I'd never heard of this guy before seeing this, so thanks for that at least.

Are we, by ignoring, glossing over, deprioritizing climate change, committing mass suicide? — Agent Smith

Yes.

I should do a poll:

How many think this bill passes- in any form? What percentage?

I say there’s maybe an 8% chance at this point, and will be so watered down and devoid of anything significant that it’ll be useless even in the miracle situation where it does pass.

Thoughts?

I've been very surprised by the Atlantic the last couple of years. They seem to be one of the few major organizations running the relevant stories.

And yes, that was my last response. — dimosthenis9

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Apparently your word is as reliable as your reading.

Sorry I couldn't resist. — dimosthenis9

Couldn't resist continuing to make yourself look foolish?

I'll help you:

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays.
— dimosthenis9

Yes.
— Xtrix

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions.
— dimosthenis9

No.
— Xtrix — dimosthenis9

That's exactly correct.

The question is meaningless. That has nothing to do with "absolute truth of definitions," which was your claim, and a complete misinterpretation.

Now you put into question the definition of "science"
— dimosthenis9

Indeed, since you invoked "science" to define what's physical
— Xtrix

But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either.
— dimosthenis9

That’s not what I said.
— Xtrix — dimosthenis9

Again, exactly correct. But because you're having trouble, I'll again help:

Questioning the definition of science does not mean we "can't define science." If we can't define it, I wouldn't be asking for a definition. You simply failed to give one, because you really don't know what you're talking about.

But please continue...

But if Build Back Better fails, then the United States will plainly be incapable of responding to climate change in any organized or systematic way. The U.S. Congress—really, the Senate—will have killed President Bill Clinton’s carbon-reducing BTU tax in 1994, doomed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, declined to pass Waxman-Markey in 2010, and abandoned Biden’s climate bid in 2021. This final failure will be massively delegitimizing for the United States and for small-d democracy around the world. And because Democrats are likely to lose control of the House and Senate next year, it would resound for years.

I’ve pretty much given up on this bill even passing, even in its stripped down version. The progressives caved (all but 6), and Manchin will now use inflation as the problem du jour to indefinitely table the bill.

But figured I’d leave the above as a reminder.

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions. — dimosthenis9

No.

But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either. — dimosthenis9

That’s not what I said.

You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about.

So exactly which of these common view criteria mind meets as to consider it as "matter"?? — dimosthenis9

Many say the mind is simply the brain.

Notice I’m not saying either, because the question itself is meaningless.

Yeah whatever. — dimosthenis9

No, not “whatever.” If you want to be taken seriously on here, then doing a minimal amount of reading is essential. Otherwise you sound ignorant — which you do.

Science, among others, is what provide us proofs as to categorize what we observe to "matter". — dimosthenis9

What are you referring to here? What “proofs”?

Frankly, you’re talking in circles.

We can define matter in several ways. We can say it’s anything made up of particles, energy fluctuations, substance. Then nature consists of matter and forces. This is the common view.

As we know at least since Kant, what is “true” is not simply a correspondence between the object and the subject — rather, there’s a contribution of the human mind.

Best to at least review these ideas before continuing. Otherwise you’re simply talking nonsense.

Sorry but I can't consider that science. — dimosthenis9

Because you've apparently defined science as "what scientists do," and a scientist is someone in a lab coat doing experiments, some specialized, professional labor.

That's fine for everyday discussion. Not when we're questioning philosophically.

So "empirical observation of ourselves" isn't science? Then what is science?
— Xtrix

When I observe that I have mind or two legs or two arms am I doing science?? That makes me a scientist? — dimosthenis9

It's empirical observation, according to you. So what's the difference?

You question every single word and we don't have even a base to start discussing. — dimosthenis9

No, I'm questioning the word "matter."

I also made quite clear that technical notions (nomenclature) are not the same as everyday talk. If we want to speculate about ectoplasm or "work," etc., we can. But the technical notion of "matter" or "body" had a technical notion within the mechanical philosophy. It was abandoned long ago. There hasn't been one since.

