An interesting, well-made video. You've covered many of the bases that need to be covered. I do have one disagreement. Materialism is metaphysics, a philosophical perspective on reality, a way of thinking about things. As I, and R.G. Collingwood, think, metaphysical positions are not true or false, right or wrong. This is a drum I've pounded here on the forum many times. As you note, materialism can be very useful as a way of looking at the world. I've read that most physicists are materialist, which makes sense. But it's not the only useful metaphysical approach, e.g. I've read that most mathematicians are idealists. Ontology is not an all or nothing thing. We can use different approaches in different situations and at different times, depending on which is more useful in each set of conditions.

Also - I think your comparison of materialism and Newtonian mechanics is misleading. Newtonian mechanics is a set of scientific theories. I don't think it's correct to call it "wrong," it's just that it's limited. But for most uses in our everyday world, it's adequate to give us good answers. I can make accurate predictions about events here on Earth using Newton's principles. I can't make any predictions with metaphysics - that's just not how it works.

Nonsense. For instance, we seek "territory and food" in order to sustain ourselves biologically (like all other non-human animals do) and not because of "imaginary stories". And I don't see the relevance here of tychism (though I've always agreed with the principle ... from the perspective of classical atomsm). — 180 Proof

Nonsense. We, and all the other animals, seek territory and food to address hunger and security, basic animal impulses, i.e. instincts. Humans and perhaps a few other animals tell ourselves stories while we do that - explain to ourselves what we're doing and why.

This from the Wikipedia article on tychism.

In his theory of tychism, Peirce sought to deny the central position of the doctrine of necessity which maintains that "the state of things existing at any time, together with certain immutable laws, completely determine the state of things at every other time." One of the principal arguments of the necessitarians is that their position involves a presupposition of all science. Peirce attacks this idea asserting: "To 'postulate' a proposition is no more than to hope it is true." Thus an avenue is opened up allowing the entry of chance as a fundamental and absolute entity. — C.S. Peirce

Humans don't fight over territory and food. They fight over imaginary stories in their minds. — Yuval Noah Harari

Sure, but we do everything based on imaginary stories in our minds.

My big sister bought this. — unenlightened

The web says that's 1957, when I was 6. I didn't know they still made 78s then. The web says they still made them until the early 1960s. Looks like your big sister may be old too.

the pages of the National Lampoon — BC

There's a reasonable chance that you and I are old.

Consider though, a tree. — Hanover

Thank you. Great example.

what do we think is the best long term future for consciousness? — Gingethinkerrr

I think humans evolved to be acting, problem solving creatures. I guess all living organisms have. That is at the center of our nature. Without that, we have no reason to live. Whatever gets uploaded into a computer wouldn't be human anymore. Without any reason to do anything, I think we'd all sit around doing nothing till we decided to delete ourselves.

If I understand it correctly, "Great Britain" refers to the main island, not the country. Did you hear that Trump called the UK "a terrible country, worse than Milwaukee?"

It seems plausible to me that any large regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. — unenlightened

Not sure about that. I guess it also depends on how you define "large."

The reality is that no one is going to make America great again for ordinary people. — unenlightened

Not sure about that. I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about the US ever being great.

When it comes to complex ideas, I struggle with anything that isn't in plain English. — Tom Storm

Aw, shucks. Down here in Oz we're just country folks. We don't cotton to no pencil-necked, highfalutin, namby-pamby, fast-talkin ijits who like to spout out big words like "indubitably," "pusillanimous," and "utilization." On the other hand, we do know to put quotes around words when referring to the word itself rather than what the word signifies. "Signify," that's another one of them words you all like to spout.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose — BC

That's always struck me as a pretty good definition.

Corpse counting is tricky — BC

Agreed, but it's more than 7, more than 70, more than 700, more than 7,000, more than 70,000, more than 700,000, more than 7,000,000, and maybe more than 70,000,000.

I can't see communism on a large scale at all, unless it evolves naturally through the stages of democratic socialism. And that cannot happen in a monetized economy, because powerful vested interests will do anything to thwart it. — Vera Mont

Yes, I think you're right.

