Dr. Phil is definitely welcome here — javi2541997

Do you know who Dr. Phil is? He's pure evil.

God abandoned us a long time ago... — javi2541997

No. You're thinking of Franco.

You would be constantly pestered for details and logistics by not only me but everyone else, if you were indeed God and we could speak to you. Universal management does sound exhausting. — Benj96

Four things 1) I would be omnipotent 2) I would be omniscient 3) 4) I wouldn't care what you thought or wanted.

Hmm... Perhaps that anyone sees North Korea as an opportunity rather than a punishment. Regarding killers and abusers, we can't really never know. — javi2541997

Careful, don't piss God off. Maybe I'll send them to Spain instead. You know what? I'm definitely going to send Dr. Phil to Spain.

as a God you would hold the life and wellbeing of children in higher regard to any adult? — Benj96

Not necessarily in higher regard, but the most vulnerable are due the greatest protection.

Would North Korea remain the same size regardless of how many people are sent there eventually leading to overpopulation, starvation and death. Or would North Korea's terrority expand to accommodate your accumulating mass of condemned people?

Would North Korea gain power and economic prosperity from the influx of forced immigration? Would the world eventually end up being all "North Korea?" After its population explodes and it conquers other countries by sheer numbers alone? — Benj96

I'm God, for God's sake. Don't pester me with details and logistics.

If you were God, what would you do? — Benj96

I'd send anyone who intentionally killed, tortured, seriously hurt, or abused a child to North Korea permanently. Oh, and Dr. Phil too.

Not all scientist agree that language is innate in humans — Sir2u

This is true — T Clark

Really? Who disagrees? How so? Seems a strange thing to dispute, — I like sushi

I have a strong intuition (wishful thinking?) there is an innate human nature. As I have always seen it, innate language is the strongest instance of that. I've read a bit about other ways of seeing things, but after this discussion I thought I should dig deeper. This is from "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher. His seems like a pretty even-handed and non-polemical take on the issue.

The reason why there is so much disagreement is fairly simple: no one actually knows what exactly is hard-wired in the brain, and so no one really knows just how much of language is an instinct...

...The human brain is unique in having the necessary hardware for mastering a human language – that much is uncontroversial. But the truism that we are innately equipped with what it takes to learn language doesn’t say very much beyond just that. Certainly, it does not reveal whether the specifics of grammar are already coded in the genes, or whether all that is innate is a very general ground-plan of cognition. And this is what the intense and often bitter controversy is all about...

...Uncontroversial facts are few and far between, and the claims and counter-claims are based mostly on indirect inferences and on subjective feelings of what seems a more ‘plausible’ explanation. — Guy Deutscher - The Unfolding of Language

Not all scientist agree that language is innate in humans — Sir2u

This is true

I am still not sure about language being hard wired, but I am not a scientist. — Sir2u

I don't disagree with this. I like to think I'm open minded, but I find the evidence for the innate nature of language convincing. I also am not a cognitive scientist or psycholinguist.

A thought, if language was hard wired would that mean that there are some specific genes that control this function? — Sir2u

As I understand it, there are genes which have an influence on language, but it's not an absolute connection. People without the genes or with damaged versions may still be able to use language correctly. People with the genes may have language difficulties.

And the funny thing is that some people still insist on using human science as a bookmark for knowledge when we don't even have a complete picture of how we work? — Sir2u

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The fact that scientific knowledge is not complete is no reason not to use what we have.

↪T Clark points out that naming things seems to be an intrinsic part of human thought processes, but it seems to me that it is a learned ability. From the very beginning of their lives they are shown things and told the names of those things. — Sir2u

Evidence from psychological and cognitive science studies indicates this is not true. Language, including grammar and naming is a genetically inherited human capability. Obviously, specific words for specific things is learned social knowledge, but the drive to communicate with words is a fundamental part of human nature.

The development of the specific term God is middle eastern/western. There is no primary concept of God (or religion) in the East. — I like sushi

Shiva, Brahma, Ganesh?

I guess my main line of thinking here is that humans are kind of new to reason. Applying reasonable explanations by assuming how we see the world is part and parcel of why I started to think like this. — I like sushi

Are you familiar with Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?" You might find it interesting. Amazon says "Jaynes's still-controversial thesis [is] that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only three thousand years ago and is still developing." His hypothesis strikes me as very far-fetched and his evidence flimsy, although some people give it credence.