Now you put into question the definition of "science" — dimosthenis9

Indeed, since you invoked "science" to define what's physical. Yet you don't seem to have much appreciation for the long history of the philosophy of science.

There are common definitions of what some things mean(like science, physical etc), even if some of them aren't perfect and of course some might change at the future(as the 17th century example you gave) still they are more than enough as people to understand each other and discuss about it. — dimosthenis9

True, which is partly why a discussion about mind and body can continue. I'm indeed questioning that. I'm challenging the assumptions we're making about "body," specifically -- and hence matter, material, physical. If the "physical" is "what science observes and identifies," then I ask: "What is science?" This shouldn't be surprising. What it is is uncomfortable -- at least for you.

I really see no use in playing such definition game. — dimosthenis9

It's not a game, it's asking questions. If that's a game, then Socrates was playing games as well.

The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter.
— Xtrix

I'm not sure what to say to such a statement. — T Clark

What is unclear about this? It doesn't give a technical notion of matter.

I'll quote CERN:

The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.

What's called matter is here assumed as "fundamental particles." Is that the technical notion you were referring to?

Theories are theories. Technical terms are not the same as theories.

Photons are identified with technological scientific means and exist on their own in nature(even without human existence). — dimosthenis9

That's debatable, in fact.

"Technological scientific means" is a meaningless statement.

So of course are physical. Love and morality are human aspects of human behavior.So of course non physical. I don't see any connection here. The difference is obvious. — dimosthenis9

The difference is obvious to you, and that's the point. When you think of it a little longer, using your criteria both are "physical." Why should aspects of human behavior be "non-physical"? That's hardly an obvious point, and in fact is what's being discussed here.

Adding "of course" proves nothing, except perhaps that you haven't examined your own assumptions. I hear "of course God exists" a lot too.

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays. — dimosthenis9

Yes.

Physical world is whatever exists in universe and we have scientific observed and verified. Mind is something that we are sure that exists from our internal empirical observation of ourselves but still science hasn't observed it. So of course we can talk about that distinction. — dimosthenis9

So "empirical observation of ourselves" isn't science? Then what is science?

What people think distinguishes science from non-science is actually very complicated. So here again we have another idea you simply take for granted, assuming by simply declaring something "scientific" we will all nod our heads in agreement, and that will settle the question of what's physical.

I've told you before, and you can look it up if you'd like: there was once a definition of physical and "body," based on contact action, in the 17th century. That was abandoned.

Explain how a theory is not also a "technical notion". (What do you mean by "technical"?) — 180 Proof

By "technical" I mean a term defined specifically within a theory. I used "work" as an example, but there are many others. A theory can be defined in various ways, but here I'm referring to an explanation -- hence why I used "explanatory."

So the theory of evolution seeks to explain the development of life on earth. Within this theory there are many technical notions. Natural selection is a technical notion.

Matter denotes dissipative structure. — 180 Proof

That's one definition. I suppose the one used in the context of relativity theory.

By physical we mean what science have identified and observed so far. — dimosthenis9

So “physical” means anything science has identified and observed. First we have to know what makes something science — but leaving that aside: we don’t observe photons — are they not physical? What about forces? They’re identified, certainly — but so is the mind, and love, and morality. All “identified” as such.

You’re not providing a technical notion. You’re providing yet another personal take on the matter.

Or else playing that definition game won't allow us to talk about anything at all! — dimosthenis9

We can talk about all kinds of things. We talk about “work” all the time, for example. We go to work every day or work from home. We all know what that means in everyday life. When pressed to define it, many people would give various answers. We talk about God and the meaning of life.

But in the context of an explanatory theory, in science, “work” is used in a very different way. It has a precise definition, given to it within a theory.

In the 17th century, the mechanical philosophy prevailed. Descartes, Galileo, etc. Bodies were given a technical notion, involving contact action. Newton destroyed that. There hasn’t been another since.

So we can talk in everyday terms, or we can talk in technical terms about things. The former gets us nowhere, in this case, and the latter doesn’t exist.

