My girlfriends haven't had that need. — Michael Ossipoff

...but, actually, that was only because all but one of them had had her children long before we met.

Michael Ossipoff

You didn't say what you'd be wanting to escape from? Suffering?

You won't know what suffering is until you commit suicide (without a good medical reason).

...intensified, hopeless suffering, to the point of outright nightmare.

Maybe you think you can make it as if you weren't born (What would that even mean?)

No, you were born, and you can't change that.

You'd be acting on a philosophical fallacy.

What's that? You say that it will be brief, or at least temporary?

I can't guarantee what your sense of time will be like, during the stages of shutdown during death.

You might not remember that there's such a thing as time. You might not have any sense that the nightmare can end..

But you'll likely have a sense that something really bad has happened, by your agency, and that you're in a nightmare.

Will you forget about the nightmare before the shutdown is complete? I can't guarantee it.

Michael Ossipoff

My girlfriends haven't had that need.

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

A subset of the population without those needs would be long-extinct by now. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

What is wrong with that though? You are assuming that is necessarily bad. It is simply non-being.

I didn't mean that there'd be anything wrong with it. I just meant that there's a very good reason why it isn't surprising that we now have a population in which nearly everyone seems to want to reproduce.

That attribute has been very strongly selected for. The extinction of otherwise-disposed lines of heredity is the reason why pretty much everyone now alive wants to reproduce.

I'd said:

By my metaphysics, the mere possibility of there being a world in which not everyone uses birth-control is all it takes. By individually not reproducing, you aren't really preventing any births. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

Yes I acknowledged this in my first post. You'd have to elaborate on your "metaphysics" though in order for this to have context though.

I suggest that, for each person, this life is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story. There are infinitely many such stories, encompassing every self-consistent life-experience possibility-story.

A life-experience possibility-story is a system of inter-referring if-then facts.

For example, the laws of physics are "if" facts that relate various physical quantity values. The physical laws and the quantity-values are parts of the if-clause of hypothetical if-then facts. These if-then facts have a then-clause that consists of other physical quantity-values.

Mathematical theorems are if-then facts whose if-clauses include (but aren't limited to) a system of axioms.

Each life-experience possibility-story is an inter-referring system of such hypotheticals.

There are infinitely many, and each of our lives is one of those life-experience possibility-stories.

I call that metaphysics "Skepticism", because it doesn't need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute-facts.

Rejection of assumptions is skeptical, justifying that name.

I'd said:

Nevertheless I wouldn't want to cause anyone to be born, unless I were with someone who really badly wanted to rear a child. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

But that is yet again, not thinking of the future child which you are now going to create that needs to need, when the need did not have to be created in the first place if you never had the future child.

Yes, but I'd put my wife's needs first, and maybe she'd very strongly want to bear and raise her own child. But yes, I wouldn't advocate it to her.

Michael Ossipoff

It is a very open ended my metaphysics. If you can state and IF ... Then, then it is approved. Such a metaphysics will pretty much envelop all existing metaphysical ideas. It is wonderfully accepting. — Rich

Thank you.

Yes, it encompasses every self-consistent possibility-story.

All of them. An infinity of them.

But no, I wouldn't say that it envelopes all metaphysicses. Someone brought up that suggestion once here.

Yes, all self-consistent possibility-stories, but no, this metaphysics doesn't "envelope" or include all metaphysicses..

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

For many people, simply because they have an inborn feeling that they want to. What more reason do you expect or ask for?

A want, choice or preference needn't be justified in terms of something else.

For others, it might, instead, be that they just enjoy the process. :) — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

So someone else's whole existence, whereby instrumentality (doing just to do), forced goal-seeking, and contingent harm is not justified? That seems a bit short-sighted.[/quote]
[/quote]

Sure, especially when you consider that birth-control is available.

But don't underestimate the strength of those needs.

After all, the only reason why we're all here today is because our ancestors had those inclinations.

A subset of the population without those needs would be long-extinct by now.

One more thing:

By my metaphysics, the mere possibility of there being a world in which not everyone uses birth-control is all it takes. By individually not reproducing, you aren't really preventing any births.

I believe someone here mentioned something like that.

Nevertheless I wouldn't want to cause anyone to be born, unless I were with someone who really badly wanted to rear a child.

Michael Ossipoff

Really Michael, your philosophy is simply an endless stream of IF statements, which are debatable, followed by even more debatable THEN statements. — Michael Ossipoff

Good. You've caught on to the fact that Skepticism is about hypothetical "if-then" s. Congratulations.

Not quite sure what you mean by "debatable". Then feel free to debate one.

There are so many, it is difficult To know where to begin.

Then don't.

I've already apologized for the fact that a physical world might not be as simple as you'd like it to be.

I was simply wondering if you realized it.

Yes, I realize that Skepticism is about a system of inter-referring "if-then" s.

Michael Ossipoff

Of course if you kill yourself without a good medical reason (disease or injury resulting in unacceptable loss of life-quality), then your act, itself, is as meaningless and purposeless as it gets. Hardly the thing to do, for someone who doesn't like meaningless and purposelesness.

Also, even if you're an Atheist and Materialist/Physicalist/"Naturalist", you have reason to expect only a bad time as a consequence. Remember Hamlet's.soliloquy

You'll be saying to yourself, "Ok,now what? I've done a difficult quasi-purposeful act, to achieve...what? How am I benefiting from it? What did I get? The loss of opportunity for everything that I like? Congratulations. Actively doing something purposeful to get nothing?" Right about then, you'll be feeling pretty stupid...an understatement.

You'll be in a state more depressing,and fully purposeless, meaningess and hopeless, than any in life--but now there will be no relief. And one difference will be that now there won't be anything that you can do about it. Another difference will be that you can thank only yourself for it.

Maybe you were expecting instant nonexistence, as if you'd never been born, like flipping a computer's off-switch? Death at least usually isn't instantaneous, and isn't quite like that. Hamlet had a point.

I have been dealing with thought like why life? why continue? why not suicide? — rossii

Sometimes, for actions, "Why, to gain what?" is a better question than "Why not?"

The older you get, the more people you know will die.Older family-members, older relatives, older media-stars. It's just an expected fact of life.

