Theoretically, all humans are free of responsibility but they still get punished if they do some no-no or boo-boo. — god must be atheist

Your thesis was that all humans lacked responsibility. You now restate it in the hypothetical. Why?

In fact, it's not god that punishes the evil-acting people, but other people. In the USA, and in Canada, mainly through the court system. Although there is vengeance, and the odd vigilante action — god must be atheist

Was there some dispute about who ran the jails that you thought you needed to clarify it was the warden and not God?

Nobody invented free will. It still is not existent.

I don't know who came up with the notion first. All I know is that Christians use it extensively when they want to avoid responsibility for their god's actions. — god must be atheist

Free will is assumed in the Old Testament, and most (every?) society assumes it.

Anyway, it's not a solution to the problem of evil because plenty of bad things arise without human action, like earthquakes, disease, famine, etc. That is, free will isn't posited to save God from responsibility for all bad acts, but it allows for human responsibility for some acts. Without it, you would absolve all humans of all responsibility.

Grrr... here we go again. Free will. The greatest cop-out invention of Christian dogma. — god must be atheist

The Christians invented free will?

Since you've said both that you believe things like trees are unknowable and that there's a tree that's transmitting something to you — Terrapin Station

You asked your question, which you insisted be answered, in the hypothetical, as my position has never been that I know my perception is representative of the actual tree or that it emanates from the tree. As I've said, I cannot speak of the noumena. — Hanover

What? You have faith but you lack that faith? — Terrapin Station

You asked your question, which you insisted be answered, in the hypothetical, as my position has never been that I know my perception is representative of the actual tree or that it emanates from the tree. As I've said, I cannot speak of the noumena.

Your question directly asked me how I could know what I saw was the tree, which was in direct conflict with what I had been saying. So, to entertain your question, which was how would I know my perception was of the tree (and it must be "would" because I never claimed it did), I told you how it could be that I might hold the tree I saw was the tree that was there.

I actually thought your question thoughtful because if I were to state there were no way possible that I could know the tree I saw was the tree, then I might be speaking tautologically, which was what I thought you were getting at, So, my response was to allow for the possibility that I could believe my perception was the tree, but it would not be based upon empirical thought or rational evaluation, but just faith.

In reality, I don't have such faith, so that's why I clarified in the second portion of my post what my position actually was.

This is a different question, now asking me why I think the tree is the tree, although I said I could know nothing of the noumenal tree. But to answer that question:

I believe that I'm perceiving something that has been transmitted from a tree because I have faith that what I perceive accurately reflects the external object I believe I am seeing

Since I lack that faith and lack a reasonable basis for for having such faith:

I do not believe that I'm perceiving something that has been transmitted from a tree because since you cannot determine if a tree is accurately perceived as a goat or a hat, then you can't say you know anything about the tree.

Again, this is why I don't like to do more than one thing at a time. What happened to the question I asked prior to what you're quoting? — Terrapin Station

I did answer your question, which is to say that since you cannot determine if a tree is accurately perceived as a goat or a hat, then you can't say you know anything about the tree.

What I think is going on is that you perceive the tree. Obviously that doesn't mean that the tree is in your brain, which is an inane misunderstanding/straw man that some people think is worth arguing against, as if anyone is claiming that. Perceiving the tree is seeing the tree as it is, from a particular point of reference, via the mechanisms of perception--receiving sensory data via light or sound or touch, etc. where nerve signals are sent to your brain, etc. — Terrapin Station

If I see a tree as a goat and you as a hat, which is correct? Are you committing to the idea that whatever I see is correct because it's just a particular point of reference? The guy whose lens makes midgets appear as giants is just as accurately seeing the person as the one sees midgets as midgets.

Is it possible under your position to state that I have misperceived something?

Is consciousness divided into a perceiver and an object of perception, ie the Cartesian theatre, or is consciousness and perception one and the same? Isn't "awareness" a synonym for "consciousness"?

