Thanks for the interesting and detailed reply, but at risk of being overly pedantic (which I guess is probably not such a problem on a philosophy forum !) I'd like to take issue with your assertion that the fact that humanity is an abstraction is irrelevant.

I do take your point that 'love of humanity' doesn't necessarily commit the fallacy of composition, but I think there is a deeper and more intractable problem with the abstract nature of the word 'humanity' - which is that I don't think it's a term that actually points to anything concrete or meaningful in the world, and instead serves as a kind of placeholder concept for people to displace emotions that would be socially unacceptable if acted out on real, existing human beings (emotions such as disgust, hatred, envy, despair, contempt etc). Hence the general tendency for people to talk about the state of humanity in such tragic terms as in your response above. My assertion is that while there are self-evidently negative aspects to real human nature, in reality the picture is nothing like as grim as it appears once we drop the philosopher's temptation to sit in judgement of real human beings, on the basis of an abstraction we've created ourselves, informed by the most lurid extremes of human behaviour. — Danek21

Quite right. I wouldn't want to present a lop-sided view of humanity but if I've tried to do anything it's to present the facts as they are. We have deep flaws in our nature; nevertheless there is a sense in which they're compensated for by what you might refer to as goodness. It seems we have to hark back to Heraclitus and his doctrine of opposites - the good vs the bad, not as something occuring between people but rather as an internal conflict within each person. This is hard as I myself have discoverd the hard way and I'm sure you know more about it than me.

So, yeah, I agree that picking out a few individuals as representatives of humanity as a whole is a hasty generalization. Yet, it also seems rationally necessary not to overcorrect our impressions by which I mean that just because a few bad apples don't imply the whole batch of apples is bad, it also means, by the same token, that a few good people are not enough to change our views in the other direction. Also, you seem to have switched beliefs between the first and the second posts you made - first you were complaining about humanity and then you changed your tune.

As for the question of abstraction, humanity, it does seem odd that the entire population be blamed for some fiasco but here a great disappointment awaits people who have hope in our species for when its an occasion to assign credit for a job well done, people prefer to say humanity achieved this or that. This reflects poorly on our character does it not? When it's smooth sailing everyone joins in the celebration of humanity's success but at the first sight of danger everyone jumps ship leaving the poor captain to take all the blame.

No problem. Have a good rest. Thanks.

Somehow you're conflating all this into erroneous conclusions. — fishfry

I did say "either that or there must be, at least, two kind/types of zeros" Are you implying -0 is not the same as +0?

I agree it's intuitively appealing that there must be a first cause; but that's not a proof. — fishfry

Infinite regress always occurs in a rational argument so intuition doesn't come into play here. Either the regress itself is problematic or it leads to a contradiction which is then employed to prove a point, whatever that maybe

There was no beginning. There was no first cause. — fishfry

Well, if the universe had no beginning then the past is infinite. So here we have the past as negative infinity as that's what you mean using the integers. Now consider the now to be any number on the integer number line: -3567, -9, 0, 1, 2019, etc. How do we reach these points? We'd have to pass through a positive infinity of time to reach these points. Now, is that possible? Of course not. Why? Think of the positive infinity {0, 1, 2, 3,...}. Can we pass through this positive infinity of time to reach any point that can be considered the present? Impossible, right? There has to be a beginning. It's not turtles all the way down.

It never came into existence, it exists permanently, timeless and uncaused. So it must not need a fine tuned environment.

It looks highly probably that this universe did have a fine tuner though; there are about 20 constants that need to be at or near there current values for life to be possible. — Devans99

What is your definition of fine tuning? Is the definition necessarily associated with life; for example we can only say a universe X is fine-tuned if there's life in it? If yes then the universe that the uncaused first fine-tuner exists/existed in must be fine-tuned. If no then why do you say that our universe is fine-tuned? After all your claim that our universe is fine-tuned seems to turn on there being life in it.

On the amazing argument in the twitter feed you posted.

I hear this being mentioned a lot - that the universe is cold and inhospitable. However, one can always explain the vast distances in the universe being necessary to prevent supernovae from snuffing life out in the star systems, the radiation that permeates the vacuum is necessary because we need stars and stars radiate and the last part, that the universe is devoid of life is devoid of life is incorrect. We don't know if there's life out there or not? According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, life on earth is composed of the most common elements in the universe to wit Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and the rest of the universe will likely have a similar composition; if life could evolve in the solar system, why couldn't it evolve in different star system?

