On his tombstone one can read: "I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free"
My favorite quote of his.

Very know old stuff. Not of my taste though. Toooo heavy for me.

Hi, Javi. Not so much in that music. "Ηeavy" oriental (Turkish) stuff. Although the song is Greek. It's traditional music of Smyrne, an old city of Turkey (hence the music) part of which has been inhabited by Greeks.

"He believed that Japan had lost touch with its cultural heritage and traditional values"
— Alkis Piskas
He was 100% right. And it is even truer 50 years later. — Lionino

Well, tell this to ChatGPT iself. It was its own reply. :smile:

Thank you, Shawn.

:down:
You ask if someone agrees, you receive an answer and you then ignore it. This is quite impolite, @Shawn.

:down:
It is impolite to ask for an opinion, receive one and not replying.

Good topic. :up:

the notion of good in inherent in the primacy of experience — Shawn

"Inherent" and "experience" are incompatible concepts. "Inherent" is something we have by nature, we are born with. "Experience" is something we acquire in life.
I believe that "good", in the sense of beneficial --the most common meaning and use of the word-- is mainly inherent in a human being --even in animals-- but it is also "shaped" by experience.

something that can be learned by simply looking up a definition and analyzing it? — Shawn

Looking up "good" in a dictionary, you need a whole day to check all definitions. You might be lucky and find one or more of them related explicitly to philosophy. But, it would be better to look up the word in a philosophical dictionary to start with. But even then, you can be confronted with a lot of different descriptions/definitions of the word "good", according to different philosophers, philosophical systems, etc.

Now, talking about good, beneficial, ethical, moral, etc. is far from being a simple thing. Because there a different aspects from which one can talk about it. If you are talking from an absolute, objective viewpoint, then you will have to analyze the concept as Socrates did about 2,500 years ago (re: αγαθόν. agathon.) If, on the other hand, you are talking from a relative viewpoint, then you are faced with problems like what is good for me might not be good for you.

So, except if you are intending to write a paper on the subject, I believe that the best thing to do is to consider the most common meaning and/or use of the word "good". And most probably, you will end up with the concept of "beneficial" that I have already brought up at start. :smile:

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife. — Scarecow

You can never be sure of that! :smile:

atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

This is an argument based on arbitrary and unfounded statement.
But for fun's sake, I would reverse that and say that "atheism is rational and therefore it gains you a favor". That of a sane mind! :smile:
Why atheism is rational is too obvious to be explained.

However, the problem lies elsewhere: You cannot interpret belief in God --and theism, i general-- on a rational basis. Reason and belief in God can satisfy totally different needs. The need for reasoning, evidence, etc. is totally different than that of believing in God. They are not contrary; one does not exclude the other. They can coexist harmoniously.

Thinking is simply a road to truth. If you follow your road, then you will find your truth. If you try to follow somebody else's road, you will find only lies. — Scarecow

Really. What are you talking about?
This is not philosophical thinking. It's a religious and dogmatic talk.

Well, it may sound ridiculous, but who's to say that a god wouldn't punish the theists? — Scarecow

It does sound ridiculous! :smile:

I am sure that all of you have heard it before: "We are living in a 'simulation' and such a virtual world — jasonm

Of course, and too often. And it always raises this very logical question in my mind: "If we are, how would we know it?"
Likewise regarding parallel universes, etc.

For me, really wondering about such things and taking them seriously, even as hypotheses, is wasting "gray matter" and time. Such things are good only for having fun and creating sci-fi stories.

First, if the world is simulated, why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? — jasonm

How do you know if they do? And if you have such an experience, how would you distinguish it from illusion, delusion or hallucination?

If it's just a simulation, does it matter if the laws of physics are perfectly consistent? — jasonm

You couldn't know what laws of physics would apply to other universes ...

All these questions have the same basic answer: "How would you know"?

(At least, your position/conclusion on the subject is correct. Well, for me at least. :smile:)

Do you mean Chet has managed to escape before being burnt by the fire, together with the stick?

