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

I meant multipl

It's such a huge list — Rich

Sorry, Rich, but a physical world is more complicated than you might like it to be. Such a system of inter-referring hypotheticals includes all sorts of them, including the kinds that I mentioned.

I must have mislunderstood you. I mistakenly thought that you wanted me to specify some of the kinds of facts that I was talking about.

Sorry that a physical world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

[quote
, Michael , if debatable premises
[/quote]

Is that intended as a sentence? Did you mean a huge list of debatable premises?

As i said, the whole thing rests entirely on "if"s.

No assumptions.

No brute-facts.

Surely you don't expect anyone to begin a separate discussion of each one?

Did I ask anyone to?

As I said before happy with your list.

That isn't a sentence either. I don't know what it means. But that's ok.

And don't worry if no one reads all of it

Suit yourself. You asked me to list some of the kinds of hypothetical inter-referring facts that i was referring to.

Michael Ossipoff

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system — Rich

I assumed that you were asking about assumptions, but, upon taking another look, your use of the word "facts" suggests that you were saying that the hypothetical facts that I referred to in the lines between the asterisks were brute facts.

So I'll comment a bit more on those, in answer to your question:

Something hypothetical certainly isn't brute. A hypothetical is the "if" clause of an "if" fact..

But what about the "if" fact itself. Well, of course sometimes an "if" fact is, itself, just the "if" clause of another "if" fact.

Of course an "if" fact could be brute, if it's taken as true without explanation. But, in the systems that I spoke of, facts that aren't pure "if" clauses are consequences of other facts. ...and it all rests on certain purely hypothetical "if"s, and on mathematical theorems and abstract always-true logical facts.

As I mention below, of course mathematical theorems, themselves, are just consequences of "ifs" such as number-system axioms, and geometry axioms.

But, in general, yes, an "if/then" is consequence of some combination of mathematical theorems and abstract always-true logical facts.

Valid mathematical theorems are true as a consequence of a hypothetical set of axioms, such as the axioms of a "field" such as the real number system, with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division.

But remember that there's no need for these systems to rest on anything more than "if"s, because no one's saying that they have any truth, existence or validity, outside their own context.

The whole system rests on "ifs", at its basis...not brute-facts.

Even the provable mathematical theorems are consequences of "if"s--the axioms of the number-system, or of geometry.

It's all based on "if"s.

It has no brute-facts.

What about physical-laws? They're hypothetical "if" facts about relations between hypothetical quantity values. They're part of the "if" clause of "if-then" statements. ...as are the quantity-values themselves.

Michael Ossipoff

There are literally nob facts. Just pieces of a puzzle that I've observed that sort of fit together. This is what I believe philosophy is all about. A detective game that is constantly uncovering new clues. As with some French philosophers, I am much more interested in discovering and understanding than I am with being right. — Rich

It isn't provable which metaphysics is right, and maybe the matter of simple animal-ness vs elaborate theories isn't provable either. It's always possible to come up with some elaborately, unnecessarily, complicated theory, tailored to fit the observations.

But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. I like simple suggestions that accord with observations, experiments and experience.

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component? — Michael Ossipoff
— Rich

Is this one of your brute-facts?

Well, "brute-fact" is a term that I use when comparing metaphysicses. Comparison of simple animal-ness with your extra-corporal holographic quantum-mind memory-repository isn't really an issue for which I'd use that term.

In a comparison of metaphysicses, yours vs Skepticism, then I speak of yours as having a brute-fact.

In a comparison of simple animal-ness vs your theory, I'd just say that simple animal-ness is a much simpler explanation, and the simplest explanation that fits observation, experiment and experience.

You have to describe all this is animal, all that is extra-corporeal, and I'll let you know what I think of this brute-fact.

Biology and natural-selection give us a pretty good description and explanation of the animal that we all are.

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable — Rich

I really can't address your idea until you unambiguously lost all of the brute-facts. There appear to be quite a bit based upon what I've read.

Alright, and feel free to specify them if and when you're ready to.

Michael Ossipoff

Let me add this:

simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely

It would be a very short list, because Skepticism doesn't rely on any assumptions at all.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind? — Michael Ossipoff


It's an idea, that all it is. — Rich

So is Skepticism. But your idea is an idea that calls for an explanation, and doesn't have one.

...a brute-fact.

And the reason I use it is because all the pieces of the puzzle fit nicely.

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component?

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit Skepticism, as I described it, in which your life-experience possibility-story is a system of inter-referring hypotheticals such as I described between two rows of asterisks?

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics...

It goes without saying that you're invited to.

..., simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system which you may share with others. My guess is you have very strong beliefs which is why you considered them facts.

No,that won't do.

I told why the system of inter-referring hypotheticals is inevitable.

Feel free to mention a specific statement or conclusion of mine, in that post, that is incorrect or unjustified (e.g. because it doesn't follow from its alleged justification). But tell why.

