rather than going back and forth, first let me know if you understand the classic mind-body problem, and Elizabeth of Bohemia's critique of dualism. — GLEN willows

Yes. I do.
Elizabeth of Bohemia stated against descartes dualism that the immaterial soul (which one imagines means consciousness or the mind) cannot have influence on the body as it cannot push or pull, being immaterial.

The classical mind-body problem is a debate about how thought, sensation or the experiential quality of a person can be linked logically with physical processes of the body.

As in where does the "feeling of pain/unpleasantness" come from when on stubs their toe. In essence the hard problem of consciousness.

In other words how can the quantitative (monism) and qualitative (dualism) be linked only using one form of logical reasoning (objective proof/materialism/monism). That whole assumption is just absurd and contradictory (hence the problem right?) How can you measure two distinct forms of information while only using the method of one of those forms. You can't.

I understand fully what question you raised was. And I understand the principles of the problem from a materialistic point of view (monism). I just didn't agree with it. Don't confuse my lack of agreement with my lack of understanding.

Now that we've established that, Elizabeth of Bohemia's "the immaterial cannot influence the material" I suppose did not have access to Einsteins energy-matter equivalence revelation some 300 years later. Energy and matter are fundamentally the same. Energy acts, material is acted upon.

If the immaterial cannot influence the material then we must disregard energy and thermodynamics altogether and start physics all over again. Which is obviously absurd.

Its more sensible to consider perhaps that descartes dualism like all dualisms, had better explanatory power than monisms.

Having 2 explanations is better than having 1 afterall.
If it wasn't, then metaphor, analogy, parable, innuendo and figurative verses literal speech can all be tossed out. That wouldnt do.

So you're saying it's a wholly materialistic activity? Consciousness is within the brain and acts on the body? — GLEN willows

No I'm saying its a dualistic setup. The mind is electrical energy represented as meaning through symbolism - physical representations (anatomic structure).

The mind can be viewed as a process derived from the body in one direction: as a collection of meaning (beliefs, thoughts, feelings, memories) built from physical symbols (matter) that store the information of that meaning and can be viewed as a structural analogy or structural parallel to it.

In the other direction the mind can be viewed as equally influencing the physical structure of the body and propagating/maintaining it. As the mind can destroy the body if it wants (self-harm/suicide).

"healthy body, healthy mind" AND vice versa.
If it wasn't dualism, then the mind body problem exists and is irreconcilable.
But we already know its reconcilable by the simple fact that the mind can control/influence the body (as in standing up, eating, secreting hormones) and body can control/influence the mind (cancers, pain, inflammation, drugs - hallucinogens, psychiatric medications etc).

Two way system. Not one way system. So not absolutely materialistic, and not absolutely panpsychic, but both simultaneously (dualism).

A bit of tangent but taoism already outlined this Duality to things (yin and yang), as well as a universal flow that doesn't have to be strictly forced to flow in one direction (like materialistic thought would suggest)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what ethics has to do with the belief in other minds, — GLEN willows

It has to do with the belief that other minds have the capacity to experience pain/suffering as you do/have in the past.
As in it woukd be unethical to assume no one else actually experiences pain/suffering, they're only mimicking it/like robots. This is the philosophical zombie argument.
It also links in with some forms of solipsism.

That's all I meant.

Simply put - I have a thought. I have a body. How do they interact? How does my conscious decision to "stand up" turn into actual physical movements? — GLEN willows

They interact in a two way system. Information from the external world (the room, the floor/terrain, even your own body parts with reference to your eyes) is converted into sensory stimuli (electrical impulses) through your sensory organs (eyes, ears, skin, muscles and tendons etc) that your mind can construct into meaningful awareness (where it is, how it is - sitting, what it can observe, what it may be able to do in this situation etc)

In turn the mind can reverse the direction of stimulus flow back to your body by referencing a). What's currently happening (as outlined above) and b). what it knows how to do - stored motor memory/learned skills.

In that way it can dictate control of muscles to make them move in the way it expects based on previous training. In that way you "stand up" because you learned to do it as an infant and ever since the information has been constitutional - valued and maintained, even improved (coordination).

In this sense anatomical structure of the brain behaves like the letters of a word - symbolic of the information stored within them. Just like any coding system does. The specific individual structures don't have to have inherent meaning to any external observer to function, because they have meaning in "self reference": that is to say in reference to electricity constantly cycling, surging and rippling around through the network, changing its structure as it goes (neuroplasticity).

The component that acts as a conduit between the electrical impulses (mind) and the anatomic structures (body) are neurotransmitters. They allow the mind to influence its physical structure and encode its information (memories).

Does this explain how a thought can become an action (standing up).
The concept of "standing up" is memorised, after the neccessary information from different interactions with the environment are integrated toghether into a formula for standing: a pinch of balance, a dash of muscle contraction, a game of marco-polo with your limbs, a Kurt lecture from the eyes that what they see isnt happening as the brain expected, some corrections passed onto the muscles and hey presto: you wobbled to a standing position.

The brain stored that formula for later use. And needs to constantly reformulate and amend it as variables change: your limbs growing longer, your muscle strength changing - maybe due to illness, your bone density changing the weight and feeling and pressure in your joints, addition or subtraction of various weights that you may be holding the next time you try to stand.

Of course all of this processing is incredibly efficient and fast. Most of these formulas have great predictive value and that's why we don't forget them.