So there is no problem, and the question is meaningless.

What’s the difference between mind and xchssertmison? Are they the same? Are they different? What’s the problem with these questions, exactly? Should be obvious.

So, you do not consider the Standard Model a "technical notion?" — T Clark

The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter.

That's a different discussion. — T Clark

Yes, one where the same logic your using us also applied. That should tell you something.

A lot of swimming!

My wife and I took a day trip to North and Middle Caicos. It’s particularly beautiful out there.

The snorkeling near Turtle Cove and Bight is fantastic, as well.

Tonight is our last night. I recommend going if you’re close to here. Are you in the Bahamas?

Every day, billions of people watch TV without any understanding of how it works. They don't think it's particularly mysterious. — T Clark

Of course they do. It’s a total mystery — to them. A black box. They’re aware that experts know how it works.

I don't see matter as particularly mysterious either. — T Clark

I know. Which is why you, like many others on here, continue on with these conversations.

But there hasn’t been a technical notion of matter for centuries, despite your feelings.

Plenty of people argue the same thing about God, incidentally. God isn’t “fully understood,” but not mysterious. I don’t find that very convincing. I also said nothing about “fully understood.”

The thing is that mind is clearly something non physical. — dimosthenis9

First we have to know what physical means. Which we don’t. So the statement is meaningless.

But we know how a television and computer work.
— Xtrix

I don't understand why that matters. I don't see any evidence that the brain is mysterious, just that we don't understand important things about how it works yet. — T Clark

I’d say not understanding how something works makes it pretty mysterious. If TV were to play movies without any understanding of how, I think that too would qualify as a mystery.

Regardless, the main point is that the entire idea of matter (which includes brains) is a mystery.

In fact that's the real problem.And the root question of mind-body problem also. — dimosthenis9

No, it isn’t. The question of whether the mind reduces to the activity of the brain is a variant, and it presumes we know what we’re talking about when we discuss the “physical.” But we don’t. Which is a reason these conversations continue endlessly.

"Physical" is an infinitely malleable category for every aspect of experience we can categorize as substance, usually by employing empirical methods.

"Material" in the context of neuroscience and consciousness theory has a similar meaning: physical "matter".

The "body" is carbon-based physiology, which consciousness transcends.

Seems simple enough to me. — Enrique

You, like many others before you, can define things any way you’d like. But what I’m talking about is a technical notion, not armchair meaning creation.

But beyond that, you’ve simply punted by employing “substance” and “empirical,” two more loaded terms. (Substance — especially — has a very long history.)

Then you go on to say that material is “physical”(substance-like) “matter” which — unless there’s matter out there that isn’t physical — is a redundancy.

This, so far we once again have armchair philosophy, consisting solely of moving words around. Material = matter = physical = substance. …And we’ve gotten precisely nowhere. What is substance?

But even if this were more coherent, it’d still miss the point entirely.

I’ll ignore the remark about consciousness “transcending” the body.

It can be asked if matter is the foundation of mind — Jack Cummins

It really can’t— and that’s the point. Not until we have an understanding of matter — which we don’t have. There was one, long ago, but that was abandoned.

So the question dissolves.

So a follow-up question: what do we do about it? — Xtrix

A week later and no thoughts? Perhaps it wasn’t read, or the premises weren’t agreed with, but here are some solutions, in my view:

Education

Not necessarily in the school or academic sense, but in the sense of talking with one another, sharing ideas, identifying problems, comparing strategies, etc. In order for this to happen, however, three further things are necessary:

1) Social issues. We have to somehow put away our tribalism, dehumanization, and general isolation. That means eschewing social media, learning to interact more face to face, overcoming social anxiety and our comfort zones, avoiding media that polarizes us, learning to control our emotions, etc.

2) Break the taboos around discussing certain topics. For example, religion and politics, but also MONEY and class. Beyond merely complaining (“I hate my job,” “I don’t get paid enough,” etc), I don’t see much transparency on the latter issue. It’s considered rude to ask someone how much they make an hour or a year, etc.