Otherwise, all that we're getting from you are vague, unspecified, referentless, unsupported angry-noises.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:
.
Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.
.
All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

A more unbiased summary of somebody else's view I've never read.

.
Shall I assume that that’s sarcasm?
.
If, by saying that what I said was unbiased, you meant that it’s biased, then in what sense was it biased? Unfair because I’m pre-judging those Physicalists, based on prior experiences and opinions, instead of fairly evaluating their claims?
.
But doesn’t that presume a knowledge of my motives, or how I arrived at that opinion.
.
For example, when you say that the mind “supervenes on” the brain, you’ve already assumed that there’s some separate entity, separate from the body, called the mind.
.
Maybe you were offended by my strong language, but I said it that way because I felt that it should be emphatically-said.
.
The class of Physicalists that I referred to are talking fiction.
.
Sorry if that’s offensive, but there’s no nicer way to say it.
.
If it isn’t said forcefully or emphatically, maybe some will miss the message.
.

Off-point of me to comment, but you seem to dislike similar assessments of your own views. Just sayin..

.
Nothin’ wrong with just sayin’ !
.
When there’s a general or vague criticism of things that I’ve said, I ask for (but never get) something a bit more specific.
.
Then should I better clarify what I mean about the Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists?
.
I’ll try:
.
They believe in Mind, as something separate and different from the body (needing to be explained in terms of the body by “superevenience”, “epiphenomena” or “emergent-properties”). Doesn’t that sound like Spiritualism? Was that really an unfair word?
.
No, those guys are just making it complicated, when it isn’t.
.
Their “Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness”:
.
“How could that material body, that piece of material, observed by a white-smocked scientist with a clipboard, have 1st-person experience? Inexplicable !!”
.
No, not really.
.
The animal is designed, by natural-selection, to maximize its survival and reproduction. Obviously that requires response to its surroundings, its environment. What would you expect that resultingly-necessary perception and analysis of the surroundings, and preferences, likes, fears, etc. to be like, for the animal. Is it any surprise that you have exactly that experience?
.
What point of view would you expect that to be from? Is it really surprising that you, an animal, have 1st-person experience.
.
Where’s the puzzle in that?
.
Forget about a mind that “supervenes on” the brain, or is an "emergent-property" of the brain. No need to hypothesize that fictional entity in the first place, and then struggle to explain it.

Each of us is just that animal, with its natural-selection-designed purposes, goals, preferences, likes and dislikes.
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, here's what there is:

.
******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts
...

.
You replied:
.

I cut most of the meat out, because the statement began with "there are" which is sort of my point.

.
You don’t like the use of “There are…” in:
.
“There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts…”
.
I used to always put “there” in quotes, when I said that a hypothetical fact is “there”. I wasn’t comfortable with saying that a hypothetical or abstract fact is there, because I felt that such expressions are undefined in metaphysics.
.
But Litewave pointed out that self-consistent facts, and consistent systems of facts exist in a meaningful sense, and that there’s no need to be uncomfortable about saying “There are” those facts.
.
Why don’t you like “There are…”?
.

The rest I actually kind of get, and approve more than you know, despite the fact that we seem to have built such different towers on such similar foundations.

.
What different conclusions did it lead you to?
.
I’d said:
.

It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?

.
Someone answered:
.

If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.

You replied:

Not so. If there were no facts, then the fact above simply would not be.

.
Yes, it would not be, because, as a fact, it would be forbidden by itself if it were true.

So it's a meaningless statement, like "Everything I say is a lie."
.

That's not even a paradox.
It has no frame in which it has meaning, so the potential truth of it doesn't exist either.

That's my take anyway.

Agreed.
.
I’m not calling it a paradox—only a statement that can’t be valid.
.
I have no objection to your wording. The point is that a statement “There are no facts” couldn’t be valid, and there’s no disagreement on that.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above?": — Michael Ossipoff

Rich says:
— Rich

Yes. They are a list of ambiguous terms...

A term's definition, or a statement, is ambiguous if it could have (at least) two meanings, and it isn't clear which of those meanings is intended.

If a term or word in what I said is ambiguous in that sense, then you should feel free to specify which word or term that is, and I'll define it more specifically.

Maybe what you meant was that I spoke in general terms, as do definitions of all metaphysicses

that describe a supposedly other list of ambiguous terms...

See above.

each of which would be a brute fact

Brute facts are facts that are unexplained. A fact that is inevitable isn't brute, because it's explained by its inevitability.

I told why the infinitely-many systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts are inevitable.

If you ask why they "are", I answer that they don't and needn't have any existence, applicability, reference or meaning outside of their own context, within a particular such inter-referring system.

The issue with your metaphysics is that it is a laundry list of ambiguous brute facts.

See above.

You want brute-facts?

Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Michael Ossipoff

Rich said:

"There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism". — Rich

You're right in that the term is used loosely and is but one category of beliefs.
— noAxioms

Yes, even within metaphysical Physicalism, there are several varieties of Physicalism, the most extreme (and clearly-stated, even if wrong) one of which is Eliminative Physicalism..

The way I've heard it distinguished (sometimes, not necessarily) is that Materialism involves what Ossipoff is denying: that material is fundamental, and that the existence of the material is thus some sort of what is being called a brute fact.

Yes.

Physicalism just say's we're physical things, that people are built of the material and nothing immaterial. It does not necessarily assert that the physical is fundamental, or even objectively existent.

Yes, that's science-of-mind Physicalism, as distinct from metaphysical Physicalism. I've heard Physicalism defined in both of those two ways. Those are two meanings for Physicalism.

How does metaphysical Physicalism differ from Materialism? It's merely an update of it, to include not just matter, but other physical entities like fields, the matter-waves of quantum-mechanics, etc.

Yes, science-of-mind Physicalism is just saying that we're physical, we're the body, and I, in a loose general way, agree with that.

But I doubt that I really agree with any of the versions of science-of-mind Physicalism:

Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:

Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.

All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash.

Eliminative Physicalists, as a type of philosophy-of-mind Physicalists, agree with me on that. Does that mean that they really agree with me? I doubt it, because they seem to take it a bit farther:

They seem to say that the experience, the point-of-view, of the animal is illusory and fictitious, and that the only valid point of view is the objective 3rd-person point-of-view of a Realist's world, in which there's no such thing as an animal's point of view.

That's ridiculous. I say that the animal's point-of-view is the only really valid one, because that's exactly what our life-experience possibility-stories are about.

I'd said:

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,.

— Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

Materialism would perhaps care to address that question, but your question assumes that there is something, physical or not. So how do you explain that there is whatever you assume there is?

Glad you asked.

Yes, here's what there is:

******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts relating hypothetical quantity-values (They're called "physical laws"), abstract logical facts, and mathematical theorems, and hypothetical if-then facts relating these various things..

...systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts.
******************************************
It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?

Someone answered:

If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.

Someone at these forums answered:

"Alright, then couldn't there be just one fact that says, 'There are no facts, except for the fact that there are no other facts

For one thing, that one peculiarly discriminatory fact would call for explanation, and, it seems to me, would qualify as a brute-fact.

Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above?

Do such systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts need justification or explanation?

I say they don't.

Look, these systems of inter-referring hypotheticals have no meaning or application except in reference to eachother. They don't have, or need, any existence, reality or meaning outside of their own inter-referring context.

Therefore, it would be meaningless to speak of some global fact "There are no facts, except the one fact that there are no facts" that would apply to the system in asterisks above. ...because that system neither has nor needs any existence outside of its own context, among the facts that are in that inter-referring system.

So that's why the infinitely-many inter-referring hypothetifal systems, whose description is enclosed in asterisks above, can, do, and must exist--each only in its own context.

They don't need explanation, because they're inevitable.

Each of our life-experience possibility-stories is such a system.

It seems to be a contingent truth

No, the existence of the inter-referring systems of hypothetical facts that are described above, in the passage that's enclosed in asterisks isn't contingent. It's inevitable. It's inevitable that there are infinitely-many such systems, including the one that is your own life-experience possibility-story.

Michael Ossipoff

Then share with us one piece of evidence that we're animals. — Noble Dust

Biology classifies us in the grouping "Animalia", because of our similarities and commonalities with other members of that grouping.

Of is it just a coincidence that have so much in common with other members of Animalia, anatomically, chemically and cellularly?

The evolution of humans from apes is thoroughly well-established, and is a virtually unanimous consensus in biology.

When I say that, however, I should emphasize that there's strongly-convincing evidence that there's a pig in our ancestry too--so that, though we're mostly of the order of Primates, we're also partly from the order Artiodactyla, the Even-Toes Hooved Mammals.

I believe that Eugene McCarthy is the name of the hybridicazion-specialist geneticist who has written about that. He has a large website that thoroughly discusses the convincing evidence for his claim, and answers objections to it. Search google for "Eugene McCarthy, Pig ancestry.", or somesuch combination.

(Yes, "Eugene McCarthy" was also the name of a politician.This is a different Eugene McCarthy.)

Michael Ossipoff

So, people playing trumpets, and a drawing of Manhattan Island are evidence that we aren't animals?

No, they're merely evidence that we're a type of animal that does some things that other animals don't do.

...as do most or all animals.

Michael Ossipoff

This is what you might call a brute fact. I would call a belief. — Rich

Certainly a brute-fact is a belief, for someone who believes in the metaphysics that posits that brute-fact.

There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical

Yes, and that the physical world exists independent of anything else, as the fundamental existent.

Michael Ossipoff


, but then again this is my POV of physicalism.[/quote]

Physicalism is a description of what can be measured physically. — Wayfarer

You're confusing Physicalism with Physics.