Knowledge is only belief.
— Chet Hawkins — Janus

So, if I say "I know the alphabet, I know that the FTP site exists, ...", all that is only a belief, that is, it's only my opinion, something I'm simply convicted about. Well, it's a fact and I can prove it anytime.

Facts are not beliefs.

This kind of subjects make someone think that philosophy is out of subjects. Because we keep coming back to subjects --like belief vs knowledge-- that have been discussed a million times, so people should have already formed a firmed view about them. And every once in a while someone tries to relive a fire using a plastic stick.

My goodness! Has all that really happened to you? I makes one feel quite uncomfortable.

I'm also very impressed by your findings. Extraordinary!

I know little about neuroscience. I know about and I have seen MRI scans but not live.

I'll check about the book.

the problem is that our will is never free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

You have stated that already, But you have not backed it up with some explantion. arguments and esp. examples. I believe that anyone who hears this would need some explanation ...

Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. — Truth Seeker

Well, this applies mainly to the body and maybe a little to the mind and consciousness. Moreover, it does not change the fact that if such a thing prevents free will and determines our thinking, decisions and actions, we are simple puppets, doing what our genes dictate, what they tell us to do or makes us do. Or like animals, we are at the mercy of our instincts. Even a cat looks more "alive" and free than that!

If all this seem to be the way things are and makes sense to you, I cannot do anything else than accept your way of looking at the subject.

I am suffering from depression and CPTSD which affects my thoughts and emotions. — Truth Seeker

I'm very sorry to hear that, TS.

You could argue that I do not have a sound mind. — Truth Seeker

I don't believe this is true.

When I asked "Is solipsism true?" what I meant is that "Is solipsism real? i.e. am I the only real entity in all of reality?" — Truth Seeker

I know. I think I said that myself too.

I think we are using very different definitions for free will. Although you have not stated which definition of free will you are using. — Truth Seeker

Yes, most probably. For me, free will is simply what it says: freedom to act on one's own will. It should not get mixed with foreign substances. Not even with determinism, which is usually opposed to. Because once you do that, it gets more and more complicated as a concept and its essence is lost.

I am inferring that your definition is "Free will is the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence." — Truth Seeker

Correct. You can infer dozens of things. It's essence won't change. But it may be lost, as I said.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I am talking about both internal (e.g. genes) and external (e.g. environments) determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

I see. Well, can anyone eliminate all determinants and constraints, both internal and external as you say? This could only be done by some god, if in its definition we included the omnipotent element. However this is fantasy. In reality, and for humans, there are always determinants and constraints. But the issue here is not to eliminate them but base our decisions and actions after taking them into consideration. This does not prevents us from acting voluntarily, at our own will.
I believe you agree in that ...

If the zygote that was I had all the correct genes and was in the correct environment and received the correct nutrients then I would have been born as a healthy human baby. If that baby had different experiences from me such as learning Japanese instead of English, I would not be typing this message. — Truth Seeker

Certainly. I see your point. So, language is a limitation in our communication with other people. But it's only that, Not being able to speak Japanese does not mean that I'm not able to speak at my own will.
And, vice versa, if I were able to speak all the languages in the world, that wouldn't mean that I could always speak at my will. There could be other restrictions. Restrictions are always there. They have nothing to do with our free will.

***

So, it it is time I think to talk about the opposite of free will: deteminism or simply total lack, inexistence of free will. And it I would like from you to answer this question me: If my actions are not based on my free will where are they based on? What exactly is that determines them?

There are some theories that explain this. I also make up one myself. What is yours?

Wow! This is really long!
Multiple choices turned into multiple subjects. :grin:
Although, "Is solipsism true?", "Is hard determinism true?" etc. they seem only rhetorical questions
BTW, I have to note something here: solipsism, hard determinism, etc. are concepts and views and as such cannot be said to be "true" or "false". They can only be said to be "right" or "wrong", "correct" or "erroneous", "valid" or "invalid", etc.