3) Learning to ask questions. About one’s individual life, yes — but also how that life is interconnected with everyone and everything. (Not in a New Age bullshit way, but in a very obvious and practical sense — one that can be forgotten.) I think certain beliefs, values, and actions that normally go unquestioned can become talkable, from the current state of our political and economic world to our understanding of what a human being is.

The question of the meaning of being — and of nothing — will possibly play a role in all this, as I think it should.

Action

Educating ourselves and others — through questioning, through breaking the spell of complacency, conversational taboo, individualism, and tribalism — can only go so far and will mean nothing without concrete action. Eventually we all have to put our money (and bodies) where are mouths are.

How?

Through creating and joining groups. Through organization and collective action. Through unionizing our workplaces, building alliances and coalitions.

Of course, these things aren’t completely separate— as if we start with one and then move on to the other in a linear fashion: education, then organization, then action. Much of the time action comes first and people come together to rally around that action — sometimes many people share similar beliefs but don’t realize how many others do as well (I think the Occupy and Bernie Sanders movement showed that).

Still, this is a start.

So while I enjoy discussing being, and Heidegger, and Plato, etc., in the end I don’t see this question as one only for an obscure philosophy forum, or one relegated to the hallowed halls of academia.

Rather, it’s a very practical and relevant question: who or what are we, and what are we doing in the world?

Being and doing, and human nature, have always been inter-related. There may not be an ultimate answer, or an ultimate truth, but we’re living at least one answer.

We could ask what is physical and what is not. — Jack Cummins

An excellent question, yes.

In other words, to what is do mind and matter come together in the realisation of embodied human experience? — Jack Cummins

You’re missing my point, though. To ask about mind and matter coming together begs the question. The question is: what is matter?

We can’t ask about whether something is or isn’t matter until we know what matter is. Or material, or body. There’s been no conception since the 17th century. So there’s really no problem, just speculation. We can define matter in many ways, just as we can define God in many ways. To me the questions about, for example, whether God is male or female, is as silly as asking about whether our being is physical or mental. May be fun to speculate about, but we’ll get precisely nowhere.

I have no doubt this will be discussed anyway, despite this obvious objection. But to me it’s a waste of time. I at least occasionally like to point it out when these threads are created.

But we know how a television and computer work.

Besides that, the brain is a concept. Concepts are an aspect of thinking. Thinking is something people do. So again it’s a problem of whether we believe in materialism or, perhaps better, the “physical” world. There isn’t a technical notion or theory in which “material” or “body” (which would include the brain) are defined— so there can’t be a mind-body problem.

:kiss:

This is the mind/body problem, tweaked a little.

We have no idea what “material” or “physical” or “body” mean.

So there is no problem.

Still here, but it’s really beautiful.

Are you suggesting that individual-collective is a false dichotomy? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes.

You've obviously never met an Libertarian and only understand Libertarianism as it has been provided to you by others that don't understand it either. — Harry Hindu

Yes, “obviously” that has to be true.

(At least in your world.) Funny that Trump people often say the same. I let them go on believing it, as I will with you.

Even self-proclaimed libertarians still try to dictate to others how to live their lives, so by definition they aren't libertarians. — Harry Hindu

Too bad they don’t have the philosophy forum guy to help them differentiate.

If you are equating libertarianism with plutocracy — Harry Hindu

Try reading better before giving sophomoric lectures:

Libertarianism is a cover for plutocracy. — Xtrix

That’s not equivalent by any means.

then what is the label you assign to those that believe individualism trumps collectivism and that everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't restrict others from doing the same? — Harry Hindu

A person taking one side of a false dichotomy.

“I am conscious, therefore I exist.”
— Xtrix

...is still "I exist, therefore I exist". — Banno

You can be unconscious and still exist.

Consciousness is not synonymous with being.

It’s worth clarifying what Descartes meant by “thinking,” which he is clear about: he means consciousness. (Feelings, pains, emotions, abstractions, desires, etc.)

“I am conscious, therefore I exist.”