Physics seeks to describe this physical world, its workings, the interactions of its parts.

Phsyicalism is a metaphysics that says that this physical world is independently, fundamentally, existent. ...and is simply what is, and is all of reality.

Michael Ossipoff

.
I'd said
.

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,"

.
You replied:
.

Nothing explains that.

.
That's called a "brute-fact". As I said, Physicalism posits a brute-fact.
.

What makes you think it is explicable?

.
Well, for one thing, the fact that Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose) explains it.
.

You can hardly demand the answer to such a question that nothing can explain.

.
No, but you can ask and answer a question that nothing in Physicalism can explain.
.
I agree that the inexplicable-ness of the physical world is a basic tenet of Physicalism.
.
As I said, the metaphysics that I call "Skepticism" explains it.
.
Skepticism, as I said, doesn't need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute-fact(s).
.
I’d asked:
.

"Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?"

.
You replied:
.

Why do you think it is "independent". Independent of what exactly?

.
That would be a good question to ask of a Physicalist. You aren’t a Physicalist, are you.
.
According to Materialism or Physicalism, the physical world is independently, fundamentally existent, and comprises all of Reality.
.
You said:
.

Physicalism is a description of what [it says] is the case.

.
Every metaphysics, including Physicalism, is a description of what it says is the case.
.

There is no where you can stand outside of it to view it independently.

.
Maybe you’re confusing or conflating Physics with Physicalism.
.
Physics seeks to describe the physical world, is workings, the interactions among its parts.
.
Physicalism is a metaphysics that says that our physical world is independently, fundamentally existent. …that this physical world is simply what is, and comprises Reality.
.
“Independently” of what? Independently of anything at all.
.
I have no quarrel with physics.
.
Physicalism posits a brute-fact, and that’s a demerit for a metaphysics.
.

I think, once you have divested yourself of your disabling dualism…

.
And what Dualism might that be :)
.
I don’t advocate a Dualism. The metaphysics that I propose, Skepticism, is an Idealism.
.

…you might be better equipped to understand the questions you are asking.

.
No, I asked you only one question.
.
And it wasn’t a complicated question. I asked you how Physicalism explains the existence of the physical world, and you answered that it doesn’t and can’t.
.
I agree with your answer. You’re saying that the physical world is a brute-fact, in Physicalism, and I agree with that too.
.
Thank you.
.
I define Skepticism, my metaphysical proposal, in a topic entitled “A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics”, in the “Metaphysics and Epistemology” forum at this website.
.
Later in that topic-thread, I further discuss Skepticism, answering objections to it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

You are just underestimating the potential of material and energy to describe reality. Energised matter gives us physicalism and there is nothing that this will not ultimately explain. There is no other -ism capable of beginning to illuminate our existence. — charleton

Oh really.

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,

Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?

It's just a brute-fact, right?

That's the same as saying that Physicalism can't explain it.

The metaphysics that I propose, Skepticism, doesn't need or make any assumptions, or posit any brute fact(s).

Michael Ossipoff

It is just the inevitable outcome of a conversation where people know the truth but they are different truths. — Rich

Absolutely not. If you aren't an administrator, I won't ask you to read the discussion that would be needed to support this, but Thanatos was habitually insisting that I didn't show a conclusion that I set out to demonstrate.

Then, if that's so, there must be some error or fallacy among my statements and conclusions, in the posts to which Thanatos is referring.

But, when invited him to specify a particular statement or conclusion in my posts that contains that error or fallacy, he said, "No, you just didn't show it." But, if I claimed to show something, then there'd be a fallacy or false statement somewhere on the way to that conclusion, in my posts.

Obviously, it's too easy just say, "You didn't show it". How would someone answer that charge? A repetition of the discussion that I already posted? But that's already available to Thanatos, and wouldn't change anything. The answer, of course, is that, if someone says, "You didn't show it", and says that the burden isn't on him to show what's wrong with where you claimed to show it, then there's no way to answer that vague charge.

That's a common, definitive, troll-tactic. Repetition without any verification or justification.

Another typical, standard troll tactic is the habitual replying to something that wasn't said.

As someone else pointed out, there are only two possibilities:

1. Thanatos is a typical, incredibly-sloppy &/or dishonest troll.

2. Thanatos is sincere and honest, but he's quite delusional....delusional to a degree that's problematic to the decorum, order and integrity of the forum.

Either way, he's a detriment and a liability to the forum..

Michael Ossipoff

I think banning can only be done by administrators.

Without it, Ignoring is the only remedy that's available. But I couldn't resist suggesting that banning is called-for in this most blatant and undeniable troll-instance.

Michael Ossipoff

It's well to recognize a distinction between suicide and medically-justified auto-euthanasia or requested euthanasia.

If any individual feels that an injury or disease has spoiled hir (his/her) quality of life, then s/he should be able to get physician-assisted auto-euthanasia or requested euthanasia.

