Great post. We can always count on you to walk the line between east and west with both sympathy and skepticism, whichever is most needed.

And this article, which depressed me hugely when it came out. — Wayfarer

I can see why the article bothered you, but for me it just highlighted the continuity between what we call "enlightenment" and everyday life. The experiences, whatever they are, are human experiences felt by imperfect humans. They are not occult or supernatural. That continuity is what attracts me to Taoism. It's aimed at people who are going to keep their day job, with acknowledgement that that day job may be general or prince.

I've been complaining to myself that there aren't any good threads around. This is a great one. Thanks.

And miserable. So miserable.

When it eventually comes out that such and such comedian is depressed, or committed suicide, somehow, it's not a surprise. — baker

Just as true, or more so, of philosophers and wannabe philosophers.

How many here have seen the clip in "Monthy Python at the Hollywood Bowl", where they televise a soccer match between a team of classical Greek philosophers and a team of German philosophers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfduUFF_i1A — god must be atheist

Yes. It's hard to talk about philosophical humor, or humorous philosophy, without bringing this out.

However I have seen nothing in your posts to explain why you believe that the "days of superpowers are over" other than that is your opinion. — dclements

Perhaps you have "seen nothing... to explain," but I did give an explanation. I guess you missed it.

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace. — Baden

Hey.... It was just that once.

I wonder if there would have been a debate if Michael had been racist or anti Semitic. I really don’t think so. People here are somehow fine when someone is banned for “low quality” but there is a debate when they openly say they’re misogynistic. — khaled

I think banning people for low quality posts is just a way to allow removal of aggravating people. Driving while annoying.

People have been banned for posts that are less offensive than the one in question.

I wonder which person out there holds the record for total cumulative amount of bannings... — The Opposite

I would think our friend Marco would be at the top.

I disagree with your disagreement. — dclements

Many people disagree with many of my disagreements. No surprise. You and I see things differently. I've seen the trouble fear will get us into.

the movie "They Live" — dclements

Love this movie. I think Rowdy Roddy Piper got an Oscar nomination. Didn't he? On the other hand, I don't plan to develop my foreign policy opinions based on it.

I don't know if it is just wishful thinking on your part or if you have some valid reason why being a superpower isn't important — dclements

As I noted, I don't think it makes any difference what you and I think is best. I think the days of superpowers are over, whether we like it or not.

So the fact that philosophers and certain web-browsers are both unfettered by rules makes them equal? — Leghorn

Nuff said.

I've been on plenty of sites "unfettered by rules." Not much reason going on.

Philosophy is the UNFETTERED love of wisdom, and that means asking ANY question, however forbidden it be. — Leghorn

Being banned does not lose anyone their job. They aren't killed. They're just told they are not welcome in our house. I don't consider that persecution or even censorship. I've had disagreements with the moderators in the past about particular bannings, but never on the principle behind them.

While the idea of having one (or more) super powers trying to act like a world cop doesn't sound all that great with all the problems that can be cause by this, neither is the idea of dozens and dozens of smaller countries always bickering and often fighting in order to either change or maintain the existing status quo. — dclements

Strongly disagree. I think the world without a superpower is where we're headed, and that's a good thing.

If there were some subtelty or ambiguity a pattern of behaviour would probably be necessary to make a judgement but there wasn't in this case. — Baden

As I wrote, I wasn't arguing. Just curious.

In a nutshell if China manages to become the biggest super power in the world and nobody can or will stop them, they will just keep swallowing one country after another until either most or all of the world is under the authoritarian rule of China itself. — dclements

This is the lie we told ourselves when we got into Vietnam. As I said, I think the days of superpowers are over. We'll see. Well, not me, I'll be dead by then.

I'm asking this out of curiosity. Don't worry, I'm not going to go into one of my rants. Was he banned for a pattern of behavior or just this one post?

The question is: what's happened to humour in philosophy? — Cuthbert

I think a case can be made that stand-up comedians in general are philosophers. My favorites; Bill Burr, Louis C.K, John Mulaney, Jerry Seinfeld....; certainly are.

