Do you think Heidegger's understanding of being had a precursor? Hegel's dialectic? Spinoza's God? Kant's noumenon and transcendental ego? Descartes' "evil demon"? Leibniz' monads? Kierkegaard's leap of faith? Nietzsche's genealogy of morals? Wittgenstein's forms of life? There were recursors to all? — Janus

I can't speak to most of those. I have been struck by how Kant's noumenon is similar to Lao Tzu's Tao, even though I know he wasn't directly influenced. Schopenhauer considered himself a Buddhist. An evil demon who misleads humans has been part of folklore and religion for millennia. The idea that reality might be an illusion ditto. As I said, I am not familiar enough with the others to comment.

You cite Ecclesiastes. Surely someone has commented somewhere in the past few thousand years on why they think that passage is wrong? And, for that matter, surely someone has offered an explanation of why they think it's right? Ecclesiastes just states that it is, without argument. — Pfhorrest

Actually, the first verse of Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun. The rest of the chapter explains why. The issue is another old idea under the sun - cyclic time vs. progressive time. Are we just going around in circles or are we headed somewhere?

Surely then you could cite a previous example of that idea being put forth in professional philosophy somewhere, and some responses it received to explain why not everyone is on board with it already? — Pfhorrest

From the Bible - Ecclesiastes 1:9

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Just because it's not a new idea doesn't mean people will agree with it.

From "The Black Cottage" by Robert Frost:

For, dear me, why abandon a belief
Merely because it ceases to be true.
Cling to it long enough, and not a doubt
It will turn true again, for so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour.

Those beliefs you mentioned all come under your worldview, based in your experiences, interactions, and observations.
IOW I would maintain that your main belief/worldview shapes the whole of how you perceive and interact with the world around you. — Jan Ardena

I agree with this. The mechanisms by which we build our worldview are not usually addressed in epistemology, even though, as you note, that is the source of most of what we know and believe. It makes philosophy look pretty silly.

Why not subject this to Pfhorrest's program of explication? — tim wood

So, is my idea that there are no new ideas a new idea? Definitely not.

The idea is that there could be some kind of loosely structured discourse where people who think they might have new philosophical ideas (either new possible positions, or new arguments for existing positions) can say what those ideas are, and then the responses should only be either affirming that that actually is a new idea — Pfhorrest

This is intended as a serious response. There really are no new philosophical ideas. There probably haven't been any since soon after people developed written language.

This is a really good idea. Upvote. I didn't vote because too many of them were "neither of the above" for me. Now I'm thinking about questions I could put in a poll like this one. Let's see:

True or false:

• Bullwinkle is a dope.
• @180 Proof is a national treasure.
• Psychology is a science.
• The USA is the greatest nation in history.
• pi = 3.14159265358971323846...
• Emus and Ostriches are really the same thing.
• This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
• 1 + 1 = 10

This approach typically involves eschewing philosophical "theories" in favor of close attention to the details of the use of everyday "ordinary" language." — Chaz

Responses to your OP seem to be talking about a bunch of different things. Some of these don't seem to have much to do with what I think of as ordinary language philosophy. You're the original poster, but you haven't posted since the OP. You have a responsibility to continue to contribute to the discussions you start. This thread needs some guidance.

However, if one assumes in physics, as do many physicists, that the world is not mathematical, then doesn't it mean that conservation of energy laws would become violated for every branching of wavefunction collapses? — Shawn

Seems to me that if we buy the many worlds interpretation, violation of the conservation of energy and matter is the least of our problems.

It's a mode of critique more than a set of solutions. It's basic tenet might be "cut the bullshit". — Banno

Do you have any specific examples in mind?

This approach typically involves eschewing philosophical "theories" in favor of close attention to the details of the use of everyday "ordinary" language." — Chaz

I'm not really sure if I understand what is meant by "misunderstandings philosophers develop by distorting or forgetting what words actually mean in everyday use." Is this an example - Philosophers talk about free will, but on an everyday basis I am more likely to talk about whether a person should be held responsible for their actions?

