principles; This same principles govern how the individual behaves and how its own consequence behaves - that which is Society -.

Your - Ciceronianus's - perception of "Law" as being something which is found in an "Absolute Truth" is erroneous, because "Law" is not something intrinsically real, but instead, artificially created.

"For everyone in the forum, including myself"

One thing that I fear may happen is a gradual spread into widespread poverty, in the aftermath of the pandemic, alongside a general move towards totalitarianism. The two could almost exist alongside one another. But, it is hard to know what is going to happen, because life is so unpredictable and we don't want what other events are going to take place in the world. We can fear one thing, and something else entirely happens. — Jack Cummins

Contemporary - Western - society has reached a point, through the use of mass freedom, of wealth, that this same prosperity is hurt by the freedom of the individuals.

As I said and continue to say:

"Contemporary Western society does not need a thriving and growing economy with a pluralistic and individualistic population; it needs a stratified and economically stable society for the Status Quo to remain indefinitely."

The mistake of most "intellectuals" is to believe that the "collapse" will be characterized by "darkness", "explicit totalitarianism", and "perpetual wars".

Remember: - People living during the collapse of Roman society characterized it as being "democratic", "evolved" and "civilized". The "Rex" - King - was the head of the "Res publica" - Republic - even if it contradicts itself. Perpetual war was called "Restoratio" - Restorarion - and even though Rome had fallen from a metropolis with almost 2 million people in 117 AD to a mere village of 50.000 in 600 AD, and although its urban landscape was 80% destroyed, its population miserable, public rape was normal, barbarians walked in its streets fully armed, etc..., it was still called "Civitatis et Cultura" - The City of Culture -.

"Bad times" are made worse because those who create it believe - doublethink - that they are making the world better.

How great does the arrogance of a current individual have to be, to believe that his society, which has been the same system for more than 4,000 years, will not collapse in the same way that it had previously fallen?

The biological crisis is total BS, the political crisis is business as usual, and the economic crisis has been simmering in the cauldron for decades. — synthesis

Unfortunately, this is the mentality of those who will be the first to despair when the collapse really arrives.

I do not believe that we are on the verge of collapse, but very close - equivalent to Honorius's government - 393 AD to 423 AD - close, but not to the point that ordinary people can perceive it - -.

go with it. — synthesis

Don't go with it.

I am aware that that most people on this site are not in England, and I don't know how the future will differ, but I am wondering about life in the post Covid world will be. My biggest worry is that the pandemic will be used as a way of ushering in changes of a totalitarian nature Will it be a pathway to a life of endless restrictions and control? — Jack Cummins

Through the legitimacy of a crisis, be it biological, political or economic, the justifications for an advance of stratification, and therefore, of "totalitarianism" are transformed into agendas that claim to promote "progress", "evolution" and even the "restructuring of society".

Nothing more than a new civilizing cycle concluding again.

And again I say, we should look to the past and look for answers in the Roman civilization so that the same situation that afflicted them, does not completely conquer us.

"One of the most profound and lasting effects of the Crisis of the Third Century was the disruption of Rome's extensive internal trade network:

Along these roads passed an ever-increasing traffic, not only of troops and officials but of traders, merchandise and even tourists. An interchange of goods between the various provinces rapidly developed, which soon reached a scale unprecedented in the previous history and not repeated until a few centuries ago. Metals mined in the uplands of Western Europe, hides, fleeces, and livestock from the pastoral districts of Britain, Spain, and the shores of the Black Sea, wine and oil from Provence and Aquitaine, timber, pitch and wax from South Russia and northern Anatolia, dried fruits from Syria, marble from the Aegean coasts, and - most important of all - grain from the wheat-growing districts of North Africa, Egypt, and the Danube Valley for the needs of the great cities; all these commodities, under the influence of a highly organized system of transport and marketing, moved freely from one corner of the Empire to the other.

With the onset of the Crisis of the Third Century, however, this vast internal trade network broke down. The widespread civil unrest made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult with the debased currency. This produced profound changes that, in many ways, foreshadowed the very decentralized economic character of the coming Middle Ages.

