So that the criteria of motivation and intention to act shifted between time A and time B resulting in a difference in probabilities of actual action?

Pluralism: "The cat is dead" is true for Wigner's friend but not for Wigner. = "The cat is dead [is true] for Wigner's friend"

Yes, I think this is what I meant. The first is relativism, the second pluralism, and they are equivalent. As I said, I encountered this first in a discussion on moral relativism versus objectivity, including pluralism, and I understood how the latter isn't just the former insisting it's the latter. — Kenosha Kid

No. Both of your examples are simple pluralism. And second, saying 'true' of what ontologically 'is' is always redundant verbiage in your realism.

In addition to pluralism, relativism whether ontological [dead] or logical [true] requires a second higher level functor which establishes a dependency relation. Observation y depends on the value of x. It's two-dimensional, not a simple is/is-not here and there.

Relativism — Kenosha Kid

Pluralism:
"The cat is dead" is true for Wigner's friend but not for Wigner.
is equivalent to
"The cat is dead [is true] for Wigner's friend"
Realism:
The cat is dead [is true for everyone].

In addition to pluralism, relativism whether ontological [dead] or logical [true] requires a second higher level functor.

Consciousness does not appear to be a prerequisite for having a unique external reality. Is it nothing more than localism, another relativism with another kind of reference frame? — Kenosha Kid
That's how I think of it. What you are (for us, human beings) and where you stand can make a difference to what you measure as we find with Einstein's theory of relativity. In the Wigner's Friend scenario, what Wigner measures (interference) is different to what the friend measures (a definite result). That just is the reality from their perspective. — Andrew M

Agreed, if 'reality' is left ambiguous between a unique realist objective ontology and many relativist subjective appearances. Philosophical disagreement and repeated failed attempts to discover some missing factor to make everything orthodox make all objectivist attempts suspect from the start.

But I don't see why objective approximations of the past would not be useful in approximate predictions of the future. Scientific approximations tend to improve in accuracy over time.

It's all you. You probably say the same of all healthcare workers. You're perfect and everyone else is uncaring of perfect you.

Professionals are part of a system. If they don't do their jobs according to their system then it's up to the system to correct that. If you disagree then go complain, but don't just throw shee at everyone in site.

Mental health workers don't have the means or time to treat more than the symptoms with medications. Sad, but true.

There is a stereotype about psychologists — baker

Psychologists and philosophers are equally subject to stupid stereotyping because people don't care enough to try to understand. This is also true of almost all academic disciplines and professions.

WTF? :chin: — TheMadFool

Science is what science does not what you say.

"human nature" — TheMadFool

is a loose essentialist construct that has gotten a lot of clicks. Examples of thrashings about in attempts to make sense of it can be found in Hume's foundational A Treatise of Human Nature and the online SEP article. I'll leave to you to say what 'human nature' is if you can say what your human nature is concisely without reference to examples of your daily habits.

For its part, psychology has no essential definition because definitions in psychology are ultimately not conventional or even philosophical. Psychological concepts are defined 'operationally' by their specific methods of measurement to convert them to public scientific observables.

Psychology, from what I've gathered, is the study of human nature. — TheMadFool

It is not and never was. Because

human nature - does it even exist? — TheMadFool

is a bullshit question, being neither philosophy nor psychology.

Science is certain — TheMadFool

is just ignorant. No science is certain, nor can any science ever be certain.

Statistical claims like those found in psychology tolerate errors in prediction — TheMadFool

Same as for all science. Even the strongest laws of physics are statistical when applied to the world.

Psychology is the study of mind and behavior according to Wikipedia — TheMadFool

And what's the definition of philosophy according to Wikipedia? "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions", which ought to answer two other questions?

So if psychologists can't give a definition then they can't know any psychology but are just technicians following a custom? Where have I heard that argument before?

OK
Leaving definitions to Socrates,
1. Psychology is what psychologists do
2. Psychology is a range of professions from theoretical, experimental, to applied areas like clinicians and industrial administrators. Which one is in question?
3. If psychology is a science then what is a science? Is it just some dogma curricular for high schools and wikis or is there specialized education and trained practice to be learned and certified? Why isn't an economist or archeologist a psychologist?

So with most other animals, instincts/drives often take the place of heuristics to come to a decision — schopenhauer1

A categorical distinction between man and animal can be drawn if you like. But that distinction is neither psychological nor genetic. You have to seek other grounds.

Like other animals, we are also instinctively and emotionally driven in making most quick decisions. Reasoning takes time and is subject to omissions and errors resulting in questionable decisions.

