What I mean is, philosophically, that lead me to the idea of Structuralism, which in turn lead me to atheist Simon Blackburn's take on same, thanks to ↪Manuel : The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. — 3017amen

You've talked a lot about structures and structuralism. Every time you have I've responded that I don't know what that means. I've read the writeup on structuralism in Wikipedia. Here's what Blackburn says (from Wikipedia)

[T]he belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

The first sentence seems trivial, almost tautological. I either don't know what "constant laws of abstract structure" means or I don't think they exist. Humans impose structures on reality. It has none of it's own.

Hence my questions about how we ourselves, might be more akin to the metaphysical, than the physical. — 3017amen

Are you tired of me saying "I don't know what this means"?

If mathematics in science/physics, are used to describe/explain much of the natural world, and considering the fact that it (math) is an abstract metaphysical language, what other things in life are considered abstract and metaphysical? Concerning our own ontology, the answer is consciousness (aka Idealism). And that leads to other abstract metaphysical features of or from consciousness: — 3017amen

I don't know what you're trying to get at and I don't see what any of this has to do with structuralism. Ditto for the rest of your post. I don't see how all the questions you ask are related to each other or structuralism.

You won't mind my noting this is very problematic. I would say that religion is one way of assigning values in the world. But knowing the world? How? Please feel free to define terms. — tim wood

Do you really doubt that religion is a way of knowing the world or just that it is a legitimate way of knowing the world?

Humans know the world through our human bodies using human sensory organs, human nervous systems, human endocrine systems, and lots of other human stuff . We have expanded the reach of our senses and minds using human technology. We don't know reality, we know human reality. Reality as we know it is inseparable from our humanity. Science as it's usually practiced doesn't recognize that. Other ways of knowing, including religion, do. I am not a theist and religion is not a way I use to understand the world, but I don't dismiss it either.

Agree with what? If you mean any no-abstract analysis of the natural world is possible, what would be one? — tim wood

They are different ways of looking at the same world. Science is wonderful, but it has shortcomings. There are ways of knowing the world that are not scientific. Religion is one of them.

Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?
— 3017amen
Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable?
— tim wood
Agree with this.
— T Clark
Agree with what? If you mean any no-abstract analysis of the natural world is possible, what would be one? — tim wood

I was agreeing with you.

Thanks for making that distinction. — schopenhauer1

Although I strongly disagree with your position on antinatalism, the subject that really annoys me is free will. A month ago, there were six threads active within a five day period. No, I don't propose that the number of free will discussions be should limited, but I reserve the right to whine about it.

Thank you so much for your contribution thus far. — 3017amen

I've enjoyed the discussion.

philosophy lives in words. Or, as you say, stories — 3017amen

What was there before there was abstract thought, language? Before there were living things. Were there trees before there was anyone or anything to see them, care about them, eat their leaves, climb in them, name them? Galaxies? Quarks? It makes sense to say "no," all there was was a big bucket of goo without the bucket.

Again - this is metaphysics. It's not true or false. It's a useful way of looking at things. Not the only way.

Back in the 60's, we thought everybody over 30 was worthless. — synthesis

Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... . — 3017amen

Ok, now I got the right one. On the surface, PAP reads a lot like Taoism. Lao Tzu might agree with just about every statement Wheeler makes related to it. Difference (I think) - The Tao Te Ching is metaphysics, a way of thinking about the world. I think Wheeler proposes that PAP is physics - an actual description of reality. If it is, it aught to be testable. Has it been tested? Has anyone tried?

if mathematics and natural laws are stories, are we living in a mystical, fictitious or abstract world of stories? I mean that in both literally and figuratively. — 3017amen

Yes.

I use the term from here: ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure-Simon Blackburn. — 3017amen

Sorry. I still don't know what this means.

Should one wonder about causation then? — 3017amen

One should always wonder about causation, but I don't know how that connects with what I wrote.

Existence, for you then (as you described), could be simply abstract, not really real. Is that, in a sense, metaphysics? Or, is it some sort of Platonic existence where mathematical structures exist? Those questions seem rhetorical, but they're not. I'm just trying to piece together the rationale there... . — 3017amen

What was there before humanity - a big bucket full of goo without the bucket. All one undifferentiated thing - the Tao. We came along and started making distinctions, abstractions - trees, quarks, love. That's the world we know. Is that real? Sure, but the goo comes first. Lao Tzu wrote about the Tao:

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

What is your justification for joining religion with natural/physical sciences? They are antithetical. — tim wood

Disagree with this.

Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?
— 3017amen
Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable? — tim wood

Agree with this.

if the world is indeed will and representation, is that not an emotional/intellectual intention of some sort(?) Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world? — 3017amen

Will and representation - is that Kant? I don't know what it means.

Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... . — 3017amen

It's a song.

Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things. — 3017amen

There are some who disagree, but for me, mathematics and natural laws are stories we tell ourselves. They have no independent reality outside of humanity.

The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness... In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves. — 3017amen

I don't see why you would classify the phenomena you listed as "structures." Also, I think "abstract things-in-themselves" is a contradiction in terms.

To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... . — 3017amen

As I said previously, for me, religious thought is just thought, so of course there is a connection between religion and human sentience.

Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?" — 3017amen

In a sense, anything described in human language is abstract. The only things not are things-in-themselves, or what I would call the Tao. As Lao Tzu wrote.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Ya ya, if you wanna be all reasonable and measured. — DingoJones

I try hard to be. I think I succeed about 65% of the time.

I’d bet the more trashy the more attention. — DingoJones

Shrug.

Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask? — 3017amen

I really don't understand.

I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience. — 3017amen

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe if you give me an example of the kind of abstract structure you're talking about.

Isn’t antinatalism an ideology? If not, doesn’t it become ideological if the anti-Natalist cannot let the subject go and everything they “contribute” to discussion is either the anti Natalist point or the anti natalist point disguised as something else? Plus the counter arguments not being much acknowledged as the broken record plays on. How is that not promoting an ideology? — DingoJones

The moderators here tend to use a light hand on these types of decisions, which is a good thing. S1 is a long-time established member. People respond to his threads. I don't see anything to get excited about. I usually just pass over his discussions.

I am attracted to the idea of a world w here everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?" — 3017amen

Non-living matter is not conscious or emotional in the senses we normally use for those words. For that reason, I don't know what it means to attribute consciousness or emotion to something that is not alive. Consciousness and emotion are behavioral characteristics. I don't think rocks are self-aware. What behavioral evidence shows they are.

My own interpretation was basic intentionality ala Schop's the World as W&R/metaphysical will. Or, in my studies, something like what theoretical physicist Paul Davies has mentioned-Panentheism... . — 3017amen

I'll go back to what I wrote in my earlier post. I think the universe is human in a fundamental way. That's not pantheism. What is it?

As an aside, I think these natural impulses of wonderment in itself (coming from our stream of consciousness), are consistent with other intrinsic or innate abstract apperceptions about how the world works (abstract mathematical structures) which we find useful. — 3017amen

Not sure what you're saying. If you are saying that equations can be beautiful in the same way apple blossoms are....I'm not sure what that means.

How it doesnt count as proelytis which is forbidden I cannot tell. Its the same thing over and over with the only discussion offered is a tactic so he can whine about life. — DingoJones

I was just teasing S1. I don't get involved with antinatalist discussions much anymore. I've laid out my arguments, S1 and his friends have laid out theirs, and no one has been convinced.

I don't see what he does as proselytization. He just makes his philosophical point over and over. He's not promoting any ideology, organization, or business.

There is another physicalism discussion open on the thread right now.

Let's say I am Willy Wonka.. — schopenhauer1

Thank god, Willy Wonka. At least it's not another antinatalism discussion.

I was watching my cat ignore its shadow today and got to thinking: they must be aware of their own shadows on some level, otherwise they would be freaking out about this black thing on the ground right next to them that's always moving around. This would apply to insects too, I guess. So, what's going on? Do their minds categorize shadows as "uninteresting"? But some shadows are very interesting (e.g., the shadow of a hunter stalking you). — RogueAI

I don't normally notice my shadow, but I wouldn't say I'm ignoring it. How is what your cat was doing different from that?

Questions to explore:

1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)?
2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages?
3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness?
4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? — 3017amen

My responses in italics:

1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)? I don't have anything to offer here.

2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages? Curiosity is does not seem to be just a human motivator. I heard somewhere that cats are curious too. It has always seemed to me to be a very good strategy for living in a world where things can change quickly. Knowing what's going on around you is important when you might have to make a decision immediately. That's my intuition. I don't have any specific knowledge. Generally, I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about what behaviors are built in and which are learned.

3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? What we call "reality" is a function of the outside world, but also of human biology, nervous system, psychology, etc. What that means to me is that reality is human in a fundamental way. Religion recognizes that while "rational" approaches don't.

4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? I don't think religious experience is any different from other everyday experience.

You are forcing the obvious and passe into a discussion. — god must be atheist

3017amen - Don't listen to gmba - Your questions were reasonable.

