So you believe in a “deity”? Do you believe in an “afterlife”? — I like sushi

I dont have an opinion. People talk about these things as if one must have an opinion. I dont, one way or the other.

you just haven’t found the need to propose such supernatural imaginings. — I like sushi

Well thats different than I put it, because it includes a bias.

According to theists, I am an atheist, true. But Im not.

I don't comprehend the necessity for an excluded middle between the theist and atheist positions. Almost everyone has an opinion, it seems, but I dont comprehend the necessity for that either. Why can't I just not have an opinion?

what makes you think those models have any purchase on what lies beyond language, such that you could say that if something is not proven to us as impossible it must be, not merely in our model, but in actuality, possible? — Janus

I dont think that. The notion of possibility or impossibility only exists in the model, which itself is defined by language, not what is real nor not. Sometimes the notions are validated by empirical observation, and sometimes not, but whatever the case, the notions only exist as real in the language. What is observed may validate the model, and we find that which we observe as appearing real, but all we can know is (i) the appearance of reality, and (ii) the models we use to describe that which appears to be real. We may be able to filter some errors in perception, but nothing more can be known than that which appears to be real, and the models we use to describe the appearance. One error in perception is to believe that the appearance necessarily has qualities itself such as possibility or impossibility. But it doesn't. Such notions only have meaningfulness in the model.

saying that such a thing cannot be known to be impossible, but it cannot be known to be possible either; it could only be known to be possible if it were known to be actual. — Janus

Thats like trying to say whether light is a particle or a wave. As Wittgenstein, and the Vedas say in fact, is all which really exists is language. The language provides a model of the ultimately unknowable, and it can never be any more than that, a model. The usefulness of a model is its actionable power. Many people have found the transmigration of souls a useful model, so the model has good actionable power. Its absolute truth is just as indeterminate as everything else.

Rebirth, to use the example of this thread, might be impossible due to the nature of the Cosmos. — Janus

That depends on how you define rebirth. If it is memories, then yes. but if it is 'attitude' then it is reasonable to think that someone else is born, somewhere in the continuum of time, with the same precepts as a person when they die, and so the latter could be considered a continuation of the same spirit. I dont see any necessary requirement for that to be after the first persons death, or before, or even in fact in a human body. It's a just a different way at looking at the progression that people make in their lives across the six main factors of reaction: fight/flight, freeze/fawn, and love/hate. Also there is a good model from MIT:



This kind of construct is obviously a simplificaiton, but it illustrates the kind of 'attitudes' that Im talking about.

Thats correct, actually. Really it should say 'all people are created equal in the eyes of God.' By whatever scale one uses, people are not created equal in what they are or have--in physicality, fiscal inheritance, or place of residence and nationality, people are unequal. People are created equal in the eyes of God, not because of what they are, or what they have, but because, to God,

it matters what people DO with what they are, or what they have.

That was the original point.

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close? — ZhouBoTong

Im impressed! Few could make such a succinct decision.

There is a generally held belief (especially among atheists, antinatalists, nihilists, etc) that one essentially spontaneously came into existence at their birth. — Inyenzi

This is not the prevailing view in psychology. Rather, the tabula rasa model, first advocated by Locke, and experimentally explored by Piaget, is the most dominant.

In this model, consciousness and self consciousness are later products of coherent logical deduction, long after birth. At birth, one experiences a medley of sense experiences, without being being able to differentiate which of those are of the infant's body, and which are stimuli from outside it. Over time, the infant learns progressively to differentiate between inner and outer sense experiences, and then, after much, much, much more time, to deduce that there is a self, and attach experiences to consciousness.

It rings true, but I'd be interested if you could dig up a reference for that. — Wayfarer

It's the spheres of knowledge drawn around Amitabha.



I've heard then described by a number of monks, and there is a mention of it in 'Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism' by Lama Govinda which, despite its title, is the most detailed and profound book on the subject Ive ever found.

As for knowledge of your own mind - well, it's kind of contradictory to say that you know your mind - the mind is the subject of knowledge, "that which is knowing". But you can never really know it, in the same sense that the eye cannot see itself, and the hand can't grasp itself. But the mind is the unknown knower. — Wayfarer

You have a wonderful way of expressing concepts, I always enjoy reading them )

Tibetan buddhism defines concentric spheres of knowledge:
1. that which we know but dont know that we know
2. that which we know that we know
3. that which we know we cannot know
4. that which we dont know that we cannot know.

