substances are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality.so if you believe that there are two fundamental entities of reality, mind and physical, then the argument is aimed at that. — Solaris

1-The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties

2-two substances need one shared property to interact

3-the mind and body cannot interact — Solaris

Is "fundamental" a property of all substances? Why or why not?

What is it about the property, "fundamental", that prevents two substances from interacting? If two substances (mind and physical) both share the property of being "fundamental" then why couldn't they interact?

I saw a video of some protestors where two women were wearing "I had an abortion" T-shirts. I can't seem to find it now, but you can find the t-shirts for sale if you google it. There are also "I :heart: abortion" t-shirts for sale. There must be a market for such things if they are for sale on the internet and I'm willing to bet it's not Republicans, independents or moderate Democrats buying them.

I did find this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-had-an-abortion-t-shirt_n_1435234

The people selling the shirts tried to make the case that the t-shirts are meant to destigmatize abortion. This is a flawed argument because abortion has been legal for 40 years. It is not stigmatized by the majority of Americans, only the extremists on the right, which is a minority. This is a tactic used by both sides where they make themselves and their opponents appear to be larger or that their ideas are more pervasive than they actually are to make the case that their idea is necessary because of the size and power of the opposition. They attempt to group moderate party members with their extreme party members as if they hold the same position.

Then there is this:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-guest-make-sweet-love-to-scotus-leaker
where Laurie Kilmartin said she would "joyfully abort our fetus". She's a comedian, sure, but comedy is only funny if it has an element of truth, and it wasn't funny at all. Trust me, I know funny. I watch Impractical Jokers. :joke:

The ironic thing is that when you google this story you find it mostly on right-leaning sites, when it happened on MSNBC, as if they are trying to bury it.

The personal sphere is private and not a proper object of governmental intrusion.
— Bitter Crank

If the people judge that murder is taking place in private, then it's most definitely a governmental issue. — frank

This seems to be the point that needs to be discussed.

I see conservatives making the argument that Roe v Wade was all about some federal judges in Washington DC deciding for everyone what they can do, but that was the opposite if what Roe v Wade did. Under Roe v Wade if you didn't want an abortion you didn't have to get one, and if you did you could get one. So the conservatives are the ones imposing their will on others by taking away the personal choice and giving that choice to state governments.

I have also found hypocrisy on the left as most vegans are left-wingers and are vegans because they want to reduce suffering of animals. If animals with small brains can suffer, then what about fetuses in the womb? The brain and nervous system form in the first trimester and fetuses are shown to react to external stimuli.

There is also this celebration of abortion that the left has, as if having an abortion is a badge of honor rather than a tragedy. Abortion is invasive and can be dangerous. It should be a last resort because the use of other less invasive forms of contraception failed, or that the mother was raped or her life is in danger.

I see both sides talking past each other and making it a black and white issue in that you are either totally against abortion in all cases or totally for abortion being made for any reason and at any time even up to the point of birth. I don't believe that most Americans see it as a black and white issue. As usual it is the extremists on both sides dominating the conversation.

I received an an alert that your link was blocked due to a Trojan virus so I didn't go any further in trying to read it.

While I agree that there are natural things that challenge our definitions and categories, there are far more objects that fit neatly in and outside of those categories than lie in the grey area of Eucalypts and not-Eucalypts, and that must mean something. There must be a reason that our categories are useful and that reason is that most objects do fit neatly inside and outside of our categories. Errors in DNA replication are rare, not common, and that must mean something.

It seems that some definitions are in order. What is a substance and what is a property?

The OP lays out the problem of substance dualism well enough. I agree that it is obvious that mind and matter interact.

The problem with property dualism is that it appears to me that there are much more than just two properties, and that asserting that mind is a property has just as many issues as asserting that matter is a property. There are properties of size, mass, location, time, dimension, color, shape, temperature, etc.
all of which exist in some form or another in the mind and in the world. For instance, temperature can be the property of internal energy within a physical system or the feeling of hot or cold in a mental system. One might point to this as the nature of property dualism but science seems to inform us that mind has only just recently come into existence in a universe that has been only physical for most of its existence. So mind is really just an outcome of complex physical interactions. For property dualism to be valid there must have been some aspect of mind that has existed since the beginning with the physical, but what would that even look like? Why do physicists only describe physical properties and interactions when explaining the Big Bang? What are the mental properties of the Big Bang?

It also seems to be, at least slightly, anthropomorphic to assert mind as being a fundamental property of the universe.

My view is that the universe is not physical or mental. It is a process. All physical states and mental states are processes. Objects are really the outcome of mental processes in how minds objectify external processes. Think of how a computer can translate an analog signal into a digital signal. In this view brains are the mental representations (representation is a process) of other minds (processes).

For me, definition means to place separations/ delineations, limitations or parameters around a concept or thing which divides it into A “the defined” - the content within the parameters, and B “all other things” ie. “it” and “not it”. Definitions separate things by character or relationship to one another. By “contrast” essentially. — Benj96

Right, so the opposite of a word would be what constrains that word. So,

However this immediately leads to some issues especially at the extremes.
If I take the word “everything” how do I define it? You cannot “divide” the concept of “everything” as it is parameterless. Any parameter to u try to place around the set/ content is also included in the set/content.

Similarly you cannot define nothing as it’s contentless. You can’t place a parameter around an empty set. — Benj96

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/everything

Seems like "nothing" and "everything" contrast each other. Everything = the opposite of nothing. To illustrate, think about the memories you have since you were born and the memories you have before you were born.

This would mean that if we define “shoe” as the Oxford English Dictionary does as “one pair of objects usually made of leather or plastic that you wear on your feet” , a shoe can never be a). something you don’t wear on your feet, b). A non physical object or c) something that doesn’t come in pairs. Do you thing that’s a good definition of a shoe?

Because that definition permits someone to be wearing a pair of plastic watering cans they have never removed from their feet, they’ve always been there, and if they were to lose one they will have violated some law about not being in pairs and the watering-can would reappear magically.

Obviously this is an absurd and overly literal interpretation of “shoe” but it highlights the degree of assumptions we require in order to appreciate a definition correctly. Is a good definition then really one where no assumptions have to made?

It seems that the more specific you make a definition, the more possibilities you omit, that is to say the more inaccurate the definition it gets as most things can be made in an endless myriad of styles, shapes, forms, and even functions and from multiple materials in any number of combinations.

What then do all the millions of shoes in the world have in common? Some are graphics on paper or in media, some are described concepts from peoples minds and some are on your feet but all of them can be defined easily by anyone as a “shoe.”

The most accurate definition of a shoe could be said to be “something”. It’s likely that this definition will indeed contain the set of all possible shoes. However no that the definition is accurate it is completely non-specific.

So it appears that specificity and accuracy in language are inversely related. Definitions can be specific but inaccurate or non-specific and accurate.
Thoughts? — Benj96

The fact that you used the term, "watering cans" instead of "shoes" shows that there is a distinction between watering cans and shoes. Can shoes hold water? So you can add, cannot hold water to the definition of shoes. We only need to be as specific in our definitions as the goal requires. Most people understand what one means when we say "shoes". This usually meets the requirements to achieve the goal of communicating what one intends to communicate.

You then go on to describe this use of "watering cans" as "shoes" as "absurd". What does that mean if not that it would be absurd to think of watering cans when someone uses the word, "shoes". What you have done is define "shoes" in a way that excludes watering cans. To be absurd means that if you thought of watering cans as shoes then you are not using the proper definition of "shoes".

I think that there is a reason why there is difficulty in defining say "consciousness" or "god" as opposed to "shoes". What do you think that reason could be?

I don’t exist relative to the unicorn. It’s expressed as a relation. “X doesn’t exist” is meaningless because no relation is specified. — noAxioms

You dont necessarily need to specify a relation if it is implied. It seems to me that "X doesn't exist" would be a relation between X and the one making the statement.

If you really cannot accept the name ‘unicorn’, then just think of it as some word arbitrarily assigned to some creature on a different evolutionary future than the ones with humans. — noAxioms

Where is this creature in relation to me? Doesn't "X exists (in relation to the one making the statement)" and "X doesn't exist (in relation to the one making the statement)" describe two different kinds of relations? If so, then what is the difference? What other types of relations are there besides "exist/not exist"?

It's not about the name by itself. It's about the name's relation to what it references, and whether or not it actually references something or if we just believe that it does. Can we say the same for the name, "god"? Can there not be relations where we believe relations to be? Can there be relations that we aren't aware of and therefore cannot talk about? What about the infinite number of creatures that have no name?

What if I were to say, "there is no relation between X (me) and Y (unicorns/god/Harry Potter)"? If "X exists" and "X doesn't exist" are both relations, then what use of language describes no relation? What use of language describes a relation between X and Y, a relation between Y and Z but no relation between X and Z? If there are X, Y and Z and only two of them have a relation, then how do we describe that situation? Would Y be the relation between X and Z? Can there be an X and a Z with no relation?

It’s a reasonable creature (minus the rainbow blowing out of its butt) and it would be dang unlikely that it’s not a valid future of Earth state from say 100 million years ago. — noAxioms

What do you mean by it being a reasonable creature vs the version that has rainbows blowing out of its butt? If we can talk about both versions, then what makes one string of scribbles more reasonable than the other? What do the different strings, "some creature on a different evolutionary future than the ones with humans" and "some creature with a rainbow blowing out of its butt" of scribbles reference, and how does what one string reference differ from what the other references?

Some relations are bidirectional. Some relations are unidirectional such as Y measures X, meaning Steve the stegosaurus exists to me but I don’t exist to Steve. — noAxioms

But you said that X doesn't exist in relation to Y is a relation. So there is a bidirectional relation. It seems to me that in saying that X (me) does not exist in relation to Y (Steve) is to say that there is no relation at all. Only this way can there be a unidirectional relation because there is no relation rather than a different relation. Or, there could be no direction at all to relations, which seems to make more sense. What if I were to say that there is not a direction to relations? What effect does that have on your statement of the opposite? What would be the type of relation between the two conflicting statements (string of scribbles)?