Going back to the Middle East it is fairly apparent that cities had traditions that developed into God concepts too. This plays into the competitive concept of state versus state but in a more direct and concrete fashion. By this stage though we are probably way, way past the kind of incremental steps I am talking about that arose through some form of exaggeration for entertainments sake. — I like sushi

Evidence?

Given that FACTS did not exist in the sense they do today this may be even more plausible than it seems. The lack of EVIDENCE (because it did not strictly exist) would allow for the strength and depth of the narrative to take on a life of its own. — I like sushi

I have been of the mindset for a long time that modern religions arose through the use of mnemonics, and now I am starting to think that maybe, much further back, the intent to preserve information came through and due to comparisons between imagined and real stories. EVIDENCE and FACTS themselves began with imaginative interplay and incremental one-upmanship. — I like sushi

Where did this come from? What possible evidence could you have this is true.

Your whole argument is to just restate your premise over and over.

Anyway, thoughts and ideas on this specific idea welcome. I do not really want to get into other common tropes for how the concept of God arose UNLESS you feel it dovetails into this idea in a curious way. — I like sushi

It is my understanding that it is an inherent human tendency to personify aspects of our world. Babies are instinctively responsive to human faces and voices and have an inborn moral sense. We name our cars and boats. This is something I have noticed about myself. So, it seems to me it is an easy step to personifying the world itself. I really love the world and I often find myself feeling grateful for what we have been given. That gratitude feels like a natural and reasonable manifestation of our drive to personify. This completely speculative idea strikes me as a better explanation for where gods might have arisen. Wherever they came from, I'm sure the process is much more complex than either of our ways of thinking about it.

I'm trying to expand the notion of biosemiotics to embrace the entire material domain, not just the biological (a la Terrence Deacon). — Pantagruel

Apokrisis has written a lot about biosemiotics and, based on his recommendations, I've read a couple of articles. I must admit I've never have been able to figure out what it really means - how it manifests in the world. I hadn't heard of Deacon, so I looked him up. Wikipedia says "Deacon's theoretical interests include the study of evolution-like processes at multiple levels...He has long stated an interest in developing a scientific semiotics (particularly biosemiotics) that would contribute to both linguistic theory and cognitive neuroscience."

After reading the Lorenz book we have discussed as well as "What is Life - How Chemistry Becomes Biology" by Addy Pross I have taken a strong interest in evolution as an organizing principle beyond just biology. Both write about evolution as it might apply to different levels of organization - Pross about evolution as a mechanism of abiogenesis and Lorenz about the evolution of societies.

So - is there a connection between biosemiosis and this broader understanding of evolution?

abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery — kindred

Here is my response to a similar claim you made in the "God" discussion.

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works. — T Clark

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists — kindred

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works.

It is obvious that it is better to read Joyce directly in English than in Spanish, because the translators usually 'disrupt' the real sense. — javi2541997

Have you ever read a Spanish book and also the English translation? If so, what was the experience like? Did the translation get the original right?

Great book. I had some difficulty with it in the beginning: — Jamal

I had some difficulties reading Borges as well. It is remarkable his vast knowledge on almost everything. However, I feel he expressed himself in a manner that can only be fully comprehended by him. The eternal handicap of gifted! — javi2541997

I've always been intrigued by translation. I wonder about the difference of your experiences reading it in Spanish as opposed to English.

My favourite, when it comes to explaining the universe is, 'I don't know'. — Tom Storm

I'm a fan of "Who cares."

I wonder if there is some way of avoiding the dichotomy of traditional religious God vs the universe as pointless accident theory.

I think the universe simply coming into being pointlessly is the height of absurdity and would render reality fundamentally unintelligible. — Bodhy

Once you've gotten past the silly, creaky "why is there something rather than nothing" question, the universe can't be an "accident." It's inevitable. As for pointless, why does the universe owe you intelligibility or a point. That's your job as a conscious entity - tacking on intelligibility, meaning, purpose, and point.

The only way a scientific cosmology could avoid that would be to accept a tenseless theory of time along with some sort of eternal universe. — Bodhy

By "tenseless" do you mean that there would be no direction to time? What does that have to do with intelligibility or purpose? As for an eternal universe, what's wrong with that? What else could it be? I think time is likely just another one of those things we tack on.

I like Paul Davies idea that the only things that can possibly exist are things that explain themselves, some sort of self-contained intelligibility, so that the universe and the reason for its existence must be co-emerging or co-creating somehow. — Bodhy

I think the universe explains itself by evolving consciousness to gussy itself all up with intelligibility and meaning.

