I agree there's pressure, but Bezos and others have agendas, so their mistakes also come from the propaganda they spread from their agendas. They published that Vermont story because they're personally invested in a Russia-hacked-the-election conspiracy theory that would hopefully exculpate and maybe even enthrone Hillary Clinton, whom they ardently backed while making 16 hit pieces on Bernie Sanders in a couple of days.

And yes, Amazon's service is dreadful...:)

P.S. WaPo still hasn't made a full retraction of their Vermont or Propornot "stories."

The Washington Post should know about fake news as they wrongly reported that Russia hacked a Vermont power grid and wrote an unfounded story that Leftist publications were Russian propaganda sites, based on the unfounded claims of a sketchy organization called ProporNot. Considering their owner Bezos made a 100 million deal with the CIA, it's not surprising WaPo spreads propaganda--including pro-War-in Syria articles--all the time.

Thanatos Sand, the plot thickens. :)
Souls are then defined as parts of us living in parallel universes?
But why, what's all this stuff for, what's it supposed to account for...?
And how would we differentiate it all from fiction?

I never said souls are parts of us living in parallel universes. That's a strawman counterproductive to any discourse on the matter.

And what this "stuff" should account for and how we should differentiate if from fiction is your problem, not mine. I never said souls exist.

Samsara and Karma do not explain away the problem of evil and you haven't shown they have.
— Thanatos Sand

In the absence of an omnibenevolent god, the problem of evil is moot. The evil in the world, suffering in other words, is just your past bad deeds catching up.

There are two main problems with this. One, you don't know there is no omnibenevolent God. Secondly, evil is not just bad deeds catching up with someone, they are also the bad deeds affecting other people.
Many Nazis died happily in Argentina with new families; their actions actually "caught up with" the Jews they helped slaughter. That was evil.

On my view, contemplation and conception are comprised entirely of much simpler correlations. In other words, contemplation and conception are complex correlations.

It seems you disagree?

Firstly, it's good we have come to some agreement; that is always value in itself. However, there are two problems with your seeing contemplation as merely correlations, albeit complex ones, between objects:

1. Contemplation means profound thought, and profound thought is always thought beyond mere correlation; it is drawing meaning from those correlations and moving into concepts.

2. Human contemplation goes way beyond correlation of objects, which is as far as animals can go. For example, in the following sentence--"We Americans need to defeat the Nazis before they spread their evil they showed in the Holocaust and fully destroy freedom"--we see concepts expounding on and moving beyond mere objects. "We" are no longer just the objects in a group, they are defined by the concept of nationhood: not an object. The same goes with the ideological concepts of evil and freedom, which have no clear object correspondent; they are concepts that have moved beyond them. And we haven't even discussed the lingusistic dynamics giving all these words meaning beyond their object correspondents.

So, human contemplation is not just complex correlations of objects; it is a mode of thinking above it.

That doesn't make much sense to me sand. What is contemplation and conception if not mental correlation? They're typically more complex than simple correlation, but nonetheless they consist in/of mental correlation(s).

It makes perfect sense, Creative. Mental correlation is the mere attaching objects to other objects such as the snake seeing a rat and correlating it with food and its feeling of hunger. (So, yes, your definition does support the idea that rats and ants would think like humans, since you claim that is all there is to thought). There is no conception of what that means or any contemplation over whether or not it is right and wrong to eat that rat. Human contemplation and conception has the ability to move beyond that simple correlation and think about (contemplate/conceive) what is happening, decide its meaning to the world and themselves, and even give an ethical judgment of it. Rats and snakes and ants depending solely on what you define as thought cannot do that.

The difference between human and beastie is one of complexity, both of the correlations and states of mind, not of elemental constituents.

No, as I've shown above, it's more than a matter of complexity, its a matter of elemental constituents of thought the beasties don't have and the humans do.

All thought/belief consists entirely in/of mental correlations drawn 'between' 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself(the creature's state of 'mind').