...and the judgement regarding whether or not that person's qualify of life has been unacceptably lowered should rest entirely with that person.

Michael Ossipoff

Ok, one last time.

When Thanatos would post something that could be considered a reasonable question, I'd decided to return to answering him. But that always turns out to be a bad idea, and just encourages a troll.

But I'll reply just this one last time:

I never said that reincarnation was ruled out by skepticism, again you misquote me like a troll. I showed the definitions of the word skepticism and how they are incompatible with reincarnation. — Thanatos Sand

Oh, excuse me, Your Troll-ness.

So you're saying that skepticism doesn't rule out reincarnation, but reincarnation is incompatible with skepticism. :)

Actually, you haven't shown that. You've merely been continually repeating it--not quite the same thing.

You, however still have failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, as you erroneously claim.

I discussed that in the Reincarnation topic. There, I told why and how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism (capital "S", the metaphysics that I propose.

Because Skepticism's rejection of assumptions perfectly matches the dictionary definition of skepticism, then yes, you could also say that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism (lower-case "s", the common noun).

Now, if Thanatos wants to say that I didn't really show that, how could I be expected to answer that claim? Should I repeat everything I said at the Reincarnation topic? No, more realistically, I just refer Thanatos to that discussion in that topic.

But if Thanatos wants to claim that, in that discussion in that topic, I didn't really show that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, then he needs to say where the error or mis-statement is, among my statements and conclusions in that topic. Surely there'd be at least one error or mis-statement, if Thanatos is right.

I addressed the matter. Any claim that there's something wrong with what I said needs to specify a particular fault or error in my statements or conclusions.

And then, having many-times repeated that I didn't show what I claimed to show, Thanatos takes it another step and says that he showed that the opposite is true.

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.

No, I'm not going to discuss religion with a troll.

But the matter of whether or not there's direct experiential evidence for reincarnation is irrelevant to the matter of whether it's consistent with Skepticism. (or skepticism).

As I've already explained (to no avail) to Thanatos, a belief or assumption would be unskeptical. But Skepticism doesn't make an assumption of reincarnation, or assert a belief in reincarnation.

And, as a matter of fact, there is evidence for reincarnation:

Reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, the uniquely parsimonious and skeptical metaphysics.

Why did I post to the Reincarnation topic?

There was obviously interest in reincarnation. So, for that reason, the fact that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism would count in Skepticism's favor, and might attract favorable attention to Skepticism.




I'd said:

As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.

But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.

His Troll-ness replies:

So, you agree reincarnation is not consistent with skepticism.

No, I said that a belief or assumption of reincarnation would be uin-skeptical.

At the Reincarnation topic, I've told how and why reincarnation is consistent with, and even implied by Skepticism. The metaphysics that I call Skepticism is skepticism itself.

So yes, reincarnation is consistent with skepticism.

I've been inviting you to specify what, in particular, was wrong with what i said at the Reincarnation topic, and I've been offering to answer any well-specified objection to a specified statement or conclusion.

I now withdraw that offer

Though I've repeatedly forgiven, and given Thanatos another chance, when he posted what could be construed as a reasonable question, the futility of answering that troll at all has become too evident to ignore.

No more replies to Troll Thanatos.

Michael Ossipoff

You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that. — John

Thanatos Sand is both of those things. I'd bet that even the most skeptical of the Greek Skeptics would unequivocally assert that.

The forum guidelines say that trolls will be banned. Thanatos Sand is the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll.

There's a widening consensus about that.

So why is he still allowed to post here?

Michael Ossipoff

the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation. — Thanatos Sand

You're confusing separate statements. Yes, a belief in, or an assumption of, reincarnation would be contrary to skepticism.

But no, you haven't shown that reincarnation, itself, is ruled out by skepticism.

("skepticism", with a lower-case "s", the common-noun)

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.

Thanatos is making assertions, unsupported ones, of course. But that's typical for Thanatos.
— Thanatos Sand

So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation

Translation of "supernatural": Not part of Physicalism.

No doubt you have your beliefs about what's "natural". I'll just guess that, for you, "nature" means "the physical world", and reality consists of the physical world.

...is not compatible with skepticism.

As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.

But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.

(...and that's what it would mean to say that they're incompatible)

Michael Ossipoff

Quite so. Though a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be inconsistent with skepticism, reincarnation, itself, isn't ruled-out by skepticism.

(And, here, I'm using "skepticism" with a lower-case "s", the common noun)

I've discussed, at the reincarnation topic, how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, the metaphysics that I propose.

Thanatos thinks that there's something lacking or incorrect in what I said in that discussion, but he can't quite say what it is.

So he's huffing, puffing, hissing, and making other angry-noises.

Michael Ossipoff

.
We all want to avoid suffering. Even more so than we want to chase pleasure (one must first attend to their broken arm before concentrating on feeling pleasure). Suffering is more negative than pleasure is positive. Consider, would you experience one hour of the worst suffering imaginable in return for one hour of the best pleasure? Suffering is the stronger of the two values.

