1. We're not Boltzmann brains.
2. If we exist then causality has to exist [we depend on the laws of nature - causal relationships - for our existence]
3. We exist
Ergo,
4. Causality has to exist (causality is necessary)

The Mind-Body Gap

Not much has changed, bodily, for the past 35,000 years (Cro-Magnons looked like us and we look like them)

Mentally, however, we've taken great leaps forward!

These bodies are no longer the appropriate vessels for our highly advanced brains/minds.

Many issues like carnism/veganism can be framed in the context of The Mind-Body Gap to get a good handle on them.

According to our bodies, the year is 2022 CE
According to our minds, the year is 30032 CE

:grin:

prediction error, ie. suffering — Possibility

:up:

We talked about margin of error!

So, suffering is, at the end of the day, an error!

Is that why we dislike suffering so much? Nobody likes making mistakes, especially silly mistakes?

There's more but I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment! Maybe you can. Give it a go, will ya?

Update

To put this thread back on track.

Define

1. Existence: That which can be perceived (with our senses & instruments( exists.
2. Physical: That which is matter and/or energy. Both are perceived (accurately) with instruments.

Maybe you should try and get one. Might upgrade your input. :wink: — Wayfarer

Yeah, yeah, I love you too! :grin:

Please "logically demonstrate" that evolution entails a "Cosmic Mind ... Creator / Programmer" [ ... ] — 180 Proof

Would you rethink your position on God if I were to say that God is just one of the many explanatory hypotheses out there for the existence of the universe? In other words, I go from God exists to God may exist.

Ugh. Where to begin.

If you think the way you do here on this thread, then you have no understanding of human nature yet — L'éléphant

:chin:

An expression of disapproval is not a point. — Philosophim

:up:

It appears that minds can exist, albeit only for mere fractions of a second, in chaos (re Boltzmann brains).

We all have an unexpressed desire to be be special. Despite how the vast majority of royalty is plagued by a poor track record, a young girl's dream is to be a, get this, princess (Disney Princess movies are all the rage I hear).

This is very encouraging in my humble opinion for it then raises the possibility that we could, in a sense, delink the euphoria (good) from the dependence (bad) of drugs (I was informed that power is addictive), figuratively speaking.

Haha.

If we move to the field of personal opinions... women have always seemed to me the most frivolous beings that have been born on earth. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

:smile:

You know what, take this as a compliment for I intended it as one, your EnformActionism is, to my reckoning, what religion will look like in the distant future (say a 100 to a 1000 years from now). It blends old ideas with new ones, in the most elegant of ways I might add. Moreover, it's got a little bit of everything in it (eclectic/mashup/remix)!

You're a prophet, Gnomon! :smile:

:fire:

I'm afraid I lack the background to grok your post. However I've encountered the particular strain of philosophy you're espousing - reads more like literature (a novel) than philosophy, but I don't hold that against you or those like you (necessity is the mother of invention).

I read somewhere that the naysayers of philosophy accuse it of being nothing more than literature review. How would you respond?

It all depends, I guess, on whether we're baffled or not?

So, are we baffled or not?

Aporia $\to$ Ataraxia [The Greeks anticipated all this 2.5k years ago]

Yeah, approximately — 180 Proof

:grin: :up:

Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed (The Blood Countess). If her story is true, she's the most prolific serial killer the world has ever known, 650 victims).

Yay! Woman for president! :joke:

1. Ask a question.
2.
Algorithm: "Choose the field of Philosophy that can best answer the question you start with".
— ssu — ArmChairPhilosopher

Most fascinating!

You da man 180 Proof

Would I be correct if I said that your philosophy is scientific to the degree it emphasizes (the avoidance of) falsehoods while trying its best to approximate truths?

We're in the dark and we're shooting! What could go wrong?

I haven't yet reached the stage to answer the OP's question. Like has always been the case, I'm a walking teetering, tottering mess of a human being...I'll post when and if I stumble upon the truth! :grin:

I am intoxicated and yet I haven't taken any intoxicants!

These things are not created by language, they are created by human beings, with language as a tool. — Metaphysician Undercover

@Banno

Is there a philosophical argument that attempts to prove that language & thought are the same?

idealist — Metaphysician Undercover

Remind me to stay away from idealists! I lived a life as one! It didn't work out!