That holds good for humans and other beasties alike.

No, all thought/belief consists of contemplation and conception of mental correlations drawn between objects of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself. Using your definition, ants attacking other ants or snakes striking rats would be thinking like humans, they're not.

So, the same does not apply to humans and beasties alike.

I could define what I mean by it, too.

We reconcile the difference by defining what you mean by human thought. As of now you equate it with animal thought. I, on the other hand, see similarities but do not equate them.

Try this...

Thought/belief is prior to language.
Some pre-linguistic thought/belief is true.
True thought/belief is existentially contingent upon truth.
Thus, some truth is prior to language.

All thought and belief, not reflexive cognitive reaction, is informed by and shaped in language.
There is no pre-linguistic thought/belief that is true, or any actual pre-linguistic thought belief at all.
True thought/belief is existentially contingent upon accurate observation or true as determined by linguistic discourses, not any metaphysical "Truth."
Thus no Truth is prior to language, only the material world as it is prior to observation.

No, it was long because it was long. Unlike my post, it made no answers. Ending our discussion, however, is a smart idea.

Ciao.

Michael, This is a statement of fact and not an insult. That was a long rambling rant that failed to counter any of my points and was barely coherent. It's clear my posts upset you, even though I never called you a name as you erroneously claimed I did. I suggest you relax a bit, gather your thoughts and try again.

An activity outside of spacetime? Activities take time.
Not exactly parsimonious to come up with a parallel universe of sorts. :)

Souls by their nature would act outside of space/time since the rules of space/time clearly don't apply to them. They neither move through time, nor exist in space, like the rest of matter. So, either a parallel universe with different rules or a supernatural dimension would be needed. Parsimony would demand the rejection of the theory of souls since neither scientific observation nor the rules of the universe bear them out; they are hardly the simplest explanation of things.

Lol, I don't just believe; I know. I think it's cute you don't even follow your own advice for happiness.

Ciao.

Yeah, right. I think you should go back and look at what you wrote about the perils of self-delusion.

And you were clearly responding to this post:

↪Hanover
↪TheMadFool Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

Except we know they don't. Many horrid people who do terrible things die happy with everything they want, while many excellent people endure great suffering they did not deserve. Also, mass deaths counter the notion of Karma in life, as not only does not everyone in a plane crash or those being gassed in the Holocaust not deserve what they got, they can't possibly deserve the exact same thing. No two people do the exact same things in life.

when you wrote this:

People are wrong about what will make them happy, what will satisfy them and bring them health. No wicked person dies happy, and no good person dies miserable. It's a mistake to think that material circumstances are all that relevant. The more you treat others differently, the more you lie and cheat, the more alienated you become from yourself, and everyone else. You will always die in isolation and desolation if you lived an unjust life.

The world is just, dispute appearances.

Actually, you responded to more, but at least we now know you were the first to respond.

I did. This was my post to which you responded:

↪Hanover
↪TheMadFool Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

Except we know they don't. Many horrid people who do terrible things die happy with everything they want, while many excellent people endure great suffering they did not deserve. Also, mass deaths counter the notion of Karma in life, as not only does not everyone in a plane crash or those being gassed in the Holocaust not deserve what they got, they can't possibly deserve the exact same thing. No two people do the exact same things in life.

No, you replied to me, so you were in no place to set conditions. So, you did strawman me.

So, you can't show you know what makes everyone happy. We both knew that.

How can anyone love you if they don't know you because you've hidden from them? How can you love yourself if you've hidden from yourself, because you live in denial?

Stop strawmanning me. I never said anything about anyone hiding from anyone. Some of the people in the world most honest with themselves are terrible people who know they're terrible. And there are people out there who actually love them, no matter how much that bothers you. There are also people who love people who are hiding from them, as well. And how can you love yourself when you're in denial about knowing what makes everyone happy? Using your logic, you must not.