Large landowners, no longer able to successfully export their crops over long distances, began producing food for subsistence and local barter. Rather than import manufactured goods from the empire's great urban areas, they began to manufacture many goods locally, often on their own estates, thus beginning the self-sufficient "house economy" that would become commonplace in later centuries, reaching its final form in the manorialism of the Middle Ages. The common, free people of the Roman cities, meanwhile, began to move out into the countryside in search of food and better protection. Meanwhile, the emperor's court was in Mediolanum writting about the great peace and prosperity of the Roman State:

The history of the empire before the tetrarchy was a time of civil war, savage despotism, and imperial collapse! Diocletian and his companions, the "restorers of the whole world", men who succeeded in "defeating the nations of the barbarians, and confirming the tranquility of their world". "

Fake news, paranoia, collapse of the economic system, decay of the republican principles, polarization, plague, stratification, etc...

The biological crises is already happening, the political crisis is the norm, and the economic crisis in under its way. How long until we find ourselves in the new "Dark Ages"?

And when I read your post I "imagine your voice", or so shiver my brain as to invite that modern rationalisation. Any rationalising is potentially disturbing. I can easily "hear" a chorus of competing drafts (more or less deranged) of each new sub-vocal thought. The more vivid the more deprived of sleep, I have to say. — bongo fury

What if, the perception of this "voice" as being "yours" was not conceived by the ancients due to their moral, cultural and social limitations, along with the intrinsic foundation of their society's on mythology?

It is no coincidence that there are so many records from the Bronze Age where people describe "conscious" conversations between themselves and the Gods. There was no mortal perception without the grace - in this case, command - aka voices - - of the divine.

Romme worked with a particular woman, Patsy Hage, a voice hearer, who contributed to Romme's writing. The writer of the article summarises how Patsy Hage,
'found it remarkable how similar the gods were to the voices she heard. They dispensed threats and orders, they bullied and mocked, they provided comfort and advice. The gods were always obeyed, just as she and other voice-hearers often obeyed their voices, finding it hard to know where the voices ended and their true selves began. "We voice-hearers are probably living in the wrong era," she concluded.

Apart from the article, I think another area relevant to your discussion is the way in which hallucinogenics can trigger voices. When I experimented on cannabis biscuits and Lsd at a warehouse rave, I experience voices. I was worrying about all the work I had to do on the course I was doing and I began hearing voices, telling me, ' Its a very life' repeatedly and, also, when I kept hearing voices saying, 'He's eaten skunk cake'. I was not sure if the voices were probably in my head or external, because
boundaries seemed unclear. Perhaps, hallucinogenics trigger a throwback to a bicameral mental state. — Jack Cummins

Fact, most of today's psychological "disorders" may be mere remnants of how the structuring of the mind, and consequently, of human perception of reality, was in the past.

This relationship to the normality of the "introspectivity" of the contemporary mind could be very well conceived by the Sumerians as high levels, even if they were unable to explain it by the limitation of the language of the time, of anxiety. Indeed, current interactions, together with their brain and psychological conceptions, would categorize a person as "insane" even in the 1950s, so imagine the shock of reality that a contemporary person would have in talking to a person who lived more than 5,000 years ago, and vice versa.

It is obvious from the study of the history and philosophy of the mind, along with the psycho-archaeological studies that the human consciousness is not of the same "substance" with the passing of millennia. Why this occurs is the question to be debated - in my view and in Jaynes's view -, since, if consciousness is something organic and that adapts itself according to the context of the individual in question, how does this occur?

Psychology and philosophy of mind have reached such a high level of arrogance, that they remain chained to theories and hypotheses that were developed more than 100 years ago, along with a prejudice towards visions that do not follow the norm already pre-established in the academy.

What if, at some points, the same great minds that established the fundamental foundations of contemporary thought were wrong? One must question oneself.

I think this guy is right-on. I wish there was more people like him in this forum. — synthesis

If there were more people like him on this forum, the concept of "what makes up a "person"?" would no longer make sense.

I think it is certainly true that different eras give rise to completely different forms of consciousness. — Wayfarer

Indeed.

If you can set up everything perfectly, how would you die? — FlaccidDoor

What if we didn't have to die? I believe that this doubt is preferable to the fact of death.

I see God as wise, because

A wise man will never use his power.

A fool will always use power to indulge his own ego, destroying himself and everyone around him. — SteveMinjares

You make a mistake when you assume that the "Ego" is the consequence of the misuse of power.

The "Ego" is "Power".

A wise man will use his power only for himself...

Only a man who is tired of himself will use it to project himself outwardly. Here you will find the destruction of such a man and his surroundings legitimate.

The worst man is the one who shares his power with the world, because the world does not know how to use it.