Where is the "you" that perceives? — Harry Hindu

Let's say not, but concede that the awareness is the consciousness. That still doesn't make the object and the perception the same thing, which appears to be TP's position (I think).

That, however, is not your view. Your view is that you're "perceiving" mental content qua mental content. I'm asking you how you're arriving at that option. And the answer as to how you're arriving at it, why you're picking that option is? — Terrapin Station

My view is that I'm perceiving whatever has been transmitted from the tree to the eye to the brain to my consciousness. The light as it travels is not a perception the instant it hits my lens, and the tree itself never moves from the woods.

What's your view of what's going on?

I like that the slightest hint of her shadow remains, so much so that it's indiscernible that it once represented a person . It's a cool concept that we don't ever really leave. I could imagine a picture of a dinner table filled with family members, with a vacant chair, with an almost unnoticeable shadow cast upon the empty tablecloth.

I know it's not what you intended, but you never know what art presents to the beholder.

For God's sake. Everyone does God's work, if you believe in God and all the accouterments around the concept. — god must be atheist

To the extent that God has given humans free will, as many religions hold, not every person is doing God's work.

Isn't interesting that countries with the most rapacious capitalists ar the keenest to build places of worship - namely the USA, Turkey (which has more mosques per capita than any other country) and, I gather, Romania, where a fit of church building is goiing on.

Pussy Riot were subject to extensive jail terms in Putin's Russia, for misbehaving in Church, and Putin has been highly supportive of the various patriarchs of Russian orthodoxy, who inhabit those parts, while Porridgeheadcold in Ukraine pulled off something similar...

Are the capitalists doing God's work, or is it like the Old Testament, and Yahweh, or maybe Karl Marx, punishes us with alienation of labour value for whoring with other Gods? — Ricardoc

Communist nations are often non-democratic and iillegalize or otherwise highly regulate religious practice, whereas democratic nations take tolerant stances toward religion. It's built into the ideology of personal autonomy and individualism that exists in Western democratic nations. It's all part of the bigger question of why nations with freer markets tend toward greater personal freedoms generally, not just religious ones..

To use the arboreal example that's so popular, let's say you see a tree. Possibilities include that you're perceiving a phenomenal state (which presumably you're saying amounts to "perceiving" mental content qua mental content), and that you're perceiving something external to you--namely, a tree. — Terrapin Station

Assuming you're a realist, there is a tree "out there" that somehow is perceived by you. That leaves two things (1) the tree and (2) the perception of the tree. The tree is located in the woods and the perception is located in your head. Your knowledge of the tree is due to the light reflecting off the tree, the lens in your eye bending that light, that light affecting your neurons, and thorough some magic of consciousness, you perceive it. What else could you be perceiving other than some processed physical event in the world?

Mishigas.

Ahh German. My bad.

See you Jimmy - yer heid's fou o' mince.
Ye need tee haud yer wheesht and skedaddle aff, ya bampot ye — Amity

You sure got you a mouthful of Gaelic don't you? Bless your heart.

Both humor experts offer caveats about the study and the value of humor. Using jokes to boost moods works better if the situation that put you in the bad mood is not extremely personal, Kuhn says. If someone's loved one was just diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, for instance, making a joke that they should just "forget about it" would not go over well -- the situation is too personal, he says.

A humor expert, yeah, that's a thing.. I'm a sadness expert and I help people understand what makes them cry. I used to be a meh expert.

A funnier joke would be for the Alzheimer's patient who was just diagnosed to say, "Well at least I don't have Alzheimer's." Of course, maybe they'd be joking or not, who really knows?

But what you can say is very dependent upon the person. Like when my brother called me and told me that he and his wife of 13 years were getting a divorce, I asked for her number, considering she was now single.

See what I'm saying Pookie Wookie Shmookie?

