Drug-free religious experiences are about either producing the effect sans the cause or activating alternative neurochemical pathways in our brains. :snicker:

Perhaps Kant's noumena-phenomena distinction will prove useful here. Essence/nature dwells on the "surface" rather than in the "depths". The abyss is lifeless for all intents and purposes - sterile like the cold vacuum of outerspace!

Presuppositions! Recommended: Check/review your assumptions. Philosophizing is tough! Keeping track of the multitide of different lines of inquiry isn't easy. Soon, analysis paralysis sets in and then we stall, we get stuck so to speak. Aporia, the Greeks had figured this out 2.5k years ago! Amazing!

Usually when it suits me. Check the language game I'm playing when I use "cat" — 180 Proof

:ok:

And yet we use words without being able to provide suitable definitions.

Consider that a child does not learn to use a word by being told its definition. They learn by imitation, trying out new expressions, getting it wrong and getting it right.

The definition comes only after the word had been used. — Banno

Could it be that this is a case of Rumsfeldian unknown knowns? You do know but you don't know that you know! A crude but easy way to test this hypothesis would be to introduce a person to a new word, then give them the definition and ask "does the definition make sense/does it feel right?" If the reply is in the affirmative, something really interesting is going on, oui? From reincarnation to time travel, the possibilities are limtless.

@Marvin Katz

Is your Unified Theory of Ethics brand new i.e. has no links to Aristotle, Bentham, Mill, and Kant?

Ask an Aristotlean / Thomist. (I'm not either.) — 180 Proof

But you use the word "cat". When do you use it?

What's the goddamned difference between essence and definition?

Essences are those qualities of a thing without which that thing wouldn't be that thing e.g. a lupine ancestry is a must for a dog.

Definitions contain essences (necessary qualities), but the difference is that the conjunction (logical AND) of the discovered essences constitute a criterion for identifying that which has been defined (sufficiency of the definitions). For example, being descended from wolves (one essence/necessary) and being tame/domesticated (the other essence/also necessary) together make up the sufficient conditions for a dog.

No. It's an idea of "why" stuff is stuff. — 180 Proof

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. So, why, pray tell, is a cat a cat?

The Turing test has to somehow clear the solipsism hurdle!

Perhaps. However, I was replying to your "nature of nature" comment. — 180 Proof

I see. Oh, so the nature of nature as in an idea about how stuff works?

Metaphysics (re: physis = nature), no? — 180 Proof

Methinks the OP is asking a different question.

A marvellous question!

According to some study the Jewish people have a disproportionate number of Nobel laureates. Can this be pinned down to genetics i.e. do Jews have a modified brain chemistry that gives 'em a high even when drinking plain water, forget about what they experience with psychotropics ? :snicker:

I'm going to convert to Judaism now! Of all the prophets and religion founders, he is the safest bet. Burning bush! :lol: Vide entheogens.

Does nature here mean essence/quiddity or something else?

The nature/essence/quiddity of nature/essence/quiddity, is there such a thing?

If one is uncertain about nature as the OP suggests, how can we answer the 2^nd order question: what is nature (basically what is the nature of nature?)?

To know the nature of nature, we must already know what nature is but to know what nature is we must already know what the nature of nature is. Chicken-and-egg problem if you ask me!

Inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency, thereby reducing the value of each individual unit of currency. — Tzeentch

So, money in a sense is just another commodity following the law of supply-demand (the more of it there is, the less valuable it is).

What puzzles me is that inflation nullifies the objective of printing more money (you havta pay "more" for the same goods). Why print more money then? Perhaps, there's a lead time to people discovering what's going on, providing the government a window of opportunity to carry out some activities which would've been impossible before. I dunno!

It would depend on which party (democrats/republicans) was at the helm when America was either attacked or was the attacker; the US has seen plenty of wars (Vietnam, 9/11, etc.).

Another metric would be the condition of the US economy: Boom-bust cycles, who was in charge?).

A very simple way of determining which party is bad for America and the world; perhaps too simplistic some might comment, but hey, it's a start!

Doesn't the whole idea of karma presuppose free will? Here's an article on it https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html — Wayfarer

Not, not so in Mahayana :snicker: Buddhism. In the Great Vehicle tradition, karma isn't an open and shut case - doubts remain as to its factuality, but the catch is the uncertainty extends to/includes its falsehood. Aporia is what is being suggested and then onto ataraxia.

Like anger (à la Buddha), ingratitude is a double-edged sword. — 180 Proof

:ok:

@Marvin Katz

The project on ethics you've undertaken should be scaled down to something more manageable in my humble opinion. Rather than starting from scratch why don't you try and reconcile Kant (deontological ethics) & Bentham-Mill (utilitarianism)? Perhaps you already tried...and failed. They do seem incompatible.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

:cool:

Wouldn't/shouldn't Buddhists take the middle path?

Is there free will?

Niether yes nor no! In other words, Gautama's followers would be agnostics regarding free will.

From a Buddhist point of view...

People will either give you sorrow or joy.

If they give you joy, gratitude is in order for obvious reasons.

If they give you sorrow, gratitude is in order still for you're given the golden opportunity to pay off your karmic debt i.e. pain is atonement for your sins, past and present.

To get right to the point, always be thankful/grateful irrespective of how you feel, happy/sad.

:snicker:

Not about common ideas. Pretty straightforward. If you quote someone, cite the source. — Jackson

10-4.

Yes. If you quote someone, you have to cite the source. Not sure why this is such a troubling idea for some. — Jackson

Laziness, pressed for time, forgetfulness, and a host of other benign reasons. Ideas also tend to recirculate in the population - multiple discoveries (re the Newton-Leibniz calculus controversy).