Where does it say that in the article? — Marty

Here's another link, to an article in the Harvard Business Review - "Decisions and Desire:"

https://hbr.org/2006/01/decisions-and-desire

Here's some text from the article:

Damasio and his colleagues have since studied over 50 patients with brain damage like Elliot’s who share this combination of emotional and decision-making defects. And researchers have found that patients with injuries to parts of the limbic system, an ancient group of brain structures important in generating emotions, also struggle with making decisions. There’s something critical to decision making in the conversation between emotion and reason in the brain, but what?

Call it gut. Or hunch. Or, more precisely, “prehunch,” to use Damasio’s term. In a famous series of experiments designed by Damasio’s colleague Antoine Bechara at the University of Iowa, patients with Elliot’s emotion-dampening type of brain damage were found to be unusually slow to detect a losing proposition in a card game.

In the game, players picked cards from red and blue decks, winning and losing play money with each pick. The players were hooked up to lie-detector-like devices that measure skin conductance response, or CSR, which climbs as your stress increases and your palms sweat. Most players get a feeling that there’s something amiss with the red decks after they turn over about 50 cards, and after 30 more cards, they can explain exactly what’s wrong. But just ten cards into the game, their palms begin sweating when they reach for the red decks. Part of their brains know the red deck is a bad bet, and they begin to avoid it—even though they won’t consciously recognize the problem for another 40 cards and won’t be able to explain it until 30 cards after that. Long before they have a hunch about the red deck, a subconscious prehunch warns them away from it.

Though the brain-damaged patients eventually figured out that the red decks were rigged against them, they never developed palm-dampening CSRs. And, even though they consciously knew better, they continued to pick red cards. What were they missing? The injured parts of their brains in the prefrontal cortex seemed unable to process the emotional signals that guide decision making. Without this emotion interpreter pushing them in the right direction (toward the winning decks), these patients were left spinning their wheels, unable to act on what they knew. They couldn’t decide, apparently, what was in their own best interest. You could say they lacked good judgment.

All it shows is that sometimes we use emotions to make judgements. That's not controverisal. — Marty

No. It shows that without emotions, we are unable to make any decisions of any sort; what to eat for dinner, whether to eat dinner, what socks to wear. People frozen into immobility by indecision. None of this is controversial. This is controversial - "Tis not contrary to reason to imagine us being motivated by reason alone..." Actually, that's not controversial either, it's just wrong.

This is not a philosophical question. You say it's right, but science says it's wrong. Reason says it's wrong. Rationality says it's wrong. Logic says it's wrong. T Clark says it's wrong.

I am with Dewey in not being overfond of certain uses of the word 'true'. Acting on warranted assertion - or a confidently held fact - following inquiry as described - that makes sense to me.

It is true that what we consider 'true' or what we think we 'know' may change. — Amity

You've given me an opening to use, yet again, my favorite quote from one of my favorite authors, Stephen J. Gould. I think this is the perfect pragmatic view of truth.

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

I see thought or thinking as a tool but not just for practical decision-making but also leaning 'towards power' or creativity or energy. It includes imagination...which is not particularly 'concrete'. — Amity

Quick response - power, creativity, energy, imagination - all in service of "what do I do now." More thoughtful response - Let me think about this. I'll see if I can back that up or come up with more.

AAs are great people. — synthesis

At first I wasn't sure if you were being ironic. Donald Trump said "MAGA loves the black people," and "I have a great relationship with the blacks."

Compare 1960 with today. This country has become an economic basket-case over the past 60 years (trading equity for debt), it's institutions are horribly dys-functional and corrupt, and the culture is downright dystopian. — synthesis

We certainly have problems. I don't think things are as dire as you do. I'd say "we'll see," but I won't be around for that. My children will see.

So do I, including family members. So what? It's still terrible, terrible judgment. — Xtrix

I think I understand why some people support Donald Trump and I can sympathize with their motivations. Claiming that Biden stole the election shows bad judgement, but I don't think voting for Trump necessarily does.

We don't have to take this any further. I've had my say and I can't think of anything to add.

So the idea that people with terrible judgment also are more likely to make armchair claims about physics being “bad” is “baloney” to you? Seems almost like a truism to me. — Xtrix

What really set me off was you bringing Donald Trump into it. I have friends whom I like, respect, and trust who voted for him. Add to that the fact that your comment is an obvious attack on the person you are arguing with. I can never figure out whether that sort of thing is an ad hominem attack or just an insult. You're not going to convince him. Why not drop it?

