When you think of your mind, do you think in terms of physical properties? What color is your mind? What shape is it? What's its volume? What does it smell like? What's it made out of? How heavy is it? These are nonsense questions because your mind isn't a physical thing. — RogueAI

When I think of my mind, I think of my brain. I equate the two, or rather reduce mind to brain.

How does materialism survive such a failure? — RogueAI

By being able to explain everything else. Consider this example. You’re a judge in a murder trial. The prosecutors are able to explain everything about the case except for motive. They have forensic evidence that shows the suspect was at the scene of the crime, the murder weapon in his possession, etc. It is strange that they are unable to account for any motive whatsoever, but in light of everything they can explain that doesn’t give you a read not to convict the suspect. To make the analogy more symmetrical and fair, let’s say the defense provides an explanation for a motive for somebody else. This other person stood to benefit from the victim’s death, and also strongly disliked the victim, had a history of violence, etc. But in a case with many variables, the most rational thing to do is to agree with whichever theory best explains the most variables.

When did I do that? I didn't utter the word "objective" once before you did. I honestly don't know where you got "So I take it you don't care about objectivity" from. — khaled

You seemed to me to be claiming that desiring truth is a personal preference, and that therefore seeking truth is biased (as opposed to objective).

I don't. I care about obtaining ideas that seem true. I can't test if they're true or not (because I don't have a hotline to truth) but I can select the ideas that provide the most accurate models. That is my criteria. That is not everyone's criteria. That's all I said. — khaled

My point, or argument, is that everyone prefers ideas that seem true, rather than ideas that seem false. Therefore it seems strange to me to consider someone who does so biased (i.e. subjective). Therefore, the most reasonable, and objective, thing to do is to have “whether or not it obtains truth” as a criteria for any methodology. Therefore choosing explanatory power as the best method is objective, because if something explains something else logically and rationally it by definition is true (or at least seems that way). So, if the method you select does not provide the most accurate models, then the method you selected is objectively wrong.

By setting up an actually testable standard. For example: Makes the best predictions, Has the fewest words, Most intuitive, etc etc. — khaled

But you can’t determine which standard is best without objectivity.

Yep...pretty embarrassing for the good ol’ US of A. But not surprising in the least. MTV needs to do a celebrity death match episode with these two. Trump can be portrayed as an infant, and Biden as an undead corpse. :lol:

The real question is whether or not this will affect anyone’s vote. I seriously doubt it. We know who these men are, and they did nothing to change anyone’s mind about them.

I can't be wrong about the existence of mind and thought. — RogueAI

All evidence supports the idea that “mind” is physical. What evidence is there that anything nonphysical exists?

Might as well make thought the building blocks of reality, instead of inanimate non-conscious stuff. — RogueAI

My brain is both physical and conscious, and is the cause of thought. Why the need to postulate anything more?

Idealism does not fall prey to the Explanatory Gap/Hard Problem of Consciousness, which imo, is catastrophic for materialism at this point in time. — RogueAI

I agree, but what does idealism explain? Even with the assumption that there are nonphysical objects, how do they interact? How do they form/create/become physical objects? What rules govern their motion, size, shape, mass, etc. (or lack thereof)? Materialism isn’t perfect, but I don’t see how it could be wrong about the things it can explain, like the majority of physics. And that counts for something, right?

Not necessarily. I don’t know if it exists or not but even if it did there is no point at which we can be sure we have found it so I don’t care if it exists or not. — khaled

If that’s the case, then why fuss over whether or not I’m being objective? If you don’t care, then I don’t see how you can care about obtaining truth at all. And if that’s the case what’s the point of having these discussions? Without accepting objectivity how can either of us determine whom is correct? Am I missing something?

This in turn makes me consider if bodily pleasures should win out over some sort of "higher order" happiness. — Aleph Numbers

Depends on what the goal is. If bodily pleasures leads to that goal, then it should win out; but if not, then not.

However, the addict using a substance might still result in the greatest amount of bodily pleasure — Aleph Numbers

In the short term. The long term consequences of “fiending” and/or withdrawal is where the downside lays.

However, most people, I think, would argue that some sort of lasting happiness would be preferable to an addiction. — Aleph Numbers

I do too. Also, if the act of using a substance you’re addicted to does violate your free will, then I would argue that any violation of free will is harmful, or at least feels harmful.