I am agnostic about a lot of things. — Truth Seeker

I believe it is a healthy thing to be agnostic. (BTW, the term refers mainly to God of gods.)
If I had to chose a label for myself, most probably this is what I wpuld have chosesn.
Known agnostics that I like a lot were Einsten and Sagan.

However, I believe that you pull the cord of agnosticism too far. It reminds of "One thing I know that I know nothing" attributed Socrates, for which there no evidence at all. Indeed, Socrates was not that modestm and one of the main elements in his teahings was wisdom. Therefore, such a statement would discourage his students! Besides, it's a self contradictiory statement!

So, don't try to look that modest. You know well that you know much more and can reason much better that what you say you do.

I am completely certain of the following: — Truth Seeker

... I'm sure you missed quite a few ... Don't you know how to ride a bicycle? :grin:

I am almost certain of the following: — Truth Seeker

I don't believe that you are "almost cerain", i.e. there a possiblity that you won't die
On the other hand, I believe you are justified to think about a possibility that we and the whole Univers as wa know it are part of a simulation, dream, etc.,

Humans and other organisms do not have free will. — Truth Seeker

I'm really surprised that you equate humans with all other organisms. At least, you could equate them with primates, esp. apes.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following: — Truth Seeker

This might be fun ...

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
A living organism is an autonomous system. You can have only little control ove it. The mind however, acts only in part as an autonomous system. You can have a lot and good control over it. Free will comes in here, you are free to change your mind, to think this or that way, to solve a problem, to learn things, to d this or that ... It all depends on your will, your free will.

2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
As I said above, one can have very little control over one's own organism. Much less over an organism that is different. Except of course if one practices mimicry, which is a superficial action. But yes, to do that one needs to apply one's free will.

3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
This is just fantasy or sci-fi or wishfull thinking.

4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
Only a god could do that --based on an appropriate concept of "god" of course. Anyway, there's isn't one around. And if I am wring and there is one, he doesn't do any of that; he can't care less. :smile:

5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
Ditto.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
Ditto.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.
Ditto.

Well, eventually it wasn't so fun ... Very little challenge. You must try better, Truth Seeker.

I am the Truth Seeker, not the Truth Knower. — Truth Seeker

Well, that's a noble and honest endeavor. And you seem indeed a honest person.
But if you really seek the truth, you must either apply strong reasoning yourself or see and accept a truth when it is presented to you.
And allow me to say that your questions and requests in this topic and subect lack of strong reasoning; they are quite superficial. I have shown that more than once in this thread. You also seem to not see the truth about free will that I have described also more than once in this thread. I mean, you have not presented counter arguments to mine or your own arguments or a clear position regarding free will. The questions/requests that you have presented in this thread are not arguments or a position on free will.
But then, this is only me talking. :smile:

The reason I have not edited my original question is that even if the phrasing is wrong, that's what I was thinking and asking at the time of posting. — Truth Seeker

Of course. But I didn't suggest to change the question-title of the topic. Only the last question, which introduces the multiple choices.

You can still answer the question "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions? — Truth Seeker

Sure. I select the following one (of course): "All adult humans with sound minds"
(I also voted it. It's only too obvious. Glad to know that it received the vast majority of the votes. But I would like very much to know also what the minority has voted and their reasons. This would reveal interesting things, I guess.)

Yes, I would feel guilty if I ate meat or drank cow's milk or ate chicken's egg or wore leather or wore wool and so on. However, if my choices are inevitable then I can't really be blamed or praised for my choices. — Truth Seeker

Of course, even killing in defense and in order to save one's life cannot be considered unethical. The intention and purpose of one's actions plays a very important in ethics.

