Comments

  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    Thinking of your ideas on mind created reality, I do wonder about the role of mind in leading to stated of despair. It may be that each of us creates one's own heavens and hells through nursing our own inner demons. I wonder about the role of the subconscious mind in self sabotage and in the nature of experiences in the physical world. In other words, do the dramas in life arise on account of subconscious aspects of will.Jack Cummins

    Well, of course that is true, but it's a surprisingly rare insight. I suppose Freud is an obvious source for this kind of insight in modern culture, but I've never liked his materialism and 'scientism'. Jung is a much more profound thinker in that respect, although he's barely mentioned at University.

    Anyway, I'm getting off track. In a day-to-day sense, it is of course true that we get caught up in our inner stories and streams of consciousness and they profoundly shape our reality. In that sense, they are our reality, although, of course, reality is also that which rudely interrupts our inner dialogue, or even shatters it. But nevertheless, it's important to get insight into those voices, and most of all to learn to see they're just voices, just feelings, often caused by memories. That's the aim of mindfulness practice.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    and a dictatorship, where everyone must agree with the leader.
    — Wayfarer

    is, in fact, the exact same thing the other side claims is the case, but in reverse? The facts of the matter are literally irrelevant.
    AmadeusD

    The facts are not irrelevant. This is not a hypotherical, like 'the trolley problem' in undergraduate tutorials. Real politics is at stake. Only one side is lead by someone who has tried to subvert the election. It doesn't matter how I or they feel about that. Everyone has a right to their own opinon, but nobody has a right to their own facts. It is a fact that Trump has said he wants to suspend the Constitution, jail his critics and purge the civil service. It is also a fact that neither Joe Biden nor any other Democrat has said any such thing.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    You asked:

    Are you sure this isn't just that half the country agree with things you don't - and that's in line with whomever they are seeing as 'leader'?AmadeusD

    That is asserting 'moral equivalence'. That there are 'two sides', and 'one side' just happens to be the one 'I don't agree with'.

    Is that not what you were implying?
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    It seems, when the roles are reversed, the assertion is the same...AmadeusD

    You’re dead wrong about this moral equivalence. Only one party is supporting a leader who deliberately and demonstratedly attempted to overthrow the result of the last election, who’s minions brought 60 lawsuits against the result, all of which failed. You don’t understand, or don’t want to know, what is at stake - I can’t discern why. It might be cynicism - that all political parties are corrupt - or wishful thinking - that the Republican Party can’t have become this corrupted by one individual. But in either case, you’re mistaken. But I’m not going to debate it with you further, you can believe whatever you like, life is too short for pointless internet arguments.
  • Happiness and Unhappiness
    If morality is objective as a law of the universe and the main feedback or consequence we have to scientifically judge it is level of happiness, then no forum, no topic, is divorced from this topic. It is germane to all topics. I do believe that.Chet Hawkins

    I admire your enthusiasm, but I question your approach. There are many active debates on this forum about just these questions, so bursting onto the scene with a proposed solution is probably not going to gain a lot of traction. Have a look, for example, at the discussions that Bob Ross has started, you will find many discussions of these topics. That said, I do appreciate that you sense the urgency of the question, and I don't question your basic motivation for asking it. So perhaps find a way to interleave your thoughts more effectively than suggesting you might have 'the answer'.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    No matter the faults of the Democratic Party, this election will be, as they say it is, a contest between democratic politics, in which anyone may have a voice, and a dictatorship, where everyone must agree with the leader.
  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    My tip is, practice physical fitness of some kind. It can be anything, but it has to make you sweat and be physically taxing. Does wonders for the morale. I discovered running when in my late 20’s - before then had been thoroughly unfit. It took persistence, but I learned to do very long runs, 8-10km, and kept it up for years. The great thing about a hard run is the feeling you get after you shower. Your whole body feels utterly new, like it’s been taken apart and re-assembled, in a good way. Total euphoria, but in a good way, unlike the high you get from drink or drugs. It totally evens out your emotions also. I can’t run anymore, being in my 70’s, although I still work out at the gym - orbital trainers are great. But it’s a sure fire antidote to despair and despondency.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Gotta say the De Santis implosion was visible months ago. He’s just such a wooden, unlikeable, self-righteous prick of a guy. The sort of guy, it was said, if the neighbour’s kids kicked a ball over his fence, he’d confiscate it and threaten them. Oh for some real Republican challengers to the Orange Emperor, but this guy was never going to be one of them. (Still reckon Trump’s ‘inevitable’ nomination is going to implode also, but we’ll have to wait and see.)

