Optimists may have fugitive doubts about the
basic desirability of existence, but pessimists never doubt that existence
is basically undesirable. — Ligotti- CATHR

I don't see any more reason to think that there is an objective fact of the matter as to the desireability of existence, than there is an objective fact of the matter as to the desireability of anchovy pizza.

Can you provide some reason to think that the idea of there being an objective fact of the matter is something to be taken seriously?

FWIW, I took a look at my Kindle copy of CATHR and saw that I got 26% of the way before losing interest.

That may be true. I only wanted to say that what happens after you swallow the pill is not determined. It depends on you (not in the sense that you are responsible for it or in control of it!) and your circumstances. From what I've read and heard, having an experienced guide with you makes a big difference, at least at the beginning. It goes back to the beginnings in the '50's. The "aristocrats" emphasized the need for a guide, the "democrats" insisted it was for everyone. The aristocrats were probably guilty of snobbery and elitism, but they were right about the guide - as the psychiatrists seem to be demonstrating nowadays. — Ludwig V

I've never had a bad trip, but I did trip one time with someone who did, and it can be a very bad situation. The bad trip this guy had was very much a result of him being someone whose psychology was fairly fucked up to begin with, and I wasn't a guide so much as someone too young and ignorant to recognize the potential for things to go really bad for this guy. That was a long scary night of continually talking this guy down.

My opinion is that adult supervision is highly highly recommended.

The real flaw here is the presupposition that either our cognitive faculties (all of them) are accurate or they (all of them) are not. The awkward truth is that sometimes they are and some of them are not. We learn which is which through the feed-back loop (doing and being in the world) - and we never need to stop learning. — Ludwig V

:100:

I see there is a need to distinguish between "process" as a particular process, a particular event which is happening to a particular physical object, or objects, and "process" in the sense of a generalized, or universal, type of event which may happen with objects. The former is a physical event, the latter is not, being conceptual and applicable to many different physical events, in a descriptive way. If "time" is said to be a sort of process, it is the latter, a generalized or universal conception, and therefore not physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Simply asserting that conceiving of a universal is not the outcome of a physical process is unpersuasive in light of understanding things like this:

Exactly, that's what i said, time is not physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not exactly. "Not a thing" isn't equivalent to non-physical. For example, a process doesn't need to be a thing, in order to be physical.

You can elect to define words in such a way that physicalism can't be coherent under your usage of the words. However, that doesn't allow for you to make any cogent argument against physicalism. It just keeps you from understanding what you are arguing against.

There is no physical thing being described. — Metaphysician Undercover

From my perspective, "thing" seems like a strange category to try to put time into. So I'm not really seeing a problem with not describing time as a thing.

Which leads to a clear formulation of my question: why is it the things that by nature must necessarily be the closest to us, most intimately connected to us, the things that must be us, are the hardest things to see? — Fire Ologist

Because most of the light we see reflected by our bodies is reflected off surfaces like skin, hair, etc. The enormous complexity of what goes on in our brains is pretty well hidden.

How is it I could be a mind that cannot know what a mind really is? — Fire Ologist

Via biological evolution that selects for propagation of genes rather than insight. Which is not to say that there isn't much that can be learned.

Physics describes time as one of the dimensions of space-time.
— wonderer1

That is not a description. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a useful description for a lot of people. I'm not sure there is much I could do about it not being a useful description for you.

This is not to say that the experience itself is not rich and cannot be inspiring, even life-changing; it is necessarily vacuous only in the propositional. not the poetical. sense. — Janus

:up:

It seems to me that there is awfully good evidence from entheogens that some capacity for 'spiritual experience' tends to be a physical characteristic of human brains.

I'm saying he has supplied a normative belief system himself, which is exactly comparable to the type of normative beliefs systems he says we can do without. He has generically employed the term "belief system" and associated that with "strong bias". Beliefs may be prone to bias, but the fact that bias exists in no way invalidates belief in general. I take no issue with the comments directed to a very specific subset of religious practices, but the idea that we can dispense with "belief systems" isn't reasonable. — Pantagruel

Ah ok. I'm not familiar with past discussions you two have had regarding belief systems. It sounds like an interesting topic for discussion.

We need to focus on the natural drives towards compassion and empathy and work aligned with that and not against it.
— Christoffer

Isn't this in fact also a belief, purporting guidance? — Pantagruel

Not to speak for Christoffer, but suppose we do use your word "guidance" and understand it as guidance from one social primate to another? What would be the significance of it being a belief?