"It seems to me that the unicorn's existence is dependent on your existence to imagine it's existence."

This is expressed without a relation. It very much exists relative to anything that gets gored by that horn. I’m not suggesting that imagination/abstraction has any causal powers beyond creation of ideas. I’m talking about the unicorn, not the idea of a unicorn, but I necessarily must use ideas to discuss it just like I necessarily must use ideas to discuss the mug in front of me. — noAxioms

Then are you talking about the mug in front of you or your idea of the mug in front of you. There is the possibility that you could be hallucinating, or lying. Drawing the scribbles, "unicorn" is caused by your idea of a unicorn, imaginary or not. If you had never heard of unicorns, would you be able to write the scribble, or a draw a picture? It seems to me that your imagination is the effect of prior ideas. Could you imagine a unicorn if you had never seen a horse or a horn? Imaginings are unique amalgams of prior experiences.

What other word conveys to me that we can interact, that it is not possible that you are not in the world I see, or more in particular, that some part of your worldline is within my past light cone? I don’t have a word that better expresses that, except it has to include the relation: You exist to me. You don’t exist to the unicorn, but Steve probably does (yes, the very same Steve). — noAxioms

"Causation".

Let’s say I’m older. If you qualify ‘me’ and ‘you’ as unique worldlines, then no part of your worldline was in the past light cone of my younger moments, so you didn’t exist to me then, but some part of my worldline is in the past light cone of your first moment, so I always exist to you, even if I die first, just like Steve exists to us despite the termination of its worldline. — noAxioms

But I wasn't aware of your existence, nor were you aware of mine, until our first interaction. So you seem to be implying that there can be relations that exist without our awareness of them, which seems to answer one of my questions I asked earlier in this post. Is awareness a relation? If so, then in what way is the relations of awareness and existence different? A "worldline" would be another relation, no? What is a "worldline" a relation of?

Did you exist prior to our first interaction?
Our first interaction took seconds. Quantum decoherence occurs incredibly quickly, especially when there’s no vacuum separating us. It has nothing to do with being human or any kind of say deliberate information transfer. Remember one of my few axioms: Nothing special about humans or even life.

If so, in what way did we exist?
After that decoherence, each of our states is a function of the state of the other. But the state of the unicorn is not a function of our state. — noAxioms

I'm not asking about our interaction. I'm asking about your "worldline" prior to our interaction, which is just an exchange of scribbles on a screen. After all, I might not be a human at all. I could just be a program like Eliza that you are having a conversation with, which goes to what I was asking before in how what ideas we may have could be incompatible with what is actually the case.

Only if you say ‘the state of affairs relative to X’ since the state of affairs is technically different for every event X. The wording implies a moment in time, and so far I’ve avoided that by talking about worldlines instead of events at specific times along those worldlines.
Having thought about it, we can replace ‘X exists relative to Y’ with ‘Y measures X’. This identifies a unique relation that seems to apply only to a very limited number of structures. The ‘fellow member of some structure’ relation is different. Then perhaps we could avoid the word ‘exists’ altogether. — noAxioms

If X (some state of affairs) exists in relation to Y (you) and X (some state of affairs) exists in relation to Z (me), then how do we know that X is the same state of affairs that we are talking about? It seems to me that we would always be talking past each other, and if that is the case, then I don't see any reason to continue this interaction. There must be some reason you are communicating with me - what is that reason if not to share one's ideas about a state-of-affairs that exists for both of us? Does this conversation exist just for us, or for others who might come along and read our posts? Is it the same conversation for us - the participants as it is for non-participating readers? Are both of us and readers suppose to find our conversation useful? What would it mean for some conversation to be useful?

Neither a worldline nor an event along a worldline is especially a state of affairs, but there is a state of affairs relative to it. I am not ‘war in Ukraine’, but there is a state of war in Ukraine relative to me (a system at say the time of posting this). On the other hand, I, as a system at a specific time, constitute the state of that system, and thus am a local state of affairs. By identification of a time, I’ve dropped down to speaking of events instead of worldlines, which opens up a different can of worms about identity of those events. — noAxioms

The war in Ukraine is a relation between Russia and Ukraine, so you're talking about relations in relation to another relation. You are a relation between your various organs and stored information that make you you. In other words, it's (causal/information) relations all the way down.

If a measurement has been taken, then that measurement makes the measured state actual to the measurer. If not, then none of the potential states exist relative to that non-measurer, just like neither the dead state of cat nor the live state of cat exists relative to the exterior of the box. There I go using ‘exists’ again, but it seems trivially tautological to say “If not, then none of the potential states are measured relative to that non-measurer”. Ontology in this universe is measurement. To say something exists in the absence of measurement is to assert the principle of counterfactual definiteness, a principle which necessarily must reject locality and thus accept things like cause significantly (years) after its effect.
Maybe we’re talking past each other, but that’s how I’m best able to work in your wording into a relational description. — noAxioms

If you are older, then in what way did I measure you prior to our interaction? It seems to me that you were a state-of-affairs (a relation between you and your friends and family and everything else you've interacted with, or that has measured you) prior to our interaction. So when we interacted, was I measuring a prior measurement?

Our meeting had nothing to do with it. You had information on me, which is what decoherence does. Technically, X existing to Y means X is some ‘state of affairs’ in the past causal cone of Y, which is approximated by a light cone, but in special circumstances where information transfer is totally inhibited (Schrodinger’s box), can be a smaller subset than that. — noAxioms

I had no information on "you" until we met. Even then, we haven't actually met. I've only met scribbles on a screen. You could be a computer program and not a human. Until I actually meet you in person, then your scribbles are all that exists in relation to me. Are your scribbles a measurement of you? Do your scribbles exhaust all there is to be you? If not, then there is some state-of-affairs that makes you you that I am not aware of, or haven't measured.

Meeting has nothing to do with anything. I (worldline) exist relative to the state of affairs of this planet today (event), therefore it has measured me (worldline). — noAxioms

Of course it does. I haven't actually met you. I have met your scribbles. What relation does the state-of-affairs of your scribbles on this screen have with the state-of-affairs that is you? Are the scribbles all there is to being you?

It seems to be a relation of non-counterfactual wave function collapse, a relation unique to non-counterfactual physics that support it. A universe counterfactual physics such as GoL or Bohmian mechanics, the definition doesn’t work since these models posit existence that is not a function of measurement. Causality in GoL is straightforward, but really complicated in Bohmian mechanics where the state of a system might be determined by causes in the far future. I’m not concerned with this since my model holds to locality for this universe. No reverse causality. — noAxioms

Seems like a use of scribbles (on state-of-affairs) that references another state-of-affairs that exists independent of my awareness or belief in or understanding of such. If I don't understand what you just said, then what does that say about the state-of-affairs that you are referencing? If it's understandable to you but not to me, then have we not established two different relations that are incompatible with each other? Is your understanding of what you just wrote and my lack of understanding of what you just wrote about the same state-of-affairs (the state-of-affairs that your scribbles reference, not the use of the scribbles)? If you are not writing about some state-of-affairs that I can measure in the same way that you have, then how do we know that our ideas are about the same thing?

Again, I’ve not been talking about abstractions. I’m talking about an alternate mammal species on Earth in a world with a different evolutionary history. I’m using it as an illustrative device. — noAxioms

Sounds like an abstraction to me. Where is this alternate mammal species in relation to the scribble, "unicorn" and where is this different evolutionary history in relation to the scribble, "different evolutionary history"?

I don't believe in any fundamental scale of reality independent of some view of reality. Wholes and members of wholes are the products of different views (measurements) of the same thing.
I couldn’t understand that. Perhaps an illustrative example would help. — noAxioms

Sound like something similar to this:

Rovelli would disagree, and I'm with him on that point. He says a system cannot measure itself (cannot collapse its own wave function) and thus cannot meaningfully assess the state of its own existence just like inability of the cat in the box to determine what the observer outside the box will observe upon opening the box. It was the reading of Rovelli on which much of my view is based. He’s the one that defines existence (at least in this universe) as a measurement relation. I’m driving it a bit further I think. — noAxioms

The problem with this though is that it requires a measurer for any state-of-affairs to be the case, but then who measures the measurer? It's measurements all the way down.

It’s not necessarily spatial. — noAxioms

A disagreement. If you and I disagree about the nature of some state-of-affairs, then are we taking different measurements of the same state-of-affairs and talking about our measurements and not the state-of-affairs that is being measured? Again, it seems to me that the implication of your use of scribbles is that we can never talk about what is measured. We can only talk about our measurements which would be two different states-of-affairs, and we would be talking past each other. So what is the point of having a conversation if we can't talk about the same state-of-affairs?

Not sure what you mean by this. You make it sound like a movie, a story with all the events pre-planned (determinism) and no choices to be made by an outside entity (the player). The programmer certainly doesn’t know how the game will progress. There are more possible events than there is code. — noAxioms

Sure there are choices, but not an infinite number of choices. You can only make choices that are made available in the code. Any other choice would crash the program, or simply produce an error (which is part of the code). The player's actions are constrained by the code.