What the crucial difference is is that we are social animals with spoken and written language. Our intellect in limited areas (but sadly not in philosophy) has grown exponentially over the generations due to cultural (mostly scientific and technical) advances that are retained and built upon. Isolated from culture, we would be less adapt than almost all animals. In fact, without our technological meddling with global environment, we might be one of the most vulnerable of all species.

Psychologically, we are not superior to other higher mammals in emotional capability nor in the suffering from the effects of psychological damage. To experience this, it is enough to pay a lengthy visit to a local animal shelter. Just look at the animals as they come in before triage. On the happier side, house cats are extremely aware of human emotions and use that superiority to manipulate their owners to reach 'balance'.

Talking of balance, what do you mean by balance? Is this along some hidden scale that we are all to grant you, or can you be more specific? This could be a static or dynamic balance, like the bottom or the extreme top of possible motion of a playground swing. Heraclitean opposites are always in motion and are always in balance. A Hegelian balance one might be the static center support of a seesaw. I assume you have something better in mind?

I don’t think other animals “find” balance. Not in the way humans must do. — schopenhauer1

Do you have a cat or dog? Especially a cat would object and show you why.

It occurs to me that during general anesthesia you certainly exist. — fishfry

The state of unconsciousness with anesthesia is mysterious indeed. It's much better than a good whack in the head which might be followed by a lump and headache. Given that a whack anywhere else produces pain and a lump, I would tend to agree that the brain is the affected area in either case. Interestingly, flies are rendered also unconscious when hit on top of the back by a fly whacker, suggesting that their brains are in their bodies.

Philosophically, replacing lack of existence with a gap in awareness and experience works. Sleep is somewhere between unconsciousness and consciousness. Some functionality is shut down but not all. The lucky frigatebird can keep flying over the vastness of an ocean for weeks by sleeping on one side then later on the other side of its brain as needed. It can also fly in autopilot.

PBS also has one saying bb is correct — Gregory

They could do either one depending on how deep they want to dig. The BB cannot be extrapolated beyond the reach of physical theories to time 0. BB is a thorough mathematical theory that unites the present state of cosmological theories. In our tiny corner of the observable cosmos the theory is sufficiently supported, but very serious astronomical doubts still exist. Some astronomers still aren't convinced that the theoretical age of 13.8 billion years is long enough to explain the oldest stars.

Where he comes in though is his ingenious method of responding to dilemmas, here moral ones, with counterdilemmas. That's the extent of Protagoras' involvement in this thread about moral conundrums. — TheMadFool

You're missing your point. If you read an analysis of the dilemma it points to logical argumentation of the kind that was taught to would-be lawyers by Prodicus, Protagoras and other ancient rhetorician, and by Plato too, and is still taught in law schools. Proficiently arguing either side of a case is essential in today's legal profession. There is no ethical point made there by either side, it's just formal argumentation. Therefore your Protagorean ethical conclusions are just your own inventions.

Prior to addressing the ethical problems of the trolley and the murderer at the door the pretense to pure logical argumentation from both sides of issues should be clarified and removed.

Sorry! If you meant that faith makes placebo an extremely powerful medicine then I wholly agree with you. Faith is one of the cornerstones of religion, the other is accommodation to an acceptable social norm or institution.

"faith" has always been, in effect, a majoritarian mass delusion (placebo). — 180 Proof

What has faith, even as placebo, to do with religion? Isn't religion a socio-cultural self-sustaining support system for those who believe that religion's biases and practices?

Since you like the SEP which attempts to introduce readers to issues and has a wealth of references to dig deeper, I would start with R.A. Blank, Overcoming the 5th-Century BCE Epistemological Tragedy: A Productive Reading of Protagoras of Abdera (2014, U. of So. Florida). a recent Masters dissertation of a neglected controversial but germane topic. After that, I would jump into more standard historical intros recommended in this thread.

Ignoratio elenchi. Protagoras' technique (counterdilemma) is my focus; nothing about his moral views is relevant. — TheMadFool

No. What Protagoras really said, and what he was accused of having said by contemporary and later pundits becomes relevant when you repeat or emphasize certain unimaginable conclusions in his name to support either an argument, or in this case, the format of an argument.

For example, in the Protagoras, Plato's Socrates forces poor dead Protagoras to adopt a dialectical form of argumentation which suits a middle-period semantic Plato (or later Aristotle] but is a method inappropriate and inapplicable to any part of Protagorean ethics. Either-or dialectic questioning or setting up binary dilemmas and paradoxes avoids the crux of real-world problems. (The problems of becoming were considered unmanageable exactly because Parmenidean logic was inapplicable to continua. Plato, as great as he was, was fully aware of what his Socrates was up to and specifically implies so, but unfortunately, thanks to Aristotle and followers, we are not.