Of course, many people who hear voices in our time do struggle with them and some act on the voices. Also, some people hear voices which are extremely unpleasant. If the bicameral mind thesis is correct, I wonder if the problematic nature of psychosis is because voices, and other hallucinatory experiences, occur out of context of a general bicameral way of being. — Jack Cummins

I find interesting your comment on the problematization caused by the misunderstanding of potentially "bicameral" minds.

It is a fact that such a perception of the world, if true, if witnessed by an exclusive individual who sees himself established in a species already pre-established in the unicameral structuring of consciousness, would be completely frowned upon and even expunged from such a society, through legitimate justifications in the differentiation of the perception of the world, and consequently, of its conclusions about reality.

Jaynes in his book does not disregard the possibility that individual cases are experienced by "consciously modern" humans to occur. He even cites the example of a "modern" case of the bicameral mind, and its consequences:

"An exclusive and recent case of the construction of a bicameral mind can be found in Joan d'Arc. She had an isolated childhood, almost in a complete destruction of the social relationship pre-established in the first years of life. It had been seen by her contemporaries that Joan had a different experience of reality, be it for her moments of "contact with God" and for her physiognomy and distant expression, almost unconscious of herself. That the only answer found by society was that of the total extermination of such a vision in opposition to the common "reality" is not incomprehensible as we ourselves put them into asylums in a petty way of empathic falsehood."

I was read Bucke's, 'Cosmic Consciousness' fairly recently and I think that it is a fascinating area for discussion, but similarly I would not wish to derail the thread. The whole area of debate opened up by Gus's exploration of the ideas of Jaynes and associates ones, opens up fascinating possibilities for discussion, but I imagine that we need to be patient to wait and see what direction he wishes the thread to take. I certainly would not wish to mess it up. — Jack Cummins

The discussion exists so that it can take the course that it decides. It is not up to me to decide it.

Does the above statement imply that the solipsistic question of other people's experience of the mind is meaningless, or is this categorically different question? Jaynes, as a researcher, may not have had interest in such riddle at all, but does he operate under the premise that inquiries about the metaphysics of the mind are meaningless, or are they simply not in the purview his interests? — simeonz

I believe that Jaynes, being a psychologist who based his hypotheses on the philosophy and historiography of the evolution of the human mind, would have no interest in the metaphysical questions of the arising of the mind.

The solipsist question is something that I believe to be intrinsically categorized within the field of study of metaphysics, which, if it is concluded that the mind is a social construction that has a biological effect, has no foundation.

In the aspect of the "physicality" of the mind, that is, that it is a product of the organic brain, I tend to disagree with Jaynes. Consciousness, if constructed by language and, consequently, by culture, is something that cannot be instrisically physical because the human mind is itself a construction that, within the animal kingdom, has no use for the simple and primitive objetctives of reproduction and survival of the species.

If the mind is a biological evolution of the adaptation of humanity, we should not be reflecting on this issue, as it has no use for the innate survival of humanity.

From a brief survey of the topic on Wikipedia. I was surprised that the lateralization of the brain is conjectured to not only encompass creativity and learning, but also the self and others. Very enlightening. Part of the criticism appears to be around the dating of an early literary work, the "Epic of Gigamesh". I wouldn't know either way and I can't judge on that alone. What seemed more justifiably concerning however, was that proliferation and cultural penetration of genetics was very unlikely to happen in just centuries, if I am not misunderstanding the implied timeline. Lactose tolerance/persistence started at about the same time, even earlier, and we are still observing significant amount of intolerant people unevenly distributed around the globe's continents. If this theory is suggesting a new genetic allele, it is either suggesting that it was dominant or that it was highly advantageous, or that not all of us have the ability developed in this regard? If idea was elaborated in terms of graduations, it would allow some people to develop lower IQ for this reason, but if we are talking about one spontaneous mutation, I would expect some non-negligible part of the population would still continue to be unaware of their intents and function like animal species. — simeonz

The point is that this hypothetical evolution did not occur over a span of centuries, but it was a process that lasted more than 6,000 years - let it be clear that, the "Bicamerality of the mind" discussed here, if taken as a fact, only ceased to exist as a norm in humanity less than 5,000 years ago, but quite possibly, it existed since the beginning of the species more than 200,000 years ago - and that "collapsed" together with the complex society that it slowly built - of which, its synthesis was the Bronze Age -.

Mutations and biological genetic changes can occur occasionally within millennia; together with the evolution that had occurred during the period, and the radically changing establishment by the new reality that humanity saw itself with the end of the bronze age, it is possible that such adaptation may have occurred.