    The big question is how many American will just stay home.ssu

    The more Trump keeps up his ridiculous scare-talk, the bigger the chance of a sizeable protest vote. A lot of the younger electorate hate and fear him, and hate and fear are good antidotes to apathy.
  • Happiness and Unhappiness
    Agreed and this is the, you guessed it, immoral cop out, of not knowing how currently.Chet Hawkins

    Ah, you mean it’s a scientific question, but our science just ain’t good enough?

    I will observe, your posts contain an abundance of unstated premises (or assumptions). I think this is what @Vaskane was getting at - Nietszche’s remark about ‘Englishmen’ being, I think, that they have an assumed moral code, which of course, any decent chap will just see is The Right Thing. Anything else wouldn’t be cricket, you know. (He will no doubt correct me if I’m wrong. Oh, and I see you’ve learned out to quote. Jolly good, old chap ;-) )
  • Happiness and Unhappiness
    I do not know how to quote on this forumChet Hawkins

    here's how

    To me, it is precisely similar to saying, 'my gravity is different'.Chet Hawkins

    The problem here is that gravity is objectively measurable, in a way that many (or most) moral actions are not. You - or anyone - can drop objects and measure the rate at which they fall. Whereas, when you say

    I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral.Chet Hawkins

    What would be the measure for such cases, and how would disagreements about what they were be adjudicated?
  • The automobile is an unintended evil
    I’ve been reading a history of the German Romantics - Goethe, Fichte, Schelling et al, in the little university town of Jena, which at the time was a thriving intellectual centre. And in their day, they would frequently set out on 30 or 60 mile journeys by foot, staying at inns along the way. There were also coaches but they were, apparently, abominably uncomfortable, crowded and noisy. What Goethe wouldn’t have given for a nice Merc. ;-)
  • The automobile is an unintended evil
    For the lucky few! Handmade with an output of, what, a couple of hundred in a year, probably less.
  • The automobile is an unintended evil
    Consider me abashed :yikes:

    When me and all my friends were around legal age to drive, one of them got a car he inherited from his granny (hence, the grannymobile). An ancient English ‘Wolseley’, you don’t even see them any more. Walnut dashboard. But I remember him saying, having a car was just the greatest sense of freedom, having had to rely on hitch-hiking or trains or parents.

    Yeah, and apparently in last week’s deep freeze in Chicago, Teslas became almost impossible to keep running, apparently they react very badly to extremely low temperatures.
  • The automobile is an unintended evil
    don’t overlook the transition to electric vehicles (although I’ll own up, the car I bought is petrol.) There’s an Australian economist, Saul Griffith, who advised the Obama administration on the electrification of the economy. It’s underway in different degrees in many nations. I believe Norway has huge percentage uptake of electric vehicles. China is turning them out in enormous numbers. (Oh, and I live in satellite city area 80 km out of the City. Train travel is available, but very slow, and then when you arrive, the city itself is a vast area. I'm afraid I'm never going to be without reliance on a car, of which I own two).
  • Absential Materialism
    I hope you’ll elaborate some details of your judgment that “brain-in-a-vat Platonism” conveys an incomprehension of Platonism.ucarr

    Well, as you've asked, I should respond. As I try to explain in my Mind-Created World OP, what I believe philosophical idealism is about, or should be about, is insight into the way the mind constructs or creates what we understand as the world. The mind is not the passive recipient of information from an already-existing world, but an active agent which synthesises sensory input with pre-existing intellectual elements, per Kantian idealism, which creates of constructs the consciousness we have of the world, which is how we know the world. That perspective calls into question the sense we have of an entirely mind-independent world. The reason I question the 'brain in the vat' analogy (which I believe goes back to Hilary Putnam) is because it's rather a caricature of that insight (although I should look it up and read it). It's as if we are trying to create a snapshot of that deep, constructive process that the mind is continually engaged in, and look at it from the outside, when in reality, we cannot get outside of it. I suppose it is something like a 'thought-experiment' but I don't think it conveys the profound nature of the original insight.

