This is an ethics question. The obligation to inform the community. Not all information fall into the category of culpability. So, the question should include 'what harm will it cause the community if they were not informed of this truth'.If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? Ie "a tough pill tonl swallow". Couldn't they declare that their autonomy in not knowing/ (their choice to remain ignorant) was taken away from them? — Benj96
Neither. The ethics of information includes the deliberation of whether there is a need to disclose or not.In this case which is more important? The integrity of the truth or integrity of free will? — Benj96
I'm gonna be the devil's advocate here and side with you.Hence the need for antinatalism as an ethic. — schopenhauer1
Since the precursor of Christianity was Stoicism, it is not surprising that the element of the divine powers or the Cosmos is embedded in the Christian belief system. The Stoics believed in Fate -- the swing of one's luck towards good fortune or bad fortune. If you act according to the divine principles, you have a better chance of receiving good fortune.It is frustrating for me sometimes when dealing with Christians, because they very often seem to get stuck in arguments over Christology or the supernatural aspects of sanctification or atonement, when all I want to do is think about how to orient my heart properly. This seems good and beautiful to me, so I'd be interested in doing it with or without the promise of supernatural reward. — Brendan Golledge
I just reiterated what was in the text. How could you have missed that, too?Hopefully this indicates you now understand the point being made in the text, that space and time belong to the subject himself, so that when there isn’t a subject there aren’t those necessary pure intuitions that belong to him, precisely what Kant meant by the disappearance of the one entails the disappearance of the other. — Mww
Yup. We are in the age of misinformation. When the whole society is focused on number of views or clicks, that's what we get.What society as a whole needs is to get rid of the post-truth scam artists eroding the status of knowledge. The media literacy of being able to understand who's who and not fall for scammer narratives is key to healing society's relation to knowledge. — Christoffer
There is, indeed, a big difference between the ancient times and today when it comes to the bombardment of our life with social media. So, you try to cope using the means that are fitting for today.Having said the above, one does envy the life of the ancient stoics, to a degree. They were not preoccupied with the social life of the modern era. Instead, they met, drank, had discussions on the events of the senate, were consulted with since everyone in Rome was in one way or another affected by the Greek philosophers. I don't know what more to say, am I moping here? Maybe I should resign myself to feeling inadequate in terms of my coping strategies. — Shawn
Given minor differences in translations, yes, he is, and no, they are not. Mode of perception is not perception, and neither space nor time is ever an appearance, but only that which is in space and time, is. — Mww
We have therefore wanted to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things that we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be, nor are their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us; and that if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, then all the constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. — Mww
Please follow their argument to the fullest. It is easy to get lost with two paragraphs almost repeating themselves line by line.Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.e., prior to all actual perception, and they are therefore called pure intuition; the latter, however, is that in our cognition that is responsible for it being called a posteriori cognition, i.e., empirical intuition. The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different for different subjects. Even if we could bring this intuition of ours to the highest degree of distinctness we would not thereby come any closer to the constitution of objects in themselves. — Mww
Correct. The world wouldn't disappear if we disappeared.The 'forms of intuition' - namely, space and time - and the world of appearances exist only in relation to the subject's cognitive faculties. If the thinking subject were removed, what we understand as the empirical world would also cease to exist because it is dependent the structures of human cognition. — Wayfarer
It's the same point that Kant was making, about how time has a subjective component, arising from the awareness of duration. — Wayfarer
No, it's the bit where Kant says 'were I to remove the thinking subject, the whole world must vanish'.