Concerning Jaynes's focus on the Middle East and the European region, and the historical period he chose to talk about his theory, it is possible to find evidence of such a structuring of the mind not only in the same region before the period he studied - as I prove with my article - but also in other regions of the world.

The oldest inscriptions ever found in China - between 6,000 and 5,000 BC - are known as "Bone Oracles" - inscriptions made on human and other animal bones - which are, in their entirety, conceptions of their writers received by "divine sources" - another proof of the perception of ancient humanity that their own introspectiveness - the voice - was not of them but of the Gods -.

I believe that in resume, we could conclude from Jayne's work, the following:

"It is made obvious that, through the study of ancient humanity, they - the ancients and pre-historic humans - did not think the same way as we do."

We take as "normal" the way in which we structure our perception of reality based on our experiences.

Most likely, not even the Romans, who established a civilization as globalized, prosperous, diverse, and pluralistic as ours did not think like today's humans, and the same can be concluded from the future's humanity.

Does that give them some kind of substitute cognitive loop, without explicit self-referentiality, or was it incomparably limiting experience? Just to be clear about the distinguishing cognitive aspect - I surmise that we are talking about lack of acknowledged mental agency, not merely lack of auto-psychological skill. I assume that those people did probably understand involvement in situations, just not involvement in mental judgements, if I interpreted the conjecture correctly. — simeonz

Jaynes theorizes that the lack of self-awareness was not only a lack of meta-realization but also a biological disability of humans at the time - that's why he theorizes that they perceived the world in a quasi-schizophrenic state -. For him, humanity was unable to conceive introspective thoughts because of the structuring of the brains of the people of the era.

My perception agrees much more with the view that, humankind, at that time, only lacked the realization that they were capable of introspection thanks to the cultural, social, moral and technological limitations of the period in question. It's very probable that the biological composition and structuring of the brain remains the same, what differentiates us - unicameralists - from the bicameralist humanity is the way in which we began to structure "our interpretation of the structuring of reality".

P.S. Thanks. For the interesting and conscientiously presented work. — simeonz

Thank you for taking the time to read and conduct your inquiries from my article.

Perhaps our ancestors in Sumer and elsewhere were too busy with other things to ponder human consciousness. For good or ill, its seems that we have more (too much?) time on our hands — Ciceronianus the White

The topic "The Evidence in the Dawn of Society" focuses explicitly on this point:

We have the most diverse archaeological, historical, anthropological and cultural records that Sumerian society had in a way that almost identifies to our society, a complexity that established the capacity of city-states, empires, and the bureaucratization of the economy and social-political stratification that still exists today, even without evidence that they had already evolved a "unicameral" consciousness capable of introspectively realizing, reflecting, and deciding on matters by themselves and not by the command of the "Gods".

They had plenty of time to spend with "abstract and metaphysical concepts", however, they did it through the misunderstanding of their own minds - aka, "Gods" -.

As I mentioned in my article:

"Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or" god "giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question.

The perception is that, humanity, until that point, without the scientific, social-political, moral and ethic perception of reality, would see their own "counsciouness" - the voice, aka, the introspectiveness of the subjective - as being the hallucinating voice of the Gods, as until then, mythology was seen as the principle that made reality "real".

The bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods" who told commands which were recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts."

What feels good to you might not feel good to someone else — TaySan

Indeed, another proof of the subjective experience of existence.

What do you think. Is porn bad for us? — TaySan

History, when applied in the human cultural context, proves that, in moments of great decadence and stagnation, both moral and cultural, the sexual objectification of humanity becomes prevalent in the most diverse forms of society, such as linguistics, perspective, iconographic and even economical - in its most profound moments -.

Pornography itself is not "bad" for humanity, humanity is bad for itself, as it descends from an earlier context of humanity that developed the space for such a vision and action to become the norm of such civilization.

Therefore, "pornography is a consequence of the inversion of values ​​caused by the set of factors that enable such "relaxation" to be achieved".

In short, such normalization can be found in periods that contain the following characteristics:

- Economic prosperity;
- Political stability - aka, political peace -;
- Secularization;
- Multiculturalism - or, currently known as "globalism" -;
- Freedom of individual expression;
- Intellectual prosperity.

I think you provide a very good argument. "Life" as we use the word, is defined by what we find here on earth. I've heard it said before that terrestrial life is carbon based, and there is speculation of the possibility of non-carbon life. But I don't think that this would qualify as "life" as we know life, and use the term.