I'm asking if in such a situation it can be said that the person can be said to be satisfying their preferences with respect to how they want to act in those specific circumstances if they drink the soda. — Aleph Numbers

This makes me think about addiction, which makes me think about the question of free will. An addict may want to stop using whatever substance he’s addicted to, but is simply unable to resist his urge to do so. I also think it’s good to consider the difference between rational (intellectual) and irrational (emotional), as these two forces are often at battle within any decision we make. So the question becomes if the addict uses X substance again even though he doesn’t want to, is that an act against his will, and therefore irrational? Or, is it an act of free will, and therefore rational? Did he willingly choose to give in to his addictive desire, or was his desire simply overpowering?

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

Maybe but it is. — khaled

I take it you reject objectivity?

What else could it be? — khaled

An objective objective?

If someone does something differently than you, that doesn’t automatically make them wrong; but neither does it automatically make you wrong. — Pfhorrest

Right, I agree.

Neither of you has the burden to justify your ways to the other, nor any obligation to do as the other does if you can’t justify doing otherwise. — Pfhorrest

This is true too, until one person begins questioning the other’s behavior, or unless the two behaviors are directly contradictory to each other (although it’s odd to think of behaviors as being contradictory rather than just different), in which case some resolution is needed.

Both ways of doing things are initially to be presumed fine, until something can be shown to be wrong with one; — Pfhorrest

But this can be done by showing how one method is more effective/efficient than the other, not necessarily proving the other method is flawed/wrong. Consider the example of cleaning a sidewalk. One person does so by sweeping it, while another does so by spraying it with water. If one of these people can show that their method of cleaning the sidewalk is more efficient/effective, then that method can be said to be better. Note that this isn’t claiming that the other method is wrong, only that it is less effective/efficient (which is analogous to explanatory power/rational). Also note that this is a more favorable example on your behalf, as both methods of cleaning the street actually accomplish the task. This obviously isn’t always, or even usually, the case with ideas or beliefs. Ideas that postulate an unprovable or indemonstrable premise as an explanation for something (i.e. God) are, precisely because of this, incapable of explaining anything. IOW’s they never accomplish the task they set out to accomplish, and therefore can be disregarded as relevant ideas at all. Put in the context of this current discussion, if the “all minds” theory cannot demonstrate that minds exist, then it cannot use minds as an explanation of anything. Until it is able to do so it isn’t necessary to take the idea seriously by attempting to disprove it, or refute its claims against physicalism. It’s claims are unfounded to begin with. Again, note that this isn’t claiming “all minds” is impossible or wrong, only that it hasn’t shown itself to be possible or correct yet.

That implication is intended and warranted. — Pfhorrest

I have much to say about this claim as well, but out of respect for the OP, I’ll wait to see if this thread progresses on topic before responding and derailing yet. :smile:

How does that work? — jamalrob

Lol, no idea. But I don’t think I’ve ever heard/seen another artist be this complex. His music is utterly silly and humorous, yet profound; contradictory and nonsensical, yet relatable and understandable. Fascinating.

So for the case at hand, we don’t have to worry about the mere POSSIBILITY of solipsism being true; sure, it might be, but so might its negation. Both of those are possibilities. Which seems more likely to be true to you? — Pfhorrest

I would tentatively choose to believe whichever theory explains more. Admittedly, I’m not an expert on solipsism arguments, but from what I understand solipsism points out a possibility that our current theories of consciousness cannot account for. So at this moment solipsism cannot be refuted, whereas it does point out an obvious issue with our other theories. I’m guessing this is what leads some to agree with solipsism. Where I disagree is that while solipsism is possible, it explains virtually nothing. I fail to see the reasoning in rejecting the evidence used to support other theories of consciousness and what they are able to explain, simply because they cannot explain solipsism. Our theories could be wrong completely, and at the very least need to be revised in order to account for solipsism, but this possibility doesn’t make solipsism true, nor does its inability to be refuted. The issue with solipsism is that it lacks evidence to support it and explanatory power.

What determines whether an idea is worth considering is largely personal preference. — khaled

It shouldn’t be. Whether or not an idea is rational should be the criteria for consideration.

You personally seem to prefer the idea that offers the most explanatory power, that may not be the case for others. — khaled

But my reasoning for this isn’t because of some bias/preference, unless you consider desiring truth to be a preference. The purpose or function of an idea is to explain phenomena. If it isn’t able to do that, why should I entertain it seriously?