Apparently it is indeed pretty dubious, Deepak Chopra uses the term, and while that does not immediately discredit it, it goes a long ways towards raising suspicion that it is bullshit. — ToothyMaw

I value mystical ways of seeing things. I started a thread called "My favorite verses of the Tao Te Ching." I'm also an engineer - good at math and science. Booth ways of knowing are important to me and are central to my understanding of reality. Many people are tempted to mix the two. That almost always results in crap.

Never would have thought of postulating a consciousness field (but of course I'm not a physicist — ToothyMaw

Perhaps the reason you wouldn't have thought of a "consciousness field" is that it's baloney. It's certainly not physics. Or psychology. It doesn't mean anything.

Can anyone convince me that this is not anything more than a Billion member cult?! — Trey

Here's the definition of "cult" I think is the most applicable to this discussion - "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."

Clearly, the Catholic Church does not meet that definition.

Not everyone would have to have the same brain state to believe the same thing, but those beliefs exist as brain states nonetheless. — ToothyMaw

So, insofar as beliefs can be represented with words, then they can be easily put into sets. — boethius

I don't think saying that beliefs can be represented as groups of words gets us out of the hole. Similar ideas can be expressed with different words, but small differences in wording can change the meaning significantly. Example - there is currently a discussion on incest here on the forum. According to Thesaurus.com, "unacceptable" and "undesirable" are synonyms. Take these two statements of belief:

• I believe incest is unacceptable.
• I believe incest is undesirable.

Are they the same belief?

Also - what about groups of words that don't mean anything or that don't make sense.

For me, this isn't nitpicking. It goes to the heart of how I experience my mental life. It's a flowing current, not a set of blocks to be stacked.

I actually thought we were getting somewhere. — ToothyMaw

Ok. I was worried that I was distracting. I like to show respect for the intentions of the person who starts the thread.

Not everyone would have to have the same brain state to believe the same thing, but those beliefs exist as brain states nonetheless. — ToothyMaw

I think this tangent I set us on is distracting from your main purpose. I'll leave it at that.

What exactly do we mean by separate? Separate from other phenomenon in the brain? Or never repeating and identifiable? I used the word because you did. — ToothyMaw

Say I have a box of apples. The apples are separate from each other. I can pick them up, eat them, count them. I don't think ideas or beliefs are separable in that way. It seems much more artificial to me. More open to disagreement.

Furthermore, if there is a finite number of brain states brain states could potentially repeat I think. — ToothyMaw

Perhaps, but not in any practical sense. Given the number of neurons in a brain and all the possible interconnections, I think it is unlikely there would be a repeat in the lifetime of the universe, much less a person's lifetime. And that's assuming the persons brain was not constantly changing.

if they exist in people's brains — ToothyMaw

I doubt they exist as separate brain states. I'd guess, without any specific justification, that no brain state ever repeats itself.

Could you explain "matters"? And do you mean you support or oppose the taboo? — Apollodorus

To boil it down to fit the context of this discussion, to me it represents the most important difference between the acceptability of incest as opposed to that of homosexuality.

Is it possible to define the total number of possible beliefs that can be formed via interacting freely with one’s environment as a mathematical set? Or, even more simply, can things like beliefs even be expressed as belonging to a set? It seems to me that they can if beliefs or the forming of beliefs take the form of brain states or changes in the structure of the brain, but I’m not sure. I am trying to axiomatize something greater than this, so out of context this question might sound kind of bonkers. — ToothyMaw

I don't think beliefs actually exist as separate things that can be counted in any realistic sense. I see my understanding of the world as an interconnected, inseparable network of ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. Any separation is artificial and I guess it would have to be associated with language. How many ways are there to slice the pie of my worldview?

it is about family relationships and betrayal of trust or duty. — prothero

Whatever the genetic or anthropological reasons for incest taboo, this is the one that matters to me.

But suppose a person may decide to marry or enter into sexual relations with a close relative that is unlikely to result in children being born, for example, if both partners are of the same sex, beyond a certain age, or otherwise unable or indeed unwilling to conceive or procreate. — Apollodorus

See the link in my post above. This kind of rationale is used in the cousin marriage laws in some states.