But benj96, that is an answer a scientist would give. How about a philosophical approach? — Constance

Haha fair enough.

Kant, Augustin, Hume and Aristotle as far as I know believed time was an intuitive sense (perception only) and that an absolute/discrete/objective time did not exist outside of experience.

While Heidegger, Nietzsche believed time was dual - it has an internal sense and an external counterpart. (a view I propose also).

Plato was more reductionist on the matter considering time as explicitly independent of the observer.

However, I'm sure there are interpretations of what these philosophers believed that beg to differ as it seems there's a lot of conflicting analysis of what they all meant when they described their rational on time.

At this stage it is as much open to interpretation of their words as it is to actual know exactly what they believed.

This to me seems to purport the middle ground - Duality. As it encapsulates all opinions about time as being based on reference point.

Ironically, science too battles to grapple this seemingly inherent dualism, with the same conundrum as philosophy (newtonian standardising time as independent, Einsteinian purporting relative nature to an observer).

The argument is alive and well in both disciplines. As science one wound imagine the the direct attempt to establish definitive proof thought (philosophy).

But if causality needs a context, so does time. — Constance

Times context is the medium between that which causes (energy - in a timeless state travelling at speed C) and that which is caused (objects that have duration - exist in the realm of time).

Change itself has a Duality in that when it is understood not to experience time - it is cause (energy). And when it endures the experience of time it is "that which is changed - (matter).

These are the two polarities of change - one pole being causer (matterless/timeless), the other being physical - effect (matter with duration in time).

A relativistic spectrum.

I'm still struggling with the issues involved with consciousness. The most pressing for me is how - if consciousness isn't entirely a function of the brain, and is somehow outside the brain - that wouldn't invoke the mind-body problem? — GLEN willows

If it helps Glen consider this: take two humans. To human one: their experience of human 2 is part of their experience (the "out there") and vice versa for human 2.

If human one takes the assumption that everyone outside them is "objective reality" this includes human 2 (their behaviour, actions, articulations of beliefs etc).

But as ethics implores, its more prudent to assume the other person has an "I" too - a subjective experience (set of memories, beliefs, emotions and feelings) whether demonstrated or kept private.

How then can human 1 objectify/standardise their environment (which includes other humans and the content of their minds) without accepting the contradictory nature or differing belief systems of human 2 as being "real" (standardised/objectified) to them in their own right.

If they were to do this they would have to believe the other person is incorrect in their subjective experience and doesn't feel "hurt" they just simply aren't listening to our personal logic (objectification/standardisation and thus rationalisation) of our own external environment.

A "philosophical zombie" so it were, with any objections against us being invalid in light of our own superior objective/standardised understanding of the world/what is real.

So in conclusion 1). what is spoken/articulated (language/meaning) does not equal 2). the content of one's mind (consciousness/what is meant) does not equal 3). what is actual (the truth of reality).

This is a sort of "sacred trinity/triad" that permits contradictions between person 1, person 2 and what they observe 3 (the universe/reality as it truly is).

It allows for mutliple personal individual experiences and identities (partial truths) , communication (articulation and interpretation) between those partial truths (navigation/analysis and acceptance and rejection of partial truths - in other words agreement or argument with one another, and what is actual (the whole truth - actual reality), to exist simultaneously as three separate interrelated dynamics.

Welcome brother, to those of us who will 'call out the BS of people.' :flower: :flower: :flower: — universeness

Oops I used your word. Lol. Touché brother.

Kant attributed to Newton the notion that space and time are absolute qualities of the world , and to Leibnitz the idea that space and time are only relational qualities of matter — Joshs

I think Kant and Leibnitz were both correct. Because Kants notion of time and space being absolute (controlled for/assumed constant) gives access to the formulation of Newtonian physical equations. Which have very good predictive value.

Until, Einstein revealed leibnitz's view as on a par in terms of importance, that relative motion of matter in space-time are relevant. That time behaves differently for objects at different speed. Which again has good predictive value.

So it seems that time has a Duality. When we objectify it as a quantitative constant it allows us to observe the Newtonian physical qualities and behaviours of the universe.

When we do not fix it as a quantitative constant but rather a quality which is "perceived" by a physical observer, we open up to the special relativistic character of time, something that experientially based can pass at different rates for different observers based on speed.

It doesn't seem sensible to allow for such a contradiction regarding a phenomenon. But I use the analogy of two people staring at the number 69 on the floor.
One argues that it says "69" and the opposition on the other side states that it clearly reads "96".

Both are absolutely correct in their perception of the number from their relative viewpoints as anyone else would be if they assumed the same positions relative to the number.

But the truth is that this is a dualistic setup. Where an observer has more than one rationalisation available to them despite the fact that it negates the other, despite them being equal and opposite.

Newton described that every action has an "equal and opposite reaction" ironically including his choice to formulate newtonian physics, its equal and opposite being relativistic physics later elucidated by Einstein. Both highly intelligent scientists in their own right.

The contradiction can be created by assuming only one is correct, and removed by understanding why they are both correct yet different, by encapsulating them in a greater set of truths.

You cannot just do anything in the name above — schopenhauer1

When did I say do "anything? "
In case you weren't aware, helping someone out of suffering is a mutual effort. It takes both the hand offered and the hand accepted.

It takes agreement. Not force.