I am trying to think of examples of approaches to humour which are cooperative. Morreall suggests this belongs more in the female sphere. Hmmm...is this a natural division ? — Amity

Cooperative and gentle humor would be if perhaps you were having a hard day, so I pushed your nose and said "Pookie is gonna be ok" in a baby voice. That'd cheer you right up.

The object is entirely unknowable based on what? What is the support for that claim? — Terrapin Station

All I perceive is a phenomenal state. How can I assert something about the noumena if all I'm aware of is my phenomenal state?

What support do you have that the object is knowable?

Sure you can, because it's not different independent of looking at it, at least from the point of reference in question, and there are always points of reference. — Terrapin Station

All you can do is describe the sensations you have, and you can't even reliably say they are caused by the object. The incoherence is in speaking of the object in itself.

The only way you could know that what we sense is different than the object in itself is to know what the object is like in itself AND know what we sense, where you then note the differences. Otherwise, you'd have no basis at all to say that what we sense is any different than the object in itself. — Terrapin Station

I've not said the perception is different from the object. I've said the object is entirely unknowable.

The correct way to phrase the question would be "what is the object like independent of looking at it?"

Doesn't science explain what something is like independent of looking at it - as if from a view from no where? — Harry Hindu

You can't explain what an object is like independent of looking at it because what it is like cannot be described in any terminology other than sensation based language. That is, it smells like A, tastes like B, sounds like C, feels like D, and looks like E. Even such things as length and width cannot be described except in terms of how long it looks or feels.

As Locke attempted some time ago to draw a distinction between primary and secondary traits, with the former being of the object itself (like length and width) and the latter being those imposed by the person (like color or flavor), it became clear upon analysis that there really isn't any such distinction. All we know is what sense, and what we sense is subject to interpretation by our sense organs and brain. We have no reasonable basis to conclude that the apple we see in any way reflects some absolute reality.

As Kant noted, all we can reference is the phenomena, that which we perceive. We cannot even coherently discuss the noumena or the things in themselves. It makes no sense to ask what something really looks like without referencing what I subjectively see it to look like.

We should expect that our perceptions are geared toward our survival, but not in exposing us to absolute reality, whatever that even means. That is, the apple appears bright red and tastes sweet to us because that makes it noticeable and delicious to those who have eaten them and outsurvived those who did not.

All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be. Name that tune.

If it's determined then they couldn't have done otherwise and choice implies their was more than one option. — GodlessGirl

Their choice was either caused by a prior event or it was not. If the former, it was determined and not free. If the latter, it was spontaneous and not free. How can we say that an occurrence that just happens for no reason was freely made?

Great symbol of renewal that bird. The Greeks and the Romans probably got there first. — Amity

Nope, it was the Atlanta City Council that first used that bird. They thought it up themselves.

Oh wow. From its ashes...
Should have been renamed Phoenix...oh wait... — Amity

The seal of the City of Atlanta actually includes the phoenix for that very reason. Maybe you knew that, or maybe you're just the smartest person in all the world.

When I think of Atlanta, I am Gone with the Wind :fire: — Amity

Atlanta is much the same now as it was in the waning days of the Civil War.

You know I find that sexy.
And sometimes it's not what you say but the way that you say it. Drawl git again, honey, just for me ? — Amity

When I decreed it publicly (my cat was present), I broke those few words into 55 deep south syllables and spoke with my distinctive drawl, taking a good 10 minutes to finally conclude. I wore my Colonel Sanders outfit, leaving the collar unbuttoned, just to maintain some enticing man sass.

However I believe that a hefty Scotsman got away with calling our probable next Prime Minister, a liar.
Cue bangings on table.

Might be just the job for you, if you like that kinda thing ? — Amity

Is this that sexy bastard?

Definitions: — Amity

Speaking of definitions, I must admit I'd never heard of a git until you mentioned it. It must be a British insult, probably used with the word bloody. My spell check changes it to got, which means it's not a real word as far as spell check is concerned.

I therefore rule it not a word.

