There is standard Buddhist doctrine. — baker

A Buddhist monk once told me this:

Question: Is there a self?
Buddhism: Neither yes nor no!!!

Analyze that!

Epistemological/Ontological stance? Unknown (to me)!

It kinda brings on confusion, such an answer, but the state desired seems to be a kind of aporia (bewilderment) and then onto ataraxia (calm bafflement).

Similar to how hypothetical dissent could be possible, provided that clear signs of interests in an alternative state of affairs are present ;) — DA671

:ok:

Hypothetical consent is possible and permissible provided that it be dealt with the utmost delicacy.

We can be informed of what a person's value set is, the particulars of a given situation, and that's all we need for hypothetical consent.

Implicit in the notion of hypothetical consent is the belief/fact that we're all, like Aristotle thought, rational animals. Are we?

@Bartricks

I was wrong, a thousand apologies. Hypothetical consent is possible. One simply has to put oneself in the other person's shoes! I recall, 6 or so moons ago, attempting to simulate the long-dead Buddha (his mind); some very well-known thespians are known to become the character they're portraying. So, for instance, Ben Kingsley (becomes)is Gandhi!

I repeat: not knowing whether C is satisfied or not is not evidence that C is false.

We ought not to hurt another, other things being equal. But sometimes we can't tell whether doing X will hurt another or not. By your wonky lights that's evidence that it is false that we ought not to hurt another. — Bartricks

You're contradicting yourself. First you affirm it isn't (always) possible to know what someone wants and then, second you deny that very position by averring that hypothetical consent is permissible.

If your method of thinking for someone else isn't going to cover all the bases, it's as good as not having a method at all, si? Each case would need to be evaluated separately, as unique and special. Furthermore, that means a lot of guesswork! No, no, mon ami, you've failed to make a case for hypothetica consent.

sometimes it won't be easy to tell if c is satisfied. — Bartricks

:up:

That's the fatal flaw in your argument, oui?

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" — Magnus

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is, as of yet, unproven. It's simply a rule-of-thumb; useful, yes, but true/false, a different story.

Spaceship Earth — Wayfarer

:up:

I've always been drawn to that idea. I even went so far as to conjecture that we're going to rendezvous with a habitable planet in (say) another 10k to 20k years if all goes well. Unfortunately, there seems to be no evidence for my conjecture - the solar system seems to be adrift in the void with no particular travel plan deducible from its trajectory.



Remember how the Voyager spaceship was launched when a special planetary alignment was happening (every 176 years). We need to do the same but this time with a star that has an earth-like, habitable planet in orbit around it.

a) the hypothetical consent is informed and not a product of ignorance; — Bartricks

:ok:

b) the actual informed consent is not practically possible; — Bartricks

:ok:

c) when not doing X to Rachel would either result in her being harmed, or deprived of a significant benefit; — Bartricks

Problemo! If Rachel has a different set of values, you wouldn't be able to give/withhold consent on her behalf. One man's meat is another man's poison.

d) when the hypothetical consent can be considered to be present prior to the performance of the act. — Bartricks

:ok:

No. "I do not believe in God therefore I do not believe in God." — Jackson

:chin:

Genetic mutation (re X-men, Marvel Comics)

In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because it commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist).

My point is that the method employed in re accepting/rejecting a proposal matters to hypothetical consent. One thing's for sure - it involves an examination of risks & benefits. The catch is these are value-dependent and one man's meat is another man's poison if you catch my drift.

What enables exploitation? Profit mentality most probably. One way of maximizing profits is to underpay workers and that's exploitation, oui?

And rightly so. Ain't heaven a purely non-material state of existence? And the cosmos a material copy? — Hillary

Interesting!

How do we consent?

Most people believe that the first step is to do a cost-benefit analysis (weigh the pros and cons).

This, prima facie, seems generalizable i.e. it gives one the impression that one could think for someone else and give/withhold consent on their behalf. Unfortunately or fortunately, no, we can't for the simple reason that we all differ in our values, sometimes only in small ways but at other times we could all be thought of as living on separate planets.

That said, there are some core values we all share and these then amount to a strong justification for hypothetical consent,

No offense AS! I read that, according to you, we might be young chimps and now that we might be monkeys. So, monkey business. — Hillary

:ok:

Most likely. — L'éléphant

:ok:

:chin:

My understanding of your Enformationism Thesis is basically this: As far as we, h. sapiens, and also other beings with more or less the same level of intelligence, are concerned, information is key to building a universe. Think computer simulations - information (on how to create a universe like ours) is prior to the (simulated) universe itself.

The next obvious question is, who is/are the programmer(s) [god(s)]? Someone/something must have used the information required to construct a universe, ours; this one maybe one among many others (multiverse).

What sayest thou?

Post a few excerpts please. Looks interesting. :chin: — jgill

I can't. I'm using my cell phone; the book's on my laptop. I'll post some snippets from it when I next use my laptop.

No, anatta is not "no self".
We've been over this. — baker

Even if "self" was an illusion, the reality of "self" in the construct of a human doesn't go away by simply "realizing" this (if that is even true in the first place that we are an illusion, whatever that means). — schopenhauer1

Old habits die hard.