If someone decides they don't want anyone's help they just want to be miserable alone. There's not much we can do for them is there?

As I said, helping is a two-person dynamic. I can't help or reason with a wall so there is no imposition of anything. It's either ignored, actively told to go way, or accepted.

So yes "intention" is a license to approach someone you think is in need of assistance. If they tell you to leave them be, you leave them be. If theyre willing to discuss, you discuss, if they're will to agree on a course of action, you agree on a course of action.

That is a harmless process respecting their autonomy. You seem to obsess over the idea of "imposition".

And no you can't "impose" on a non existent potential that currently reside in your left nut. They have no personhood, no human rights, and no say in being born.
None of us ever had a say in being born, some of us were born intentionally and some by accident,
And some of us like the fact that we were.

That's how life works. Don't ask me ask mother nature.

like I think consciousness is fundamental.

If consciousness is the ability to gather and store information and use this as a "self - contained" system of reference for further perception (intake, collection and processing and storage to memory) then it is not limited to brains.

In theory anything that can store memory (any object that can hold information) and can be rearranged and processed has the ability to think and perceive itself as well as other additional information outside its gathered system.

So the low complexity, macroscopic, spread out scattering of matter in the universe could potentially be primordial memories as consciousness evolved out of the big bang and condensed further by evolution (self organisation) of all systems in a hierarchy from "seemingly inanimate" to what we interpret as "animate" - human consciousness (who's quality is inherently biased as its the only type weve really considered rigorously).

So yes this wouldnt cause a mind-body problem as all bodies (physical objects) would have some form of rudimentary mind (the construction/aggregation, storage, modulation, fission/fusion and deconstruction/scattering of information/energy) during time.

Can you elaborate further on, how shall I put it?, the relationship betwixt time and change. — Agent Smith

I can if you'd like Agent Smith. :)
Change requires the "energy" to do it, and the "time" for it to get done.
Change exerts change on everything around it but itself because the only way change could change itself is to become "unchange" .

Mind boggling contradiction here I know.
That's where time sweeps in to rectify it.

Change acts from a timeless state (speed of light). Here in the timeless state change is constant in its quality to change things around it.
Those things around it exist in time. They have duration, transformation etc. Hence why they can be changed. They are temporal existents.

So in conclusion time is the medium that divides the cause (change with its fixed quality to cause) and that which is subject to it/acted upon (fixed quality to be effect).

Hope this clears things up.

I'm not sure what you think I've been doing this whole time. — Tzeentch

Looking for an explanation while already having a predefined answer (no procreation for anyone) I suppose.

Well, you'd be wrong. — Tzeentch

Oh good. Finally.

I'm glad I'm wrong then and you finally accept we are on the same side and both don't hate life. You made a good choice to re-evaluate and depart from the extreme.

It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation. — Tzeentch

Great again! Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to, to clear up these inconsistencies. It's prudent to formulate an explanation to navigate such inconsistencies in a productive/constructive manner.

You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational. — Tzeentch

I like my positive outlook too. I believe in it so it's rational for me. Just as everyone's personal concept of rationality is based on the beliefs they hold to be true.
Welcome back Tzeentech :)

Now we are truly making progress.

Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are — Tzeentch

All down to a lack of potency. Lack of intelligence/wisdom/resourcefulness/lack of initiative/lack of creativity etc etc.

Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...

... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. Whether that means escaping it spatially, moving to a better location with better lifestyle (refugees), hitting the problem head on (leadership, local politics, for example ghandi liberating India from oppression), or engineering a solution (all the very resourceful inventors eg.tesla many of which I'm sure were parents also.)

You just don't get it. You don't see the big picture. Luck exists for people who don't now how to make it themselves.

It's not random that some people seem to make the world happen for them.

Its not random that some people start with nothing and become successful and happy and have a family.

Bad environments only exist for those that are complacent and accept it as it is instead of finding a way, any way, to improve it. All of these things are excuses.

Take the excuses away, as a good parent is driven to do in order to protect the ones they love - their children, and you remove the whole basis for this pointless, floundering helpless, victim revolving antinatalist idealogy.

Just get on with it. Every other adult has to roll up their sleeves and work hard to make a good life for their family and friends. No one said combating suffering was a walk in the park but it's certainly worth the effort.

I've said what I have to say on the matter of antinatalism. You're free to disassemble and pick away at any and all parts of my argument if that's what you feel is going to get you places. In the meantime, I'll be vibing, and loving life with my friends and family and colleagues. Let us know if you fancy joining.

Happy to lend a hand if it's accepted (ie if you actually take on board and accept that maybe my points are valid and move away from antinatalism and towards the infinitely more interesting and useful discussions, otherwise, good luck with it I guess).

I won't ever agree with someone that wants me and my family and the rest the world dead. Simples :)

If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it. — Tzeentch

I do. I believe in myself as a caretaker. I had very good parents to teach me how.

The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. Simple as.

The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it.
Just an abject denial that joy can ever be more suffering in one's life.

And if antinatalist logic is perfectly sound from your point of view and the other is nonsense. And if our (pronatalist) logic is perfectly sound from our point of view and the other is nonsense.

I guess pronatalists still win. Because we have the opportunity to do whatever we want in life, a diversity of things and feel good about it so long as we have the intention to improve things/help sufferers. While antinatalists are reduced to only one thing - begging everyone to stop living because its so pointless and worthless and awful. Torturing themselves and attempting to (and failing) to torture the rest of society which literally would never ever commit a mass suicide or sterilisation.

