This is absent from the discussion, — Astrophel

What discussion? You make incomprehensible statements about what you do not and can not know, and then double down on them with gobbledegook.
Done here.

Here, the argument is about the presuppositions of such things. — Astrophel

You mean like presupposing that events have meaning? And that, without even a definition of 'meaning'.

To begin to philosophize is to ask questions about what is presupposed in science. — Astrophel

Go ahead and ask relevant questions. Wake me when you have answers.

What?? — Astrophel

This:

You know something? That is a knowledge claim. — Astrophel

But then, what can be said about the perceptual event that produces all of the basic data? — Astrophel

Much can be said about the process of observation, taking measurements, hypothesizing, experimentation and testing. The 'basic data' is already there, in the physical world, to be noticed, recorded, studied and understood. There is no single 'perceptual event'. Conscious beings notice their environment and make sense of it to the best of their ability.

You know something? That is a knowledge claim. — Astrophel

No, that is a question.

"Processes information"? You mean it takes something out there, a leaf ..... and delivers what it is to the understanding of things one has, right? — Astrophel

Wrong. The leaf or whatever exists outside and independently of the human organism. The organism has sensory equipment to inform the brain about various attributes of an encountered object. The brain is told what a leaf looks and feels like; its size, shape, colour, texture, temperature, tensile strength, pliability, flavour. The eyes may have recorded similar objects attached to a a large, hard, branching object and noticed that the small ones fall off the large one every fall and new ones grow every spring, suggesting that the thing named 'leaf' is a product of the living organism dubbed 'tree'. Other objects, small and large are observed to grow and shed 'leaves'. Putting all this information together, the brain forms an approximate understanding of deciduous vegetation. That understanding can be expanded and enhanced by further study. While some humans' understanding of 'leaf' remains rudimentary, others' may learn a great deal more about the varieties, forms and functions of leaves. We can all claim some knowledge, but certainly not the same knowledge.

Not how DOES, but how is it at all possible, that processing like this "delivers" anything at all? This is a metaphysical question. — Astrophel

That, too, can be studied. Just asking the question seems to me futile.

The question here is how in knowledge possible? — Astrophel

Okay, I'll bite. How? You're the metaphysician, tell us. What does life mean? Why is is is?

Explain. — Astrophel

You can know what a tree means to you; you cannot understand what a tree is in itself.

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'metaphysics"? — Astrophel

That carpet bag you're waving about, without once showing its contents.

A fatal birth defect is meaningful to the extent it occurs in the context of such engagements. — Astrophel

Granted: anything may be meaningful to somebody to some extent in the context of some kinds of engagement... whatever that means.
However, it does not indicate that meaning is in any way inherent in anything; it only indicates that a mind not occupied with more pressing matters can assign some meaning to every thing and situation it encounters.
I notice you didn't assign any specific meaning to fatal birth defects, trees, brains or fence-sitting rabbits. In fact, one might consider "understanding what it means to be human is to ask questions about our existence, and we ask these questions because the question is literally an expression of what we are." literally meaningless.

but there is also good metaphysics, and for this one simply has to take seriously real questions, that is, questions found in an honest assessment of the way the world is. Here metaphysics is no less valid than physics. — Astrophel

What does 'good' metaphysics add to good physics? And why is an addition required?

The question is, how is a knowledge claim of the former about the latter possible? — Astrophel

What 'knowledge claim'? Human brain processes information delivered to it through sensory input and names the things - objects, events, changes - that are relevant to its own and it's vessel's functioning.

This is not some extravagant nonsense from deep in left field, but rather is a clear naturalist question, the kind of thing one has the right to ask because it is there, in the world. — Astrophel

One has a right to ask any question that pops into one's head - unless one is devout and forbidden by his religion to ask a certain category of questions, or a slave with no rights at all, in which case one must keep one's own silent counsel. One, however, does not have a right to receive answers. One can always invent answers, which is what philosophers do.

(Note: the accepted premise here is that one DOES indeed have knowledge of the tree. — Astrophel

Knowledge of the presence and description of a tree, yes. Knowledge of poplarhood and spruceness, no.

This leads directly to metaphysics, and by a naturalist's standard! — Astrophel

You can lead a jaundiced realist to metaphysics, but you can't make her drink.

