How could anyone think that this universe is "fine tuned" for humans when 99.9999% of the universe is hostile to humans? We could end up being extinct, and in such a universe humans can exist but the universe isnt fine tuned for them. We could just as well say that the universe is fine-tuned for cockroaches and sharks. I can imagine a universe that is fine tuned for humans and it would be something akin to "heaven" as described by Christians.

My main problem the idea that existence is causal power is that causal power can't be observed. So different philosophers have different approaches to explaining what it is and how it works. For instance, some think causal power resides in particular entities, whereas others (including Russel, I think) believe it comes from universal laws which govern the behavior of entities.

But I think we can directly observe that things exist. For instance, if I hear a noise, I can conclude that the noise exists. I don't need to know what causal power is behind the noise appearing in my experience. — Dusty of Sky

This is the same thing that someone else said in another thread. We observe causation all the time - even participate in it ourselves. How do you explain communication without causation?

If no one has ever observed causation, then what is it that we're missing? What would proof of causation look like?

Causation is essentially a transfer of energy or a type of information flow.

Especially the last one. I imagine the idea became popular because it proved useful — Pattern-chaser

What does it mean to be useful if it doesn't carry some degree of accuracy?

There are much more valid goals to strive for, and I have listed some of them. — Ilya B Shambat

Priorities. Don't you have to ensure that you are surviving in order to even contemplate other goals? How can you achieve other goals if you haven't ensured your survival first?

So is existence a property with the same definition as causal power? And does causal power mean the potential to cause events or actual interaction in causal phenomena? If an effect is caused but is not itself capable of causing anything, does that effect exist? If it doesn't, then how do you deal with the problem on non-existent entities? — Dusty of Sky

There are no such things as non-existent entities. Is that not what it means to be non-existent? Non-existent entities cannot form causal relationships. Non-existent entities is an idea and has causal power. Remember that I said that contradictions exist and have causal power.

I can't think of any effect that isn't also a cause. The effect exists and therefore is capable of forming new causal relationships. Everything that exists has the potential to interact causally.

I'm not assuming dualism. There are a number of alternatives to physicalism and dualism. — Dusty of Sky

There are alternatives to dualism, which is what I was arguing for - monism.

I personally prefer a sort of Kantian idealism. I believe in an external world of one kind or another, but I don't think we can know what it is. We can only know how it affects us. — Dusty of Sky

This sounds like indirect realism. How is Kantian idealism different from indirect realism? It seems to me that you'd need to explain the difference between physical things and ideas. If both of these things have causal power, then what difference is there between them other than the type of thing it is? - not any more different than how dirt is different from water. How is it that we can put dirt and water in the same domain of "physical" but not minds, even though they all have causal power and interact with each other?

If we formulate existence as a property of objects, then we must either admit that all objects exist, including fairies and square triangles, or we must allow non-existent objects into our ontology. Both of these options are counter-intuitive, and they both lead to problems. — Dusty of Sky

What exists is what causal power. Fairies exist as ideas and ideas have causal power. Square trianges are impossible to even imagine and therefore only exist as a string of visual symbols, or words. Contradictions are ideas that exist and have causal power too.

The terms arise because people want to answer questions such as "just what are minds, anyway?" Some people think the answer to that is that minds are just brains in particular states. Some people don't at all agree with that. They believe that minds are a very different sort of thing. — Terrapin Station

But that is what I was saying - that it doesnt help in using those terms to answer those types of questions. Minds are different in what sort of way? Apples and oranges are different fruit states but both are not so different that they can't interact causally, or are incompatible substances.

Physicalism is the idea that nothing exists except for concrete objects in the material world. But physics is the study of the mathematic principles which determine the behavior of these material objects. And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. — Dusty of Sky

If these abstract principles don't exist in the "material" world, then how did they make their way into your post for me to see and read? Is an internet forum with people's ideas that you access via your computer an abstract principle? How did you come to know of abstract principles if not by the world itself, which you call "material" and "physical"?

The problem with arguments like this is because they assume some type of dualism - where two or more kinds of substances exist and are so different that they are incompatible, or unable to interact.

There is no "physical" or "non-physical". Everything is part of the same world, or reality, or substance that do interact. How do you explain your non-physical ideas being put into a physical form for communicating to other minds? How do you get your ideas into other people's minds, if not by your non-physical mind interacting with the physical and then vice versa, when I read your posts?