Ever.

Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.

A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice. — Tzeentch

Who says they dodged a bullet? This assumes person B is completely vulnerable and helpless in the world. And person A is equally vulnerable and helpless and inept at parenting.

But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them.

This person B:
1). Doesn't blame/despise their parents for creating them, doesn't see themselves as the victim of some horrible "forced" thing.
2).Experienced just enough suffering to know what it is and by contrast what happiness is. To learn a valuable lesson.
3). Were given the tools by their parent to maximise the stability of their own happiness/find fulfilment in life.
4). Cannot be made feel ashamed or guilty for living by others because the fulfillment they found was helping others mitigate their own suffering. Their intention is to reduce the suffering of others so they can polite ignore any attempt of someone to punish them for that as that woukd be irrational. Why should someone suffering punish someone who clearly demonstrates the skills to be happy and the willingness to show how its done?

That...... is why Person A didn't gamble with Person Bs life.

They knew they were good people (wise, kind, resourceful etc - many a virtue) , thus knew they would be good parents (applying those virtues/skills) and thus knew they would be able to raise good children (despite experience disagreements, arguments and a bit of suffering in the learning curve of growing up, they turned out as their parents did - grateful, appreciative and accepting of those skills passed down to them).

Sure, that's another way to put it. Buddhists believe that we all have inherent wisdom (prana) which becomes obscured by the kleshas (defilements) brought about by attachment to ideas of substance.

So, the original prana wisdom would be the understanding of annatta or the non-selfness of all things. If there is no abiding identity in self or world, then there is no one to be attached and no-thing to be attached to.

Unlearning our attachment is infinitely easier said than done. — Janus

Very interesting indeed. I agree. Attachment seems almost spontaneous and effortless when we are not thinking, we tend to drift back towards these kleshas unbeknownst to ourselves when distracted and re-enter that conflict between desire and the lack of the objects of desire that we attached to, and thus I suppose - the Samsara cycle.

I guess this is why so many faiths and Buddhism emphasise a great deal of focus on contemplation (meditation, prayer etc).

This thread is not about the coherence of theism — Bartricks

This is about the coherence and plausiblity of Christianity. — Bartricks

Is coherence and plausibility not much the same idea? And Christianity a subtype under the umbrella of theism? These two sentences seem to me to be a contradiction with one another.

there's no contradiction involved — Bartricks

On the contrary, I believe the very fact we are arguing is a contradiction. You are contradicting me and I'm contradicting you because we believe different things. So yes, contradiction is involved here.

And what I am arguing is that there is no reason for a Christian to make a certain claim - a claim that they almost invariably do make. And that claim is that the world is God's creation — Bartricks

Okay and you have your three reasons that you outlined after that assertion, all of which you don't believe/discredit.

So you already have your own answer no?

Why ask others if you already know? No matter what I say it seems I'm consistently failing to focus on your thread.

Your MO is to find a thread I have started and then not bother reading the OP — Bartricks

Oh look, another person who is apparently "failing to focus on your thread" . Bartricks perhaps, if everyone seems to you like they're not following your OP, perhaps it's worth considering that they actually are following it, and in fact you're just not listening to anyone, instead getting personal and a bit judgemental towards the other philosophers here.

Would you prefer to tell me what I think for me, or entertain new ideas?

Are you Christian? And is this issue you have with the claim of god being a first cause/creator reason enough in your mind not to be Christian anymore? If so, again I think you already have the answer you wanted. I don't see why I can help because I can only offer my interpretations not your own ones back at you (it wouldn't even be useful as you already know them).

So if evil people are capable of being forgiven in the afterlife then both deeds and faith would be relevant. — Michael McMahon

For me I don't really see the purpose of an "afterlife." It's just existence. What we are made of fundamentally, isn't going anywhere, it has been there from the beginning and it'll be there at the end. The only thing we have is change (death) and the uncertainty that brings with it.

For me an afterlife suggests that your reward for good behaviour only comes after death and so justifies living in suffering. But good behaviour is rewarded in life. You didn't remember what your substance/form was before you were born and thus you likely won't recall it after your dead so there would be no evidence/no recollection for which to accept a reward and be proud of your deeds.

For the same reason, if the going is good it justifies not helping anyone else because you're enjoying the reward for your past lives, you deserve it and can behave however you like.

So for me life is a superposition of the three classical notions of heaven, hell, and purgatory. Heaven is for those that are fully self aware and lack shame/guilt of that awareness because they do right by others - living in paradise and spreading paradise.

Hell is for those that are fully self aware and choose to be selfish instead, desperately trying to offset their guilt/shame onto others by lying both to themselves and others - blaming them and making it their fault, living in hell and spreading hell.

Purgatory is the simple lack of self awareness, being uneducated and helpless, under the influence of hell raisers and heaven bestowers, not really understanding why bad things or good things happen, or what their role is in it, or how and on what scale karma works.

. In other words the fact that some of them don't blaspheme during their life might be an accident — Michael McMahon

Quite right. I guess it's about awareness isn't it? If one is ignorant or clueless in action can we really blame them for poor outcomes?