But understanding what it means to be human is to ask questions about our existence, and we ask these questions because the question is literally an expression of what we are. — Astrophel

Some of us have nothing better to do than ask questions to which there are no answers. Most of us, most of the time, are busy trying to survive. That doesn't make the underprivileged majority less human or the leisured minority more meaningful.

You see a rabbit on a fence post, a simple recognition, yet how is this possible? — Astrophel

No, I don't. A woodchuck, maybe, if he feels threatened. Rabbits do not climb; rabbits run, veer and leap.

And philosophy is a rediscovery of this original primordiality. — Astrophel

Okay. I hope it keeps you occupied.

f life is not a struggle with god, then such a life will never understand what it means to be human. — Astrophel

Why do you need to understand "what it means to be human"? You're already human; it doesn't have a meaning; it's just one of the facts about which you have no choice. Why set up a straw-god to contend against/ depend on/ fear/ venerate/ make sacrifices to?
What's your simply [and briefly, if possible] stated point?

One of your own devising - no prompt?
Good. So have I. Even a couple of sentences floating around my head.
But I'm ready to give them up if most people prefer a common topic.

Essentially, you will be able to step-in your past, re-experience those moments. — Ayush Jain

Hypnosis needs to be a lot more precise and controllable. External recording not possible, unless (?until) compatible hardware is perfected and individuals are fitted with a recording device wired into their brain.

We could propose different topics, and then have a vote. — hypericin

OK by me, so long as we can avoid topics like 'Hume's response to Plato". That kind of topic may be of deep academic interest, but tends to leave us troglodytes cold.

The other guy thinks the caveman would have been funnier or more effective or something if he'd delivered the lines in a british accent rather than the rough speech he used. (I'm inclined to agree.)

No, I believe this is one of those volatile periods. In prehistory, extreme events - a major flood or drought, a devastating inter-tribal war - would be local; even if an entire people was wiped out or dispersed, the rest of the world continued on its appointed rounds. Nature healed over the wounds, so to speak.

Later on, with city-states and large-scale exploration, trade and war, goods and information reached more diverse people and the effects of a local upheaval were far more widely felt. Even so, those relatively small empires came and went, changing the world for their own citizens and near neighbours - while those on another continent would carry on bau.
Still, the wreckage took decades or centuries for the earth to subsume and the technological advancements - particularly those in mobility - were continued by other peoples, changing their lives also.

Now that everyone is connected and interdependent, every invention shakes up lives around the world, every conflict sucks in nations adjacent and distant, every economic trend results in altered international relations, every new industrial venture lays waste to lands far from its source and every political upheaval in a powerful nation is a global crisis.
Nature can't heal these wound in mere centuries; it would take a thousand years, at least - from the day we stopped creating crises.
Until then the changes were seeing will only accelerate.

Make the best possible start to 2025!

Does every generation finally get to the point where they don't recognize the world anymore? — frank

I don't think so. There have been periods, in various places, when not much changed for several generations - or even a couple of centuries.
And then there are periods of upheaval. Natural disaster, scientific advancement, invasion by an exotic foreign power... The 20th century was very busy, indeed, becoming global through war and commerce. Even before 1900, the European colonization of practically everywhere had already set the stage for globalization, but working people in most places still lived much the same life as their parents and grandparents had.
Then the technological surge in industry, transportation and communications connected every place to every other place, and affected every life.

t is true that religion does involve belief in the supernatural in most instances, but not always — Jack Cummins

Which are the exception?

I do see there being more than just superstition in miracles. — Jack Cummins

Miracle means something not brought about by natural means: magic.

It may be my Catholic side coming out but I do think that there may be more to miracles than many would admit. — Jack Cummins

Okay. Catholic sides can be very persuasive. Certainly, there are events we don't anticipate and can't explain. But as science advances, the window on miracles is closing.

I am sure that there is an overlap between magic and religion — Jack Cummins

All of religion is based on magic. Nature exists, transpires, changes, proceeds - nature is alive, while gods are entirely imaginary projections of human characters into the supernatural.

"Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment. — Prometheus2

Beautiful describes the scene itself. If a very good artist painted it, everyone who saw it would probably think 'beautiful'. But the more profound part is what the beholder adds, in that moment, in his present frame of mind. Why the same scene affects each beholder differently is the subjective component.

Humans invented a large number of words for pleasing sensory input, because the appreciation of it is something we generally share - and want to share. Beauty is one word that describes an exceptionally pleasing visual or auditory input. There is quite a broad consensus among people of various times and cultures about what is considered beautiful, and an even more consistent one within each culture.