If you think maybe there's some more advice you can give, I'll be glad. I guess that's why I post here. Maybe to talk to someone who went through something similiar or to read what to do.

My long term goal is to achieve mindstate that goes something like - Well I was born, I am alive, so I should live and wait for the death to come by itself.

Exactly. You know that, and maybe confirmation of what has already occurred to you is helpful.

Even if you don't believe that you were born because you wanted or needed life, you still know that, having been born, you now do. This life might end before you're ready to be done, but you won't have to take credit for that.

To really see suicide as something irrational

What else?

To maybe have some motivation to do something while I'm here

What else? You're here to do, not to think about it and justify it. Who says it has to be justifiable.

Who says there has to be meaning and purpose? An Eastern traditions says that life is for "Lila", translated as "Play". There needn't be any meaning or purpose than that.

, because right know in my head I believe the opposite. This internal conflict of what to do is just bothering me while I do any activity through the day.
[/quote

You're overthinking life, as if you have a need or obligation to justify it.

Michael Ossipoff

Why does it need to be carried out? Why go through it in the first place? — schopenhauer1

For many people, simply because they have an inborn feeling that they want to. What more reason do you expect or ask for?

A want, choice or preference needn't be justified in terms of something else.

For others, it might, instead, be that they just enjoy the process. :)

Michael Ossipoff

You have your IF statements
(and there are tons of them in your posts, as I said they are ceaseless) — Rich

Maybe, by "IF statement", you're referring to a hypothetical fact that is (at least part of) the "if" clause of an if-then statement. I'll just guess that that's what you mean.

And you're saying that all such hypotheticals are "brute-facts". You clearly are quite clueless about what a brute-fact is.

A brute-fact is asserted, posited. It isn't the "if" clause of an if-then statement.

, and then you have your Then statements which are in almost all cases arguable.

Fine. Then you should feel free to name one of mine that is "arguable".

The "Then" clause states a consequence of an "If" clause (which consists of one or more hypothetical "If" facts).

Some If-Then facts are demonstrably true, such as some abstract logical facts, or mathematical theorems.

Of course there can also be If-Then facts which, themselves, are hypothetical and whose truth is part of the "If" clause of another If-Then fact..

As I said, physical worlds aren't as simple as you might like them to be.

For example, a mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "If" clause includes (but isn't limited to) a set of axioms.

Similarly, abstract logical "Then" conclusions demonstrably follow from their "If" clauses.

From the "If" clause consisting of a set of physical laws and quantity-values, there is a demonstrable conclusion, consisting of other quantity-values.

I am just not sure whether you recognize the plethora of brute facts in your philosophy.

Feel free to specify one. You haven't done so yet.

Here are a couple examples from one sentence.

For one thing, your quotes below aren't from my description of my metaphysics. They're from a discussion of philosophy-of-mind, which is another topic.

"I’m saying that “Consciousness” and “Mind” are unnecessary fictions, "

...unnecessary because, by itself, the physical fact of our animal-ness is fully consistent with our experiences.

"the whole that is the animal."

So the animal isn't a whole? If you want to posit some more elaborate nature, or something different from what experience implies, then, unless you can verify it, you're offering an unnecessary, unsupported assumption.

Michael Ossipoff

Michael, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but your metaphysics probably is the antithesis of what you are seeking. It is one brute fact after another and there seems to be an endless steam of them to support your view of life. Maybe, if you are interested in a parsimonious philosophy, you might want exam[ine] your posts, and as an exercise, number each of your brute facts and then trying to limit them somehow? — Rich

Well, since it's you who say that my metaphysics is full of brute-facts, then I suggest that it is you who need to specify them.

Michael Ossipoff

I subscribe to a version of science-of-mind Physicalism (pomp) — Michael Ossipoff

I meant "a version of philosophy-of-mind Physicalism..."

Michael Ossipoff

You said:

Reductionism is to say of something that it is 'nothing but' - in this case, that humans are 'nothing but' animals, or that the mind is 'nothing but' neurochemicals.

.
I’m saying that “Consciousness” and “Mind” are unnecessary fictions or abstractions from the whole that is the animal. From what you say above, then the philosophy-of-mind position that I subscribe to can be called “Biological-Reductionism”.
.
Maybe I should replace the word “Animalness” with “Biological Reductionism”. …except that I’m not comfortable with all of “Biological-Reductionism” ‘s various meanings.

.I’d said:
.

I've agreed that your own 1st-person point-of-view is the only really valid one, because it's what your life-experience possibility-story is about.

.
But your Dualism has the burden-of-proof, because of its unnecessary elaborateness. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I’ve sometimes guessed about people’s positions here, and not always correctly.

.

But we've very much lost touch with the understanding that gives rise to this perspective. We nowadays are very grounded in 'objectivism' - that what is real is what is 'out there'

.
I feel that the person (animal) is the essential, central and primary component of hir (his/her) world. …and that the 1st-person point-of-view is the only really valid one.
.
Michael Ossipoff

And 'philosophical materialism' is....well...... — Wayfarer

I'm not metaphysically a Materialist or Physicalist.

I subscribe to a version of science-of-mind Physicalism (pomp), which I call "Animalness", because I don't yet know its name.

Maybe Biological-Reductionism (by one of it several definitions) is the name that it goes by.

But there are meanings of Biological-Reductionism that don't apply to me. For example, if members of a racial minority don't do as well on an exam as members of other races who have taken the exam, I don't believe that that has to be because of a biological difference between them and others who have taken the exam..

I like to avoid words with several definitions, because it can unfairly imply things about a person that such words are applied to.

We agree that metaphysical Materialism or Physicalism lacks merit as a proposal for Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

"Then where’s the need for this additional Dualistic entity that you call “Consciousness”? “ — Michael Ossipoff
.
I never said I was a dualist.
.