These terms are incoherent and unnecessary. We can talk about the world without using such terms. Your mind is a representation of the world, and as such mathematics is a model of the world. We could use words just as well as numbers to describe the world and numbers and words are composed of visual scribbles or sounds if they are spoken. How did you come to know the existence of numbers and words if not by using your senses to access the world?

Because if we had a proof, we'd use it. No need for guesses (axioms), we'd justifiably assert the truth of causation, based on our proof, and that would be that — Pattern-chaser

You skipped over the most important question in my post. Again, what would proof of causation look like? What reasons do we have to argue for causation? Why would anyone have posited such an idea and how did it become common if there is no proof?

Physics adopts cause and effect as an axiom, an unjustified assumption, honestly declared as such, because no form of proof exists for it. — Pattern-chaser

A lot of people say this, but what would proof of causation look like? How do you know that we don't have proof of cause and effect? The assumption isnt just made up. There must be a reason for this assumption and why it is so common.

We classify ourselves as carbon-based intelligent beings. However, our intelligence isn't defined in any of the elements that compose our being-ness.Our intelligence is not defined in our atoms, molecules, compounds, etc, etc. — BrianW

Sure it is. It is defined by the configuration of certain elements (like neurons) and our behavior.

So, basically, the dirt (earth) we consider to be non-intelligent has, through no capability of its own, developed intelligent beings. It's like evolution just happened to it... and kept on happening. (How coincidental!) — BrianW

It wasn't just "dirt". There was the radiation from the sun and the energy supplied by the core of the Earth and its weather and it was a particular mix of complex compounds, more complex than the dirt in your backyard.

Now, we have silicon-based artificial quasi-intelligent mechanisms (the internet, robots, computers, phones, machines, etc, etc). Considering the amount of dirt in space (planets, satelites and others) is rumoured to surpass those in this planet, perhaps it is possible, maybe even probable, that in at least one of those, there are silicon-based natural occurring intelligent beings, given that we have somewhat proven that intelligence and silicon combinations can work together.

Also, given that the level of dexterity seen in nature far surpasses that of humans (by a lot), isn't it possible, maybe even probable, that nature could have made silicon-based intelligent beings somewhere and that our attempts at replicating intelligence are born of intuition or a sense of recognition of some qualities in nature which mirror such capabilities? — BrianW

If we can argue that silicon-based or any other non-carbon based life exists and regard it as intelligent, then what does that say about the types of elements that can be defined as being intelligent? Our computers could be defined as intelligent (and often are), based on the configuration of the components and their behavior. Intelligence comes in degrees and is proportional to the complexity of the configuration which allows for more adaptive behaviors.

Human beings are the outcomes of natural processes, like natural selection. What we create is just as natural as a bird's nest and beaver dam, and using terms like, "artificial" is an obsolete term that stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature, or special. It could very well be that this universe was "designed" for silicon-based life forms more than carbon-based ones. It could be that we are the natural evolutionary step for the evolution of silicon-based life forms that will eventually take over the universe.

You put it into terms of importance, I put it in terms of accessibility.. STEM concepts is difficult, religion becomes more easily accessible, so the "feel" they have more understanding and control. Large, impersonal systems based on hard-to-understand systems of scientific principles and engineering are too much for many to want to really get into. It's a lot of minutia to cover and comprehend. — schopenhauer1

I also said that everyone that owns an iPhone is testing the scientific theory that the technology is based on. You perform a scientific act every time you use modern technology.

I also said that I prayed and never received answers. Was I not being religious enough? So yes, if you cherry-pick my original post then you can support your claim that I just reiterated your own position.

Technically, to do science, all you have to do is observe the world and try to make sense of your sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). The act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes. When you use your smartphone you're testing for yourself whether the theory still works or not. Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.

Babies are born as scientists, not religious. Exploring and experimenting and asking a lot of questions. Their worldview is often shaped by the answers they receive to those questions. Mine was. But I eventually found my way back to science when I realized that I couldn't integrate the sensory evidence of what others and the Bible would tell me about God, creation, and the existence of evil, etc. with the rest of what I saw of the world.

Maybe it's just because I'm more inquisitive than others and willing to integrate information from any observational source without concern for it's consoling effect. Maybe it just depends on the person on how they are willing to investigate the world and be intellectually honest with themselves - not a black and white matter of "science is hard and religion is easy". Science isn't hard. We do it every day. And religion isn't easy for those that tend to ask a lot of questions and demand consistency in the answers.