Not following. Outside the game the code doesn’t ‘happen’ at all, and during the game, groups of instructions are indeed executed in sequence. Usually there are several (4 to hundreds) of instruction streams running at once.
Maybe I’m not getting your usage of ‘at once’, which I’m probably incorrectly equating to ‘at the same time’. This is sort of the language used to describe a block universe, a completely self-contained structure containing time, but without change to the structure itself. It is said that all moments of this block exist ‘at once’ and don’t ‘happen’, which is different than saying that the events are at the same time, which would be wrong as saying they’re all at the same place. — noAxioms

Outside the game the code is a state-of-affairs - one that can be downloaded and then loaded into the computer's memory. Once loaded in the computer's working memory the code transforms inputs to outputs per it's instructions. The code remains the same even though different players may make different choices (inputs) that produce different outputs, but all are constrained by the code. A player will most likely never execute some bit of code because they never made the choice to pursue that part of the game and chose to pursue another part, but that doesn't mean the code for those inputs are not there. It just means that those functions in the program were never used or executed. The open world is one particular world. It may be a fantasy world as opposed to a sci-fi world. That world is defined by the code. All potential actions by a player are constrained by the code. A player can't use a baseball bat in the game if there is no code for a baseball bat in the program. The player can only use objects that are in the game and go to places that are in the game. The events in the game force the player along a specific timeline. If the player wastes to much time exploring or taking on different quests that are not part of the main quest then the villain ends up taking over the world and that timeline is defined by the code. All of these events and objects are defined by the code that was written before any player loaded the game on their computer. We are both playing the same game, which is to say that we are using the same code and restricted to the same timeline and events despite the fact that we may make different choices in playing the game. No matter who plays the game, the villain takes over the world at a particular point per the instructions in the program.

It is the difference between a physical rock made of protons and such, and the abstraction (or the referencing) of a rock, consisting of mental process and discourse. I’m not talking about abstractions. A rhino is almost a unicorn, if only it leaned more on the equine side. Surely unicorns are a possible future of some fairly recent state of Earth’s biological history. The unicorn of which I speak probably doesn’t look completely like the abstraction I have in mind, but that’s also true of say you. — noAxioms

Then how do we know that we are talking about the same thing?

But I’m not talking about scribbles or abstractions. You keep attempting to drive things there. I’m not disagreeing with your discussion of abstractions and scribbles, but it’s not on topic. — noAxioms

My point is that we can talk about scribbles and abstractions in the same way we can talk about unicorns and mugs. We are talking about relations and scribbles and what they reference is a type of relation, so it isn't off-topic. I'm trying to understand the relation between your use of scribbles and what they reference, and how that relation would be useful to me if to me it is a different relation than it is to you. In effect we would be talking past each other.

How is what you are talking about when not talking about scribbles or abstractions, the same for me if they are different relations or measurements? If "X exists in relation to you" and "X exists in relation to me", are you talking about the relations or X? If you're talking about the relation, then how can I ever understand the relation between you and X when I am not you, but I am me and the relation between X and you and X and me are two different things. If you aren't talking about abstractions then you aren't talking about relations. You are talking about X independent of any relation. Only then would I find your use of scribbles useful or understandable to me.

It is admittedly harder to think of numbers being things in themselves and not just abstractions, but imagine if mathematics worked even without humans or other life forms to utilize them. Imagine the sum of two and two actually being four and not only being four when some calculator executes the computation.
I know, it’s like asking you to imagine something independent of an imaginer. — noAxioms

The same goes for any scribble, like words. I don't understand what you mean by mathematics working even without humans to utilize them. It seems that for something to work, it needs to be utilized. How would the sum of two and two equal four if not by there being a quantity of some thing, and for there to be a quantity of some thing there must be a category of some thing that different, yet similar, things fall into. For there to be two of anything and subsequently four of anything, there must be a category of things in which there is at least two things that fit into that category, or else there would be only one of everything.

If "2+2=4" is more than just scribbles on this screen, then what is the relation between the scribbles and what they refer to? What form would 2+2=4 take if not just a string of scribbles, but is something more fundamental? In what way would 2+2=4 be the case independent of these scribbles? You would need to illustrate 2+2=4 without using these scribbles. Maybe you could use unicorns. :nerd:

No, they’d not be scribbles, which is an abstraction. I’m not talking about abstractions or any instantiation of the numbers. I’m proposing that mathematics is more fundamental than the scribbles that allow us to abstract it. — noAxioms

What I am asking for you to illustrate the form that this fundamental nature of mathematics takes independent of the scribbles. Does this help?

aa + aa = aaaa

Interesting. You can add scribbles just like you can add unicorns.

Scribbles are not abstractions. Don't you have scribbles in front if you in the same way that you can a mug in front of you?

Scribbles are tools that we use to communicate in the same way that a hammer is a tool that you use to build a house, or a mug you use to hold your coffee.

Is, "alhg;alhdjlshtjh;ajhj;thjk b:Jbfjht" an abstraction? The reference between the patterns of light on your computer screen and what they reference is the abstraction. The relation is arbitrary. In other words, the relation between the patterns of light and what they reference would be the abstraction and in talking about (some) relations you'd be talking about abstractions. This explains why your relation with unicorns and my relation with unicorns are abstractions in the sense that they are not the unicorn, but the relation between unicorns and each of us, and in talking about the relation, we'd be talking about different things (the relation), not the unicorn.

It just means a woman in Mississippi who wants an abortion will have to drive a while to get to a state that does them. A woman who doesn't have transport will probably be able to get a local one illegally. That's how it was before Roe. — frank

Not necessarily. Much has changed since Roe v Wade. I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. You should still be able to get an abortion, just under specific circumstances (like rape, or life of the mother is threatened) or within a certain time frame (before the third trimester).

The scare tactics are predictable though. Both sides do it - engaging in spreading disinformation or faulty predictions about what the other side intends, basically demonizing the other side. It's just the elites of both sides mobilizing their flocks for a battle to impose their own views on the rest of us.

The project has been a horrendous failure so far and it has no current prime representative. But capitalism has been in many ways a horrendous failure too, so the spectre of socialism will continue to haunt the world. — Jamal

One of the reasons it has failed is because socialism was never able to mature into a classless society because the ones that led the revolutions against monarchies and capitalism were privileged oligarchs themselves and did not recognize human rights.

Both sides are authoritarian in that power over many is consolidated into a few, whether it be elitist politicians and their families, CEOs, or the cleregy.

For liberalism to work power needs to be dispersed not just over space but over time in that every person in power cannot be in power until they die (term limits).

Our conversation is unraveling quickly. What is meaningless is your use of language.

I’m trying. Part of the problem is that most basic assumptions are part of the language, such as all the verb tenses that presume presentism. It’s all very pragmatic, but not so useful when it gets in the way of understanding a different point of view. So other than my continued nattering about using existence, ‘is’, or being real in an objective way, please point specific points out where my language gets in the way. — noAxioms

And I appreciate your intellectual honesty and the time you are devoting to addressing all points. I wish that was a more common virtue on these forums. I can't complain too much as this forum is far better than any interaction you can have on Twitter or FB, and the moderators seem to have loosened their grip on some of the speech that can be used over the past year or two. It's certainly one of the better places to have these kinds of discussions on the internet. First, I'd say that we need to eliminate any contradictions.

I didn’t say it doesn’t exist. I said that there is no meaning to ‘X exists’ or ‘X doesn’t exist’. It puts us and the unicorn on equal footing. To the unicorn, I don’t exist, so all nice and symmetrical.
Continuing to use language that presumes realism is inhibits the ability to discuss a view that doesn’t. I looked at nihilism, but it seems to give meaning to such a property, but asserts that nothing has it. So it gives meaning to ‘exists’, but then says nothing exists. So I’m not a nihilist. I cannot find a reference to what I’m describing. — noAxioms

You're free to use language however you wish, but I would think that you'd want me to understand so that you aren't wasting your time. I'm fine with abandoning terms like "realism", "exist" and "real" if that works for you. My main goal here is to figure out where we might be using different terms but are still talking about the same thing or not.

First, I need to understand what you mean by "exists". You contradict yourself by saying that there is no meaning in using the phrase, "X doesn't exist", and then you go on to say that that to the unicorn, you don't exist. It seems to me that the unicorn's existence is dependent on your existence to imagine it's existence. If the term, "exists" is the problem and is what is causing this contradiction, feel free to use a different term that captures your meaning.

In what way did you exist before you and I had our first interaction? Did I exist? Did you exist prior to our first interaction? If so, in what way did we exist? Again, you are free to use whatever terms you want, so saying that it is meaningless doesn't help. If it is meaningless then tell me what you do mean without contradicting yourself. Contradictions are meaningless.

If you'd like, for the purpose of this discussion, we can say that existence, or exists, is just a state-of-affairs, or what is the case. X and Y are each separate state-of-affairs and any potential relation between them is another state-of-affairs. If there can be two states-of-affairs prior to any relation (potential vs. actual) then the the two states-of-affairs are not dependent on the relation. You could say that once they do form a relation the two states-of-affairs are now different states-of-affairs, but not totally different as they still maintain links to the past as in each subsequent relation is an effect of prior states-of-affairs.

If X exists in relation to Y, then what are X and Y independent of the relation? Just because I had no information about you prior to us meeting, does that mean that you didn't exist until I did? Does this mean that there are not parts of the world that have changed as a result of you being in it independent of my first meeting with you? This is what I mean by exists - that it is a relation of causation. As such, the unicorn in your mind exists as a causal event of you having experienced the idea before. The unicorn in your head is not the unicorn in my head and this is the result of us both having different experiences in learning about and conceiving of unicorns. This also puts us and the unicorn on equal footing in that we all exist as a result of some causal relationship as well has being the cause of other things, like this conversation we are having - something that would not exist if we did not exist prior to starting it.

Are you saying that X and Y are states-of-affairs prior to the state-of-affairs of existing in relation to each other? Does one come before the other?

unicorns only exist as abstractions

Under a relational view, this statement is not even wrong. It references a realist bias (that there is a property of ‘exists’ and we have it and unicorns do not, making us real and not the unicorn). Step one is to drop that bias, because the view needs to be driven to contradiction without resorting to it. — noAxioms

But that isn't what I've been saying at all. I've been saying that unicorns exist as well as us because they are both causal. Abstractions are the effects of an experienced mind and the ink scribble, "unicorn" is the effect (representation) of that abstraction. Certain experiences cause certain abstractions to exist within our minds and those abstractions in turn cause us to behave in certain ways like drawing scribbles and pictures of unicorns - none of which would exist had not the previous conditions been met.