You didn’t say one way or the other, and I was guessing. Of course it isn’t good to guess, because people don’t like being misquoted.
.
You asked if I was a spiritualist; I questioned what that was because it's not a philosophical term, and I clarified that I thought you meant dualism. You're assuming I'm a dualist, it looks like, probably because i'm questioning your physicalism…

.
I’ve been expressing a form of philosophy-of-mind Physicalism that I call “Animalness”, because I don’t know what name it goes by. (But it’s so obvious that it must already have a name.) But I don’t subscribe to metaphysical Physicalism. I express that distinction, between those two Physicalisms, by writing-out “philosophy-of-mind Physicalism”. Because that’s a long term, I abbreviate it “pomp”.
.

, and because my correction about spiritualism/dualism made you realize that you meant dualism

.
Well, I knew that I meant “Dualism”, but I was saying “Spiritualism”, even though of course not all Dualisms say that their entities can be communicated-with. Calling it all Dualisms “Spiritualism” was therefore admittedly a little inaccurate. I said it that way to emphasize that Dualism in general should be regarded like Spiritualism.
.

, which is now what you've correctively proceeded to accuse me of.

.
It was just a guess, but, as I said, it isn’t good to guess.

.

I'll go ahead and let you know here that I don't consider myself a dualist or a monist (or an idealist) in the classical senses.

.
Ok.
.
I’d said:
.

I suggest that all that’s objectively, or globally-assertably, real and existent or true are maybe some abstract logical facts. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:

What?? How does that relate to your insistence on "animalism"? Are we just animals, or is objective reality just "some abstract logical facts", or are you an idealist like you say later on, or...???

.
All of the above.
.
The metaphysics that I call “Skepticism” proposes that your life consists of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.
.
That possibility-story is a hypothetical system of inter-referring “if “s, “if-then” facts, and abstract logical facts.
.
That story has no objective truth or reality other than in its own inter-referring context. It rests entirely or almost entirely on “if “s.
.
For example, as I mentioned before, physical laws are hypothetical facts that relate some hypothetical quantity-values. Those hypothetical physical laws, and the quantity-values that they’re about, are parts of the “if” clause of some if-then facts.
.
Similarly, mathematical theorems are if-then facts whose if-clause includes a system of axioms.
.
That metaphysics is an Idealism.
.
That life-experience possibility-story is about the experience of an animal (you).
.
Why is there that story? How could there not be? It’s all hypothetical “if-then” s, and it needn’t be real or true in any context other than its own, among its inter-referring “if-then” s.
.
I was saying that abstract logical facts have special status as objectively true, but I don’t know if I should say that. Maybe all those abstract logical facts can be said as “if-then” s, in which case they don’t sound more fundamental or objectively-true than mathematical theorems. …and, if so, it could be said that the whole story rests entirely on “if “s.

But the whole life-experience possibility story can’t be said to be objectively-true.
.
So, Animalness doesn’t contradict Skepticism, an Idealism.
.,
I’d said:
.

You insist on wanting to artificially, unnecessarily, dissect the animal into a Consciousness and a body. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

Your assumptions about what I'm arguing are getting tiring.

.
Sorry, but you didn’t thoroughly specify your position. I was assuming that it was a Dualism.
.

Nowhere am I arguing for a "dissection". I'm arguing for the primacy of conciousness within experience.

.
I agree that you are the primary, essential, and central component of your life-experience possibility-story.
.
So, in that way, I agree that the person (animal) is primary (in his/her life-experience possibility-story).
.
It seems that we’re saying pretty-much the same thing.
.
…except that you’re separating “Consciousness” out from the animal
.
…and maybe saying that Consciousness is the Fundamental Reality.
.
If so, then aren’t you expressing Advaita?
.
But you’re wanting to separate-out a component of the animal and call it Consciousness, or a. Consciousness. I don’t think that I’m misquoting you when I say that.
.
I’m saying that the animal is a unitary whole, like the “sealed-unit” refrigerator motor-compressor unit or a VW transaxle. No need to try to philosophically divide the animal into parts.
.
Your wanting to separate-out Consciousness is what I mean by “dissection”.
.

As I'm reading through your tome of a response [5 pages] I'm feeling more and more that you're not really comprehending my argument at all.

.
But have you thoroughly specified your position?
.

I sincerely don't mean that as an insult.

.
None perceived.
.

You basically continue to say the same things, and now I'm just saying the same things, because you're not addressing my points

.
I never intentionally evade addressing what someone has said. If I didn’t answer something, then that must be because I misunderstood what was meant.
.
Alright, you aren’t a Dualist. But am I mistaken to say that you philosophically separate Consciousness out from the animal, whereas I regard the animal as a unitary “sealed-unit” that needn’t be regarded in separate philosophical parts?
.
Must you not be doing that, in order for you to say that Pure Consciousness is the Fundamental Existent?
.
I’d said:
.

Most animals have no awareness of having or being a Consciousness…
Would you say that a squirrel perceives that it is a Consciousness, or that it just perceives that it likes acorns?
.
.
If squirrels could speak English, and if you could ask a squirrel what it is, would it say that it’s a Consciousness? Or would it say, “I’m someone who likes acorns. Give me some acorns.” — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

I don't even know what to say.

.
I’ll take that as non-disagreement. Thank you.
.
I meant to illustrate that, obviously, animals don’t think of themselves as Pure Consciousness, but as someone with various likes, needs, dislikes, concerns, etc.
.
I'd said:

You say that Consciousness is the proper starting-point. Can you show justification for that claim? — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

Re-read if you want that

.
Certainly. I may very well have missed it.
.
On which page of this topic, and which date, was posted the posting with the justification?
.
You said:
.

Classically, dualism means that there is an inseparable divide between the two concepts soul and body. I don't see consciousness as inseparably "other" from physicality, but neither am I a physicalist. If I have to label myself with blithe philosophical terms, it would be something like "generative mystical monist". I doubt that would interest you much though...

.
Why not? I feel that it’s always good for positions to be fully-stated. For one thing, then I wouldn’t make the misinterpretations of your positions that I’ve been making.
.
Generative Mystical Monist-- That sounds like Advaita.
.
I’d said:
.

…maybe a philosophy constructed abstractly, instead of from our actual experience. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:

.Right, I didn't elaborate clearly on what I meant by simplest. Conscious experience as ontological starting point is not experientially the simplest starting point; physicality is, which is your argument.

.
Yes.
.