For example if a child throws a pebble across a road to see how far they can get it but they didn't factor in possible consequences, like not throwing it far enough or at the right time, and thus hit a car windscreen as it passes by, cracking it and startling the driver, should we give them severe punishment? Ought we think the child is evil?

Of course not. It was an accident but its important to teach them the lesson that it could have been very dangerous. Punishment is then self inflicted by the child through realisation/ consideration of all the consequences of their careless actions with the help of a parent to guide them through the ethical and rational logic.

The child probably feels a bit stupid afterward, embarrassed, ashamed maybe that their rolemodel/parent disapproves of them, or that they could have harmed someone (Road users).

That wisdom for consequences, the ability to think critically comes with time (we hope) hence why if an adult did the same thing the consequences would likely be much harsher. There is the expectation that adults are sensible and not reckless unlike children which are not as educated/experienced.

But is this really true do you think ?

Why stop there? Adults don't know everything. Especially when it comes to the big questions - what is existence, what is actually "real", who ought I believe - the religious? The scientists? Both? Should we care about everyone or just the people we know? Should we be capitalist or socialist or communist, Liberal, Conservative? What about the poor? What about the uneducated? Is that my problem?

Adults are not automatically wise just because of their age. Probably having a lot to do with their own parents parenting skills, as well as the quality of their school education and the simple lack of time for contemplation in the busy working world.

In truth, life is the lesson, the world - our classroom, karma - the teacher, and everyone is a student.

I think to commit "Evil" one must knowingly do something to harm another having full awareness of the consequences.

How we treat our planet is becoming increasingly accepted as something evil/criminal as scientists reveal to us the wisdom of ecology, climate, mother nature and making the connection between our actions and consequences harder and harder to not observe.

We wont be able to turn the other cheek forever and not see a fire or a drought or famine of increasing frequency and intensity and think, I just helped do that when I bought fuel for my car etc. I had a role to play, then the wisdom sets in, and so does the shame and guilt.

Yep, I'm aware of that. Danke for the gentle reminder.

It just doesn't feel right to me. This of course is the reason why the theory of relativity is like quantum physics - if you understand it, you don't understand it (re Richard Feynman) - for folks like me. Anyway, I don't see a long queue of scientists outside my humble abode just because "it doesn't feel right" to me. — Agent Smith

Haha I get you. Yes it is full of stumbling blocks and diversions and twists and turns. Hard for the mind to wrap itself around, but not impossible.
I myself have been grappling with einsteins theories, relativity, time, energy etc for years now. Ever since I started thinking about it as a teen.

And even now I often forget again. It's only in moments of clarity that I return to a better understanding of it.

A difficulty with faith is that the mind is partially deterministic such that your subconscious mind forces you to reconcile conflicting beliefs. So religious people who are exposed to a lot of science are often forced to analyse their faith to the same degree of logic. A little problem is that while religion is very intelligent it's self-referential to some extent. Thus faith directly clashes with materialism since the material world is more observable. Religion would almost need to investigate science solely to present religious claims more analytically. Otherwise they'd need to conceptualise the afterlife more vividly in order to sway agnostics. — Michael McMahon

You're right spiritual intuition and scientific objective method has opposing methods/dogmas for the collection of empirical evidence to support their claims.

Science states that it must be objectively measured to be considered true while spirituality says truth can be accessed through reasoning and ethics alone without having to have those proven as objective. One says "ill believe it when I see it" while the other says "I see it therefore I believe it".

I think as you say, it would be prudent for spirituality and science to approach one another with more openmindedness and curiosity as they both have flaws in their assumptions about what's the most appropriate way to observe reality.

Afterall both disciplines are interpreting existence/the universe. How then can they not be reconciled with one another? I think it's more about unwillingness to consider the other sides points, value and explanatory powers.
Yes they both explain with different methods but they can both approach the actual Truth (existence/universe) as it actually is without bias and contradictions between selves.

. Time simply can't be relative??? :chin: — Agent Smith

Are you suggesting Einstein was wrong?
Time for us can be considered constant for the purpose of daily life, observations and newtoninan physics, because we all move at the same relative rate in space, we are all on earth travelling 200km a second around our galaxies center along with the rest of the solar system.

But acceleration has a limit (C). If an object were to continue accelerating their clock would appear to slow down relative to that of a person on earth's (time dilation) - as in from the perspective of someone on earth.

Meanwhile for the person accelerating towards the speed of light from their perspective their clock will run normally, a second will still seem like the same length - second while if they were to be able to somehow observe earth they would observe time contraction (everyone and all processes would speed up).

This only makes sense if we consider that somehow they can observe eachother at the same time which they cannot because of the vastly increasing distance (speed) between them. Information realistically would not be able to catch up and would take longer and longer to reach one another in order to observe.

However if the person were to return to earth after having travelled close to the speed of light their clock would be late, if they compared with a clock that was running simultaneously but stayed in earth.

This has been proven already using two atomic clocks (very very precise) one of which was put into orbit (hurtling along around the earth in just 90 minutes, while the other stayed on earth.

Another case is someone observing another falling into a black hole. To the person on the ship the person falling woukd appear to slow down to a standstill for thousands of years and never seem to reach the event horizon.
To the person falling into the blackhole on the other hand everything would have happened very quickly indeed as they accelerate down the gravity slope (falling).

Its worth noting though that objects cannot actually get close to the speed of light as their mass would have to be converted completely into light to get there. The theory is merely to demonstrate that time is definitely relative to motion.