.
So why not just suicide? Suicide will free you from all suffering, ever. You'll never suffer ever again.

.
You really believe that?
.
Even if you’re an Atheist and a Physiclist, and you’re sure of your Atheism and Physicalism, are you sure that suicide will free you from all suffering, and that [with suicide] you’ll never suffer again?
.
What was it Hamlet (from Shakespeare) said?:
.
”…to sleep, perchance to dream.
.
Aye, there’s the rub.”
.
Quite aside from evidently being too sure of your beliefs, you’re guessing about the end of life. Don’t be so sure that it’s as simplistic as you think, or that your guess about the resulting experience is reliable.
.

Suicide is a the ultimate pain reliever, better than heroin. And the good thing is that it doesn't even matter that you wont experience pleasure again - because this is a kind of suffering, and you are dead. The dead can't be deprived.

.
In several topics, I’ve posted this description of the end of lives:
.
Your body will be shutting down. But, at the extreme of that body-shutdown, you won’t have any idea that there was ever such a thing as a body. …or that there was ever such a thing as time, events, identity, problems, needs, insufficiency, incompletion, dangers, threats, suffering, hardship, etc.
.
Yes, that sounds pretty good.
.
It will arrive in its own time. …when it’s time for it.
.
…when someone has reached a (far away, for most of us) point at which there are, already, even in life, no more needs, and no more of the consequence-producing kind of involvement in life, or the un-exhausted consequences thereof.
.
At least it’s said that there are some people like that, and that every one of us will get there eventually. I can’t comment on that, because I only have 2nd-hand information about that claim that we’ll all get there.
.
But do you think that you can force it, by suicide? The only thing you’ll force is a really bad time for yourself.
.
…and that remains true even within the beliefs of Atheism and a Physicalism.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now, what follows is just my own explanatory suggestions, and you needn't agree with them:
.
I suggest that you're here in this life because you wanted or needed life. You'll be done with it when you're done with it. Suicide only produces a bad time.

Why were you born into this Land of the Lost? Like all of us who were born in this world, this birth is probably consistent with each of us having badly messed up, and having badly messed-up our lives.

That's just an explanatory suggestion. Disregard it if you want to.

In the first section of this post, I said things that don't depend on what your beliefs are.

Michael Ossipoff

Just one comment:

You keep quoting me as saying that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism (with a lower-case "s").

What I said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism (with an upper-case "s", because I'm referring to the metaphysics that I propose).

That's a misquote--a common troll-tactic.

But, as i already said, I emphasize that Skepticism is skepticism, as I showed earlier, from the dictionary definitions, so the misquote isn't so inaccurate.

But it's still a misquote. Your consistent use of the misquote-tactic shows your troll-intent.

Michael Ossipoff

I can only show what is wrong with it.. — Thanatos Sand

Feel free to, but only if you want to.

Michael Ossipoff

reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, — Thanatos Sand

Well, what i said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.

But since Skepticism is skepticism, then it could be said that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism too.

Look, I'm not interested in trying to convince you about that. I've already said what i meant to say, and I'm willing to answer you if you have a specific disagreement with a specific quote.

If not, I assure you that that's fine too.

I'd say that we're done here, and that this conversation has reached its end.

Michael Ossipoff

I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. — Thanatos Sand

Thank you for your honesty.

Michael Ossipoff

No, you haven't just had your say, you've completely failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. And you fail to do so again. — Thanatos Sand

No, let's not imply that I refuse to answer you. If you want to quote a particular statement or conclusion of mine, quoted from a post of mine on reincarnation, and if you tell us exactly what you think is wrong with that statement or conclusion, then I'll be glad to answer you.

But, if not, that's fine too, because, as I said, I've had my say about reincarnation, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

Someone started a topic in which people were talking about how there could be reincarnation. I decided to add my comments to that discussion.

Michael Ossipoff

You're free, however to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism any time. — Thanatos Sand

As I said, I've had my say about that, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

Michael Ossipoff

And reincarnation isn't consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism — Thanatos Sand

Suit yourself. I've had my say on that matter, and you're of course free to reach your own conclusions.

But that question doesn't bear on the fact that Skepticism is skeptical, and is skepticism itself, by that word's dictionary definition.

Michael Ossipoff

Then your metaphysics is no longer a perfect fit for definition #1, since reincarnation would rest upon assumptions. — Thanatos Sand

Sorry, but reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.

All I said was that reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism.

But, as I said, reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.

You're grasping at straws.

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

"My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

--Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No, it is not, because--as everyone can see--your definition is much narrower than number 1, since you limit it to "brute-facts." Definition #1 does not.

Incorrect. I don't limit "it" to brute-facts. I said, "assumptions and brute-facts".

Because it was obvious that you'd pounce on "brute-facts", because that term isn't found in the dictionary definition of skepticism, I clarified that brute-facts are assumptions, whose avoidance suits the dictionary definition of skepticism.