So all the components of a structure are related as being a member of the whole, which is very different from the concept of an ‘existence’ relation which involves measurement and only applies to temporal structures with causal physics. — noAxioms

I don't see how. You're simply talking about spatial relations in the components being a member of a whole. I don't believe in any fundamental scale of reality independent of some view of reality. Wholes and members of wholes are the products of different views (measurements) of the same thing.

I bring all this up for terminology purposes. Level 1 is universes separated by physical distance (visible universes). Level 2 comes from inflation bubbles that have different physical constants like multiple dimensions of time and field strengths that don’t allow particles to form and such. Level 3 is other worlds per MWI. Level 4 is unrelated structures, of which I have a few choice examples. All of these ‘universes’ are inaccessible to us, hence (in relational terminology) don’t exist relative to our Earth. — noAxioms

If they don't exist (have a causal relation) relative to the Earth, then how did humans on Earth come to contemplate it or know about it? How did we acquire this information? How do physicists and philosophers come to talk about this? How did you come to talk about such things?

There are views that are realist about relations. I’m trying to avoid being realist about anything, so no, it is not meaningful to discuss the existence of relations except as relations to its relata. Yea, I suppose ‘measures X’ can be thought of as a property of Y. — noAxioms

The only property of Y? If so, then it seems that Y is dependent upon the there being an X to measure, but then what is X?

What you seem to be saying is that there is X and Y and Z is the relation (existence) between them. My question is what is X and Y independent of this relation, as in you and I before we ever met.

I'm not sure if this is an adequate example, but think of a 3D open-world game installed on your computer. Before you run the game, the game is just a program written in some computer language stored as an executable file on your hard drive. All the events within the game have already been written. The past, present and future events within the game all exist at once within the program. The programmer already knows what will happen and has happened before running the program, but the player does not. It is only in playing the game - of living the life of one of the characters in the game - that time's passage becomes apparent, but outside of the game there is no time as all the causal events of IF-THEN-ELSE in the code happen all at once. Everything is happening all at once and it is our own mental participation within this that stretches these causal relations into independent causes and effects (time).

the Moon and Earth existed prior to humans as a measurement?
Relative to what? Question is meaningless without that.
— noAxioms
Relative to each other. — noAxioms

Think MWI here. The moon seems a direct result of a specific Theia event. So some worlds have a moon, and yes, it orbits what can be named Earth. Some worlds have a different Theia event leaving a much different Earth any different moon or no moon. Relative to a world where the Theia impact did not occur, there is probably still something that is the future version of what had become our Earth in our world. Some (most) worlds don’t have our solar system at all. Some worlds have unicorns on them, but probably not human maidens to adopt them. The ones with unicorns (evolved from the same primitive live as did we) very much have a moon in their sky. The exact same Theia event exists relative to the unicorn as it does to us. The branching of worlds that cumulated in those two states most certainly occurred. It’s like two very different chess game states (one with (horny) knights still on the board, one with only bishops) both sharing a common first dozen moves. — noAxioms

Sounds like causation to me. Seems that thinking of MWI is thinking of causation. So we seem to be using different terms while talking about the same thing. "Results of specific events" is talk of effects of specific causes.

These include that my sensory input is not a lie. If I’m being fed fiction (evil BiV scenario), then I have zero knowledge and cannot help getting it wrong, — noAxioms

You know that you exist. How you exist is a different story. You know you have a mind, but the relation between your mind and the world would be a different story. So you would still possess some knowledge. Even evil BiV scenarios cannot make a case against "I think, therefore I am". Anything beyond that would be assumptions. An evil BiV scenario would still be a world in which brains and vats exist, and I wonder if the evil scientist knows if he isn't a BiV himself, or what it's universe is like that can have brains and vats and evil scientists - doesn't sound much different than the universe I currently find myself in.

But I am a realist. So now what?

Now you punch holes in my idea. — noAxioms

First, I have to understand your idea. :smile:

You like to postulate other universes when you don't believe that there actually are.

Same with the unicorns, but I don’t postulate their existence, I just reference them. Yet again, it is meaningless to talk about if they actually are or are not. Lacking the meaning of the property, the other universe is on no more or less stable ground than this one. That’s the beauty of it. — noAxioms

Would it be fair to say that you are referencing a state-of-affairs (potential or actual)? What is the nature of the thing that you are referencing and how is it different than the state-of-affairs of referencing, or what is the case of referencing?

Is it so hard for you to pretend that maybe you're not an anti-realist? You say 'real' has no meaning and then go on to categorize your beef as being real and existing as a relation with you.

Which is different than any of that just existing. — noAxioms

Then "real" and "existing" are dependent on each other - you cannot have one without the other? In a way, I do agree with you. Abstractions exist and are real in the same way as non-abstractions in that they are all states-of-affairs. They are what is the case. They have causal power. Again, we seem to be saying the same thing in some respects, just using different terms and means of expressing it.

That is the difference between what makes a scribble a number or word and not just a scribble. So are 2 and 4 scribbles or numbers?

I’m talking about the latter. What is written down is a representation, an abstraction of sorts, not the thing. — noAxioms

But scribbles are concrete things as well, ink marks on paper, patterns of light on your computer screen, or voices in the air. The abstraction is the causal relation between the ink marks and what caused them, which is some idea in the mind. How does an abstraction cause ink marks to appear on some paper? How does reading ink marks on paper cause an abstraction in the mind? To answer such questions seems to me to require thinking of unicorns and ink marks, as you put it, "on equal footing.", in dissolving the distinctions that we normally think of between mind and world, body and mind. They both have a causal influence. They are both effects of prior causes and causes of subsequent effects. In this sense, I think of everything as information - the relationship between causes and their effects.

If they are numbers, then they represent something.

Well, that goes against my original question of if they needed to represent anything. I think somebody working in pure mathematics (not applied) would still say that 2+2=4. — noAxioms

Which my response was that they wouldn't represent anything. They'd be scribbles. I don't know what pure mathematics (scribbles) is if it isn't applied (representations). I'd have to ask the pure mathematician why they are thinking of or writing the scribbles, 2+2=4. How did they come to think of these particular scribbles? Are they just copying some scribbles that they have seen, or is there some purpose to thinking of and drawing the scribbles, 2+2=4?

Humans are far too embedded in their social institutions for even the most ardent individualist — Banno

More assertions. I'm winning our game.

The game cannot continue if Sartre decides to exercise his radical freedom, regardless of what the majority say. — Banno

Wait, doesn't this contradict what you just said?

How could it possibly be that there are individuals that rebel against the social institutions they find themselves embedded? Would they be playing a different game? If so, with who if the rest of society finds themselves embedded within the old game?

That we are social animals is not the most comfortable thing. — Banno

Seems like something a sociopath might say. Oh, and it's another assertion.

If language is a game, who is the winner and who is the loser? If society is a game, who is the winner and who is the loser? If there are no winners and losers, then maybe, "game" is an inadequate term to use here.

Conservatives use the "far left" as a rhetorical device to devalue liberals. A meaningless term. — Jackson

Independents and moderate Dems, like Bill Maher and Elon Musk, use the term, "far left" to show that "liberal progressives" arent liberal or progressive, but are wacko-wokesters that are actually status-quo authoritarians. When you have an incessant need to control other people and continue to vote for people that have been in power for decades, they are anything but liberal or progressive. Both sides mis-use the terms, "liberal" and "progressive". Both extremes are authoritarian in that they want to tell you how to live your life. One or two-party systems are the status-quo and abolishing political parties would be considered progress.

That's interesting. Neither extreme can accept diverse viewpoints, so in a sense they're both collectivist in their own ways. Is that what you mean? — frank

Yes. Being a moderate or independent typically means youre anti-extremist and anti-collectivist.

You're saying the left fears individual autonomy. People need to be controlled, guided, and cared for.

On the one hand, this is just valuing life. On the extreme, it wants to reduce all citizens to children. — frank

The same could be said of the moderates and extremists for both the left and the right. Again, the difference lies in who wields the reins of power over individuals. Both extremes are forms of collectivism, while the moderates of both sides value individual liberty.

It seems that you are going to received skewed explanations of what is the extreme versions of the left and right. Left-wingers are always going to try to make their side look like saints.
Example:

Put it another way:
left wing cares about social equality.
right wing cares about rich. — SpaceDweller

The right does the same thing. It seems that if you want an unbiased view of both sides you will need to ask someone that is a member of neither side.

Since China and Russia are capitalist states now, is there really any true representative of leftism today?

What is the left now, and what is the far left? Who is the far left? — frank

China and Russia are not fully capitalist states. The governments in each hold their thumb on the economies, choosing winners and losers. As such, the left-wing is for more government control over all aspects of society, whereas the right-wing is for less government control. The right-wing is really just a transfer of power from the government to the corporations or the church where the corporations or the church will have greater control or impact on society which includes the government itself.

The extreme on both sides is about more power being consolidated with a select few. The only difference is who is wielding the power over the rest of us - the government or corporations/church.

The far-left is the faction that wants government to have complete and total control over everything - how we spend our money, what we are allowed to say, etc. While it may seem that the far-left values and fights for the little man or minorities, they are really just using identity politics to create a problem of victimhood for certain groups as a reason to acquire more power over everyone's lives.

Moderates and independents are generally for less control over our individual lives whether that control be from the government or from corporations or the church.