This is backwards. If you reject every possibility until it can be proven, then you reject everything by default and then have nothing with which to prove anything from, leaving you rejecting everything forever. — Pfhorrest

I don’t necessarily mean rejecting, just not accepting without proof/evidence. Isn’t this what a default position should be? I shouldn’t automatically accept every idea I stumble across and then begin the process of disproving them all.

Also, you seem to imply that if a methodology leads to universal nihilism (rejection of everything forever), then the methodology is wrong. This isn’t warranted.

Pissing as many people off as possible seems to work pretty well... Arrogance, ad homs, condescension, confusion, etc. all work pretty well at achieving this task.

Check the link here
for an explanation.

Is such a service possible? Can we transfer our stress to someone else? How much are you willing to pay for such a service? — TheMadFool

I think that’s kind of the goal of therapy; only ideally the stress of the client would not be transferred onto the therapist, it would simply dissipate, or become lightened in some sense. Apparently, people, or insurance companies at least, are willing to pay quite a lot for this service. ~$100 per hourly session, possibly multiple sessions per week for years.

Or has anyone produced some refutations to all is mind that are just as difficult to disprove as the position they refute? — Chaz

The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. Can “all is mind” justify its premises? That is question number one. If you cannot answer it affirmatively, there is no need to proceed. If you can, then the next question should be what can it explain better than (insert alternative theory/ies)? Then ask what is left unexplained. Once that is determined, simple arithmetic will decide which idea is best.

What is strange is why do we feel the need to take someone down from a high. Why do we not permit excessive happiness? — Benj96

Resentment. Our egotistical desire to be the best at everything all the time feels threatened by observing someone who seems happier than we are (How dare you be happier than me!). We seek equilibrium relative to us.

My follow on consequence is; consider a device that can be implanted in everyone which regulates mood just as we do to each other on a daily basis. If you get a little too happy it triggers an increase in negativity and if you get a little to depressed it provokes an increase in positivity. That way no one ever suffers from depression or self harm however can probably never enjoy the most profound of emotions either. Would this be better or worse than total (and possibly destructive) freedom? — Benj96

This doesn’t seem desirable for a couple reasons. One is that if everyone was in relatively the same mood all the time we wouldn’t respond appropriately in certain situations. A lot of communication is nonverbal cues that allow the listener to know the emotional content of the communicator. If I can’t tell if you’re happy or sad about a particular situation, I may not know how to respond. Also, it’s been shown, or at least theorized, that depression can be beneficial, as it forces the subject to pay attention to potentially pressing issues/problems that need to be dealt with. Depressed people are also more accurate when judging their abilities, whereas people who are not depressed tend to overestimate their abilities. Also, this is overlooking the obvious question of “how much happiness/sadness is too much?”

To give another reason, live would be markedly more boring if everyone remained “middle of the road” regarding mood.

I don't agree with this. I think that each experience is novel. I've never had two experiences the same before, though I've experienced deja vu, but I really can't even imagine the possibility of living through the same thing twice. I recognize deja vu as just a feeling, and not really having the same experience twice. With the nature of time and spatial existence being as it is, it seems completely impossible to have the same experience more than once. So quite clearly, coherency must be based in something other than prior observations of the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, it depends on how general you want to be. I had in mind things like causation, or gravity. You have certainly observed one object cause another object to move on more than one occasion. My point being that due to this consistency in experience (or observation if you prefer) we come to have certain expectations of how the world works. We then experience incoherency when these expectations are not met.

The problem I see here is that you do not seem to be differentiating between experience, and observation. Observation is to take note of what has been experienced, so it requires a task of memorizing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m not, but it’s because whatever difference there is between them seems to not make a difference. Also, I didn’t have in mind anything complex. I was thinking more along the lines of natural physical laws. In which case, the memorization seems to be done unconsciously, or is arrived at intuitively in some way. I remember an experiment that showed that very young children (infants?) were capable of experiencing surprise/shock. This was to show that we are able to form expectations at a very young age, which implies the ability to learn about the environment presumably through “memorizing” observations.

Why do you contradict yourself here? First you say that if consistency cannot be produced, the only thing to do is to discard the observation as illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I listed two other options as well (try to explain the observation using different rules, or try to replicate the experience).

