Pretty simple syllogism, but the proselytizing on this platform by "believers" runs rampant in the constant defense of fallacious arguments. But know this... all of you who do require reason-based thought, have a severe lack of faith in God. — DifferentiatingEgg

Pitiful. Bad philosophy - not really philosophy at all - low rent psychology. I'll tag it as an example of religious bigotry because you claim to understand religious doctrine you don't know anything about. Beyond that, your characterization that religious proselytizing "runs rampant" here is ridiculous. Almost everything that gets posted about religion here is low-quality anti-religion polemics, although most of it is better than this.

I’ve been out of town so all I have is my cell phone, no computer. Otherwise I would have participated in this discussion. I would like to say, though, that having @fdrake start such substantive threads helps make up for the fact he’ll no longer be a moderator.

Yet, by the way things govern themselves in the US, China, and Europe, it would seem that the emerging groups of capitalism would prefer or instill a socioeconomic theory of corporate syndicalism among the managers of society. — Shawn

You should provide evidence for your claims.

But that said, just because a person is more educated than you and is successfully convincing (or you deem said person as a threat who will be able to convince) others of something that might result in some sort of monetary or "social" loss (especially one involving something one knows is fraudulent, immoral, or dangerous) doesn't change the act of telling the truth into "information warfare", nor does it criminalize the pursuit and proliferation of wisdom. — Outlander

The first amendment does not just apply to true speech, it applies to all, or almost all, speech.

Foreign actors who are not citizens do not have a right to free speech in the United States. — Leontiskos

This is not true.

The offending bullet point in question (the document is not a narrative history) could be taught poorly or well, but I take it the point is that African American slaves were not exclusively menial laborers and that some were able to leverage their skills (indeed, sometimes to aid the abolitionist cause). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry to be harsh, but this is outrageous. You can find someone who benefits in some way from any set of conditions. I have a friend who was raped when she was a teenager and had a child. Although this event has had a terrible impact on her life in some ways, it has also made her a strong and committed advocate for vulnerable children. That commitment has had a strong positive impact on her life. Should we be talking about the benefits of rape for the victims?

but putting control in the hands of conservative ideologues strikes me as dangerous, especially these days.
- T Clark

I don't see how a classical education entails this. I am aware that more than a few liberal outlets have put forth hit pieces advancing the theory that "classical education" is simply a "dog whistle" for "racist Christian nationalism," but at least from my main exposure to the movement (e.g. the "Common Place" podcast on Charlotte Mason/classical ed, or "Classical Stuff You Should Know") this seems every bit as unhinged and based on vague guilt by association as the right wing drive to "stop critical race theory from taking over public education." — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I said in my previous post, I'm ambivalent. I don't reject the idea outright, but I don't think concerns about right-wing propaganda are unfounded. For some, "classical education" includes explicit promotion of Christian values, including prayer, in the schools. To be fair, I also think that critical race theory has damaged public discourse here in the US and had something to do with the social and political situation we find ourselves in.

Aside from that, the main critique seems to be the a classical education necessarily cuts out "other views." I don't think this is true, and it certainly isn't necessarily true. This seems like people simply jumping to false conclusions, assuming that "classical" must mean "never reading anything that isn't Latin or Greek." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think for many, classical education includes denying America's racial history. Last time I checked, Florida school curriculum requires describing the benefits black people were provided by slavery.

There has been a boom in interest in classical education across the US over the past few years, with growth rapidly outpacing other K-12 enrollment in the US. The advance is occuring on several fronts, being a major trend in homeschool settings, private schools, and (to a lesser extent) public charters. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you see this as a positive development? I guess I am ambivalent. Anything that can improve the quality of schools should be good, but putting control in the hands of conservative ideologues strikes me as dangerous, especially these days. I also don't have the reverence for the "western canon" that many do.

I presume most of us here agree that burning a holy book shouldn't be met with that kind of violence period, right? That kind of goes without question for most thinking people. — flannel jesus

There are plenty of "thinking people" who believe that violence is an appropriate response to desecrating the Quran. Not me, but millions of others.