If you're looking for philosophical humor, I'll steer you toward one of my favorite threads - "Philosophy joke of the day."

Lesser known logical fallacies:

Michael Scott fallacy – Using the phrase “That’s what she said.”
Family dog fallacy – Telling your opponent that your dog ate your argument.
In mater tua fallacy – Insulting your opponent’s mother
Appeal to personal authority fallacy – Using the phrase “Because I said so.”
Command fallacy – Defending your argument using the phrase “Shut up!”
StreetlightX fallacy – Using the phrase “Well, that’s how we do it in Australia.”
Conturbabimus illa ratio fallacy – Expressing your numerical arguments in base 7. — T Clark

I think the days of superpowers are over, thank goodness. Countries that were traditionally poor and powerless are now gaining economic and political strength. Everyone is connected to everyone else by economic ties. We can't screw them without screwing ourselves.

China is just starting to act like we do. Yes, that could be a frightening prospect.

can find non-trivial self-referential paradoxes, such that they could arise from seemingly well-founded frameworks. I'm no longer sure that it is even possible, — the affirmation of strife

Although I found the discussion helpful and interesting, it didn't resolve, for me at least, the answer to your question.

The rest was to sushi, in agreement with you. — Kenosha Kid

That's the way it seemed to me, but I wasn't sure.

↪T Clark Yes. ↪I like sushi you are pre-emptively dismissing the opinions of others by replacing them with your own. If you're against dismissing opinions, why not find out what they are, rather than deciding what they are? — Kenosha Kid

Is this comment directed at @I like sushi or me.

So we're on the cusp of dismissing each other. That is not a pleasant experience — I like sushi

I responded to your post because I thought you misrepresented my, and most forum member's, motivations for participating. That bothered me. I don't think I have anything of value to contribute beyond that. It is not my intention to dismiss your ideas, although I disagree with them, or yourself.

I wasn’t suggesting that anger/annoyance is the way we reply only that something akin to it is the core motivation. — I like sushi

Not for me.

Stating the ‘we’ you took offence to. You are arguing against my opinion which was clearly displayed as rhetoric and/or as a hypothetical position to attack. — I like sushi

Not clear to me.

Is there no anger/annoyance in your heart that I spoke for you? — I like sushi

Yes, there was. That doesn't mean that all, most, or many of my posts are for that reason. If you really meant what you wrote, your understanding of philosophy and this forum is shallow and self-centered.

Speak for yourself.

When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. — I like sushi

No, no. This is what you should say - "When we I express an opinion or argument it is because we are I am annoyed/angry with something that causes us me distress.

I don't know which is worse, your reasons for participating in the forum, or your chutzpah for thinking you can speak for the rest of us.

This doesn’t mean though that a TV and programs transmitted by it can be compared to a brain and mind. — Cartuna

Unh hunh.

The difference between a TV is that a working brain provides you with a conscious world. A working brain cannot be seen outside a living body. Every working TV set or functioning computer, no matter how complicated or however intelligent artificially made, and no matter in what artificial robot body placed, are just media through which information is pushed under the influence of voltage and program. — Cartuna

As I noted, we are just repeating arguments that haven't convinced the other in previous posts. I say "un hunh." You say "nunh hunh." Nuff said.

Hello everyone. I've been looking for a nice venue for discussing a variety of topics, and this seems like a nice place. I hope to bring along a friend or two as well, if possible.

I look forward to many friendly :smile: discussions! — William Wallace

Welcome. This is a really good forum. There are plenty of friendly discussions and then some... others. Don't be discouraged.

By the way, because the Lounge is not included on the front page of the forum, it does not get as many views as many of the other threads. The Shoutbox is a good place to go for general stuff, jokes, questions, complaints, pictures of pigs, etc.

Now I can say this:

I have a feeling you repeating your argument then me repeating mine again won't get us anywhere. Let's not do that.
— T Clark — T Clark

This was intended for @Cartuna.

