@Baden

Since you closed out "Why should life/existence by valued if i can choose to not want to value it?" and added it to this thread, it would make sense if you moved @obscurelaunting's OP over here.

By the way Obscurelaunting, welcome to the forum.

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth; any type of truths that can be drawn from the natural world. And these truths can be split into many areas, called sciences. — A Christian Philosophy

Perhaps this isn't the correct original meaning of "philosophy," but I don't think that undermines the rest of your argument.

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science? — A Christian Philosophy

You've laid your argument clearly and the way you look at things makes sense. I think, though, you make it seem easier than it is. I'm a big fan of RG Collingwood, especially his "Essay on Metaphysics." He says that metaphysical statements are not propositions but rather presuppositions. They are underlying assumptions which people are not generally aware of that underpin our understanding of reality and knowledge, including science. As such, they are neither true nor false. They have no truth value. Collingwood doesn't say so, but to me, epistemology is the same.

What it comes down to for me is that what you call rational sciences are founded on human value. Preferences. Usefulness. On the other hand, what you call empirical sciences can pretend they aren't permeated by human value because they have metaphysics and epistemology to take the rap for them. If we ignore or deny the fact that metaphysics and epistemology provide the foundation for science, the argument might convince scientists they can be truly objective.

Through a consequentialist lense, is it moral to make a decision without the ability to prove whether or not it had a net benefit — CallMeDirac

Look at the examples of real life situations I listed. Were they "moral" from a consequentialist point of view? They said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war and saved thousands, tens of thousands, of allied lives. I don't know the answer to that. There was certainly more to it than that - revenge, retribution, were also involved. Still, I don't feel the need to second-guess Truman and his crew.

Accompanied by its handmaiden mathematics. — jgill

I'm curious how another consequentialist would personally resolve this issue, and whatever similar points have been handled by more competent philosophers. — CallMeDirac

As I said, this is one of those absurd and therefore pointless scenarios, and some philosophers, like Peter Singer, would on this basis say that the question is not realistic and can be ignored. — Tom Storm

I agree with Tom. For me, simplistic and unrealistic scenarios like the trolley problem and this one undermine the credibility of moral philosophy. When would a situation like the one you describe ever happen in real life. There are much more realistic events that really happened - the firestorming of Tokyo and Dresden; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Churchill once decided not to warn people about the planned bombing of a British city because he didn't want the Germans to know they had broken the enigma code.

Dark energy is a negative pressure (meaning it is repulsive): it has a negative equation of state (probably exactly -1, if it is a cosmological constant -- but we have only constrained it to <-0.6). If the universe is imagined to be like a fluid (an assumption that is apt), then there has to exist some kind of negative pressure in order to get a universe that looks like the one that we see. We just call that negative pressure "dark energy." — Astro Cat

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, where science goes to die. Or, alternatively, where bad science goes after it gets kicked off actual science forums. It's nice to read a clear, knowledgeable explanation of a genuine scientific topic.

Xtrix posts a poor response to his critics and then the bannings thread gets closed to any responses! — universeness

I was angered by Xtrix response on the bannings thread too, but I think Baden or whomever was right to shut that discussion down. I think the thread should be shut down sooner rather than later. It often turns into a ping-pong game of escalating vituperation.

A successful day - I got to use "vituperation" in a response. Say it loud it's like music playing, say it soft and it's almost like praying. Well, I guess not praying.

Here is a link to a site called Libretexts. That's what it is - free text books for a range of disciplines. Mostly science. Neat site.

https://libretexts.org/

At the top of the page, click on "Explore the libraries."

I wanted to prevent the Salman Rushdie discussion from degenerating into insults like the Ukraine thread did, so when Adamski started getting aggressive towards Hanover, without cause as far as I could tell, I sent him a PM asking him politely not to. — Jamal

I'll make this one comment, then I promise to shut up. Don't get all excited, I only mean for this thread and this instance.

Adamski was much, much less "aggressive" toward Hanover in the Rushdie thread than I was.