I see a lot of confusion about this, but it’s a crucial point. If we take “thought” in some other sense — as logic, as abstract reasoning, as conceptualization, or as internal dialogue — we’re doomed before we start.

It doesn't exist hence you have an idiotic ahistorical view which is purely driven by naive ideology. — Benkei

:clap:

I think an important point being overlooked is that we’re always acting in the world with an understanding of being— just not a theoretical understanding. Almost like a folk science. That’s not science, but it’s what humans act on the basis of.

So much of our meanings are culturally dependent. The same is true for being. Being is nearly always interpreted (in the west) in terms of the “world,” whether as material object or as “nature.” It’s hard to imagine an alternative.

It’s also worth remembering why this matters: because we define ourselves in these terms as well. And why is that so important?

Because those serve as the basis for morality, for social organization, for politics, for global decisions. The world is currently operating on the belief that earth is a resource, that the ultimate aim of humans is material wealth accumulation, and that humans are essentially animals with language with needs to satisfy.

That’s the current story. And it’s based in beliefs and interpretations about being, held tacitly and handed down over many centuries — and it’s driving us right into disaster.

So a follow-up question: what do we do about it?

it is unfair to say that only certain strata of society is responsible for contributing. — god must be atheist

Not once did I say that. Next time, at least do me the courtesy of assuming I’m not a complete idiot. Of course we all contribute to global warming. I figured this was so obvious as to not need to explicitly point it out.

But switch the example. Take the opioid crisis here in the states. People addicted to opioids share responsibility too, yes? Does that level of blame equal the blame of doctors and pharmaceutical companies who deliberately over-prescribed and downplayed the addictiveness?

I don’t see how anyone could argue that. I’ll give you the benefit of assuming you don’t think that either. So why make the same mistake with climate change? Are you not aware that this argument is a very common one among climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry? Are you aware it’s exactly the defense big tobacco offered for decades with regard to the health effects of smoking?

I think you’re typical of someone who can afford a car in the city, yes. There’s also many people around Boston who feel the same way— but you have to account for the fact that the T here is CRAP. They’re 50 years being. If you had efficient, high-speed rail — like they do in Japan — there wouldn’t be this issue. In parts of Canada, they have it designed so that buses run constantly and within a mile or so radius of homes.

Advertising plays a big role in all this too. Just like smoking. When it was decided, by tobacco executives, that they were losing money by not targeting women, there was a massive campaign to get women to smoke. And it worked. Car commercials and product placement in the US has created a culture around cars that is unprecedented, starting in the 50s especially.

So yes, of course the consumer shares some of the blame. That’s not the point. In the same sense we share blame for our government’s actions — because we elected decision-makers. But the blame is relative. To attempt to equalize it all, or to shift emphasis to “individual responsibility,” deliberately leaves out an important context in which powers far greater than an average consumer are at play — openly.

Public transportation is just as much available as ever. — god must be atheist

No, it isn’t. This is factually wrong. I’m talking about the US.

The decline of availability and convenience of public transportation happened not due to capitalists closing down railway lines and making city bus service less frequent... it's because people like to get into cars, drive to somewhere, and then drive back again. — god must be atheist

You just have no idea what you’re talking about, I’m afraid. There’s actually scholarship on this point— from history to polling. People want efficient public transit — not cars. Compare the US to Japan, for example, and the state of our public transit is a joke. That’s NOT an accident, and it’s NOT because people “love cars” — although many do, in no small part to great advertising.

But believe it’s all the consumers and demand, if you want. A nice myth.

We are not to be blamed for the decisions we do not make. — god must be atheist

Oh but we are. We voted for them. If we didn’t, we could have protested more, could have tried convincing more people to do so as well, etc etc.

So any American who criticizes their government is a hypocrite. That’s been argued plenty of times too by apologists of state power. You happen to do so for corporate power.

The using of society's benefits IS your decision. — god must be atheist

So now fossil fuels are societies “benefits.” Seems to me they’re environment-destroying garbage and a curse for the human species. But call it what you will, I guess. Maybe wiping out the species is a “benefit.”