I looked up the exact quote:
"Now space and time exist only in the subject as modes of perception. If we remove the subject, they vanish as well, as do all appearances. Nothing can remain that is not, in its own way, an object of experience." (Critique of Pure Reason, A42/B59) — Wayfarer
Apologies. I thought you were one.No kidding. Just the kind of thing that will trip up your average "realist". — Wayfarer
Fair enough. In so far as the use of language influences the way we see the world, then yes, the mind plays a role in constructing the world.The point I'm trying to make is that there is a kind of 'dual perspective' at work in understanding this question, which is deep question. There's common sense realism, in which we are just individual subjects in a vast world. But there's also the philosophical understanding of the role of the mind in constructing the world. — Wayfarer
It's a trick question in philosophy. Wittgenstein talking about the world and the subject.I would take that remark seriously if you demonstrated any grasp of the point I'm making. — Wayfarer
W stepping outside to talk about the subject. If what's he's saying is correct, then he is incorrect. It is a paradox."The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of the world." — Wayfarer
The intelligence of a collective group or population can change. This has been discovered by historians. Reading comprehension, depth in understanding, and ability to construct complex written or spoken narratives can be undermined by technology, among other things.It seems to be more than just lacking high level communicative capabilities. That they are unable to form complex thoughts and reasoning.
What exactly is going on here? What in culture and education fails to form these abilities? — Christoffer
Have you studied behavioral economics?Has the complete subversion of the needs of consumers been accomplished? I'm no Marxist; but, one has to really think about how your needs are being subverted by the calculus of rational self-interest by those who profit the most from making or changing laws the most. Actual individuals don't have the time or resources to make or change laws, special interest groups do, as well as the rich, funding them. — Shawn
True "flourishing" comes from resignation, withdrawal from engagement with others. Social engagement leads to more attachments, and more conflicts, and more frustrations, litigations, manifestations, allegations, contortions,
and complications, in short, drama and disappointments, all of which serve only to entangle the individual further in the suffering. Withdrawal is the first step in peaceful denial-of-will. — schopenhauer1
I'm not sure where you got that definition.Physicalism is reductionist by definition. Why? Because it methodically excludes or reduces what may be deemed anything other than the physical to the physical. Physicalism is 'the view that all phenomena, including complex processes like consciousness, emotions, and social behaviors, can be explained without residue in terms of physical components and laws—typically those of physics and chemistry—without requiring additional principles or explanations'. — Wayfarer
I see where your objection is -- that physicalism implies that there's only one explanation for both the celestial bodies and our consciousness (which is rightly the domain of philosophy). It doesn't. There are types of matter, just as there are types of existents. What physicalism denies is that there is no explanation at all for the mind or the consciousness.It is of course true that when it comes to phenomena such as gravity and the composition of massive bodies, then physicalism is a sound assumption (which is the 'methodological' aspect). But the extension of that methodology to the problems of philosophy is what is objectionable about it. — Wayfarer
Okay, you can hold this view, but it doesn't undermine physicalism. I wrote above to Wayfarer that physicalism can be all inclusive, except for the belief that there is this divide between our consciousness and our body composition.Actually, I was thinking of mereological nihilism, that there are no true part whole relations, and that arrangements of them are ultimately arbitrary. Thus, the world contains no cats, trees, stars, etc. These only exist in the mind. There are only a few fundemental fields (perhaps unifiable, in which case there is just one thing). This seems to make "saying true things about things" virtually impossible. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I agree with this.My guess, which is mostly based on how other "problems in the sciences," have progressed, is that the terms currently applied need to be radically rethought. That's just a guess though. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Consciousness, like memories, is not a thing. It is a status that happens when our neurons get stimulated repeatedly. Our individual, unique memories, which we fondly call subjective are made possible by synapses. — L'éléphant
