"But, even just on principle, given that the Sun is the origin of the Earth and us, and given that, in our sky every day, it's the energy-source for Earth's life, isn't there something offensive and objectionable about throwing our garbage into it, or even doing investigative flybys through the solar corona?" — Michael Ossipoff


I don't see why we should view the Sun as sacred. — darthbarracuda

It's just the energy-source, immediate physical origin, and immediate physical reason for for Earth's life.

We aren't throwing garbage into it, we are putting a satellite into orbit that will eventually be consumed by the Sun.

:D

Perhaps this satellite will return useful data that will save lives.

Thanks,but I'll take my chances without it. :)

Who knows. I highly doubt NASA is just half-assing it and assuming the probe isn't going to screw something up with the Sun.

Oh really. The justification for doing the experiment is that the scientists don't know what's going on in the solar corona or how it works. As I said before, when you don't know how something works, then you can't validly make assurances.

It's like putting flags on the top of the Himalayas. Long after humanity has gone, the flags will flap away and the mountains will stand on the own once more. If you think about it, the elements used to create the probe came from stellar explosions in the past. The elements are just being returned back to where they came from in some sense.

Yes, I said that in my initial post of this topic.

...and I answered it. I compactly repeated those answers in today's reply to NoAxioms.

Michael Ossipoff

Sorry but this is trivial, comparable to concern about scratching yourself in the presence of oxygen-producing green plants since it will contaminate them with dead skin cells. :) — Joseph

Well, maybes there's a difference.

You have some plants. You do an experiment on them--an experiment that is unlikely to harm them.

But the plants die as a result.

So you buy more plants.

See the difference?

The sun is not the origin of Earth or other planets. They're all from a different star, which is what it means to be a second generation system. — noAxioms

Not from a single different star, but rather from materials ejected from a number of supernovae.

As I read it, at least, the heavier elements were formed in supernovae. So yes, the Sun is a later-generation star, comprised partly of material from supernovae.

But that doesn't mean that the Sun isn't the origin of the Earth. Let's examine what "origin" means. It could mean "immediate origin", or "ultimate origin", or something in between.

For example, you could say that the more recent supernovae that provided some material for the Sun's formation were, themselves, composed partly of material from previous supernovae. So the "origin" goes even farther back.

You could say that the Earth's origin is really the mass of gas that eventually formed our galaxy.

You could say that the Earth's origin was the Big-Bang, which could be called the physical "origin" of this universe.

...unless this universe is just a sub-universe of a larger multiverse. ..in which case that multiverse is the physical origin of the Earth.

But the origin and nature of all of that is (I suggest) a hypothetical system of abstract facts and hypothetical facts, and other if-then facts that relate them.

...and that neither has nor needs an "origin", or an external context or medium in which to "be".

But, with the understanding that many differrent origins an be spoken of, it's perfectly correct to call an immediate origin the origin. ...to refer to the Sun as the origin of the Earth.

The probe falling into the sun puts a bit of heavy metals into it to trivially add to the collection it already has. I can't see how this is offensive no matter the spin put on it.

Yes, here's what I said about that.

I'm not saying that the probe is going to result in an "Oops!!" moment. It probably won't. But is "probably" good enough, when we're talking about the source of energy for Earth's life? — Michael Ossipoff

Maybe, even probably, the Sun will be unaffected. You could argue that all of the solar-system's matter originated in the Sun anyway, and that the probe is quite small in comparison to the sun.

But the motivation for the experiment is that little is known about the corona in particular, and about the Sun in general. And, if little is known, that means that things can't be predicted or assured with certainty.

The Sun probably won't be affected? Sure. But is probably good enough, when it involves the energy-source on which Earth's life depends? — Michael Ossipoff

I'm saying that it's objectionable and offensive as a matter of principle — Michael Ossipoff

But, even just on principle, given that the Sun is the origin of the Earth and us, and given that, in our sky every day, it's the energy-source for Earth's life, isn't there something offensive and objectionable about throwing our garbage into it, or even doing investigative flybys through the solar corona? — Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

I heard some discussion about the ambitions for this probe. Apparently the corona (not a beer) is much hotter than the surface of the sun itself, and scientists do not know exactly why this is the case. They hope to gather some information. — Metaphysician

Yes, and they also want to find out details of how the solar-wind is accelerated.