The legal system simply ignores the implications of hard determinism and assumes that people have free will and are legally culpable if they do anything illegal. — Truth Seeker

A fair, democratic system is correct in ignoring hard determinism and assuming free will. A person with a sound mind does have free will. Even criminals have, in general. Almost all of them are aware of what they are doing and they commit crimes on purpose. They have a choice about whether to commit a crime or not. They have reasons to do or not to do a certain crime. If they have an aberrated, sick mind, is another thing. This can be cured, using appropriate methods --mild ones, not electroshocks or heavy medicines.

***

One question: Do you believe that you composed this topic deterministically and not by your free will?
And, as en extension of this: Do you believe that people voted deterministically and not by their free will?

One can be legally culpable without being morally culpable. — Truth Seeker

OK, since you are insisting, I believe that one can use (losely) both the terms "legal" and "moral" culpability.
It wasn't my main point anyway; just an observation, something that "striked" me as stange.

I think that no one is morally culpable but all adults of sound minds are legally culpable. — Truth Seeker

So, there's no moral culpability but only an illegal one. OK. then would you call lying, cursing, offending etc. "illegal"? I don't believe that you would.

Maybe, instead of "morally culpable", you really mean morally responsible? I think this term fits your topic and description better.

For instance, pure (severe, diagnosed) psychopaths --with no "sound mind", as you say-- cannot distinguish right from wrong and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. That's why when such persons are found guilty in court, they would not be sent to a mental facility instead of to prison.

Culpable for doing something morally incorrect. — Truth Seeker

if that something had nothing to do with morality, e.g. an incorrect calculation, an invalid statement, a common error etc., would you call that person "culpable" of doing that? This is simply "being mistaken"
Again, the word "culpable" is always connected to morality. (Except of course if it is used as a figure of speech.)

I became a vegan eighteen years ago because two vegans convinced me that it is morally wrong to be an omnivorous or carnivorous human. — Truth Seeker

This is good. Then, if you eat meat you will most probably feel guilty, whouldn't you? Why? Because you have violated a moral principle of yours? Isn't that right?
As with the the word "culpable", the word "gulty" is always connected to morality. (Except of course, again, if it is used as a figure of speech.)

I have also included beings such as robots and AI even though I am not convinced that the currently existing robots and AI are sentient. — Truth Seeker

What do you mean "convinced"? Whoever tries to convince you, even if it is yourself, tell them to look up the term "artificial intelligence" and undestand what it really means. (Although people usually hate doing that!)
(BTW I am an AI programmer and have not the least doubt that it is totally impossible for AI --as it is defined and known today-- to ever become sentient. :smile:)

I like your rephrasing: "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?" — Truth Seeker

Thanks.

Please answer the rephrased question. — Truth Seeker

I just checked and the old one --"Who is morally culpable?"-- is still there.

Who is morally culpable? — Truth Seeker

(The emphasis is mine.)
Why, in what sense can one by culpable other than morally?
Then, culpable of what?
Finally, how is this question connected to your multichoice list? It implies that one or more beings in the list is (actually) culpable. But neither a reason for being culpable is given nor any one in the list seems to be culpable for any reason, e.g. like a "criminal" would clearly be.

Now, since all the sound like criticism --although they aren't; they are just logical questions-- I tried to find what could be a question that fits your list ... The best I could find off hand is the following "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?"

If you like it, you can edit your OP and use it. (I don't ask for credit. :smile:)

Infinity is not an empirical feature of reality. — Gnomon

I know that. But it is you who asked for empirical evidence (Re: "Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity?") ! :smile:

It's also why I chose to eliminate discussions of unreal First Causes in this thread — Gnomon

Why, are there real First Causes? What are they?

The topic is First Concept. Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? — Gnomon

How can I have anything to offer on something I don't undestand? I was very clear on this. I said that I don't know what do you mean by "First Concept". But you didn't bother explaining to me, or give me some example. You still aren't. Some teachers do that on purpose to torture their students! :grin: (And others do it unintentionally. I've had both kinds in my school.)

So, I have nothing else to offer here ...