Now does fine-tuning look as bad as the twitter feed you posted makes it out to be?

No you couldn't! That's a 'different' argument because it has different premises!!

All you can conclude from the fact there are states, is that there is 'some thing' that they are the states of. Whether it is a material or immaterial thing is what needs to be shown, not assumed.

So that is not - absolutely not - my argument, but a completely different argument with a flagrantly question begging first premise!

Like I say, you don't know how to argue responsibly. — Bartricks

Why couldn't I? I presented to you a counter-argument with a contradictory conclusion and you don't accept it. I employed your modus ponens form and an argument form is necessarily universal in application and can appear in as many arguments on as many different topics as possible. In short your "couldn't" indicates I've done something impossible which is not the case.

The point is that there's no reason that there must be a first element in an ordered set of causes. The first-mover argument assumes what it's trying to prove. How do you know there's not an infinite regress of causes? "It's turtles all the way down." — fishfry

It's impossible for it to be, as you say, turtles all the way down because we're at a particular position in the sequence, right? There must be an ordinal number, as in nth number, that marks our position in the sequence. What is that number? There is none as I illustrated with the various ways the set of integers Z can be written.

Another way to look at it would be that every number in the sequence of integers corresponds to the ordinal number infinity itself; after all we can only reach it after "beginning" at negative infinity by completing an infinite number of steps. It's my humble opinion that the infinite regress technique basically relies on the inability to complete an supertask as this is; to "begin" at negative infinity and reach any finite position in the sequence is impossible.

Why not? To me it seems like this is the solution to the first mover problem. Everyone's moved yet there is no first mover.

What law of nature says that movers or tuners must be modeled by the natural numbers but not the integers? — fishfry

Z = {...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3,...} or Z = {...-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,..} or Z = {...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2,..}

Notice that though Z is the same set we can list it in different ways: the actual number listed in the first is -3, the second lists -4 and the last lists -2. As you can see this implies that there is no first element and we can arbitrarily choose any number to be explicit in the list as shown above.

I find that Infinite regress is usually employed on the basis that there is no first in a sequence, the fact of which then implies something else whatever that may be. It boils down to a belief that there must be a first. It makes sense why a first is required; a first represents a beginning and if there is no beginning how is the now definable. Consider the fact that if we were to add we would never reach the end because the positive half of integers goes to infinity. Similarly, since you used integers, consider negative infinity. To reach any point from negative infinity we need to add but quite unfortunately adding any finite number to negative infinity still yields negative infinity which in plain language means no point in a sequence that "begins" at negative infinity can ever be reached. This is, to my understanding, the point of an infinite regress.

Getting back to your use of integers, any point in the sequence can be considered a first and that means -4 is a first AND - 3 AND -2 is a first which is a contradiction, right. In other words it has no first and that means the problem with it is the same problem an infinite regress faces to wit that we can't reach any point after negative infinity.

With all due respect to Piaget, who is obviously right about lots of things, I've always had trouble with the idea that doing good 'for humanity' is somehow a 'higher' good. To my mind, 'humanity' is an abstraction - and it's been noticeable in my experience how often people who talk about doing good for humanity in the abstract, are not actually that pleasant to the actual flesh and blood humans they encounter. There also seems to be a slightly simplistic inflationary principle here - loving one human is good, therefore loving 9 billion humans is 9 billion times better. Is it not possible that 'the love of humanity' is actually just a self-aggrandizing delusion ? — Danek21

I don't think that love for/of humanity is a delusion as such but anyone who professes it must in some ways ignore basic truths that make humanity not all that lovable: torture, cruelty, murder, rape are still applicable as descriptors of human behavior. However, there have been recorded cases of some who've done great acts of goodness. If we're cynical these people too inevitably fall into the category of the selfish and cynicism is validated by many stories of supposedly great people falling from grace; the media has been in the forefront of this effort to expose the hidden rot in society represented as good through the few that are in the limelight. Ergo, it seems that humanity is incapable and unworthy of love. To think otherwise is clearly, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, delusional.

