The Q, the question, is simply, "whence all this?" — TheMadFool

Indeed. Our ability to imagine and hypothesise demands causal explanation of observable phenomena.

The gradual acceptation and formal transmission of the scientific method and its need for observable causes pushed unobservable, ineffable and supernatural causes into a sphere only accessible by faith.

The godly personifications of natural phenomena were the first hypotheses of a hypothesising species. As better hypotheses come into play it is only sentimentality and power that can explain the resistance to paradigmatic shifts in understanding.

This leaves religion and philosophy to fight over the explanations of the thus far unexplained.

Can we perfect the conditions we all live and reboot the whole system? Yes. What prevents it is acceptance that this is the best case scenario. — Futuristic Anarchist

We forget that we are just the latest iteration in an unbroken chain of life that began evolving 4.5 billion years ago. The idea that we can reinvent ourselves and escape this legacy is absurd. It doesn't matter how much technology we have, we are limited by our imagination and that is very limiting indeed. Look at the entire sweep of political and economic history; it can be summed up as "Who gets what and who decides?". We are still trying to answer this question.

So why have we become so passive? Why have we accepted that this is the way things are supposed to be? — Futuristic Anarchist

You might as well ask why lions do not give up meat. Common ideals are not independent from us, they are us. The idea that we can tear up a culture and start again is the acme of hubris. Humanity is not perfectible; the trick is knowing when things are as good as they're going to get and then stopping.

To put it mildly, panpsychism is irrelevant and pointless. — Zelebg

Like legalising homicide in order to solve the problem of murder, it's sophistry.

Anything that evolves from mechanisms other than natural selection is a product of evolution but not of natural selection. — StarsFromMemory

Like?

So, birds do have self awareness? — StarsFromMemory

I imagine so, but quite how it would be I have no idea.

And I don't seem to find a reason for why consciousness gives me a survival advantage over an ameoba, which you say has no consciousness. I suppose there are none, but you could help me find some and establish your point. — StarsFromMemory

Maybe it doesn't. Not every mutation confers an advantage. However, I suspect it does and I suspect that consciousness plays a key role in imagination, creativity, forward planning, deduction, abduction, induction, empathy and all sorts of other human qualities that allow us to shape our environment to ensure our survival.

If, like algae, our survival depended on little more than propelling ourselves towards sunlight, then it is hard to see why consciousness would be advantageous, but we are not like algae and the complexity of our life-cycle requires a cognitive complexity in which consciousness probably plays an executive role.

As a side note, when I began this thread, I too hoped to prove that consciousness is a product of evolution. But even then, I was fairly sure it was not a product of natural selection. — StarsFromMemory

What is a product of evolution that is not a product of natural selection?

What do you make of qualia then? You can't deny that there is indeed a subjective experience when we look at ,say, a colour. Surely self-awareness alone can't account for this. — StarsFromMemory

Self awareness + sensory information = quale.

Would you please elucidate how being aware of my existence is beneficial to me. Birds, according to you, are not aware of their existence, they seem to survive just fine. — StarsFromMemory

On the first point, reflexively, you should be able to answer your own question. On the second, I was unaware that I had opined on birds' self-consciousness.

From what I gather, you don't seem to think any form of consciousness other than self-consciousness exists — StarsFromMemory

I am unsure that consciousness can be anything but self-consciousness.

What do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it simply the awareness of one's existence or does it also include awareness of one's internal mental states and awareness of the external world? — StarsFromMemory

Awareness of one's existence is an internal mental state so you have to take the first two together. The last refers to the senses. What is done cognitively with sensory information appears to depend on the complexity of the nervous system. I suspect, for this reason, that self-consciousness is not present in an amoeba because it's not necessary whereas in humans it appears to be a useful evolutionary adaptation.

Do you also think that consciousness is a property of only complex nervous systems and is thus entirely absent in insects,birds and other simpler organisms? — StarsFromMemory

I don't know. I suspect that it is absent in the case of it not being evolutionarily advantageous.

Emergentism doesn't hold that any trace of consciousness is already present in fundamental particles but when they combine in a certain way, out of nowhere, a non-physical property arises. We cannot thus deduce how the property arose simply by analysing the constiuents and/or their arrangment. — StarsFromMemory

Positing phenomenal consciousness (or unself-conscious consciousness) in all matter does not explain anything. Matter is a necessary condition of consciousness.

All panpsychism can offer is an attempt to dissolve the question of when self-consciousness arises, but to do so it needs to posit an entirely contradictory form of consciousness. As far as I can see the only connection between access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness is the lavish and neologistic polysemy conferred on the term 'consciousness' in order to shoehorn it into the hypothesis.

That access consciousness could emerge from phenomenal consciousness is equally mysterious as self-consciousness emerging from a large, complex, living nervous system. Indeed, phenomenal consciousness alone is far more mysterious than emergentism.