That's irrelevant since brute-facts arent' the only things mentioned in that definition. So, you are wrong to limit it to them. So, I was right to pounce on it and show you were/are wrong. — Thanatos Sand

See above.

Your only argument that my metaphysics isn't skeptical, depends on your seizing-upon "brute-facts".

With that argument answered, you have no argument against my statement that the metaphysics that I call Skepticism, is skeptical, and is skepticism itslef...as that word is defined in the dictionary.

Michael Ossipoff

Speaking for myself, I'm not a Naturalist (...which is basically a euphemism for "Physicalist" or "Materialist"), or an Atheist.

Metaphysically, I'm an Idealist.

Michael Ossipoff

I found what I was left with was a mildly depressed feeling (unpleasant, but not unbearable), seemingly based on thoughts of mortality, pointlessness of life, and lack of meaning. — CasKev

But what meaning would you expect there to be? What meaning need there be? There are things you like. What more meaning could be expected or needed?

Vedanta refers to worldly-life, and its fundamental purpose, as "Lila", or play. That's meaning and purpose enough.

-------------------------------------------
Primarily: You do things that you like.

No matter what anyone claims, that's what we're here for.

(With the caveat: "...without harming others, or being dishonest with yourself".).
---------------------------------------------
That's a lot of meaning, and all that's needed. Those two things are two of Vedanta's and Hinduism's Purusharthas (life-purposes). (Kama and Dharma).

That caveat, which amounts to Dharma, is what distinguishes you from a selfish hedonist.

Recently, I came across some writings by Peter Wessel Zapffe, that seemed to ring true with my current core beliefs. What I got from it was that humans are basically animals

That's all that we are.

with highly evolved intelligence and consciousness, who develop coping mechanisms - mainly rejection of negative thought, anchoring on items or ideas of importance, and distraction - to deal with the absurdity of life.

That "absurdity" is a problem to some Western philosophers and gloomy writers. Some Atheists, lacking the support, "meaning" and "purpose" that some people get from the official, organized Western fundamentalist religious denominations, feel lost and without meaning.

See above.

In the absence or rejection of such coping mechanisms, one can end up over-thinking life, and searching for meaning where no such meaning exists.

Over-thinking life is a good description of what comes from many Western philosophers and other writers, who make a nonexistent problem and issue about "meaning".

My hope is that the same 'over-evolved' brain that finds despair in lack of meaning

That "lack of meaning" is a fictitious problem invented by some Atheists who feel that life is meaningless without formal, official, dogmatic fundamentalist Western religion.

Such writers find despair in their alleged lack of meaning, but that's just them. Leave them to their lack of meaning. It's only theirs.

... can move past this dilemma in a positive way. Perhaps if I can accept that life has no great purpose

...other than Lila.

(or none that will be undeniably proven during my lifetime), I can be content with focusing on satisfying what seem to be our basic instinctive needs - food, shelter, family, community, love, freedom from pain, etc.

Those coincide with some of the other Purusharthas:

Food, shelter, freedom from pain, come under the purushartha called "Artha", or "getting-by". It isn't the primary purpose, but of course is still necessary.

Love, and being there for your family, spouse, significant-other, and best-friends, comes under the category of Dharma.

Dharma can be extended to a larger community, but I hesitate to make that inclusion, because it can be questionable. For example, it seems to me that there isn't anything at all that we can do to save society, and so we aren't responsibility for its dive into the toilet.

Michael Ossipoff

"I fully defined and described Skepticism."--Michael Ossipoff

No, you took the word "skepticism," which already has established definitions, and you arbitrarily attached your made-up definition to it. — Thanatos Sand

No. You were saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that I call Skepticism. Here's what you said:

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so. — Thanatos Sand

In that paragraph, you aren't arguing about the propriety of my use of a word. You're saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that i call Skepticism.

I defined it thoroughly.

The correctness of my name "Skepticism" is a separate issue, and one that i addressed in my post immediately before this one.

Michael Ossipoff

"Rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-factsis skepticism, by the usual dictionary definition."--Michael Ossipoff

No, it's not; It's your arbitrary made-up definition of it. Here are the standard definitions of skepticism and they are not the same as yours.

"1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object — Thanatos Sand

First, let me explain to you that, to fit a word's definition, a meaning doesn't have to fit all of a dictionary's definitions of that word. It only needs to fit one of them.

My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

And what does "incredulity" mean?

"The quality of being incredulous".

What does "incredulous" mean?

"Unwilling to accept what is offered as true. Not credulous."

What does "credulous" mean?

"Ready to believe, especially on slight or uncertain evidence"

Now, when I mention "brute-facts", you can pounce on that, as not mentioned in the definition of skepticism.

But a brute-fact is obviously someting offered to be true, something that people are asked to believe with no evidence whatsoever (look at the definition of "credulous").