Did I not just say that I was responding to the OP? I did place the quotes of yours that I was responding to in my first post. Are you blind?

Not sure how you didn't pick up that this assessment accords with exactly what my argument is. — schopenhauer1

Your OP contradicts what you say are the points you are making now. Your OP is what I responded to, not the points you made afterwards that contradict it.

Theory on Why Religion/Spirituality Still Matters to People — schopenhauer1

Because people still look to others (like extradimensional aliens) to give them purpose, or meaning. They are too weak to create their own purpose.

Computers, electronics, electrical systems, construction, engineering, medicine, scientifically-based technologies are complex, exacting subjects to master and understand. Yet our industrial world is composed of just these things that demand exacting minute understanding of complex processes (minutia mongering). This understanding is not accessible to all. Even if you understand it "conceptually", not everyone can actually participate in each or sometimes any of these aspects. — schopenhauer1

Ridiculous. Look at everyone that owns an iPhone. Every time they use their phone they are performing science in testing the scientific theory the technology is based on. The person who finds that their iPhone doesn't follow the theory will be famous.

The logic that directs the scientific method is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression (like religion and spirituality) untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth.

The reason anyone finds science to computers, electronics, etc. complex simply doesn't have the inclination to learn about it (they'd rather learn more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities), or the mental capacity (IQ) to learn it. That is to say that thinking is hard. It requires effort and time to think thoroughly and logically.

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

Preposterous. I was a Christian raised as one. I was baptized and saved from my sins. I prayed but never hear anything from God. What I thought was God, wasn't. It was just an imaginary concept I used in order to give myself meaning and to ease my feelings of loss and unfairness. In other words, it was something I used to make myself feel better, not provide me any real knowledge about the world as it is. As I began to seriously question what I had been raised to believe due to all of the inconsistencies, I found that science provides a much better explanation as to what I am, how I came to be, and what my purpose is (if it really makes sense to talk about purpose in this universe).

The reason why religion/spirituality still matters is because people would rather just believe what makes them feel good and important and anything that doesn't make them feel important (science) must not be true.

Thank you for the correction; points to you! This being TPF, however, I will not resist the impulse to quibble. The mind creates for you what you regard as reality. In that sense it is your reality, but not the reality. Point? — tim wood

It would be a category error to call it your reality. You can call it your version of reality if "model" or "representation" isn't to your liking, but to call it "reality" would be incorrect.

If you realize that your mind doesn't exhaust reality (realism) - that there are things your senses can't reach, or that you are wrong sometimes - reality is how things actually are and then our minds are how we interpret the version our senses provide in order to facilitate goal-oriented behavior.

If you realize that your mind exhausts reality (solipsism) then "mind" becomes incoherent and "reality" is the only term that applies to the situation.

The thought is that this "waiting" period, which varies, implies something that is represented in our minds based on something outside our minds.

The thought is that "time" is not completely a mental creation but it is also representative of something outside of phenomena, an existent in noumena. In a sense, time is "real." — Arthur Rupel

Time is change and change does exist in more than just the mind. The mind perceives change relative its own frequency of change which is why change can appear nonexistent in processes that are very slow (stable solid objects) compared to change that is so fast as to be just a blur or nonexistent to us.

Time/change is relative. We each experience change differently depending on the state of our minds. For lethargic minds, the world seems to change faster while alert minds experience slower change in the world (The Flash).

In sum you take in things that at first are sensations (e.g., various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation). As such there's no sense to be made of them. But a part of your mind does exactly that. It constructs your reality. — tim wood

Minds don't construct realities or worlds. They construct models, or representations. Reality is the sum of all mental models (yours and mine and everyone else) and what they model (the world which includes everyone else). If my mind constructed reality, then what does that say about your existence? Does that not mean that you exist only when you appear in my mind?

Even if solipsism were the case, a mind would not construct reality. Mind would BE reality. There would be no such thing as mind - only reality.

In the words of the Greek rationalists, your senses can be great liars. — Ricardoc

Senses don't lie and are never wrong. They simply do what they are designed to do. Your interpretation of the information can be wrong. In other words we can rationally lie to ourselves about, or misinterpret, what our sensory experience means.

Information is the relationship between cause and effect. Any effect without a cause carries no information.

