To honour or show reverence for (usually god/s).

Support for the Queen is consistently above 80%. Much more than the percentage of us Brits that believe in let alone worship god/s. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The statistics are intriguing.

I don't think God/gods should be worshipped. They should be treated with respect though.

The Queen of England is treated as a demigod - riches, rituals, songs, and even the final say on whether bills become law. Surely advanced humans or ET could be worshiped in at least the same way. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What is worship?

$\exists$ [Not the OOO God (absolute deity), but the ooo god (relative deity)]

the Great Filter — pfirefry

@Down The Rabbit Hole

Extraterrestrials, provided they're relatively good, powerful, and knowledgeable, would need to be treated as relative gods. The same goes for them too.

Should we worship them? And when we are visited by advanced ET? — Down The Rabbit Hole

A good question. Makes us rethink what worship actually is and what purpose it serves? Clearly, since there's a difference between an absolute God and a relative God, worship may need to be recalibrated accordingly, from fanatical devotion to a more measured form of respect.

I'm :confused:

Does Plato want to

1. Give power to philosophers (empower)

or

2. Control power with philosophy (disempower)

3. Both

?

@creativesoul & others.

Mary's Room

Does Mary learn anything new when she actually, with her own eyes, sees the color Red?

Qualia: Ineffable, yes, but is it knowledge?

Lepidopterans cause climate change. Alright then... — Cornwell1

They might! You're misrepresenting my position.

My proposal is to differentiate ‘what is real’ from ‘what exists’, with the latter as a subset of the former — Wayfarer

:up:

of course. You mightn't like it, but I think it says something interesting in the context. — Wayfarer

I would suggest this: Delete the word "nonexistence" from the dictionary. Instead broaden the definition of existence like Meinong did.

Kinda like getting rid of the word "violet" and renaming the color as a different shade of blue.

It's a bit sketchy, smith. Where'd you study philosophy, from fortune cookies? — Wayfarer

:smile:

I would add, however, that there's a venerable tradition in which 'God' is real, but does not exist. See this OP. — Wayfarer

As anyone with even a single neuron for a brain would've noticed, nonphysicalism requires an overhaul of the definitions of real, existence, physicalism, etc.. There really is no other alternative.

Thanks for the link. I'll go through the article later if it's all the same to you.

In other words we need to redefine existence to accommodate them.
— Agent Smith

Bingo, you win the lucky door prize. Now go ahead and redefine existence, check in when you're done — Wayfarer

Lets...

Begin with something easy & familiar viz. God

God
1. Exists
2. Is not perceivable/detectable with either senses/instruments.

Existence: Is an aspect of reality that's

1. Empirically provable (the physical)
and/or
2. Logically provable (the nonphysical)

What do you think? Have I made progress?

Nonphysicalism: Some things are nonphysical.

Nonphysical: That which can't be detected/perceived by our senses/instruments?
— Agent Smith

What about numbers? What about physical laws, like the laws of motion? These are predictive, and the predictions based on them are tested against observation. But in what sense do they exist? Is the probability wave physical, mathematical, epistemological or ontological? (Don’t try and and answer that, because it’s still an open question.) — Wayfarer

Numbers, laws (abstractions really) can be considered to exist but not in the same sense as a chair or a seashell. In other words we need to redefine existence to accommodate them.

Come to think of it, a chair & a seashell are but tokens of types (abstractions: chairs & seashells).

Do people cheat on IQ tests? There are a lot of devices available nowadays that make cheating a walk in the park!

Washington Post Headline: Cheaters invalidate IQ study results.

I'm going to talk about physicalism/nonphysicalism vis-à-vis existence.

---

Existence: That which can be detected/perceived by our senses/instruments.

---

Physicalism: Everything is physical.

Physical: That which can be detected/perceived by our senses/instruments.

---

Nonphysicalism: Some things are nonphysical.

Nonphysical: That which can't be detected/perceived by our senses/instruments?

