The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism). — Gnomon

Could you please explain how and why this is the case? Does it make sense?

AmadeusD has been using the word in sense 1, corvus in sense 2.
Aren't you guys tired of quarreling over semantics? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

If you read his posts, he talks in the ordinary street folks manner on the hot philosophical terms, and then tells you are wrong with no backing arguments why you are wrong. He just keeps repeating himself saying others point of view is not philosophy. It is not just clash of different semantics.

Every time I listen to my favorite deceased musicians' performances when they were alive, they reincarnate in my mind as if they were alive at present vividly. I often ask myself, do they actually exist in my mind when they are playing in the computer screens, putting out the powerful and great musical performance?

I am likely to believe they do, and they are part of my music listening life. But they have been physically dead for over 30+ or even 60+ years.

But there are folks I have never met or known living somewhere in the world doing their daily business right now. Do I have to convince myself that they exist? I don't know anything about them, and they don't know anything about me. It is only my imagination that that this is the case. Now which beings exist more realistic to me here? The dead or alive?

This implies we might have to take into account of different type existences i.e things that exist as visible, tangible, solid and accessible, and things that exist (or believed to exist), which are invisible, intangible, abstract, inaccessible and immaterial.

:cool: :wink:

Birth is a part of life. There is no life without birth. Death is the end of a life. But it is not just an event. It is also a fact, a case and memory of the lived life by those know the dead. There are also topics for after deaths which takes us into Philosophy of Religion and God from death and possibility of after life and existence of immaterial being.

It is not that simple just like the shallow medics and legal folks see the issue. If that is all there is to it, then why people do philosophy? Philosophy is a subject which goes deeper and behind what is visible and audible. It is a serious subject.

If you say they are just events, then that is the talk of the ordinary folks. Yes, even 10 year old know what you are talking about. But here we want to go deeper and behind the objects and events. But you mock the wisdom of depth. Hence I asked you to go and read some Introduction to Philosophy.

Nope. I was talking about metaphysics here.
Please go and read some books on Introduction to Philosophy.

but is it really very insightful to say that as long as we will remain human that there will be room for doubt? — hwyl

Do every objects and events in the universe have causes? Some clearly yes, and some are unknown. On the later case, modern science falls apart like a pack of cards.

I don't think you understand what is being said: Birth is an event. So is death. Your take is a weird elongation of a concept it isn't apt for. — AmadeusD

They are not just events. They are also extension into the being and transformation of the being. That is exactly what I was pointing out. But you can only see one aspect of the event, and were blinding yourself into darkness.

If you're going to just repeat yourself, that's fine but you're wrong. — AmadeusD

I had to repeat the points because your couldn't see them any further.

No. Death is an event. It happens once in a lifetime. Two if you're lucky. And there is no more to be said beyond that. — AmadeusD

I wonder if you are reading posts at all before replying. I have never said that you will die multiple times. No, never said that.

I said that death continues, once one dies. Death is a fact or case, which will continue eternally. Once one was born and lived in this material world, death, when it happens, continues eternally. No one can erase the fact or the case.

but is it really very insightful to say that as long as we will remain human that there will be room for doubt? — hwyl

Scientific laws are established to be proven wrong. Science is a product of human imagination and intuition along with observation.

Althea

Death is an event. It is momentary (depending on definition - but the on/off event is momentary). — AmadeusD

That's just an ordinary folk's view on death. Death continues eternally. It is an event for transformation from a physical being to immaterial being. Does immaterial being exist or not? This is a matter for further discussion.

My preference would be to keep it that way. — T Clark

Fair enough. :ok: :cool:

Therefore, such a deity cannot be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. — Truth Seeker

Does a deity exist in the real world?

You talk about this in a way that doesn’t come naturally for me. — T Clark

I think this is an interesting topic. But I wondered if beauty should be confined to visual images only. Music or poetry can be beauty. Are they not all interconnected? A visual beauty can be described in words and music and vice versa.

I was also wondering, if beauty is a property of objects, or is it something that is in your mind when confronted and experienced beautiful objects.

Death continues eternally. The moment of death is only the mode of existence transformation. One exists as a living, and one keeps existing as a dead after death. Death is eternal.

Now, after all these years, people can use it in whatever manner they want. That being said, no, I don’t think truth is beautiful, no matter what Keats said. — T Clark

A visual image itself cannot be beautiful, until you have perceived it, and came to a true judgement that it is beautiful. Hence the true judgement i.e.truth is, what you are finding as beauty.

Let the beauty speak for itself. — T Clark

Isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder? An old cliche, but an undeniable truth.
Isn't truth more beautiful than some visual images? What eyes see might be just illusion in most cases.

I think 'life is suffering' a human universal. But of course, some people suffer dramatically more than others. As one who, hopefully, is not in the latter category, where do you get the certainty to conclude those who are must continue? — Jeremy Murray

Suffering is brief, but death is eternal. Suffering can be endured, while death cannot be.

Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.

It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do. — baker

It is just emotional response rather than logical thought process. There is no logical entailment from.
X is suffering, therefore X must end life. No added premises can justify that nonsense.

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights". — baker

If your own son or daughter was suffering of some illness, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim.