Another term we use for effects without a cause is "randomness". Effects that appear random are so because of the lack of information we have (we try to get at the cause). Once we determine the cause, things are no longer random. They become predictable. How can things go from being random to predictable if there is no causation? How can a random process (QM) give rise to a predictable one?

QM seems to imply that consciousness is part of the cause for how things turn out (the effects) in the quantum world, but our lack of understanding of consciousness prevents us from explaining just how, so quantum events seem random, when it's not. Our understanding is incomplete.

If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof. — EnPassant

Then what would be the difference between a belief and imaginary ideas? In my mind, "belief" is an idea about the world as it is, whereas an imaginary concepts are understood to NOT be about the world as it is. So, when someone claims a belief, are they making a claim about the world other than they have a belief? Is their belief about anything, or just something that exists in their head - like imaginary ideas?

A belief would be more akin to a hypothesis. You have this idea, or inclination, that something may be the case but don't know how to go about proving it, or haven't the means to prove it. Once you have evidence that can be tested by others and others test it and get the same results, then it becomes a theory, or more than a belief. It becomes knowledge.

Neuroscience has been trying to work out the intricate mechanism of thinking, but we haven't quite grasped it, not to say that it won't be explained in the next few decades. — Anirudh Sharma

Think about it this way:

We have a map that is a shortcut representation of the world that includes some life history (memories) - this is our mind. This map is how we access the world. We represent our selves as bodies on this map.

Whenever we act, we act in the world, not in the map. The map updates itself as we act providing us with near-real-time sensory feedback. How it updates is a causal process that is an interaction between the new state-of-affairs in the world and your body.

We can only ever get at the map, which is a more causally processed state-of-affairs than the state-of-affairs that isn't the map (the world). We explain things on the map, not in the world, so when we get things wrong or incoherent, (QM) it may be because we didn't take into account how our sensory interaction with the world affects how the world appears as the map.

Most people confuse the map with the world (naive realists, idealists (who believe the world is only maps) and those that don't have a clear understanding of the distinction between "subjective" and "objective" (are they referring to the map or the world when they talk about the world as it is?))

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics

Solipsism is the belief that there are no other minds. Epistemological nihilism is the view that we can't know anything. — Purple Pond

Solipsism isn't just the belief that there are no minds, but that there is no external world - nothing beyond my own experiences - anti-realism.

Both are incoherent and defeat themselves, or at the very least require a new definition of "knowledge".

For one, if we can't know anything, then how do we know what Epistemological nihilism is? In solipsism, "mind" (the one thing that a solipsist claims to exist) becomes incoherent.

I agree, Descartes is indubitably wrong when he claims he is certain about his existence. — SethRy

Who was indubitably wrong? You are contradicting yourself. How is "existing" and "being wrong" mutually exclusive? How would you know that someone else is wrong? What does it mean to be "wrong"?

In addition, evaluating something that is meant to describe your essence does not solve the existence of fictional characters, at least I think so. — SethRy

How do fictional characters come into existence?

Numbers, correct me if I am wrong, but are subsistent factors, for they are conceptual intuitions that are only processed in the human mind. Fiction, are absistent factors, for although they do not exist in our metaphysical reality, they exist in a particular universe of discourse.

Both Numbers and Fictional Virtue do, comprehend causality to our metaphysical reality. — SethRy

Numbers are processed by computers and can be processed by other animals. A number is an arbitrary symbol that refers to the sum of members in a category. This is what the symbols mean for humans because that is what most humans have learned to associate these scribbles and sounds with. Other animals can see and hear these scribbles and sounds and learn to associate anything with them. Animals learn to go where they have found more abundant food in the past. Computers can be programmed to interpret numbers in incalculable ways. The CPU in your computer is a super-powered calculator.

The prerequisites for processing numbers, or quantities, are senses (inputs) and a brain (information processor).

Using the term, "universe" the way you do is incoherent and more artful rather than accurate. I would say that Math (processing numbers) is a different subject than Language Arts (fiction), not a different "universe".

The rest of your post is just incoherent word salad.

Earlier in your comment you validly claimed to adhere to what you experience, only what is empirical. You sort of (in all kindness) "jumped ship" to a "new theory." By memory alone, evolution is not interested in the truth, its interest is reproduction. — Daniel Cox

I said:

It seems to me that empiricism and rationalism are part of the same process and inseparable. — Harry Hindu

I also said that our thoughts are made of sensory data - empirical data. Our experience of our memories takes the same form, albeit a less vivid and detailed form, as our experience of the world. It seems natural to integrate our memories with our experiences with the world. It seems natural to make sense of the experiences so that one can learn to predict the good and bad ones. In other words, rationalism and empiricism are inseparable.

