I had a precisely 2 dreams which I have not forgotten in roughly 50 years which concerned "possible worlds" -- alternative routes that I could take. — Bitter Crank

I don't think this is what I meant by dreams reflecting possible worlds. I meant to imply that one's situation that you find yourself in dreams can be reflective of a possible world you could live in. I mean to say that when you find yourself talking to your significant other in a dream or with anyone at work, then that can be reflective of another possible world you could have lived in or experienced.

I hope that made better sense.

Mostly I think dreams should not be taken seriously. — Bitter Crank

Why not?

Aren't they glimpses into one's soul?

So, to save the PSR all we need to do is say that the agent is the sufficient cause of his or her choice. One can deny this, but not on the ground of the PSR. One simply has to decide if agents can determine their own choices or not. If they can, they are sufficient to the task of making the choice. If they cannot, there is no free will. Either way, the PSR is unviolated. — Dfpolis

So, just to backtrack on an old topic, I think the issue here is the determination by reason of a causal event. In another topic, I talked about whether QM affirms or denies the concept of causality. I even posted that topic over at PhysicsForums and there was much discussion about it, with no clear answer. I believe science and some experiments have confirmed that causality can be negated by QM.

If nature cannot be comprehended or even more logically, simulated in a complex enough computer, then it must be the case that the PoSR has failed us somewhere. Hence, if we talk about people having a free will, then it's fruitless to assert the PoSR due to the fact that some mental activity could not be determined.

That's all I gather from this topic. Others might differ; but, I don't see on what grounds you can differ.

My first forum post, way back, was about the reality of number. I argued that numbers are real on the basis that they are the same for anyone who can count, and also because they make actual predictions; to put it another way, because you can be wrong about them, then they are real. If I ask you to show me a number, you will point to a symbol - but that is what it is, a symbol. The number itself is a quantity which can only be grasped by a mind that is capable of counting. So on that basis, I argued that numbers are real but not existent - at least, not existent in the way that tables, chairs, and stars are existent, because they only exist in and for a rational intellect.

And indeed on that basis, I then went on to argue that God might also be ‘real but not existent’, but I’ll save that for later. — Wayfarer

I do recall that you indeed posited that numbers are tantamount to affirming the concept of God. But, to ground what you have pondered over dutifully, I would assert that abstractions of the mind can be real in a Meinong's jungle of sorts. They can be abstractions of logical entities grounded in a non-modally dependant sense. What do you think about that?

Just to harp on Kant. I think, that abstractions of the mind exist in a modal independent sense that makes possible synthetic a priori judgments. It would be the case that two exists as a rigid designator of these modally independent abstractions of the mind, that are possible in every possible world.

Just something to consider in regards to the topic.

The problem is that to avoid an infinite regress, you need at least one self-explaining fact that explains all below it. — Dfpolis

Or you can have brute facts upon which all other facts rest on. Hence, modal logic?

My dictionary (Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th Edition) implies there's a significant difference in the mode of operation of these two schools of thought.
That is:

Stoicism => an ancient Greek school of philosophy which taught that it is wise to remain indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Cynic (Cynicism) => a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers characterized by an ostentatious contempt for wealth and pleasure. — BrianW

Yes, but the differences are superficial on face value. When practiced then, the similarities become important, and hence the OP.

I think, in principle, the different attitudes make them quite distant from each other but I suppose in practice, due to convergence from human interactions, they may have many characteristic points of similarity. However, I feel it's somewhat a negative transition for a stoic to become a cynic and would rather suppose the reverse to be more acceptable. — BrianW

Yes, that's true. I think, that ancient Stoics were unwilling to forgo their wealth and prestige just to be called a Cynic. The same would apply to this day. Hence, again the OP.

"God" and "two" exist as words in a language. And as such, they mediate some pragmatic conceptual relation we might have with the real world. — apokrisis

Or again, they're just abstractions of the mind and nothing else. If they modally exist in other possible worlds, then that presupposes they have some function further than simply being abstractions of the mind. Again, rigid designators of sorts.