    Anyway, I don't think Platonism thought about it like that - the way we're discussing it is a product of our own modern cultural background. But I nevertheless believe that Platonism was deeply concerned with the question of the reality of the sensible world (that is, the domain of what can be detected and measured by senses and instruments). Plato was concerned with discerning what he designated the 'ideas', by which I think he was referring to something very like 'principles' (although admittedly that is a revisionist reading). If you consider the debate over Platonism in mathematics, the essence of the debate is whether, or in what sense, numbers and other such 'intelligible objects' are real (as distinct from being products of the mind). Because if they *are* real, then it suggests an order of existence that transcends space and time. It has its proponents, notably Roger Penrose and Kurt Godel, but it does call into question one of the fundamenal axioms of naturalism, namely, that the world can be entirely understood in terms of manifest objective processes in space-time.

    Do you mean comprehension of Plato’s Ideal Forms requires a systemic transformation of a person’s perceptions, thoughts and beliefs?ucarr

    Well I think it's historically defensible. It is said that at the entrance to the Platonic Academy was inscribed the slogan 'Let no-one ignorant of geometery enter here'. Those who qualified were admitted to the Academy where they were immersed in a curriculum including mathematics, rhetoric, philosophy etc- as is well-known, this was the ancient pre-cursor to the modern University system. But I think in ancient philosophy, there was still the idea of the 'philosphical ascent' - that grasp of certain kinds of truth required persons of a certain sort. (Perhaps that is still the case with mathematical physics, insofar as in order to grasp its concepts one must have an extraordinarily high degree of mathematical aptitude. But modern science typically eschews the qualitative aspects of being, hence the whole debate over qualia. Platonism was, shall we say, considerably more holistic.)
  • Happiness and Unhappiness
    Why are my dogs happier than my cats?mentos987

    Probably because your cats feel no obligation to impress you.
  • The automobile is an unintended evil
    I've travelled on the high-speed rail in Japan, Tokyo=>Kyoto and return, in the 90's. Very slick. Here in Australia, they've been talking about it for decades, but the problem is, Japan has very high population density in a relatively small land-mass, while Australia has very low density in a relatively large land-mass. So the numbers just don't stack up. And besides air-travel between the Aus capitals is mostly pretty inexpensive. (As it happens, I took possession of a new car just before Christmas, it might be evil, but it's the kind I like :rage: )
  • Absential Materialism
    From that interesting paper:

    Biologically we are just another ape; mentally we are a whole new phylum of organism.’ Our ‘whole new’ traits—symbolic languages, cultural transmission of ideas via languages, and generation of an autobiographical self — are of central importance to our lives and our religious lives,and much remains to be understood. At this juncture, however, the concept to take in is that these human-specific traits are quintessentially emergent: they are constructe bottom-up and then deeply infuenced by environmental contexts; they make use of ancient protein families that are deployed in novel patterns and sequences.

    This says a lot. Even though there's the acknowledgement of the sense in which humans 'transcend previous biology' ('whole new phylum'), the aim is to 'explain' these 'emergent tendencies' in terms of 'ancient protein families' being 'deployed' (and note the implication of agency!) in 'novel patterns'. So again, the over-arching paradigm here is that of material evolution - what sequences of material interaction 'cause' or 'give rise' to these capacities or abilities?

    But what if one specifically human ability that has arisen along with this provides an insight into causal factors quite other than those pre-supposed by that paradigm? One that could be allegorised as, instead of complex molecular interactions giving rise to living beings, a kind of latent intelligence taking material form?Of course sounds too much like vitalism, at least so long as that kind of intelligence is conceived of in objective terms.

    I have perused the definition of 'religious' in that paper, although barely, given the time. But I wonder if that acknowledges the so-called 'sapiential dimension' that is generally associated with philosophical spirituality? Insight into the ground of being, that is associated with the great axial age religious philosophies? (My lecturer in Indian philosophy used to intone, 'what is latent becomes patent'.)

    Nevertheless, I think the very existence of this kind of paper arises because of an acknowledgement of the barreness of reductive materialism, 'atoms in motion'. I mean, it's embarrasingly inadequate for all but the most shameless of materialists. So there are all these cross-cultural dialogues going on, conferences on consciousness, re-configurations of the meaning of evolution and physics. Probably it has something to do with the Age of Aquarius.
  • Absential Materialism
    I'm somewhat familiar with Bakker's 'blind brain theory' and his notion of metacognitive illusions. He is an eliminativist roughly along the lines of Dennett. What do you think the idea of "observer dependency' you have imputed to him consists in and explains or entails?Janus

    He goes into it in that review I linked to but it's very long, and linked to another long piece. I think I'll steer clear of him, I don't like the vibe.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Trump knows all about clime
    drxs0bye995edy7u.jpg
    Attachment
    Hurrican Dorian (67K)
  • Absential Materialism
    brain-in-a-vat Platonism at the other.ucarr

    That expression conveys an incomprehension of Platonism in my view. Not that I consider myself to possess any expertise in Greek philosophy beyond self-education.