Then you say when observation and reason clash, "it is reason that must become flexible" to accomodate observations. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is meant to refer to those other two options. My point is just that if we are going to make an attempt at understanding something that seems to contradict our preconceived notions (natural reason), then we must alter those notions because we cannot change the actual phenomenon.

As it stands, the word "chair" is applied to various objects but what's missing is a unifying essence in these objects and that's bound to lead to confusion, no? — TheMadFool

The essence is it’s function, or at least it could be, but yes, the lack of an essence could lead to confusion, or relativity; such is the case with “beauty” and other relative terms.

Too broad, a stool satisfies your definition. — TheMadFool

Couldn’t a stool be considered a type of chair?

Sure. Is there something confusing about the definition I provided? I’m not sure I’m seeing the relevance of your response...

What are your expectations for a definition? I’m asking, because personally I don’t see an issue with defining a chair as something along the lines of “an object or piece of furniture whose function is to provide seating; usually for one person.” I don’t see the need to be so specific to define the number of legs, material used, size, shape, color, etc. We have specific types of chairs that can give you more specific information, if that’s what you need.

In science or in philosophy? — magritte

Both. In all areas of life.

The idea of coherency only exists if there are prior observations of the phenomena being observed currently. If you observe a completely novel experience, then you won’t know if your observation is coherent or not, as there is no baseline to judge it by.

If you have prior observations/experiences, then the default assumption is coherency (which also implicitly assumes determinism). The reason for this, I would assume, is because more often than not this assumption is correct. It’s an effective assumption to make while navigating the world and trying to understand it.

If we observe something that contradicts our assumed coherency, then the logical thing to do is to try to develop a theory that explains both the incoherent and coherent observations. If that cannot be accomplished, then the only options left are to discard the observation as some illusion, determine that the novel observation plays by a different set of rules for some reason (which you would then go in to try and explain), or to repeat the observations if possible and hope you can gain some better insight into what exactly is going on.

The bottom line is that observations drive, or determine, reason. When the two clash, it is reason that must become flexible or malleable in order to accommodate our observations.

I don’t think nihilism can honestly promote any particular lifestyle or way of approaching/confronting life, as all lifestyles/approaches are meaningless. Whereas cynicism and Buddhism do promote particular stances, etc.

I beg to differ: I think that if a policy unfairly targets any racial demographic it is racist. The intent behind the policy just might be difficult to demonstrate sometimes, however. — Aleph Numbers

Actually, I would argue the assumption behind this is racist. Outlawing marijuana affects everyone who chooses to use it, regardless of race. A racist policy would be one that explicitly discriminates against a particular race, such as the various race laws that existed before the civil rights movement. You’re assuming that black people are more likely to use marijuana, which is stereotyping.

@Metaphysician Undercover @Wayfarer

Thank you both for this.

Furthermore, I think that yours is a false distinction because what you call material things, like bricks, have what must be according to your distinction, an immaterial aspect, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics. — Metaphysician Undercover

From what I understand, quantum mechanics is observable, and therefore material. Not arguing for or against your point, I just haven’t seen this claim before, so I fail to see the connection. Care to explain?

Computers can do pattern recognition. They can even (mostly) do bad pattern recognition: I asked Google Lens to identify a bush the other day and it told me it was a "plantation", then I asked it to identify a flower and it told me it was "marine life". — Pfhorrest

Ok, but unless the programming is altered, it will reliably make the same mistakes (and correct answers), right? IOW’s it’s unable to be spontaneous. Humans are sometimes very rational, and sometimes very irrational, but it’s difficult to predict when they will be one or the other. Simply following code doesn’t count as being creative.

Rationality imposes many duties on a person and one of them is to be skeptical in a global sense - everything must be doubted - and that includes rationality itself. — TheMadFool

Actually, I believe the opposite. Rationality acts as a sort of short cut to “understanding,” and I’m using that term loosely. When we see the same patterns over and over to the point that outcomes are predictable, we lose the need, and desire, to doubt. Gravity is a good example of this. Does anyone sit in suspense, just wondering what will happen if they drop an object? Of course not. Because all of our prior experiences show that objects fall when they are dropped, the rational thing to do is assume the object you’re about to drop will fall too.

to wit that it's just one method of removing doubt and there may be other, possibly better, methods out there to tackle the problem of doubt. — TheMadFool

This much I agree with, but considering the fact that as of now rationality is the best method we have, it stands to reason that we should only doubt it when it seems to fail, or doesn’t fully explain the issue at hand. But even in those circumstances it may not be best to discard rationality entirely. It may only need to be improved upon, or adjusted.