Do you think that comfort and fortune beings happiness, rather than boredom and restlessness? Do you think that a calm and uneventful death brings one more joy than a violent one?

Again you strawman me; you need to read better if we are to actually discuss. I talked about bad people dying loved and surrounded by their loved ones. And if you think comfort and fortune inherently brings boredom and restlessness, you must have never really enjoyed real comfort and fortune. And if you don't think a comfortable uneventful death free from watching loved ones die horribly is better than a violent one watching loved ones die, you have strange notions of happy and unhappy deaths.

Wisdom is about living a good life, a healthy life. Whether man made or not, it doesn't render it ineffective.

Wisdom is knowing you don't know what makes a good and healthy life for everyone else. You can still acquire that. And concepts being man-made show they're not necessarily weighted in reality, and you haven't shown your concepts are effective at all.

You have no idea what makes other people happy, and if your statement was correct, you couldn't even judge what makes you happy. Also wicked and good are moral concepts of human, not natural, creation. And even if we use them, many good people die miserable, like those dying in the gas chambers, watching their loved ones die too. And many wicked people die happy, loved by many, surrounded by family and good fortune. That's not all about materialism, and I never said it was. And many of those dying happy lied and cheated to get there.

However, one key element for Samsara/Karma to be meaningful is the continuation of the soul. Otherwise 1 and 2 would be undefined. Buddhism is just a long-winded version of the maxim ''you reap what you sow''.

And I showed the problem with that thinking in this post:

↪TheMadFool But it still doesn't make sense since you have people suffering for what someone else did years, maybe millennia ago. And none of us are replete with memories of those past misdeeds to guide us, so Karma is a great way of making people on the losing end of exchanges or events feel the winners will get theirs, particularly the nastier ones.

Samsara and Karma are coherent because

1. It explains away the problem of evil which plagues Abrahamic religions

2. It fits well with the general notion of causation

You're predicating conjecture on conjecture. Samsara and Karma do not explain away the problem of evil and you haven't shown they have. I would sincerely like to see you do so. And it does not fit well within the general notion of causation, since there is no proof tying together the effects of events to a mystical moral judgment of causes. I am more than willing to see you show that proof as well.

↪TheMadFool Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

Except we know they don't. Many horrid people who do terrible things die happy with everything they want, while many excellent people endure great suffering they did not deserve. Also, mass deaths counter the notion of Karma in life, as not only does not everyone in a plane crash or those being gassed in the Holocaust not deserve what they got, they can't possibly deserve the exact same thing. No two people do the exact same things in life.

I didn't name-call. I said you posted blather, which isn't calling you a name. And you are the one who wasn't specific at all. So, you're just being hypocritical. And you're particularly hypocritical here where you become the only one name-calling here, calling me two names.:

"Thanatos" 's wasn't discussing philosophy. His conduct in this instance is just that of the ordinary usual internet-abuser and flamewarrior, sadly ubiquitous on the Internet.

Michael Ossipoff

And you're the one who was unable to name where I made mis-statements and errors and then show how. You accused me of having made a "brute-fact," and I asked you to show how and you continually failed to do so, as I pointed out to you:

Nothing you say in your "counter" to my quote above it counters or even effectively addresses what I said at all. I never made a physicalist belief; I just correctly said our facts are our reflections of the material reality of the universe; I never said they weren't part of our reality as well.

And the only big, blatant brute-fact is your statement calling my statement one, as my statements can and have been explained, and you don't explain or support yours at all. And your referring to your outside in-supported topic with the interesting name does not suffice or stand as explanation or support.

And then you again failed to support your claim, as I requested, that my statement was a "brute-fact," instead providing a tautology not backing your claim at all.

A primary, fundamentally-existent material reality is a brute-fact. Physicalism and "Naturalism" need to posit that brute-fact. That's what makes it unparsimonious...not the fact that someone assumes that Physicalism is correct.

