• Mad Fool Turing Test
    an AI — Daemon

    That "an" seems to be doing something. Care to expand and elaborate.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    The OP does full justice to atheism! At first I was thrown off by the word "invalidity". I found out, the hard way, that "valid/invalid/validity/invalidity" are technical terms in philosophy and shouldn't be used in a carefree manner.

    Anyway, to get right to the point, yep, atheism is an argument and ergo, can be valid/invalid unlike theism which isn't an argument and so is neither valid nor invalid. Theism is, as Wolfgang Pauli put it, not even wrong invalid!

    :grin:
  • One series of questions on solipsism
    Does solipsism mean the Orcale of Delphi hit the bullseye? Temet nosce; you're alone, like Robinson Crusoe!
  • Concerning Wittgenstein's mysticism.
    @Fooloso4
    Wittgenstein attempts to draw the limits of thinking through its expression in language. What lies on the other side of those limits, what can be shown and experienced, but cannot be said, the ethical and aesthetic are mystical.They are not matters of fact and logic. That there is anything at all he regarded as mystical.
    — Fooloso4
    :fire:

    End of thread.     — 180 Proof

    Blaze of glory :fire:

    Bonum & Pulchrum (undefined they remain) out of sync with Verum.
  • The meaning of life
    A few times I said that the existence of the universe is evidence. And my cosmology fits perfectly well with the reason gods created it. This I realize after the gods revealed their motives in a dream. — EugeneW

    :ok: Best of luck. Do keep us posted regarding your journey. Go where no man has gone before! :lol:
  • Free Will
    We could spin the bottle but a mentally random sequence of heads and tails, or 1s and 0s is impossible to make without external agents. Try and discover. I say 1, what say you? — EugeneW

    Mulgere hircum, eh?

    Non sono mica Mandrake!

    For someone who seems willing to test his/her own limits, cognitive or otherwise, you seem a bit (too) conservative.

    Whatever floats your boat.
  • Sophistry
    Sophistry is this: gift-wrapped horseshit!

    Philosophy is this: pearls of wisdom, with/without a velvet-lined top-of-the-line case.
  • The meaning of life
    Why does it seem misplaced? — EugeneW

    It just feels wrong. Your claims are not proportionate to your evidence is what I'd have said if it was any other day except you don't even mention any (evidence).
  • Free Will
    A choice based on randomness, which is very hard to make — EugeneW

    Flip a coin! Roll a die! Or something.
  • The meaning of life
    ↪EugeneW
    :lol: I like your confidence, misplaced though it seems! Break a leg.
  • Slave morality
    Of course, but it's unlikely they'll get there through fraudulent ways. "Fake it till you make it" only works when one wishes and manages to deceive others, but to endeavor to deceive oneself is irrational, and the reverse course to spiritual development. — Tzeentch

    I'm a bit troubled by the level of certainty in your pronouncements.
  • John Hick's Pluralism
    ↪Wayfarer
    So god, nirvana, brahman, etc., are simply various ways of talking about the same thing or even different aspects of the same thing, this thing being some kind of transcendent truth/force/principle/being/the divine/the sublime/The One.

    What puzzles me though is this: The common ground, as you've described it and as I've outlined above, has been identified to the extent possible with our minds (limited as they are to only the evident, the obvious, the stuff that hits us in our faces), but we haven't been able to pinpoint why exactly religions are so different from one another. Does it have anything to do with culture, race, gender, perhaps geography?
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    belief in god — L'éléphant

    I don't know if it helps your case but belief isn't knowledge, it's just one of three conditions for knowledge (JTB theory) and that being so, proof isn't necessary. You can believe anything you want; fairies, Tinker Bell, Rocs, anything's game when it comes to just belief.

    However, when one believes something, one invariably assumes it to be true. That, for some, can't be done sans some evidence/proof.

    Have you come across non-justificationism? It's a theory of knowledge and from what I hear, truth doesn't need justification. If you're up for it, we could discuss.
  • John Hick's Pluralism
    I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. — Jesus (John 14:6)
  • Slave morality
    It's a thought many seem to obide by ("better him than me!"), but without the conviction that it is better to undergo evil than to perform it oneself, one cannot be truly moral. Within the "better him than me" mentality lies the admission that any moral conduct is a facade - a matter of convenience, and not truly part of one's being — Tzeentch

    Darwinian sorcery! Should I be happy that someone at least pretended to love me rather than just not love me at all? As per fiction, no! Actors sometimes lose themselves in the characters they play. Can a fake Buddha become a genuine Buddha?
  • John Hick's Pluralism
    Hey don’t put those words in my mouth! — Wayfarer

    I heard it from you. Imprinting, sorry!