---

The way existence has been defined, physicalism has to be true. There's no difference between existence and physical.

Something's off, oui?

Options for nonphysicalists:

1. Redefine existence so that something can exist but be undetectable/unperceivable (re: neutrons, neutrinos, dark matter, etc.)

2. State that not all detectable/perceivable things are physical (re: the ethereal quality of electromagnetic fields).

paradox — Sir2u

What's a paradox for you?

So parasitism? — _db

No, I don't think so. Both parties benefit. The poor intellectual's basic physiological needs + more are met with the help of a rich patron who, in turn, gains bragging rights for his contribution to STEM.

:ok: I'm watching this video series on the history of mathematics and according to it the 17^th & 18^th centuries were characterized by mathematicians seeking wealthy patrons (rich noblemen & royalty); a symbiotic relationship exemplified by the Bernouilli-L'Hôpital rule (calculus). Self-actualization vicariously achieved much like how the super-rich in present times finance research (Bill Gates Foundation for example).

I know the butterflies didn't conspire... Is it the butterfly conspiracy we are witnessing? — Cornwell1

I'm merely stating a fact - we don't know that lepidopteran wing-flaps don't cause large-scale weather events. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just admitting to holes in our knowledge.

Between luck/Fortuna and IQ/Sapientia, which plays a bigger role in survival?

Chance favors the prepared mind. — Louise Pasteur

Thinking in opposites was a Greek habit, and the antithesis of chance versus rational planning and competence was a common place in fifth-century Greek thought. In this ably written study Lowell Edmunds shows how Thucydides uses the antithesis of chance and intelligence both to analyze events and to characterize persons. He sets forth the view of the Thucydidean Pericles, in which intelligence is expected to overcome fortune, and contrasts it with that of the Spartans, who had a strong sense of the limitations imposed on the human mind by the power of chance. This difference emerges especially in the story of Nicias, “an Athenian with a Spartan heart.” Thucydides, whose methodology is obviously akin to Athenian rationality, faces a dilemma in the defeat of Athens by Sparta; this leads the author to a discussion of Thucydides’ methods and concept of history. — Lowell Edmunds (Chance and Intelligence in Thucydides)

In Darwinism, blind chance (evolution) beats blind chance (extinction level events are all rolls of dice) with blind chance (random genetic mutation). At some point the accumulated random mutation resulted in an intelligent ape (h. sapiens) who's the Thucydidean Pericles.

Trial and error/guess and test is the most primitive method of solving problems and yet, given the random nature of the universe, the solution ought to be proportionately random. Random walks, idiots do it best! Geniuses need to become dunces to live to see the next day.

So, "self-actualization" isn't going to look the same for everyone, and for an individual won't be the same throughout life. I have had periods of really good self-actualization, and periods which were barren. This seems to be true for most people. A couple of big peaks were in work settings, a few minor peaks were in interpersonal relationships. The present time, particularly the last 10 years (after age 65, basically) has been an extended period of self-actualization. — Bitter Crank

:up: Count yourself lucky. Many are still struggling with poverty.

what are your best self-actualizing experiences? — Bitter Crank

I'm afraid I don't know what my personal, very own, self-actualization is. I suspect Maslow used a very general term (self-actualization) as an acknowledgement of different strokes for different folks. I envy people who know exactly what they want. Below is a transcript from a TikTok video.

Question: What do you want in life?
Answer: Money.
Question: Yes, but what is the essence of your life?
Answer: Money.
Question: Ok, let's set money aside for the moment. What is the meaning of your life?
Answer:. The money that you set aside.

:smile:

Come to think of it I find it quite odd that even those for whom physiological needs are of little concern because they're affluent end up simply, what I would call, upgrading their physiological needs i.e. instead of a simple meal, they chow down on haute cuisine. instead of cheap clothes, it's Armani, instead of a hut, it's a mansion, and so on. Self-actualization then is nothing more than buying more expensive food, clothes, houses, etc. You see what I mean?