Well, the English language as it currently exists didn't exist in ancient times, so it's no surprise that many of the words we use today didn't exist in ancient times. — Michael

Yes, I agree.

You should read up on transgender history. Obviously ancient people and ancient languages didn't use the modern English word "transgender", but transgender people have been recognized for thousands of years: — Michael

It is neither my interest of topic nor my specialties in philosophy, so I don't have much to add on the concept itself. However, it seems words came much later after the existence of objects in the world.

And some words like "transmen" or "transwomen", we first understand what the objects are by listening to other folks talking about them, or reading up what the medias saying about them, and then understand the word. Not the other way around. These words seem also not coming from the Etymological foundation of the most other words. For example - "Artificial Intelligence" - if we try to dissect the word etymologically, we get not too far. That was my point.

Your telling me, if I tell my longtime girlfriend to meet at Central Park, to where I have rented a "Will You Marry Me" airplane skywriter to leave a message, and I call her telling her to "look up", she'll have no idea where to look? I don't feel this is a genuine sentiment or belief you hold. At least, I would hope not. :confused: — Outlander

I was not saying that you cannot understand any words in all situations. That seems what you are trying to make out here. No, I was not saying that.

My point was that where words are obscure due to lack of contents or situational context, they need clarification to be understood.

That is not an explanation of the origin of the word. Neither does it come close to saying the word did not exist before. — I like sushi

Don't just deny it. Back and demonstrate your points with evidence and clear explanations.

I will revert back to saying gibberish then. :D — I like sushi

Whatever you wish. :) But whatever you say and write in public reflect your own integrity and shows up your educational background and mental states to others, hence it is up to you. :D

I'm not sure, possibly you can clarify, but do you have a problem with the world "transgender?" — Questioner

I was just explaining on the origin of the word. The word didn't exist. The people who changed their genders started to show up in the society, and then the word was made up and put on to the people.
But the word "trans" implies that whatever follows is not the original. Think of the example word "translate". It is the best example word. Unlike you and sushi claimed, it is not a legitimate etymological word origin.

This is a more of logical thinking rather than anything to do with pacifist or whatever nonsense.
X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life.

There is no rational connection on that thought process that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. It is a propaganda spread and pushed by some dark money grabbing intention claimed by the greedy relatives of the sufferers, legal and medical professionals, and of course the medias.

That's like saying up and down doesn't mean what every person obviously knows it means, more or less. — Outlander

If you said, "UP" to me, I wouldn't have a clue what you are meaning. I would have then asked you "What do you mean by "up"?, and if you said "Up is from down." I still wouldn't know what the hell you are talking about. You have not clarified any contents of these place holders in realistic manner. You may think you are talking about something, but it fails to convey any intelligible meaning to others.

Just because some one said he/she is suffering, you think it is right to end their life? It seemed those who financially benefits when someone dies seems to supporting the idea. OK, it is not exclusive, but even 1 in 100 of possibility of the case, it doesn't sound right. Nothing is 100% exclusive. It is not excuse to end others life just because they are suffering.

So you simply meant that trans- is a modifier? I think we know that. It is still a 'real' prefix. What were you trying to say? — I like sushi

There were no such words as "transmale" or "transfemale" in ancient times. But in modern times there are people who changed their gender, and the word was invented to represent them.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Please read my post above with attention. Suffering cannot be a proper reason for ending one's life. Life itself can be viewed as suffering.

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up? — Questioner

The people who are supposed to have been suffering and decided to end their life could have been actually claims of the relatives who want to speed up their inheritance, or the media which are financed by the corrupt politicians who want to reduce the care expenditures, so that they can get bigger salaries.

Gibberish

Etymology of Trans- — I like sushi

And I am sure that are at least a hundred more. — Questioner

It just goes to show how misunderstanding and misusing language can lead you to come to total misrepresentation of the objects in the real world.

You need to transcend the linguistic prison at times, if you want to understand the world correctly.
The point here is not simple internet Etymology issue. It is about understanding the world objects, and how the words were matched to the objects. You must first understand the objects, and then analyse the meaning of the words put onto them, not the other way around.

We want to apply philosophical analysis, not internet dictionary here.

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? — Philosophim

The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real.

Are you referring to human life or all life? — LuckyR

For the topic of this thread, the discussions should be limited to human life only.

That's natural (central tendency). — Copernicus

Isn't natural tendency inherent character or states from the birth or origin of objects or agents? Normal is expected state, situation, response or character which are induced or forced via environmental, social or devised factors and systems.

in all situations? War; self defence? — Tom Storm

Yes, it is wrong in all situations. However, the situations force the wrong doings.
In those special situations, killings can and will happen, which are totally different cases from willful act of the wrong doing.

So what is acceptable? What is psychopathy? What is abnormal? What is supernatural? — Copernicus

Normality has both social and scientific origin. They are the judgements on the phenomena which fit in the realm of observed events, acts or behaviour by the set principles or expectations within the society or in the theories, principles or laws of Science.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths.

Moreover, one cannot kill oneself, if one has something or someone one loves. Love is a strong foundation for life to be keep going. Loving can only continue and is possible while one is living.

There are those that assert that a human being supervening only on physical particles and laws cannot have a first person view. That's part of what the topic is about. — noAxioms

Your reply is very sketchy. Could you elaborate more?