  • Atheism & Solipsism
    Was William of Occam (novacula occami) a solipsist?
  • John Hick's Pluralism
    @Wayfarer

    I am the truth, the light and the way. No one comes to the father except through me. — Jesus (John 14:6)


    :fire:

    Of late, I've been noticing that my ship seems to have drifted into the gravity well of Christianity. I'm left-handed and so the sign of the cross I do is the mirror image of the standardized way it's supposed to be done. It feels so natural to go right, left, forehead, heart and go the father, the son, and the holy ghost sotto voce...as if I've done it my entire life. Not a Christian here!

    Anyway, pluralism seems to imply that the goal is the same (union with Allah/God/the Tao/Brahman/nirvana), the difference being only in the yana (vessel/ship/vehicle). So, different religions are like different employees at Google HQ commuting to office on cycles, bikes, cars, buses, trains, chopper, private jet, you get the idea. The all-knowing Google Rinpoche!
  • The meaning of life
    My dream was no coincidence! — EugeneW

    At least someone's having fun around here! :up:
  • Slave morality
    Freddy's sister was a mental case too. — EugeneW

    :sad: Double trouble. It never rains, it pours.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    "It just is." — Philosophim

    That's what a certain subgroup of scientists would say. Those who're in the business of description of nature. However, I believe there are some who aren't happy just reporting on how nature behaves. They wanna explain, answer why questions and for them the statement "It just is" is a beginning, not an end (of science).
  • Slave morality
    Could have been worse — Tom Storm

    :up:
  • The meaning of life
    ↪180 Proof
    We should sail there immediately! :lol:
  • Slave morality
    I've read Einstein's "Relativity" but that doesn't make me a genius. (Btw, Freddy died in bed at his sister's home.) — 180 Proof

    That's not the same thing. Freddy's madness would've percolated, like good tea, throughout his work and if his warped logic makes sense to you, something's off, oui?

    Einstein's genius is a different issue. Genius does rub off on other people, but the correlation isn't as good i.e. consistent enough to allow even a simple rule of thumb to be formulated.

    Have you heard of Lasègue–Falret syndrome, shared delusions?

    Just to be clear, I give you a clean bill of (mental) health!
  • Slave morality
    I'd rather not converse with you. — Shwah

    You too! :sad:
  • Slave morality
    Slave morality.

    Democritus believed that (modernizing his words) it's better to have the gun pointed at you than you pointing the gun at someone (conscientious objectors). Democritus was a pre-Christian Greek philosopher if memory serves. What did he mean by that? If given a choice, would it be better to be a slave than a slave-master? Darwinian sorcery or the transcendence of heart-mind?
  • Slave morality
    Nietzsche ended his life trapped in a sanitarium — Shwah

    :lol: You mean to say we're putting stock in the writings of a madman? Very good point, sir/madam! Does this mean @180 Proof that if Freddy makes sense to you, you too are mental asylum material?
  • On the matter of logic and the world
    Logic itself is the paradox. — Constance

    How?

    Agreed that it can't make the case that it's rational to be rational on pain of circulus in probando. I'm telling you, I'm speaking the truth! How can you prove that, we ask? Well, I vouch for myself, I guarantee that I don't/never lie! WTFery!

    The paradox is this: logic is the gold standard for proof but it can't prove itself without committing a fallacy, begging the question. I can't be trusted. Does this get an A for honesty and an F for intelligence? Logic, as it turns out, paradoxically, is a fool! The whole point to its creation and development was to build trust in a system that would always deliver the goods when it comes to truth. Yet, here we are, logic can't justify itself.
  • John Hick's Pluralism
    All roads lead to Rome? Maybe not!

    Tim Toady? Yep, that fits like a glove.

    Religions, what unites them all?

    In my humble opinion the Platonic Form of religion, ignoring Content,

    1. Code of ethics
    2. Creation story
    3. Metaphysical lattice (souls, gods, laws e.g. karma, etc.)
    4. Prophecy

    All religions have this Form/essence, but differ wildly with respect to their individual contents. So, yeah, a case for pluralism can be made at the level of Form, not so at the level of contents though for the simple reason that they're mutually contradictory.
  • If One Person can do it...
    The interesting thing, however, is that there is still room to posit forces of unknown origin — creativesoul

    Ietsism/Somethingism.