The upshot is, or so I imagine, is in the setup of your dilemma. Take the trolley problem. According to Protagoras, in the real world, the identity and closeness of that one person as against who the others are makes all the difference. Are these real people or just numbers? If they are just numbers then ethics is for computers.

No?

Everybody knows the story of a rather interesting dilemma involving Protagoras (the sophist?) and a student of his by then name of Euathlus. Google will take you to the relevant webpages. Here's a good reference :point: Protagoras Paradox — TheMadFool

The story is related by the Latin author Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights. ... The paradox is often cited for humorous purposes — Protagoras Paradox

Protagoras never said that anything goes, or all choices are the same, or even that morality is relative. Protagoras was a moral subjectivist. Expanding spherically starting with myself, first, morality is what is good for me, second, morality is what is good for us, third, morality is what is good for our culture. (i.e. screw all others.)

I think this sums up about 99% of the practical world. Naturally, Socrates had something more ethereal in mind. Socrates, against repeated protestations, twists the argument away from anything sensible to his own unattainable binary ideal Good.

Scientific facts would work because they are grounded in current physics. Is that enough?

For the moment, your truths are my truths. I'm willing to go along with whatever might help me disentangle my confusion.

He is simply setting out how he intends to use the word "fact". — Banno

Is he then replacing the usual real objects with whatever facts about those objects he postulates to be true or must others (everyone?) also agree that his facts are true? How far out on a limb must he climb?

So then by

when I speak of a fact I do not mean a particular existing thing — Shawn

W specifically means himself only by "I" because facts are truths?

We
express a fact, for example, when we say that a certain thing has a certain
property, or that it has a certain relation to another thing — Shawn

Do you agree that facts are what we say about a certain property or a certain relation?

If the universe is endlessly expanding forever and ever isnt that an infinite scenario? Will it stop expanding? If not then the universe is infinite. If it does stop expanding could it have expanded forever if circumstances allowed it to. — Keith W

Language needs to reflect the scope of cosmological questions. It is reasonable that in the very long run, no matter how stable, all particles will decay. Then to make sense of those questions, wouldn't you want to redefine the universe as whatever energetic spacetime left after all ordinary particles have vanished into pure potential energy? Or are you only concerned with material matters and their relative forms?

:up: :100:

Thrasymachus and others like him were a problem to Plato's Socrates character because there can be no valid argument to show that the contrary philosophy is invalid or that its practical consequences were unsound. To proceed with his own story, what else could poor Socrates do than to appeal to authority or to popular opinion to silence such a critic?

major parts of his philosophy is still out of harmony with today's zietgeist — Wayfarer

Plato's is a broad all-encompassing philosophy, How much new has been invented since to be philosophized over? The zeitgeist is the opposite. In the analytic quest for veritability philosophy has become so specialized that most of the subject is missing in action.

The significant divide begins when science begins to question, even repudiate, the more central articles of faith — Janus

Neither philosophy (logic) nor science (the world) can do that. Personal faith is independent of both and also of whichever religious dogma (culture).

the advent of science has had an extraordinarily, overwhelmingly positive impact on how we live. — Banno

Perhaps, but science has been a great deal less influential than technology. The relation of the two to each other is not as simple as is usually assumed.

Technology is often serendipitous discovery based on existing culturally cumulative advances which then motivates science. Which comes first can be a chicken-egg problem.

Nevertheless, both are double-edged swords with many gains in personal comforts, conveniences, and pleasures all with the possibility of being wiped out by human enabled devastating social, international and environmental catastrophes.

It's a good thing for all of us that CERN guessed right prior to producing antiparticles.

the unconscious is doing a lot more, at a much higher level then we often give it credit for — Count Timothy von Icarus

What's been labelled as subconscious is as much part of nature as the outside world is.
We must use whatever sense-perception we are afforded to try to make something of it all. (Plato)

recursively self-referential ... only recursively integrated information reaches consciousness — Count Timothy von Icarus

Suppose the subconscious is a great ball of many inter-twined threads doesn't 'information' come out of the mind after the fact as a particular single thread of yarn?

Often the matter of truth does not seem to be quite clearly distinguishable from the matter of taste. ... ...
A certain relativism cannot be denied here. It seems to be objectively given. Individuals are the standards of their chosen philosophy. Everyone truly needs to realize this. — spirit-salamander

There is no denying that deep psychological preferences do weigh on one's attitudes toward people and life, but if philosophy is to be a logical enterprise then philosophy can just as easily act to correct tendencies to be governed by our guts. This was Plato's hope for the philosopher perhaps because he was more rational and rationally oriented than those others you mention.