"As Chalmers has pointed out there is no way in which external observations can tell us that an individual is conscious. It is only because of our own individual personal experience of being aware that we know that such a thing as consciousness exists." Dfpolis R-3-2 — Daniel Cox

Right, so the contents of "consciousness" is consistently a perspective from atop the pedestal of a body. I can see my own body with a "consciousness" placed right between the eyes. When I look in a mirror and get really close, the parts of my body that get really big are my eyes. I experience other things that are shaped like me (bodies with eyes and other sensory organs) and behave like me and that I have this special ability with (language use). What is the best explanation for these experiences that is consistent and coherent (rational)?

Fiction is realism in a different universe of discourse, wherein the paradigmatic properties of the particular discourse changes entirely. — SethRy

This is a typical misuse of language by philosophers who are more interested in making word salad rather than getting at any truth.

What is a "different universe of discourse"? The discourse (telling H. Potter's tale) is in this universe and is about ideas (H. Potter is an idea in someone's head) in this universe.

Any other universe that has a causal relationship with our universe can be said to be part of the same reality - the multiverse.

Hi, how something appears is different depending on one's orientation to that thing. How things are is how they are. — Daniel Cox

Right, and an appearance is part of the world and something that can be talked about or referred to with language. I can talk about the apple as it is, or how it appears to you or me. In your OP, what parts are referring to how the world appears to you and what parts are how the world actually is? If there is any part that refers to how the world actually is, then how did you acquire that knowledge? How do you come to understand what is true without using a combination of sensory data and reason?

What does it mean to be deceived? Most people cling to beliefs and assumptions rather than the truth. It's not that we're looking to be deceived but we cling to what makes us feel better about ourselves and there are not so considerate people who raise up on them. — Daniel Cox

What I meant was, how do you know that you, or anyone, is being deceived without someone knowing the truth? It seems to me that for "deceived" to be coherent, one must assume some truth.

People don't generally understand what it means to be subjective. — Daniel Cox

You're telling me?! This seems to be the topic of the month here and people are still trying to make things so much complicated than necessary.

David Chalmers established a baseline for the naturalist's view in his book, Consciousness Explained (1996).

How could a physical system such as a brain also be an _*experiencer?*_ Why should there be _something it is like_ to be such a system? Present-day scientific theories hardly touch the really difficult questions about consciousness. We do not just lack a detailed theory; we are entirely in the dark about how consciousness fits into the natural order. - David J. Chalmers, _The Conscious Mind,_ p. xi.

Apparently it's the naturalist's rationale which is formless. I'm not a naturalist, I'm a mystic & a philosophical theist. — Daniel Cox

The problem is Chalmer's dualist notion of reality - of "physical" and "non-physical" systems that can't interact. His question basically amounts to "How does a physical system give rise to a non-physical system?" without understanding that the problem is his own use of language and he doesn't properly define what he means by "physical". Our minds are shaped by the world and the world is shaped by our minds. It seems incoherent to talk about our minds and the world as two separate things that cannot interact.

When we look at other people we see bodies, not minds. When we look inside their heads we see brains, not minds. So, when we look at other people and see a "physical" form instead of a "non-physical" form, then is that how things are independent of how they appear? Is the "physical" form the appearance, and the "non-physical" form how they really are?

The reason I believe that other people have minds is because my mental world is consistently from a location atop the pedestal of a body with its own appendages that are manipulated with the force of my will. All other things, things that are not what it is to be me, require indirect manipulation - by using my appendages to manipulate them. The ball is not part of me because I can't move the ball without moving my hand. To move the ball, I have to think about moving my hand. To move my hand, I only think about moving my hand. If this body has a mind associated with it, then why would't other bodies have minds associated with them? Why would this body be different? So, my understanding of the world is based on both empirical information and reason.

I am a naturalist because I believe that human beings are the outcomes of natural processes and not separate or special creations. Human beings are as much a part of this world as everything else, and anything that has a causal relationship (like a god creating it) with this world is natural as well. Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new scientific discipline that theorizes that our minds are shaped by natural selection, not just our bodies. This seems like a valid argument to make as learning is essentially natural selection working on shaping minds on very short time scales. You learn by making observations and integrating those observations into a consistent world-view. You change your world-view with new observations.