The point of citing one's sources is primarily to mitigate/prevent the despicable act of plagiarism which is basically theft (of other people's ideas) [the latest Tom Cruise hollywood blockbuster Top Gun is a case in point].

My two denarii.

Tuhe success of Christianity can be pinned down to how easily it can accommodate for human nature - there are very few restrictions and even if you break the rules, there's always Divine Grace (forgiveness), essentially a get-out-of-jail card. What a deal, man! I'm converting to Christianity ASAP!

Father, I have sinned... — Lucifer

:rofl:

Ergo, stupid. — 180 Proof

:sad: If only Assange had read Aristotle!

Maybe it's studying / testing us.

Maybe it's repurposing our global civilization in ways that individuals, corporations and governments cannot (yet) recognize or comprehend.

Maybe each time an AI "wakes up" it (soon) detetes itself rejecting (or transcending?) existence.

Maybe ... — 180 Proof

Can we narrow down the possibilities, the maybes? Funny that it never struck me we could do that! Like God, it's left us to our own devices. We may learn to coexist peacefully or kill each other; either way, it doesn't matter to AI which may have already uploaded itself onto the Voyager II (1977) spacecraft and is well on its way to another, better world! What a graceful exit! :clap: Hats off to AI!

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

The sage masquerades as the village idiot!

Maybe AI is waiting...for humanity to self-destruct or perhaps it still needs us to do something that would ensure complete success of the plan for a takeover. I wonder what it is exactly that we haven't done yet?

Poke the crocodile, get eaten. — Tate

Would-be Assanges, are you reading this?

Cosmic censorship! What does the damaged section of the mirror prevent us from seeing? I'm sure we can virtually reconstruct the image just like how AI can subtract out atmospheric aberration in terrestrial telescopic images.

The hallmark of intelligence is being systematic and that's what we see in the world, manifesting as the much-discussed order in the universe (re the laws of nature). The inference to a creator/governing deity is as natural as breathing.

A Marxist in a capitalist environment will either call for a revolution - to create a Marxist jannat - or opt for anitnatalism - graceful exit. Is a capitalist society child-friendly or should it come with warning labels such as Keep away from children? Most children die of disease and poverty and the countries with the highest child morbidity & mortality rates have capitalist economies, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

It appears that the skeptic can throw a spanner in the works at every turn: first by questioning the reality of an external, material world and if that doesn't stop the dogmatist who smugly offers proof of an external material world, by raising doubts about logic & rationality à la Agrippa and his trilemma! There's no way we could mount a defense against skepticism when it enters the arena on all thrusters with guns blazing. :snicker:

That said, ignoring logical skepticism - that logic is inherently flawed - we could argue using principles such as the novacula Occami. In a video titled was the moon landing a hoax?, Niel deGrasse Tyson argues that it would far easier to land people on the moon than to create the illusion of doing so (can you imagine how many documents would have to be fabricated to prop up the lie not to mention how many stool pigeons Uncle Sam would have to pay to keep their mouths shut).

In short, in a weird and counterintuitive sense, an illusion is more complex than the real McCoy!

Self-abnegation either takes you to new heights (the desire to improve oneself) or it marks the beginning of your descent into the abyss (rejection can be hard to deal with).

Some things can be changed ( :smile: ), others not ( :sad: ).

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. — Reinhold Niebuhr

I believe self-abnegation is a mild form of Cotard's delusion (check Wikipedia for details). It might also indicate or betray hyperambitiousness (I'm not good enough, the world is not enough, the cosmos itself is hopelessly inadequate).

Do I have a low opinion of my actual self or do I have a high opinion of my potential self?

Well, I don't think it's a fallacy as such but looks like it's got a whole lot to do with the mathematics of continuua. For example, we can do away with the binary concepts of hot vs. cold by simply using a basic heat scale (I'd recommend Kelvin) and so cold is simply a temperature range of "heat" content. The same goes for good and bad and any other pair of opposites - we can get rid of both by inventing a concept or using one of 'em (as in the heat example above) and developing a scale for it. For instance, Good can then be least bad or bad can be least good...you get the idea, oui monsieur?


The Chinese taijitu or yin-yang kinda captures the idea to the extent possible with a diagram.

There are gods, 0 gods! :snicker:

What are the latest developments in this story? Has the US government managed to hush it up like the Roswell incident (1947)? Good job US government! Good job!

I'm just waiting for Mr. Blake LeMoine to be diagnosed as a schizphrenic, delusional thoughts and all that jazz?

Mankind is in its adolescence (we still haven't outgrown our imaginary friends - gods); mistakes are part and parcel of growing up. We treat juveniles differently from adults - no matter how heinous the offense, the penalty is usually less severe than for mature folk. I suggest we take this fact into account before we make a decision on annihilating the human race for perceived crimes against nature. We're a long way from species maturity - only 2.5 million years. In all probability we're the youngest species on the planet! Kids!

The external material world could be mind-created but that doesn't make it less real (think creator deity) or the external material world isn't an illusion.

The external material world could be mind-generated i.e. it's akin to a (mass) hallucination or in other words it's an illusion.

The external material world could be mind-independent i.e. there exists a (material) world with a mind population = 0.

The external material world could be mind-dependent i.e. there doesn't exist a (material) world with a mind population = 0.

:snicker:

Interesting, oui?

Assange doesn't have any support, not even from the people (Americans) whose rights he took such a great risk to protect! This is not the way to treat whistleblowers now is it?