One good checkpoint for attitudes and laws against incest is cousin marriage. This is a link to the Wikipedia article on cousin marriage. It has a really interesting table of the different laws in different US states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States

I’m sure a lot of you would disagree and I’m wondering if someone can provide some sort of defense for treating homosexuality differently from incest. — TheHedoMinimalist

Checking on the web, the incidence numbers for incidence of incest are all over the place. This is from the "Atlantic."

One in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys are sexually abused before they turn 18, an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family.

If that's true, does it change your questions?

Not true. The 10th man's job is to simply disagree whether or not he has good reasons to do so. — TheMadFool

I think perhaps you misunderstand the role of the 10th man, although that does explain a lot about some of your ideas.

No I didn't. I stated the obvious. We're engaged in the enterprise of mimicking nature and quite badly at that. A simple proof that's the case: Birds have wings, airplanes have wings. Bird wings came first. — TheMadFool

Pterodactyls came first.

Cherry-picking. Confirmation bias. — TheMadFool

You picked the cherry.

I'm just the 10th man. — TheMadFool

Perhaps you think a little too highly of yourself.

To that I'll say no aircraft can match a falcon's grace, skill and agility in flight. — TheMadFool

Then again, as far as I know, no falcon can fly for thousands of miles carrying hundreds of passengers at an altitude of 35,000 feet.

Do we know enough to say for sure what had happened or is there some wishful thinking going on? — Gregory

There are many very good, well-written books on evolution aimed at intelligent laymen. My favorites are by Stephen Jay Gould. Richard Dawkins is another good source.

The fossil record is probably the most important single source for information for geologists. The sequence of fossils has been used to help age rock deposits since the 1700s. Because it is so important, it has been studied extensively.

The fossils are real no doubt but the rest of paleontology is imagination. This isn't a flaw as much as it's a challenge worthy of true genius. — TheMadFool

Aah. Our anti-science expert speaks again.

There is still controversy around the 'out of Africa' theory. — Wayfarer

It is my understanding that the African origin of humans is well established. What do you know (about this) that I don't.

But life and mind are the products of a properly complex causality - one where management of instability is the general core principle. So life thrives on the edge of chaos. The more tippable the physics, the more profit there is for the information that can tip it. — apokrisis

The things you're writing about pinged my memory, so I went back looking through the archives. There were two previous threads I really enjoyed. One, "What is life?", started by @Samuel Lacrampe about four years ago, included your discussion of information's role in biology. The other, "Networks, Evolution, and the Question of Life," started by @StreetlightX, also about four years ago, included a back and forth among SLX, @fdrake, and you about gene networks. I think I'm going to go back and reread them.

Non-totalitarian nations which are founded upon a respect for, and a safeguarding of, the God given rights of the individual and democratic constitutional forms of representative government had better wake up and prepare themselves for an extended era of stiff competition with this future, formidable adversary. This non-Communist China. — charles ferraro

Interesting and well written. I thought we were heading for a China hawk manifesto about the need to confront China militarily. I'm pleased to see you took a more measured approach.

Upvote because I have no idea what you've written, but believe it completely.

Your Thoughts? — boagie

You should put a lot more effort into your opening posts.

Forgot to say - welcome to the forum.

This dilemma creates a neurological state of fear vibrating in the chest caverns of all persons affected, and the consequences are hefty in the resulting creation of a bureaucratic insurance state which is, essentially, manifest desolation of the Republic. — Sha'aniah

I'm not afraid when I drive my car or walk. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the risks. I try to be careful. I think this is true for most people, so I don't see the dilemma you describe. On the other hand, there are much more significant effects of automobile use, in particular, impacts to air quality

the most viable current theory is a sort of diversely pluralistic monism explaining perception as conventional chemistry infused with distinctly quantum dynamics, most essentially the superpositions or blended wavelengths which bring about complex assortments of color and feeling within matter. — Enrique

I'll start by admitting I don't really know what this means. I doubt any credible physicist, biologist, neurologist, psychologist, or any other scientist believes that a mechanism such as what you have described explains consciousness. You should provide a better description of the mechanism you're discussing and some references.