Wittgenstein showed us how to better answer philosophical questions by forgetting about essences, definitions and meanings and instead looking at what is being done in using words. In §201 he is reinforcing this way of doing philosophy by showing the limitations of considering just the rules of a language game. One must go beyond the rules and look at what is being done. — Banno

I'm beginning to see dimly what you're driving at. — Dr. Watson

I suppose one could say that "self-actualization" isn't a need in the same sense as oxygen or food is a need. One may be very unhappy without self-actualization, but one won't drop dead from its absence.

"You" can live without self-actualization; "for me" it's essential. — Bitter Crank

You've hit the nail on the head as far as I'n concerned.

I'd like to share an analogy. Imagine you want to put a sculpture in your garden. You've picked a spot but there's a hole exactly where you want the sculpture to stand.

Your first task: Fill the hole with earth so that it's level with the rest of your garden. Physiological needs are like that hole. Negative valence (you're in the red).

Second on your to-do list: Install the sculpture (make aure you assign this to someone who knows what he's doing). Self-actualization is the sculpture. Positive valence (you're safe, well-fed, etc. and only then can you self-actualize).

Well, I think the notion of an essence cannot be made clear without being wrong — Banno

One examines the language and deduces the rules. — Banno

What's the connection between a rule and a definition? Is there one or none?

I have a feeling that Wittgenstein had a different view of language and philosophy. I deduce that he was of the opinion that there had to be some necessary connection between words and their referents (the standard non-Wittgensteinian take on meaning). Why else would he think meaning is use was such a big deal? Of course meaning is use. :chin:

G'nite.

The physiological needs (food, water, oxygen, clothing, shelter, sleep) are non-negotiable demands. Yes, they can be put off (in the case of oxygen, maybe a minute or two), but not for too long. Starvation, dehydration, exposure (to either high or low temps) will kill you. Physiological satisfaction is the sine qua non for the "higher" needs.

Anyway, I just don't get why they are "negative". Fulfilling the physiological needs tends to be highly satisfying. Eating, drinking, breathing... — Bitter Crank

Oh, I see. A normal/optimal physiological state (breathing, drinking, and feeding, etc. well) is a need. Compare this to the fact that self-actualization (tip of the pyramid) isn't one. First order of business is to fulfill one's needs (physiological), only then can we move on to our wants (self-actualization). That's why I gave physiological normalcy a negative valence. It's kinda like a debt one owes to oneself. Once that's settled, we can think of other things.

The way a word is being used (following a rule) let's us know what its definition (comprehension of the rule) is in a particular language game. The definition (rule) changes with the language game one is playing e.g. the word "god" means different things in theism proper, deism, and pantheism, these being distinct language games, each with its own unique rule (definition) for the word "god". In that sense, we could say that the word "god" lacks an essence, a common thread that runs through all of the aforementioned domains.

Questions:

1. True that, sticking to the example above viz. "god", words lack an essence that's cross-domain (the pantheistic god is different from the deistic god and both have no essential connection with the theistic god). However, within a given (one) language game (say deism), how does one pin down meaning? Doesn't the word "god" in deism have an essence? I suppose what I mean to inquire is whether there's any difference at all between essence (of a word) and rule (how a word is supposed to be used)?

2. Indeed, as regards a word, there's a difference between stating the rule and following the rule governing that word. Comprehension of a rule is best demonstrated by a person following the rule rather than just being able to state it. Step 1 (A rule) $\rightarrow$ Step 2 (Comprehension of the rule) $\rightarrow$ Step 3 (Following the rule). There's a lot going in step 2.




The way I understand it is that when we're asked to explain a pattern, a necessary step if one is to make the case that one has homed in on the right pattern, we must be able to demonstrate why the pattern, well, makes sense. Consider the pattern in the sum of the series 1, 3, 5, 7, 9...

1 + 3 = 4 (perfect square)
1 + 3 + 5 = 9 (perfect square)
1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16 (perfect square)
.
.
.
The sum of the odd integer series above is always a perfect square.