...it is the lack in acceptance of our empathically natural and biological interactions between people that leads to nihilism. — Christoffer

:100: :up:

For example, abstract objects such as numbers and mathematical structures have a mode of existing that is different from the physical mode in which thought exists. — jkop

Is this something that you think you can demonstrate?

Anyway, I was interested, in particular, in Eagleton saying that 'it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist.' — Wayfarer

Finally, one of the better books on the topic, notwithstanding its frequent polemical passages, is David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God. He 'gets' this understanding of the meaning of 'beyond existence' in ways that most do not. — Wayfarer

Do you think that views like those of Eagleton and Hart are typical of theists?

For example, do you think the typical US Evangelical Trump fan, or Iranian Ayatollah fan, is likely to be an Eagleton and Hart fan as well?

Einsteinian space-time is a concept which is well over 100 years old..
— wonderer1

Concepts do not have physical existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

The point was that the following statement of yours is false.

And physics does not describe time in any way, it is something which is taken for granted in that field. — Metaphysician Undercover

Physics describes time as one of the dimensions of space-time. Furthermore, it is not merely taken for granted. As I said, the concept has been tested in all sorts of ways.

And of course you are merely begging the question against physicalism in saying, "Concepts do not have physical existence." You need to show that concepts can exist apart from any sort of physical instantiation. Good luck with that.

I think you'd be surprised by what some physicists believe about time. I happen to know a few. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know some physicists as well. This guy owes me a beer I never collected, for troubleshooting some problems in a Bose-Einstein condensate experiment of his, which wasn't working right.

And physics does not describe time in any way, it is something which is taken for granted in that field. — Metaphysician Undercover

Einsteinian space-time is a concept which is well over 100 years old, and has been tested in all sorts of ways. Perhaps your physicist friends just don't consider challenging your closed-mindedness to be a good use of their time?

Time consists of three parts, past present and future, none of which is physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

I suspect you would have a hard time finding physicists who agree with that assertion.

In any case, do you have an argument for the claim?

We [monkeys] are in need of our monkey trainers. — Fooloso4

Just doing my part. :wink:

The reality of time is good evidence for the existence of non-physical aspects of our world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you think so?

Do you understand what "evidence" is? Evidence consists of facts which support the hypothesis. Evidence doesn't walk through the door, it must be sought. That's why experimentation is a significant aspect of the scientific method, through experimentation we seek evidence. If you are happy with your physicalism you will not seek evidence to falsify it, and the evidence will never walk through the door. Real scientific understanding recognizes that evidence does not walk through the door. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I much prefer my beliefs being based in evidence. Can you point out any good evidence for a mind existing sans an information processing substrate? I mean, I can't say I've looked on the moons of Jupiter for evidence of brainless minds, and I think that would be asking a bit much. So do you have any reasonable suggestions?

How different is the starting point of atheism and theism then. — Vaskane

I don't know what you mean by "the starting point". Sounds grossly simplistic.

Anyway, I realize you are stuck in monkey minded face saving mode, despite my attempts to show you off ramps, so I'll leave you to it.

you're the dick head who asserted my idea had no philosophical basis... — Vaskane

See, this is just you making stuff up again. I didn't say anything about the philosophical basis of your comment. I pointed out that your lack of experiential basis for knowing what you are talking about:

It looks to me like you are happily making up stories about figments of your imagination. That doesn't sound like something, which anyone with the experience to know what they are talking about, would say. — wonderer1

Okay, so Nietzsche asserts silly things, and you believe him? Why do you think this argument from authority might be interesting?

I suggest it would be more valuable for you, to reflect on your tendency to react defensively when exposed as not knowing what you are talking about, and recognize the opportunity to admit to yourself that you really don't know what you are talking about.

:up:

Your argument against my thoughts on atheism and theism are merely rhetorical hyperbole based off an emotional reaction you had, you dont even understand my position, let alone know it. Feel free to explain why you think you're a fucking authority on the matter yet can only resort to weak ad hominem, and is pathetically afraid of delving the etymology of atheism and theism because you know you blundered and are trying hard to cover your tracks. — Vaskane

You just jump to conclusions right and left without really knowing what you are talking about.

One of the reasons I am much more of an authority than you are on the subjects is the observations of people (and getting to know them) involved in making 17k posts since 2008 on another forum.

With that kind of background your pretense to psychological insight is obvious.