Now I can say this:

I have a feeling you repeating your argument then me repeating mine again won't get us anywhere. Let's not do that. — T Clark

outside? you cant see outside your consciousness. see solipsism — Miller

I think you and I have been having different discussions with each other.

A TV, like the computer you are talking with me now, is just a medium. — Cartuna

By itself it is not a medium. It only is when included in a network of input and power. By itself, it's ballast. I have a TV in the room I'm sitting in now - unplugged and not hooked up to cable or an antenna. If I drop it in the water it will go "kerplunk." How is that different from a brain disconnected from it's oxygen and nutrient sources and sensory input? The only difference is the loudness of the kerplunk.

How can I repeat myself if I have responded only once to you? — Cartuna

You're right. I was getting my posts with Miller mixed up with yours.

Exactly the same holds for air. The direct medium. Like you put it, a newspaper should be comparable to a brain and the stories in it to the mind. Or air to a brain and the songs traveling in it to the mind. The problem is that all media belong to the same physical world as the information contained in them. The brain is no medium though. — Cartuna

I don't get the comparisons you're trying to make. A newspaper is not a processing device. Air is not a processing device. A TV set is not a medium. It's just a box of wire and plastic.

I have a feeling you repeating your argument then me repeating mine again won't get us anywhere. Let's not do that.

So it isn’t rhetorical to the degree there is genuine scientific advance being made. There is a new model of modelling which defines it as physically generic and mathematically necessary. — apokrisis

I understand that you are speaking about more than rhetoric. I was being ironic, or maybe trying to be funny, in discussing the rhetorical uses of your language.

Now you can doubt or dispute this model of modelling. But first you have to show you understand the argument being made. — apokrisis

As I've noted, I've been perplexed by your discussions of semiotics from the first time I read your posts. Certainly nothing wrong with your explanations. It's just an alien way of thinking for me. It sometimes seems to verge on the mystical, which I understand is not your intent.

This idea that neural firing must somehow produce an experienced representation is just a hangover from Cartesian representationalism and the “naturalisation” of that ontology due to the great success of universal Turing machines as a 20th century technology.

But we wouldn’t say steam engines explain the mechanisms of life. So why would we say computer metaphors would have anything deep to say about the mechanisms of mind? — apokrisis

When you say "neural firing must somehow produce an experienced representation," is that different from saying that the experienced representation emerges from neuronal firing. In your view, is that wrong too?

I still don't understand. Let me go back to your original post and see if I can work it out.

It would also be incorrect to come to certain conclusions about reality based on specific contexts. While in one context electrons have no mass, if someone were to conclude a theory about the basics of reality with it being necessary that they have no mass, they would be making a massive mistake. — Philosophim

In many situations, the mass of the electron is negligible in relation to the system being described, e.g. gravity is a very weak force when compared to the electromagnetic force. When we are calculating the force of attraction between an electron and a proton, we can ignore it. Recognizing that the mass of the electron is negligible in a particular situation is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. Science does that all the time. We use Newtonian mechanics for most uses, ignoring relativistic effects. Under normal human-scale conditions, they are negligible.

I see problems like this crop up all the time when people address quantum mechanics on the board. — Philosophim

Yes, I get that. I wonder if those discussions even belong on the forum, although I do enjoy them. And you're right, a lot of them are wrong and wrong-headed. In this situation, I'm more interested in talking about philosophical situations that a problem arises. That's why I asked for examples.

I see this same even occur in citing philosopher quotes or conclusions in arguments as well. — Philosophim

I guess this is where I get lost. I can't think of analogous situations in philosophy. Are you talking about reification? Mistaking the map for the territory?

Certainly. In philosophy I've seen people take certain identities and believe because such an identity can be claimed, it must be "real" in some way. The most famous I can think of is probably "This sentence is false". There is an initial assumption that a sentence can be true or false, and people spend hours thinking about it. — Philosophim

I don't see how this is analogous to the electron example.