On that view, wouldn't flight also not be a thing, since it is just "cells in wings responding to chemical signals." The same for "running," or "life" itself (and so also for each instance of living things?) Yet, since we have already successfully mastered heavier than air flight, we know that the principles of flight were not to be found in studying the organelles of cells in the wings of all flying animals, nor in their DNA, etc. (at least not most easily). Indeed, one can build a flying machine while being largely ignorant of the biology of flying animals so long as one understands the principles of lift, etc. that all those animals physiology takes advantage of. The same seems true of running and swimming, or even language production, and perhaps it is even so for conciousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If by dissolving all things and having only a single universal process you mean 'reductionism', there is no risk associated with using the view of physicalism, in my opinion. I understand that there are some members on this forum that detest the word reductionism. I myself do not care about this idea. I don't support it. Physicalism is not a reductive theory. It is a foundational theory that purports to show that the world cannot exist without matter or the physical components.But then we are at risk of dissolving all things and having only a single universal process. IMO, the solution here is to realize that things (substances) have relative degrees of unity. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Vide supra.In my reading, it seems that objections to physicalist theories of mind tend to largely center on the appeal to the physical being used to drag along other suppositions, e.g. a sort of reductionism — Count Timothy von Icarus
But then, to avoid hypocrisy, the door should be open to alternative metaphysical commitments that don’t have any direct bearing on the conducting of the scientific method, no? — Baden
I suppose I am advocating for a kind of radical agnosticism as to the ultimate nature of things — Baden
In those days, poets existed [made their living] through the patronage of the rich. They penned praises for their patrons.In the Republic, Socrates attacks not only the abusers of power and wealth, i.e., tyrants, but also poets. — Jamal
Define subjective experience.The question is why this is accompanied by a subjective experience of it, — Patterner
Wow! Okay. I'm gonna say it outright that you are mistaken and -- Jesus Christ!to note that all of the investors in FTX got their funds back, which was announced in May this year. Which, I think, tends to throw the very long sentence that SBF received into some question. Lewis doesn’t say it outright, but he seems to suggest it. He says in conclusion ‘I think the truth is closer to “young person with an intellectually defensible but socially unacceptable moral code makes a huge mistake in trying to live by it” than “criminal on the loose in the financial system.” — Wayfarer
It does explain that the processes such as the consciousness are made possible by the physical bodies that we possess.But it isn't explained through physicalism alone. — Patterner
I am guessing this is a typo. Last time I checked, you are opposed to this.Physicalism can even explain mental functions, like how we perceive different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, differentiate between different wavelengths, and move to avoid things that will harm the body. — Patterner
A claim without support.No, because the fact of one's own being is neither a physical fact, nor can it be denied (cogito ergo sum). — Wayfarer
Another claim without support.And here, 'supervenes' is able to be defined in just such a way as to paper over any current or even newly-discovered inadequacies in physicalism. — Wayfarer
I don't know what to make of this. Did you read his 4 causes?Well, speaking of Aristotle, he distinguishes artifacts (i.e. machines) from organisms on the basis that the latter are self-organising and their parts all work together to maintain the whole. Whereas machines are manufactured, their principle is external to them, and each part performs only the role designated by manufacturer. — Wayfarer
All I see here is a "no". But you didn't provide a convincing argument for why you are opposed to it.No, I'm opposed to physicalism because I think it's an illusion, something like a very influential popular myth. Because we're bedazzled by science and technology (and hey I'm no different in that respect) we see the world in those terms, but matter has no ultimate, mind-independent reality. Tangential to the original post, but there it is. — Wayfarer
No problem. :up:I gotcha. I misinterpreted your post that I initially responded to. — Patterner
I could interpret what you say here in two ways: One. In other words, you are supporting physicalism. If there's never been an account of how the first-person nature of lived experience arises from the objective source, then wouldn't that tell you that maybe it's because it can be sufficiently explained through physicalism alone?Ah, materialist philosophy of mind. I’ll try out some objections. First, you’re up against ‘the hard problem’ - there’s never been a plausible account of how the first-person nature of lived experience arises from the processes described by objective science. Experience has a qualitative dimension which never appears in the equations of physics by design, due to the ‘Cartesian division’ at the origin of modern science, the separation of primary (measurable) and secondary (subjective) attributes. — Wayfarer
I see where I need to make what I said clearer (or at least, my idea of physicalism).Practical illustration. You arrive home to discover your house and everything in it has burned down. If there was an instrument that could capture your precise neuronal and physiological state at that instant, it might capture data from which a suitably-trained user might be able to infer a state of acute emotional distress, and which would be an objectively accurate account. But on the basis of that data no matter how detailed, there would no way to determine how it feels and what it means to you. Saying that this is ‘neuronal’ or ‘physical’ might be objectively accurate but it would also be meaningless in the absence of the first-person perspective - namely, yours - which you bring to it. — Wayfarer