If you only assume there is a first cause, then you've shown nothing. — tim wood

I have never assumed that, Tim. In fact, I said one could never find a first cause and that looking for it is a wasted effort. And I explained why. (Have you really read my message?)

If your law is that every effect has a cause — tim wood

What do you mean "my law"? It's a universal law. And BTW, do you know of some other law that opposes it?

is every cause caused? — tim wood

Yes. This is what the chain of cause and effect means. A cause is the effect of another cause.
What don't you get, Tim? I really can't see what are you looking for. Your questions and arguments go in circles and they do not show anything substantial. At least I can't see anything ...

There are no "exercises in language" or playing with words either. There's only pure logic here. Can't you see that logic or do you maybe deny (the existence of) logic?

A first cause in the world, then, is speculation — tim wood

But this is exactly what I showed in the first place, Tim! What's with you? Really.

Hi, Javi!

If it's entirely fabricated, then why is it universally accepted that Jesus was baptized and crucified?
— Brendan Golledge
I disagree when you state that the crucifixion and baptism of Jesus Christ is 'universally' accepted. This is not true and this is even the cause of why the Christian religion (and other religions) split apart into different factions. — javi2541997

Good point. I certainly agree. Breadnan used the word "universally", as if everyone on the planet was a Christian! Well, Christianity, even if it is the largest religion in the world --it forms about 30% of the major religious groups-- it is far from being "universal".

So, no. It is not universally accepted that Jesus was crucified. :smile: — javi2541997

Certainly not. And I would add that even if one accepts Jesus crucifixion as an historical event, his resurrection is quite a controversial if not a fake story --outside Christianity-- without which Christianity, at least as we know it, would not exist. It would be much better if it were built based on and around the human side of Jesus, as a teacher, as is the case with Buddhism.

(Re: "Assuming one accepts the law of causality"]
And there you have it. Assuming you accept X, you get Con(X) (consequences of X) ... — tim wood

The word "assuming" that i used was just en expression, Tim. Not part of a logicical scheme.
I could also say "based on" or "according to" or just say "the law of causality says ..." or even not mention it at all.

The point I suppose when looking at foundational concepts, is to question everything and assume nothing, so far as is possible. — tim wood

I don't think this is possible. To propose something, make a statement, etc., about a subject, you must see the subject from a certain aspect or within some context, a frame of reference. You must start from something. You must be based on something, on some ground. Otherwise, what you propose would be an empty, groundless talk. Insn't that right?
In my case, the frame of reference was the "law if cause and effect".

The idea of a first cause or concept seems not to work (in this context) leading to paradox. That alone would suggest it be rejected. — tim wood

See, you used "in this context" youself. And "leading to a paradox" implies that you used a logical frame of reference. Only that you didn't show why the first cause doesn't work and/or why it would be a paradox ... :smile:

The premise that "the chain of Cause & Effect is infinite" is also an ungrounded assumption. Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity? — Gnomon

What empirical evidence could there be? Can anyone experience infinity?
It can be only conceived or deduced rationally.
Anyway, the only other possibility for First Cause is to attribute it to a God who has created everything and to whom everything can be traced back. For which there is no empirical evidence either. This can be also deduced rationally, in the sense that since I can't find a first cause --empirically or rationally-- I have to invent one: I'll call it God.
Which of the two is more "ungrounded"?

the point of this thread is to avoid infinities, and to trace Cause & Effect only back to the First Concept within space-time. — Gnomon

But, as I showed, infinity is necessarily involved in the cause and effect chain. You cannot avoid it! :smile:

This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. — Gnomon

Right. This is almost the same with saying "the creation of an effect is impossible without a cause". So we are led again to the subject of "First Cause". Infinity again. All roads lead to Infinity! :grin:

When & where & how did Matter become self-conscious enough to ask about its own origin? — Gnomon

Do you mean that matter can be self-conscious? It is not even established that animals can be.
You really surprised me here, Gnomon! :smile:

If it's religious fiction, then why did the disciples die for it? — Brendan Golledge

What apostles died for it? (And, BTW, what "it"? The NT? It doesn't make sense.)