Michael Ossipoff

In that life, as hypothetical as your previous one, there’s no memory or indication that there was ever a different life. — Michael Ossipoff


There is memory. It is called inherited, innate, instinctual traits or unaccountable skills (idiot savants, prodigies, etc.). — Rich

Even those people don't remember a previous life.

Possibly their remarkably early abilities are consistent wlth attitudes, general approaches to life, general inclinations, that remained present among their Vasanas.

Michael Ossipoff

In an earlier post, you'd said:

I thought I said this earlier. Determinism is a popular position in academia where the mind is seen as almost irrelevant and consciousness epiphenomenal.

.
Philosophy of mind is garbage. …fiction.
.
What is “the mind”? It’s a figure-of-speech used to describe an aspect of a person distinct from his/her physically-measurable properties such as height, weight, physical strength, running-speed, etc.
.
Some philosophers want to reify it.
.
You’re the animal. Period. Full stop.
.
Some philosophers seem to believe in a metaphysical substance that they all “mind”. Yes, Physicalists insist that they don’t believe in it, but then they sputteringly fall all over eachother trying to explain away what they say they don’t believe in, by such mystical mumbo-jumbo as “epiphenomena”, “emergent-properties”, and “supervenience”.
.
It's worth saying again:

You’re the animal. Period.
.
No special metaphysical substance, or epiphenomena, emergent-properties, or supervenience needed.
.
No need to make it difficult or complicated…unless you like to, of course.
.
Those philosophers get themselves all snarled-up quite unnecessarily.
.
But let’s be fair: They have a good reason to do so:
.
A little imperative called “Publish-Or-Perish”.
.
Yes, you know what I’m referring to.
.
Without making it complicated, without pretending to be all fnurled-up, academic philosophers wouldn’t have as much to publish about (so as to not perish).

You said:

We know that we have vivid private experiences but these are not seen in the brain and there is no real explanation as how they emerge from the brain if they do. — Andrew4Handel

What utter nonsense.

The animal (that's you) has to be designed to do things.

The animal (as shaped by natural-selection) has places to go, and things to do.

In furtherance of its natural-selected reproductive imperative (which necessarily includes survival, and successful rearing of offspring), it of course has to respond to its surroundings.

You're a purposefully-responsive device.

So are other animals.

So are mousetraps, refrigerator-light-switches, and thermostats.

An animal's response to its surroundings is, of course based on those surroundings, so a detection of those surroundings, which we call "perception" is an integral part of that response.

In addition to detection (perception) of course the animal has built-in preferences, likes, dislikes, wants and fears, etc. And, of course, in addition to those built-in attributes, there are adaptably-acquired ones that are based both built-in attributes, past experience, and perception.

Detection, designed-preference, including evaluative-feelings,,and built-in (instinctive) or acquired knowledge of technique to that implement that preference, together, are response.

That's just what all animal are, including all of us animals at this forum.

Now, Andrew4Handel, what would you expect it to be like to be an animal with those perceptions, preferences, feelings, etc.

Don't you have all of those? Don't you have preferences and evaluative feelings, and choose what to do based on your preferences (inborn and acquired by adaption to environment based on your built-in attributes?

What's surprising about that? What needs explaining by silly fictitious mystical mumbo-jumbo?

You're the animal.

You're a purposefully-responsive device.

Period.

Michael Ossipoff



.

A few more comments, to answer possible arguments about my suggested reincarnation-mode:
.
There might be some reluctance to accept that, in a stage of death, a mere hypothetical story could be a subsequent life.
.
But I’ve been saying that the previous life was nothing other than a hypothetical story too.
.
When you’re so shut-down that you don’t even remember that you're ending had a life, then being at the beginning of a life is no more implausible than being at the end of a life. More plausible, really, given your inclinations and future-orientateion..
.
Due to your Vasanas, your subconscious tendencies, inclinations, feelings, and—in particular—your natural deeply-built-in future-oriention, a story in which you’re beginning a life is what would feel plausible to your feelings. That’s the story that is about the you that has the subconscious feelings, tendencies, inclinations and future-orientation that you have. …the Vasanas that are all that remain of you.
.
In the Dali Lama’s wording, that propels you into a next life.