Hello Clarky, — javi2541997

Hello Javi. I put Suzhou River on my Criterion Channel watchlist.

A nice poem. It doesn't seem to me you are really providing clues to the nature of consciousness, rather a list of some of the questions we have to answer, places we have to look to figure it out. Maybe more hints than clues. What you end up with is an impressionistic snapshot of one partial view of consciousness. It seems like a lot is left out, or maybe you don't see it that way.

So, what makes these particular clues, hints, central to the question of what consciousness is? It's not clear to me.

Alas.

I was going to say the same thing. But I've already been reported for trolling and for assuming ill-intent. Welcome to the club! — Fire Ologist

I wouldn't take the threats of flagging here seriously. The moderators certainly won't.

But would he agree that time is inseparable from lived experience? — Wayfarer

Don’t you and I both believe that everything is inseparable from lived experience?

The problem here is not with time and space, but with the misuse of the words "illusion" and "real". — Banno

Maybe not “misuse,” but certainly sloppy use, lazy use, imprecise use, shallow use.

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad — Maw

My favorite book. I've read it three times and listened to it once.

FW seems to be central to the dualist argument because they way choices to be made by a supernatural agent despite the fact that neither deterministic nor random physics supports that. — noAxioms

I don't see why my only choices are determinism, randomness, or supernatural agency. I think a better way to think of it is that the real world is run by randomness constrained by deterministic processes. I'm not sure what that does for free will.

Too many people equate 'deterministic' with 'predictable'. The former is interpretation dependent (metaphysics), and the latter is very much known, and is part of fundamental theory. — noAxioms

Yes, I agree with you on this. If we're right, it seems to me the whole question of free will vs. determinism becomes trivial, pointless.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Is the question as expressed here any different from the standard questions about free will and determinism?

In Kant, there is no problem, as mind has a priori concepts which are not derived from experience of the empirical world. — Corvus

If Kant is right and time and space are not something we learn through experience but rather know from our natures, doesn't that mean they are not illusions?

I'm with Kant on this one; they are how we have to think about existence. — unenlightened

This is a good way of putting it.

Yes, that means that God exists in time. — MoK

As I noted, this is one of the presuppositions of your argument, but you haven’t made it explicit. I think you should because 1) It’s not self evident and 2) your argument falls apart without it.

I don’t mean to distract from the point of your original post, so I won’t take this any further.

That was going to be my comment. Also, God would not be "undecided." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the common theme of my comment and your quote from Moevs' is that it doesn't make sense to think that God, at least this kind of God, is limited or defined by human conceptions or logic. That would put us somehow above God.

What do you up to the 10th anniversary of TPF? — javi2541997

Some ideas:

• All of us meet in Times Square in New York City. We can borrow that ball they use at New Years.
• Depose the moderators and watch the forum quickly descend into chaos.
• Nothing.
• Immediately ban anyone who won't sign a statement acknowledging Donald Trump Jr. is a creepy little shitweasel who looks like he drew his beard on with a black magic marker.
• Double @Jamal's salary.
• Put @Hanover on double-secret probation.

I assume that P1 is true and see what it leads to. — MoK

I think your fundamental unexpressed presupposition in this formulation is that God exists in time, which I don't see as self-evident or even likely given the kind of God you are describing.

Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus

I don't know a lot about Kant and much of what I do know I don't like, but I do like his discussion of space and time. Here's some of what he says about time, from Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 5 of the Critique of Pure Reason.

1. Time is not an empirical conception. For neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation à priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.

2. Time is a necessary representation, lying at the foundation of all our intuitions. With regard to phenomena in general, we cannot think away time from them, and represent them to ourselves as out of and unconnected with time, but we can quite well represent to ourselves time void of phenomena. Time is therefore given à priori. In it alone is all reality of phenomena possible. These may all be annihilated in thought, but time itself, as the universal condition of their possibility, cannot be so annulled. — Immanuel Kant

This is very similar to what he says about space. To him, both space and time are known to us a priori. In my understanding, that means they are built into us. They are part of the nature of our cognitive mechanisms. I find this convincing, or at least plausible. It matches my understanding of how our minds work.