Strangely, mlost people in the west find themselves in the outermost sphere. Consciousness more properly belongs in the third, as you say.

Remind me again why we're discussing the correct terminology? And why does a lack of definition mean "totally arbitrary", is there nothing in between? — Isaac

Yes, it is now a law to give up your seat in a bus to someone of the fairer sex. Have a nice day then.

Meat-sharing, for example, is strictly enforced in most hunter gatherer communities. It is not enforced by the 'chief', nor is the rule determined by him. The rule is both determined and enforced by the community as a whole. — Isaac

thats a custom, not a law. There is no defined requirement, no defined punishment, and no defined arbitration or judge in case of dispute. its totally arbitrary and depends on the individual choices.

You might as well argue holding a door open for a lady is a law.

if there is no system of authority, then there is no law at all, because no one can enforce it. I speak only of what is. Obviously, if you want to speak about nomadic life, then there is no law at all. So what.

What kind of an answer is that? I presumed your evidence was somewhere in history, having ruled out the possibility of it being located in the future! I was hoping for something a bit more specific. — Isaac

What historians and legal scholars generally note, sir, is that the earliest system of authority is tribal. Perhaps with justifications such as contact with dead spirits, or whatever, but whatever the case, the tribe chief has absolute authority and can tell anyone to do anything, with force if necessary, and no one else can overrule it for any reason. It persisted in Australia and Africa until recently.

After that, the next system of authority was despotic, and frequently the despot was also considered a God. Besides a tiny amount of democracy which was repeatedly wiped out, this condition persisted from Mesopatamia through China and Egypt until:
* 400BC, in China, when Guan-Zhong formed the first system of law there (totally unknown to virtually the entire West ever since); but it was wiped out by the era of a hundred kingdoms, and then the early and middle dynasties; and law did not emerge as something in any way independent of the emperor's authority until Neoconfucianists such as Cheng Yi in the 11th century; and even then, the emperor still had god like power.
* in the West, until ~550AD, when finally Emperor Justinian formed the first codified system of law that could not be overturned at whim by higher officials. Sadly, the Roman Empire almost immediately fell apart and was replaced by the Holy Roman Empire and reverted to feudalism, which is not much more than tribalism. that continued through the dark ages until Aquinas' Summa in 1274.
* In the Middle East, divine law was under the bizarre interpretations of the church without any formalization until Averroes in the 12th century.
* And in the Americas, tribal and despotic rule still persists in some parts, but was most significantly curtailed, in the 18th century, by the formation of the United States

That is to say, the majority of history provides very little recognition of the law you assume to be so obvious. There were rules and people who enforced them here and there, but even in most of those cases it was decided by ad hoc decisions that could be over-ruled at whim, and this abstraction you folks believe should somehow be equivalent to morality is rather, not to say the least, a flash in the pan in ~3500 years of recorded history.

I asked what evidence you were basing it on, — Isaac

Oh. thats easy. Its called history.

What I am trhying to draw for you, in something that otherwise require 200,000 words, is a differentiation between the origin of law, and the origin of morality. While you make disagree with the results, laws were originally designed because the natural state, before the concept of law is brought into a government, is for the ruler to decide whatever he wants in dictatorial style, and no one has any freedom at all. The dictator controls all. What happens is a consequence is that the edicts cause rebellion and war. So now, skipping forward 50,00 words, laws originate, not as strictures on the citizens, but as remnants of what strictures the government cannot avoid without disturbing the peace.

Subsequently there is corruption, both legally and morally. The point Im making is that the origins of both moral and legal systems are entirely separate. There's no reason to expect them to be the same.

'm curious, if something being immoral doesn't necessarily mean one should not do it (breaking a law for example), then what information does the term convey?

If I say to you X is immoral, what do you now know about X that you did not before? — Isaac

law is about right and wrong, and morality is about what is good and bad. They do not coincide exactly.

Most people believe that we are naturally free, and laws impose restrictions. Legality is defined by a political system. In fact, the natural political state is totalitarianism, but rulers found that their subjects rebelled, and asked philosophers, 'what must I do to stop my subjects rebelling?' The rules imposed by law are those which society found necessary to preserve peace. So in fact laws exist not to restrict freedom, but to keep the peace. One may disagree with their reasoning, but that is how they are made.