There are some good videos explaining Einsteins famous equation E=mc2 in this respect.

but that happened something like 4000 years ago, and a lot of rigid, mean-spirited dogma has been layered on top ever since. — Vera Mont

A shame really :(

oral traditions; stories were embellished, adjusted and adapted by each new teller. — Vera Mont

I do think that the knowledge/teachings of a parent to their children are still very much oral traditions. They don't spell it out for their offspring, they verbalise it. Schools on the other hand deal in the written word.

The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life. — Tzeentch

No it doesn't. I just outlined the conditions. Person A forced person B into existence and they happened to love it and be grateful to person A for forcing them to participate.

With respect to those exact conditions what would you say?

Instead of re-writing it to a position in time when person A hasn't yet forced B to participate as I clearly did not outline. Its not a speculation or gamble when it has already happened.

So ill repeat myself, in the case that we assume person A has already committed person B to existing. And person B LOVES IT. And is happy, and grateful for being born. (as is the case currently with many parent child dynamics)

In that case... What argument do you have exactly?

Which is not to say they are morally equivalent.
now — T Clark

They're not morally equivalent which is exactly what laws are based on. Giving to charity and murdering 300 people are also not morally equivalent and yes the law has something to say about the distinction.

So whats your point?

Moral is about helping others not to suffer not serving yourself for your own benefit to the detriment of others (all the people that suffer because you robbed their savings in the bank) .

Both may be rational on a personal basis but they're not both ethical (on a collective basis).

Hence what is rational to save another person from suicide (a selfless act ie risking your own wellbeing for another's) is ethically higher than risking others wellbeing for your own.

The two examples are entirely different so your fixation on the fact that they are both rational in relativity to the person acting completely ignore ethics - what's more prudent to do.

Not good enough to FORCE OTHERS into a game because YOU like it.. Still not fair. Not just. Not right. Etc. I realize that isn't how people understand things because they never had it framed that way. Re-framing perhaps is most what I am after. Perhaps that's what Down The Rabbit Hole found intriguing. — schopenhauer1

What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? They have a great time and vibe despite the fact I gave them no choice but to play? What would you say then?

What harm was done when they turn around and say "so I know you forced me into this game without my consent but I'm actually really glad you did as I didn't realise how much I would enjoy it, so thank you for taking that initial decision for me."

So all intuitions are propositional in their nature, and not mysterious emanations with some stand alone meaning. — Constance

Spot on Constance.

But what IS causality — Constance

Well for me "causality" must (as all things must) be put in context.
Causality is temporal is it not? It relies on the passage of time: A becomes B becomes C. That is causality.

But what about in the case where time doesn't exist? For example in a case where "change" is impossible?

For me the only instance in which change is not possible is offered by physics - the speed of light.

At the speed of light, no energy can interact with/change itself/impart information. Because to do so would demand that somehow that information travel faster than the cosmic speed limit "C". (the speed of light).

If two photons are hurtling along at the speed of light side by side, how does change occur between them when the information in both photons cannot reach eachother without exceeding the speed their currently travelling at?

Photons travelling at that maximum speed therefore cannot influence one another, time for a photon is dilated so much that all moments are instantaneous (past, present and future). In essence time does not pass (no change) at the speed of light nor distance.

It is only us (as objects) experiencing time (rate, because we are not travelling at C) that can observe the distance and time (speed) travelled by light.

That's relativity.

Because we are under the influence of change while light (energy at C) has no rate/is not, what does that mean for causality?

It means that light is not under the influence of causality because it is the source of causality. Change/ability to do Work/energy exerts change on the system around it (matter) but doesn't exert change on itself. Because when it does it is matter (E=mc2).

Energy can only cause change of itself when it decelerates from the speed light (ie. When it condenses into matter (as energy and matter are two form of the same thing, distinguished by the whether the passage of time, and thus causality, occurs).

In summary energy causes matter and time, but matter and time cannot cause energy, they can only propagate it at slower speeds than the speed of light.

But YOUR preference for X institutions shouldn't become someone else's burden to bear, simply because YOU think this is the case. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. It's their choice, not mine.

. It's just starting yet another game on behalf of someone else, because YOU like something — schopenhauer1

Absolutely. I agree.

. I never heard of something where MY preference requires OTHERS to be forced into a game that cannot be changed. — schopenhauer1

This is where our agreement departs. We are assuming the rules of such a game are fixed. Those rules being that the game cannot be changed, we must then flounder helplessly, and we must suffer/be of inherent angst thus. I think any game player can change the status quo if they want to. Not an easy pursuit by any means but a possible one.

Otherwise why bother with politics or accruing any power whatsoever - If that power cannot change circumstances in any meaningful way?

It's equivalent to outlining a game where the rigid/fixed rules are "the climate will change to such a point where earth will be uninhabitable and you will all die".

Naturally a player will ask "well in such a game is it possible to navigate away from climate doom". If the answer is "No" then the game is pretty pointless isn't it?

Except that is not the game we play in real life. The rules are changeable en masse. Science tells us "here is the path away from these rules and towards a new set of more optimistic ones where the game-play can continue".

Any sensible game player would opt for that path.

So the actual rules of the gameplay of humanity are not as rigid as you believe. Just as the gameplay was previously changed from combating infectious diseases without antibiotics/vaccines to one where they are permissable in the game.