You must admit, our generation (baby boomers) have been a complete disaster. — synthesis

I don't see it that way. I have no longing for the days when men were men and all the negroes stayed on the other side of the tracks where they belonged. I think the main thing wrong with our generation is that there are so many of us.

Any moderators looking in, my comments about negroes are intended as irony.

Look at what we are handing our children and theirs...a country so beautiful, so wealthy, so full of promise, turned into a crack-addict/alcoholic passed-out in the gutter. — synthesis

I don't see it that way either. I've never been a big fan of hell-in-a-handbasket philosophizing.

I'm not really sure how that article proves that all of our decisions require prior desires/ some prior disposition or emotive backing. I'm also apprehensive of any identity claim in neuroscience. — Marty

I provide pretty definitive evidence that your philosophical position is wrong, and you shrug your shoulders and say "science/schmience." It's hard to take your argument seriously.

Thought is for action, if the object of one your idea don't have any effects that have pratical bearings, it might aswell be meaningless. Using this maxim ground your thoughts on the pratical, on the problem-solving and prediction etc. — Nzomigni

This is a good expression of what "pragmatism" means to me.

One of the similarities in the "pragmatist" schools are that they don't consider the metaphysics, — Nzomigni

I don't think this is right. The pragmatic view of truth and meaning is metaphysics.

I'm glad you started this discussion of pragmatism. I haven't read Dewey. I'll go find some.

Just as Amendment XXII limited the number of terms to avoid a dictator, a new amendment can rid the US of the gerontocracy to which it has been subjected. — gikehef947

Ha! Us gerontocrats are in charge!! It will never happen. You will need the support of 2/3 of Congress and the legislatures of 38 states, all filled with old guys like me.

Fun as usual.

Although I generally don't characterize my philosophical leanings, it would be silly for me not to acknowledge that the term "pragmatism" fits me like a glove. As they say, if the glove fits, you must admit it. I liked the BBC text that @Amity quoted, in particular:

It took knowledge to be meaningful only when coupled with action. The function of thought was taken not to represent or "mirror" the world, but instead was considered an instrument or tool for prediction, problem-solving, and action. In this way, it was a philosophy deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world they inhabit.

I often look at this from a slightly different direction when I think about "truth." "What is true" is not the real question of philosophy and all other human concern. The real question is "what do I do now?" Truth is just a tool we use to figure that out. I guess you can't get any more pragmatic than that.

By the way, Libravox (Libravox.com) has a reading of James' "Pragmatism" that I really like. It's free. Libravox uses volunteer readers. The one for "Pragmatism" has a really good voice if you can get past the fact that he is not a native speaker and has some odd pronunciations.

The fact that we, humanity, do this does not render it our province to he exclusion of all else, much less All. — James Riley

Again, I think we've pared this down to a question of language.

Good or bad comes from what Man wants — New2K2

As you can probably tell from my posts, I agree with you.

You don't think animals measure their environment? And is what we care about the only measure? — James Riley

Just to make sure you and I are using the same meaning, the definition of "measure" I think the line is talking about is "a standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment." The important word there for this discussion is "comparison." When we measure, we compare one thing, what is being measured, with another, a measure. So, no, I don't think most animals do that. It strikes me that it takes a strong capacity for abstraction. And yes, when we "take the measure" of something, we hold it up to and compare it to what we care about.

And where does the "we" come from? By that, I mean why are you and I, both "man" aligned together in measure under the heading of "man", instead of being pitted against each other in our measurement as would, I guess, be man and animal? Wouldn't it be better to say "Each individual is the measure of all things?" — James Riley

Measurement is a matter of social convention. We, humanity, decide on how to measure by what standards, except here in the US where we'll never use that Communistic, depraved metric system.

I don't suppose we would measure anything that didn't have an effect on our lives, but I don't see how that makes us the measure of all things? Are you saying "measurer" or "measurers" or simply "measure" as used in my initial post? Regardless, we measure. But that doesn't mean we are the measure of all things. — James Riley

At this point, I think we've reduced this to a question of language preference. There's probably no further we can take it than that. I say "tomato" and you say kg-m/s^2.

TC I have always held this as an intuitive belief. Humans think like humans for human reasons - the world and us is to some extent 'created' by our corporeal strengths and limitations. — Tom Storm

Agreed.

Just my not-overly-erudite opinion, but I think quite a bit of "us" is factory pre-installed--don't take offense, Ma, at the factory metaphor. Every other animal seems to have built-in behavior patterns, and I don't see a way that we would NOT have built ins. — Bitter Crank

I think you and I agree. If I were born today, I'd ask for factory installed blue-tooth and undercoating. I've noticed things getting a bit rusty lately.