Let's clear this up. What I'm saying is that the simplicity of a physical starting point is not in consonance with the actual state of reality.

.
But what you’re calling the actual state of Reality is less likely to be the actual state of Reality, because it makes an unsupported assumption, positing something that doesn’t come from experience.
.

The actual state of reality is what you seem to consider superfluously elaborate.

.
But don’t you see that it’s superfluous elaborateness makes it less likely to be the actual state of Reality?
.

Recognizing that conciousness is ontologically primary requires a very robust amount of philosophical and mental work.

.
I suggest that it requires an assumption that doesn’t come from experience.
.
(…though I’m not saying that it’s contradicted by experience either.)
.

But once arrived at, it's the simplest and purest starting point.

.
I don’t deny that.
.
Advaita is more simple, neat and pure than Skepticism.
.
Your position on philosophy-of-mind is simple, neat and pure.
.
But Skeptism has no assumptions or brute-facts, and Animalness posits nothing about us other than our obvious animalness.
.
Proposals with fewer (or no) assumptions are more likely to be true, or are at least more aesthetically-appealing, even if they aren’t quite as simple.
.
Pure simplicity, in disregard of the assumptions that it needs, has artistic beauty, but its assumptions can detract from its merits as a proposal for how Reality is.
.
Michael Ossipoff

An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe. — Daniel Dennett — Wayfarer

That sounds awful. Is he an Eliminative Physicalist?

(I used to know what he was saying, but I have no reason to read him, or about him, now.)

Maybe I don't thoroughly understand the history of Dualism, but I've read statements of its various versions (a long time ago). What I've been criticizing about it now is that it posits more entities than are needed for consistency with experience.

Michael Ossipoff

Schopenhauer: 'Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.' It is a comment on the difficulty of reigning in the will, or how desires have a life of their own. — Wayfarer

It sounds like support for Determinism--which I subscribe to.

I’d said:
.

Sure. But your conscious experience is of your perceptions, feelings, preferences, wants, likes and dislikes among your surroundings, Those are exactly what one would expect as the experience of an animal, or any other purposefully-responsive device. — Michael Ossipoff

.

I'm not arguing against that.

.
Then where’s the need for this additional Dualistic entity that you call “Consciousness”?
.

I'm saying conciousness is the ontological starting point, which you seem to agree with.,

.
Well, I said “Sure”, but I should be more specific about what I agree with:
.
I suggest that all that’s objectively, or globally-assertably, real and existent or true are maybe some abstract logical facts.
.
The rest of our life-experience possibility-stories consists of a variety of “if-then” facts, whose applicability is only within the inter-referring system of “if-then”s that they’re part of.¬
.
Obviously the subject, and the central, primary, essential component of your life-experience possibility-story is you. The story is about your experience.
.
So yes, you have special ontological status, in your live-experience possibility-story.
.
We could choose to call you a Consciousness, but what are you in that story? You’re an animal. The story is about that animal’s experience.
.
You insist on wanting to artificially, unnecessarily, dissect the animal into a Consciousness and a body.
.
It’s as if you wanted to go around cutting every dime in half, into a “heads” and a “tails”. Or cut every magnet in half, into a “north” end and a “south” end (that wouldn’t even work).
.
Most animals have no awareness of having or being a Consciousness. Only imaginative Dualist philosophers can create that fiction.
.
Would you say that a squirrel perceives that it is a Consciousness, or that it just perceives that it likes acorns?
.
If squirrels could speak English, and if you could ask a squirrel what it is, would it say that it’s a Consciousness? Or would it say, “I’m someone who likes acorns. Give me some acorns.”
.
You think that you’re a Consciousness that “has” a body. This artificial and unnecessary dissection of yourself into Consciousness and a body is what I mean by an elaborate Dualism.
.
You say that what’s ontologically-primary is a Consciousness that is separate from the body. How do you support that claim?
.
You say it’s simple. Ok, but its artificiality and its un-necessariness, is a demerit, when your theory is compared to something much simpler (without that artificial dissection) that is completely consistent with experience, and doesn’t require assuming or positing anything other than what your life-experience story is clearly about: an animal’s experience.
.
I’d said:
.

It's just the simplest description consistent with our experience. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

But how can it be the simplest when consciousness is the proper starting point?

.
You say that Consciousness is the proper starting-point. Can you show justification for that claim?
.
Consciousness what is directly observed? What’s directly observed is the experience of an animal in its surroundings, with its feelings, preferences, likes, dislikes, etc.
.
You’re positing an abstract thing, a Consciousness, that has a body, and is the experiencer. That’s positing a contrived entity, and an artificial dissection.
.
Your’re dividing yourself into a body, and…what?
.
Say you total a car, but are unharmed. If you can afford to replace the car, then it’s no big deal. That’s because you’re separate from, different from, the car.
.
Say you fall off of a bridge. If you aren’t the body, then why should that be a big deal? No, what happens to the body happens to you, because you’re the body.
.

Conciousness does not present itself to you as "animal".

.
What is presented to you is your surroundings, and your evaluation and impression of them, with respect to your needs, feelings, likes and dislikes.
.
That’s exactly what an animal would feel and notice, as you’ve already agreed.
.

You still haven't peeled back the onion layers far enough; I'm not talking about our conscious experience of our physical surroundings; I'm talking about the pure, simple, experience of your conscious mind: your bare thoughts and feelings.

.
We don’t just perceive our physical surroundings. We analyze them, have feelings and impressions about them, and about what we want or would like, or what we need to avoid. And yes, as human animals, we have an analytical capacity greater than that of other animals, and sometimes an interest in abstract things not directly related to physical needs.
.
Thoughts and feelings are about something. Maybe something of expected animal-interest, such as survival, food, shelter, avoiding trouble, etc. Maybe about things that you like. Maybe other things that aren’t directly survival-related. Remember that otters, birds, and even crocodiles have been observed to play. Why should it be surprising that humans likewise enjoy non-surival-related forms of play?
.
None of those things are bare thoughts and feelings.
.
By the way, maybe my saying that we’re nothing other than the animal matches some already-established variation of philosophy-of-mind Physicalism (pomp). (…even though I’m metaphysically an Idealist). But I don’t know of such a version of pomp.
.
And, even if there is one, each pomp version, including mine, should have a name, by which to refer to it. If my version already has a name, then I’ll start using that name. But, in the meantime, my suggestion that we’re the animal and nothing more will be referred to by me as “Animalness”.
.
I’d said:
.