    I've always rejected philosophical materialism, even in childhood, although I wasn't able to articulate it then. I feel it's based on a false intuition of the nature of existence and a blighted vision of human potential, but I've said enough about that elsewhere. Suffice to say that philosophical idealism requires something like a perspectival shift, very like a gestalt shift, which cannot be explained or reduced to propositional terms.

    I started reading Incomplete Nature, and very much liked the overall tone and quality of prose. I looked up some index entries on materialism:

    The purpose of my writing this book is not the tapping of computer keys, nor the deposit of ink on paper, nor even the production and distribution of a great many replicas of a physical book, but to share something that isn’t embodied by any of these physical processes and objects: ideas. And curiously, it is precisely because these ideas lack these physical attributes that they can be shared with tens of thousands of readers without ever being depleted. ....

    A complete theory of the world that includes us, and our experience of the world, must make sense of the way that we are shaped by and emerge from such specific absences. What is absent matters, and yet our current understanding of the physical universe suggests that it should not. A causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences. ....

    In this age of hard-nosed materialism, there seems to be little official doubt that life is “just chemistry” and mind is “just computation.” But the origins of life and the explanation of conscious experience remain troublingly difficult problems, despite the availability of what should be more than adequate biochemical and neuroscientific tools to expose the details. So, although scientific theories of physical causality are expected to rigorously avoid all hints of homuncular explanations, the assumption that our current theories have fully succeeded at this task is premature....
    — Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter

    As I said already, I think Deacon is one of those developing an extended form of naturalism, recognising the limitations of lumpen materialism ('atoms and the void'). And he's setting out to address these 'troublingly difficult problems' in a pretty ingenious way. But I don't know if I accept his fundamental premise of what constitutes an 'absence' or 'abstential'. Sure, ideas do not exist as do the objects of physic - they are not located in time and space and are not composed of particles. But then, neither are numbers, but without mathematics, physics could not even get started.

    (I found a long and difficult critique by a writer called R Scott Bakker, a philosopher and science fiction author. The gist of this criticism is that Deacon fails to account for 'observer dependency', which undermines the entire premise of his enterprise. But I'll leave that for others to decide.)

    But I don't know if I will continue with it, or this thread. Life is short, and books are many.

    @Gnomon
  • The Mind-Created World
    kinda like Alva Noë?
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    thank you for the reply. :pray:
  • The Mind-Created World
    From which:

    As soon as you think about something that is independent of thought, this something is no longer independent of thought! As soon as you try to imagine something that is independent of experience, you have an experience of it - not necessarily the sensory experience of it, but some sort of experience (imagination, concept, idea, etc.). The natural conclusion of this little thought experiment is that there is nothing completely independent of experience. But this creeping, all-pervasive presence of experience is the huge unnoticed fact of our lives. Nobody seems to care about it. Few people seem to realize that even the wildest speculations about what the universe was like during the first milliseconds after the Big Bang are still experiences. Most scientists rather argue that the Big Bang occurred as an event long before human beings existed in the universe. They can claim that, of course, but only from within the standpoint of their own present experience

    Ironically, then, omnipresence of experience is tantamount to its absence. Experience is obvious; it is everywhere at this very moment. There is nothing apart from experience. Even when you think of past moments in which you do not remember having had any experience, this is still an experience, a present experience of thinking about them. But this background of immediate experience goes unnoticed because there is nothing with which to contrast it.This was well understood by Ludwig Wittgenstein, probably the most clear-headed philosopher of the twentieth century. One of my favourite quotes of Wittgenstein's is this one: "[Conscious experience] is not a something, but not a nothing either! (from Philosophical Investigations)
    — Michel Bitbol

    The perceptive reader will notice the resonance with Advaita Vedanta, and indeed Bitbol acknowledges this with a reference at the beginning of the talk.
  • The Mind-Created World
    We are outside the minds of other people. Do you think that we can learn about the workings of other people's minds by observation of their behavior? Doesn't your statement amount to saying psychology is impossible?wonderer1

    Cognitive science and psychology are indeed ways of studying the workings of consciousness in the third person, but philosophy of mind is a different matter. With respect to the empirical sciences, I acknowledge that

    there is no need for me to deny that the Universe is real independently of your mind or mine, or of any specific, individual mind. Put another way, it isempirically true that the Universe exists independently of any particular mind. But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis.