The reality is, the sentence is rubbish. It doesn't actually claim anything. A better sentence would be, "This is a false sentence". I believe this issue is we abstract away certain details for general communication and believe that the abstraction holds true when we return to detailed communication. — Philosophim

Sorry. I'm still lost. We took on the liar's sentence in a recent discussion. I think it is meaningless, trivial, or both. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between "This sentence is false" and "This is a false sentence."

tv set is a supposed objective reality that is assumed to exist beyond the tv show, but has never been seen — Miller

See my response to Cartuna, above.

TV is just a medium. — Cartuna

I was speaking of the TV set - a fully material electronic device. Inside, it has circuits, switches, and all that signal processing stuff. It is powered and receives patterned

signal input from outside. It processes the signals and provides a patterned, meaningful output. It is clear that the patterned output is not the same as the TV set. So, clearly I've solved the mind/brain problem. Just as clearly, to me at least, I don't need any additional information in order to explain where Gilligan, Ginger, Mr. and Mrs. Howell, the Professor, Maryanne, or the Skipper come from.

I've read various articles. The one book I read is "The Feeling of What Happens" by Damasio. I certainly can't speak to all the issues with any authority. I'll just say that I am convinced that the mind, including consciousness, emerges from biological, primary neurological, processes. Cognitive science/psychology are what we use to study them.

Baseless assumptions. — Miller

My proposed way of seeing things is more credible and consistent with cognitive sciencce than the "hard problem of consciousness" bologna the rejiggered ghost in the machine partisans like you espouse.

i could just say the opposite of both statements and it would be equally true — Miller

So, as you see it, brain is to mind as " as "Gilligan's Island" is to your TV set. [/quote]

This is a really interesting post. It helped me reframe the subject in a new way I found helpful. I've always found your discussions of semiotics... provocative. By which I mean, I believe what you say but don't understand. I've been trying for the four years since I first read your ideas on the forum. I watched the first 10 minutes of the video you linked and quickly got lost. I'll keep trying.

When it comes to consciousness, neuroscience is also seeking to find its mathematical model of its essential causal structure.

Both life and mind are themselves code-based modelling relations with reality. That is the kind of structure they are. Semiotic structures. Genes and neurons anchor the business of modelling the environment in terms of an organism's interests and purposes.

So consciousness just is - in a general metaphysical way - the brain modelling the world from an enactive or "selfish" point of view. Consciousness is what it is like to be in a modelling relationship with the world - a model of the world that has "me" in it as its centre. — apokrisis

I like the relation of complex processes such as life and consciousness as models. That's the part of this discussion I find in tune with my way of seeing things but expanding them.

How could such modelling not feel like something? (The question that brings the conversation back to the realm of questions which are framed counterfactually and thus allow you to say why zombies can't be actually zombies if they indeed are in a Bayesian modelling relation with the world, exactly like we are.) — apokrisis

I like this especially for a couple of reasons. First - it's a great rhetorical response to the "science can't address qualia" argument. They say "How do you explain the experience of red?" You say "How could such modelling not feel like something?" It turns their argument back on them. Rhetorical ju jitsu. I don't know that it actually explains anything, but maybe it will knock them off their homo-centric high horse.

That's the second reason I like it. I'm comfortable that we don't need to postulate some extra layer of causation or emergence in order to explain "qualia." Whenever the subject comes up, I try to imagine how it would feel for sparks in neurons to turn into movies in my mind. You say "Of course it feels like something," makes me rethink the defensiveness I sometimes feel in that discussion.

Good post.

It is this case of hearing an identity, not understanding its context properly, or applying it in ways it never should that I am trying to point out in this discussion. Math and physics is not the only realm this happens in, but it appears my post has rambled on enough. I see this same even occur in citing philosopher quotes or conclusions in arguments as well. What do you think about the topic? Is there a name for what I'm musing about? I do not believe this action is intentional or malicious, but it is something that I see occur. — Philosophim

Could you give one or two examples from a philosophical perspective. Something mundane and fairly easy to understand.