I can't prove that your elaborate Dualism is wrong. — Michael Ossipoff

.,
You replied:
.

Where have I constructed an elaborate dualism in this thread?

.
Alright, I admit that you haven’t been very specific, but I assume that you’re saying that, in addition to a physical body, in addition to the animal, there’s a separate entity called a Consciousness. You must mean that, when you say that we aren’t just the animal.
.
That sounds like Dualism. Any Dualism is more elaborate than Animalness.
.

Ironically, conciousness as the ontological starting point is the simplest possible way to begin a philosophy.

.
…maybe a philosophy constructed abstractly, instead of from our actual experience.
.
Yes, for example, I can’t match or equal the elegance or simplicity of Advaita’s extreme Monism, in which there is only one Existent.
.
But does that make it more parsimonious than Skepticism?
.
No, because it has an assumption.
.
Years ago, I used to argue for Advaita, at a philosophy forum. When people told me that I expressing a belief that I wasn’t supporting, they were right. I’d read about Advaita, and wanted its details to be true.
.
I was arguing something that I couldn’t really support, and I wasn’t comfortable with that.
.
Skepticism and Animalness are free of assumptions.
.
“You are the body” describes our experience. As I’ve said, that was obvious to me even in pre-secondary school.
.
A notion that we’re a noncorporeal Consciousness, different from the body, never occurred to me then. Why should it?
.
I’ve said that Skepticism, it seems to me, qualifies as a Vedanta version, because its conclusions and consequences are the same. In fact, I’ve said that it seems to me that its conclusions and consequences don’t even really differ from those of Advaita. …leading me to say that Skepticism and Advaita could be regarded as just different wordings.
.
Most likely there are many metaphysicses that lead to the same conclusions and consequences.
.
Advaita is very popular. Is its metaphysics your metaphysics?
.

It's the most intuitive. What you're perceiving as elaborate and unnecessarily complicated are the layers of the onion of your mind that you need to peel back in order to arrive at this simplest, purest starting point.

.
That should set off an alarm-bell for you, when you know that your proposal can be perceived as elaborate and unnecessarily complicated. Your simplest, purest starting point is different from what our experience shows us.
.
…not that it necessarily contradicts experience. But it claims an assumption that isn’t in our experience.
.
Simple, but not parsimonious, because of that artificial, unnecessary dissection-assumption that it involves.
.
I’d said:
.

Don't you see that "consciousness" of yours is your perception and analysis of your surroundings, maybe with a monitoring of that analysis, for purposes of optimization or communication? ...and your feelings of preference, likes, dislikes, fears, etc.? — Michael Ossipoff

.
You reply:
.

Peel back further; it's not only that.

.
You’re assuming something different from our actual experience.
.
You like it because it has a sort of ideal appeal. But I claim that parsimony, match to experience, and easy supportability are more important.
.
If parsimony is about a count of Existents, then Advaita would win. But I feel that it’s more about absence of need for and use of assumptions and brute-facts.
.
Michael Ossipoff

It was years ago when I looked at the "free-will" question, and, when I spoke about it yesterday, I'd forgotten what my conclusion at that time was.

I mis-spoke earlier when I asserted that there's free-will. I think it's a meaningless issue.

Obviously, even from our own point of view, our choices are determinisitic. We act according to our preferences, and available information, including the conditions in our surroundings.

As some famous philosopher was quoted (recently in these forums) as saying, we can't want or not want something by wanting to want or not want it.

Some say that free will is compatible with determinism, and some say it isn't. It just depends on what someone means by free-will, and that's why it's a meaningless issue.

Michael Ossipoff

I've looked up a number of definitions of "biological-reductionism. But if you want to say that I'm talking biological-reductionism, then you should say by exactly what definition of "biological-reductionism" you're wanting to label what I've said.

Anyway, labeling something doesn't refute or discredit it.

Michael Ossipoff

I think a lot of people lack any kind of framework to even consider this question from any perspective other than the biological. That's what we're seeing in this discussion — Wayfarer

A completely vague statement.

I've agreed that your own 1st-person point-of-view is the only really valid one, because it's what your life-experience possibility-story is about.

But your Dualism has the burden-of-proof, because of its unnecessary elaborateness.

"Framework"? Sure, you can build as elaborate a philosophical framework as you want to, to describe what can be much more simply described.

Michael Ossipoff

My argument is that the simplest description of what we are, is that we're nothing other than what we seem to be--an animal. — Michael Ossipoff
— Noble Dust

Isn't the simplest description of us that we're conscious beings?

Your conscious experience is the ontological starting point.

Sure. But your conscious experience is of your perceptions, feelings, preferences, wants, likes and dislikes among your surroundings, Those are exactly what one would expect as the experience of an animal, or any other purposefully-responsive device.

Each person is a body living in its surroundings, wanting some things, and wanting to avoid other things. Why do you have to make it more complicated than it is?

No, you don't have to think about being an animal. Other animals don't.

No that doesn't belittle, insult or underestimate you. It's just the simplest description consistent with our experience.

I can't prove that your elaborate Dualism is wrong. So I'll just point out that there's no need or reason to believe in that elaboration.

Yes, philosophy lends itself to endless, elaborate unnecessary theorizing, if that's what you want..

The concept of "I am simply an animal" is not the ontological starting point; it's an abstract concept.

Of course. A squirrel doesn't say to itself, "I'm an animal." It just goes about its business of avoiding dangers and getting what it prefers and likes. ....as do we. ...as any animal would.

I'd said:

Given that animals are natural-selection-designed to accomplish certain purposes, by responding to their surroundings for that purpose, what would you expect that to "look like" and "feel like" to the animal?

Wouldn't you, in fact, expect it to be exactly what you experience? — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

Not at all because I experience consciousness.

If someone built a robot that can navigate a maze, or vacuum a carpet, etc., that purposefully-responsive device has to get information about its surroundings, and act based on that information and its built-in purpose. ...usually involving some analysis of that information about the surroundings.

