We create the distinctions in language and the social significance of these differences. Be this for political reasons or simply down to low resolution analysis/laziness — I like sushi

So, a mind-generated illusion it all is? Sounds plausible; only it seems to deny reality as it appears to us. Do we have a good reason to reject/doubt reality (as it presents itself). Pain isn't pain, happiness isn't happiness; they're both something else or nothing at all.

Such a viewpoint has been popular (enough) since the dawn of philosophy; I suppose it's skepticism in full bloom or on all thrusters. I would like to be a skeptic, I was and probably still am one, subconsciously; thus my earnest queries to your, prima facie, "wild" statements (utter nonsense, happy is nothing, and the like).

When there is a genuine paradigm shift what seems to happen is the usual ‘black and white’ attitudes come into conflict with a fresh perspective. From them arises a new term that is just as quickly cut in two, because it seems we just feel more comfortable with yes/no answers/views rather than having to deal with nuances — I like sushi

This is a textbook case of the mind critiquing/reprimanding/denouncing itself. This brings to the fore the issue of trust - how can a mind that's been declared flawed be entrusted with the task of discovering truths (about itself first, and about the world, second).

Hence, my suspicions that great Buddhist masters have been trying their best to eliminate the mind from the equation (google for more). We have to, in truth, leave our minds behind in this quest whose objective(s) is/are, as of yet, hidden to a great many people, including so-called Buddhist gurus themselves.

As for ‘happy’ it something we say but it is such a general term that if you try to get to the bottom of what it means there is little to no conclusive substance to it. — I like sushi

That would depend on what one means by "substance". Plus, such an inquiry seems misguided for some reason I can't quite put my finger on at the moment. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick here.

Happiness, in the simplest sense, is a state of mind that one either prefers or doesn't mind (because it's pleasant, think of it as likeable "person" you would want as company). I'm sure this is a reasonable definition of happiness that we could work with, oui?

Note: I admit I was fishing to see if you were curious, but I cannot explain something like this well because I experienced something that made me realise how the idea of being ‘sad’ makes no sense whatsoever and is more or less a delusion of sorts. I don’t mean this as a positive or negative point, it just is what it is and human emotions seem to me to be a confused bundle of issues covering up … words fail — I like sushi

We must try...oui?

Happiness, in one sense, could be an addiction and if that's delusion in your book, amen to that. Even so, the addiction seems pro-life and anti-death. We do get mixed up sometimes and therein lies the rub I suppose. Appearances can be deceptive. Agent Smith, in search for hidden order.

Please excuse the haphazard response. I'm freewheeling.

@Jack Cummins

Leonardo da Vinci! He was a painter par excellence and also dabbled in science & engineering (Vitruvian man, designed a helo).

How did we create the black and white (balls)?

utter nonsense — I like sushi

Why is it nonsense?

‘happy’ is nothing — I like sushi

What means this? Elaborate, please.

He must have studied hard, because it is impossible for anyone to be born that dumb? — Sir2u

:rofl:

Perhaps there are enough white balls and enough black balls in this bag we call life to justify both claims of whiteness and blackness. As usual, it depends on where you are and when you are. It looks like a problem for statisticians: on the whole, is pessimism or optimism justified? Someone should do a study on the success/failure rates of (well-laid-out) plans. That should settle the matter once and for all.

"Metaphysicians want to know what the world is like, and tend to ask questions about what sorts of things exist (e.g. are there numbers?), as well as what sorts of things are fundamental [nature of reality] (e.g. is everything made of simple elements?). "

https://philpapers.org/browse/metaphysics — Jackson

:up: Nice!

There need be no necessary and sufficient conditions in place for us to be able to use a word; indeed, there rarely are. This is what is meant by the term family resemblance.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act. — Banno

You're under Wittgenstein's spell! Is suggest you do something about it, pronto!

The OP has a point. The choices are boredom OR suffering. Take your pick, but don't blame me if things don't go your way.

Can we access the worm's eye view? Any animal's? Ubermensch's? — Janus

We can make educated guesses: Worms probably have touch/pressure/pain receptors just like us. It's usually easier to get an idea of how lower life-forms see the world (we can do what they can). As for übermensch, it's a little harder.

Why not, instead of a view from nowhere, a view from everywhere? So, instead of kvetching about how inadequate any particular perspective is, we could construct a picture of reality made up of all points of view (from worms to übermensch).

:smile:

Nice!

If you concede there is a (1) a reality and (2) there is what you'd like reality to be, and you choose to live in #2 while recognizing you're not truly in reality, but you're just in some Disney Magical Kingdom that you like to visit in your mind, you can do that I suppose.

I'm not sure how you can sustain the self imposed delusion.

In any event, though, when you're talking to me, let's focus on talking about what's behind door # 1. — Hanover

I hear ya. Just a thought. Kinda feels like the so-called naturalistic fallacy (how nature is is how it should be).

I'd just say it's not a valid objection for you to reject a position simply because it leads to an unhappy, yet perhaps true, result. — Hanover

What about if we look at it through a moral, hedonically moral, lens? Shouldn't the world ought to have been in a way that's pleasing to us? Why are we stuck with reality, dissatisfying as it is? I suggest that we stop arguing and do something about it: Can't we make consciousness immaterial?