Now of course you can go on from that to talk about whether they in fact relate us conceptually to the "real world" or just "metaphysically possible worlds", or whatever other kind of world you want to then name. — apokrisis

But, that's an important distinction to make, surely?

But that boils down to modality. Two-ness is being conceived of as completely generic - true of all possible worlds (where counting would work). And God is conceived of as completely fictional - not actually true of the actual world ... for the atheist at least. — apokrisis

So, modally speaking, we have the number two and God being used interchangeably as abstractions of the mind. Hence, they appear real in any possible world.

So semiosis provides the larger encompassing framework already. It subsumes "material realities of the world" and "abstractions of the mind" into an over-arching semiotic relation. It cannot be a simple case of either/or - either God and two physically exists, or else mentally exists. It is already being said that for the words to exist, and be used within a language system, requires that both the mind and the world are "places" where they "exist". The existence is in fact the process which is a relation that works. Something about the world, and something about the mind, must be in fruitful co-ordination. — apokrisis

I'm not quite getting your gist here. Are you saying that pragmatically, they serve no further utility to use than using a different language game? Again, if they are modally independent of synthetic a priori judgments, then they exist universally.

Of course - the next familiar Kantian difficulty - it is the "world" as it is for "us".

So it is the world as the phenomenal or an Umwelt, not the world as the noumenal. And it is us as an emergent modeller, not us as some Cartesian and unphysical res cogitans. — apokrisis

You lost me here, care to expand?

Thanks for posting!

Well "maths, numbers" are clearly a useful "abstraction of the mind" concept or universal. Whether numbers "exist" or are "actual" generally tends to be a word or language game. — prothero

But, I highlighted the fact that we use "God" and "the number two" as abstractions of the mind. If they exist, then, they exist as abstractions of the mind, and nothing else. So, then what are abstractions of the mind if nothing else than a rigid designator of sorts? I'm sure in a possible world the same abstractions of the mind exist, maybe with different wording; but, that means it's not just generally speaking a language game of sorts.

...or demonstrably useful?

(Again, is there a good reason to debate realism vs idealism for the billionth time when you have pragmatism as the better choice?) — apokrisis

Then how else would you phrase the issue instead of resorting to terms like "abstractions of the mind"?

What was your purpose then? — apokrisis

The purpose was to explore the meaning of the term "abstractions of the mind"? As in the OP, what are they, are they real or just metaphysical?

Hahaha. As dialectically clear as can be. — Modern Conviviality

Whereof one cannot speak, you know? :wink:

Can you find a use for them? Is there a meaning beyond that use? — apokrisis

Yes, I used the term in the context of numbers and/or God. What more do you want me to say?

Just like the number two exists as an abstraction of the mind, so must God too.

I don't mean to say that any real Stoic should become a Cynic. That would be illogical. But, taking the ethos of Stoicism to the logical extreme, then if I'm sincere about Stoicism, then I should pay more attention to what the Cynic has to offer to my way of life.

Therefore, any true Stoic should pay more attention to Cynicism.

To be free of feeling, then, is to be free of this enslavement, to no longer care, and no longer care that one does not care. Indifference is the "highest" form of consciousness because the subject is quite literally free of the world itself. They have "woken up" from the nightmare. — darthbarracuda

Yes, indifference is important; but, one cannot be indifferent towards needs; but, mostly wants. If that's the case then the logical thing to do is to restrain oneself from the attainment of these wants. It's idiotic (no offense) to constantly be indifferent towards wants and never be able to attain them without realizing that they have no inherent value to an individual. This is my conception of ancient stoicism, that reverts back to cynicism. Just my two pennies.

We put arbitrary, fiat-like value on a goal to keep our minds at peace and impose stability. If we are to truly look at what we are doing, we are constantly thinking of ways to make sure we have something to work towards. — schopenhauer1

Part of the fallacy here is that we are never truly satisfied with anything we do or get in return for our efforts. This is not true because we do feel satisfied after eating a good meal or attaining something like money for example. You have an idealized fictitious concept of a man or woman who never really feels satisfied with whatever they do or get, and I'm just pointing this out.

The foreign exchange market doesn't do that? — Purple Pond

Perhaps, @andrewk can help with this question. Interested in his input also.