:up: I'll check them out.He does a lot of long-form interviews, podcasts, rallies, so one can get a fairly good judge at competence. Weasels can bring up one or two lines that they find nuts, and sometimes rightfully so, but when compared to the millions of other things he says their portrayal turns out to be false. Kamala does zero interviews. — NOS4A2
You could wipe out your awareness/consciousness by eliminating the sodium in your diet. Is this clear?If intelligence is distinct from the physical how can the non-physical affect the physical to give rise to life or other intelligent processes that occur in matter ? — kindred
lol. You haven't heard of the physicalist account of the bridge because they don't say there is one! That's my point. Physicalism denies that there is the physical, then there's the other that's non-physical. Everything supervenes on the physical.But I haven't heard of a physicalist account of the bridge. I hear of different physical structures and events added to the mix, but not of how the physical has the subjective experience of itself, rather than just taking place "in the dark." I thought maybe you had heard of a theory that had leptons in a central role. — Patterner
It's because you have the ordinary observation of reality. So, to you, if you can't see the atoms, atoms don't exist. Only tables and chairs exist.Is it not an attribute or property of a physical thing ? How can intelligence be a tangible thing that can be touched? How would you support your assertion if that’s the case ? — kindred
In my view, intelligence is a physical thing.Since intelligence is a non-physical thing — kindred
I don't have one. I mentioned earlier that I favor physicalism.What is your account of the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal? — Patterner
Here's a suggestion for Kamala's detractors: rather than falsely pin her to an ideology that suggests she actually believes in something, point out the fact that she has no solid policies at all, that e.g. her website is a bunch of gobbledeygook, a Rorshach blot of cliches designed so that any vague bullshit can be read into it. She is horribly and fatally scared of committing herself to anything other than being Not Trump and her ultimate faith is in the stupidity of the opposition in not realizing and exploiting that, but rather focusing on easily rebutted insults that harm their sources more than her. She was laughing at the debate and she'll laugh her way right into the presidency if the dummies on the other side keep going the way their going. — Baden
Conceptualization is still part of our mental activity. And mental activity is neuronal. And we know that's physical. But I think you mean to say, there is no 'picture' of mathematical concepts, but just concepts. So how did we come up with mathematical concepts.Curiously, physics itself is largely mathematical in nature. The standard model of particle physics is understood in purely mathematical terms. But mathematics itself is not physical, but conceptual. How would you account for that? — Wayfarer
I think what you're really asking is how did consciousness or mind develop from the brain. This is the hard problem of philosophy. And this forum is teeming with threads like this -- really good ones, too.Then how did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with. — kindred
Matter precedes intelligence.Then that must mean intelligence precedes life in that it’s the potential for inanimate matter to become matter. Where did this intelligence come from ? My argument is that it’s been there all along and preceded life. — kindred
I disagree. Intelligence did develop in complex organisms and it is cumulative -- so there must be the 'infrastructure' of brain and body. And this infrastructure must continue to change/progress in ways that could accommodate higher innovations.The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ?
In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings.
As to how life emerged from non-life through abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery which gives credence to a pervading intelligence prior to the existence of this universe. — kindred
Did the experiment reveal their findings? If that was a true experiment, the researchers would have some insights as to why the dog went insane.The dog has no issues in yet going to touch with its nose the door with the more circular figure. This until the two doors – more properly the circular ellipse and the elliptical circle – become indistinguishable by it. At this culminating point, the heretofore friendly dog goes insane as described.
Granting that this experiment did in fact take place, why would the dog go mad – — javra
Once again, I think you misunderstood. I don't read Fire's comment as saying the dog's reaction is rational. This is the pitfall of propositional logic. Humans can judge (view) the dog's reaction as rational, not that it is rational. Fire's comment went on to explain that he does not see any evidence that the dog is using reason.We humans can judge a dog’s reaction as a rational response or not, but I see no evidence that a dog is using reason prior to any response or after the fact, or during a “communication.” — Fire Ologist
OK. So it turns out that you will accept that a dog's reaction is a rational response, but deny that the dog is rational because they don't "use reason". I take it that you mean that the dog doesn't say out loud "This is the situation, so I should do that." But humans often act without verbalizing their reasons out loud. Does that mean they aren't rational either? — Ludwig V
I didn't say you should implicate yourself.In other words, when one misunderstands it. — 180 Proof