    Ietsism, as far as I can tell, is proto-religion. Over the course of history, that something in somethingism was assigned the value of powerful, knowledgeable, and good anthropomorphized beings [god(s)]. Deism is, inter alia, a return to ietsisim, god(s) don't square with facts as they stand. Reminds me of The Force (George Lucas' Star Wars).
  • On the matter of logic and the world
    On the contrary, misrecognized misuses (e.g. reification) of logic, or grammar, generates "paradoxes". — 180 Proof

    Yep, blame Canada language. There are no (true) paradoxes and if anyone claims that there are, prove it to them that they're misusing language (semantically and/or syntactically). Is this what you're driving at? Quite an ingenious solution; saves the phenomena insofar as 1st order logic is at stake.
  • If One Person can do it...
    I had a thought that I think we both can agree is a good one. I plan to avoid discussions with you in the future. — T Clark

    Why? Am I now on your ignore list? :smile: Ask @SophistiCat, s/he has a browser add-on that lets you avoid certain posters you feel don't contribute to the forum.

    As for me, I feel I can learn from you. So, no, I'll not download that charming piece of SophistiCat code. I can't afford it.

    Death solves all problems. No man, no problem! — Stalin

    Have a good day señor! Sorry it had to end this way.
  • Is 'The Law of Attraction' Superstition or an Important Philosophical 'Truth'?
    Hi Jack Cummins. Good to see you back in action.

    To the extent I'm concerned, I won't deny the law of attraction, but I'd like to tweak it a bit, you know, just to keep it real(istic).

    It's not that one's overall positive/negative attitude causes a numerical increase in one's good/bad experiences. That sounds like woo-woo/pseudoscience.

    Au contraire, and more accurately, one's overall attitude, whether +/-, causes the amplification/intensification of one's experiences, great/horrible.

    The depth of feeling is, I suspect, mistaken for an increase in one's experience of the corresponding valence.

    To illustrate the point, suppose I'm on cloud nine today. I go to work, on the way a stranger offers me a seat on a packed bus. True this gesture is a kind one, but my response to it is exaggerated, I get the same feeling as if I'd won the lottery. The rest of the day everyone ignores me. This one act of kindness carries me through the day and I return home and relate to my family what an amazing day it was. Note, no one else was good to me.

    At the other extreme, you're in a bad mood. You go out to the garage where you car is and a bird poops on you. You instantly blow a gasket and/or become miserable. It feels like you lost a million dollars. The severity of this anger/despondence doesn't go away instantly, it lasts, lasts very long and even when you return home after work, you're still simmering/seething/depressed. Here too, only one bad thing happened to you, but your reaction was intense.

    As you can see amplification (the strength of feelings) is more plausible than multiplication (increase in the number of experiences of a valence corresponding to one's attitude)

    One man army!
  • If One Person can do it...
    Here, for example: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/21944/

    You can just put on Google something like "from politheism to monotheism" and you will find hundreds of studies that show the complexity of the transition, according to the specific context of each single religion.     — Angelo Cannata

    Read the link. A good-enough-for-government-work explanation for why polytheism was swapped for monotheism: Dread (of more calamities, catastrophes, Yahweh's wrath).

    If so, shouldn't the holocaust (1900s) and the persecution of Christians by the Romans, cataclysms in their own right, have driven the Jews and Christians back into the arms of polytheism.

    A one-way street?
  • If One Person can do it...
    As I said, if I fail, criticize me for my failure, as I am criticizing you for yours — T Clark

    But I haven't failed monsieur! :chin:

    Are you proposing these as standards by which philosophical arguments should be judged? — T Clark

    I rank/rate creativity highly, right up there with reason & knowledge. The reason it seems to have dropped out of philosophical discourse is because we're still in the early stages. Nevertheless parallel processing has been/is/will be done with amazing results. There should be another branch of philosophy specifically developed to beautify philosophy. Compare an automobile from the 1890s to one in 2022.
  • The meaning of life
    One-size-fits-all meaning to life would mean all except one of us is a redundancy, it's overkill I tell you. Please do the needful, whoever draws the short straw. I'll pay for the cheerleaders.

    Since I'm not needed, I'm going to find myself a woman and proposition her for sex. Hopefully she's blind (not exactly Brad Pitt), has anosmia (body odor) and prefers quickies (don't ask me why?)
  • The meaning of life
    Hello, maggot.

    :yikes: Sorry, your honour , I was drunk.     — Wayfarer

    :rofl: It wasn't me, it couldn't have been me! I was dead! I was on the moon!
  • If One Person can do it...
    I sometimes do [fail] — T Clark

    That's all that matters, no? I could be wrong of course.

    Just curious, you mention two criteria
    1. Knowledge
    2. Reason

    Why these two only? Creativity? Irrationalism? Is Taoism (one of your pet subjects) reason(able)?
  • If One Person can do it...
    Your directness is refreshing — T Clark

    Thank you. :smile:
  • If One Person can do it...
    Just to make sure I've got this right. Requiring arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice is setting the bar too high. Is that correct? Your directness is refreshing. I can't think of anything else of value to add in response — T Clark

    Beware of adopting principles which when applied to yourself will only get you an F-.
Home » Agent Smith