That being said, in what way is love of/for humanity a delusion? It is delusional only because it ignores the fact the people seem incapable and unworthy of love. However, notice that we have the notion of love and what deserves love. It's as if, to use a religious example, the devil himself, both incapable and unworthy of love in our reckoning, came to know of love and realized that it, love, excludes him. Yet, the devil having thus realized what love is, is greater than his previous self, ignorant of love. Likewise, humanity, having a notion of selfless love, being neither capable of it nor worthy of it, is "greater" than humanity without such a notion, at least in my eyes. There is profound tragedy in this, isn't there? To realize the greatness of love and to know one is incapable of it and unworthy of it. Perhaps in this pitiful state of humanity some can find a reason to love us as a whole. We love not because of our abilities but despite our inabilities. To ignore this fact would also be a delusion.

As for question of humanity being an abstraction, I think it's irrelevant at this point because love of humanity doesn't commit the fallacy of composition and the word "humanity" doesn't dilute or ignore the fact that individuals who constitute it are our main concern.

Why not? What if each fine tuner (fine tuna?) is indexed by an integer, like so:

…,−4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,……,−4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,…

Each tuner tunes the tuner directly to their right. So -4 tunes -3; -3 tunes -2; and so forth.

You will note that every tuner is tuned; and that there is no untuned tuner

You and William Lane Craig should meditate on this model — fishfry

I don't know if what you said makes sense. If there is no first tuner, then there can't be a second or a third, etc.? An infinite regress here precludes a first fine-tuner and so there can't be a second or a third and so on.

Using the infinity of integers doesn't succeed in solving the problem that there is no first fine-tuner.

4. So there must exist an uncaused fine tuner who’s environment is in itself not fine tuned — Devans99

If the universe of this very special fine-tuner isn't itself fine-tuned for life then how did it ever come into existence as life? I guess that a universe has the right conditions for life aka fine-tuned universe doesn't imply a conscious fine-tuner. If that's the case then why can't this universe be the one that didn't have fine-tuner?

Also, what you said above contradicts what you say below:

The two possible reasons are: a massive fluke or a fine tuner. The second is much more probable than the first IMO. — Devans99

We are, imho, NOT space oddities. As a species engaging in hunting and gathering we did no damage to the planet. The HG regime lasted for most of our history. It was only when we stopped hunting and gathering, and started planting the wheat we found in the fertile crescent (around 12,000 years ago) that we started becoming a problem. Agriculture led to settled existence, and settled existence led to more children which led to more agriculture, more villages, and so on. A few thousand years later we started developing technics, writing, and all that. Philosophy! Finally, after hundreds of thousands of years, we were on our way to becoming a real problem.

It took another 2 thousand years for us to get really good at being the problem we naturally are -- smart apes driven by the emotions of stupid apes, with more power than we know what to do with. Then we discovered industrialism and became hell on wheels, and here we are.

We are engaging in natural, uninhibited, greedy, ugly, bad (and occasionally splendidly beautiful) behavior. We are naturally self-fucking, which is why we may have achieved conditions which will wipe us out. Perfectly natural. For us. Unfortunately. — Bitter Crank

I watched a video on ecology and population growth, the most important problem for the planet as far as humans are concerned. It seems living organisms are divided into two groups based on how their population behaves viz. r-selected or k-selected. r-selected organisms have very rapid reproductive rates and parental investment on offspring is low and you have a large number of offspring, each with a very low probability of surviving but overall the species succeeds because of sheer numbers. k-selected organisms reproduce at lower rates but invest heavily in their offspring and such organism too are successful and populations of k-selected individual remain at around the carrying capacity of the environment defined as the largest population an ecosystem can support indefinitely. Humans, for obvious reasons, are k-selected organisms and should actually be in an equilibrium with the environment. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that humans have removed what are limiting factors like food, disease, etc. that would've prevented the population boom we're experiencing; add to to that our need to construct settlements (villages, towns and cities) and our reliance on large-scale technologies. It's an effective recipe for environmental disaster.

It is not a 'proof', but 'evidence' — Bartricks

You're correct. My bad.