In my wording, being at the beginning of a life is what’s plausible to your feelings. And a life that's beginning is the story that’s about the you who has the Vasanas that i named above.
.
In that life, as hypothetical as your previous one, there’s no memory or indication that there was ever a different life. Who’s to say that this isn’t your life?
.
Not only is reincarnation consistent with Skepticism—It’s evidently implied by Skepticism.
.
If the reason for this life-experience story (even if in modified form) remains at the end of this life (and it usually does), then there is a life-experience story about you then, just as there is now.
.
Michael Ossipoff

...or that the same dog must be able to be both a junkyard-guard and a sled-puller.

Michael Ossipoff

But no one's saying that the same individual can be both a friend and a foe.

The proposition is just that, if a fool is a friend, then s/he's a more desirable friend than non-fools.

...and that if a fool is an enemy, then s/he's a more desirable enemy than non-fools.

A dog makes a better junk-yard guard than does a snail.

A dog makes a better sled-puller than does a snail.

That doesn't imply that every dog is both a junk-yard guard and a sled-puller.

Michael Ossipoff

Isn't this just a case of incinerating the garbage? Why don't we load all the nuclear weapons into that incinerator as well? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because we need them to dominate the world.

But, aside from that, let me be the first to break the news that the Sun has importance more than just its ability to incinerate garbage.

So, picture it, Metaphysical Underground, you go outside, your face warmed by the Sun, and you say, "Ah yes, the dumping-place for our garbage, and the subject of our intrusive experiments!"

Michael Ossipoff

Does the Sun care what gets tossed into it? — darthbarracuda

Maybe, even probably, the Sun will be unaffected. You could argue that all of the solar-system's matter originated in the Sun anyway, and that the probe is quite small in comparison to the sun.

But the motivation for the experiment is that little is known about the corona in particular, and about the Sun in general. And, if little is known, that means that things can't be predicted or assured with certainty.

The Sun probably won't be affected? Sure. But is probably good enough, when it involves the energy-source on which Earth's life depends?

But, even just on principle, given that the Sun is the origin of the Earth and us, and given that, in our sky every day, it's the energy-source for Earth's life, isn't there something offensive and objectionable about throwing our garbage into it, or even doing investigative flybys through the solar corona?

(which, it seems to me, the articles spoke of as extending out to the probe's 5-solar-diameter close-approach distance).

The Parker probe takes environmental abuse to its extreme.

Michael Ossipoff

...and their heritable attributes and traits are better represented in the population.

Michael Ossipoff

There is always magic in science's explanation for mind. This the magic:

Some supernatural force called Selection... (which is apparently obsessed with surviving) — Rich

Yes, for some inexplicable supernatural, magical reason, individuals that survive long enough to reproduce seem to have more offspring. :D

And, for some inexplicable supernatural, magical reason, individuals that have more offspring are better-represented in the population.

Go figure!

Michael Ossipoff

I should add that, when I first heard about the probe plan, and the article spoke of skimming the sun, it sounded like a closer approach than 5 solar diameters. So my first impression exaggerated the amount of energy and speed that the craft would lose in each passage.

With the closest approach being 5 solar diameters, I don't know how long it would take for the craft to lose enough energy and speed to fall into the sun. Maybe it would take a long time.

But my objection is mostly on principle...though I can't say that I'm not at least a little concerned about "Oops!!".

Michael Ossipoff

I'm not trying to create a philosophical system. I'm trying to explore the nature of nature wherever it leads me. We have different motivations. — Rich

Yes, I was talking about metaphysics. We don't disagree because, as you said, we're talking about different matters.

So far, it seems that it one starts with mind as being fundamental it explains a lot [...] The prerequisite is to allow for mind before matter.

"Me" as fundamental would make a lot more sense than matter as fundamental.

I'm close to saying that, when I say that "Me", the Protagonist is primary and central to a life-experience possibility-story."

"Me" is primary in my life-experience story, but, additionally "Me" and my world are part complementary to eachother, like the heads and tails sides of a coin. ...together comprising a system that is inevitable, for a metaphysics with no unanswered "Why is there..." question. No brute fact at all.

(...but I'm still the central, special, essential, primary component of my life-experience possibility-story)

But if you aren't proposing a metaphysics, then we have no disagreement.

