From a Wittgensteinian POV it seems that all we're capable of is syntactic manipulation (language + logic), semantics "drops out of consideration". That's why I believe he was hell bent on proving private languages are nonsensical or can't exist.

Suppose we discuss god, the two of us. I say blah, blah, blah, god exists and you claim yada, yada, yada, god doesn't exist. We can save ourselves a whole lot of trouble by, philosophers will kill me for this, not trying to understand what "god" means but by looking at the validity of the argument put forth by both sides. Forget meaning, focus on the syntax (linguistic & logical). This is, in my humble opinion, exactly what computers do: for a computer, there's no difference between a variable and a constant (the form is more important than the content). I dunno, just sayin'

Most of the Christians I’ve talked to recently have pointed out that living in a patriarchal society, it would make sense why God would be referred to as a “He”, being all strong, all powerful, etc. But Christianity also emphasizes the “feminine” characteristics of God too, namely being all loving, creating children. — Paulm12

I thought love and hate were, well, unisex! You do have a point though, love fosters receptiveness [willingness to "accommodate" someone else's views], not always though (jealous lover, Othello?).

A second coming! — Hillary

:snicker: This time, Jesus is gonna get shot/electrocuted/poisoned/hung/what else? (preferred, allegedly humane forms of execution) instead of crucified. Torture is no longer an option; there are international laws against, get this, cruel and unusual punishment!

:ok:

@Jack Cummins @180 Proof

Brilliant, the both of you!

180 Proof got mathematical (0), but the two of you eventually ended up in the world of poetry - Jack Cummins' is an original (way to go! Jack) and 180 Proof's looks like it was authored by someone else (perhaps a poet I've not heard of).

Mathematics: There are two kinds of nothing in math viz. Zero, 0 and the Null set, { }. Here's a syntactically and semantically sound set: {0}. Note: {0} treats nothing as something (Greeks never got past that hurdle. The Indians managed to do so, Brahmagupta was one of the pioneers of mathematics with zero).

The usual state of affairs with minds: We're constantly thinking about something; {I'm hungry}, {Sex}, {daughter}, {Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems}, you get the idea. Zen Buddhism, an amalgamation of Buddha & Lao Tzu (compatible, interesting, oui?), is famous for it's mindblowing Koans. The idea, as some say, is to empty the mind and what better way to do that than to make the practitioner contemplate on contradictions ( +x & -x = 0), let the two halves of an antinomy cancel each other out and what's left is this: { } aka, if I'm correct, mushin no shin (mind without mind) or shoshin (beginner's mind).

What sayest thou?

Good metaphor. I would say a computer is still a sort of clutch. It doesn't really do the work for you, it just assists.

Like an abacus cannot count, like a clutch cannot walk, a computer cannot think. — Olivier5

A computer is, to my knowledge, an automated alogrithm executing device. What happens, as far as I know, is that some aspects of our thinking can be reduced to an algorithm (a step-by-step sequence of instructions on what to do with what). This instruction-based thinking, it was realized by luminaries such as Babbage and Turing, could be done by mechanical and electronic devices. If when we follow an algorithm, we call it thinking, are computers doing the same also not, sensu amplo, thinking?

Bravo! The meat and potatoes ( :snicker: ) of paradoxes is binary thinking (0/1, not both, not neither, only one). So, really my ill-considered critique falls at the first hurdle; after all your thesis, right from the get go, makes it clear that it eschews this splittist dualistic mindset, preferring instead to unify/harmonize. A contradiction, ergo, is a feature, not a bug of your EnFormAction - BothAnd! G'day señor and good luck!

Perhaps for the same reason than an abacus can help you count, but will never help you think.

A computer is basically a sophisticated abacus, right? — Olivier5

Perhaps, but abaci, to my reckoning, don't possess even the basic architecture to do logic-apt Boolean algebra like a calculator or a computer. In a sense abaci are like crutches (you have to do the work) but computers are bionic prostheses, like but not exactly the robotic arms of Otto Octavius (it does the work for you). :confused:

More likely, the sequence reflects what was necessary or possible. You cannot invent syntax before vocabulary, because the latter is needed for the former to exist. — Olivier5

I don't know how computers handle syntax so well and score zero on semantics then! I can't quite wrap my head around that. They (computers) seem to be able to mimic semantic capabilities though but that could be a case of infinite monkey theorem actualizing on a small scale.

My bullets are blanks! So the worst I can do is bruise someone! :snicker:

That does not follow, though, because evolution did not have to mimick computer science. My understanding is that apes and even birds have a vocabulary, but they lack syntax -- the capacity not just to say a word but to combine several words into a meaningful whole. — Olivier5

Yeah, one point of interest is syntax has, how shall I put it?, semantic functions as well. I mean grammar serves to remove semantic ambiguity that can crop up in language without grammar.

I was kinda working from a biomimetic angle: all that humans have invented and are capable of creating are mirrored in nature (planes - birds, rockets - octopus siphon, so on and so forth). I would've expected our copies of nature's creations to be hi-fi so to speak, right down to the sequence in which they occurred.