Blah, blah blah. Blah blah. Certainly private consciousness can be deceived, confused, diminished, or deranged; Blah blah blah blah blah. — Daniel Cox

You whole OP is an contradiction. What would it mean for some private consciousness to be deceived, diminished, or deranged if there weren't some way things actually are as opposed to how they appear? What does it mean to be deceived? How would anyone know whether or not anyone is deceived unless someone had access to some truth? What do you even mean by "subjective" if not that there is a certain state of affairs independent of some other state of affairs, or that some state of affairs isn't representative of some other state-of-affairs (a category error)?

What form does your rationality take? How do you know that you are being rational if your rationality doesn't take some form? Your rationality, just like every other thought, takes the form of your sensory impressions - colors, shapes, sounds, tactile sensations, etc. It seems to me that empiricism and rationalism are part of the same process and inseparable.

How would a concept like causality work when trying to explain mass scale events. How can we say that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a factor in causing WW1? — curiousnewbie

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here. A declaration of war is an intentional act for which reasons are given. The reasons would be the cause of the declaration of war.
Does the Austrian-Hungarian declaration of war mention the reasons it was declaring war? If so, then why would anyone argue that those aren't the causes of the declaration of war? If you give a reason as to some behavior of yours, are we suppose to reject those reasons as causes of your behavior?

But best not pretend that history is a science; there are no repeatable experiments, as initial conditions cannot be controlled. — unenlightened

History would be the theory and archaeology the science that uses evidence to propose those theories. Criminal investigators use the evidence at the crime scene to create a theory of what happened.

But my impression is that the general feeling about WW1. is that economic and political conditions made war inevitable 'sooner or later', and the assassination was more so a pretext or perhaps a trigger than a cause. — unenlightened

Sure, there were pre-existing tensions between the countries, and that might have led to war at some point, but why did war break out when it did, instead of some other date?

What is the difference between a "trigger" and a "cause"?

Fiction exists in the usual way, but "fictional" is rather a kind of nonexistence. — unenlightened

"Fictional" refers to the idea of nonexistence.

Sheila Potter, Harry's older sister, has no existence whatsoever despite that I have just conjured her. And Harry Potter has no existence whatsoever despite the fact that Rowling conjured him. Existence-wise, Rowling's creation and mine are on a par, despite hers having more sales. — unenlightened

Which is to say that Sheila Potter is just another idea like Harry Potter that hasnt had as much of an effect as the idea of Harry Potter.

However, as unenlightened pointed out, do you think it's reasonable to say fictional characters can do things? Can it be said that Harry Potter thinks, does magic, goes to school, etc.? And if so, what does it mean when we say "Harry Potter thinks"? It certainly doesn't mean he thinks in the same way an actual person thinks, as he doesn't have the requisite physical brain necessary for thinking. Furthermore, he only "thinks" when someone tells him to think and what someone tells him to "think." — czahar

Harry Potter is a fictional character. As such, Harry Potter can only do fictional things - fictional thinking and magic-use, and goes to fictional schools.

If one wants to claim that Harry Potter thinks, then one is redefining what thinking is, and what "I think therefore, I am" means.

Is it really Harry Potter that is doing the thinking, or the one that thinks about Harry Potter? Harry Potter is just an idea. Do ideas think, or isnt it that ideas are the result of thinking?

Yes it is. The beaver activity is natural. The wood they harvest is from trees in nature. But as soon as they render the trees into wood for damn building, the trees are no longer in their natural state. My argument is that humans are capable of doing this to themselves. Even if human technology can be considered natural, it nevertheless functions by removing humans from their original nature (technology is the beaver, and humans are the wood).

(I think a better term than technology is human artifice) — Merkwurdichliebe

Okay. Then you would use terms like "beaver artifice", "avian artifice" and "stellar artifice" to refer to beaver dams, birds nests, and the heavier atomic elements in order to be consistent and to avoid arbitrarily singling out humans as the only natural that can change its environment - correct?

What about wildfires started by lightning that burn trees, or storms that uproot them? Do these processes also cause unnatural states in the trees? So maybe you've really just moved the goal posts. Instead of exhibiting a preference for humans, you seem to be exhibiting a preference for life vs. non-life as shapers of their environments. If you're going to actually say that uprooted trees from storms are "unnatural", then we can just agree to disagree at that point.