    But that mental aspect is not 'out there somewhere'. I don't depict it as a 'mind-at-large' or 'divine intelligence'. It's simply how the mind orders sensations, perceptions and experience in such a way as to sythesise a coherent whole, which is 'the world'. That is what we are never 'outside of' or 'apart from'. (See It Is Never Known But It Is the Knower, Michel Bitbol, Academia)
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Trump on Friday appeared to confuse Nikki Haley for Nancy Pelosi during a speech in New Hampshire, accusing Ms. Haley of failing to provide adequate security during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol and connecting her to the House committee that investigated it.

    Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and a former ambassador to the United Nations, has never served in Congress and was working in the private sector during the Capitol riot. ....

    Mr. Trump... repeated his frequent claim that the bipartisan House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack — including Mr. Trump’s actions that day — “destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence.”

    Then, he claimed that Ms. Haley was in charge of security that day, and that she and others had turned down his offer to send troops to the Capitol.

    “Nikki Haley was in charge of security,” he said. (She was not - at the time, she was a State Governor and not even in Washington.) “We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guards, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that.”

    Mr. Trump, 77, often attacks President Biden, 81, over his age and suggests that Mr. Biden is mentally unfit for office. “He can’t put two sentences together,” Mr. Trump said on Friday. “Can’t put two sentences together. He needs a teleprompter.”
    NY Times
  • The Mind-Created World
    Everything we know points to mind (as an activity) being dependent on non-mind, on material existence/ existents.Janus

    From a perspective outside both, treating mind as an observed phenomena, which we can't actually do, as we're not outside it.

    It is the fact that humanity has been mesmerized by a futile search for absolute meaningJanus

    Nothing other than an expression of your own belief, or unbelief.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    what blog are you thinking of?Leontiskos

    It is here. I only wanted to footnote the point about the changing use of 'substance' between those texts, and how it becomes interpreted after Descartes. My claim is that it leads to the reification of being, treating being as if it were something objective.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    It came from a remark I made in Lionino’s thread on Descartes’ Meditations, re the malign consequences of equivocating the philosophical and everyday meanings of ‘substance’. I didn’t intend it to turn into a multi-page dispute over the etymology of ‘substantia’ which as you have shown is quite clear cut.

    In this thread, I asked Leontiskos about the term ‘substance’ in Thomist philosophy when Lionino for some reason decided to continue the dispute about the etymology which I thought was quite settied.

    I have the view that the equivocation of the two meanings of ‘substantia’ and ‘substance’ is the source of an egregious error.
  • Anyone care to read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"?
    So the indirect realist believes that what we can't see is what is real?
  • James Webb Telescope
    I guess. If they're stoic or zen about it, they can move on OK but I still think it would be a bitter blow. (Fantastic Shatner clip, that dude really lived the dream.)
  • James Webb Telescope
    I'll piggy back this story here even thought it's not JWST - Japan’s lunar lander reaches the moon but is rapidly losing power

    Japan’s “Moon Sniper” robotic explorer landed on the lunar surface, but the mission may end prematurely since the spacecraft’s solar cell is not generating electricity, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said. The agency said it is currently receiving a signal from the lander, which is communicating as expected.

    If the solar power doesn't kick in real soon now, it's goodnight, mission over.

    I really feel for the teams that put these missions together, it must take years of work, thousands of person-hours, and exquisite engineering. So when a mission fails - which happens a lot - I can only imagine how heart-breaking it would be for those teams. :fear:
  • Absential Materialism
    Are you saying the natural world stands some degree apart from material things?ucarr

    I asked first: how is Deacon's 'incomplete nature' compatible with materialism? What role does 'matter' occupy?

    For that matter, just what is 'materialism'? Let's see some definitions:

    Brittanica: Materialism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

    Wikipedia: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

    New World Encyclopedia: In philosophy, materialism is a monistic (everything is composed of the same substance) ontology that holds that all that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, everything is material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions.