Regardless of whether or not relativism is more accurate, or if we feel as though objectivism is too rigid, assuming objectivism in the search for truth (the answer to this question's use case) is generally more useful than assuming relativism.

Most truths worth looking for (except for personal truths) either have one answer, or the assumption that they have one answer leads to more productive debate and higher quality proposed solutions. — Igitur

I like the way you've formulated this issue - judging a choice of perspective based on usefulness. For me, that's the heart of the matter.

If I'm understanding that right, then Lorenz is saying (at least in part) that what is a priori to the individual is a posteriori to the race, or species? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, I think that's exactly right.

I suspect I'm not using the quote mechanism correctly; I meant to quote T Clark, quoting Lorenz. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

In my experience you can't nest a quote within a quote on the forum. Maybe someone else knows how to do it.

Does that mean the mind is also an abstraction? Something outside the physical world? If so how does one explain what happens to my mind when you crush my head between two boulders? — Benj96

Oh, wait. I guess I didn't answer your question... Did I mention that's a good question?

Does that mean the mind is also an abstraction? — Benj96

Good question... We argue about that kind of thing here all the time. I'll take a swing at it - the mind is a non-physical manifestation of a physical process, i.e. our nervous system's functioning. If you squish an important part of the nervous system, there is nothing left to manifest the mind.

you can't be, strictly speaking, a Kantian and claim that neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and the like are telling you things about the causes of the structure of experience. For Kant, the natural sciences can only ever tell you about the world of phenomenal awareness, not what lies prior to it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't consider myself a Kantian and I can use those of his ideas I find valuable without having to accept everything he says. As Lorenz wrote in the quote I included in my post - "What a biologist familiar with the facts of evolution would regard as the obvious answer to Kant's question was, at that time, beyond the scope of the greatest of thinkers." Besides that, as I noted, the idea of a priori knowledge being a manifestation of biological processes developed by Darwinian evolution is much broader than just Kant's formulation. I like to use Kant because it makes me seem all smart and stuff.

So I see the position you are advocating as:

A. Dropping core elements of Kant's thought;
B. Largely revolving around ideas that are neither unique to Kant nor new with him. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As for A, I don't have to accept everything Kant says to find his thoughts valuable. And B - I don't see how this makes any difference.

the claim that it is impossible to say that space and time exist fundamentally (but not actually) in nature — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't say it is impossible or unreasonable to see time and space that way, only that it is reasonable to see them otherwise. As I noted, I used Kant's vision of time and space as an example, not the only instance of the phenomena I am describing.

It's both for many animals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, but I never said experience didn't have a role. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

The genes of a fern or flower will never produce a functioning eye regardless of the environment. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Some plants respond to light with movement and growth. There's no reason that mechanism couldn't eventually evolve into an eye if there were an evolutionary reason to do so.

The mind does not varry between individuals the way your initial post implies, which is why for Kant we can discover laws of nature that are universally applicable for all observers across phenomenal awareness. — Count Timothy von Icarus

While it's true that the biological and genetic phenomena I'm describing are present for all fully-functioning humans, humans are not the only perceivers and, possibly, not the only conscious perceivers.

there is a relationship between relativism and subjectivity — Jack Cummins

I agree, although I think in the context of this discussion, the difference is important.

the OP posits epistemological positions (on "truth"), not metaphysics. — 180 Proof

Why do you say that? Isn't truth a metaphysical concept?

The problem with asserting a completely relativistic notion of truth is that such an assertion is straightforwardly self-refuting. Such a claim will itself only be "true" relative to some social context, "language game," etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And therefore if relativism is true for some and not others, then it is self-refuting as a claim (i.e. relativism is relative ... "truth is subjective" is subjective ... — 180 Proof

I don't understand the logic of this. Of course a relativistic position is relativistic. Not all self-reference is self-contradictory. 180 Proof, I know you have an understanding of metaphysics similar to mine. Relativism and objectivism are metaphysical positions.

The laws of physics are not necessarily the same from one universe to the next, so that would be an example of relativism (or relational, as I tend to use the word, to distinguish it from Einstein's relativity theory, which is something else). — noAxioms

I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "relativism" here. "Universe" means everything. We only have access to this scope of being, dimension or whatever you want to call it. If we ever gain access to some other hypothetical world, the meaning of "universe" will change.