Fundamentally it reduces to pessimism vs. Optimism. You're free to choose which game format you choose. But you're not allowed to choose on behalf of other players.

If thinking is strategic, is it therefore also rational? Is it possible to be a criminal, and also rational, in the strictest sense of the word? What about reasonable? — Pantagruel

I think it is possible to be criminal and also rational in the case that the law is irrational.

Which is entirely possible as laws are ammended because they recognise they didn't consider a specific situation whereby one is deemed criminal under current legal constraints but the general populous empathises with them on the grounds that they believe the persons intentions were good and their options to minimise harm were not available to them legally.

For example, imagine a person whos loved one is severely depressed, and nothing legally available to them appears to be potent enough to rid that depression. They're sure their loved one will take their own life if no one does anything fast and effective soon. They're desperate to save them.

So that person considers say some drug that they researched is effective against depression - perhaps a hallucinogen or cannabis. So they buy it despite the fact that they're aware its illegal in their country.

It has the desired effect, and their loved one appears to be improving. So they continue to purchase it. On the third instance they're caught and taken to court. They plead guilty but only because they were doing everything and anything necessary to spare their loved one from suicide.

In this case is it really fair to consider them a criminal and penalise them thus? Or ought the law be ammended based on empirical evidence and rationality?

In my opinion law does try it's best to uphold justice, but like any human institution it is not without flaw. And therefore should always be open to improvement.

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. — Henry David Thoreau

I think it's exactly this sentiment that lead people to so readily propel and uphold anyone's views which they deem as brave/courageous and at a direct head with malice/evil.

They want to support it because they know its right but their own cowardice prevents them from doing exactly that themselves, as they're afraid, intimidated by evil-doers, so instead they allow those willing to put it all on the line to speak on their behalf, and accordingly try to support them all the while protecting their self interests.

In essence they say "sure, go put yourself on the front line and get yourself killed for beliefs that I agree with, and in return I will revere and commemorate you for your noble acts, from the comfort of my own home/safety. You will be a hero in my eyes as you did what no one else was prepared to do. "

So the benevolence of Jesus appears to be of a slightly different kind. — Michael McMahon

I think Jesus's approach was purely verbal. He offered what was likely sound reason and simulatenously sound ethical principle for what ought to be believed about the universe/reality. This deflated any argument against him which was highly frustrating for any opponent to his views. They were likely left scrambling for an argument either reasonable or ethical to confront him with, as his popularity grew.
Which they could not.

"The pen/spoken is mightier than the sword" so to speak.

Hence why it spread ("spread the word"). As a passivist he didn't condone physical/violent means to an end so any aggression against him only served to bolster his ethical principle. Even if that meant he would be murdered in cold blood just so that others may feel righteous/empowered. The irony being that it was physical proof/demonstration of his principle.

Observers of such a horrid offence against a passivist preaching communication and discourse over brute force would have naturally been dismayed that "Evil" (violence against another human being through none other than pure ego) should win and thus Christianity was born of neccesity to verbally rebel against tendencies towards barbarism to uphold conflicting belief systems, when discourse would offer the same solution without bloodshed.

Like the god of Genesis, they are all relatably small gods, making worlds with a place just for their own little group of humans... and the humans manage to screw it up by doing the one thing the god warned them against — Vera Mont

The forbidden fruit strikes again. "Curiosity killed the cat" it seems, in these instances. Guys I told you not to that one thing and that's exactly what you did! Perhaps to think oneself as closest to God, or a god in themselves, and disregard everyone else's choices and perspective as merely inferior.

None of the other gods I know of sentenced anyone to death or banished them or hurt them; the humans just lost some connection with the natural world, or a magical — Vera Mont

Seems more forgiving than the other interpretations, it's more of a case of here I am feel free to interpret me as you wish, and thus it slowly devolved into fierce abject denial of eachothers views and all hell breaks loose as they lose that connection/understanding of their passive and permanent god head, unchanging as it were, only approachable unanimously with patience and empathy for one anothers opinions, through respectable discourse.

It definitely appears to be a duality of sorts. Does this relate in any way to dualism, the idea that the physical and mental are distinct substances? — Watchmaker

I would say yes in a once sense and no in another (Duality again see? Haha)

In the yes sense: mental energy (electrical impulses that make up thought-scape) has the capacity to behold ideals, new concepts, new ideas, new innovations, an imagination, dreams and ambitions: things that are not "physical" and don't have a strictly physical counterpart in reality.

Yet.

"Yet" being the key word. As any thought, idea or concept, emotion or personal expression (mental) can be made physical: articulated, demonstrated, written down, painted, invented/constructed, argued, portrayed in media: films, literature, scientific reports, etc to make that mental into something tangible - something physical and thus appreciable by others. Communication - the Bridge between the mentalscape and physical landscape of existence.

In the no sense: the mental is a product of physical processes: the brain is organic, chemical and electrical in nature, it can only absorb, process and modulate, amend, adapt, recreate, reformulate physical observable/empirical/pre-existing information from its environment through the various senses.

Duality in this sense pertains to the border of self: "I/me" vs. "other". I exist as a product of the environment around me and a creator of the environment around me simultaneously.

A "two-way" information exchange between my memory and active interactions going on in the external world that I can observe and either make memories from or ignore/not focus on and dismiss or forget.