Likewise for the natural-selection-designed purposefully-responsive devices known as animals.

Don't you see that "consciousness" of yours is your perception and analysis of your surroundings, maybe with a monitoring of that analysis, for purposes of optimization or communication? ...and your feelings of preference, likes, dislikes, fears, etc.?

Don't you see that that "consciousness" of yours is nothing different from what one would expect for the point-of-view of any purposefully-responsive device, including an animal?

Michael Ossipoff

Alright, what's usually called "Spiritualism" differs from other Dualisms, in the fact that most Dualists don't talk to the spirits that they believe in.

But the similarity is still too close to ignore.

Michael Ossipoff

"Someone who believes in consciousness as something apart from the physical animal". — Michael Ossipoff

You're thinking of dualism; a spiritualist is a person who practices spiritualism. — Noble Dust

Sure, Dualism is another word for what I mean. A better word, because it's more familiar, in philosophical discussion.

But philosophical Dualisms sound to me like varieties of Spiritualism.


I'd said:

The body doesn't make or originate mind or consciousness. Mind and consciousness are Spiritualist fictions. The fact is that we're each an animal, with preferences, likes, dislikes, fears, etc., and that's it". — Michael Ossipoff

You reply:

What's your argument for this claim? I assume you mean dualist fictions, not spiritualist ones.

I mean both, because Spiritualism is Dualism, and philosophical Dualisms sound to me like something in the same class as Spiritualism. I don't perceive much difference between philosphical Dualism and what's usually called Spiritualism.

My argument is that the simplest description of what we are, is that we're nothing other than what we seem to be--an animal. Our experiences are entirely consistent with that simple description of us.

This philosophical need to believe that the animal consists of separate body and mind (or consciousness) is an unnecessary elaboration.

Ii prefer simplicity, without all the added assumptions.

Our simple-animalness was obvious to me when I was in pre-secondary school. It never occurred to me that there might be philosophes who were contriving elaborate unnecessary other theories.

When simple-animalness is completely consistent with our experience, then there's no reason to believe that your elaborate separate Consciousness or Mind are other than fiction.

You said

For instance, this:

" The fact is that we're each an animal, with preferences, likes, dislikes, fears, etc., and that's it." — Michael Ossipoff


Is not an argument for this:

The body doesn't make or originate mind or consciousness. Mind and consciousness are Spiritualist fictions. — Michael Ossipoff

No, it's more of a re-statement of it.

Above, I spoke of arguments for it.

Let me just ask you this:

Given that animals are natural-selection-designed to accomplish certain purposes, by responding to their surroundings for that purpose, what would you expect that to "look like" and "feel like" to the animal?

Wouldn't you, in fact, expect it to be exactly what you experience?

That's why I say that Dualism/Spiritualism of mind or consciousness is fiction.

I've discussed all this in other topics.

"Such a person believes in consciousness or mind as a separate metaphysical substance". — Michael Ossipoff


Are you using the word "substance" here as a metaphor on purpose or no?

I'm using "metaphysical substance" with its usual metaphysical meaning.

Michael Ossipoff

A few messages ago, I said that I disagree if you say that the non-human animals don't have consciousness.

But that contradicts my statement that mind and consciousness are fiction.

So I retract the statement that I disagree if you say that nonhuman animals don't have consciousness.

Let me just say, instead, that, though humans have a special adaptability, language, and special talents that the other animals don't have, if you meant that, other than that, there's some qualitative fundamental attribute possessed only by humans, then I disagree with that.

Or, to say it differently, though I disagree with the notion of mind and conscious as things, as us apart from bodies, it sounds even more wrong to me when you say that humans but not animals have it.

(even though I don't believe that either has it)

I just wanted to fix that sentence in which I contradicted myself.

Michael Ossipoff

What is a spiritualist? — Noble Dust

Someone who believes in consciousness as something apart from the physical animal.

Such a person believes in consciousness or mind as a separate metaphysical substance.

..even if you believe that the body is, by supervenience &/or emergent-property, etc., the origin of mind or consciousness--but still believe in mind or consciousness as something separate and different from body.

The body doesn't make or originate mind or consciousness. Mind and consciousness are Spiritualist fictions. The fact is that we're each an animal, with preferences, likes, dislikes, fears, etc., and that's it.

Your need to artificially separate us into separate mind and body, and say that we're the mind, is fictitious philosophical make-work.

More tomorrow.

Michael Ossipoff
.

We don't stay up late, and so i must sign-off for the evening, but let me just make a brief preliminary comment or two:

I didn't mean to say that the other animals are ashamed of us. Only that we should be ashamed of ourselves, or our conduct toward the Earth and its life.

If you're saying that the other animals don't have consciousness, I disagree.

More tomorrow.

Michael Ossipoff

Alright I see what you mean. It's a matter of emphasis.

We can say that what other people do is obviously a combined result of their biological makeup and their environment...

But, when it comes to ourselves (and that's what counts, and what our life-experience possibility-story is about), then it's a just a matter of what the situation is, what we prefer or like, and what we want to do, for achieving what we prefer or like.

We do what we want, to achieve what we want or like.

I've said that, with regard to an animal, it's that animal's point-of-view--not that of a white-smocked scientist with a clipboard, observing the animal--that is the valid point-of-view.

So, sure, what we prefer, and what we choose to do, to achieve what we prefer, that's the valid point of view. The outside, 3rd-person point-of-view isn't the valid one.

But, with that, I also emphasize that each of us is the animal.

This also relates to the free-will issue. I say that we have free-will, as described above. We do what we want to, to achieve what we like or want. That's how it is from the animal's point of view, and we're the animal, and our point of view is what our life-experience possibility-story is about.

The free-will issue, and all of the argument about it, accentuates how much difference point-of-view makes. To that scientist with the clipboard, the mouse doesn't have free-will. To the mouse, it does have free-will. It does what it wants to.. And the mouse's point of view is the valid one, as regards the mouse.

Michael Ossipoff










.

I don’t think there’s a disagreement here. It seems to me that we’re just talking about different matters.
.
I’d said:
.