Doesn't emergentism also argue that a new property emerges from simply the combination of matter in such a way that we can never predict such an emergence from simply looking at all the physical property of the constituent matter. — StarsFromMemory

I'd take issue with your use of 'never'. Sure, we don't understand it at the moment, but never predict it?

proto-consciousness is a part of all particles and when those particles come together, full blown consciousness emerges. — StarsFromMemory

Unless 'proto-consciousness' is 'full blown consciousness', then this is simply emergentism by another name.

There is nothing exactly new emerging here nor something that cannot be predicted if we know about what this proto consciousness is. — StarsFromMemory

We know that self-consciousness obtains when matter is arranged in a large nervous system. This is predictable. However, saying that it pre-exists in all its constituent parts is like saying that ice-cream already exists in egg yolk.

Panpsychism must be true in some way because it’s maximally vague and ambiguous. Consider emergentism, the opposite of panpsychism, and yet if true, panpsychist could still say the possibility of emergence was built-in throughout the fabric of the universe all along, and that would be truth, but useless truth. Too general to the point of being meaningless, like stating “everything is universe”. It’s far more reasonable to say “consciousness is a program”, because, at least in some way, that’s what it is. — Zelebg

Emergentism claims that consciousness is more than the sum of its parts. Or put another way, that the parts are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for (self) consciousness.

Panpsychism claims that the parts (or a part) are sufficient for consciousness, but in order to make this claim its proponents need to redefine consciousness as two different things; phenomenal and access. Phenomenal consciousness being a necessary condition of access consciousness. Or, put another way Access, or self-consciousness, emerging from phenomenal consciousness.

Put this way there seems to be little or no difference between the two positions apart from the convoluted terminology required in order to argue for panpsychism.

When we talk about consciousness aren't we really talking about self-consciousness? After all, what could non self consciousness possibly be?

That’s all about access consciousness. Functionality. Phenomenal consciousness is something much less interesting. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I'm familiar with the distinction. But to me that sounds like unconscious consciousness which in turn sounds like nonsense.

Everything that exists — Pfhorrest

If that were the case and consciousness were a property of matter rather than a large, functioning nervous system, then consciousness would persist post-mortem.

The problem of other minds highlights the difficulty in being sure that other members of our own species are conscious. Panpsychism helps out of this problem by conferring consciousness on absolutely everything.

My own take is that consciousness is a term that humans use to refer to subjective experience. We assume that since we have it, other things must have it as well; possibly because we can't imagine what existence could be like without it.

Birds have feathers and fish can breathe underwater, but we can't. The qualities of subjective experience we have seem to me to be an evolutionary adaptation albeit on less observable than gills and feathers. But as we know from arguments on the existence of God, it's not possible to prove something doesn't exit. However, if panpsychists want to insist that virus are conscious then it is up to them to demonstrate their claim. This they haven't done.

Nah, there's no lack of moral certainty among secularists. [...] Being certain that you are right is more related to character than anything else. — SophistiCat

Up to a point, yes. However, by its nature, secular morality allows for challenge. Morality derived from the divine does not and this, I would argue, is what makes it attractive; in fact, especially attractive to the character you mention.

I don't think it's their supernatural quality that is the main spring in accepting religion-driven morals, but the (believed) absolute authority of the issuer of the moral creeds. — god must be atheist

OK. It doesn't really make any difference though. Certainty is still the quality lacking in secular morals. Indeed, maybe faith doesn't cause certainty, but rather the need for certainty creates the pragmatic adoption of faith.

I consider myself to be on the left, although I don't hold with the left's current obsession with LGTBQ+, feminism, and race (all once worthy causes but resolved, and certainly not foundationally substantive enough on which to build a national policy).

The BBC's experiment with multiculturalism & identity has produced some absolute crap radio and TV, which strongly suggests that politically correct orthodoxies are not the way to nurture media talent.

The great thing about morals derived from God or whoever is you can be certain they're right as long as you accept their supernatural source.

This certainty is what is missing from secular ethics and this is what leads to moral relativism which is essentially amorality. Living in society is helped by some shared ethical axioms. It is not clear where these come from without religion. Neither virtue ethics, nor deontology, nor consequentialism have been able to provide us with the certainty that has been provided by religious belief.

Taking a step a back from the particular case of the BBC, I don't really see how any public broadcaster could ever avoid the accusation of political bias from at least some of the citizens who are obliged to provide it with funding. However, I don't know whether this is an argument for public broadcasters or against public broadcasters.

Because philosophers are less prone to radical chic and moral exhibitionism.

The cultural relativism at the heart of post-modernism gives rise to an internal inconsistency that is a clear sign of intellectual vacuity for philosophy. If cultural value is relative, the the statement that cultural value is relative is also relative... Plato knocked this on the head in the Protagoras and philosophy, like science, builds on its achievements. Literary theorists are still arguing about what literary theory is.

Listen, T...because Kant says something does not mean it is so. — Txastopher

It doesn't matter who said it. What matters are his arguments.

Every living thing dies and every person is a living thing. This much is self-evident, no? — Shamshir

Great example of pseudo-profundity.

