The Philosophy Forum

  • Forum
  • Members
  • HELP

  • An Autopsy of the Enlightenment.
    Descartes desired certitude and usefulness vis-a-vis the material world. Sextus [Pyrrho] wanted ataraxia. — Leontiskos
    :up: :up:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    Neuroscience tells us how the brain behaves when we think; it cannot tell us what thinking is — — Wayfarer
    – and neither can idealism, subjectivism, spiritualism nor any other woo.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ↪Wayfarer
    Consider this article concerning findings on (in my words) 'the materiality of thinking' presented by a distinguished MIT researcher at a recent neuroscience conference:

    https://picower.mit.edu/news/brain-waves-analog-organization-cortex-enables-cognition-and-consciousness-mit-professor
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ↪Wayfarer
    You're welcome.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ... "Ultimate reality (Brahman) is infinite, eternal, and beyond time, space, or change, has no shape or qualities, and is the source of everything" ... — Gnomon
    ... this speculation is indistinguishable from ancient (Vedic, Greek) atomists' void¹ or quantum vacuum of contemporary fundamental physics (wherein "classical swirling-swerving atoms" are far more precisely described as virtual particles (i.e. planck events)) :wink:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/ [1]

    Can you rebut the arguments that I provided from Gerson, Feser, Russell? — Wayfarer
    Sure, mate, eezy peezy – (In addition to what @Janus says) their primary assumption, in effect, conflates, or equates, abstract (map-making) and concrete (territory) which is a reification fallacy (e.g. "Platonic Forms") and renders their arguments invalid. :clap:
  • What should we think about?
    There has been eight years of 'MAGA' America, and we see, loud and clear, where the hate, violence and vitriol is coming from. Not. MAGA. — AmadeusD
    :mask: wtf ...
  • What should we think about?
    ↪Fire Ologist
    MAGA =|= conservatism.

    MAGA, it seems, consists of its bewildered and besotted followers. If that's Conservatism, it's mutated considerably. — Ciceronianus
    :up: :up:
  • A new home for TPF
    ...upvotes...
    — Jamal
    @180 Proof will be very happy!
    — Banno
    :up:
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    So it’s Multiverses all the way down then? — Punshhh
    Nope, afaik the quantum vacuum is the ground state of nature.
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    ↪Wayfarer
    :roll:

    ↪Banno
    :smirk:
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    ↪180 Proof So which one are you? — Punshhh
    Physicalist (philosophical naturalist).
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    There is a point though, only an idealist [immaterislist], of some kind, would restrict what is to what can be said, or known by a person. Surely by contrast, a physicalist [materialist] of some kind would allow any of an infinite number of other possibilities and the fact that we cannot observe them directly doesn’t preclude their existence. — Punshhh
    :up: :up:
  • What should we think about?
    Define what you mean by "lefty wokeness"?
    — 180 Proof

    The left. The not-‘MAGA’.
    — Fire Ologist
    Aka Antifa – opposition to pro-"fascist / authoritarian" white grievance paranoia. Yes, we're guilty as charged. :mask:

    [Is] maga the only evidence of the disease of not thinking post enlightenment? — Fire Ologist
    I didn't claim or imply MAGA is "the only" symptom of not thinking, though at the moment MAGA is the most conspicuous symptom (re: "alternative facts" anti-intellectualism, anti-science ...)
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ↪Wayfarer
    It's not a "mind" and yet capable of illusions (just as LLMs can hallucinate).
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    And an illusion is something that only a mind can entertain. — Wayfarer
    What about mindless facial recognition software that misrecognizes faces? Illusion =/= misrecognition, no?
  • What should we think about?
    Or, more to my point, is lefty wokeness a symptom of not thinking too, ...? — Fire Ologist
    Define what you mean by "lefty wokeness"? AFAIK that pejorative expression invokes another vacuous, right-wing media boogeyman in order to "own the Libs". :mask:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    [C]onsciousness ... appears inexplicable.

    That’s not a cognitive failing, it’s a conceptual one.
    — Wayfarer
    :up: :up:

    Finally, you agree with us eliminativists and physicalists that, in effect, "consciousness" is not what it "appears" to be (e.g. a homuncular / user illusion).
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    [R]eality is what there is. To posit something "beyond reality" is to posit more [than] what there is. "Beyond reality" is not a region; it is a grammatical error. — Banno
    :fire:
  • What should we think about?
    ↪Fire Ologist
    I've no idea what your ramble means.
  • What should we think about?
    What should we[I/you] think about?
    Everything. Nothing. And why the chronic habit (nearly contagious/mimetic learned idiocy) of not-thinking persists even in this post-Enlightenment "Information Age" (e.g. in the US, "Trump/MAGA" are only effing symptoms). :mask:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    Nothing within physics is distinct from philosophical [metaphysical] nothing. — ucarr
    Yes, and we've been speculating in the context of physics (re: the universe). Btw, "philosophical nothing" is more precisely referred to as nothing-ness (i.e. total absence of possible worlds) as distinct from no-thing (e.g. quantum vacuum).
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr
    Perhaps 'quantum uncertainty' ... such that "nothing" necessarily fluctuates and (at some threshold) a density of fluctuations – (contingent) not-nothing aka "something" – happens. :nerd:

    addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1024032
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    Any one-sentence OP is basically click bait. — Wayfarer
    :up:
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    ↪Tobias
    :up: :up:
  • A quandary: How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
    beyond our reality — an-salad
    :confused: (e.g. north of the North Pole)
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    Tranwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false? — Philosophim
    False. They are "transwomen" (typical XY) and "transmen" (typical XX). Period. Usually they suffer from gender dysphoric disorder (GDD). Otoh, men are adult males (typical XY) and women are adult females (typical XX). Ergo: e.g. it's reasonable (i.e. fair) to prohibit "transwomen" (typical XY) from physically competing against women (typical XX) in organized sports.

    Addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888 (re: the Junk)
  • The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
    ↪Truth Seeker
    :halo: :up:

    (2020) my two shekels ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/506435
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    What emerges as fundamental are the invariances. The constraints of symmetry and then the degrees of freedom that result. — apokrisis
    :chin:
  • Idealism Simplified
    I think it most plausible to consider that what we cannot introspect is 'neural', and that it is precisely it's character as non-mental that makes it impossible to introspect. — Janus
    :100:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ↪PoeticUniverse
    :up: :up:
  • Do we really have free will?
    Do we really have free will?
    Free of spacetime locality (naturata)? No.
    Free of situational constraints/conflicts? No.
    Free of ecological-embodied execution? No.
    Free of involuntary (selfish) desires/biases? No.
    Free of unintended consequences (risks)? No.
    Free of responsibility for uncoerced re/actions? No.
    Free of coercion by other agents? TBD.
    Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. — Arthur Schopenhauer
    :fire:
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    It's not that we must avoid pains -- it's that we shouldn't be the cause of our own mental anguish; the pains aren't so bad as they stand, and the pleasures are not so alluring that we need to punish ourselves for not obtaining them. — Moliere
    :up: :up:
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    As you stated, eudaimonia is hardly objective. — javi2541997
    I don't recall stating that. In fact, I believe eudaimonia (i.e. flourishing) is objective — acquiring adaptive habits (virtues) and unlearning maladaptive habits (vices) — e.g. the Capability approach of M. Nussbaum & A. Sen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    But my post was in direct relation to how Epicureanism was outlined by 180 Proof. And with that description I yet disagree. — javra

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1024189
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    ↪javi2541997


    https://fourphilosophies.com/epicureanism-vs-hedonism/ (re: aponia, ataraxia)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics (re: disutilitarianism)
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    ↪javra
    None of your examples are the ones I gave: luxuries, excesses, wealth, power or fame (all of which cause fear of pain of losing them somehow) and therefore not "bad pleasures" per se, or "pleasures" at all.
  • Greek Hedonists, Pleasure and Plato. What are the bad pleasures?
    I have not read the thread yet but ...
    What are the bad pleasures according to Plato? — javi2541997
    I don't know about Plato's mumbo-jumbo, but Epicurus thinks "bad pleasures" are ones which cause or increase pain (or fear (i.e. suffering)) because they are either unnecessary (e.g. luxuries, excesses) or unnatural (e.g. wealth, power, fame) in contrast to good pleasures which reduce pain (or fear (i.e. suffering)) and are simple but necessary (e.g. food, shelter, play, friendship, community). I think tranquility, not the "pleasure" (i.e. euphoria) of hedonists like the Cyrenaics, is the Epicurean (or disutilitarian) goal. :flower:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ↪Gnomon
    :eyes: :rofl:
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    ↪ucarr
    Not-nothing aka "something" is, so to speak, a ripple in nothing. As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo there's always "something" (existence) too.

    ... a world equal to nothing is impossible
    :up: I.e. nothing-ness (or total absence of possible worlds).
  • Why Not Nothing?_Answered
    Do you see errors? — ucarr
    I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed.
Home » 180 Proof
More Comments

180 Proof

Start FollowingSend a Message
  • About
  • Comments
  • Discussions
  • Uploads
  • Other sites we like
  • Social media
  • Terms of Service
  • Sign In
  • Created with PlushForums
  • © 2025 The Philosophy Forum