The point of the unicorn example was to show that expression of such relations is commonplace. I picked a unicorn because it exemplifies a thing lacking the property of existence. I’m talking about a unicorn, and not the abstraction or representation of one. — noAxioms

But how can you talk about something that doesn't exist? As I said before, it can't be a representation if what it "represents" doesn't exist. It is the thing itself and "unicorn" the word is the representation of the abstraction. Yes, you are talking about unicorns, and unicorns only exist as abstractions. Abstractions are the relation between various sensory impressions. Unicorns are an abstract amalgam of horses and horns. We can only ever talk about our ideas and mental states. Whether those ideas and mental states are representative of other things is a different question. I don't see a difference in the idea of existence for abstractions or non-abstractions for they both have the causal power and I defined existence as having causal power.

Now that seems like what you are talking about here:

X exists relative to Y. If you want to get down and dirty, the relation seems to depend on the nature of the structure defining X and Y. So for instance, in this universe it seems that quantum decoherence defines X to Y: Y measures X when information of X leaks to Y. — noAxioms

Then the structure for defining X and Y is prior to the relation of X and Y? How does this structure exist as a relation to what? And when I ask how does it exist, I'm asking how does it have causal power as in causing a relation between X and Y?

Your wording uses ‘exist’ as a property, and is thus meaningless in the relational view. In short, using quantum rules, a thing doesn’t exist relative to Y if Y hasn’t measured it, and thus there is no existence relative to Y in the absence of measurement. A photon ‘in flight’ for instance isn’t measured by anything. It is probably the number one example of a counterfactual. Existence of an unmeasured photon is denied pretty much by any non-counterfactual interpretation of physics. Not so with a classical pulse of light, but such a pulse has been measured. — noAxioms

It seems to me that a relation is a type of property.

Do relations exist? If so, then relative to what?

If any interaction is a measurement and humans/lifeforms are not special in this role, then the Moon and Earth existed prior to humans as a measurement?
Relative to what? Question is meaningless without that. — noAxioms

Relative to each other. So for the Moon to exist it must have a relation with something, say the Earth, and this relation existed before humans, right? If humans are not special in this role then you don't necessarily need an observer for quantum decoherence. You just need other relations, no?

Are you saying that it is measurements, or relations, all the way down, and are what is real or exists?

Relations all the way down, yes. Exists no, since that isn’t a relation. No, I’m not saying relations are ‘real’. — noAxioms

:gasp:
So relations are like unicorns?

There’s only finite stuff that exists relative to me for instance, all of it in my past light cone. — noAxioms

Yeah, but that stuff exists relative to other stuff, not just you. It also existed before you and will continue to exist after you, no? Or are you saying that all other relations of things other than with you do not exist when you don't? That would be solipsism.

It being categorized as ‘real’ is meaningless (not even wrong). It is real to me, and also to you regardless of my having explained it or not. — noAxioms

Not being a realist, my ‘beef’ does not have the property of being real, but it’s real to me. — noAxioms

But I am a realist. So now what? You like to postulate other universes when you don't believe that there actually are. Is it so hard for you to pretend that maybe you're not an anti-realist? You say 'real' has no meaning and then go on to categorize your beef as being real and existing as a relation with you.

Our conversation is unraveling quickly. What is meaningless is your use of language.

It’s actually pretty hard to do. Closest I can think is a self driving car which needs to glean objects and then sort out which ones are potentially mobile. The cars still get it wrong sometimes. — noAxioms

Not really. My iRobot vacuum cleaner seems to locate the walls of the house just fine and never tries to clean the outside. It also seems to sense areas that are more dirty as it focuses on cleaning those areas and then moved to other areas when done.

I can also program a computer to send me e-mails when its temperature or power consumption reaches a certain threshold.

Basic sensors can be designed to detect basic boundaries. Boundaries can be stable or dynamic, like in your driving car example. Dynamic boundaries I would agree are more difficult to manage.

I don’t like the talk of scribbles since I’m not in any way suggesting that the numbers require representation in any way in order for them to relate in this way. — noAxioms

Scribbles don't necessarily represent anything. That is the difference between what makes a scribble a number or word and not just a scribble. So are 2 and 4 scribbles or numbers? If they are scribbles then asking if any relationship between them is objectively true is a silly question. If they are numbers, then they represent something.

mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems.
— Harry Hindu

Could you kindly expand and elaborate? Gracias.

Are you going Wittgenstein on me? — Agent Smith

I'd prefer to say that I'm going logical on you. It seems that one can logically arrive at that conclusion without ever having read Wittgenstein.

Every argument always involves a single claim about a single thing. Fallacies of language are ones in which the language you are using confuses this.

One kind of fallacy is called equivocation. In this fallacy a word or phrase has more than one meaning. In the argument, it is not clear which meaning you are using.

Another kind of fallacy is the misuse of metaphor. In this fallacy, the words and phrases that you are using do not have different meanings. However, you are using them in a non-literal fashion. — SimplyPhilosophy.org

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/fallacies-of-language/

Neither do I, which is why I don't understand why Isaac thinks that we can turn lead into gold by changing the meaning of "lead" and/or "gold". That's a use-mention error. Regardless of the words we decide to use to refer to lead and gold, lead has 82 protons and gold has 79 protons. Regardless of what we decide to mean by "leg", dogs (typically) have four legs. Regardless of what name he chooses to call himself, Joe Biden is President of the United States. — Michael

Yes, changing names is a language act. Changing elements is a chemical act and changing presidents is a voting act. Changing one has no effect on changing the other because different causes are required.

With that in mind it is quite straightforward to say that being paper is a brute fact but being money is a human institution. There is no money if there are no people, but there will be paper. — Michael

Humans and their societies with their institutions are planted firmly within the world and not separate from it. Talking about our institutions, or even our mental states, is talking about the world. It is a brute fact that humans have mental states and use paper to make money to exchange for goods and services.

Doesn’t everything have a status?

This piece counts as a bishop in chess.
This cord counts as a leash in walking.
A circle counts as a o in English.
A circle counts as a zero in math.
A circle counts as a o in tic tac toe. — praxis

Which the same as asking, isnt everything a state-of-affairs?

Pretty much. — Banno

:clap:

P1. There is 1 red pill and 1 blue pill in a bag
P2. All red pills are poisonous
P3. All blue pills are not poisonous
C1. There is only 1 poisonous pill in the bag (from 1, 2, and 3)
P4. We now decide that the word "red" shall refer also to the colour blue and that the word "blue" shall be retired
C2. There are 2 poisonous pills in the bag (from 1, 2, and 4)

C2 is both false and contradicts C1. — Michael

Changing the name doesnt change the pill. Its so simple i dont understand why theres any issue. I think that too many here think that making it complex also makes them smart.

Yes, the analysis becomes ubiquitous.

So pity poor Harry Hindu, who sees all language as mere assertion, and hence can't begin along the path. — Banno

This appears to be all assertions to me. I win everytime you type scribbles on your screen, Banno, because everytime you use scribbles you assert your intent to communicate.

We do not have black man and white man experiences. We have human experiences.
— Harry Hindu

That is not always the case. You are conflating an ideal with reality. The fact of the matter is that prejudice has not been eliminated. A white man in the US will not experience this discrimination when buying a house or applying for a loan or applying for a job or being stopped for a motor vehicle check. — Fooloso4

But that's not a black man or white man experience per se. It is a human experience of finding yourself in an environment that is hostile to you based on the differences of skin color. I'm sure a white man's experience will be like a black man's experience depending on where they are. Any human is capable of feeling discriminated against. It just depends on your skin color and the environment you find yourself in.

The banning of books is a topical example. "Cancelling" is another. Restrictions on speech. — Fooloso4

You said,

Both extremes come close together in excluding what is regarded as 'other', even though they do so for very different reasons. — Fooloso4

I asked what was different about the reasons and you give me the ways in which the extremes exclude others, not the reasons they do so. Both extremes are the same in their reasons and in how they implement them. Hate and ignorance are the reasons of both extremes. They implement their hate and ignorance by banning books, canceling each other and restricting each other's speech.

You exist relative to me. It’s a relation born of measurement, at least in this universe. It is not a function episemology. There are billions of people I don't know which nevertheless exist relative to me.
Being a non-realist means that the property of being real (existence) is undefined. Relations are not affected by the meaningless property. There is precedent. People have no problem saying a unicorn has a horn on its head despite the lack of existence of the horn, or running a simulation of a car hitting a wall to measure its safety properties despite the lack of existence of the car. The unicorn horn exists relative to the unicorn despite their lack of the meaningless property. I don’t exist to the unicorn since it doesn't measure me. — noAxioms

It comes down to what you mean by "exist". Imaginings exist in the same way non-imagined things exist. They are both real in the sense that they have causal power. The imagining of a unicorn (mental states) can cause a human to use colored ink and paper to form an image of a unicorn on it (physical states). The difference between an known thing and an imagined thing is that one is understood to represent things whose existence is not dependent on a mind and the other's existence is completely dependent upon a mind. An imagined thing is not a representation of anything. It is a thing in and of itself. The word, "unicorn", or a piece of paper with colored ink would be the representation of a unicorn in and of itself.

It’s something like the Rovelli view, except I’ve seen it expressed that it implies a sort of momentary ontology where a system exists only at the moments in which it is measured, and not between, but the moon is quite there (relative to us) when not being looked at. For one thing, it is pretty impossible to not continuously measure the moon, and for another thing, you can’t un-measure a thing, so the moon once measured exists to all humans, even humans that might not exist relative to me say in some other world.