Appearances, whether sensible or rational, are prima facie evidence of the reality of what they represent to be the case. That's a principle of intellectual inquiry without which you'd be unable to argue for anything at all. For instance, it is on the basis of rational appearances that we recognise this argument form: — Bartricks

Here, you're trying to blur the line between the conventional meaning of "appearance" and truth. Appearances are deceptive and therefore we rely on rationality as you have. I could say that your "evidence" for the mind being indivisible is suspect because you claim that, quote, "it appears to be". Nevertheless, this appearance seems so common, everyone seems to have it, that I don't wish to dispute it for the moment. However, there is a possibility that this impression of the mind being indivisible is just an appearance - a mass delusion.

I have twice now explained why this is obviously not so.

First, it is a conceptual truth that 'nothing' is not a thing. By contrast my mind is a thing.

Here's an argument for that (if one were needed):

1. If there are mental states, there is an object - a thing, called 'a mind' - that they are the states of
2. There are mental states
3. Therefore there is an object - a thing, called 'a mind' - that they are the states of.

And minds think, whereas 'nothing' does not. — Bartricks

I could easily rephrase your argument as follows:

1. If there are mental states, there is an object - a material thing, called a brain - that they are the states of
2. There are mental states
3. Therefore there is an object - a material thing, called a brain - that they are states of

You have yet to prove that it's not the brain that's thinking and that the mind is not a brain-state and has an existence distinct from the physical. The only way you can say that the mind is distinct from the brain is to show that it's immaterial and that requires your indivisibility argument but that as we know applies to nothing too. Basically you'll have to admit that your immaterial mind is nothing.

Apparitions, dreams and nightmares though intriguing pale in comparison to the real question which is, "how do I know that I'm not dreaming right now, as I type these words into the message box?" How do we know the universe, everything from the smallest atoms to gigantic galaxies, isn't some kind of collective, or more fascinatingly one person's, dream?

The only way to discover the truth would be to wake up in another reality like in The Matrix and discover that the world you knew was a dream. Unfortunately, that doesn't solve the problem at all because you could be dreaming that you woke up from a dream that you woke up from a dream that you woke up from ad infinitum.

One could say that a dream differs from the world we take to be real in certain crucial areas e.g. you can defy the laws of nature of the real world in dreams but attempting to fly like a bird in the real world is going to end in you getting bruised or, worse, dead. Yet this is a realization that's only available to those who've dreamed and awakened with memories of such wild dreams. Since we can never be sure that this our world is real or just a dream because no one till now has woken up from it and passed on the information to us, we'll be in the dark probably for perpetuity.

Actually if you really think about it, seeing apparitions when awake, as so many have claimed, might be an indication that this world is just a dream: these spectres maybe the law-defying instances that "prove" that, just like we break the laws of reality in our dreams, this reality too is just another layer in our dream world where the laws governing our familiar reality are broken.

Sorry, I was a bit distracted.

Let's look at your main argument

1.The mind is indivisible

2. If the mind is indivisible then it's simple, immaterial and uncaused

So,

3. The mind is simple, immaterial and uncaused

The proof for premise 1, is according to you, "it appears to be" which, despite it being couched in a hedge, is easy to confirm through personal experience: I'm aware of my mental processes and also that I exist, distinct from others and actually consider myself to be quite like the driver of a vehicle, steering the body to do my bidding. Also, as you said, there's no sense in which I could talk of a half or a quarter of my mind.

However, notice something about your immaterial mind. It, based on being simple (indivisible), being immaterial AND being uncaused is exactly identical to nothing. So, now I present you an analogical argument:

Nothing is immaterial, simple and uncaused and doesn't think
(According to you) there's a mind that's immaterial, simple and uncaused
Ergo, by my analogy
this immaterial "mind" also doesn't think

No it hasn't! All science has shown - and this is hardly recent - is that events in the brain affect what goes on in the mind. If one thing affects another, that does not show they're the same thing! For instance, your responses are making me cross. That is, they are causing in me a certain mental state. Now, that doesn't show that I am your responses, does it! Or that your responses are my mental states. Yet by your logic it would. — Bartricks

I like Sam Harris' account of the problem dualists face when they transfer consciousness to something immaterial. Harris states that damage to certain parts of the brain results in a specific loss of function corresponding to that part. So if your speech center is damaged, you lose the ability to speak. Now, if one thinks the mind survives death then it must mean that the entire brain shutting down is of no consequence for the mind. Yet, if neuroscience has proven anything it's that our mental functions are localized in the brain and if damage to parts of the brain result in loss of function, it follows that when the entire brain is damaged, as in death, the mind should cease existing.