I definitely recall your thread on mysticism and how you have more of a 'meat and potatoes' approach and question tbe idea of the 'hidden'. I am not sure that there is a literal hidden reality of the mystics but feel that perception varies, with some people being more attuned to the mundane and others to more alternative ways of seeing. However, I would not elevate the mystical ones, because that would be putting the mystics as having superior insight, which may be an extreme generalisation and a far too black and white value judgement. — Jack Cummins

I won't clutter up this thread with more of my personal view on this. I don't think my way of seeing things is very helpful in this particular context. I would like to say that I think this kind of thinking, whatever you want to call it, is the primary way that all of us "know" things. People just tend to focus on more self-aware kinds of knowing. You can take credit for that I guess, but less so for intuition. It's as if the parts of us that we are not as aware of are not really "us."

I just read an article in "Nautilus" - "How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything." A bit popular sciencey for my taste, but it does highlight the perennial problem with the whole "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question - What does "nothing" mean? Here's a link:

https://nautil.us/how-the-physics-of-nothing-underlies-everything-22894/

I remember we both participated in the "What is mysticism" thread where we discussed some of these issues. As we discussed then, "mysticism" means different things to different people. Ditto with "intuition." For me, intuition has nothing to do with any mystery. For me, it means knowledge I have that I can't connect with a specific rational or perceptual source. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, just that I wasn't aware of it when it happened, it isn't associated with a single event, or it is lost to memory. And then, some knowledge may be innate, unlearned at least in part, example - language.

me the first one seems like barely suppressed or symbolic violence and is striking but not beautiful, especially linked with Rossini's music, so well associated for some of us with the urban violence in A Clockwork Orange. And clowns are creepy. — Tom Storm

It surprised me that you said violence, that never crossed my mind. Now that you say it, it makes sense. For me it was just joyful. I find myself moved by big public works of art. Things that get in the way and change the way people think about their everyday world and lives. I've always loved Christo's stuff. For me, that's art that doesn't need an expert to explain it. I can feel it in my bones. Apparently people in the locations where the commercials were filmed really enjoyed the process.

A couple of wonderful, beutiful adds. I think they're from the early 2000s. Neither is made with computer generated images.

Two biographies:

The eclipse of Yukio Mishima, Shintaro Ishihara

The last words of Yukio Mishima, Takashi Furubayashi. — javi2541997

[joke]I've decided you won't be allowed to read any more Japanese authors, especially Mishima. I think they have a bad influence on you.[/joke]

I take it for granted that Christians are vicious, vacuous, shells of human beings who actively ruin everything around them when they are not busy raping children or defending those who do. — Streetlight

Funny. I think what Streetlight, whom I still mourn, said is more defensible than what Hanover did. It's true. The Catholic Church, including leaders at high levels, allowed the sexual exploitation of thousands of vulnerable children, then helped their rapists, who also included high church leaders, avoid facing the consequences of their actions. I can't imagine a more horrible betrayal.

I wouldn't have said it the way Streetlight did, but his anger and disgust were justified.

Also, ask her to describe a route, say out of the house to the nearest post box?

And what happens if she were to draw (the post box, say) from memory? — bongo fury

I don't talk to her often. Next time I do I'll ask.

"Creepy"? — 180 Proof

Ok, ok. Just let us know what you think once you've finished.

I don't agree. — Baden

I'm not surprised. The forum and it's leaders allow, promote, disrespect for religion and religious belief in a way that would never be allowed for any other group. The forum means a lot to me, but I think this attitude, policy, is shameful.

I love Clarky — Noble Dust

Aw, shucks.

Except I'm not. — Hanover

Explaining why you feel entitled to express bigoted beliefs is not the same as not expressing them.

You and I are not getting anywhere and won't. I'm going to leave it at that.

Check out her wiki — 180 Proof

I took a look. Sounds pretty creepy. Set me straight if I'm wrong.