In a system where "the people" (aka the state) owns everything, tyranny is inevitable. — hypericin

Yes, I think so.

I’m immune to poetry — Tom Storm

I admit that Emerson likes fancy-schmancy store-bought words, but I wouldn't consider that poetry. Chuang Tzu, on the other hand, does tend to be poetic, although I think the sentiments he expresses in the quote I provided are pretty prosaic. I think they both ultimately say the same thing - we should act sincerely and authentically from our true human and personal natures. Action comes from inside, not outside. Not to get too personal, but from what I can see from posts here on the forum, you seem to be motivated in that direction more than most of us here. I think living one's life in accordance with what Emerson and Chuang Tzu wrote is a reasonable definition of freedom.

I suspect the greatest bonds and restrictions are those we are not even aware of - our habits and patterns of thought, the way our culture and environment works through us, etc. — Tom Storm

Yes, and I think those are exactly what Emerson and Chuang Tzu are talking about.

deaths caused by self-styled Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million. — Vera Mont

It seems plausible to me that any large Communist regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. Again, that's my "seems to me" opinion, not a solid claim.

9 million people die from starvation every year. Should we lay these deaths at the feet of capitalist corporatism? Because I surely do. — Pantagruel

Good point. According to Wikipedia, the lower end of the range of deaths, around 60 million, did not include non-intentional famines.

Communist China tops the list of the worst things the human species has ever done to itself. — frank

Yes, although Wikipedia indicates the Mongol invasion killed between 40 and 65 million, so they're up there too.

Thanks. I downloaded it. Bunge has a bunch of interesting books on subjects I've wondered and spouted off about. If I like this, I'll take a look at some of them too.

Hundreds of thousands killed one another. 'They' just conducted one side and took over when the carnage was done. — Vera Mont

I wasn't talking about the Russian revolution, I was talking about Communism in all it's governmental manifestations - the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia... Wikipedia says that a very uncertain estimate of deaths caused by Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million.

I feel compelled to ask: doesn't law and order as well? — Outlander

First of all, keep in mind that my opinion is based on "seems to me" rather than specific evidence. Given that, I don't think so. Revenge, security, behavioral control are all pretty human impulses.

relatable qualities of natural social cohesion and the resulting "values", virtues — Outlander

I agree that human's have a natural impulse to look out after each other and maybe in a small community where people live with their families and people they know, hat would hold sway. But when the group gets larger those sort of human connections are lost and generalized love of humanity won't get people to work when there is no specific benefit for themselves.

For Russia, communism was a grand; but, failed experiment, — Shawn

Grand? They killed tens, hundreds, of millions of people. There has never been a country ruled by communism that didn't end up being a tyranny. Why? Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above.

This is freedom to me. From Emerson's "Self-Reliance."

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

Or this from Ziporyn's translation of Chapter 17 of the Chuang Tzu, one of the founding documents of Taoism.

So the conduct of a Great Man harms no one, but he places no special value on humankindness and beneficence. His actions are not motivated by profit, but he does not despise those who slavishly subordinate themselves to it. He does not fight over wealth, but he places no special value on yielding and refusing it. He doesn’t depend on others, but he places no special value on self-sufficiency, nor does he despise the greedy and corrupt. If his own conduct is unconventional, he places no special value on eccentricity and uniqueness, and if his own action follows the crowds, he does not despise it as obsequious flattery. All the honors and stipends in the world are not enough to goad him to action, and all its punishments and condemnations are not enough to cause him shame, for he knows that right and wrong cannot be definitively divided, and that no border can be fixed between great and small. — Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi)

Looks really interesting. I looked on line and it's not available for free. Alas. I did download "Causality and Modern Science" from Hoopla of all places. Any good? It's a subject I've pontificated about a lot here on the forum, so maybe it'll help if I actually know something.

Welcome to the forum.

I see a reference to research and observations by an "adequate observer," but no actual research results or observations, just vague general statements without support. That makes the whole essay just a "seems to me" exercise, the content of which happens to match the prejudices of many of us here on the forum.

I was referring to the idea that the self is something more than the experiencing/thinking/aspiring/acting bodymind. — Janus

As long as that includes experiencing/thinking about the bodymind itself.