"Fictional" is a kind of existence, so Harry Potter exists, but as a fictional character. Harry Potter is real in that it exists, but the nature of its existence is as a fictional character in a book, not as an actual human being.

Ideas exist and are just as real as anything else. They are real and exist because they have causal influence. Ideas cause things to happen. Ideas are also the effects of other causes. The idea of Harry Potter was caused by JK Rowling and in turn has caused many new effects in the world, like the shaping of non-living objects as a medium for communicating the idea of Harry Potter to other minds.

But I might dispute that the real and natural are synonymous. Consider that the unnatural can also be real (let's call it the synthetic). And indeed I am real, the posts are real, and they likely have a phenomenal reality beyond my immediacy. But, regardless of our mode of reality, I am still a mixture of the natural and synthetic, and all my posts are entirely synthetic. — Merkwurdichliebe

I thought tautologies were stupid.

What does it mean to be "unnatural"? How can a natural thing cause an unnatural thing?

Other animals shape their environment to their needs and even build structures. Is a bird's nest or beaver's dam "unnatural"? Stars "pollute" the galaxy with the newer, heavier elements that are forged inside them, and these elements are still considered natural.

So what reason could you have to single out human creations and environmental changes with a different term (like "synthetic", "artificial" and "unnatural") other than assuming that humans are special in some way?

Not my opinion — Banno

Is it your opinion that that is not your opinion? Is it opinions all the way down? How do you avoid an infinite regress of opinions when ultimately you have to admit that something is happening and why would it appear like a shared world populated with living and non living objects located relative to the senses if it's not? I think therefore I am? Is it an opinion or fact that Banno exists - either as something that thinks, or are you just an internet post that exists when I read it? Does reading your post exhaust all there is to know about Banno? If not, where do I look to find out more about Banno?

How do you explain communcation if we interpret strings of scribbles differently, which includes the definitions? How can you even explain any similarities in our opinions, or understanding of scribbles, if everything is opinions, or subjective?

Are environmental scientists proposing opinions or facts when they claim that the Earth is undergoing climate change? How do you determine the strength of the scientists opinions vs. climate change deniers? What reasons would you argue for one position or another? If you are using scientific data, how do you know that you are interpreting it correctly, after all it would just be your opinion of another's opinion.

Look how far you have to go to explain how society is a natural phenomenon. — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you mean, "look how far you have to go"? All you need to do is look and see with your own eyes that human beings are part of reality as much as everything else living or non-living. We all share reality and are all part of this same reality. How else do you explain our causal influence upon each other, or even communicate?

Even when I was young and indoctrinated with religion to believe that humans were specially created and seperate from nature, I noticed the similarities between humans and other animals and wondered why the similarities existed if we were seperate from, or not, animal. So my empirical information ended up overcoming my social conditioning. As I searched for answers I found the theory of natural selection to be the best explanation for our existence and implies that human beings are the outcome of natural processes.

The only question is if this mental experience is the result of a sensory interaction with the rest of the world (realism)(I don't like to use the incoherent external vs. internal distinction) including other humans, or not (solipsism). Infants seemed to inexorably and logically arrive at the conclusion of realism with the acquisition of "object permanence", where they understand that mom still exists even we she's out of sight. Do you exist when I'm not reading your posts? Are you a human being that posts their ideas on an internet forum, or an internet post that only exists when I read it?

I can't even say that seeing is a natural phenomenon because that is essentially a tautology, and we all know how stupid tautologies are. — Merkwurdichliebe

Would you prefer the term "real"? "Natural" and "real" and synonyms to me. Are you real? Is your internet post real? Is your internet post part of reality such that anyone that looks in the right place will find it?

So you believe.

(See what I did there?) — Banno

Sure, you referred to a fact of reality - namely my beliefs. I have beliefs, you have beliefs. There, I just spoke objectively - referring to some state-of-affairs of reality.

It is beginning to occur to me that this whole debate stems from this notion that humans are special and separate from nature. Humans and their minds are just as natural and part of reality as everything else.

Then it follows that technology is a natural phenomenon in which case... — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course. If you want to separate humans from nature, you'd be practicing some religion, not science.

Other organisms create things and change their environment. We're merely talking about degrees of such.

More transhumanism — Merkwurdichliebe

I would prefer the term, "naturalism".