Those rules do not necessarily coincide with a persons morality. A person may believe that it is good not to drive a car faster than 20mph, because if you go any faster, you might be unable to avoid hitting wildlife on the road. In fact I have known people that believe this (usually vegans).

However, if laws dictate that others can drive much faster, this is a hazard, in fact, you can be arrested on the freeway for driving too slow. It isn't a common problem, but it did happen to me once, I was in an unfamiliar area, and I got pulled over for driving too slow.

I could argue that what I was doing was good, but it was still illegal, because if people drove at 20mph when everyone else is driving at 70mph, people would get hurt. My morality says going slow is a good thing. The law requires something different to keep the peace.

It is the specific claim that "it is always immoral to break the law" that we need to find. — ZhouBoTong

It is always UNETHICAL to break the law. Personal beliefs may render the ethics immoral to the individual.

I applaud the OP for some very good thought.

Maybe you find it interesting to consider Locke's view on hunger, thirst, and other bodily desires. He observes, if we did not have such desires, we would be unmoving, like rocks and stones. So God, in His infinite wisdom, created us with desires that are never fully satisfied. Even when satiated, the desires return. That creates a restlessness of the Will, which in its movement, creates good and evil.

However, Locke continues, pleasure is an impermanent reward for the satiation of desires. True happiness arises from acting for the greater good.

So really the opposite of suffering would be happiness, not pleasure. And suffering arises from people not acting from the greater good. The opposite of pleasure is not suffering, but pain.

It's a good empirical model, even if you don't agree with the premises.

Good idea. If the wall's there for 20 years, that's 5 billion divided by 20. You do the math yourself again.

Advertizing is ALSO PAID FOR PERIODS OF TIME

You think far too much of your own intellect.

The DoD solicits funds in multiyear packages, just as advertising is paid for.

"According to DOD officials, advertising is one of several tools, which also includes recruiters, that the department uses to influence individuals to consider military service. DOD requested almost $575 million for fiscal year 2017 for its advertising programs." — Baden

The DoD solicits funds in multiyear packages, just as advertizing is paid for.

Do you know the DoD advertising budget is $4 billion a year. the DoD could almost pay for the entire wall this year just by putting ads on it.

Consider the postulate: The only tool we have available to provide support or not for the truth of anything is application of the scientific method. — Scribble

Here's an interesting thing. Any properly written software program resolves down to one giant if statement. That's worth thinking about.

Notice how this post utterly ignores the impact that pregnancy has on the involved woman, treating her as a passive receptacle. — Banno

There's no point arguing with such an insane statement.

In short can we all agree, before we go any further that human life, all human life begins after the completion of conception. — Rank Amateur

The deeper roots of opposition to abortion are that the fetus belongs to either a god or the father. — Bitter Crank

If you are American, and uphold right to life as in the constitution, then the resolution is based on natural law.

If there are no intervening contrary events, birth proceeds naturally from conception. Therefore the question is whether human intervention is of the same order as genetic abnormality or natural catastrophe, such as mothers death, starvation, etc.

The rest of human law strives to avoid those circumstances, and therefore it is irrational to consider abortion as lawful unless, possibly, the mother was forced to conceive against her will, and even in that case, it remains an extremely contentious exception.

well-off college will have more and better teachers, more teaching assistants, more and better facilities, including science labs. All this factors into the quality of education. — SophistiCat

In principal that may be true, but I can say that the public universities in california are no longer run by faculty. They have been taken over by the administration, which exists purely to perpetuate its own power, and has little concern with anything else. If you are partly through a degree and they decide to change the rules invalidating some of the courses they previously said would satisfy the requirements, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. And it happens all the time.

In private universities here, they can raise the fees any time they want, and likewise, there is nothing you can do about it. But at least the faculty has more say on what constitutes a degree.

The prevailing view is that there is something wrong with people who are depressed, and that they are mentally ill. — Tzeentch

I agree overall. What you refer to as the prevailing view is the medical view. the medical view is that depression interferes with a person acting in the benefit of society, which from the medical perspective is true. The medical perspective rather dominates the modern world, which is the real problem.