I'm blind, I've never held a gun in my hand, and I'm shooting. What do you expect? :smile:

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

The issue you refer to (intentionality/aboutness) is what AI researchers are presently struggling with. It appears that computers, present state-of-the-art AI, can, in a certain sense, "understand", syntax. Even a cheap PC can be programmed in such a way that they'll make, at the most, say one grammatical error in (hyperbole alert) 10¹⁰⁰ years. It's with semantics that AI and computers in general trip up.

An aside: An interesting corollary of this fact is that it's likely that syntax evolved way before semantics in the primate brain. Yet, oddly, there's what's called broken English (an inability to get the grammar correct). It's quite a puzzle.

@universeness

Here's something to cheer you up.

Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish. — Lao Tzu

Fractals might come in handy.

Where do I begin? First perhaps by confessing my abject ignorance on the matter.

That out of the way, this is where I'm at on consciousness vis-à-vis materialism:

1. Physical: matter & energy

2. For consciousness to be physical, those who think so beed to demonstrate that it is either matter or energy or some combination of both. If this is impossible to do, nonphysicalism is still a viable alternative as to the nature of mind.

3. That consciousness is matter (has mass & volume) seems a bit farfetched. Does the thought I'm entertaining as I pen this post have mass & volume? Shouldn't I be gaining and losing weight continuously then and shouldn't my brain swell and shrink. "A bit naïve," a (neuro)scientist might say, "that's an (over)simplification." My response: Possibly, but the ball is in your court as to what precisely is meant by mind is physical in the sense that it is matter.

4. Next energy. Heat is energy, it can do work (steam engines) and it can be measured (joules). If the mind is energy then explain how it can e.g. lift a feather off the table and how many joules is it?

5. Mind is patterns in the physical (matter & energy), but then patterns are substrate-independent (punchcards, logic gates, cellphone radio signals, can all encode the same info). Doesn't that imply the mind is, at a minimum, quasi-independent of matter & energy. It can be transferred, like me Xeroxing a document, from one substrate to another. That's a win in my humble opinion for nonphysicalism for the simple reason that as per physicalism the mind persihes with the body at death.

I'm only rich in cheesy sarcasm — Merkwurdichliebe

Something is better than nothing!

Ask me if you want an explanation of perspectivism — Merkwurdichliebe

I want an explanation on perspectivsim and do share how it relates to nihilism.

I'm only rich in cheesy sarcasm — Merkwurdichliebe

:snicker:

@Tom Storm

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

Kinda like an old friend I just met! He's just out from a hospital - fell off his bike down a cliff. He related to me how, as he was tumbling down like a rag doll, he tried to grasp with both his hands at anything - a rock, a branch, a bush, anything - to save himself. We all need something to anchor our ship too in this raging typhoon of a world; as they say any port in a storm.

vat grown meats — I like sushi

The first tentative steps towards brains in vats. :grimace: :fear: :scream:

Nothing! — Hillary

Business transaction (in the market)

Customer: I'll give you $0.00. Can I please have 0 apples?
Shopkeeper: :rage: Get the f**ck outta here a**hole!!

Business transaction (in a math department)

Customer (a mathematician): I'll give you $0.00. Can I please have 0 apples?
Shopkeeper (another mathematician): It's a deal!

I can't think of a good joke — Merkwurdichliebe

If you're rich enough, you can make people do things for you...for a fee of course.

Nihilism requires its subordinate to either create himself by his own willpower or perish. Hence Nietzsche's emphasis on the will to power. — Merkwurdichliebe

What's nihilism's selling point? Is it just the bitter truth or does it give a kick that makes people addicted to it?

Now I understand why my wife yells "Oh my God" every time we ....! Damned the cheater! — Hillary

I come in the name of the Lord! :snicker:

Just speculating, I wouldn't know.

But why didn't god send his daughter Christa? — Hillary

Good query. I would prefer Chrstina for a name of god's daughter. Since Christianity is, all things considered, based on human sacrifice, I'd say it's rather curious that a virgin girl wasn't involved. I thought that was the usual deal. :chin:

The image of the father god is certainly a male invention. — Hillary

I'm not sure. Why would men ever make it harder that it already is by presenting women with the image of a perfect mate without possessing the wherewithal to ever match up to it. It's sexual suicide if you ask me. God feels more the work of our women folk, no? :snicker:

The point is, for the nihilist, it doesn't make any difference. — Wayfarer

Nihilism: Everything is meaningless or pointless

Life sans choice is pointless.

Choice sans life is meaningless.

Does nihilism conduct itself like a kamikaze (terminates all of philosophy and also itself in one fell swoop)?

Luckily, I have both qualities! — Hillary

:snicker: Don't go telling everybody that!

I'm actually surprised by how Christianity is male-oriented: God, the Father, and "He", "Him". The omni-traits of God describe the perfect man, a Mr. Right (strong, intelligent and good).

Where's the equivalent role model for women, young impressionable girls? I've heard people compliment women saying "beauty & brains"; however these are very casual references to Ms. Right, nothing official/formal about them. That's odd, oui?