Michael Ossipoff

So quantum potential is explained if there's Mind.

You could say, "There's Mind, the Experiencer, because Reality wouldn't be meaningful to speak of without an Experiencer.

So, as I understand you, you're saying that it comes down to "Me" as the brute-fact.

I used to say that, when I was arguing for Advaita.

But Skepticism goes one better, and doesn't leave any "Why is there..." question unanswered.

Yes, as brute-facts go, "Me" is the most justifiable brute-fact. ...in a class by itself, in that regard..

But Skepticism goes one better, and doesn't leave any "Why is there..." question unanswered.

Even "Me" needn't be posited as a brute-fact. "Me" goes with other facts that are self-evident and inevitable, in Skepticism.

"Me" fits in with those inevitable facts (the system of hypotheticals described in other postings). In fact "Me" is primary to the other elements of a life-experience story, because the Protagonist is the essential and central component of such a story.

But, as "Me" fits in with that inevitable system, it isn't necessary to say that "Me' is brute.

That's neater..

Let me guess: You don't know what I'm talking about.

Then just understand that I recognize some acceptability of declaring "Me" as a brute-fact, though it isn't necessary to say that in Skepticism.

Michael Ossipoff

You are asking why it's there Mind? Mind it's the beginning and still exists and easy to find in all of us. — Rich

I'm not denying that it exists, or asking you to prove that it exists. I'm asking you why the Bohm quantum potential exists.

You'll say you don't know what I'm talking about, so i won't repeat it, but I've spoken of the primacy of the Protagonist of life-experience possibility-stories.

Be clear about this (!!): I'm not asking you to understand what I'm talking about in that paragraph before this one.. I'm just mentioning that I, myself, have spoken of the primacy of the experiencer.

But (with the understanding that I'm not asking you for proof of the mind's existence), why is there the Bohm quantum potential?

Skepticism doesn't leave the question of "Why is there mind?" ...or any "Why" question..

Michael Ossipoff

Why is there Bohm's quantum potential?

Michael Ossipoff

Very, very brief description.

Mind is quanta. The universe is quanta. Memory is quanta in holographic form. Mind is evolving by creative experimentation and learning. — Rich

Why are there the quanta that compose the mind, the universe?

Michael Ossipoff

Well, I asked a simple enough question. I'll repeat it:

Why is there the un-embodied holographic universal memory-repository that you believe in?

Which part of that question don't you understand?

Your refusal to answer indicates that you can't explain that entity that you believe in and advocate, and that you believe in and advocate a brute-fact.

Therefore, your refusal to answer is, itself, an answer.

Thank you for that answer.

Michael Ossipoff

One more comment:

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about — Rich

You brought up religion, your belief in a Creator. I answered about religion, basically stating something that i didn't agree with you about.

I said that your use of Dao amounts to a use of God to explain the creation of what is. ...and that I don't.

if that's what you don't understand, that's ok.

I said that I don't regard God as an element of metaphysics.

Ok, I can't say that I expected you to understand exactly what I was talking about. My object wasn't to convey religious understanding, but only to say something about where I disagree with you--without expecting you to understand the specifics,

Suffice to say that you 're using Dao or God metaphysicallly, as the Creator of what is. I don't.

No, of course, don't expect to understand other people's statements about religion. I didn't mention it with that purpose.

Oh, and by the way:

Why is there that un-embodied holographic universal memory-repository that you believe in?

Or do you not understand that either?

If not, then, as I already just asked: Which part of that question don't you understan?

Michael Ossipoff

As best as I can tell, you have no idea what I'm talking about. — Rich

But yes, you're right about that.

Michael Ossipoff

As best as I can tell, you have no idea what I'm talking about. — Rich

Yes, you already said that, and I answered it.

Or are you saying that you also don't understand the question:

"Why is there the un-embodied holographic memory-repository that you believe in?"

Which part of that question don't you understand?

As I mentioned, I suggest that you don't answer it because you don't want to admit that you believe in and advocate a brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, but with that said you have no idea what I'm talking about so I guess we are even. — Rich

The difference is that I've told specifically what I find wrong with what you say. ...whereas you just make vague generalizations like the above-quoted one.

Another difference is that I've made an effort to justify my proposals and other statements.