Sorry for making your cross. You've been kind to be patient. I admire that. Thank you

Er, no. I literally just told you the ways in which a mind - which is a thing - differs from nothing. And you then reply that I am making a thing out of nothing. Sheesh - can you read?

Nothing is not a thing. My mind is. Big difference. So, my mind is not nothing.

My mind thinks. Nothing doesn't. Big difference. So my mind is not nothing.

And on and on.

But don't let a proof get in the way of a conviction. Good job! — Bartricks

:lol: :up:

Firstly, modern science has proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's the brain that thinks. We've even mapped out the regions of the brain concerned with specific mental activity. Ergo, you must realize that you will have to move your business into the immaterial and your arguments on the mind being immaterial rest on 1) indivisibility and that I've brought to your notice is insufficient to make a clear distinction between the mind, considered immaterial and nothing. That's why in my humble opinion, you're trying to make a thing of nothing.

Nothing is not a thing - there's no serious dispute about that. I mean, it is there in the word itself - 'no-thing'. Nothing. Not a thing. Nothing.

They are not identical. For one thing, my mind is a thing and nothing is not. Big difference. Doesn't actually get bigger than that.
Also, my mind thinks. That's one of its properties - it thinks things. Nothing doesn't. And so on.

I suggest that you are confusing 'immaterial' with 'non-existent' and 'material' with 'existent'. Not the same. — Bartricks

I think that's the point. It seems that you're making a thing out of nothing. BrianW reminded me of the brain - the organ that has been proved to be that which thinks.

Nothing is not a thing. So saying it is indivisible is a category error. — Bartricks

If nothing, is not a thing and the mind is a thing then observe they are exactly identical with respect to the properties you listed. You'll have to provide me with a property that distinguishes the two and demonstrate how the category error is apt to the issue.

Why would I listen to your advice about how to argue, when you don't seem to know how to argue?

If something is simple it is indivisible. And if something is indivisible, it is simple.

So, if my mind is indivisible - and the evidence is that it is - then it is simple.

Simple. — Bartricks

I'm not advicing you. Sorry if it seemed that way. Your argument was complex.

Nothing too is simple, indivisible, immaterial and uncaused according to you.

Therefore, since the mind hasn't been identified in a unique sense (it's exactly the same as nothing), we can't decide whether you're talking about nothing or the mind.

Oh, this is tedious.

Evidence that the mind is indivisible: it appears to be.

Evidence that the mind is immaterial: it is indivisible.

Now, perhaps you think that for something to be evidence, there needs to be evidence that it is evidence.

In that case your view generates an infinite regress and thus amounts to the belief that nothing is evidence for anything. Which is stupid. — Bartricks

Argument E.

E1. If an object is indivisible, then it is simple, immaterial and has not been caused to exist
E2. My mind is indivisible.
E3. Therefore, my mind is a simple, immaterial object that has not been caused to exist — Bartricks

What I'm trying to say is that you should first prove the mind is simple because being immaterial and being uncaused follows from being simple, not from indivisibility. Instead you straightaway claim that the mind is indivisible and none of your preceding arguments have a proposition that allows you to take the necessary step to the proposition that the mind is simple, immaterial object that has not been caused to exist.

no, if it is indivisible - which it is - then it is immaterial, for anything material is divisible. — Bartricks

Not really. Begging the question. The proposition that needs to be proved is that the mind is indivisible for your argument to work. To do that you need to prove that the mind is immaterial. You can't use indivisibility as evidence of immaterialness because that would be circular.

Well said, bravo! — Teller

:joke:

My reason - and yours too - represents it to be indivisible.

For example, you attribute a mind to me - yes? You can't attribute 'half' a mind to me though, can you? I mean, that makes no sense (apart from the colloquial use of 'half a mind' - when it means 'half a desire-to'). — Bartricks

For that to work you'll have to prove that the mind is immaterial. I don't think you've done that.

So, stay tuned. More to come. — Bitter Crank

:rofl:

I was trying to show that global climate has been affected by organisms before although in a natural way and the present man-made global warming may lead to something interesting even if that may involve our extinction. It brings to the fore the debate on what is natural and what is unnatural - is man-made climate change just a natural process or is it not?