Very broadly, beauty as understood by most humans is harmony, proportion, balance, 'rightness' - that is, a sense of things fitting together into a coherent whole. Things that make us feel at peace within ourselves and our environment.

There are different extensions of beauty - into passion, lust, awe, reverence, yearning - but these are of the dimension we individually bring to the contemplation of something beautiful.

With the history of religion, which emerged after magic, there were ideas of coercion and sacrifice. — Jack Cummins

i don't understand 'religion emerged after magic'. Emerged from what? What kind of magic precedes it and how is that magic distinct from religion?
All hierarchies involve coercion, in all aspects of life.

Even in Christianity, Jesus represents 'the sacrificial lamb', to atone for human 'sin'. — Jack Cummins

The sacrifice and resurrection of a young, virile god or semi-divine entity in order to benefit humanity appears in many early agrarian civilizations. it represents the cycle of seasons; death in winter, rebirth in spring.
but many other kinds of sacrifice are demanded of the people by civilized gods : the killing of prized humans [unlike like Isaac, most did not get a last-minute reprieve] and valuable livestock; giving food and money to the church, going on pilgrimage, holding fasts and vigils, etc.

There may be small steps but if it is likely to be thwarted by hierarchies of power, which represent the interests of the elite. — Jack Cummins

there's no guarantee those power structures will endure.

The dynamics between power and belief are complex and interact. Ideas of gods and God may be used to protect power structures and, similarly, analysis of such beliefs may influence the nature of social systems. — Jack Cummins

Power imposes belief. at least on the lower orders. the priestly class tells everyone else their gods' demands, and the faithful obey. the system is enforced through a system of bribes, threats and bonding rituals - which, again, include alternate sacrifices and celebrations.
But this only holds true of civilized, organized modern religions of the last 6000 years. for maybe 30,000 years before that, there was as great a diversity of beliefs and practices as there were primitive societies.

I think observers usually put this question the wrong way around. Philosophies and belief systems don't influence social organization. It's how people live - social organization, particularly the allocation of power and resources - that determines their culture's main philosophy - belief system, world-view and the kind of supernatural entities its mythology invents. If there is an 'inner' component to this overall reality, each individual creates his or her own model of their world, his or her own narrative of events, relationships, expectations and obligations. of course, the raw constituents of each subjective reality are absorbed from their prevailing culture and shaped by their own experience.

The idea of 'God' or 'divinity' encompasses the issue of inner and outer 'reality', subjectivity and objectivity. — Jack Cummins

I wonder about that. As i understand the most direct notions of what we might call divinity, the early people who placed a superhuman figure at the center of their origin myths did not differentiate realities - human psyche, the physical environment, their group identity and their system of ethics was all of a piece. Science is the practical aspect of living: how to get what you need with maximal efficiency and minimal risk. this requires learning how physics work and involves making tools - technology. Philosophy/religion is the people's relationship to the world and one another. this requires formulating foundational principles - usually attributed to the creator-deity, whether that figure intervenes is daily life or not. On this are based the rules of behaviour - law, in our present, more formal systems.
horizontally organized, egalitarian and homogeneous societies didn't need a the active participation of a god or gods - they had nature spirits and ancestors to make mischief or help them out of scrapes, or just to account for remarkable situations.

That one big capitalized god is a latecomer to belief-systems, introduced with the vertical organization of society with a supreme all-powerful ruler, as in nation-states. Even so, the pantheon model persisted well into the age of civilized empires, like egypt and rome. The supposedly single Catholic god even got divided in three parts and was provided with an enormous civil service of saints and angels. it seems even very large nations that wish to present a monolithic source of control can't do with just one powerful being to run the whole shebang.

Herewith my last post on the opening question
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=are+crows+smarter+than+your+seven-year-old

On the other hand, what makes so many of us believe that collective humanity should be able to enjoy the pleasures of free will, but cry out for and expect divine mercy and rescue when our free will ruins our figurative good day — i.e. that we should have our cake and eat it, too? — FrankGSterleJr

The human condition in a square bracket. We have caused most of our own misery - not entirely unknowingly, because there was always at least one 'enemy of the people' who warned us and was overruled for all the wrong reasons.

Those who have almost nothing are usually thankful for the little they have.
Those who have almost everything usually think they deserve better. — unenlightened

The whole point of institutional religion.