And I made specifically clear, as you wrongly claimed I didn't, how that was wrong:

A primary, fundamentally existent material reality Is not a "brute-fact," as a brute-fact is something that cannot be explained and a primary, fundamentally existent material reality can be explained. Michael doesnt' know what "brute-fact" means.

So, the only one who has been doing philosophy in this exchange has been me, and the only one name-calling has been you. Very ironic.

But it still doesn't make sense since you have people suffering for what someone else did years, maybe millennia ago. And none of us are replete with memories of those past misdeeds to guide us, so Karma is a great way of making people on the losing end of exchanges or events feel the winners will get theirs, particularly the nastier ones.

Science may change in correcting it's errors;
— Thanatos Sand

I guess this is one way to frame it.

In any case, there is nothing much more to discuss. Different life forces at play.

No, it is the correct way to frame it. And you said "nothing more to discuss" two tweets ago.

Of course there are rules, the principle of thermodynamics and rules of Gravity among them. It's why our planes can fly and our cars can drive. I'm not being snarky here, but I suggest you check out a book of basic Physics.
— Thanatos Sand

If you haven't observed that science is constantly changing (yes, even gravity) than there is nothing more to say. We have two different life experiences.

If you haven't observed that the rules of the universe-like the ones I mentioned-don't change, then there is clearly nothing more to say. You don't understand physics. Science may change in correcting it's errors; the rules of the universe don't. We clearly have two different education experiences as well.

Your "memory as fabric of the universe" theory a perfect example. So, since your theories transcend and are not supported by the natural laws of physics, they are supernatural.
— Thanatos Sand

Not at all. It simply makes memory persistent and we have plenty of evidence of this in innate and inherited traits as well as habitual movements.

There is nothing new here. It is an explanatory model that can create new opportunities for research and conceptual development. As I showed in another thread, there is already scientific evidence for a holographic universe.

Yes at all since you haven't and can't show memory is the fabric of the universe. You can't even show what memory is physically made up of at all. And an explanatory model is not physical proof by the rules of physics. And whether or not you have shown there is scientific evidence for a holographic universe, you certainly haven't show that memory is the fabric of the universe or even part of it. Until you do, your theory remains supernatural.

And your idea of quanta is not backed by those physical rules and realities. It's a nice Sci-Fi concept, but It is not backed by physical reality.
— Thanatos Sand

No more and no less sci-fi than any interpretation of Relativity or Quantum. I am referring to real phenomenon (memory, life, intelligence, evolution) but giving it a different substrate than what one is user to. For example, the brain doesn't house memory, the brain reveals memory just as a TV doesn't house TV programs it only reveals them. My paradigm is actually very straightforward and realistic.

Yes, way more since it isn't backed by Physics at all. The fact memory exists doesn't mean it is the fabric of the universe and it is not. Feel free to back up your claim with physics at any time. We both know you can't.

No, physics tells us much more than that; that's why there are many physical rules of the universe and the undergraduate and physics textbooks are pretty big.
— Thanatos Sand

There are no rules. There are concepts an descriptions of these concepts that are constantly evolving in small and large ways.

Of course there are rules, the principle of thermodynamics and rules of Gravity among them. It's why our planes can fly and our cars can drive. I'm not being snarky here, but I suggest you check out a book of basic Physics.

No, but you're making them supernatural by giving them "physical" attributes that do not exist in the physical universe and making them physical in a way that they are not.
— Thanatos Sand

They are no more and no less physical than they already are. I am only referring to memory and quantum fields as being real. How you wish to characterize them is up to you. I view reality as a continuum of the insubstantial to the substantial.

No, you literally said "memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe." So, you did far more than referring to memory and quantum fields as "being real." And so the one already characterizing them was you, yourself:

The concept of soul had existed for time immemorial so it it's not a new age concept per se.