It's a big exaggeration to say that rationality characterizes humans. — Michael Ossipoff

.

Humans aren't always rational - but you have to be rational to know what 'exaggeration' means, or to argue any case whatever.

.
With that I have to disagree.
.
Turn on NPR any day of the week, or network TV, and you’ll hear all the irrational arguments that your heart could desire.
.
Listen to speeches by various politicians too.
.
No, regrettably, someone doesn’t have to be rational to argue a case.
.
Yes, sometimes fallacious arguments are done intentionally, with a rational purpose. …because they’re always readily believed by the irrational sheep-population.
.
But, admittedly, there are regional differences—You have Jeremy Corbyn, and we have…well you know who.
.
So maybe your perspective is influenced by your immediate surroundings.
.

An animal is not going to be able to persuade you of anything by argument.

.
A dog that I was walking persuaded me to go to a hamburger-place, because she emphatically argued how much she wanted a hamburger.
.
But the same dog, using the same sort of argument, failed to convince me to let her go down into a creek-bed in alligator-country, where the depth of the water, and the abundant aquatic-reed-vegetation could easily conceal an alligator. (Later we saw a 7 foot alligator sunning itself on the bank of that section of river).
.
She didn’t have instinctive knowledge of alligators, and didn’t know of any reason to not let her go down there. But, in the human-environment, she accepted that I knew better about where was safe to go, and when it was safe to cross a street, etc.
.
I’d said:
.

Our entire construction is biological. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

A theatre is a building, right? Perfectly true, but also beside the point. One doesn't go to the theatre to study architecture, but to watch drama. So the fact that we're physically the product of biological processes doesn't provide for a complete account of what it means to be human.

.
…or to be any animal. Of course.
.
What it is, to be any animal has nothing to do with biological origin explanations. A squirrel doesn’t know or care what the biological explanation for squirrels is.
.
The stories behind various human accomplishments are more complicated than the stories behind animal behaviors (but not always less knowable). But that doesn’t mean that all that we are, isn’t the result of our biological makeup. Yes, our surroundings enter into it, but that’s true for other animals too.
.
I’m not finished looking up definitions of biological reductionism, but (as I mentioned in my post to this topic just before this one) I’ve found a few, and they differ from eachother.
.
If it’s “biological-reductionism” to say that what humans do is ultimately a result of humans’ biological makeup-- …well, how could that not be so? It’s either that or Spiritualism.
.
I emphasize that I’m going to read more definitions of biological-reductionism, and that I’ll try not to say any more about it till I do.
.

Do our special attributes give us unique environment-ruining capability? — Michael Ossipoff

.

Nowadays humans are demonised, by the likes of animal rights activists and environmentalists. I can understand it, but I think it's also mistaken.

.
Whoa…Now you’re sounding like a certain much-in-the-news politician (who will remain nameless) in this country.
.
To borrow a familiar saying, I’m not demonizing humans. I’m just demonizing what they’re doing to the Earth and to the Earth’s other animal species. I’m just demonizing their effect.
-------------------------------------------------
As I was telling Noble Dust, I agree that humans have great potential.
.
And, sometimes, some humans actually live up to that potential, to some degree.
------------------------------------------------
In fact, living up to our potential as humans, that’s really what Dharma (in Vedanta usage) refers to.
.
In future, I’ll refer to the text between the dotted-lines, if anyone says that I deny the human potential.
.
Of course the problem is that, overall, humanity doesn’t, worth diddly-shit, live up to human potential.
.
So, you see, we don’t really disagree. We’re just talking about different things. I agree that there’s such a thing as great human potential.
.
And I guarantee that it will never be realized on a societal scale. Not ever. Not a chance.
.
We humans seem to have a need for unrealistic hope for this world.
.
I love this world as much as the next person, having been born into it like everyone else.
.
But we have to be realistic too.
.
Though I love this world, even some of its humans, it’s only one of infinitely-many possibility-worlds. It happens that we were all of us born into the Land of the Lost. Human society has always been the Land of the Lost, and it will always remain so.
.
This human societal world hasn’t got a chance. Accept it.
.
So we just do the best we can, in our own lives.
.
And yes, we should each try to live up to human potential, regardless of how few people do, or what the Joneses are doing, and regardless of where the world as a whole is going.
.
All of that’s quite irrelevant to our own individual Dharmic need and responsibility to ourselves and to Life, to, on our part, live up to human potential as best we can.
.
Michael Ossipoff

The problem is that you're beginning with the assumption that mass-extinction and rendering the Earth uninhabitable are bad states of affairs
[/quot]

Silly me! :D
— Noble Dust

, but the very consciousness you possess as a human being is the sole tool with which you've come to that conclusion. In other words, you're looking at only one side of what it means to be human.

Incorrect. Just because the many other animal species on this planet can't speak human language, doesn't mean that they like it when they or their young die prematurely. ...as many of them do when we destroy their habitat, by clearcutting, pollution, global-warming, etc.

Predatory animals routinely kill other animals? Sure. But we do it on a much bigger scale. An animal or its young might be killed by a carnivore, or might not. An animal or its young, or its descendants is much more likely to be killed by us, simply because we kill a lot more. We kill so many that we're perpetrating a mass-extinction.

The idea of us as the "shame" of the animal kingdom has no referent; shameful as opposed to what?

Compared to the other animals.

In reality what you're saying is that humanity should care for the earth, not destroy it, but your consciouss mind is what came to that conclusion

If the other animals spoke a human language, they'd tell you themselves, that they don't want themselves or their young to be killed by overhunting, clearcutting, pollution or climate-change.

...in other words, by us.

And, as I said, we kill more than the other predatory animals do, because we, not they, are currently perpetrating a mass-extinction.

, and your conscious mind is the very thing that actually sets humans at the top of the animal kingdom

Humans have great potential. As a species, we don't live up to that potential at all, and our effect on Earth's life is incomparably worse than that of other animals.

You seem to be confusing our potential with our actual deeds and effect.

.Wayfarer said:

As a matter of interest, are you aware of what biological reductionism is, who its proponents are, and who are its critics?
— Wayfarer

I said:

Not yet. Let me get back to you on that. — Michael Ossipoff

You'd be prudent to research that before further trying to expand on your ideas here.