James, the brother of John and one of the original Twelve Apostles, was killed by Herod (see Acts 12:1–2). Peter and Paul were also killed during New Testament times. We don't have records of the deaths of all the Apostles, but we do know that all but John the Beloved died and, after a time, ceased to be replaced.
(https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2005/02/what-happened-to-christs-church?lang=eng)

If it's entirely fabricated, then why is it universally accepted that Jesus was baptized and crucified? — Brendan Golledge

Because it is a religion, Brendan. And people who follow a religion believe in whatever that religion says. This does not change the fact religions may be based on fiction. (Most are.)

You have not presented any serious argument. Only childish questions. You cannot defend your position. No wonder you are confused, as you say yourself. I tried to give you something to get out of this condusion.

You are right. The discussions on the subject of First Cause can go forever. As those about the concept of time and a lot more.
I have been involved in a few discussions about First Cause --whether its existence is necessary or not-- here and elsewhere. But I won't repeat myself here. As I was reading your description, a new idea came to my mind. Maybe it can be proved useful:

Assuming one accepts the law of causality --i.e. every effect has a cause-- trying to find the First Cause is simply a vain effort. The chain of cause and effect is infinite. And trying to find the start of infinity --or anything that infinite-- makes no sense.

I'm afraid that you are trying to make head or tail with fiction.

The New Testament was written at least 50 years after Jesus died. It was mainly instigated by the writings of apostle Paul, who was not even present in any of these events. There are very few historical facts about the life of Jesus during his death. The New Testament has a lot of gaps and ungrounded, senseless stories that raise a lot of questions. E.g. According always to NT, when Jesus prayed to God, his disciples were sleeping and there was no one else near. Who has listened to his prayer and recorded it? Totally silly.

The NT was written with the purpose of creating a new religion. A religion that is based on the resurrection of a human being, a story that was most probably created by Paul and based on ancient mythology.

The NT is religious fiction.

Ha! You are right, my friend. The OP is Benj96's. I really don't know how I got you involved in all this.
But then, you should have stopped me from the beginning. Instead, you reacted with comments like "consciousness require awareness", etc. so you extended this wrong thread. This is not my fault! :smile:

Anyway, nice to make your acquaintance. See you around ...

Not sure why you quoted me with the title of the thread — Christoffer

Yes, I did.

consciousness require awareness. — Christoffer

None of them requires the other. Consciousness and awareness are similar concepts. They can be even used alternatively in some cases.

It doesn't require self-awareness, but awareness of the processes that occurs to them and reactions by them. A rock isn't measurably aware of the hammer hitting it, a bug is. — Christoffer

Right.

But I still don't know what you are actually answering to or why you quoted the thread's title as if I asked it? — Christoffer

In my turn, I can't see your problem with this. :smile:
Isn't your title "Are all living things conscious?" a question? And isn't my answer congruent with it?

So, you believe that the only possible social, political and economic organization is the one we currently have. — Vera Mont

Yes. I can't see anything else. What else do you have in mind? A kibbutz or a commune?

Enactivist approaches argue that perception and reaction are not sufficient for consciousness. — Joshs

Well, enactivism holds that cognition is a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness. In my discussions with people on the subject of consciousness, I realized that most of them add such conditions, even thinking. So, anyone can add what condition one thinks is necessary for consciousness. So, what this actually means is different definitions of consciousness. That is everyone has a different perspective on the subject. This reminds of the alegory of different people looking at an elephant from different angles. So any fruitful discussion or conclusion on this subject is actually impossible, isnt it?

Consciousness is intrinsically affective, and affectivity arises out of the organisms’s ability recognize what is better or worse for it in relation to how it is functioning. — Joshs

This is exactly what I said. Here we see moods, feelings and emotions being part of consciuousness. So, according to this, if I don't have any particular mood, feeling or emotion it means that I am unconscious!