So men cost less than women? :) you guys make up your minds, who get less. — stoicHoneyBadger

You hadta ask. :smile:

why would anybody hire men? — stoicHoneyBadger

No (paid) maternity leaves?

How does solipsism get along with panpsychism?

What do you mean by "better"? I suggest you read the essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" — Elric

Sometimes it's best to leave a term as vague as it is or even vaguer.

Ok, ok! :smile:

Funny, I wanted to ask a question along the same lines: Which is better, that there are no objective truths or that there are? In other words, is objectivity better than subjectivity or is the other way round?

Please give this question some thought before you post an answer.

Perhaps the natural sciences can't yet but that is not their purpose. In the social sciences on the other hand there have been attempts to construct elaborate models of thinking, culture, ethics; but as it seems humans have a hard time agreeing on things if they are not based on pure empirical observation, which is a phenomenon almost exclusive the natural sciences, that is in itself prone to human error. Perhaps science have dogmatically replaced God in your mind. But then I guess we all need something to believe is real not to fall into madness. — trogdor

Yeah, possible a case of the drunkard's search principle.

Reading another thread i realize what i ment to write was omniscient, omnicience. I mean from a rationell point of view.
Yes but can a machine truley know everything? — trogdor

I dunno! I see no reason why it can't unless, of course, there's a limit to memory and computational power. There must be, ja? :chin: I'm sure someone/something smart enough like post-technological singularity AI will find a workaround for such obstacles to omnscience, if they even exist that is.

Who knows what things like rejection/acceptance, suffering/joy will do to you. I believe all those positive spins people give to misery are just attempts to, at the end of the day, make yourself feel better about experiences like being left out in the cold or double-crossed or shamed or cancelled, etc.. Some dark clouds, unfortunately, don't have that silver lining one could latch on to tide over rough times. Some of us simply grin and bear it. Believe you me, there's nothing at all worthwhile in suffering. It hurts (a lot) and that's all there is to it.

:smile:

:lol:

I don't think anybody is here interesting in reading about your experience — stoicHoneyBadger

:lol: I'm sure everybody has had that experience. My post was simply a gentle reminder.

Of course not - I can only speak from my limited experience and knowledge, and all statements are open to dispute if you have an experience that contradicts. This is what discussions are for, aren’t they? To draw attention to possible errors? — Possibility

:sweat:

All he needed to know was that handkerchiefs are not really symbols of fidelity...:razz: — Tom Storm

:grin:

You speak as if you're 100% certain. Are you? Probably not. So, yeah.

Rejection can be painful and it comes in many forms. Perhaps, the interpretations need revisiting, especially the labels of success and failure. It may that going beyond these can be a starting point for transforming negatives into positives. Bad experiences can be learned from and if the sense of rejection and rather than breaking down the ego and self esteem completely it may give rise to inner strength and resilience. — Jack Cummins

Once you break something and you don't/can't keep track of the pieces, and you try to restore the object, lego-like, what you end up is usually not what you started with.

A (whole) $\to$ l l l (broken) $\to$ H ("restored") :grin:

I know now why there are male homosexuals. The anus is so close to the vagina (ass territory or in biological jargon, perineal region) that some men can't tell the difference between 'em. :grin:

Nice! What about the fact that, on the whole, entropy has the upperhand, vis-à-vis negentropy? That there's more disorder than order is a fact, oui? In other words negentropy is fighting a losing battle...eventually life, the paragon of order, will fizzle out (heat death of the universe).

That said, negentropy is observable in small pockets of the universe (on planets in the Goldilocks zone around stars). We can't dismiss its existence right off the bat. Perhaps it takes a certain amount of chaos to generate the kind of order we're familiar with viz. life; like waging war to achieve peace.

So, according to you, it's all information. How do you reconcile the fact that information can be true/right or false/wrong with your BothAnd Principle, which seems to ignore or set aside true/false and right/wrong dichotomies, preferring a synthesis of opposing views rather than resolutions where one side wins the debate?

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses — Hanover

:rofl: :up:

Omniscience and determinism are not all that different, oui? That, I believe, is the point!

The issue with Hume and his take on miracles is that he discovered the problem of induction which basically is an open invitation to miracle workers like Moses and Jesus. The laws of nature? Bah! No such thing! The sun may not rise tomorrow for all we know. Bertrand Russell drove the point home with a short, short story about a chicken whose neck was wrung one fateful day, not what the chicken was expecting from his past experiences.

Hume seems to be saying there are laws of nature that are unlikely to be violated in his argument against miracles and then also talks about how induction could fail at any moment. You just killed yourself, Hume!

Moses parting the red sea is not verifiable, until we have time machines! — universeness

:up: :clap:

Not really... if it's only the thought that counts, for instance, there should be very many more good looking women pregnant than there are actually. It's not always what counts that counts — god must be atheist

You're correct!

Assuming thoughts can be reduced to an electric current as biologists claim (re neural action potential) and given that atoms, thought net neutral, possess charged particles (protons and electrons) and that too in motion, panpsychism doesn't seem that far-fetched an idea. We can play around with this rough outline of panpsychism's mechanism to refine it further. :chin:

Is lightning a thought? Are storm chasers aware of something we're not? I dunno!

That's just an example of something having a higher priority than eating, straight up cause and effect, not an example of free will. — noAxioms

You're right!