So to break down the building blocks of harmful speech that should be restricted.
1. It's not about hurting one or more peoples feelings.
2. It's about creating a negative idea about a group of people.
3. It divides people into categories that through repetition may build hate/dislike between groups.
4. It is not based on factual sources that work as a foundation for reasonable criticism of a group. — Christoffer

It's a good sentiment. But it still doesnt work. I used to live in a black neighborhood, and anything that I said would be interpreted as hateful. Anything at all. I couldnt even say hello without black people claiming I was trying to start a fight. They WANT racism there. Its a necessary justification for their own hatred, and there is no way to end it.

No, it's not. You are taking one part of my text out of context and doesn't read into the nuances of the entirety of it. This is usually the way these discussions go; the nuances get thrown out the window to make a point instead of actually understanding the argument someone said before answering. — Christoffer

What I added was that compliments constitute reverse criticism, which is the actual source of the problem 's perpetuation. It is actually impossible to stop discrimination for that reason.

Just to point out, this is ending up discriminating against people for speaking at all about differences in ethnicity, gender, or culture. There is no clear line what constitutes criticism and what not. — ernestm

To clarify, a compliment is a reverse criticism. That really is the problem that keeps this debate going.

What do you think of philosophical novels and what do you think counts a philosophical novel? — Andrew4Handel

While comments about morality, ethics, and politics are fairly common, other topics are more rare. It is possible to do quite a bit about philosophy of mind in SF with robots. Existentialist states are describable in diary form.

I onl;y know one good metaphysical novel: Hunger, by Knut Hamsun.

If anyone is unclear on what harmful speech is, it should be obvious that when anyone criticizes a group of people without any other reason than that they are different in ethnicity, gender or culture, it is hate speech. Any criticism against a group of people should be based on solid reasonable arguments that can't be disputed easily. — Christoffer

Just to point out, this is ending up discriminating against people for speaking at all about differences in ethnicity, gender, or culture. There is no clear line what constitutes criticism and what not.

as it been possible to grasp the meaning of the present time? — Number2018

Actually concepts about time have regressed over the last two thousand years. The ancient greeks had two different words for time: chronos and eon. Chronos implies ordered and counted time, as in clocks. eon refers to more generalized concepts of timespans that do not have well defined edges, such as epochs. Due to the spread of science over the last few centuries, the importance of the second concept has largely been lost.

If you are interested in ideas of subjective time, the landmark scientific study is by Benjamin Lee Whorf, who observed that the Hopi indians have three verb tenses: one for the present, one for recent events for which sense data still exists, and one for everything else, including hopes, promises, the far past, the future, and emotions. As a consequence, Hopi indians have trouble understanding clocks, which was a substantiation for his theory that language precedes thought, but that notion was later rejected by american scientists as being racist when it was applied to the school system.

Does the spherical Earth cast doubt upon Popper’s claims about scientific theories never been confirmed? — Craig

Welcome aboard. If you look it up, you will find that in current scientific thought, a theory's predictions do actually become true given sufficient substantiation, although I've not seen a statement as to what constitutes 'sufficient truth'. and the notion was probably formulated that way because philosophy teachers were fed up of apologizing for bad high school teachers.

An example is the statement that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius. According to scientists, this statement is considered true due to widespread substantiation, even though it does not state pressure and gravitational conditions, and so has exceptions for example in deep space and in the vicinity of black holes.

as relative relativism is rather redundant and nonsensical — Carmaris19

well maybe this is solvable by using different words for the two levels. Maybe someone could suggest a n empiricist who already did so.

it really has reached that stage. Do you know marijuana consumption in california fell after it was legalized here? There is something very crazy about this state.

CPR is a theory of knowledge, and as such, positing the existence of noumena is of course justified, because it conforms to the tenets of the theory. — Mww

plus one )

lol. Well I differ from most people. I dont think Trump is stupid. He just acts stupid because the resulting chaos is to his advantage. However Bannon is definitely insane, and despite their fallout, I think Trump still supports the Bannon agenda. The more chaos there is, the more the rich can extort more money for themselves. I dont see any moral compunction against starting a nuclear war for trump. Pakistan does actually have more moral compunction not to start a nuclear war. So I think the USA is more likely the cause. The USA already argued nuclear weapons arent WMDs. No one else could go that far.