Do you see where do all these "additives" to consciousness lead? If I'm just looking at a wall, without having any cognition and without thinking or feeling anything --just looking-- it means I am unconscious! :smile:

Are jobs necessary? — Vera Mont

Yes. Unless you like the way hobos live. Or risking your life by robbing banks.

Are all living things conscious? — Christoffer

Yes, all. Including organisms and plants. They all perceive and react to their environment. Because they all want to survive. And multiply.

I believe that considering the work environment at large as unethical is a huge generalization, ungrounded as a statement and a quite biased --one-sided and even wrong I could say-- view.

What exactly is the problem with the work environment? In what sense it is unethical and why?
Then, why "anymore"? Was the work environment more ethical or less unethical in the past? E.g. in the times of slavery --ancient and modern? Or before the advancements in the emancipation of women?

Then, do you express this view because of first-hand experience or from examples in real life? Or it is just a theoretical viewpoint of yours?

There is injustice and unfair treatment in companies as there is injustice and unfair treatment in schools and universities as there is injustice and unfair treatment in human relations as there is injustice and unfair treatment in families. Injustice can be met in every aspect and corner of life. The work environment has not the exclusivity in it.

Unfortunately, the wiki references in some cases are not good enough or may be misleading. You will enjoy this article if you want to get involved in the debate of whether spacetime is a substance or not. I am a physicist and cannot understand the article well since it is very technical. — MoK

My position on the subject is certainly not based in any way on what Wikipedia says. I just brought up this ref for the occasion. It was just handy ...

This is a subject I have discussed a lot and in lengths, in here and elsewhere, where I have described the non-physical nature --in fact, the non-reality-- of time. I could do it with you too, but it will take too long.

Now, I gave you and short example. You give me a huuuge article to study! (You are not the only one who does that.) So, thanks but no thanks. :smile:

Spacetime can affect the motion of objects and light. Massive objects can change the curvature of spacetime as well. — MoK

Spacetime doesn't really exist. It isn't real, in the way matter and energy are. It is theory. It's a mathematical model.
"Spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur." (Wikipedia)

...time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa.
— Alkis Piskas
Is there anything time is connected to? — ucarr

Don't quote a stetement cut off from its immediate context. It's a very bad and unacceptable habit, ucarr. You must quote the whole idea, thought or argument. I quote it for you:
"Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. So time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa."
The statement that you quoted cut off from the whole, on purpose, is relevant and in respect to the previous one. It does not mean that there is no connection between mass and time.
In doing so, you show that you ignore, also on purpose, the first statement, which is the main and most important idea here.

I have enough with all that, ucarr. You are a bad interlocutor. Please don't bother me again.

Again, all this has to do with the dilation of time. How mass affects time. Nothing to do with what I maintained.

I can still see no difference. When we are talking about facts, our statements have to be true or false. E.g. saying "George is taller than Alex" is like "a > b". But of course, as you say, natural language is much richer and has more attributes than symbolic one, e.g. ambiguous and meaningless, as you pointer out. Yet, Math can also be ambiguous, e.g. sqrt(4) can be 2 and -2. And it can be also meaningness, e.g. the expression 4 + 5 x 6, besides being ambiguous, it is ill-defined and therefore meaningless.

If you look "wider", you will find more similarities between natural and symbolic languages than the obvious ones ...

Welcome to TPF, Gary. (Well, two weeks ago, but welcoming lasts for a while ... :smile:)

It can be problematic to apply formal logic to a natural-language statement. In formal logic you have rules of sentence formation, and these try to exclude contradictions. Natural language has informal, often ambiguous rules and definitions. — Gary Venter

I believe that both "formal logic" and "natural-language logic" are simply two different ways of expressing logic elements and logical schemes. The same applies to Math sets, probabilities, etc.: they can be expressed with symbols as well as with graphical scemes and also with words. It's like "1+2=3" (mathematical/numeric notation) and "one plus two equal three" (words). Both of them express the same conventional truth.