Don't worry, i wont say a peep about biological reductionism till I find out what it is. :)

But no, regardless of what it means, its definition, whatever it may be, doesn't invalidate anything that I said. Labeling something doesn't refute, invalidate or contradict it.

So far, I've taken a look at a few articles that define biological reductionism, and (unsurprisingly) have found various definitions.

One article said that biological reductionism says that if ractial-minority students do more poorly on an exam, it must, and can only, be because of their different biological make-up.

If biological reductionism says that, then you can forget about trying to pin that label on me.

Some other articles say that biological reductionism merely holds that human affairs are the result of humans' biological makeup. Well what else? ...unless you're a Spiritualist. Are you a Spiritualist?

But I won't say more about it till I read more articles' definitions of it.

Michael Ossipoff

Just a brief follow-up to my other post to this topic:

For you, life is without meaning or purpose.

(...except for the things that you like.) :)

It's a statement without any validity or sincerity (or yes, meaning).

But what it does have is fashion.

Homo Sapiens, a social species, is a strongly fashion-driven animal.

Michael Ossipoff

But humans aren't as rational as they'd like to believe.

It's a big exaggeration to say that rationality characterizes humans.

While it's true that spiders can make webs, birds can fly, and so on, the rationality that characterises humans is not something of the same order as those attributes. — Wayfarer

"Here's an idea", said the giraffe, let's just say that the one with the longest neck gets all of the jellybuns."

(Roughly quoted from Kenneth Patchen)

So the thing that makes humans different, is of a different order to the biological. — Wayfarer

That I don't understand. Our entire construction is biological.

Are we completely different from the other animals, in regards to technology and science? Of course.

Are those still attributes of an animal? Of course. Do our special attributes give us unique environment-ruining capability? Sure.

As a matter of interest, are you aware of what biological reductionism is, who its proponents are, and who are its critics? — Wayfarer

Not yet. Let me get back to you on that.

Michael Ossipoff

So why shame? — Noble Dust

You're right. We should be proud of the fact that we're the rogue species that is perpetrating a mass-extinction, and in the process of rendering the Earth uninhabitable. :)

Michael Ossipoff

Ii wasn't going to say anything, but this subject comes up so often here that it seems worthwhile to give a general answer:

To all of you Materialists, Physicalists, "Naturalists", Science-Worshippers, Atheists, etc., who are ridden with existential angst and despair about your belief in life's meaninglessness and purposelessness:

Of course your angst and despair are an artifact of your above-listed beliefs.

I'm not saying that everyone with those beliefs expresses angst and despair about them, but significantly-many do.

Of course you have a right to cling to those beliefs.

Of course that means that you're clinging to your angst and despair.

But (can we be honest?) you enjoy it.

And it's your pass-word to admission in a philosophical or Scientificist elite.

Michael Ossipoff

But how is us being the "shame" of the animal kingdom related to what I said? — Noble Dust

Here's what you'd said:

I didn't mean to say that we're not animals. But we transcend that basic starting point.

I agree that we of course differ from the other animals. All the animals differ from eachother in various ways.

And we differ from the other animals in various ways. I was merely mentioning some of those ways in which we differ from the other animals--as you'd said that we do.

As I said, I was agreeing with you, and giving examples.

Michael Ossipoff

What does that mean and how does that relate to my comment? — Noble Dust

Ii was merely agreeing with you, and giving a few examples of ways in which we've shown ourselves different from the other animals.

Michael Ossipoff

I just want to add that, at no time did I disparage Bach, Einstein, or people who play the trumpet, or cartoonish pictures of Manhattan-Island.

What I said about our being the animal was in response to Spiritualist positions taken by some self-styled "Physicalists" (who are really Spiritualists), and other Spiritualists in these forums.

Some of the opinion expressed by the OP in a different topic had showed up in this topic. Here is something that was said in the original post at an only slightly different topic:

It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings. This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body. So "I" am not identical with my body and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul.

People here have said basically similar Spiritualist things.

Though it's from a different topic, let me comment on a few things said in that paragraph:

It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings.

No, what's self-evident is that that's exactly what we are. All of our experiences are entirely consistent with that.

This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body.

So you say, but you've merely defined yourself as something else.

So "I" am not identical with my body...

...by your definition of yourself as other than your body.

and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul.

See above.

And now, you can try to explain it to Spiritualist Searle and friends.

Michael Ossipoff

I didn't mean to say that we're not animals. But we transcend that basic starting point. See my comments here — Noble Dust

There are important considerations and standards by which humans are the shame of the animal kingdom.

Michael Ossipoff

H. Sapiens has abilities which demonstrably are absent in all animals. — Wayfarer

Birds and insects have a capability that is demonstrably absent in humans--the ability to fly without mechanical assistance.

Chameleons and octopi have a capability that is demonstrably absent in humans--the ability to change color.

No one here is disputing that humans, as well, are different from the other animals in some ways. Humans, too, do things that other animals can't do. Welcome to the animal kingdom.

For one thing, unlike the other animals, humans can perpetrate a mass-extinction among the other animals, and are in the process of doing so. ...and have the ability to render the Earth uninhabitable, and are in the process of doing that too.

Nobody here is disputing that humans are in some sense animals,

Wrong. Humans aren't merely "in some sense" animals. Humans are, in every regard, animals, and nothing more.

If you don't believe it, observe Wayfarer's expression of his animal instincts here. ...and they call that evolution? Maybe we shouldn't kid ourselves about how far we've come.

Every forum has someone whose behavior reminds us that we aren't as far from our simian ancestors as we might want to believe.
.

but that they are not merely or simply animals, on account of having such abilities as constructing buildings and composing symphonies (among many other things)

Different animals do different things.

That doesn't mean that some of them aren't animals.

And if that is a distinction that you're not able to recognise, then surely it is not worth wasting time on debating it. Just squeak, or grunt, or whatever animals do.

...or make angry noises to support an invalid claim.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial topic wasn't about whether we differ from the other animals in some way.

Michael Ossipoff

with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division — Michael Ossipoff

I meant multiplication and addition.

Michael Ossipoff