There are always radicals, but my concern is official group doctrine. It does seem the Sunnis may separate themselves from the Shia here, leaving their problem not a moral one, but a PR one in that the distinction in position is not known by many. — Hanover

I've changed my mind. I think you are engaging in religious bigotry. Also hypocrisy. If you were talking about black people, women, or gay people, I don't think your abusive diatribe would be allowed on the forum. I don't think you would allow a discussion like that on the forum yourself.

Regardless, the 1/6 events were not carried out in the name of religion, but were the result of a political ideology. I do condemn those in the Republican party who have either supported those acts or claimed them part of their ideology. — Hanover

You added this to your post after I had already responded.

As you say, for most people the events were not performed for religious reasons, but some white nationalists I have read about participated with explicitly religious motivation.

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "mental Image"? I can visualize quite complex structures and maps, but it is not like staring at an actual static picture or map or an actual object. How is it for you? — Janus

I definitely have a "mind's eye," i.e. I can see visual images unrelated to any current external stimuli. I have visual memories, imagination, insights, concepts... A few times I've had a wonderful experience. Suddenly I'll get a flash of a visual image, e.g. one time I was feeling deeply at peace when from nowhere I got an image of a horse pulling a plow. In five minutes I wrote a poem describing the horse's experience that perfectly expressed how I was feeling. As they say, the poem wrote itself. It's one of my favorite things I've ever written. I have no idea where the horse came from. I don't hang around with horses. I had no recent experience with horses. I'm not a farmer. Magic.

But no, like you, I don't see detailed images. I generally can't pick out details.

No, you just try to divert with by chastising me for covert bigotry, but at best you've presented a Tu quoque ( — Hanover

It was not my intention to imply your post is bigoted any more than yours implied that Islam is a violent religion. I was implying that your example is misguided. Yours is generally a voice for moderation but I think you were immoderate here.

Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, — 180 Proof

Sounded interesting, so I looked it up on Amazon. Here's from the spiel there:

The starting point for Barad’s analysis is the philosophical framework of quantum physicist Niels Bohr. Barad extends and partially revises Bohr’s philosophical views in light of current scholarship in physics, science studies, and the philosophy of science as well as feminist, poststructuralist, and other critical social theories.

That certainly is...provocative. Any thoughts so far?

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology? — Hanover

Was participation by white Christian nationalists in the events on January 6 in Washington DC consistent with mainstream Christian theology?

As is common in situations like this, the question asked is more telling than the answer.

That paper reads like something out of the 1970s. It is the opposite of a biologically realistic or embodied approach — apokrisis

Alas. I'll keep trying. Thanks.

@apokrisis

As you suggested, I am reading "The User Illusion." I'll let you know what I think. In the interim, I've just finished reading "A Standard Model of the Mind: Toward a Common Computational Framework Across Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Robotics," included in AI Magazine from 2017. Are you familiar with it? Here's a link:

https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2744

The article covers cognition in a way that seems consistent with the way you have been describing it. It is clear, well-written, and interesting. I had never thought about thinking in that way before. I don't want to get into any kind of in-depth discussion now since I don't understand it well enough, but I think I understand the overall approach reasonably well. I have some preliminary thoughts:

I think calling it a "standard model" with a specific reference to the standard model in physics is a mistake. Not because it is necessarily inaccurate, but because it is presumptuous. It seems to somehow claim that cognitive science is established at the same level as particle physics. I think that will undermine the credibility of the approach to people outside the field. I recognize that is not a substantive criticism.

The model presented in the article is in no way set up as an alternative to or in contradiction with any other way of looking at mind. It was just a straightforward presentation. That increased it's credibility for me.

The kind of approach described in the article seems to me to be at a different hierarchical level of organization that that described by Pinker. It focuses on processing rather than human behavior. That's not a criticism. I had never considered the structure of how exactly brain activity becomes the mind. It was eye-opening. Because the approach was at a different level than that described in Pinker, I don't see any obvious contradiction, although the article did say:

...the programs and data are ultimately intended to be acquired automatically from experience — that is, learned — rather than programmed, aside from possibly a limited set of innate programs. Cognitive architectures thus induce languages, just as do computer architectures, but they are languages geared toward yielding learnable intelligent behavior, in the form of knowledge and skills.