:ok:

You completed the list then, mon ami! Merci beaucoup!

contribute to the growth of humanity. — Angelo Cannata

:grin: What do you think I am? Socrates' avatar? You know what? I do feel like the Athenian gadfly, when he was about 2! :lol:

Nonetheless, good advice! Muchas gracias señor!

:ok:

Step 1: Epistemology
Step 2: Logic
Step 3: Metaphysics
Step 4: Aesthetics.
Step 5: Ethics. — javi2541997

I like how you put ethics last! :up:

That's not what I "mean to say". — 180 Proof

But it's an interesting angle, oui? The clearer the picture of reality in your mind, the less real it is! Where have I heard that before?

Too good to be true? :chin:

The first one who says you make ñoise, I will personally... How philosophical can it get? — Hillary

:grin: Thanks

Thus it is metaphysically possible for there to be no truths. — Bartricks

:chin:

For now, let's say my thesis is restricted to worlds with minds.

You touched upon something that's been bothering me viz. the necessity for minds! A universe that contains information must also have minds, the two complementing each other to constitute knowledge [a mind (a belief), a true proposition, justification for that proposition].

On that view, God is a necessary being - He hasta exist or else there won't be knowledge (omniscience) or something like that.

He's not alone. — Banno

Thank G... I'm an agnostic! What's the equivalent to "Thank God" in atheism/agnosticism?

In the eyes of Wittgenstein, a philosopher has a huge outgrowth, or soft hanging blob, on the side of his/her skull containing the neo-cortex part for language. They usually lean slightly to the other side for balance. — Hillary

:chin:

You could make more noise and increase the signal more than that... The ratio will get better! Lovely sound thiugh, noise! :smile: — Hillary

Helpful tip! :up:

On the contrary, I think we can (with this rule-of-thumb): where "the difference" is ambiguous (or vague), we encounter "reality"; on the other hand, where it is clear, explicit, definite, we perceive "illusion" – just like "the difference" between waking and dreaming, during the latter we don't get tired and cannot fall asleep (as if we're "more awake" than awake). Also a problem with the "Simulation Hypothesis" is the (conspicuously) hidden assumption of 'ontological (substance) dualism' whereby it makes sense to pose the question which can be answwered, if only in principle, one way or another; otherwise, absent this assumption, the philosopher (e.g. Nick Bostrom) is also a simulation and therefore the "hypothesis" makes no sense, as :strong: 'Conan the Barbarian' points out ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

You mean to say that clarity, consistency, certainty are markers of illusion? That's interesting! So the more you (think you) understand something, the more deluded you are (psychotic individuals tend to be 100% certain about their beliefs); vagueness, uncertainty, cognitive dissonance are the defining features of the real world, the real world is, as someone once said, messy.



Philosophy then must be a waste of time considering how it aims for the very things you've declared as hallmarks of illusions!

I didn't participate in that thread because I lack the right equipment so to speak to do so.

Anyway, from what I can gather, to call those items you listed in your next to last post hallucinations is to only expose the fact that they're intersubjective. I wouldn't call such entities hallucinations or if I must they would be collective hallucinations (mass hysteria?).

A shared hallucination is closer to reality than one specific to an individual by virtue of consistency in the group that experiences it. What do you suppose are the implications of that?

:chin:

The statement "there are no truths" was meant to be understood as "there are no true propositions". You yourself pointed out that only propositions can be true.

It’s balderdash, and you don’t give a s***t that it is, so your apology means nothing, like most of what else you write.

You used to be ‘Themadfool’, right? You do sometimes come up with some actual insights, but the signal-to-noise ratio has been pretty terrible lately. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see what I can do to improve.

Yes, my friend! But the real genius is able to draw the line again after returning from the madhouse. — Hillary

:ok:

...such as property, money, government, credit...? — Banno

Are these illusions illusions? How?

Wu wei! The state should interfere but only by not doing so!

:joke:

A = There are no truths

If A is true, it is false (contradiction)

Ergo,

A has to be false. That means

There are some truths, is true!

Witt wasn’t contrasting philosophy ( or reality) with language, as if language is always at risk of referring inaccurately or in a distorted fashion to real events and things. He didnt think this, because for him language is not a tool for referring to things. Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing — Joshs

:ok: I would've preferred Wittgenstein's thesis to be exactly how I interpreted it in my previous post. That would've been awesome in my humble opinion. Imagine if language were creating illusions! Fascinating, oui?