I asked you why there is the out-of-bodies (extra-spatial too?) distributed holographic memory-repository that you believe in.

You didn't answer.

...because you didn't want to admit that you believe in and advocate a brute-fact.

So, can you answer that question now, or do you continue to evade it?

Michael Ossipoff

I know viewpoints may vary here. Depends a lot on worldview, attitude, and strategic thinking. Anyway let me present, what to me appears peculiar, a case. I'll then present my views and you can comment.

Scenario 1

Which do you prefer as a friend?
1. A fool
2. A genius

I'd choose the genius.
— TheMadFool

A genius can be good company, someone to learn from but, a big but, it's not wise to be with people who're too smart

Why not?

(think superintelligent aliens).

What do you have against superintelligent aliens?

(...other than that there probably aren't any.)

A fool on the other hand will have no deliberate intentions to harm you and will be good fun to be with - a friend, in other words.

If you're in love with her, there's no reason why there couldn't be a genuinely, fully good, two-sided mutual relationship.

Aside from that, of course there are many activities that can be shared with anyone who is pleasant. And yes, the people you're referring to wouldn't have lots of the kinds of personality-defects that others can, and often do, have.

Often it's the complex devices that go haywire.

For example, a cat or dog won't have all the tiresome psychological problems that would put you off from many or most humans.

But, if you think that all fools are good company, then I suggest that you visit the Reincarnation topic at these forums.

Scenario 2

Which do you prefer as an enemy?
1. A fool
2. A genius

The fool, of course.

Obviously, not a genius. He's to smart and will outmaneuver you and beat you. So, again a fool is preferable - as an enemy. You can beat him easily.

...or evade him.

But...

This is paradoxical. A fool suits both as a friend and as an enemy.

How do you solve this paradox?

Even if true, it wouldn't be paradoxical. Fools could just be better. But, in general, as a friend, the genius would be more interesting company, and more helpful, in various ways, including as someone from whom you can learn more.

(But we learn important things from our pets. I used to walk our dog, and that dog (choosing the routes) taught me about the outdoors and the exploration of places. And many people report having learned important things from animals.)

Michael Ossipoff

Who were those two people? I haven't heard of them, and I don't know why they killed themseves. ...what their circumstances were.

No, suicide isn't immoral if, in the view of the person in question, it's called-for by an illness, disease or injury that the person in question regards as spoiling their quality-of-life.

But, then, I don't call it "suicide" in general. I call it justified, needed, auto-euthanasia.

I advocate medically-assisted euthanasia for anyone who wants it due to a disease, illness, or injury that the person in question regards as unacceptably lowering their quality-of-life.

Familly-members, friends, and loved-ones need to recognize that person's right to make hir (his/her) own choices regarding life-choices, and quality-of-life.

Suicide without a good reason, such as I described, is a big mistake.

But teen-suicide--while it's a mistake too, and while it should be strongly advised-against, and while its potential causes addressed and corrected--probably doesn't have the adverse-consequences of suicide as an (uninjured, un-diseased) adult. ...because it happens at a time when the person is overwhelmed by changing conditions and is easily lost, and less responsible for the mistake.

Michael Ossipoff

No, you're saying more than that. According to your belief, no only did the mind start that process of evolution of ever more complex life-forms, but it has continued intervening, to on-goingly shape them into more complex forms that are better suited to survival in their environments.

I'm not an Atheist, and I don't criticize your belief in a Creator, though I personally don't regard God as an element of metaphysics, as you do. You're using God metaphysically, as the explanation for what is, as, of course,do many others.

I claim (starting with my initial post at these forums) that all that "is", is systems of inter-referring abstract facts and hypotheticals, including mathematical theorems, abstract logical facts, hypothetical quantity-relational facts called "laws of physics", hypothetical quantities that, as the subjects of those physical laws, are part of them, and various if-then facts involving those hypotheticals.

And there's no need to explain why there is that. Such hypotheticals couldn't have not been, for reasons that I've discussed (I'll repeat it if you like). You can call it a "brute fact", but an inevitable fact isn't brute.

For that reason, you needn't use God or Dao as an element of metaphysics (as the creator of what is).

I don't agree with your belief, but I don't criticize it.