Humans/life forms play no special role in this. It isn’t about epistemology. You always existed relative to me long before either of us posted on any forum. We exist relative to my mug since it too has measured us, despite the fact that the mug doesn’t know it. Any interaction whatsoever is a measurement, so the only way to avoid it is by isolation by distance or Schrodinger’s box and such. — noAxioms

This is the really mind-bending part. In what way does some system exist independent of it being measured? If any interaction is a measurement and humans/lifeforms are not special in this role, then the Moon and Earth existed prior to humans as a measurement? Are you saying that it is measurements, or relations, all the way down, and are what is real or exists? Any system is a relation between its constituents and the constituents are also systems. It seems like an infinite regress, but it could also be that reality is infinite and eternal.

My big beef against realism is how one explains the reality of whatever one considers real. — noAxioms

Is your beef against realism a real state-of-affairs that can be explained? I understand your explanation (your use of scribbles) to not be the actual beef you have against realism but the explanation of such and that your beef against realism is a real state-of-affairs that I can only be aware of by your use of scribbles, with your scribbles being the effect of your beef with realism and your intent to explain just that. So, am I correct in my assumption that your explanation is of a real state-of-affairs (that you have a beef with realism) that is true despite if you had explained it or not, or even if I believed your explanation or not?

OK, about the 2+2=4 thing: This is probably the shakiest part of my view: Is the sum of (just to pick a non-counting example) 3.600517 and 12.8119 objectively equal to 16.412417 or is it contingent on instantiation of those values somehow somewhere, on say a calculator adding those specific values. — noAxioms

The answer to the question of if values added together objectively equals another value seems to be proved by finding those values in the universe independent of the scribbles we use to represent those values - meaning that values can't be just other scribbles. What is the relationship between the scribbles. 3.600517 and 12.8119 and 16.412417? Why is there a relationship at all? There must be something going on inside the calculator that forms a relationship between them that is more than just the rearranging of scribbles.Why does the calculator always display 16.412417 when pressing specific buttons in a specific order on a calculator?

My goal doesn’t involve anybody or anything actually performing a calculation. That would make the truth of 2+2=4 contingent on the thing doing the adding. — noAxioms

Your goal doesn't perform the calculation. It determines what kind of values and the calculations, or measurements that you will use, as well as how specific you need your measurement to be successful in achieving your goal. The success or failure of your goal is dependent upon those values and calculations being representative of some actual state-of-affairs or not, and not just being some scribbles being rearranged in your head at whim.

On what statement of mine did you conclude something like that? Done correctly, the quotes are signed. — noAxioms

This:

I wasn’t talking about the difference between a cat and something similar to a cat. I’m talking about the boundaries of a specific cat or river or whatever. Which atoms belong to the cat and which do not, and precisely when does that designation change? Physics doesn’t care about it. It is just a language thing. But build a physical device that say cleans a cat and you’ll have to define the boundary to a point so it doesn’t waste it’s time grooming the carrier or something. — noAxioms

Which scribbles belong to you and which belong to me, and why? It seems that physics is what explains how some scribble is yours and which are mine by causation. If it were just a language thing, then I can simply rearrange quotes, and some of your posts would be mine. What is plagiarism?

Doesn't the fact that I can design a physical device that isn't a human being but possesses sensors like a human being that can determine the boundary of a cat in the same way a human can, mean something? It must have something to do with both of us having sensors and what those sensors were designed to sense (a boundary) that exists independently of the representations of those boundaries in the human mind.

Because the part in charge doesn’t believe the ideas that the rational part comes up with. The boss very much believes the lies and the rational part is fine with the goals that come from them. Mostly... — noAxioms

If the rational part is fine with the goals, then the rational part must share the goals because the rational part must realize that the boss and itself are part of the same being that the outcomes of their behaviors affects them both. Then the rational part doesn't seem rational at all if it doesn't at least attempt to overthrow the boss when it determines that the boss is making the wrong decision that will impede their natural and social fitness.

No immediate argument, but * rant warning * I do notice that we rationally can see the environmental damage being done, but the parts in charge do not. For all we pride ourselves in being this superior race, we act less intelligent than bacteria in a limited petri dish of nutrients. The bacteria at least don’t see the problem. We do and we (temporarily at least) have all this technology at our disposal, and don’t do anything different than the bacteria. * end rant * — noAxioms

This is not specific to humans. Alpha-males in most species are fine with maintaining the status-quo where they maintain their power and access to resources and mates at the expense of everyone else in the group.

If someone dehumanizes you because of your differences, then it is the differences that we should be ignoring, not focusing on.
— Harry Hindu

It is not that the difference should be ignored but rather that such differences should not be regarded as exclusionary factors for what it means to be human. — Fooloso4

Exactly - to be human. For us to understand that black men and white men can have the same experiences is to understand them both as being human, not black men and white men. We do not have black man and white man experiences. We have human experiences. All humans have different experiences when they are in a place where a majority/minority of of one skin color exists. The fact that there is a majority/minority of skin color in a particular corner of the world is just a basic unavoidable fact. What we can avoid is using those distinctions against someone, which starts with ignoring those distinctions in situations where they do not matter as in hiring someone vs being diagnosed with a disease.

There must be a reason to focus on one or the other.
— Harry Hindu

It has been said that extreme views on opposite ends of the spectrum come close to each other. Rather than a straight line with two poles they are more like the Greek letter Omega:Ω. Both extremes come close together in excluding what is regarded as 'other', even though they do so for very different reasons. — Fooloso4

If the reasons are different, then what is it that is shared by the extremes to say that they are close to each other?

Well, I'm of the view that definitions, like propositions, are subject to the Münchhausen Trilemma:

1. Infinite regress of definitions/proofs
2. Circular definitions/proofs
3. Undefined terms/unproven assumptions.

What I wished to convey was that, at least in math, the choice is 3: We begin with undefined terms e.g. points. — Agent Smith

Then it seems to me that you believe that ultimately no one is talking about anything. We would simply be making sounds with our mouths and making scribbles on this screen. What makes some scribble a word, and not just a scribble?

It seems to me that your trilemma only describes the mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems. Ironing out our definitions and determining whether or not they actually refer to some non-contradictory state-of-affairs resolves those philosophical problems.

point = .

That was easy.

Nor am I suggesting it is, but I can build a model of a car out of cars. these four cars represent the wheels, these two cars are the doors, this car is the engine...and so on. There's no problem with building a model using that which is being modelled. — Isaac

A car is not it's engine. It is a car. Models are typically a smaller scale than what is being modeled and typically less complex. You can't sit in or drive model cars. As such you shouldn't be able to use models of language-use because it wouldn't be an actual language. You would be simply using language, not models of language, and using language is using scribbles and sounds to refer to some state-of-affairs, which could be how someone uses language, or how someone plays chess, or how the sun sets in the sky.

Likewise with "that stone is iron", it's contingent on the human activity of us classifying elements by their proton number. The moment we stop doing that, its status as iron is called into question. — Isaac

...which is a different state-of-affairs than that stone's properties independent of our naming conventions. You're confusing one state-of-affairs with another.

When we see each other through the lens of a well-intentioned but disingenuous ideological lens there is a danger of dehumanizing them. Our differences is what makes us individuals. Problems arise with how one regards and treats others in ways that are harmful on the basis of race or sex. — Fooloso4

We have differences and similarities. It all depends on what you or someone else wants to focus on. If someone dehumanizes you because of your differences, then it is the differences that we should be ignoring, not focusing on. Identity politics includes focusing on your own differences as well as focusing on the differences of others. Both are wrong because they are both forms of racism and sexism.

As to the OP, I think it is misguided and all too easily drifts to the absurd. If "lived experience" or "personal experience" is the determining criteria, then all representation must be limited to autobiography. — Fooloso4

True, but then we'd be focusing on our differences again. We have both differences and similarities. There must be a reason to focus on one or the other.

There are mixed race people and mixed culture people and life is complicated.
— unenlightened
Not really.
— Harry Hindu

No, really! — unenlightened

My point was that it was not complicated, not that there are not mixed race and mixed culture people. I thought that would be obvious had you read the rest of my post.

No it isn't. One does not wish to erase the memory of slavers or colonial exploiters, or of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or whoever. But one wishes to change a culture that lauds them as heroes and role-models. It is fairly clear that a culture that is defined by its oppression of others such as nazism or slavery, cannot coexist with one that defines itself as fair and open. so we object to graffiti swastikas and statues that celebrate slavers. — unenlightened

That's a fair point. But we should also take into account people are products of their time, and the progress that was made since could not have been made if we didn't start somewhere, and that there are other places on the planet that are far more oppressive than the U.S. I also don't think that having a statue of George Washington causes people to be racist, nor do I think that taking it down stops racism.

Acquisition of what amounts to a measurement of an unmeasurable thing is of little concern to me. Not being a realist, I don’t give meaning to realist statements like “there are X many universes”, be X 0, 1, some other number, finite or otherwise. My universe is confined to a limited distance. That’s a relation relative to any given event (physics definition) in my life. — noAxioms

Hmm. It seems strange to say that you are not a realist when you've been engaged with me in this conversation for some time now. Is it your belief that I only exist when you are reading my posts? Is it your belief that I am only a post on an internet philosophy forum and not a real human being even though you have never seen me? Do you only exist when I read your posts?

You're the one that brought other universes into the discussion, no?

Is 2+2=4 a realist statement? Is it conditionally true only if either quantity is real or there are real things that can be quantified, or is it unconditionally true even without there being anything real to count? I can make it a little harder by picking a non-integer since it eliminates the relevance of just counting things. — noAxioms

Now I'm not really sure by what you mean as "realist". I am a direct realist when it comes to the mind and an indirect realist when it comes to the world. Our minds are of the world and about the world, thanks to causation (information).

Math and language are approximations of the world and about the world thanks to causation (information). As you pointed out, math problems like dividing by three gives you a an infinite regress answer. Our present goal in the mind determines how many significant digits we use (how close the approximation needs to be) to accomplish that goal. Is the goal to divide the last piece of pie among three people equally, or is the goal getting a spacecraft to Mars?

