His discussion is in the "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" Section IV, Part II. — Ludwig V

I just finished reading it, so I have a better understanding of the context in which he was using "powers".

These powers, as Hume keeps emphasizing, are "secret", "hidden". — Ludwig V

It's interesting to consider how much less secret and hidden these days, is the power of bread to nourish. These days if I go buy a loaf of bread many of the bread's nutritive 'secrets' are likely to be listed on the packaging. :smile:

Thanks!

People often forget that he also says that, in spite of the fact that inductive reasoning is deductively invalid, we will continue to act on that basis, but not from reason, from custom or habit. He also says that inductive reasoning is all the proof you will ever get and provides a basis that is "as good as a proof". (In the context of his discussion of miracles, he slips up, or gets over-enthusiastic, and says that induction reasoning (against miracles) is a proof. He excoriates radical scepticism, which he calls "Pyrrhonism" even though he acknowledges that he cannot refute it. He recommends a month in the country as a cure. All he wanted to disprove was the Aristotelian idea of a "power" hidden behind the phenomena. — Ludwig V

[Emphasis added]

I'm not familiar with the Aristotelian idea of a "power" hidden behind the phenomena. However, based on my considerations of neuroscience, calling our subconscious recognition of patterns "a power" doesn't seem inappropriate.

I'd be interested in hearing more about Hume's disagreement with Aristotle, if it isn't too much trouble.

Pleasantly surprised by this. Not what I was expecting in 'Feedback'. — Amity

Yeah, I know that was a bit strange, but at the time I didn't care. Glad to hear the surprise was pleasant.
:smile:

I was thinking that writing that down might help me get out of the mental state I was in. I can't say it worked as I was hoping it might, but you responding with Let It Be was very helpful. I can't think of any song that could have been better for me to have in mind at the time.

It reminded me of other creative writing by TPF members. And, annoyingly, I couldn't find them.
First, you need to sign in to see the category 'The Symposium'... — Amity

Thanks for the pointer. There is much to TPF that I haven't explored.

Thank you very much for sharing and for the advice. I am not american but italian BTW, and here it seems that is generally assumed by the general population that 'autism' is always a very, very serious condition. Even 'Asperger's' is seen as something that must be 'self evident' (at least in hindsight) and 'serious'. Forms of autism that are 'not obvious' seem an impossibility.
Of course, this is different for therapists, neurodiversity movements and so on. I think that here we are '10 years behind' the US, so to speak. — boundless

I don't think things are so different in the US, although for some time now there has been ongoing effort in the US to communicate that there is an autism "spectrum".

Thinking about this prompted me to take a look at the Wikipedia page for Hans Asperger. Not a very flattering picture. I wonder if Hans Asperger's association with Nazism and eugenics impeded the propagation of his insights.

Curiously enough, I manage to both 'fade away' in 'real life' and be very talkative, sociable, humorous and so on. But even when I am talkative/sociable/humorous I still feel 'out of synch' and in fact I do not do that in a 'ordinary' way so to speak. — boundless

I'd be very interested in hearing more, if you are comfortable elaborating.

I know for me there are confounding factors, resulting from being more intellectually inclined than many people I'm around, and having a reticence towards letting people see that aspect of me because of early experience with it being alienating to do so. One thing I like about TPF is that I feel comfortable here using whatever vocabulary comes to mind, rather than feeling like I need to consider whether the person I am talking to will see me as ostentatious if I am not circumspect in my use of language.

I guess I say this to point out that there may be psychological and/or neuropsychological issues involved, and it may not be easy to disentangle them.

Regarding online discussions, yeah, I find generally easier to speak about my interests and make discussions online and I too risk sometimes to spend too much time in them. This is due to both shyness and, so to speak, a lack of motivation to speak about my interests if I am not sure that the other person shares them. — boundless

I can very much relate to this.

I am very sorry for hear that. I hope that you'll be good soon! — boundless

I'm still experiencing occasional PTSD 'aftershocks', but I am much better now. I can't think of anything that has come along so 'out of the blue' and triggered a reaction in me the way that self defense thread did.