Michael Ossipoff

"Alright, Rich, how do you account for there being a human species on the Earth?" — Michael Ossipoff

The creative mind experimenting, learning, and evolving. No need to bring in supernatural forces. It is our minds. — Rich

So the mind of some one-celled organism decided to make it procreate a more complex organism...in a sequence of organisms whose minds decided to procreate a still more complex organism, ultimately resulting in a nonhuman primate deciding to procreate a human?

Do you believe in some as-yet unknown biological mechanism by which an organism can decide to, and know and decide how to, and have a way to, give birth to a more advanced organism--and be motivated to do so?

And what about the organic compounds that, by whatever mechanism, somehow gave rise to the first life--Did those organic compounds have minds too, and decide to create life?

Michael Ossipoff

That's a question for any evolution-denier.

Michael Ossipoff

Alright, Rich, how do you account for there being a human species on the Earth?

Morphogenic fields and morphogenic resonance? The out-of-body holographic repository?

Those are the brute-facts.

That more successful attributes would increase their occurrence in a population because more successful individuals more often survive long enough to reproduce is just obvious.

Its nothing other than what one would expect to happen.

It would be surprising if it didn't happen. Then there would be something needing explanation.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

.
It's hardly unusual, improper or inappropriate to give a name to a proposal. ...by which to refer to it. — Michael Ossipoff
.

.
Wayfarer says:
.

Except when you take some recognizable terminology and use it in an entirely idiosyncratic way

.
Forgive me the idiosyncrasy of suggesting that the rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-facts is skeptical :)
.
“Skepticism” is an English common-noun. We don’t have to stop using it because the Ancient Greek philosophers used it as a name.
.
I gave that name to the metaphysics that I propose, because is eminently, undeniably, completely, maybe uniquely, skeptical.
.
That name is an accurate description, and therefore an appropriately-chosen name.
.
“Skepticism” is skepticism, by that common-noun’s standard meaning.
.
…hence its name.
.
There were already more than one philosophical position using that name. I defined another. English (probably like other languages too) has many words that are used in many ways. “If you don’t like that too, that’s too bad.”
.
I’d misleading, at best, to say that I idiosyncratically used a recognized terminology. Skepticism, as I mentioned above, is a common-noun, and I used it with that common noun’s meaning.
.
The other “Skepticism” s, at least the ones that I read about, aren’t metaphysicses. My “Skepticism” is a metaphysics. I use the word “Skepticism” when discussing metaphysics. Therefore there’s no reason for Wayfarer to be confused about what I meant.
.
It has been pointed out here that “Physicalism” is used with at least 2 different meanings: Metaphysical Physicalism, and Science-of-Mind Physicalism.
.
“Hey, you can’t name your son ‘George’! There’s already someone named ‘George’. “
.
Any dictionary contains many, many words with more than one meaning. Usually a word’s listing in a dictionary will have a whole list of meanings, enumerated with numbers and letters.
.
How about this hypothetical one:
.
Skepticism:
.
1. An attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity, either in general, or toward a particular object.
.
2. By extension, a certain particular metaphysics that embodies skepticism as defined above.
.
[end of definition]
.
No, as a metaphysics, Skepticism isn’t in the dictionary. No newly-coined name could be. But its derivation is in keeping with standard practice.
.
Requoting:
.

Except when you take some recognizable terminology and use it in an entirely idiosyncratic way, which makes you a self-appointed expert

.
Regarding the “expert” part:
.
Hyperbole, a common troll tactic. Did I claim expertise regarding the dictionary definition of skepticism?
.
I invite Wayfarer to look it up.
.

…in a school which has a single member.