Well, the term "conspiracy theory" applies to improbable and thus less plausible theories then alternatives which are more probable, ergo more plausible. Speaking in scientific terms, conspiracy theories, are junk theories that, although possessing explanatory power, are just too convoluted to be plausible.

However that something is less probable doesn't mean it's false. The fact of the matter is that people are drawn to conspiracy theories if only because it gets the adrenaline rushing; there's a sense of mystery, a feeling that one is privy to some kind of secret information, etc. Thus conspiracy theories are born and sustained. I've come across a lot of conspiracy theories but most of them fall apart at some level; the more well-crafted the conspiracy theory the deeper one has to go to see the inconsistencies, the subtle glossing over of important details, the weak but professed links between events, etc.

nor did I take out a hit on a cow — Bartricks

Yes, that's exactly what you did by demanding meat. If you demand meat then someone will butcher an animal. Contrapositively, if you don't want people to butcher animals then you'll have to stop eating meat.

I don't follow. Each argument was deductively valid, yes? And you've yet to raise any reasonable doubt about any premise of any of them. You've just told me that if I demonstrated the mind to be simple, it would follow that it is immaterial and uncause.d

er, that's precisely - precisely - what I did!! — Bartricks

Well, what's your proof that the mind is indivisible?

I read with some interest the story of the group, One Million Moms, condemning a Burger King commercial for using that horrid word: "Damn".
It seems to me that this organization might better spend their disparaging time on something that matters.
In my view condemning a word that has little pejorative meaning anymore is silly and petty.
Does One Million Moms not have anything better to do than invite ridicule on themselves? — Teller

Well, it seems "damn" means to condemn to hell and so it's understandable that One Million Moms, being a Christian group, is, to put it mildly, upset since if their children repeat at home, it would constantly remind them of hellfire - the very thing they wish to flee from by embracing christianity.
.
It all seems very silly to those who aren't religious for hell to them is just a iron-age myth but one can, with a little bit of imagination, get a feel of the horror the word evokes in those who believe that hell is a real place; to understand the psychological stress such people go through when they hear "damn", imagine if someone were to tell you, flippantly so, that your worst nightmare is going to come true and that too enlisting your children to repeat the same in your homes. You would be overwhelmed by the 24/7 assault on your beliefs both inside and outside your homes.

Of course we could say that since the faithless don't make a fuss about religion in a similar way, the faithful should return the courtesy and each side could coexist peacefully without stepping on each other's toes. This state of equilibrium is impossible because religions come with so many prohibitions that are incompatible with the world in this day and age; plus religious doctrines aren't amenable to alteration, being the word of god.

The best that can be said of the situation is that the religious right will act as a counterpoise to moral mayhem and in these small, seemingly childish, quarrels between the two sides society may find the golden mean.

I did. The final argument is logically disconnected from the rest of the arguments you made.

she instantaneously ages by a large amount during the instantaneous turnaround — Mike Fontenot

Wouldn't instantaneous change in age be violating a principle of relativity that is bandied around like juicy gossip, to wit that communication can't be faster than light? Are we entering the domain of quantum entanglement?

Argument A
1a. If all objects are caused then infinity exists
2a. Infinity doesn't exist
Ergo
3a. Some objects are not caused

Argument B
1b. If all objects are complex then infinity exists
2b. Infinity doesn't exist
So
3b. Some objects are simple

Argument C
1c. If a simple thing is material then simple things must be divisible
2c. Simple things aren't divisible
So,
3c. Simple things are immaterial

Argument D
1d. If a simple thing is caused then there must something simpler to cause it
2d. There is nothing simpler than a simple thing
So,
3d. A simple thing is uncaused

Argument E
1e. If the mind is indivisible then it is simple, uncaused & immaterial
2e. The mind is indivisible
So,
3e. The mind is simple, uncaused & immaterial

Well, you haven't proved any of the premises in your final argument, E. A survey of your preceding arguments have the following conclusions:
3a. Some objects are uncaused
3b. Some objects are simple
3c. Simple things are immaterial
3d. A simple thing is uncaused

Where's 1e and 2e in them???

You should've tried to prove that the mind is a simple thing, from which would follow that it's immaterial and uncaused.