Though it's addressed to Possibility.. I would like to reiterate again the fallacy of mixing the components of the phenomenon for the phenomenon itself. Even if "self" was an illusion, the reality of "self" in the construct of a human doesn't go away by simply "realizing" this (if that is even true in the first place that we are an illusion, whatever that means). Thus yes, the Cogito does make sense in this situation. There are certain realities that one can't, by fiat of argument, make go away, and thus try to push through as some proof of non-suffering (or "really suffering") for the sake of argument. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, this is one of the many instances when the mind/brain is at war with itself. I sometimes feel that our brains/minds have installed on them a software package that's internally inconsistent/incompatible. Glitches like this are symptomatic of such.

Creation Loop

1. X can create Y

2. Y can create X

Step 1: X creates Y

Step 2: Y creates X

Loop through steps 1 and 2.

X, in a sense, creates itself; so does Y.

As for how it all begins, don't ask. Just make note of the fact that once the loop is initiated, it's self-sustaining.

no-self — Possibility

Anatta.

:chin:

What is it exactly that's wallowing in ennui?

Pessimism would mean our worst fears would be realized. What's worse than finding out you (the self) are(is) but an illusion - the self doesn't exist (re Cotard's delusion)? If so, there's absolutely nothing that could ever gets bored!

Is boredom just another way of stating cogito ergo sum: In (broken) English, I bored, therefore I exist?

Nice trick to mirror write: take a pen in both hands. A left hand pen and a right hand pen. Write the same word with left as with tight, but in opposite directions. You will see the miracle happening. — Hillary

:ok:

Thanks — T Clark

My pleasure.

What's the name of the book? — T Clark

Philosophy A Visual Encyclopedia

Agent Smith
2. Everybody else is wrong.
— Banno — Banno

:up:

A frisson of excitement passed through me when I realized how similar relativism/anekantavada is to a trivial system of logic that allows contradictions without making the necessary adjustments to prevent the ex falso quodlibet logic bomb from detonating.

Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. — Kierkegaard

When driving, one must look in front to avoid accidents. Where we're headed seems more critical to our well-being than where we came from, oui?

P. S. All vehicles have rearview mirrors. I hope God penned down the history of the world in mirror writing; you know, to make it easier for us, mere mortals.

I can assure you that he makes as much sense in German. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Then 'tis time to study/analyze the German mind! Are Germans cuckoo? :chin: They seem to churn out one Nobel Laureate after another, confounding factors notwithstanding. Don't forget the Nobel Prize was established only in 1901.

There's a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line. — Oscar Levant

@Banno

1. Everybody is right. — Agent Smith

Every statement is true. Ex falso quodlibet. A trivial logic.

Okay that, too. But I meant to your mind or attitude — L'éléphant

Unlike computers which can generate self-reports, humans can't or if they attempt to, it all comes out wrong.

"As the ego cogito, subjectivity is the consciousness that represents something, relates this representation back to itself, and so gathers with itself."

Martin Heidegger — ArmChairPhilosopher

Muchas gracias for a sample of Heidegger. One needs to be extra cautious when diagnosing incoherence in translations though - much is lost in translation. Comic relief for you $\downarrow$. The World's Worst Translator.



Martin Heidegger probably wrote for a select audience; perhaps he was taking the first few steps into uncharted territory: hic sunt dracones.

gobbledygook — Joseph Walsh

While others have given valuable tips on how to wield a pen like a pro, I'm more interested in what some here identify as incoherent speech/writing which in your book is gobbledygook. That's the psychologist in me I guess - such speech/text are considered a hallmark of insanity.

Have you heard of the infinite monkey theorem? Maybe the entire human race is an experiment along those lines. If so, some of us are, by that very fact, going to spew out utter bullshit.

Try writing nonsense, it's not as easy as it looks which is telling as far as I'm concerned.

There's more that can be said but chew on that for the moment.

Agent Smith will be back with more (hopefully) interesting thoughts...

Write so that it would be understandable to a reasonably intelligent 10 year-old. — Terrapin Station

:up: :clap: I'm currently reading a children's book on philosophy. The writing is incredibly clear and to the point. From what I can gather, it ain't easy.

Prime Directive (Star Trek)

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive (also known as "Starfleet General Order 1", "General Order 1", and the "non-interference directive") is a guiding principle of Starfleet that prohibits its members from interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations. — Wikipedia

The Balance of Nature

The current zeitgeist of technology has been automation, an exemplar of which is the so-called self-driving car (I don't know why drivers are not protesting à la luddites). In line with this drive to automate, economies, everything actually, should be endowed with self-correcting mechanisms (the human body has a lot of its functions in auto-regulation mode). To get down to the brass tacks, any system that needs external interference (the state for example) is a blot on our escutheon (we're not creative enough). :grin:

Always thought you might be one of the million monkeys. How's Hamlet coming along? — Wayfarer

:monkey:

To be ape, or not to be ape, that is the question: — Hamlet

No, they both began as dictatorships. Mao & Lenin, respectively. — 180 Proof

So, the left started off on the wrong foot.