Rationally there is no reason to stick to any one philosophy. Just look at the sciences. Is there just one science? When people do stick with one science can they deny all other sciences? Why not? When people do stick with once science can they deny all other sciences? Isn't that answer also applicable to philosophy?

However, if we know the speed of the butterfly, the distance between the two spots it's visible in, and the time taken between them, we can easily determine that this isn't teleportation. — TheMadFool

Cool. When it sits motionless on a tree branch that butterfly is moth-like dirty brown and nearly invisible. Illusions of nonexistence and existence are not uncommon in nature and appearances unlike matter-energy can move faster than light. Astronomical shadows move with the speed of light radially but can be much faster when moving transverse. This could be narrated as teleportation of shadows.

Thanks to Wayback Machine, the Totoni article is still available when searching there for www.scholarpedia.org/article/Integrated_information_theory and then for the Mar 29 2021 copy

This theory is not a serious scientific proposal. — Daemon

But scientific proposals do seek relevant information as pertaining to some possibly useful measurable aspect of the natural world, or us as individuals, or the environment that we create.
To follow your analogy, electric meters measure not what we did with the used electricity but the total usage over a month.

I'm not sure what IIT proposes. Mathematically, is it the model for an experience/consciousness meter which reads single transient experience or average consciousness PHI, or perhaps both?

Of course, the two are not the same. I can be equally conscious and still experience or miss seeing a passing hawk in the sky. In either case, would PHI tell us anything about my experience or my consciousness?

Perhaps an anesthesiologist could use PHI to gauge consciousness in addition to heart and respiration rates for surgery?

From the point of view of philosophy, let's suppose that the Chinese Room is on the international isolation ward with many adjoining rooms all instrumented with the latest Totoni meters on the door and computer technology for remote communication. Could the Totoni PHI improve on the failure of the classic thought experiment? Could I or my Totoni computer differentiate a conscious person from an AI? Would it matter?

and a bit more clarification from there,

Phi is based on the number and quality of interconnections a given entity has between bits of information. The resulting number — the Phi score — corresponds directly to how conscious it is.
The more connections, the more conscious an entity is, a factor quantifies as PHI
Consciousness, in this model, doesn’t rely on a network of information. It is the network. As such, it doesn’t discriminate based on whether the subject is organic or electronic.
Put simply, high PHI measure means more consciousness — more sentience — no matter who or what you are. — Gina Smith

Not a card trick at all. I don't think you're appreciating the weight of your assumptions in making that argument. To a Trumpist democracy means our power, to you it seems to mean an ideally equal distribution of possibility or actuality of power.

The Constitution was written expressly for a republic ruled by a now denigrated elite analogous to ancient Roman freemen. This discrepancy is slowly evolving to an unspecified resolution, which is decidedly not democracy.

Then you agree with me that democracy is not mine therefore there must be many notions of democracy. The only alternative to that is god-given Democracy. OTH, what the Constitution defines is a lawful republic not popular anarchistic democracy, and that's where the discussion needs to start.

I got a comment published on today's NY Times story on Trump
'Someone ought to raise the point that if Trump's GOP refuses to recognise the result of the 2020 election then they must forfeit the right to participate in the electoral cycle. Democracy is a system of rules, and not recognising the rules ought to warrant exclusion from the system.' — Wayfarer

I doubt that you received any responses given the Times' window for comments, so let's try

Whose democracy do you mean by that?

IIT, based on the scholarpedia page.
In formulating the axioms, Tononi uses these criteria:
1. About experience itself; — frank

Scott Aaronson debunkificated this — fishfry

For assertion 1. the philosophical question is what is x if anything at all. Since experience is private there is no way to answer that except for claiming that experience-in-itself exists as a Platonic concept and as a corresponding linguistic proxy.
In astronomy there are the analogously fuzzy notions of dark matter and dark energy which are postulated to reify their effects on galaxy clusters and on theoretical universal expansion. Neither can be directly seen and identified as objects but physicists can justify supposing that they necessarily exist.

Totoni's phi would be a basis for an objective measure of something-or-another that he labels as experience/consciousness. It is not a measure of my mentality before my first cup of coffee but what it might do is to define totoni-ness, an entirely different thing with hopefully some connection to what is generally thought of by others. Whether that is meaningful or just useful would depend on physical implementation of measuring and classifying phi's for various living and inanimate subjects. If the quantification of a cat's phi lies somewhat between Totoni's and a sunflower's then he will have achieved some success.

Your thoughts ? — Amity

I think that Plato should have been made a saint a very long time ago for what he did for the Church.