Also, you rely heavily on infinity, specifically that it doesn't exist. I guess you're referring to an actual physical infinity here and if you are no one really knows whether actual infinities exist or not.

You may already know this butit seems humans aren't the only organisms to have affected our earth's climate: cyanobacteria caused the great oxygenation event and that radically altered the flora and fauna and the carboniferous period led to global cooling.

Continuing in this vein, the expansion also fails to complete in a finite number of steps. — Andrew M

But the Curry statement does terminate. It is self-referential but doesn't result in an infinite loop.

"Provocation" is the keyword I believe. Art, back in the day, was about beauty and expressing that in stone, canvas and pages. Now, since we're in the grips of a creed that worships novelty we see artists taking on the mantle of provocateurs who're mostly concerned with the shock-value of their "art". The idea, in its most sophisticated form, seems to be akin to a cardiac defibrillator: to deliver a jolt with the express purpose of reviving us from what the artist probably assumes is a deep slumber.

I'd like to discuss Dostoevsky's claim that if god is dead then everything is permissible and how it relates to autonomism. I don't believe that a god exists but if he did then this universe , this world, with all that's good in it and all the bad - genocide, mass murder, slavery, etc. - can be thought of as divine art. If so, can the autonomist be accused of contradicting morals, especially morals that have divine origins? I mean god, in his masterpiece - this world, did in a lot of people; surely an artist can kill some people to create his art.

You were comparing the violinist in Thomson's gedanken experiment with a meat-source for our diets, a cow. There's a difference. In the former the violinist isn't in a tight spot because of you and so you're not obligated to do him a favor. In the latter, the cow is being slaughtered because you have a habit of eating meat and so you're responsible for the death of the cow. Now, if it could be shown that the violinist was in fact put into this difficulty because of you, you would be obligated to help him in any way you can. I think this logic applies to the original intent of Thomson's thought experiment which I reckon was directed against the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

The fetus doesn't just pop into existence inside the womb; sex is a necessary act. And there's the widely held belief that anyone who performs an act must be sensitive to the consequences of the act and so the people who have sex become accountable for the fetus that resulted from having sex. I'm afraid the violinist is your responsibility and if you are a responsible, moral person you would choose to save the violinist.

:ok:

But in general, art has been held to be beyond Good & Evil, because it is a subjective (private) value system, and Morality is a value system between moral agents (public). — Gnomon

So art, which is not just the visual arts, challenges standard ways of seeing the world. Unfortunately some artists make use of the shock value to promote themselves, and of course it gets harder and harder to shock so more shock is required — Brett

equivocation — god must be atheist

Firstly, I think people will be especially concerned about what Gnomon said, that art has been held to be beyond Good & Evil. Maybe I'm committing the slippery slope fallacy here but if it's true that morality doesn't apply to art and that art is beyond Good & Evil then a situation may arise where a clearly immoral act e.g. murder may be presented as art and we'd be asked to ignore any moral consideration on the matter and instead focus our attention on the artistic nature of the killing.

All the examples of art in conflict with morality have been either depictions of immoral acts (rape of Sabine women & war) or the art is itself immoral (Piss Christ). I have no problem with the former because done with dexterity depictions of immorality can help us understand our own nature, the nature of morality, our history, etc. but art that, instead of depicting immorality, are in and of themselves immoral e.g. the Piss Christ could be that small chink in the moral armor that could eventually widen into a big gaping hole through which all forms of immoral acts can be introduced, even rape and murder, in the name of art. Of course this seems to require the artist to be an idiot to try a stunt like that but there was a case of an artist, name forgotten, who put 3 goldfish in a blender and asked the audience if they'd like to turn on the devices. I believe one person did and the result was well-blended goldfish. Police arrived on the scene and arrested the artist for cruelty to animals. This, to me, is a first small step to greater acts of cruelty/evil in the name of art.

This is because of something I call processor efficiency. I define it as the percentage of real time speed a processor can simulate itself in real time. We can see in practice that processors we have are very inefficient and many more "natural processes" that make up the processor are needed to simulate one of those processes. And a processor that can simulate its processes faster than it itself is, would cause absurdity since the processor it simulates could simulate a processor even faster etc... causing an infinitely fast processor. — Qmeri

I don't understand. Why does a simulation processor need to simulate itself?