    Are you claiming the fundamental cosmic constraints exemplify immaterial causation?ucarr

    I think Deacon's notion of absentials and constraints challenge those forms of reductive materialism. In "Incomplete Nature," Deacon criticises reductionism, the viewpoint that complex phenomena can be entirely explained by breaking them down to their most basic physical components, saying that approach is insufficient in explaining phenomena like consciousness and purpose. Instead, Deacon emphasizes the importance of emergent phenomena, properties or behaviors that appear at higher levels of complexity and cannot be predicted from (and, so, reduced to) the properties of individual components. This challenges a purely materialistic view by suggesting that understanding the parts does not necessarily equate to understanding the whole. In a carefully-qualified way, he supports the Aristotelian idea that 'the whole is greater than' (or, not reducible to) the sum of its parts. He's part of what I'm referring to as 'extended naturalism', an emerging paradigm that recognises the shortcomings of materialism in regards to accounting for mind and life.

    Which is why I don't think you're term 'absential materialism' does justice to Deacon's work.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    You kidding? The last presidential debate between the two was a disaster for Trump. He completely derailed the debate, talked over everyone, including the moderator, and kept devolving into outright raves.

    Every time Trump speaks, he says the same things - the Government is evil/leftist lunatics, I'm victim of a plot/unfair persecution, all the charges against me are lies. He has no policies as such, only talking points which spill out of his constant monologue. And, he lost the election.
  • Absential Materialism
    Your question is importantucarr

    Does it have an answer?

    absential materialismucarr

    Googling that term produces three hits, the top two being this thread, the third being what looks like a self-published manifesto by one Adrian Johnston. From my limited reading of Deacon I don't recall ever mentioning that phrase. Nor do I think he describes his work as materialist, rather as challenging the materialist paradigm, but within a broader naturalist framework. In other words, a form of extended naturalism. Different to philosophical materialism.

    Although functionally independent from their material substrates, they are, in fact, still rooted in them as emergent properties.ucarr

    However Deacon's discussion of constraints often aligns with the concept of "top-down" causation. This idea suggests that in complex systems, the higher-level structure and organization can influence and constrain the behavior of lower-level components. In biological terms, this might be understood as how the structure of an organism (its morphology, for instance) can dictate the behavior of its cells and molecular components. This shows up even in physics. Free neutrons (outside an atomic nucleus) have a half-life of about 14 minutes and 39 seconds. This means that it will decay into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino in roughly this time frame due to a process called beta decay. But when neutrons are bound within an atomic nucleus, their stability is significantly different, depending on the particular isotope of the element, but in some cases will not decay for a very long time, potentially millions of years, illustrating the efficacy of top-down constraints even outside biology.

    In terms of constraints in physics, these can ultimately be traced back to the fundamental cosmic constraints associated with the cosmological anthropic principle, without which complex matter and living organisms could not have formed. So again I believe this challenges the materialist account.
  • Absential Materialism
    But how is it 'materialism'? What role does matter occupy in it?
  • The Mind-Created World
    Answer the first question first. On the one hand, you're accusing me of 'infinite regress'. But on the other hand, you say that 'existence is radically contingent'. But if 'existence is radically contingent', then how does that claim avoid 'infinite regress'? Aren't they the same?
  • The Mind-Created World
    A proper idealist wouldn't care about politics or science, but Wayfarer clearly does.baker

    Wayfarer is a property-owning householder with material possessions and family responsibilities. So I probably don't fit into your stereotyped image of what 'an idealist' must be, whatever that is.

    (via infinite regress: mind dependent on mind dependent on mind dependent on ...) which is self-refuting.180 Proof

    Nevertheless, there seems at least some resemblance between this, and your

    Existence is a brute fact – radically contingent – so whatever exists is contingent as well.180 Proof

    How does mind dependent on mind....not conform to your description of it being 'radically contingent'?

    (leaving aside the fact that if everything is contingent, then it is impossible to avoid nihilism.)
  • Is the philosophy of mind dead?
    Ultimately, I think as metaphysical frameworks, naturalism and phyaicalism are pretty thin....For me, meaning is functional.Apustimelogist

    I get it. I was drawn to philosophy for different reasons to many here (not necessarily better or worse, but different.) My motivation was the quest for philosophical enlightenment, which is a way of being or attaining a superior affective state. I don't feel I have succceeded in that, but it doesn't dim my belief that it is real and that it is nearer the meaning of philosophy as traditionally understood. I didn't see philosophy as a research program to establish the causal connections between neural states and behaviours, although I have discovered a few sources on the neuroscience of mindfulness, for instance James H. Austin's Zen and the Brain and The Buddha's Brain, Rick Hanson, so there can be a cross-over. But if it's looked at purely through the perspective of today's naturalism (I say 'todays' because the definition constantly shifts), it tends too much towards scientism for my liking. I continue to believe that humans are more than physical - that we are metaphysical beings with access to planes of being beyond the physical.