Arent we all? — 180 Proof

:snicker: Double whammy! Moron + Dunning-Kruger effect!!!

I like psychology - it shows me things about myself I would've never found out on my own. We should ask senate to fund psychology research at the same level/higher as/than space exploration. They should take helpful hints and tips from Star Trek: Most epsiodes are a blend of space & mind. Mindspace! :chin:

Very different indeed, although I sense it is probably not useful to try and explain why. — Wayfarer

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

Life, then, is a struggle against foolery.

Here's an interesting thought. You of course know that nature's been characterized as lazy (paths of least resistance, that's how she likes to do it). If philosophy, sensu amplo, is so god damned hard, doesn't it mean that nature doesn't want us to take that route. Zen Buddhism's concepts of mushin no shin (mind without mind), shoshin (beginner's mind), Koans (virtual lobotomy tools) and Taoism's wu wei seem to suggest that we should...er...stop thinking and the sooner we do that the better. :chin:

Am I stupid?

Here's my attempt at a joke:

There are few women in philosophy, but (it's possible that) there's a lot of philosophy in women! :joke:

Also, we need to carry out a study on the ideas that are floating around in philosophy and categorize them according to gender/sex e.g. hard determinism comes off as masculine and soft determinism as feminine. Do memes have sex? :chin: To cut to the chase, we could be looking at a well-balanced sex/gender representation in philosophical ideas even if not among philosophers themselves.

My friend John, a Catholic priest with a mystical bent says that his Christian belief is one punctuated by terror and uncertainty and the knowledge that he has to make daily, often blind choices amidst chaos and suffering. — Tom Storm

:grimace: John, good luck! You're gonna need it!

I would've gone all analytical on the matter of John's rather lamentable circumstances, but my gut instincts tell me he should look Fortuna straight in the eye and say in a calm voice "Oh yeah? Fair lady, two can play at that game!"

‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ — praxis

:up:

Freedom of religion vs. Freedom of thought.

Both guaranteed by the constitution from the little that I know.

In an weird sense, freedom of religion is pro-atheism for the simple reason that religions cancel each other out until we're left with atheism. This technique of playing one religion against another is quite popular.

This is what I mean. The spiritual life and nihilism are both equal acts of creative vision and personal transformation galvanized by uncertainty. — Tom Storm

:chin:

Yuval Noah Harari touches upon the issue of how our brains have messed up evolution in his book Sapiens. He doesn't explain how it happened but he says that the human brain kinda made a quantum leap in the few hundred thousand years that have passed and became a force to reckon with - tools, hunting weapon, etc. were rapidly invented in a geological wink of an eye - and animals like mammoths and others couldn't adapt fast enough to humans and hence died out.

The crux of the problem: Our brains can bring abour rapid changes (re global warming), changes that are just too fast for plants and animals to adapt to. The mechanics of evolution weren't designed for fast-acting forces. We could, in fact, draw a parallel between planetkiller asteroids and h. sapiens in terms of the extensive devastation to the ecology we're responsible for. Veganism is the mind's idea, but the body wants meat. If memory serves, our guts are essentially adapted to a meat diet.

In my humble opinion, for what it's worth, faith-based belief in god(s) functions as a marker for goodness/benevolence i.e. if you're religious, 9 times outta 10, you'll be a virtuous person (likable, dependable, trustworthy, etc.). This outlook is nowhere as apparent as in American politics where politicians have to make it a point to make public their theism (real/sham). The unspoken rule seems to be: No belief in god(s), no votes!

Why do people think this way?

Perhaps belief in god(s) is strong (enough) evidence that one prefers to lead a moral life. Whether out of fear or out of genuine respect for ethics matters not.

The Gordian knot is that almost all religions, except perhaps Jainism & Buddhism, have an unfortunately distorted idea of right and wrong.

To sum it up,

1. Faith in God is a reliable indicator of how morally upright a person you are.

Unluckily

2. Belief in (a) particular god(s) entails endorsing a set of moral codes that may fall short of the mark (to err is human...)

We need to work on 2 is what I'm saying. This is an uphill task for sure. Why? For the simple reason that to attempt amendment to the ethics of a religion is to accuse God, no less, of error. Lamentable, we've painted ourselves into a corner.

It seems I only have a partial grasp of your thesis and here's more of own intuitions on the issue: EnFormAction is a good idea, no, a great idea - it, in my humble opinion, attempts to bring about a synthesis of opposing views in and of the world and all in it.

Yet, please take this positively, I sense a paradox hidden deep within your thesis. Don't worry, either I'm talking out of my hat or the issue isn't a fatal blow to EnFormAction.

The paradox: Information is foundational to EnFormAction, but your BothAnd principle works only if you lack information (you don't know which it is and hence you include both).

Good day.

:snicker:

Thanks for keeping my spirits up. Unfortunately, I won't be able to reciprocate in any way except by saying merci beaucoup!

And, no doubt, "contagious" ... :smirk: — 180 Proof

:snicker:

Question: It appears that stupidity is more contagious than smarts! I don't know why. Any ideas big fella?