We learn by what we see, hear, experience, do, and read, and then our brains, with its hypersocial focus and filters, ascribe mental states to that which is not us – and believe in them. — Questioner

Which is exactly what I've been saying. You can stimulate a fetal brain anywhere you wants, and it still won't know what 'another' is, let alone guess what that other is thinking or imagine a great big Other in the sky.

Ask and it shall be given. Google provides.
Now I'm off to find out how many roles Ron Masak has played in the tv series Murder She Wrote.
Love trivia.

Why to be ever unconditionally kind? — Atrox

Who says it has to be unconditional?

Why to be kind even? — Atrox

The normal thinking is: If you help others when they need it, they'll be motivated to help you when you need it. If it's all business, when your business fails, you're up shit creek, alone.

Also the same with honesty, why is it considered such a strong thing I do not understand. — Atrox

The general understanding is that when you have a reputation for telling the truth, people trust you. In order to get such a reputation, you have to tell the truth most of the time. If you get a reputation for dishonestly, people won't want to do business with you, and if you consider all of life business, you're up shit creek. Alone.

I reject the idea that they can do so without first having encountered other sentient beings, learned something about them, and how to read the outward signs. — Vera Mont
I'm sure that this can be part of the process, but it is not required. — Questioner

What, then, is the requirement?

Every person of faith has formed a theory of mind about what is in the mind of their God. — Questioner

No they have not. No person of faith living today has conceived of a god independently. They've been told by their priest, and read in the book thrust upon them by priests, and they accept that as gospel.... selectively.

I want to know his story. — Amity

Easily done; his life was very public. Lots of acting out before an audience. Here's one source There should be a few quality picture books in the library, as well.

There was a time when the very word 'religion' would have me turn away. My Christian faith had vanished and I despised anything to do with it. I would not have been attracted to Dali's religious paintings. Fortunately, things change. — Amity

Once you put a little distance between your present self and the experience that turned you against a particular religion, you can begin to think about why it was there in the first place, and why so many people still subscribe to it. (No, not because they needed to explain where lightning comes from!) I find Christian literature and art fascinating. Much of it is also beautiful, and I value beauty for its own sake. We look at a cathedral, my SO says, "What a colossal waste of stone and manpower!" Yes, I agree, but admire it anyway.

To deny that humans make conclusions about what is in other minds is blind indeed. — Questioner

I never denied that humans, as well as other species draw conclusions, or at least surmise, what another sentient being is thinking. I reject the idea that they can do so without first having encountered other sentient beings, learned something about them, and how to read the outward signs.

Who said it does not require experience and sensory input? — Questioner

I could have sworn you did.

it's not about reading outward signs — Questioner

Reading inward signs is telepathy. To form a guess, conjecture, theory or belief about what's in another mind, we first need to learn about something about the species and individual with whom who are faced. Infants respond to physical stimuli, but have no notions of the existence of minds or thoughts - and won't until they've interacted with others and learned to recognize patterns in their behaviour, from which they can deduce stimulus and response, cause and effect, similarity to their own feelings, etc. It's a long process of learning and associations before anything like a theory can form.

Right now, I have a theory of what is in your mind. — Questioner

From what? Words I typed are unequivocal outward signs.
Never mind. You have a theory I'm unable to validate.

it is about forming theories about what is in anther mind. — Questioner

On what basis? You're right: I don't understand how telepathy comes out of a theory based on no experience and no sensory input.

The one that gets the closest to the truth? — Questioner

How is that determined? — Patterner

Ask the person whose thought they were guessing. He may tell the truth about what he was thinking at that moment, or he may lie, or he may refuse to answer. Refusal to answer leads you to draw a new inference about his present state of mind, as well as about the thought that was in question. You may even draw inference, from context, about his reasons. If he does answer, you'll have to decide whether to believe him or not. That decision will depend on what you know of his character from previous experience, as well as his demeanour in the moment.
Each of these inferences and decisions, along with some other operations, is part of an overall theory of mind: a general ability to 'read' the body language, expression and tone, in the context of previous knowledge, of another's communication.
Anyhow, theory of mind is rather misleading and vague nomenclature, IMO.

Do you have a few Dalis hanging in your kitchen? — Amity

I have a couple of books, since about 1970. Anecdote; the second year I was working, I saw a pair of minor Dali prints in a Toronto gallery. #175 of the run, they were little things, about 10"x7" and came as a set for $200. That was two thirds of my monthly pay after deductions. I could have swung it, with some economies in my not-so-lavish lifestyle. But I lived in a small rented room with hardly any wall space and zero security. But I loved them! But... Common sense won. The damn things would be worth about $4000 today.