Agreed, that is to say the self is not anything beyond the experiencing/thinking/acting body. We can be an object to ourselves, and we can also feel ourselves in ways others cannot. The rest is smoke and mirrors. — Janus

I was with you until "The rest is smoke and mirrors." I'm not sure what you're referring to.

And it's always struck me that 'all the other things in this world' are objects of consciousness, whereas I am a subject of experience. — Wayfarer

I may be a subject, but me is an object just like all the others.

When speaking of or naming the self, we are both the speaking self and the one spoken about. — Fire Ologist

It has always struck me that the ability to treat I as me, as just another one of the things in the world, is the essence of consciousness.

I'm with @Philosophim, I don't think what you are talking about is properly called solipsism. I think it's more a kind of idealism.

The existence of an Objective Universe is a mistaken assumption that leads to the above solipsistic interpretations. — Treatid

I don't think it's correct to describe the idea of an objective universe as mistaken. What it really is is metaphysical, what R.G. Collingwood calls an "absolute presupposition" or assumption. Collingwood goes on to say that metaphysical positions aren't true or false, right or wrong. In my words, they are points of view, ways of thinking about things, that are more or less useful at particular times in particular situations. That being said, I think the idea that there is no objective reality can be a very useful way of thinking about the world and our experience of it. I say that as someone who came from science, engineering, and materialism.

How does Buddhism account for this? — Heracloitus

Disclaimer: I know a little bit about everything but not much about anything.

I've read and thought a lot about Taoism - The Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu - but little about Buddhism. I hope it's ok if I take a broader philosophical approach. As I see it, the question of self vs. no-self is metaphysics. To me that means neither is true or untrue, but each may be more or less useful at specific times and in specific situations. They're points of view, ways of thinking about things, not facts. We get to choose which to apply when the question arises.

For me, it helps to think about the self just as if were any old thing in the world, what Taoists call "the 10,000 things." It's no different from a baseball, a proton, or love. It's a concept, something with a name. Verse 1 of the Tao Te Ching says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

Your OP brought to mind a couple of things. First, these lyrics from an early Elvis Costello song.

You say you'll never know him
He's an unnatural man
He doesn't want your pleasure
He wants as no one can
He wants to know the names of
All those he's better than — Elvis Costello - Two Little Hitlers

And then this from "Princess Bride."

You didn't respond to my argument. The argument you make here is your usual one and has nothing to do with a veil of ignorance. No reason to take this any further.

it is just factually the case you can never know the kind of life your child will have accurately. — schopenhauer1

That's very different from a "Veil of Ignorance." If it only means that the we can't predict the future perfectly accurately, then it's kind of a useless concept.

Also, personal decision-making process of a single couple is presented here as a rebuttal to a broader philosophical position. — schopenhauer1

No, it's not just a single couple. It's reasonable to say that any prospective parent can know their future child's ethnicity, social status, and their idea of how to lead a good life with reasonable accuracy.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against anti-natalism here, although you know I find the idea repugnant. I'm only arguing that your logic is flawed.

I have recently began my search for my soulmate; and started exploring dating apps. — Bob Ross

My son met his girlfriend on Tinder. They've been together for 3 years and seem like a very good match in personal values and life plans. She's a wonderful person and we've forgiven her for the fact her father voted for Trump. I just provide this to let you know it can be done.

do you know of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance regarding justice and rights? — schopenhauer1

I've heard of it only in the quote and link you provided. As described there, as I noted, it does not apply to antinatalism, since when I choose to have a child I do know the kind of life it is likely to live. My wife and I wouldn't have had children if we didn't think we could give them a good life.

If this was applied to antinatalism, imagine a prospective parent/society is behind the veil of ignorance. — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make sense. How could I have a child without knowing the social conditions into which it would be born? If I were the King of Philosophy, I would outlaw thought experiments.

We're changing your name from BC to SP for smarty pants.

Some people are just interested in morality just because they are interested in morality, regardless of practical application. — Apustimelogist

Ok, but I don't understand. Moral philosophy describes how we should treat other people. How can you talk about that without talking about how it works in the real world?