If you and I are making use of different language games, then performances like riding a bike , playing chess or waving my hand which appear justified to me will not to you. — Joshs

It seems to me that there is an important distinction between riding a bike and playing chess. I don't need to know anything about another person's language game to understand that a person confidently riding a bike has developed (at least) some intuitive understanding of the physics involved in riding a bike.

Can you show an example of bike riding that I will find unintelligible?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230112-why-some-people-cant-tell-left-from-right# — Joshs

Interesting article. I had never really thought much about this. To me it seemed an odd subject to start a thread about, but after reading that article I can see how my strengths in visuo-spatial cognition likely make it easier for me, than it is for others.

How does habituation work if a person doesn't have any innate sense of leftness vs rightness? — frank

Diligent Hokey Pokey practice?

Why?
— wonderer1

I think it is an important question, but do not think it is for the purpose you suggest. — Fooloso4

I wasn't suggesting, but I was asking Bob, because I was curious as to his purpose. Granted, it might have been better for me to stop at, "Why?"

I will address this generally, whether or not it applies in this case:

I think the reason is the desire to arrive at clear answers where none are available. It is, however, in my opinion, misdirected. Ethics is not a matter of discovering or inventing equations or formulas or exceptionless rules that can be applied to whatever situation that arises. It is, as Plato and Aristotle knew, a matter of phronesis, of good judgment. It is pragmatic, involves compromises, and may not yield agreed upon or totally satisfactory results. The desire for wisdom becomes foolishness when we attempt to abstract from the confusion and messiness of life. — Fooloso4

:100: :up:

Thanks Amity,

I'm going to take a few days off from TPF, but I saw you had responded and I greatly appreciate it.

@Bob Ross @Philosophim

Just a reminder...

But I've got that off my chest now, so carry on. — wonderer1

The space with Michael

I see him in the car carrier on the floor, on the night I rode around with Jeff.
Jeff was looking for Patty, with a rage which was a mystery to me then and now.

Again, I see Michael in the car carrier on the floor,
and that I need to prevent Jeff from drunkenly stepping on Michael as I yank Jeff back.
That image is flickering though,
from Michael,
to Patty in terror,
to what I can see of Jeff as I grab him from behind,
and back to Michael...

I see Michael lying on his back on my lap. Here I can linger for awhile.
Here the view is always worth the pain.
I watch Michael as he looks at my hand,
and somehow I know how to move my fingers in a way that tells him,
"I am here with and for you."

I see Michael in Patty's arms.
He is near a year old.
As Patty approaches though the crowd of strangers Jeff reaches out to take his son from his wife,
but Michael has spotted me,
and reaches out to be held,
by me.

But there is so much emptiness in this space now.
Thirty eight years,
and I only see bits and pieces of one.
Many of the bits are so faded,
amidst those that seem indelible in this space.

Yeah, I was figuring you would be raging. I'm not really seeing much point in responding to that kind of stuff right now.

I appreciate your response. I'm kind of in a dark place right now, and I'm not sure when I'll have the equanimity that I want to have in responding to you, but I will get back to you.

I am essentially endeavoring on determining a fully coherent and plausible account of what is right and wrong; and so, although it may seem in practicality obvious that self-defense is permissible, I must be able to back that up intellectually in a way that coheres with my ethical theory. — Bob Ross

Why? So you can feel particularly righteous?

I think the solution to this is to note that harming [something] is not a proper act, because it is an action includes the intentionality behind it; so act of self-defense is a specific action which can produce harm, but is permissible (and even sometimes obligatory) because it is good in-itself (being that the intention is to stop the attacker and NOT to kill or harm them). — Bob Ross

Bob, your OP has given me an opportunity to at least somewhat process some PTSD. Thanks for that, I guess.

I spent a year protecting a new born baby and his mother from my (at least psychopath adjacent) coworker. This is a guy who thought it would be cool to be in the military and have it be legal for him to kill people. He talked at times about considering killing himself, and that if he did so he planned to take his wife and child with him. I think the guy really did consider me his best friend, while I saw myself more like ethically trapped into being his baby sitter. On that fateful day, when his wife was finally ready to take their son and go to a battered women's shelter I was prepared to punch him to a bloody pulp if need be, to protect his family from him,

As things turned out, I didn't feel the need to do what I was prepared to do, which was punch him as hard as I could, and inflict as much damage on him as I could repeatedly, for as long as I saw a need to.