.
More hyperbole. At no time did I say that Skepticism is or has a “school”. It’s a metaphysics.
.
In the usage that Wayfarer referred to, “school” means:
.
A group of persons who hold a common doctrine, or follow the same teacher (as in philosophy, theology, or medicine).
.
…also, the doctrine or practice of such a group.
.
[end of definition]
.
At no time did I claim that Skepticism is or has a school.
.
Flamewarrior-hyperbole reveals something about its perpetrator’s intent, and that intent isn’t serious discussion.
.
It’s, rather, whatever flamewarriors have as their intent.
.
(but they’d know their intent better than I would).
------------------------------------------------------------
Something has recently upset Wayfarer.
.
Want to tell us about it, Wayfarer?
------------------------------------------------------------
.
First, I’ll briefly add to a previous reply:
.
Wayfarer said that he’d twice posted sarcasm about me. Duly apologetic, I admitted that I hadn’t noticed it, because sarcasm isn’t something that I look for or expect at a philosophy forum.
.
But I can give another excuse:
.
A lot of posts are about someone referred to as “He”. I have no idea who “He” is, and so I routinely ignore such posts. Again, sorry.
.
Now, let me just outline some recent events here:
.
I hadn’t intended to post about reincarnation, because, though reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, it isn’t part of the Skepticism proposal.
.
But someone started a topic about reincarnation, asking some questions about it.
.
Others began posting about whether and how reincarnation could be true.
.
Eventually, I decided to comment on those questions.
.
So I posted a description of how reincarnation could be consistent with Skepticism.
.
My suggested reincarnation mode was the one that didn’t posit indestructible souls, morphic fields, morphic resonance, or a distributed extra-corporal (extra-spatial?) holographic memory-repository, or any such assumption or brute-fact.
.
That’s right about the time when Wayfarer began having his hissy-fit.
.
Honest, I didn’t mean to upset him.
.
I’m not responsible when someone gets upset, unless they’re upset for some specified justifiable reason having to do with something that I’ve said.
.
In keeping with this forum’s guidelines, I welcome anyone to comment on, criticize, find fault with, argue-with, question, of inquire about Skepticism, or my reincarnation mode suggestion.
.
However I do require the following:
.
1.
.
You must be specific with us about what statement, passage, or conclusion, in what I wrote, you disagree with. In other words, if you say (in one wording or another) that what I wrote contains an error, a mis-statement, or an unjustified conclusion, then you must specify it.
.
If you want to say that its meaning isn’t clear, then quote a passage to which that claim applies, and, if possible, make some effort to say why you didn’t understand it. Characterizations of “blather” or “gibberish” don’t qualilfy.
.
If you don’t want to do that, that’s ok. Then don’t comment, and, thereby, don’t waste your time and mine.
.
2.
.
You must make at least some effort to not say things that you won’t be able to justify. Of course it’s easy to speak without sufficiently well checking what you’ve said. But I don’t want your post to be so sloppy and careless that you obviously haven’t made any effort to check what you’re saying for justifiability. …so sloppy that you’re obviously just spewing-forth.
.
Otherwise you’re just being a slob, and you don’t deserve the time that it would take to reply to you.
.
(This post takes time to write? Yes, but I wanted to clarify this matter, once and for all—and I do mean once.)
.
I’m sorry, Wayfarer, but you’ve demonstrated an inability to meet the above qualifications, and I henceforth won’t have time to reply to you.
.
Apologies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I emphasize that when I don’t reply to something posted by Wayfarer, it isn’t that he’s said something irrefutable. It’s just that he doesn’t meet the above-specified requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Michael Ossipoff

Think instead of a practical Utopia as being an optimum - or even just a "very good", way of organizing society and the economy in terms of delivering happiness and well being for all. Does such a project have a chance, — Jake Tarragon

Not a chance.

People are animals, many lacking the attributes that some idealistically expect in humans, quite unable to live up to what some of us (for some reason) keep expecting of "humans".

Animals will be animals. Just observe the behavior in the Reincarnation topic, if you don't believe it, and want some anecdotal confirmation.

Michael Ossipoff

Alright,it's true that the consequences of people believing that everyone is the same "Me" would be a tremendously better societal world. ...quite unrecognizably better.

But, as a practical matter, people have a better chance of behaving well because they start having a standard for their conduct..

Of course it will never happen.

And yes, if it were obvious to everyone that non-vegetarianism were self-cannibalism, instead of just cannibalism, there wouldn't be any need to argue for vegetarianism.
.
But, for me, the similarity and close relatedness is enough to make me not want to harm. .

Anyway, even if it were true, the people who behave the worst would be the least likely people to believe it

But, no matter how much better unitary-ness, and its recognition, could make the societal world, I just don't feel that our experiences give indication of it. Everything in our experience in a life can readily be fully explained as the experiences and perceptions of one body.