I see the reality as like an analog signal and our minds are digital interpretations of that analog signal. Our minds need to categorize the world to make sense of it to accomplish even the most basic goals.

Tegmark listed four different ways to do that. His first is the kind I referenced above, a set of finite sized hyperspheres that overlap, separated only by distance. That’s four different ways to define a cat.
I’m the first to admit that defining a word is a human language thing. It isn’t a physics thing at all. What delimits the cat from the not-cat? At exactly what point does the cat and food system become just cat?
In Dr Who, a character had a teleport device strapped to his wrist. Hit the button and you’re suddenly somewhere else. My immediate (no hesitation) reaction to that was to ask how it knew what was you and what wasn’t. In terminator it was a nice define sphere and if your foot was outside that line, it doesn’t go with you. But the wrist device needed to know apparently that the clothes needed to go with you, but not say the post against which you’re leaning, despite the post being closer to the device than many of your body parts. It really bothered me, never mind the whole impossibility of the device in the first place, which I readily accept as a plot device. — noAxioms

So we can't determine whose posts are whose on this forum? I have often thought about it the way you are describing it but I eventually come back to the idea that there must be some kind of distinction between objects that does not only exist in our minds.

Sure there exists similarities in all animals, but there are clear differences too. It depends on what you are comparing. When trying to explain how life evolved there will probably some issues in distinguishing a non-living cell from a living cell, but there is surely a difference between a cat and a fish that does not simply exist in our minds.

It seems to me that similarities and differences exist not as a product of our minds, but as a result of similar or different causes, which are not necessarily mental.

If categories only exist in our minds does that mean that every organism is unique (there is only one of everything) and we can share similarities as a result of common causes, or does that mean that there are no boundaries and there is only one thing (reality, mind, etc.) and there are no individuals? The latter seems to imply solipsism.

I’d have said that abstract is abstract and there is no cat until something names/models it. The word cat is strictly a mental construction. So are atoms if you come right down to it, but at least atom has a physics definition that the cat lacks. I’m not asserting anything here, just giving my thoughts. — noAxioms

Then what are we naming or modeling? There is something that we are naming and the naming refers to the similarities of particular organisms. I don't think the similarities and differences are products of our minds. Categories are useful most of the time and are only challenged when we find things that challenge the boundaries. But those are few and far between, which must mean something. It means that similar causes leave similar effects, but every cause is unique. Similarity and uniqueness are not contradictions. You can share characteristics of others thanks to your similar causes but you are also an individual in space-time accumulating your own life experiences.

The lies have a huge bearing on my ability to survive. So it must be the rational beliefs, far more likely to be true, that have no bearing. I’d say they do, but the rational side isn’t in charge, but instead has a decent advisory role for matters where the boss hasn’t a strong opinion. Fermi paradox solution: Any sufficiently advanced race eventually puts its rational side sufficiently in charge to cease being fit. — noAxioms

If you are able to say that they are lies, then you obviously know what the truth is is yet you are still able to survive. How is that?

It seems to me that the ability to adapt to a wide range of environments is a result of our our rational side (science and technology). Being able to survive in a wide range of environments, and potentially all environments, is about as fit as you can get.

I have to admit that the rational side is like an engineer, not having goals of its own, but rather is something called upon to better meet the goals of its employer, even in cases where the goals are based on known lies. But I’m not sure whose goals you think are not being realized. They’re working on ‘live forever’. — noAxioms

Then the engineer has the goal of meeting the goals of its employer, or of having an income to support themselves and their family, which are not lies, but are actual states-of-affairs in the world. When you lie, you have the goal of misleading others or yourself. To be capable of lying you must know the truth.

You seem to be describing.....
— Harry Hindu

Good that it only seems. — Mww

Seem: to give the impression of being; To appear to be probable or evident.

If it isn't how it seems, then maybe you should explain what you see the difference between belief and knowledge as being, instead of being sarcastic? But if sarcasm is all you have then that is sad, not good.

I must admit I'm a bit lost. Do pardon me. — Agent Smith

We not only adapt to truths, we do the opposite as well, adapt truths to us. Stoicism may have been popular 2.5k years ago, it no longer is; in fact the modern world is distinctly anti-stoic, won't you agree? — Agent Smith

Yes, we are part of the world, not separate from it. The world affects us and we affect the world. This is simpler than trying to think of us as separate (dualism) from the world (soul vs body, mind vs. brain, physical vs. mental, etc.).

Come now to definitions vis-à-vis simplicity.

How, in your view, do the two relate?

As things get simpler, are they easier/harder to define?

In my humble opinion, it should be harder for the reason that entire series of definitions must begin somewhere (to avoid an infinite regress) and ergo there should be some undefined terms to get the ball rolling, these being invariably the simplest of them all. — Agent Smith

I don't see how having undefined terms to get the ball rolling actually gets the ball rolling. It seems to me that our terms have to refer to something or else there essentially is no ground to roll the ball on.

I think that our language-use has become so complex that it seems like the world is more complicated than it actually is. Most philosophical problems are the result of a mis-use of language, or poorly defined terms.

Well, yeah. But you've yet to demonstrate that it doesn't represent what it models, you've only shown that it's possible to model language in other ways (as about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.) — Isaac

Sure I did. You're not paying attention. Is Searle's use of language (his model of language) about language-use? Is language-use a state of affairs? If so, then his model is about a state-of-affairs. If not, then what it Searle saying (modeling)? What is he talking about? Yours and Banno's interpretation of Searle's model defeats itself.

I don't see why. I can model a car with cars, I could build a model of a brick out of bricks... — Isaac

model: an example for imitation or emulation.

A model is not the real thing.

Do you know what it feels like not to be a white male?
— ZzzoneiroCosm

I do not know what it feels like to be a white male. — Jackson

Exactly. As if every white male has the same experiences, and as if every black man has the same experiences and needs that are different than white males. ZzzoneiroCosm is a racist and sexist - stereotyping people based on their skin color and sex.

If black actors can be cast as white characters, then why not the reverse? It seems that shared experience only works in one direction.

"Group solipsism" is a contradiction in terms.

Solipsism is the philosophical position that only one mind exists. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, yeah the group mind, as in group-think.

Its why anti-free-speech snowflakes are leaving Twitter in droves. They cannot cope with opposing viewpoints. Their viewpoint can be the only viewpoint, and any others must be "misinformation" :scream:

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson

Everyone should be able to say what they want as long as reason is free to filter it. A competition of ideas with reason being the judge is how progress is made, not by silencing any opposing viewpoint. Why do you think science has progressed as rapidly as it has compared to religions? Religions only seem to progress when science forces them to.

There are mixed race people and mixed culture people and life is complicated. — unenlightened

Not really. When we see each other simply as fellow humans, instead of focusing on our differences of race and sex where it isn't appropriate (category error), it becomes very simple. Why can't we all be like dogs? Dog breeds exhibit the diversity of the gene pool. Dogs of different breeds breed with no quarrels. The don't seem to notice the differences amongst themselves.

Alas it is the result of your thinking, not mine. I do not think cultural differences should be erased - you do.

and The Chinese communist Party agrees with you. — unenlightened

Then tearing down statues of a particular culture isn't trying to erase a particular culture?
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/502492-list-statues-toppled-vandalized-removed-protests/

Does this mean that Nazi and Communist cultures should be free to express themselves?

No, cultural difference should not be erased, nor should they be the focus of your identity. People change religions, adopt the customs of other cultures, so the culture you grew up in and your ancestry does not necessarily define you. You are a human-being first, not a black man, or an white woman. Those are only PARTS of what it means to be a human-being, not the entirety of what it is to be a human-being. By focusing on those parts you only end up diminishing yourself.

Nirvana fallacy? There are certain margins of error we must be willing to accept, especially since the world is, for some reason, imperfect. The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? I frankly find it odd that you would demand flawlessness in a world that is, well, flawed. Perhaps it's proof, as Plato believed, our minds are not of this world. How else could it have ever conceived of forms? — Agent Smith

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you.

A circle is a (geometric) shape, true, but its precise definition - the set of all points equidistant from one other point (the center) - is more precise and is in words.

However, my point is if one faces difficulty with defining something, it might mean you're dealing with an undefinable (point, space, time, etc.) or that you've come to the realization that you're up against — Agent Smith

Then the precise definition only refers to imaginary objects in the mind. There is no such thing in the world in which the set of all points are equidistant from one other point (the center). If what we are talking about only exists in our minds, then that is something that I cannot show you and can only describe to you, hence my explanation that we use words to describe something to someone else that they cannot actually see. You can try to draw one based on the precise definition, but you will fail utterly. Depending on what measurement we are using, one point will not be equidistant as all the other points. There will be a point that is a micrometer more or less distant from the center than other points.

Just wanted to say thanks for the dialog. You’re one of the single digit of posters whose feedback I’d not lightly dismiss, even if I’m in total disagreement with a few of them. — noAxioms

Thank you. I appreciate that. I can say that same about you. :up:

Your profile says you're Indonesian, not an "American white guy". — noAxioms

My profile actually says that my location is Indonesian fields, not necessarily that I am Indonesian, but then don't believe everything that you read on a person's profile. :wink:

That would be a meaningless question if the sum of two and two is not objectively meaningful. You’re asking an objective question there, not one related to a particular set of laws.
You said that 2+2=4 is true in our universe, which I’ll call U0. So U0 → 2+2=4
But I’m going for a relation in the other direction: 2+2=4 → U0, U1, etc.
If mathematical law holds objectively and not just relative to our universe, then I can explain the existence relative to us of our universe. That’s why I’m interested in it being objectively true. It has been a weak point in my argument.

Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe?
I suppose in the universe where 2+2=7, there would objectively be 7 universes, but we’d count only 4. That sounds like a contradiction since it is an objective quantity being discussed, not a quantity of anything that is part of one universe or another. That’s fair evidence that 2+2 objectively is 4, but I’ve not enough of a formal mathematical background to assess the validity of that argument. — noAxioms

For it to be objective, it would have to be true regardless of what is true in each universe. It would be true outside of all the universes. If there is only one universe, then there isn't a problem.

Like I said, it doesn't make any sense to say that we can count universes - which is an act that we can only do if we put ourselves outside of all universes - while in a particular universe counting works a different way. It's like saying that in one universe there is only one universe, when there are actually many. How would you acquire the truth if not by leaving this universe and going to another? The truth that there is only one universe isn't true within a particular universe. It can only be true if you are outside of all universes.

I admit that this is all challenging my ideas of objectivity vs. subjectivity and my ability to communicate how I am trying to conceive them. But I think that ultimately we need to go back to what I said before that counting itself seems dependent upon (mental) categories prior to what is being counted. You can only count cats if you have a "cat" category that individual members are a part of. If you have no "cat" category, then there is only one of each individual animal. The same can be said of universes. What qualifies a universe to be a universe, or part of the category, "universe"? It seems that needs to be answered before we can even begin to wonder if there is more than one in the first place. So the question is, do (mental) categories exist independent of minds? Are categories objective features of reality?

I obviously hold multiple self-contradictory beliefs. As I said, the lies make you fit, and I’d not survive the day without them. — noAxioms

For me, it is the ironing out of the self-contradictory beliefs that make me fit. All knowledge must be integrated. It's more likely that your self-contradictory beliefs have no bearing on your goal to survive, which is why you can hold them and still survive. When you actually apply those beliefs to goals that they have an impact on, then you will find that your goals cannot be realized.

Yes, warm fuzzies so you can sleep. Most people rationalize the lies rather than rationally analyze them, but most people don’t give a philosophy forum a second thought.
I’ve watched my mother rewrite her memories as a method of holding on to the warm fuzzies. It’s harder to see yourself do it, but it’s a necessary coping mechanism. Humans are excellent at rationalizing, but incredibly poor at rational thought. I struggle to be otherwise, and maybe even fool myself into thinking I’m on some kind of right track, but deeper down I realize that’s probably a rationalized conclusion. Go figure. — noAxioms

That's the thing that we need to iron out. Is our goal to feel warm fuzzies and cope with the reality of life, or is to acquire true knowledge of reality? When we are discussing what is the case independent of ourselves, then bringing your emotional state into the discussion isn't useful at all.

&

The Greeks liked to divide knowledge into knowledge of and knowledge that. Russell called it knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. Either way, the dichotomy reduces to knowledge before submission to the cognitive system and knowledge as a result of the system. Like..... I know I just got bit, but I don’t know what bit me. That I got bit is not something the least a priori knowledge, for it is an affect of some kind on the senses, and if I don’t know what bit me, that can’t be a priori because it isn’t anything.

Regardless, if one thinks knowledge to be a relative condition of certainty, that is only possible by being justified by something. — Mww

You seem to be describing the difference between belief and knowledge, not different kinds of knowledge. Beliefs seem to be those interpretations of sensory data from a single sense, while knowledge seems to include justification from all the senses. How do you know that you were bitten if you don't know what bit you? After all, it could be that you stepped in a claw-trap. You interpreted a single sensory perception (tactile) based on previous experiences of being bit, rather than confirming with your eyes what the source of the tactile sensation is. When you use your eyes, you are getting real-time information about the circumstances, not from the past in the form of memories or past experiences.

Now our eyes can "lie" to us too. Initial visual observations can lead us to believe that water is on the ground (mirage) when there isn't. It isn't until we make more observations, like moving towards the "pool of water" and observing it disappear that we go from justifying based on prior (and possibly outdated) experiences (information) to justifying based on current experiences (information). So by accumulating more observations over time, can we say that we have acquired justification for what it is that we claim that we know. So the difference seems to be the degree of justification. Ideas based on preliminary observations that have not been confirmed using real-time information of other senses qualify as beliefs. Ideas based on the information acquired by more than one sense, and over a period of time, and is confirmed with current observations, is what qualifies as knowledge.

Essentially, the difference between beliefs and knowledge is that beliefs are justified by either empiricism or rationalism alone, while knowledge is justified by using both together.

I remember watching a video lessons on geometry back a decade or so ago. The speaker, a lady, goes to great lenghts to point out that geometric definitions must end at some point (pun unintended). Either this must be because the simplest geometric idea (like a point) can't be defined for there's nothing simpler in terms of which a definition could be constructed or because the problem of an infinite regress rears its ugly head. The only viable option seems to be use circular definitions, despite the rules of good definitions forbidding such tomfoolery.

What sayest thou, sir? — Agent Smith

All definitions end with what the definitions point to in the world. You may look up a word in a dictionary and get more words, but eventually those scribbles on the page refer to something that is not just more scribbles, or else what do the scribbles mean? What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? If you wanted a definition of "circle", would you look in the dictionary, or would it be better if I just pointed at several examples of actual circles in the world? It seems like the latter is more direct while the former is indirect. It seems like the former would only be useful if there were no circles around for me to point to to show you what a circle is.

What would it mean for you to be wrong if there are many possible models?
— Harry Hindu

Between models, utility, within models, it depends on the model. Usually they have criteria for correctness within them.

Is Searle's model wrong? How would we know?
— Harry Hindu

I find it useful, so no. I strongly suspect it wouldn't have made it this far is everybody thought it was useless, but in academia, stranger things have happened...
— Isaac

:brow:
Hmmm. I would have thought that, being a model, it would be wrong in that it does not represent what is being modeled, therefore it becomes useless as such. In what way can Searle's model of language be used so that we may test how well the model represents the actual state-of-affairs?

Searle is modeling actual language use, but his is not the only possible model. — Isaac — Isaac

Searle is modeling language using language? Is an actual car a model of a car, or is it just a car? Seems like circular reasoning to me.

The distinctions Banno, by way of Searle, is making are useless when you understand that all language use is about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.
— Harry Hindu

It's not a matter of 'understanding that...'. You're just presenting a different model, and it's not for you to say what I, or others, find useful. — Isaac

So you wouldn't be interested in knowing why your models are not useful to others? If they are not useful to others, then why would it be useful to you? Use is a manifestation of our goals. So if it is useful to you, but not useful to others, then you and others must have different goals, and therefore you would be talking past others.

Philosophy is irrelevant then, so I disagree. It actually matters a lot to me. OK, it being true in this universe is enough for a priori knowledge, but I’m interested in it being objectively true. — noAxioms

That would be a disappointment, but barring an example, I suspect otherwise. — noAxioms

If there is more than one universe then are we not already acknowledging that there are a number of universes, and that there might be different universes where there are two universes in which 2+4=4 and 2 in which 2+2=7, but there are 2+2=4 total universes?

Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe? So it seems that 2+2=4 isn't dependent on the property of some particular universe, but is dependent on there being more than one of anything (including all universes). Even if there are only two universes, then 1+1=2 would be true regardless of what is true in either universe.

You misunderstood what I wrote then. I was trying to illustrate why the ‘why am I me’ question is baffling only if dualism is assumed. — noAxioms

Because you are assuming that there is an I that is separate from the individual (dualism). The question, "why am I me?" is a meaningless question (many philosophical questions are) if you understand that you are the result of a causal chain of events, and that if there was a different chain of events, it would not be that you would be some one else, rather you wouldn't exist at all.

I said I (the self) could no more be a bug than it could be me. I denied its existence. There is nothing ‘being’ me.
The point of the example was to illustrate that everybody knows what Paul Simon meant by those lyrics. People have a dualistic instinct, a lie that is pretty much impossible to disbelieve.
Without it, the lyrics don’t make any sense since X is X (a tautology) and cannot be Y. But it makes sense to suggest the experiencer of X were to experience Y instead. — noAxioms

Dualism is not an instinct. Babies are born solipsists. Most animals are solipsists. Solipsism is instinctual. After a period of mental development, babies become realists in realizing object permanence (that objects continue to exist even when not being observed or thought about).

Dualism is indoctrinated at an early age with the introduction of religion (soul vs body). The notion that you can exist independently of your body is a delusion created as way to deal with the knowledge of your death.

Yes, given dualism, there are a lot more non-human things to be (bugs being one example) and thus odds of winning the ‘human lottery’ are suspiciously low. Some get out of this via anthropocentric assertions, that humans are special this way. Questioning the lie is often not an option. — noAxioms

There is no lottery. There is no luck. Things happen for a reason (prior causes or pre-existing conditions). If something else happened instead then you wouldn't be here asking these questions. Someone else would be.

Even that makes no sense. How can say a cat be a dog? A thing is what it is and cannot meaningfully be something else. — noAxioms

That was my point. Either way you put the question, it's a silly question given that we know that you are the outcome of a particular sex act between two specific people and the subsequent development (life experiences) without which you wouldn't exist at all, not that you'd be something else - as if that were ever possible. It isn't.

That’s why your physical appearance is what it is, which wasn’t the question. The question asks why you look out of Harry’s eyes and not the eyes of another. The question makes no sense outside of a dualistic context since under monism it is tautological that a creature looks out of its own eyes (exceptions to robots with bluetooth). — noAxioms

Well, yes, which is why I said you need to abandon dualism if you want to avoid asking silly questions that simply don't take into account what we know today in modern times when religion and it's dualistic thinking is on the decline and replaced with scientific theories of biology, genetics and evolution.

I was just reporting my understanding of how the tests were performed. If you'd like more detail, I'm sure it's published somewhere. — T Clark

It seems to me that your understanding isn't an understanding at all if you are unable to communicate it without contradicting yourself. It seems as if you are the one that needs to search for the publications and read them if you want to make an argument against anything that I've said (like experience is quantifiable).