Anticipating you'll object to my ruling on stupidity grounds, I point out that I'm not the first ruling body to delangauge the word. The House of Commons has previously ruled similarly when it ruled the word unparliamentary language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language . I find myself in good company.

Carry on.

Can someone address the economic absurdity of this thread? If you increase pay for boring jobs, you'll just incentivize people to learn to endure boringness and we'll have or best and brightest watching paint dry and our dumbass thrill seekers will be operating on the brains of those who instituted this new economic model for minimum wage.

I do not foresee a time when we will actually see sanitation workers getting $15,000,000 a year for clearing those underground sewers, and brain surgeons and NFL players getting $20 an hour. But the principle is sound — Bitter Crank

The principle is sound? I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the $15m garbage pick-up service, but I guess I could get affordable weekly brain surgeries by just waiting at the curb for the brain surgery truck to roll by.

Perhaps having to pay adds some motivation, but as I noted in my other posts, it's the instruction that's most beneficial. Students on scholarship, who have parents pay, or attend in countries with free education do just as well as those footing their own tab.

And no, it's not better to do it yourself for most people. Most people would just end up less educated.

But, do colleges benefit from deciphering the wheat from the chaff? — TheHedoMinimalist

An applicant should look at the credentials of the school when applying to be sure they're getting what they seek. I'm not suggesting you should go to any college just to go, but you should be sure they'll provide a reasonable education.

But of course colleges benefit from being competitive.

Is it perhaps possible to effectively educate yourself online and find a community of educated persons there? — TheHedoMinimalist

Anything is possible, but it would take someone somewhat exceptional to study with the same rigor without supervision, imposed deadlines, required curriculum, and critical evaluation and grading.

Where college is a bad idea is the situation of people taking out loans to attend college (whatever college), for poorly motivated reasons, and then not finishing. They don't have a diploma, they have new debt, and no greater likelihood of a better life. — Bitter Crank

I agree with this, but this has less to do with the sometimes negatives of college specifically and more to do with the most often negatives of failure generally. That is, investing and failing is rarely a good thing, and I would only dissuade a potential student from attempting college if I thought their best efforts would be unsuccessful. One hopes that the admissions office is able to decipher the wheat from the chaff.

This is the smartest thing I’ve heard on this thread so far. I really wish people would understand that about colleges and also high schools. I feel many high schools are trying to convince too many students to go to college. — TheHedoMinimalist

How does this conclusion follow? BC advocated going to college, just for different reasons (intellectual development instead of increased earning capacity). Why should high schools not try to convince students to go to college if it will increase their personal growth and intellectual development?

It seems you're searching diligently for a justification to advise others that college is a bad decision, but very rarely is it. You still end up with a better type of job, associate with more intelligent people, make more money, and it will expand your intellectual horizons. Be careful with your loans and what you spend, but it's well worth it.

Anyway, look up the statistics for those interested. There's a direct correlation between level of degree obtained and earning capacity. Staying in school is a no-brainer.

You're a lawyer, so what you bitchen about? — Wallows

The skill set is the same for lawyers and philosophers. It's a good undergraduate major if you plan to go to law school. Had I not gone to law school, I'd have been a thinker for hire and made a shitload. Maybe 2 shitloads if I ratcheted up my work ethic.

Anything but philosophy. — Wallows

Damn it! That's the only thing I got a degree in and I'm now to learn it's the only thing I shouldn't have gotten a degree in.

Truth is there's only 2 things a philosophy degree is good for: chicks and money. Got a basement full of them. It's the curse @Michael and I will take to our grave.

To go to college for a degree in philosophy, doesn't make sense in my mind. — Wallows

What career advice would you provide? And with your answer, you may heal thyself.

But, does one have to go to university in order to be educated? Is it not possible to educate yourself by watching lecture series on YouTube and reading books? — TheHedoMinimalist

It's possible to self educate for some. For me, I greatly benefited by being taught, discussing, and asking questions.