Anyway, I realize that what I was in the middle of was not a purely self defense situation, but still I feel like saying, "Oh My Fucking God Bob, you have no idea what things getting real is like."

But I've got that off my chest now, so carry on. :yikes:

An OP I will never write
Too much trouble
Too much strife — Amity

:broken:

"And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall."
- From Outside the Wall, Roger Waters

Anyway as a personal note, I was strongly suspected to be autistic when I was a young kid but I wasn't formally diagnosed (...it's a long story. I am not really interested to getting diagnosed nowadays, although for a 'self-understanding' it would be cool,but for adults the diangostic process is demanding.). — boundless

I've actually been through testing twice. Once in my mid twenties, after having a physicalist epiphany that lead to me thinking I should have myself tested for learning disabilitites. I brought up social issues with the person conducting the testing, but his response was, "I think that is just your style." I don't think knowledge of Asperger's or high functioning autism was very widespread in the US yet.

The second time was in my late forties after my wife recognized that a diagnosis of Aperger's made sense and I (somewhat reluctantly) came to agree with her.

The first round of testing, even without a very informative diagnosis, was very beneficial for me. The way I saw it then, is that I had been going through life walking into glass walls that everyone else seemed to walk right through. As a result of the testing I was able to get at least a sense of where the glass walls were, and develop work arounds. So I'm inclined to recommend getting the testing, despite it taking some substantial time, and possibly money.

But even despite my own social difficulties, I recognize that some of the best moments in my life have been when I interacted with people (either online or IRL) and I do have a deep yearning for be part of a comunity (despite often seeking solitude because, well, company is overwhelming, and what seems natural for me is alien for others and viceversa. — boundless

I know what you mean about communities. I tend to fade into the background (aside from the occasional smart ass remark) in real life groups. Internet forums, going back to Usenet newsgroups, have been very valuable to me because I can interact at a pace better suited to me. (Although even in internet forums I can often get involved in more discussions than I can really keep up with.)

I was telling a friend very recently how reading the book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace has played a role in my somewhat unorthodox forum behavior. I call it practicing grumpy zebra style center's mind. :wink:

It's been very nice to meet you.

I agree with your take on the issue, but philosophy isn't just about using apriori knowledge. It's partly about stepping back from science to understand the biases it operates with. — frank

That brings up the issue of understanding the biases of those who step back from science

Of course it's relevant, but it's not colour... — Michael

I guess that having been informed about the relevant science for a long time, it's rather baffling to me that so much energy is going into such a philosophical discussion.

It seems that the problem might lie in the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. I can understand the reluctance and difficulty of placing your thread there. — Amity

I don't know how likely other are to agree, but I think philosophy of mind would be a perfectly legitimate category for a wide ranging discussion of how and why poetry affects us as it does, and what that can tell us about the nature of our minds. What is special about the ways that we can use poetry to communicate with each other?

At first I didn't get, and was a bit put off by, Rorty's use of "compression" in referring to poetry. But now perhaps, I have a sense of what Rorty meant. I'm thinking instead of compression there is (or at least can be) a minimalism to poetry, in that often what we might call the poetry itself is a few lines taking up part of a page. But perhaps compressed within those few lines is something with an ability to show us a part of ourselves or the world that we hadn't previously recognized.

That being said,
this is just something that popped into my head,
and not feeling sufficiently well read,
I doubt I'll write that OP before I am dead. :joke:

The only thing that is relevant is that the visual quality that we naively think of as being a mind-independent property of a tomato's surface is in fact a mental phenomenon either reducible to or caused by neural activity in the brain, usually in response to optical stimulation by light. — Michael

It seems as if you are rather arbitrarily cutting off consideration of the scientific picture somewhere in the brain or at the retina.

However the light source being reflected off of the tomato and into the eyes is no less a relevant part of the scientifc understanding of what is happening.

I suppose I would pay your attempted insults more mind if I thought you had any pull or intelligence. Self-knowledge is at an all-time low, here. — Leontiskos

I guess we'll see.