So, what does this mean for your bold statement? It doesn't mean you're wrong. I'd say rather that your claim is irrelevant. I guess you could say that time is an illusion, but it's one that we can't do without. The world as we know it could not exist without it. If time is an illusion, everything else is too - which is an argument that many people have made before and which sometimes makes sense to me, depending on the mood I happen to be in.

We live inside a world that has and is understood through the science of nature. — Shawn

Science is only one of the ways we understand the world.

I have been very cautious, as have other scientists, to not try and create things that could destroy or alter nature. — Shawn

I can't speak for you, but it is not true that scientists in general have tried not create things that could destroy or alter nature.

With man's insatiable need to make nature conform to his needs and even wants, what are your opinions about our current relationship with nature? Is it becoming better or worse? — Shawn

As I see it, historically we have lived in a world that was big enough to contain the results of humanity's actions. If we screwed up one place, we could just move to another. That is no longer true. Our population has gotten much bigger and our ability to affect the world has gotten much more potent and pervasive. We are at a point now where we are capable of rendering the Earth uninhabitable.

But I do indeed have a horse in this race, since I accept the non-Christian argument and I deny the Christian one. — Arcane Sandwich

This is such baloney. You just like to rouse the rabble. Bad philosophy. Nuff said.

What do you mean by "standing"? And why wouldn't I be able to talk about it? — Arcane Sandwich

"Standing" is a legal term that I've shanghaied for use here - "Standing, or locus standi , is the capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit in court. To have standing, a party must demonstrate a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action being challenged." Basically, it means you've got no horse in this race. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Of course you can talk about it and I can comment on what you write.

What is it about me or my post that makes me a religious bigot, in your view? — Arcane Sandwich

I didn't say you are a bigot, I said your post is bigoted. When I was a Boy Scout I learned the Scout Law - A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. The explanation for "reverent" is "A scout is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion." As an atheist, you have no religious duties that I know of, but that doesn't change the requirement that you respect others convictions. This is a virtue that is rarely practiced here on the forum - just one example of the rampant religious bigotry here.

As a non-Christian, you have no standing to address this issue. The fact that you have is a sign of the religious bigotry endemic here on the forum.

Let’s look at a question where your opinion might matter more - Can Santa Claus beat up Batman?

h.sapiens is simply another species, albeit a very clever one, but driven by the same basic instincts as everything else in the natural world, to survive and reproduce. The origin of life is a kind of biochemical fluke, maybe even a one-off, happening in a vast, indifferent universe which neither knows nor cares about humanity. Any conception of reason is a human invention and //apart from its instrumental value// a mere vanity. — Wayfarer

By George, he’s got it!

Welcome to the forum. This is an interesting, thoughtful, and well-written post. Perhaps also a bit over-ambitious. I have some thoughts.

The desire to know the answers to ultimate metaphysical questions like “Who am I?”, “What is reality?”, and “What is the mind?” has been haunting me throughout my life. To me, it surpasses other common aspects of a utility function. I cannot say much about the reason for that, as the curiosity seems natural and inherent to me, and precise attribution does not seem possible...From my understanding, current philosophy and science cannot adequately explain these questions. — LaymanThinker

Someday I'll give you my lecture on metaphysics. Thankfully not today. One aspect of metaphysical questions is that they never get answered. People have already been thinking about them for at least 3,000 years with no sign of progress. As I see it, they are unanswerable. That doesn't mean they aren't worth thinking about. There are aspects of the questions you identify that are not metaphysical at all. As you suggest, physics and psychology, i.e. science, have a lot to say about each of them.

In fact, I think even articulating some of these ultimate questions is extremely challenging for human language... — LaymanThinker

You're right that language is a large part of the problem with philosophical questions. If you hang around the forum for a while, you'll find that a lot of the disagreements are caused by differences in our understanding of the words we use. "Metaphysics" is a good example. Almost all of the conflicts about metaphysics here on the forum are caused by differences in understanding of what that word means.

This is from the article you linked.