I never found Kant's arguments here particularly convincing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm with Kant on this. A broader perspective recognizes the nature and extent of a priori knowledge applies to more than just space and time. Perception of color begins in the eye itself and grows to include a big piece of real estate in the brain. Babies are instinctively attracted to human voices and faces before they have had a chance to learn to make the categorization. There is also strong evidence that infants in the first months of life have inherent moral and numerical senses. If you have any interest in this subject, I recommend Konrad Lorenz's "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology." Its much shorter than the book I referenced. Here's a link.

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

What things are outside of all interaction with anything else is not only epistemically inaccessible, but also makes no difference to the rest of the world. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If our a priori knowledge is dependent on our biological makeup, what could be more relativistic than that. As Lorenz shows, it has a profound impact on what we know and how we learn - all of our psychology.

Now some object changes its position or “moves in space”, and the mind remembers where the local motion began, sees the course of the movement, and notes where it terminates: the rabbit, for example, came out of that hole and ran behind that tree, where it is “now” hidden. The motion was not a “thing”; the rabbit is the “thing”.

There is evidence that perception of motion is also affected by instinctive, genetic mechanisms in the nervous system. It's not learned after birth.

I do not understand why he is frequently credited like this with the idea that our sense organs/minds shape how we experience the world. This is a very old intuition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm confused. Given this understanding, I don't see why you reject the position I'm describing.

In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective — Cadet John Kervensley

subjective, or relative — Jack Cummins

While objectivism and subjectivism clash — ToothyMaw

It's not clear to me that "relativism" and "subjectivism" mean the same thing, e.g. Catholic Church doctrine is that abortion is absolutely wrong, but many other churches don't agree. The Catholic position is absolute, but only relatively.

Welcome to the forum. A well-written and well thought out OP (original post).

To start... If you hang around you'll see that my arguments very often come back to metaphysics. Objectivism and relativism are metaphysical positions. I'm a fan of R.G. Collingwood who wrote that metaphysical positions are neither true nor false. My own formulation as a pragmatist is to use whichever works best in a given situation.

Objectivism asserts that truth exists independently of human beliefs, emotions, or perceptions. — Cadet John Kervensley

There is a strong philosophical argument to be made that objective reality does not exist, or rather it is not always a useful way of looking at things. I've started discussions on this in the past and participated in many others over the years.

And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative. — Cadet John Kervensley

It's not just context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives that matter. Here's what Immanuel Kant has to say in "Critique of Pure Reason."

Space is a necessary a priori representation that underlies all outer intuitions. One can never forge a representation of the absence of space, though one can quite well think that no things are to be met within it. It must therefore be regarded as the condition of the possibility of appearances, and not as a determination dependent upon them, and it is an a priori representation that necessarily underlies outer appearances...

...We dispute all claim of time to absolute reality [absolute Realität], namely where it would attach to things absolutely as a condition or property even without regard to the form of our sensible intuition. Such properties, which pertain to things in themselves, can also never be given to us through the senses. Therefore herein lies the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if one abstracts from the subjective condition of our sensible intuition, it is nothing at all, and can be considered neither as subsisting nor as inhering in the objects in themselves (without their relation to our intuition). — Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

So, according to Kant, space and time are not objective not because of context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives but because of our fundamental nature as human. Konrad Lorenz, the famous ethologist, had this to say.

In... the Critique of Pure Reason [Kant] wrote:

If one were to entertain the slightest doubt that space and time did not relate to the Ding an sich but merely to its relationship to sensuous reality, I cannot see how one can possibly affect to know, a priori and in advance of any empirical knowledge of things, i.e. before they are set before us, how we shall have to visualize them as we do in the case of space and time.

What a biologist familiar with the facts of evolution would regard as the obvious answer to Kant's question was, at that time, beyond the scope of the greatest of thinkers. The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible. But its function is also historically evolved and in this respect not a priori. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

As I've made clear, I don't live in the US, so my taking of responsibility has nothing to do with it. — Tzeentch

Europeans have their own extensive and continuing history of colonialism and exploitation.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem. — Tzeentch

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise. — Tzeentch

Bullshit. T Clark is clearly insisting on the use of skin color as a means of dividing people into monolithic groups. — Tzeentch

Sometimes people say things like this so they won't have to take responsibility for social conditions in the society where they live.

Edited

In my opinion, thinking in terms of monolithic 'Black People' and 'White People' is inherently damaging, yes. — Tzeentch

As I've said many times before, white people as a group don't like or trust black people as a group. Claiming the solution is to just treat people like people and behave as if we live in a colorblind society is, to put it as charitably as I can, naive to the point of delusion.