Sowing seeds has an inferential purpose. — Leontiskos

To think that an inferential purpose is the only psychologically pertinent purpose for sewing seeds is psychologically naive. Although I'll certainly grant that it is common to think that way when one is accustomed to think in the folk psychology terms promoted by a religion. I have faith in your ability to develop a more psychologically informed view though. I recommend reading Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

If someone claims that they have said something on a philosophy forum for no reason at all, I would suggest that they simply lack self-knowledge. — Leontiskos

Of course I didn't say what I said for no reason at all. I just don't think you are in a position to understand my reason, in light of your lack of recognition of the role of your subconscious in your thinking. Also, I don't expect such a lack of self-knowledge on your part to make much difference to the results of your subconscious considering whether Christianity is divisive and in a socially destructive way. (Of course I'm inclined to experimentation and open to seeing how the results of this experiment go.)

Folks hereabout keep mentioning that Christians are disputatious, and I assure you that it is not for no reason at all. They do it because they think it proves a point. It's only when one points out that the putative point is fallacious that they fall back on the idea that they made the statement for no reason at all. But that's icing on the cake in a thread like this. — Leontiskos

Your uses of "they" are ambiguous, and I'm not seeing any clear connection to discussions I have read on the forum. So if you want a response to this, I'll need clarification.

Can we learn more by using math than by using words? I have not communicated anything with math but computers do not use words to compute. And I am sure my failure to understand math keeps my IQ relatively low. — Athena

Of course I don't really know you and you should consider the following a matter of speculation on my part. If there is something that resonates with you it might be worthwhile to consider it more, if not I won't be offended if you tell me you can't relate to what I say. That said...

I don't think IQ works the way you think. We all have different constellations of cognitive strengths and weaknesses, with the consequence that learning some things may be harder or easier for us than for others. It seems plausible to me that math just doesn't come as easy for you as it does for some or even most. There is no failure on your part in that. Furthermore, it sound to me like the results of what you have learned are beautiful, and I hope you can be less hard on yourself.

Do you truly not recognize that you are making an argument here? That you are attempting to get the interlocutor to infer a conclusion? — Leontiskos

I see it more as sowing seeds.

Matthew 13:

3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

I have some experience with seeding paradigm shifts in the minds of Christians. I'm happy with doing what I find works for me, and pretty unconcerned with you getting it for now.

Well assuming that autism is an essential feature of 'who you are', it might be possible that autism is not a cause of suffering in an afterlife, eternal or not. — boundless

I'm not much inclined to use the word "essential" because of the amount of baggage that tends to come with it.

"Autism" is an apt word for describing an aspect of my particular biological nature. Evidence suggests that (from a certain perspective) it looks something like:


Given I've read relatively few posts from you, I don't suppose that image means much to you. However someone who has put some thought into how information processing occurs in neural networks, might recognize that image as pointing towards some substantial differences in thought for the possessors of those different brains.

"An Anthropologist on Mars" describes Sacks' meeting with Temple Grandin, an autistic woman who is a world-renowned designer of humane livestock facilities and a professor at Colorado State University. The title of this essay comes from a phrase Grandin uses to describe how she often feels in social interactions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Anthropologist_on_Mars

Now I'm certainly 'less autistic' than Temple Grandin. I can pass as normal enough, and have even had to deal with skepticism towards the idea that I'm ASD on the part of people who know me well. Still, I know what Grandin means, although the social effects have been less profound for me than for her.

Anyway, I know I'm getting longwinded. I feel that since I'm on the autism spectrum and can speak out about it, I should do so in the hopes of greater understanding for people less or unable to talk about it.

Getting back to speculating about an afterlife...

Are we imagining a situation where social interaction between people plays a prominent role? If so, what reason would there be to not expect autistic people in this afterlife to experience a painful sense of being an outsider? How do you imagine things being different?

No. I wasn't making any such argument. I was just pointing out what is easily recognized with sufficient knowledge of history.
— wonderer1

So you were just pointing something out for no reason and with no point or purpose or argument? This is highly unlikely. — Leontiskos

Sometimes I post things in hopes of recognition occurring. Suppose we take Christianity specifically out of the picture.