Now how do I explain it?

I use tiles/polyominos to show that when I use a monomino and a tromino, I can construct a square. Add a pentomino and another square can be constructed, so on and so forth.

To add...

A world devoid of (physical) pain becomes indistinguishable from a dream. We do suffer psychologically in our dreams (nightmares) and so mental anguish can't be used to make the dream-reality distinction.

Pains occupy a distinct and vital place in the philosophy of mind for several reasons.  One is that pains seem to collapse the [illusion] appearance/reality distinction. If an object appears to you to be red it might not be so in reality, but if you seem to yourself to be in pain you must be so: there can be no case here of seeming at all. — Wikipedia

Is transhumanism (abolishment of suffering) looking to sell us a dream world?

Billionaires might not always be happy, and my experiences with many "rich" people have shown me that the so-called "poor" people have a wealth of joy that is the envy of the elites. Since people cannot say with absolute certainty that the person's life would be bad, I don't think that an absolute level of well-being is necessary for a sufficiently valuable life. I do think that this varies depending upon the individual.

I don't think that people need to create beings right now. If anything, I agree with much of what you say about the need to address the issues we face (such as climate change) before we start thinking about creating people. Concrete steps are obviously important, which is why I don't support mindless procreation. — DA671

:up: I can live with that!

To drive home the point :point: Kali Yuga. Not really a world you want your children to live in.

Sir, will do just fine. :cool: — Garrett Travers

:up: I knew you were a knight! Sir!

You really want children to be born, huh? Are you sure you can guarantee their wellbeing and not just any wellbeing mind you, wellbeing that ensures their total happiness from womb to tomb? If you can't, and I know you can't unless you're a billionaire and even then there's a significant level of uncertainty, you should concede and embrace antinatalism. There really is no point arguing against a philosophy viz. antinatalism that makes so much sense given how things are.

Very cool topic, Smith. — Garrett Travers

:up: You're :cool: too, sir/madam as the case may be.

Better a false diamond than no diamond. I completely forgot how human minds work. Better a fool's paradise than no paradise at all. Better an illusion than nothing! So on and so forth...

Not quite. — sime

In other words,

some observations are not compatible with any law. That means...

The opposite of +2 is -2.

The negation of +2 is x > +2 OR x < + 2

Salient points.

1. There's only one opposite or opposites come in pairs. A negation of something, however, may be a multiplicity.

2. Opposites, MAD (mutually assured destruction). Negations, not necessarily that MAD.

3. Opposites, mutually exclusive only. Negations mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

4.
.
.
.

I've been staying in a hotel since the 19th of Jan 2022 (just basic services, nothing fancy). So, yesterday I was walking past this room (501) and I heard voices and music through the door. The door opened ever so slightly and I managed to catch a glimpse of what was going on. A small/mini party; no, not a Boris Johnson situation, so don't get your hackles up). I simply walked past. That was that.

Around 20 minutes later, I caught the elevator and took it to the ground floor, hungry. To my surprise I saw the man in room 501 having an argument, a friendly one with the receptionist. "You were making too much noise, sir" said the girl receptionist. "Last time we had the police in here because of loud music" she continued. The man from 501 took it well, said it won't happen next time, but he made it a point to convey his side of the story - the music and the conversation wasn't loud.

Now, I know what "loud" means and the guests in 501 definitely did nothing that was loud (enough) to deserve a reprimand.

"What have I got in my pocket?" :worry: — 180 Proof

Bad hobbit, Bad!

The problem of induction (Hume-Wittgenstein):

There's no necessity to a law of nature - things might've been a certain way, are that way, but there's absolutely no reason why it should be that way in times to come.

Crucial difference: Hume's insight implies a law of nature's violated. Wittgenstein's rule following paradox doesn't mean a law (rule) is broken; au contraire, Wittgenstein is saying is that all observations (word usage) are compatible with any conceivable law.

:chin:

The JWST mirror bears a striking resemblance to the OP's codex logo (hexagons).