Imagine floating in Dali's dreams... — Amity

Shudder!
By synchronicity! The daily jigsaw puzzle - which is where I wend from here a minute ago - is a Kandinski. He was also one of Dali's influence, along with Miro, both of whose work I like.

Do you have its title and I can search elsewhere? — Amity

All over the place. It's Called Christ of Saint John of the Cross.

He was quite mad, you know. Aside from the boundless imagination, he had a reported IQ if 175. That's enough to drive anyone 'round the twist, even without Catholicism and being named after a dead brother.

They are not the average paintings of Murillo or the ones that hung in the Vatican. — javi2541997

Nothing about Dali was average. He turned things inside-out and merged them with other things.

For example -- the amazing crucifixion that you shared in your post. No blood, no image of Jesus Christ, the floor is mysterious, the cross looks like cement blocks, the crown of thorns is missing, and the famous nails are substituted for perfect cubes. — javi2541997

It's also floating in space. Here's a slightly more traditional one.
Still not Murillo, but a little closer to Vermeer, one of his early influences.

To hell with this story :rage:
And the rotten, worm-infested fruit it still brings forth...
The idea that Woman=Sin. The opposite of 'Good'. The religious importance of birthing a child.
How dare women even think of abortion...they are still seen as being 'owned' by males. — Amity

Oh, yeah. Christian, Jewish or Muslim, that's clearly stated in The Book.

How dare people want to know more? Knowledge is Power. Ignorance is bliss?

Ignorance, coupled with the threat of punishment, is obedience. That was the point. Also, Adam got off lightly, because he said: "The woman tricked me." He rules by Righteousness; she, in league with the Serpent, corrupts him with Guile.
(And you may have given me an essay topic.)

No, no. The Dali's apple is not Biblical, and I think he never painted something religious. The point was to be surrealist or even dreamy. — javi2541997

Those exquisite crucifixions are worth checking out. Also several madonnas, a ghostly last supper and a lot of Christian symbolism. Catholic themes, as far as I recall, not the Old Testament.
There are green apples without butterflies in a couple of the large pictures, though he seems to have preferred pears.
(Dali is my all-time favourite Painter.)
Kush is no slouch, either. Amazing stuff! He likes butterflies and apples. There is one explicitly about the biblical apple.
Thanks, Amity; I'd never heard of him.

This seems to put the OP in a box that isn’t needed though: why start with personal and social goods? Why not start with what it would mean for something to be good in the first place? — Bob Ross

I did.

What is the purpose of defining good? That is, Why do I need to make this distinction? To acknowledge that some things are good and some things are bad is to exercise judgment. Why do you want to exercise judgment? Why do other people? — Vera Mont

Once these questions are answered, you can go on to which kind of good you want explore.
'Start with' was a poor choice of words.

So it is good, then, for me to kill an innocent person to ensure my survival? That would be a “personal good”? — Bob Ross

In some situations, yes, and that's exactly what some people do, and that is where it comes into direct conflict with the social good. Hence the need to distinguish the one from the other.

So it is good, then, for me to avoid my duties to my children because it makes me happier? — Bob Ross

That, too, is the chosen path of many people.

So it is good for society, then, to torture one person in order to ensure its own survival? — Bob Ross

Most societies, at some level, think so - and do.

These definitions don’t accurately reflect what either an individual nor social good would be. — Bob Ross

According to a particular set of values.

Good is always relative to something. — Vera Mont

It has various definitions which are already set by customary usage. — bert1

Good observation!
So, think of a definition that covers all of its uses. Something like: that which most closely approaches a preconceived standard. What is a cake supposed to be? What makes a cake fail in that requirement; what makes it succeed? In what context is the comparison made? When one is parched in a desert, and you're offered an excellent cake, you cannot value it - or evaluate it.
Good is always relative to something.

We do, however, have some and those help avoid some anthropomorphism. — creativesoul

And this is important to you. Why?

They also allow one to recognize some mistakes 'in the wild'. — creativesoul

What does this mean? Malevolution? Man shooting the wrong species?

That [non-discrimination of thoughts by subject matter]'s unacceptable by my standards. — creativesoul

Yes, I can see that. I can also substitute 'prejudices' for 'standards'.