And:

In simple terms, the hypothesis is that intelligent behavior arises from a combination of an implementation of a cognitive architecture plus knowledge and skills. Processing at the higher levels then amounts to sequences of these interactions over time. Even complex cognitive capabilities — such as natural language processing... and planning — are hypothesized to be constructed in such a fashion, rather than existing as distinct modules at higher levels.

Beyond that, the article had very little to say about language.

Anyway, really interesting. As I said, I don't think it will be fruitful to go into a lot more detail. I have more reading to do. I would like to know if this article does match the approach you have been presenting.

How is the symbolic different to what I used?

Kp ∧ ◇¬p — Michael

Sorry. I'm not very good with logical symbols. I guess I misunderstood. We can leave it at that.

I'm not saying that it's a contradiction? I'm just explaining that p → □p is not a valid inference. — Michael

Agreed. Here is where I get confused:

The implication of this is that if p is not necessarily true then I can know that p is true even if it is possible that p is not true. — Michael

I assume we are operating under Justified True Belief rules. Given that, I don't think your statement is true. A true statement would be "p is true, even though it could have been otherwise."

The implication of this is that if p is not necessarily true then I can know that p is true even if it is possible that p is not true. — Michael

I'm a bit lost, which is not unusual when we get into more formal logic. I can see two possible meanings for "it ain't necessarily so," 1) it is not logically required that it must be true and 2) there is some doubt about whether it is true. I would have thought that 1 is the proper meaning. If so, then there is not contradiction between "it is true" and "it is not necessarily true."

I don't know if you are aware, but there is a thread on the front page - "Currently Reading." If you post book recommendations there, more people will see them. Here's a link:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/22/currently-reading

Thinking (happens), therefore thinking exists. — 180 Proof

At most, IME, Descartes only "proved" cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est, not that "I exist". — 180 Proof

I think, therefore my thought exists (Is that right?)
If my thought exists, I exist
Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum
If a person with Cotard's syndrome doubts she exists, she thinks
Therefore, if I think I don't exist, I exist.

I'm not sure anyone can do better than "I think therefore I am." I'll take a shot at something more in line with my way of thinking. This is Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 1 of the Tao Te Ching:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

It strikes me that what Descartes wrote in 1640 has a lot in common with what Lao Tzu wrote 2,000 years earlier.

I must say though, I was able to get through it much more easily this (second) time round only because I was reading on an iPad, so I could look things up. Even a regular dictionary isn’t sufficient, because the lexicon makes use of many archaic words, so it was essential to have easy access to the web. — Jamal

I love paper books, but now I find myself tapping on words I want to know the definitions of or get more information on. Turns out that doesn't work. So I mostly stick to my Kindle. It has changed the depth of my reading experience. Sometimes I'll look up a word or place and then go off on a tangent for 15 minutes, looking at maps and photos, following a Wikipedia trail off into the sunset. Love it.

My states of mind, my thoughts and sensations, are phosphorescently present for me, infinitely intimate. I can no more be wrong about what I mean by a word or how I see a patch of color than 2 + 2 can equal 5. And so on. — Pie

I hope this is relevant.

I once started a thread called "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher." Turns out I was at least partly wrong. You may not need to read books, but you at least need to watch videos.

Philosopher Fredrick Copleston was interviewed by Brian Magee on Schopenhauer's philosophy. He said that Schopenhauer carried on Kant's examination of the unknowable thing-in-itself, nomena. Schopenhauer wrote that there is no way we can directly experience noumena. He qualified that somewhat by saying that the only place we can approach such an experience, though partially and imperfectly, is through our personal experience of ourselves - each of our "phosphorescently present," "infinitely intimate" personal experience of ourselves.