In this way I shape not only my self identity but also the external world relative to me simulatenously. If I identify as a pessimistic/cynical person I will perceive the external world as thus, devoid of magic, pointless, uninteresting, skeptical, unimaginative, overly binary, purely rational, just mechanistic and objective.

If I on the other hand if identify myself as positive/inspired/optimistic I interpret the external environment thus - a magical place full of potential, the fantastical , mysterious, creativity, imagination, irrationality, pure energy and intuition.

This is the inherent Duality of relativism. I think overly engaging in either front is detrimental: if we fixate on the optimistic side/the ideal - we are all hippy-flippy, erratic and rely too much on intuition, if we fixate on the rational we purge ourselves of all ability to be creative, we accept what is the case will always be the case which is depressing and leaves us helpless, impotent to do anything new.

We must consider Duality as a balanced system, an equilibrium - and in that case there is both rational and irrational things in the external environment as there is equally in the internal environment, the mind.

As above, so below, as outside, so within.

I hope this explains dualism more robustly. If you have anything to suggest, contradict don't hesitate to do so :)

here is a sort of lack-of-something that motivates. — schopenhauer1

A lack of perfection perhaps (whatever that entails for the individual), motivated by a need to improve circumstances from the imperfect towards to perfect, addressing flaws - in science, in philosophical thinking, in politics, economics etc one by one as they arise?

We can't help it. It is self-aware angst, projected as "reasons" in the name of survival, comfort, and entertainment. — schopenhauer1

There is always angst to survival I think. Very apt/poignant of you to point out. We have instincts - built in searching and evaluation of threats to our survival, "critical thinking" in a sense. Perhaps this is what society takes advantage of, to pursue improvement as a collective, each having a role in maintaining the stability of society.

What angst we cannot ameliorate through productivity in society we project/invest into entertainment. A sort of escapism so it were, to entertain catastrophe and the ongoing battle against adversity conceptually through media: film, literature, music, art etc it's an outlet for personal angst.

That being said, I think we are doing an alright job, we have the institutions in place to combat existential angst and each one is usually undergoing constant revision, ammendments and improvement.

It may not be perfect, far from it, but it certainly is motoring on towards a slow steady progress towards a future idealised as getter than the past we came from.

Why can't both be true? — Watchmaker

Correct indeed.

Duality my friend. Things can be one and separate simultaneously, depending on where we choose to discriminate, to draw a boundary, to place limits. Those limits are always movable. Wave, particle, potential, actual, false, true, real, ideal.

Its a matter of perspective

↪praxis and reason without intuition is nearly useless. — Bylaw

Quite right Bylaw! Intuition is the great instinct that propagates the life it imbues. Intuition ought never be ignored but rather, enriched with reason, to amalgamate the "whole".

Yes, I think there is something to be said for the idea of anamnesis; the process seems to consist more in unlearning that it does in learning. The drive to knowledge can become more acquisitive than inquisitive. I don't think of anamnesis as knowledge remembered that was previously known in another realm of the soul, but as reconnecting with the forgotten inherent wisdom of the body. — Janus

Perhaps unlearning and learning are one and the same? In that maybe if there is a fundamental truth it is both that which we depart from (unlearn) as well as that which we return to (learn).

Such is the magic of constancy - the permanence of truth.

I am just pointing out a human tendency to bestow "information" on physical objects. — Mark Nyquist

Oh yes we definitely bestow information on objects. That's our "meaning" for them right? It's characteristics (form, texture, appearance, how it "feels" to us) and its purpose (sentimental value, usefulness, how it behaves) - "Qualitative information".

We "know" physical objects through how we interpret and formulate this meaning for them.

The meaning can change from useful to useless, from beautiful, precious to worthless and ugly, disposable, ignorable.

Not only do we have the information we apply to them (their relative meaning or quality to an individual) but they have innate information (that which science elucidates - "Quantitative information" - its mass, component atoms, density, luminosity, heat, caloric content - the energy contained in joules, its gravitation, the wavelengths of light it absorbs and releases.

So information about the same object in question can be qualitative (subjective meaning/information ) and quantitative (discrete, objective, universally measurable meaning/information).

In that way the information we have for any given object is a). Open to interpretation/possibility (waveform) and finite and precise (particulate)

As quantum physics suggests. Conscious decision has influence on the outcome for the information received from an object. Consciousness I believe is universal and fundamental, how we decide to use and interpret it is up to us as observers, we can quantise everything or qualify everything. We ought to do both simultaneously though I guess, to get the "full picture".

Hence the original post I have on the big bang and its relationship to consciousness which prompted our conversation with one another.

You're always free to object or point out the flaws. To consider it hocus pocus. I welcome the debate. I learn from you as much as you learn from me. The basis of philosophical debate I would imagine.

Ok, you have wand, you aim at things, magic sparklers fly out and your name is Tinker Bell from my perspective — Mark Nyquist

That's fine. You seem to prefer discretion and finitude than open flow and infinities. I think you would make an excellent specialist in a field. Are you a specialist in some discipline?

Don't get me wrong I love to particularise and define things too. It definitely has its advantages. Science is an incredible tool for understanding. But so is intuition and open, creative lateralised thinking.

You may see it as hocus pocus. I see it as a duality. Both are correct depending on perspective and they can be overlapped or kept separate in whatever way you see fit.