The conclusion I think should be that the word "life" has a specific usage by us, to refer to certain forms of existence on this planet. And, if we hypothesize realistically about forms of existence in other parts of the universe, and desire to call them "life", then there must be something to indicate that such forms would be consistent in their physical constitution with the forms of life on earth, and this would indicate some sort of continuity in the form of a relation between here and there to account for that consistency. This is what we find here on earth, consistency and continuity between all life forms. When we find a form of existence, like a rock, which does not bear that continuity we do not call it "life". This principle ought to hold for discovery in other parts of the universe. If there is no continuity between the forms of existence on earth which we call "life", and the forms of existence discovered far away, there is no reason to call them "life", they need a different name.

So for example. when we speculate about physical existence in other parts of the universe, we establish a relationship between there and here through laws of physics, and we assume certain continuities to exist between there and here, such as electromagnetic activity, and fundamental atoms. Without this continuity of principles, forming a relationship between here and there, such speculation would be completely random and useless. Likewise, if we are to speculate about a specific type of existence which we find here on earth, as existing elsewhere in the universe, "life", it is completely useless and nonsensical to make such speculations without the assumption of some sort of relationship to establish a continuity between what is her and what is there, or else we are not really talking about "life" out there. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is really gratifying to know that there are still people in this forum, capable of the necessary understanding for a philosophical discussion...

I — Pop

You didn't understand me.

I find your historical writing very interesting and look forward to reading it. — Pop

Don't worry, I don't intend to stop writing for the foreseeable future.

Firstly: Humanity is not the only evidential life in the universe! We are only one of a myriad of life forms on earth. Perhaps you should rephrase this.

Secondly. Humanity is ontologically dependent upon elements of the Earth for its existence ( since it is entirely created from these elements ). The Earth is ontologically dependent upon universal elements for its existence. So fundamentally we are a being of the universe. We are one of the ways that the universe expresses itself, or to put it another way - we are a function of universal self organization.

Thirdly: For your statement that the Earth is the center of the conscious experience of the universe to be meaningful, you would have to define consciousness? You would have to keep in mind that it is a unique property in every individual ( no two are exactly the same ), and that it is an evolving process, thus open ended. If you accept this, then you will see that it is not the same experience for everyone, and so the statement is logically invalid. As it stands it is a singular statement with a myriad of experiential manifestations. It makes no sense to assume self awareness and sapience for all forms of consciousness, as many are contradictory. Where some see God, others see physical causes.

I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. This definition fits human consciousness as every conscious moment is a moment of self organization. But this definition does not exclude anything, at all! Every point in the universe is part of a self organizing system, in the sense that the system in some way differentiates itself from the whole, and the whole itself - the universe - is a self organizing system. So in this sense consciousness is ubiquitous, which is contrary to your assertion. — Pop

Honestly, it is ridiculous when someone comes up with a beautiful argument as this, so that it is completely refuted by a mediocre error such as not reading the first two statements of the discussion.

Humanity is not the only evidential life in the universe! We are only one of a myriad of life forms on earth. — Pop

[This topic only touches on the question of "intelligent life" without considering "unconscious-primitive" life.] — Gus Lamarch

I can see several logical problems with your statement. — Pop

Indeed, I see them too...

And what a devolved degenerate I must be for suggesting evolution is not scriptural and inviolate. I am also sorry you found my thread poorly written, I tried hard but guess am just not up to your Rabelaisian Carnivalesque especially the part about "decontexualized rhetorical questions". You are clearly a person of deep soundings. You managed to find non-meanings and non-intentions in my thread that only a completely roboticized birdbrain could find, and I am impressed by that, just as I am impressed by the ability of a slightly different kind of automated nitwit to crawl flylike up the side of the Capitol Building over some cliche he heard. However, I must tell you that being subjected to the oversite of a robot-ding-a-ling who thinks philosophy is a matter of fitting words into an algorithm and rope-walking above an abyss of cliches is not my ideal for philosophical discussion and so I must wish you and your forum adieu and will not be reading any more of it. I am sorry I stumbled on it in the first place, no wonder US philosophy is the pathetic little pet rabbit of science that is it. It is because of science-fawining literal-minded sycophants like you, sir, who should be punching adding machines or somehing, not "monitoring" philosophically-minded people. GOOD NIGHT, GO BACK TO YOUR MENTAL CASKET. — Joe0082

his subsequent behaviour - again, suggestive of a bear of very little brain, but... erm...but...