So those addicted to tobacco and opioids are also hypocrites. Got it. No right to criticize big Pharma for the opioid epidemic. It was their choice to use “societies benefits.”

At least be consistent about it.

If the capitalist pigs, as you call them, — god must be atheist

I haven’t once called them that. Ever. But keep trying.

You don't use them because the capitalists force you to, you use them because without them you'd perish. — god must be atheist

No we wouldn’t. There are plenty of alternatives — called renewables.

The reason we currently would “perish” is not an accident — it’s a choice. And not mine. For the same reason we don’t have proper public transportation. That’s not an accident either. Yet you want to place the blame on those who are forced to buy a car to get to work so they can eat and live? No — like the Iraq war, I place the blame on those in power who have the means to design the modern world and make choices about whether to fund renewable energy, public transit, and EV vehicles, or stick with combustible engines, individual consumption, and fossil fuels.

So I put to you this: is a person who uses energy as much as the average person in his community, not hypocritical, when he blames the builders to build his home, when he blames the car manufacturers to build his car, when he blames the clothes manufacturers to make his clothes, and the producers of his food, and the transportation companies to deliver this to him or to close to him where the goods are available without much work to him... — god must be atheist

That’s like blaming people for buying cars when that’s the only choice they’re given. What they really want — and have got decades — is public transportation. The auto, rubber, and fossil fuel industries haven’t suppressed those options through their lobbying of congress. But it’s the CONSUMERS fault for buying a car to get to work? Find — let that be your focus if you’d like. In that case I’m as much to blame for the Iraq War as Dick Cheney. Whatever floats your boat.

The fact that people look at it this way is an effect of propaganda — nothing else.

If you were NOT hypocritical then you would simply give up these benefits, and then you could claim moral superiority. But until such time, you simply can't. — god must be atheist

Yes, I know this is what you think. It’s an old, tired, long refuted, silly slogan used over and over and over again for the last 30 years. You can find it on Twitter and YouTube and Facebook all the time as well. It’s paraded out any time one criticizes any industry— tobacco, sugar, fast food, fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, etc., for their crimes, disinformation campaigns, bribes, lobbying, monopolization, sleazy marketing, cover ups, suppression of information, and false advertising.

“Have you ever used fossil fuel products at any time in your life? Ha! Hypocrite! How dare you criticize those who produce the things you use!”

Fossil fuel companies are responsible for climate change. They’re knew about it in the 70s and deliberately suppressed the information and knowingly, consciously promoted falsehoods about climate science. This is now well documented — from internal memos and documents.

But if you prefer false equivalence, go right ahead. In that world, they’re just good companies giving consumers what they want. Wonderful story.

You insinuate (but don't state) things that you want to accuse me with, but there is no accusation, only an insinuation of it. — god must be atheist

Oh you mean something like:

Some people just can't take the blame when it's due. It's a spineless, cowardly attitude to blame others for one's own wrongdoing. — god must be atheist

Yeah, I agree it’s rather impolite. Odd that the person who sets this tone becomes bewildered when it’s reversed.

Why do you do this? — god must be atheist

A good question to ask yourself, since you started this conversation.

Or perhaps you hold no responsibility for it — which, if I recall, is rather “cowardly.”

I am not told to laugh off ideas that there are power differentials, and that with more power comes more to blame. — god must be atheist

Excellent— then you see the stupidity of repeating slogans like “we’re all to blame for climate change.” Sure— in the same way as we’re all to blame for the bombing of Iraq, and the many other war crimes and terrorism of the US (for those who live here, anyway). Does that mean I share equal blame with Rumsfeld?

Similarly, I drive a sedan — I have to to get to work. I can’t afford an electric car yet. Am I as much to blame for carbon emissions as Exxon? Again, these companies would love us to believe that — and have been promoting that nonsense for years. If you’re convinced by it, as you seem to be, then again: you’re welcome to. Just keep that bullshit away from me if you don’t want to have it called out for what it is.