But as I said (setting off a big collective hissy-fit from some posters) I it seems to me that, in its conclusions and consequences, Skepticism doesn't differ from Advaita.

And I emphasize that I try to not avoidably harm other living-things.

(...though I admit that my household would probably be fully vegetarian if we were unitary and knew it.)

Michael Ossipoff

Thanks for pointing out the possible worst-case-memory-use advantage of FPN.

Maybe in the earlier days of computers, such an advantage could have been crucial.

And thanks also for pointing out the fewer-instructions/keypresses advantage of RPN.

I hadn't looked at it closely enough to notice that.

It adds to RPN's other advantage--the convenience of entering each operation as it's encountered among the operands.(Instead of first initially going through and entering all the operations in reverse order of occurrence among the operands).

Thanks again for pointing those things out.

Michael Ossipoff

3.3k

" I defined Skepticism as the name of the metaphysics that I propose". — Michael Ossipoff


What Banno said. — Wayfarer

Then I'll refer you to my reply to Banno.

Maybe you qualify for the benefit of the doubt--in case you really thought that I was referring to Greek Skepticism (though I'd already clarified otherwise). But now you're also trying to imply that it was somehow wrong, inappropriaate, or something, to use "Skepticism" as the name for a metaphysics that uses no assumptions or brute-facts..

I welcome and reply to posters who post seriously-intended criticisms of, objections to, or questions about Skepticism.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I'll just add that posting "arguments" (either very sloppy, or insincere) like the ones that I've just replied to wastes your time and mine (if I reply).

As I've said elsewhere, i naively expect people to mean what they say, and say only what they can defend.

It really only makes sense to reply to people who post seriously-intendeed valid objections, arguments or questions,.

Sorry, I don't have time to reply to more postings from someone who habitually hasn't met those requirements.

Bye.

(It's just that today I noticed that I was wasting a tremendous amount of time replying to such things.)

Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

" "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." — Banno

When I coin a usage or a term, or anyone coins a usage or a term,, it means, in the coiner's usage, what the word's coiner chooses it to mean--neither more nor less.

Coining a usage or term starts with stating the definition with which you will be using it--As I did, when I named my metaphysical proposal "Skepticism".

It's hardly unusual, improper or inappropriate to give a name to a proposal. ...by which to refer to it.

I'll repeat what I said to Wayfarer:

Forgive me for believing that the rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-facts is skeptical.

That skepticism is what distinguishes the metaphysics I call "Skepticism" from most other metaphysicses. Hence its name.

Michael Ossipoff.

You will notice I actually removed the sarcastic remark I made, and replaced it with another.

Actually no, I didn't notice that, because i didn't notice either "sarcastic remark".

Sorry about that, but I guess that sarcasm isn't what I expect at a discussion forum.

Naive me, I expect that people mean what they say.
— Wayfarer

But the point of the remark was that you're glossing over a lot of very significant differences.

Differences between Skepticism (I've clarified several times that, by "Skepticism", I refer the metaphysics that I propose, not to Greek Skepticism), and Advaita, I presume.

For now, at least, we can agree to disagree about how many differences there are between them.

Also that I have yet to see any indication that you really understand or argue from the perspective of scepticism.

Forgive for believing that rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-facts is skeptical :D

That's why I named my metaphysical proposal "Skepticism".

As I've already said several times, by naming my metaphysical proposal Skepticism, I make no claim for any similarity, derivation, or other relation between it and Greek Skepticism.

Michael Ossipoff

Similarities between Pyrrho and Buddhism have been noted by scholars, but I'm not aware of such a comparison being made in respect of Advaita. — Wayfarer

I defined Skepticism as the name of the metaphysics that I propose, and I explicitly clarified that it isn't the Greek philosophy called Skepticism. No similarity, derivastion, or other relation is claimed, between my Skepticism and Greek Skepticism.

Michael Ossipoff

Sure, metaphysicses aren't the only unprovable propositions. And no doubt all proponents of metaphysicses would like to prove them.

I just meant that unprovability surely distinguishes Skepticism from a tautology, because a tautology is true with complete certainty.

But I just feel that parsimony is the standard for comparing any two metaphysicses.

...and that the absence of assumptions or brute-facts--a rare attribute for a metaphysics--counts strongly in a metaphysics' favor.

Michael Ossipoff