You made a claim to me earlier. I challenged you to show where that claim is written or promulgated. — Frank Apisa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Every person has the ability to die, thus every person has the right to die. — Shamshir

Great example of a non sequitur

People breathe and live, because they choose to breathe and live; and if they choose to die prematurely, the only way to stop them is to convince them that life is more desirable than death.
Indeed, people may be influenced one way or the other, but withholding their right to die is impossible, lest they are already dead.

I reiterate; Society may at best influence one to live and never enforce one to live.

Now, as to whether one should be influenced to change his course or be allowed to fall - who knows?
Yet, there is no reason not to live and die in ejoyment, no? And mutual enjoyment greatens one, whilst singular enjoyment contains one. — Shamshir

Utter nonsense.

Really?

Because you say so?

Is it written on a tablet somewhere?

Or is it something you have invented...and are obligating everyone else to honor? — Frank Apisa

Because that's how philosophy talks about rights.

It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed right to eat oatmeal with creamer in morning.

So what?

Are you suggesting that limits one's right to eat oatmeal with creamer in the morning? — Frank Apisa

You appear to be using the term 'right' in a non-technical sense. Given the nature of this forum, your question requires acknowledgement of the philosophical use of 'right'.

You have no 'right' to eat oatmeal with creamer, which doesn't mean that you are not allowed to, but rather that it is a choice not contemplated by rights theories.

You may, however, have a right to your physical integrity, but if you do, you also have a corresponding duty to respect the physical integrity of others.

As with breakfast choices, there is nothing to stop you ending your own life, but if you wish to claim this as a 'right', the first step would be to identify a corresponding duty.

A right, in social contract theory, has a corresponding responsibility. It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed 'right' to die.

His [Marx's] findings are unpractical and fantasy. The resulting attempts of such practice show increased death rates. If one cannot practice such ideology then it is a bad ideology. — Waya

Your comments, for all their confidence, reveal a near total ignorance of Marxism.

↪Bitter Crank No, that's actual communism, which never existed. Everything we see today is a degree... — Waya

Possibly, but you said this:

Karl Marx. He speaks for an elite class that takes from the poor and manipulates them into slaves for such a class. — Waya

You might argue with Marx's proposed solution to the woes of capitalism. You can certainly argue with practical communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism etc. But it's not so easy to disagree with his analysis.

I'm dirt poor almost to the point where I wonder if I will get another meal and still dead set against socialism and Karl Marx. He speaks for an elite class that takes from the poor and manipulates them into slaves for such a class. — Waya

¿!?

Capitalism needs the poor more than it needs capital. The exploitation of an underclass kept in a state of necessity by semi to permanent unemployment is a necessary condition for stable labour costs.

The mark of a civilised society is how it treats this collective.

Some welfare systems are constructed on the understanding of the vital role played by the least, economically, fortunate in society, and treat the poor with dignity. Classically liberal economies blame the poor for their own penury.

Ownership is a legal concept that relies on the shared idea of property. Belonging is polysemic and therefore not useful in terms of law but still attractive to romantics and others who enjoy pseudo-profundity.

Life has no meaning, but the search for meaning is what makes life interesting.

Because it cause some of those who engage in it to have serious health problems?
— Txastopher

Examples? — Terrapin Station

Examples

As I understand it, competitive bodybuilding is massively unhealthy.
— Txastopher

Because of? — Terrapin Station

Because it cause some of those who engage in it to have serious health problems?

Even if health concerns aren't primary, you can't get to the destination --a bodybuilder's physique --without being intentionally healthy. — Terrapin Station

Is this actually the case? As I understand it, competitive bodybuilding is massively unhealthy. If, on the other hand, you mean something else by 'bodybuilding'; working out with weights, for example, then I suppose it is, as you put it, 'intentionally healthy', but I'm not sure if it's bodybuilding though. Perhaps we need to clarify terms.

Here in the US prison populations are predominantly represented by a huge bias or tendency to be male-oriented.

Therefore, for the sake of talking about society or culturally, does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

I would be very careful where you go with this. As has already been alluded to; drawing conclusions of superiority based on inverse proportion to prison population is likely to offend.

And whatever you define as athleticism, why does bodybuilding need to have that in order to be worthwhile? — petrichor

I'll pass on a definition of athleticism since I think you probably have a pretty good idea of what I mean already. However, for me at least, the beauty of muscle is its kinetic function. Bodybuilding*, for this poster, is muscle without muscular purpose. Regarding whether it's 'worthwhile' or not; I have no idea, is it?

*I understand this as the very extreme end of the gym spectrum; competition, steroids, posing pouches, fake tan and veins.

nothing appeals to me aesthetically quite as much as the muscular human form. — petrichor

This is where we differ. I don't believe the value of muscle is merely aesthetic so I'm unimpressed by your aesthetic relativism.

As a once competitive sportsman, there is something very odd about bodybuilding since it appears to do away with any athleticism. To be honest, I question their motivations. To an outsider it appears to be a symptom of a body dysmorphic disorder. I find it hard to appreciate in the same way way that I find the results of anorexia nervosa or the human Barbie and Ken appealing.