What do you think? What makes paper bills valuable? — Purple Pond

Not to idiotize the issue, but, it's demand for them that dictates value. And since money is a medium for assessing demand, then an absolute value on any denomination is futile in assesing.

Just an update on this.

I find disidentification an extremely powerful tool in addressing issues that arise related to self-identity. By this, I mean to assert that when you think about something related to your identity, then dissociating from that idea is so much easier.

Just to give an example. I live a quiet and humble life and try not to bother anyone. My family thinks I'm not really a 'man', that is assertive or domineering. I don't pay much attention to this issue because I don't identify with the qualities or traits ('prejudices' seems like the appropriate term to use here) that being a man entail. It simply doesn't bother me because I don't identify with the problem. In some ways, I feel as if I'm almost cheating here because the trick to not identify with the source of cognitive dissonance or such is non-existent.

I will be utilizing and refining this handy trick as I go along.

All in all, if you don't identify with a stressor, then it doesn't bother you, and I can attest to that instead of falling into the mental trap of trying to identify with something else or forcing yourself into a certain prejudice of how you ought to be or such.

Then the goat blows up? If it can consume everything including itself then it's a case of the self containing infinite and innumerable set or more commonly known as Russells paradox?

The Great Goat can only eat one thing at a time. Hence, it either eats itself indefinitely and is reduced to impotency or it commits cannibalism and eats other goats.

This. Go ahead first.

This thread lacks direction. I suggest we close it.

Want me to pass you an ice cold CEZKA? — Sir2u

Nah, I'm heading off to sleep. Cheers regardless. :smile:

@Baden would drink in the belly of the day. Haha.

Darn, that's some pretty cheap beer. Now I'm thirsty.

I'll accept this as authoritative (for now). — tim wood

But that's not how we arrive at consensus building, no?

So I'm having difficulty with the idea of "a necessary outcome." — tim wood

Sure, our propositional attitude can differ even if we agree on the same thing or dispute. Which is an interesting phenomenon worth exploring in my opinion.

Let's be absurd for a moment. Imagine you're compelled to beat me with a stick to force me to acknowledge a certain truth (that through the benefit of the beating I do finally see and acknowledge as a truth). Is that a Rogerian agreement? — tim wood

Not in the slightest. Rogerian agreements implore a certain amount of Felicity and consent by both parties involved.

Wow, that completely flew over my head. :rofl:

OK, so let's assume we're engaging in a dispute utilizing reasoned argumentative strategies. If we both share the same goal of wanting to know the truth of the issue, then a Rogerian agreement becomes a necessary outcome.

Or are Rogerian agreements all about pragmatism in a consensus based belief system?

I think in some correspondence linguistic conception, simply as we go along discovering new truths.

I mean to imply that the state of affairs of our Rogerian agreement is in question, then we can only work though backward induction to isolate where we or what we were wrong about.

Do you mean conducted in a Rogerian manner, or end with a Rogerian product, notwithstanding the how it's got? — tim wood

Yes. While it's epistemologically futile to claim otherwise, though.

Does anyone agree that ideally all disputes should end in a Rogerian manner?

How does one enforce that?

Thanks for all the responses. Interesting to note that the only consensus that has been arrived at is for truth/gained wisdom to be the end goal of any thread or that participants know that they share a common goal. Some form of a contractual moral theory, I suppose.

Alas, people vary and we can't entirely know another's interest or 'inclination' in/on a topic; but, spelling that out should be treated with greater significance.

You guys do what you want with this thread. It lacks direction and I'm not sure where it's headed.

Or a yellow submarine. Who knows such things?

"Charade"? I noted what people seem to do (how they actually live their lives), and (if my observation is accurate) this is what is. Your mention of "competent minds" and "charades" looks a lot like what you think ought to be. OK, drop the insulting vocabulary and tell us why you think this is wrong. Better still, tell us why you disagree with (what looks like, to me) the vast majority of humans, and how they choose to live their lives? — Pattern-chaser

So, your asking me for my own conception of human nature. I'm afraid I don't have one. But, I'll get back to you when I do. :smile:

Trump got loled at, at the UN. Haha.