I have a friend who works for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. And, they want to know what his essence is. He tells me they have regular meeting about how him and his staff feel about themselves and the company. Are they asking if the essence of the company is alligning to the essence of the employee? He thinks they are. This companies mission statment is, the essence of the company. And employees are expected to not just agree with it, but to own the same essence to correctly align themselves to their priorities. — Rob J Kennedy

Can you say what company? Sounds kind of creepy to me.

How much money did Dawkins make off of God? — Vaskane

Feel free to explain why any sort of answer would be of any relevance, to your lack of insight into the thinking of theists and atheists. Better yet, just think about it, and see if you can figure out on your why your question is irrelevant.

No it's not. Philology and Etymology are Nietzsche's methodology for a reason. — Vaskane

That doesn't mean that it's not a silly basis for thinking oneself to have insight, into the perspectives of diverse people, by comparison with making a lot of observations of diverse people.

I'm just not interested in any mental masturbation you might want to do, regarding the etymology is atheism.

what's the etymology of atheism? — Vaskane

That's not an interesting topic and besides the point.

You just don't like being associated with God. But atheism always highlights your association so does theism. Both titles are easily forgettable and one doesn't have to wear any of the titles at all if they choose not to. It's like the concept of free will, best to just erase the concept from your mind all together. — Vaskane

Nah, it's just that I've dealt with a lot of bullshit artists before, and you are declaring yourself to be one.

They're fundamentally the same starting point one's a pushing away from, and the other one's a feeling of attraction towards. — Vaskane

It looks to me like you are happily making up stories about figments of your imagination. That doesn't sound like something, which anyone with the experience to know what they are talking about, would say.

I would think that "physicalism" is quite strict, not allowing for the possibility of an open door. Isn't that what physicalism is, saying that there is no possibility of anything other than the physical? Opening the door would be rejecting physicalism. — Metaphysician Undercover

From my perspective, anthropomorphizing physicalism, as something that can be "strict" seems weird.

Perhaps it is because I come from a more science based perspective, but I would expect a physicalist to be open to physicalism being falsified, as a matter of intellectual integrity. I don't see any problem with leaving the door wide open for evidence which might falsify physicalism. Having left the door open for a long time, and never having seen any evidence falsifying physicalism walk through the door, is why I am a physicalist. That and the explanatory power of relevant scientific understanding.

This seems bizarre and untrue to me. It experiences the water it swims in, along with a number of other discreet elements of it's world (plankton, sharks, coral, whatever..). But, that's a digression and another thing to talk about. Is the idea here that anything within the Universe 'experiences the Universe'? I can't understand that, if so, and that might be the issue. — AmadeusD

I would think that only parts of the universe with some sort of 'brain' and sensory organs could experience the universe.

The following might help convey my perspective somewhat:

Under what notion are you suggesting we can experience the Universe? — AmadeusD

Under the notion that a fish experiences the universe through the water it swims in. You seem to place great significance on the idea of somehow experiencing the universe as a whole thing. I don't understand why. We are experiencing the universe as we can, right here and now.

For all I know, we are in one, of several possible types of multiverse. However, I don't see my inability to know the truth about such a situation to be a good reason to think that we aren't experiencing the universe.

But how do you know others aren't doing the same? What is it that makes this change a higher change such that one's consciousness is increased? How do we numerate or compare consciousnesses to one another? — Moliere

:100:

The fact that anything exists at all is proof that something exists which we can't understand. It might very well be God. — Brendan Golledge

It seems worth questioning that last sentence. Why might it very well be God?

But then there is the question of what you mean by "God" as well.

Do you consider God to be a mind? Do you see minds as the sort of things that are likely to exist without reasons for their existence?

Of course there is all sorts of stuff we can't understand. Is that is what is to be referred to as "God"?

A discussion of recent research:

https://fortune.com/2023/05/02/stanford-researchers-scoured-every-reputable-study-link-between-video-games-gun-violence-politics-mental-health-dupee-thvar-vasan/

The reason is because we can see the laws of the universe playing out here on earth, and this allows us to know, or experience, what is happening out there as well.
— Beverley

To me, no it doesn't, and I can't grasp how your getting there. — AmadeusD

Do you think no one had any idea of how things would go on the moon, before people went to the moon?

Is there mostly an issue here, of you not knowing how the laws of the universe play out?

Even though you probably didn't learn much from me because I have not been making sense, eeek! — Beverley

You are selling yourself too short. You have brought up plenty of good points.

Sounds like a grandiose rationalization for being scientifically uneducated to me.