However, my interpretation in light of more modern concepts, would be to just consider a soul as memory with a life force evolving as time (not through space/time). Memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe which would be the quantum potential. Evidence for this preservation would be the evolving characteristics of different species that we refer to as inherited characteristics or innate talents (genes are simply a partial physical manifestation).

The problem with definitions like this, is it tries to include both the natural and supernatural while compromising both. — Thanatos Sand
There is nothing as far as I can tell that is supernatural about memory, life, or quantum fields. I am using them as fundamental constructs. [ — Rich

No, but you're making them supernatural by giving them "physical" attributes that do not exist in the physical universe and making them physical in a way that they are not.

The universe's fabric is not "memory" and no applied or theoretical physics shows it to be. — Thanatos Sand

All that physics tells us is that we are composed of quanta. My interpretation of quanta is that it is evolving memory/intelligence (and habits) as a process. It is not a novel idea but it does place mind at the fundamental substrate.

No, physics tells us much more than that; that's why there are many physical rules of the universe and the undergraduate and physics textbooks are pretty big. And your idea of quanta is not backed by those physical rules and realities. It's a nice Sci-Fi concept, but It is not backed by physical reality.

The notion of a soul transcending and defying the physical rules of the universe inevitably depends on either a supernatural explanation or a natural explanation correcting current ones. Nobody has provided the latter yet.
— Thanatos Sand

There is nothing here that transcends any observations that are made. It is merely a model for explanatory purposes. Nothing new or supernatural is claimed. Everything is as is.

Actually, all of your theories here transcends physical observations since none of them are prove by or even supported by the rules of physics and accurate observations made by physics. Your "memory as fabric of the universe" theory a perfect example. So, since your theories transcend and are not supported by the natural laws of physics, they are supernatural.

The concept of soul had existed for time immemorial so it it's not a new age concept per se.

However, my interpretation in light of more modern concepts, would be to just consider a soul as memory with a life force evolving as time (not through space/time). Memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe which would be the quantum potential. Evidence for this preservation would be the evolving characteristics of different species that we refer to as inherited characteristics or innate talents (genes are simply a partial physical manifestation).

The problem with definitions like this, is it tries to include both the natural and supernatural while compromising both. The universe's fabric is not "memory" and no applied or theoretical physics shows it to be. And evolving characteristics of different species, which Punctuated Equilibrium shows to not be primarily progressive, are not indicative of a cosmic "memory" making up the fabric of the universe.

The notion of a soul transcending and defying the physical rules of the universe inevitably depends on either a supernatural explanation or a natural explanation correcting current ones. Nobody has provided the latter yet.

↪Thanatos Sand Time is a big loaf of bread. Brian Greene said so.

Souls, by their nature, are outside of time and space. And even Greene doesn't deny that Entropy pushes time forward beyond any breading. Not even his strings change that.

↪Thanatos Sand smoke and mirrors

That won't win over many converts....:)

How do they happen simultaneously if they are diachronically ordered and one is supposed to learn from the past one? That would seem to counter the Buddhist framework.

The continual enjoyment of living and the deferral of its cessation.

Even if there is a "soul" travelling from body to body, the bodies in with the same soul would be different people. Different bodies have different intelligences, different modes and degrees of perceptions, different sexual predilections, and other different appetites. So, the same person is not travelling from body to body, but the same content would be held by different people through time.

Although, I have read some more about the mystic Wittgenstein. He seemed to assume that there are facts and things that have a property of abstractness that cannot be found in the world. Namely, ethics, aesthetics, and the similar; but, this seems to talk about epiphenomena and not phenomena per se. — Question

It's because they're all discursive. They may arise from and deal with material realities, but the discourses have no immediate correspondents in material realities, only in discourses themselves. It's why Wittgenstein's Language Games work so well with analyzing and evaluating ethical and aesthetic discourses. It's also why Lyotard relied on them to argue why they're being forced to congeal into Meta-narratives is artificial.