How would we know X is better than rationality? — TheMadFool

Probably because it fills in the gaps in our understanding that rationality misses, or is otherwise entirely incapable of explaining. But also note that if X is truly a method, then it must have some sort of order to it that is reliable. This order will almost certainly have to be rational, would it not? Where that leaves us, I’m not sure...

I'm contesting the seemingly common notion that such mental creativity can only come from sort of non-deterministic process, the likes of which (for instance) could not possibly ever be programmed into an AI. — Pfhorrest

I like to emphasize that creativity often involves acting, or thinking, irrationally. Consider the creativity of conspiracy theories for example. They are often very creative and irrational explanations for some event or phenomenon. I think this is the issue with AI being creative. AI’s must follow a code; their programming. If you think of their programming as a representation of rationality/reason, then you see the issue. They cannot act irrationally, or against their programming. Humans are seemingly able to do this. My guess as to why would be that our programming (our DNA) is flawed, so to speak. We don’t always follow the rules or act rationally. We may not even do so most of the time. Humans are more like open-ended questions; there’s more than two ways to respond, whereas AI’s options are necessarily limited by their programming, and are therefore only capable of responding in a limited number of ways.

I'm arguing that abstract creation is indistinguishable from discovery, — Pfhorrest

To me, discovery means not changing whatever it is you found. So like you say, part of creativity is simply finding an unusual idea and expressing it, but if someone finds two ideas, and then combines/synthesizes them to form a new idea, that seems different than just discovery.

If Purpose can not exist without a consciousness, did the universe not have any purpose before consciousness emerged? — Ash Abadear

I don’t believe the universe has any purpose now, even with the existence of consciousness. At least not in any objective sense of the word. So, no. For me, “purpose” is entirely subjective, as it depends on consciousness.

Not very informed on this topic, but here’s my two cents. Consciousness is about awareness. We usually refer to ourselves as being “self-aware,” but if we look at the parts involved, there is always a subject (our brains) that is aware of an object. Our brains are aware of our bodies, as well as the content of our brain (thoughts, ideas, etc.), but are not directly aware of themselves, in the physical sense.

In order for a subject to be aware of an object, there must be a connection between the two. In humans, our brains are connected to our body physically through nerves that use electrical impulses to communicate between one another. We also have connections to the external world through our senses. All of these modes can create emotions which inform us of how to react to the stimulus.

Personally, I fail to see how a computer is capable of experience. Due to its programming it will act in largely predictable ways, although some learning is obviously involved. It will necessarily lack the amount of creativity and unpredictability to appear conscious.

Isn't the skeptic's position that nothing can be known, even if paradoxical, the uncomfortable truth? — TheMadFool

I suppose. But if the skeptic arrives at this “truth” by using reason, how can he then cast doubt on reason? Regardless, my point was that we are often biased, and can use reason for purposes other than finding truth. That is, if you define reason as being dependent on the goal.

But if thinking beings cease to exist, wouldn't the hammer cease to have a purpose, and be just a collection of atoms, subject only to purely mechanical forces of nature? — Ash Abadear

Yes, as would everything else.

Nah. Hammers do not have purposes. They are used for our purposes. Having a purpose could be rendered as aiming to do something or other in particualr. Hammers do not aim to do anything. — creativesoul

I guess that’s right. People give things, and sometimes people, purpose according to their needs and intentions.

Standing on the beach
With a gun in my hand
Staring at the sea
Staring at the sand
Staring down the barrel
At the Arab on the ground
I can see his open mouth
But I hear no sound

I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm the stranger
Killing an Arab

I can turn
And walk away
Or I can fire the gun
Staring at the sky
Staring at the sun
Whichever I chose
It amounts to the same
Absolutely nothing

I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm the stranger
Killing an Arab

I feel the steel butt jump
Smooth in my hand
Staring at the sea
Staring at the sand
Staring at myself
Reflected in the eyes
Of the dead man on the beach
The dead man on the beach

I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm the stranger
Killing an Arab