No, I got nothing to finish that sentence with! — counterpunch

I'd be glad to discuss if Joe0082 is a sufficiently, intellectually inclined entity! — counterpunch

Indeed, but the evidence proves otherwise.

ot morally, but legally, amnesia can absolve even the worst criminality.

Amnesia that presents not in the criminal, but in the jury that decides the case. — god must be atheist

The state apparatus proving me right again.

I think that your point may be clearer with that point made. But, of course, it may be that others see the implications differently. Many may see humans as the only conscious life forms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would interpret it to the conclusion which you come to. — Jack Cummins

It is great if they disagree with my statements; that they seek to refute them with concise and detailed ideas.

The problem is when such people decide to try to refute my argument using the very argument that my statements proves to be erroneous.

"And they're walking around
With their heads in the cloud screaming
Must catch the bandit
Reckless abandon
Rundown and stranded"

What if a vicious serial killer tripped on his way back from his most recent depravity and incurred a serious head injury. He is found and taken to the hospital where he lays in a coma for several months. When he awakes he has no memory of his past deeds. He recovers and spends the remainder of his life helping the poor and downtrodden. If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

Amnesia does not absolve anyone, as the greatest witness of all is history.

I am inclined to think that the worthwhile discussion may be reflection upon the ontological point. If we are the only form of consciousness, what does that mean for us? Some may think it is of no importance while others may interpret it as having deep significance for how we view ourselves. Personally, while I do believe in respect for other life forms, I see the implication as one for seeing the value in each human being, in a world in which people are being seen as mere numbers. — Jack Cummins

My "Ontological Point" theory is based on the anthropological and philosophical interpretation that Man, as a Being in and during Existence, is aware not only of his surroundings and his biological needs - instincts - but also conscious of his own conscience. And because it is the only one capable of such a feat, so far, evidential, the only "point" of the Universe where such an experience can be witnessed is through humanity.

It is a link between my egoistic interpretation of human nature and the ontological-anthropological perception of the individual's "oneness" - and in this case, of all individuals - humanity - -.

I'm — fdrake

Fdrake, just ban the guy. Point.

How smug of you to so blithely confess ... — 180 Proof

With sincerity and egoism, withdraw from this discussion that is producing a prosperous debate. Good day/Good night.

(excerpts from old thread about "Fermi's Paradox" which, like most paradoxes, doesn't hold up to scrutiny ... like the OP) — 180 Proof

Your Ctrl + C Ctrl + V of the thoughts of a true intellectual do not refute or belittle my staments in any way, because at no time did I try to refute figures like Copernicus - for example -. My point with this discussion is explicitly visible in the first two sentences of the OP.

Honestly, the "inteligencia" of this forum is just that, "the inteligencia". People content with the exacerbation of their mediocricities.

Perhaps, we can go as far as saying that it appears that humanity is the most intelligent form of life in the universe, based on our present state of knowledge. — Jack Cummins

A more correct sentence would be:

- Humanity, according to the ontological principle, is substantially evident, as being the only intelligent life form in the Universe until proven otherwise.

Maybe, maybe not.

Humanity is made up of those who wish the death of everyone else but theirs, and vice versa; humanity is composed of those who would give their existence and their essence for the lives of others, even if they found theirselves in complete suffering, or in complete and absolute happiness, or even in total ataraxia; Some would even cease the existence of everyone - including of themselves - only to return to being after an instantaneous eternity of non-existence.

It does not matter if you choose a totality, your essence needs the realization of your own nature.

In this case, Humanity is Ambivalence, because it needs life as much as it needs death, and it needs death as much as it needs life.

Therefore: - All of us, even if limited by the number of options, would create a completely unique conclusion.

You're not entitled yet to claim that there can be no valid argument to be made. — Caldwell

Ironically, your statement fits comfortably with the theories and hypotheses that affirm extraterrestrial life different from Humanity, which are also supported by the inaccessibility of the evidence, and the overdetermining of the cause - the necessity of inteligent life being different than the one on Earth -.

If your point with this sentence was to refute my argument, I am sorry to inform you, but that argument is a double-edged knife. If it is logically valid against the proposition of this discussion, it is also possible to be applied in the theories and hypotheses made explicit as erroneous.

You can see the point, yes? If analysed ontologically - the scientific argument -, it is evidentially proven that the argument in favor of life different than that found on Earth is erroneous, as it overdetermine the cause in expense of the internal consequences:

Life must be - overdetermining of the cause - different than the found on Earth - exclusion of the internal consequence - even though we ourselves are life - internal consequence -.