I’ve always felt that human natural language is too ambiguous for philosophical questions. Philosophical viewpoints either (1) cannot clearly convey their meanings or (2) rely on too many assumptions.

I strongly disagree. As I understand it, if you can't explain your question in words that a normal, intelligent, interested adult can understand, you don't understand it yourself. Use of jargon; highfalutin language; and making up new, unnecessary words leads to dense, difficult, and often meaningless discussions. Your OP (original post) in particular is a good example of use of natural language. It's straightforward and clear.

If one’s life goal is to understand these ultimate questions and their solutions, should they first focus on longevity in order to wait for humanity to develop the necessary technology, philosophy, or language? — LaymanThinker

As I see it, life extension is not a solution to your problem, whatever it's value otherwise. There certainly will be technological advances, but the metaphysical questions will remain. For me, the point of philosophy is not answering questions, but becoming more self-aware - not the end goal but the journey.

Matter is not what we experience . . . — Art48

No concept, word, is what it refers to. When we say "matter" it's not an explanation, it's just a label, a finger pointing.

Most of those proffered thoughts may be based on familiarity with analogous concepts such as Taoism. But I have learned, from some of those erudite opinions, related ideas to fill-in the gaps in my ignorance of the "Ruling Values" of the Cosmos. — Gnomon

Have you read the Tao Te Ching? It only takes a couple of hours.

I suspect that no one here has any capacity to influence the world's moral behaviour, just our own. Do you not find that acting from intuition is not enough? Can you provide examples of where your moral theorising has made a significant difference in your actions or assessments? — Tom Storm

I don't think I have ever asked myself what is the moral thing to do. I generally know whether something I've done harms someone unnecessarily or shirks one of my responsibilities. My intuition, conscience, heart, or Te provide all the guidance I need. They tell me when I've done something wrong. Moral codes only seem to be useful for looking for loopholes or stopping someone else from doing something I don't like.

"Since Axiarchism is new to me, I may have misunderstood its meaning. And my understanding of Taoism is superficial". Likewise, my knowledge of Buddhism is lacking in depth. — Gnomon

Typically, ignorance makes people less eager to give their opinions.

That is my understanding also. But it does not deny it, but offers the 'other hand'. The two work together. — unenlightened

Yes. I agree.

It would appear that way, but certain concepts are too big for words, apparently. When something is too vast, pointing at it becomes ambiguous. Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing colors. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me. — punos

I'm not sure what to say about this. I've already gone out on a limb a bit, being too definitive in rejecting your point of view. Maybe too rigid is a better way of saying it. It just sort of rubs me the wrong way, which I recognize is not much of an argument.

Deep meaning must be triangulated with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable. — punos

I don't think meaning of any kind can "ascertain" the ineffable. The Ineffable that can be ascertained is not the not the true ineffable.

Words are imperfect tools for communication. True understanding comes from grasping the underlying concepts, not just the words used to describe them. Flexibility in interpreting language can lead to deeper comprehension. In essence, i am advocating for a more holistic approach to communication and understanding, one that prioritizes meaning over specific terminology. — punos

What is there to understanding a concept beyond understanding the words used to describe it? It seems to me that, in Taoism, conceptualizing something is the same as naming it, i.e. putting it into words.

There is only one ultimate reality, not a multiplicity of ultimate realities. — punos

I often say that there's only one world, so all the different philosophies and religions are describing the same thing in different words. I guess that means I agree with you. But to greatly oversimplify, there is only one kind of thing - an apple - yet a multiplicity of ways to describe it. That doesn't mean there is something missing from our understanding of apples. Each culture and tradition describes their experience of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality doesn't exist beyond those descriptions.

We have a difference in the significance of "God" with a capital 'G' and "god" with a lowercase 'g'. For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source. The word "God" is not a name but a title, and the same applies to "god". Gods have names, just as the President of the United States has a name. "President" is not a name itself. God is not a name, but Jehovah is, and God is his title. — punos

Name or title, it's a proper noun and is capitalized. You say "For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source," but that's just how you see it, not necessarily how others do.