Do you see a downside to divisiveness in religions? For example, dividing people into Brahman/Dalit or Muslim/dhimmi?

Is "sheep" vs "goats" any less divisive?

"Unphysical" just seems like a misleading word imo when you are just talking about the utility of high level explanations that trace over and present what we observe in a nice, useful way. — Apustimelogist

:up:

"Epistemically pragmatic metaphors" I like to say.

Nice history lesson!

That isnt a source of evidence concerning the views of most everyone informed in the life sciences, its a source of evidence concerning the views of a particular community of scholars who integrate phenomenological insights with pragmatism, biology and embodied , enactive cognitive science. They would lose the popularity contest, but It should be added that the kind of evidence that matters to them doesn’t concern whether today’s physics is correct or incorrect in some objective sense, but how its practices and results can be viewed under a different light, according to a model which doesnt invalidate it but leads to alternative ways of relating the physics, the biological and the cultural. — Joshs

I'm still curious about this. It sounds to me like you are describing a priesthood (of which you are a part?) which you think should be listened to as authoritative on all matters related to human minds.

Can you say how I am getting something significantly wrong there?

I used to be a Catholic. In some contorted ways, I probably still am. I do not believe that "Christianity is false". Christianity is just not good at defending itself. Everybody and their little sister can insult the religion and nobody cares. Well, in that case, I don't care either. — Tarskian

Yeah, so much better, are religions that encourage homicide when members get all offended. :roll:

I suppose the after life for an autistic person would be a world in which perfect steam engines ran exactly to time according to a really clear timetable and everyone said exactly what they meant and meant exactly what they said. — bert1

I'd recommend avoiding such stereotyping, unless your goal is to be seen as an insensitive douche bag, in which case :up:

It's not my conclusion; it's what the science says, and I am simply reporting on that. I have no idea why you and others think that you can figure out how perception works by sitting in your chair and thinking really hard. — Michael

:smirk:

This is a good example of the non sequitur I referred to earlier. "Christians are divisive, therefore Mormons are Christians." The conclusion does not follow. — Leontiskos

No. I wasn't making any such argument. I was just pointing out what is easily recognized with sufficient knowledge of history.

Christians and Mormons are a bit like bees and wasps. The uninitiated is liable to confuse them but someone who understands their significant differences—their respective theologies and histories—will see them as very different animals. Of course if one doesn't care and only wants to avoid being stung, then one can think of bees and wasps as identical. — Leontiskos

It's not that I am unaware that Mormonism began as a weird cultish offshoot of Christianity and that many if not most Christians, do not consider Mormons to be Christians.

The fact is, I'm sufficiently initiated to understand that many Christians are apt to label large swaths of Christians as heretical. For example:

https://carm.org/about-theology/what-is-theosis/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Reformation_view

It's just an aspect of the inherent divisiveness of Christianity.

- That post was never edited. — Leontiskos

Ok, I guess I misinterpreted of misattributed something.

I'm guessing you dramatically edited a post while I was looking up a link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)

Theosis (Ancient Greek: θέωσις), or deification (deification may also refer to apotheosis, lit. "making divine"), is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God, as taught by the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church; the same concept is also found in the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, where it is termed "divinization". As a process of transformation, theosis is brought about by the effects of catharsis (purification of mind and body) and theoria ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to Eastern Christian teachings, theosis is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through synergy (or cooperation) of human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).

Perhaps, not relevant to what you have edited to, but it seems relevant to what I thought you were claiming earlier.

Sure, there are people with all sorts of agendas, but perhaps we should step back.

Do you agree when I say:

...it is so clearly a matter for extremely interdisciplinary thinking. — wonderer1

Yep. They really have the distinctive property that they appear to. They are red. — Banno

I'd say they have absorption spectrums within the 'spectrum space' that people typically classify as red.

They have a somewhat distinctive absorption spectrum as individuals, although they don't have perfectly homogenous surfaces, and different areas on the surface of the tomato will vary in absorption spectrum to some extent. However most of the subregions of the surface of the tomato, despite being somewhat different in absorption spectrum, still fall within the spectrum space typically classified as red.

(Or at least, that is what I would say if I was particularly in the mood to be pedantic.)