I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. It's not like the US hasn't ran countless programs trying to elevate people out of poverty. At some point people will have to take responsibility for their own lot in life. Tough shit. — Tzeentch

I think this is a good example of one of the reasons paying reparations is a bad idea. There are enough people out there who feel as you do that it will damage relationships between black and white people more than it will help.

Pardon my skepticism. Reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity is one of the most difficult issues in physics right now. It seems unlikely that the approach you’ve described here will resolve that. Are you a trained physicist or do you have other relevant experience or training?

this generational disadvantage will persist for several more generations — LuckyR

I think that's optimistic. I hope not.

I don't trust this generation's recipients to use the funds in such a way to benefit those future generations. — LuckyR

What do you mean you don't trust them? What obligation do they have to use the money to benefit people in the future? If I gave you a windfall, what would you do with it? I suspect you would spend it on something you want or need or put it in your bank account. $470 billion is a lot of money and it would certainly provide an economic boost, but how much long-term impact could it have?

those future generations would likely suffer worse effects from the society declaring "hey we paid our debt, it's over, problem solved, let's do whatever we want to whomever we want". — LuckyR

This is a very good point. I should have included it in my list of good reasons not to give reparations.

I think that if someone can be persuaded that slavery benefited people of color at all, then they are a hopeless moron that could be persuaded of almost any right-wing bullshit regardless of the way some small number of people frame their arguments for reparations. — ToothyMaw

Florida’s teachers are now required to instruct middle-school students that enslaved people “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”...DeSantis has repeatedly defended the new language — AP - DeSantis is defending new slavery teachings.

The 'more than' our thoughts is ambiguous, — Jack Cummins

As I noted in another post in this thread:

My thoughts (and feelings, memories, perceptions, and a bunch of other stuff) are me. — T Clark

If you, and all of your family members, and all of your friends' family members, and yours and their grandparents, and yours and their grandparent's grandparents were subjected to slavery for hundreds of years, only to be abused and treated as second class citizens even after being freed, never to see a dime in compensation for virtually all of that work, would you want your descendants to be disproportionately impoverished and derided as part of a legacy you could not have possibly changed? Or would you at least want them to be compensated somewhat for the exploitation you had suffered? — ToothyMaw

This is another one of those presumptuous, condescending statements we were talking about. You can't set yourself up as a spokesperson for black people.

I am using that example to represent some of the most extreme conditions — ToothyMaw

I understand what you were trying to say, but I stand by my judgment it is insulting and demeaning.

it's about justice - due compensation. It doesn't have to fix everything; it is a goodwill gesture towards making things a little righter. If we want to change the plight of people of color - especially those who have it the worst — ToothyMaw

As I said, it won't work and it'll make things worse. We don't need justice, if that's what reparations really is. Is money to middle class black people but nothing for poor whites and Hispanics justice? We need to make things better.

This seems a little glib. — ToothyMaw

It's not glib, it's vague. I wasn't trying to provide a list of possible solutions. Here are some - Universal Basic Income, political support for labor unions, changes in tax policy, political action to get rid of racial reactionaries. Most efforts should be aimed at class differences, not racial ones. Improving workers finances won't solve the problem, but it will make it a different problem.

And note that, nowhere in this thread, nor in my OP, has anyone expressed the sentiment that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and should be hated. Yet you felt as if you had to invoke the spooky specter of wokeness. — ToothyMaw

Wokeness isn't spooky and it isn't a term I like, but it's the term typically used these days and you know what I mean. What's the right word? If you think it isn't a real thing, then you don't really understand what's going on. Trying to make white people feel guilty gave Ron DeSantis the opening to claim that slavery benefited blacks.

And, your protestations of innocence non-withstanding, reparations is part of the same package.

I mean, clearly no one living today is at fault for slavery, but yeah, that kind of was white peoples' fault, wasn't it? Just not yours or mine? — ToothyMaw

I acknowledge my share of responsibility, not for slavery, but for the way black people and other minorities are treated today.

I'm thinking you're an engineer; thus am surprised to see what seems to me a defeatist attitude. — tim wood

Engineers are allowed to have a defeatist attitude, we're just supposed to justify it rationally, which I think I've done.

My original statement was.

Russell's paradox is considered identical to the liar's paradox and some mathematicians think it undermines the basis of all mathematics. I've never understood that. — T Clark

That's all I was trying to say, not that I personally thought it undermined mathematics, just that some mathematicians think, or thought, that way. As I mentioned, I'm skeptical, but I am not qualified to make substantive arguments to support that skepticism.