What does "assumption" mean?

"In Merriam Webster, the dictionary you quoted, an assumption is a taking for granted that something is true.

Houghton-Mifflin defines "assumption" as:

"Something taken to be true without proof or demonstration."

Obviously a "brute-fact" is well within the meaning of "assumption".

My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions.

In other words, my metaphysics is unwilling to accept what other metaphysicses offer as true without demonstration of proof. ...It is characterized by an unwillingness to believe without evidence.

In other words, the metaphysics that i call "Skepticism" is skepticism, by that word's dictionary definition. ...as I said.

Michael Ossipoff

But i'll say one more thing now:

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so. — Thanatos Sand

I fully defined and described Skepticism.

...in the my initial post about it, and in subsequent posts.

But i welcome questions and objections. Specific ones only, please.

Michael Ossipoff

I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." — Thanatos Sand

No, it isn't.

The word "skepticism" is defined in every dictionary.

My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions and brute-facts.

Rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-factsis skepticism, by the usual dictionary definition.

No, the ancient Greek philosophers didn't have a monopoly on that word. It's in every dictionary, and my metaphysics is skepticism, as that word is defined in dictionaries.

This is a brief answer, just for now.

Maybe, when I re-read your post tomorrow, I'll find more to reply to, and will have time to do so.

(Right now, I don't have time to write more)

Michael Ossipoff

Why?

I answered that question in another post today.

Two great social-scientists, P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields, have the answer to that question:

P.T. Barnum said that there's sucker born every minute.

W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."

Between them, those two experts explain society and the way it is (and always will be).

-------------------------------

Why are our world's people like that?

I suggest that natural-selection created a large class of suckers, because a two-tiered system of sheep and herders was adaptive (at least in prehistoric times).

The sheep (suckers) are matched to their herders like a glove to a hand. It's uncanily like Huxeley's "Brave New Worldl", except that there's nothing new about it. ...and, where, in the novel, it was done by drugging, in real life, it was done by natural selection.

Yes, we have a lot to thank evolution, natural-selection for. But it just happens that it resulted in a population of sheep. ...suckers.

Get used to it. Accept it.

------------------------------------------

But need things have been like that?

I don't know. It could be argued that any social species is likely to end up like that, due to conditions during its early evolution.

But the Eastern religious/philosophical traditions say that there's a wide variety of worlds in which people are born--some like ours, some a lot better, and no doubt some that are worse.

Maybe we were all born into the Land of the Lost because that was what we were (for some reason) deserving of, good for, or inclined toward in some way.

I don't know.

I'd like to add that it seems to me that, if there's reincarnation, past-lives are indeterminate. This life doesn't need an explanation, in terms of a past life. Each life, such as this one, is free-standing and independent, without need of any past-life origin or explanation.

But nevertheless, if there's reincnarnation, then, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there are likely to be life possibility-stories that would lead to this life, as their next one.

I realize that reincarnation isn't a universally-accepted fact. But this discussion of possible explanations for how things are led to it.

I mention reincarnation because I wanted to mention various explanations for how things are in this world. ...and a possible explanation for all of us being born in the Land of the Lost.

Michael Ossipoff

It would take a long time to find the post, but earlier in this topic, someone asked what it is that carries through to the next life in reincarnation.

Obviously, without continuity of experience, there'd be no reincarnation.

Additionally, all suggestions about reincarnation include the suggestion that some basic, deep attributes, inclinations, attitudes remain.

Yes, some suggest that detailed memories of specific events in a past life can be remembered. Fewer people agree with that suggestion.

This post isn't intended to express advocacy of a position. ...just to clarify what reincarnation would entail, as regards what carries through to the next life.

By the way, how would your basic and deep attributes, tendencies and inclinations affect your next life, in the reincarnation-mode that I've suggested?

Well, for one thing:

Whatever such deep, basic tendencies and inclinations you have, they could be heriditary. Therefore, aren't there more life-experience possibility-stories--or might there not be a better-matched one--in which you inherited those deep, basic attributes?

That could remain so, even if your ingrained attributes are, in this life, the result of habitual behavior instead of heredity.

As I mentioned, it's said that:

What you are is what you get.

If you're like that, that could imply that your parents, and maybe even the society at large, is like that.

And, if such a new life-experience possibility-story is favored, by your deep and basic attributes, then
they influence the world that you'll be born into.

You might say that your next parentage would be particularly, directly affected. But isn't the character and quality of your parents particularly important, as an environmental factor in your chances in life?

(I could testify to that :) )

I'm not saying that that's the only way that your vasanas influence your next life. I only meant to name one possible effect.

Michael Ossipoff

I hasten to emphasize that I'm not calling everyone I've communicated with here "trolls".

Far from it!

Most people where are serious and sincere about what they're discussing.

When I say "trolls", I'm specifically only referring to the few people whom I've explicitly referred to as such in my postings.

Michael Ossipoff