I also saw a thread I started (about the disappearance of my ignore-list) deleted. I can sort of understand it, because it was turning into a pointless shouting match. But it lead me to wonder what, if any, sympathy, support or understanding there is here on TPF for autistic contributors, and others who are similarly affected? I'm not asking for anything in particular, except perhaps knowledge of how the forum - in the form of its moderators? :chin: - thinks about those of us who aren't quite neurotypical? Is there an 'official' attitude, policy or view?

I tried hard in my thread - which wasn't about autism, nor was it intended to be - to explain courteously why I was asking what I was asking, and I got sneering condescension, from the 'usual suspects'. :sad:

I'm asking for a bit of moderator guidance here. Do I belong here, or must I move away to some lesser forum, where perhaps tolerance is more easily found? [ I wouldn't move from here by choice; I quite like TPF. ]

Neurophilosophy involves the application of neuroscience to philosophical issues like 'free will', and 'reasoning'. — fresco

My first reaction is to wonder if we need a new and detailed term: "neurophilosophy"? Neuroscience is throwing up many interesting avenues of thought, and it seems appropriate that philosophers should/will consider them. But isn't that just "philosophy"? Do we need to subdivide, so that neuroscience somehow gets its own dedicated branch of philosophy? If we did do this, wouldn't it prevent any cross-fertilisation between this and the philosophy of other (perhaps similar or related) topics?

If it's not a derail - and I'm sorry if that's what this note turns out to be :sad: - is there any advantage at all to separating out the philosophy of each and every topic, so that each has its own? I can't see one. Can you? :chin:

So, what has philosophy taught you? — Wallows

To think. :up: :smile:

I've tried as hard as I can to conduct myself in this conversation as I am expected to. But it's gone far enough now. I would be most grateful if the two of you would shut the fuck up. Thank you.

Please don't be so certain of something you clearly have no idea about. If you have one leg, you can't run, no matter how much you practice. :up:

A lack of will-power — Pattern-chaser

This is the opportunity to work on that. — Shamshir

:worry:

...being autistic. I find it difficult to ignore stuff that ... annoys me — Pattern-chaser

I'm not wired as you are. Something that seems easy for you to do ... can be much less easy for me. A little understanding would be nice? :confused:

By chaos I refer to the many exceptions in our attempts at setting down rules (patterns) of social interaction. — TheMadFool

Are you trying to contrast (coercive) human laws, made to govern humans, with (descriptive) 'laws of nature'? The former are for us to manage exceptions, if our coercion is disobeyed; the latter simply describe how the universe appears to us to work, and have no coercive force whatever.

Whats stopping you from just ignoring them on your own? — DingoJones

A lack of will-power ... and being autistic. I find it difficult to ignore stuff that ... annoys me. :blush:

Others may have their own reasons why they'd like an ignore list: :wink:

But mainly, it just works for me. I like the function. — Coben

This was the link: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5738/ignore-list-browser-extension - but the Firefox extension isn't there any more to be downloaded. I assume the Chrome one has gone too?

I think this forum could do with an official way to block or ignore other posters. That way, we can just ignore them, instead of getting into arguments with them. Much more constructive. :up:

The aspect that I want to focus on is that the laws of nature are UNIVERSAL i.e. there can be no exception. [...] It's "obvious" that humans and whatever they do must obey the laws of nature. — TheMadFool

There are no laws of nature, in the sense that these laws must be obeyed. The universe acts according to its nature, and this is unavoidable. But there are no laws. There are simply things that will happen whether we want them to or not. There is no law of gravity, which all matter must obey. But localised concentrations of matter will always attract one another, as they always have. There is no law that compells them to act this way. It is their nature to do so, and it is inescapable.

The "laws of nature" are human-created descriptions of how the universe works, and they are not in any sense binding. But the universe behaves according to its nature - it cannot do otherwise - and there are no exceptions. Are we mistaking the map (the 'laws of nature') for the territory (the universe)? I think we are.

"Belief" is the agency required to confuse good with evil, and evil with good. — A Gnostic Agnostic

It seems you're already confused, without the need for belief. Is "good" good for you, for your family and friends, for your fellow countrymen, for all humans, or for all living things in God's universe? Without this qualification (context), "good" means nothing. The same applies to "evil", of course. :chin:

By what measure could you possibly know you are wrong about a metaphysical position such as to be self-corrective? — Isaac

OK, I'm done. "Self-corrective" may not fit into this particular use of the word. But I can't be bothered with having to explain everything that you find less than 100% precise and analytical. Some thing really are - in the Real World - vague. That's life.

Take care.

This is not supposed to be a debate about religion. [...] All off-topic posts are being deleted. — Baden

:up: Thank you. :smile:

If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with. — Terrapin Station

Hmm. :chin: I think you just summarised the OP, or maybe its solution, delightfully. Well said. :smile:

You ought to consider the following tests to be sure you are not autistic! — jorgealarcon

But I am autistic! :up: :smile:

If that's based on critical thinking, then what is it critical of.... — Isaac

Too literal. :wink: Here's a quote:

Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. — Wikipedia

The Wikipedia entry also refers to the use of facts, which may not be available in the examples I'm considering. But I might as easily have said "structured thinking", and I think I did. My intention was to be vague and general. I was deliberately avoiding precision. :gasp:

What is the alternative metaphysical assumption that you have used your critical analysis to reject and on what grounds? — Isaac

I have no such assumption to offer. Lacking the means to conduct a more formal analysis, I was trying to work, generally, with what we have. I wasn't trying to emulate scientific analysis, having already concluded that scientific analysis is not possible, and therefore not useful. You're treating this whole thing too rigidly; too rigorously. We've already entered an area where precision and rigour are unavailable.

I wondered if there was a non-serious version of this non-scientific analysis you're describing, and if so, what would distinguish it as such. — Isaac

I suppose the non-serious version would be a round table discussion in a pub, or on Facebook. Entirely without rigour. And therefore of limited use? Probably. :wink:

Common sense, coupled with structured, critical, thinking. Isn't this what philosophy is? — Pattern-chaser


No, not in my meta-philosophical position. — Isaac

Then what, pray tell, is philosophy? [ I have a nasty feeling you're going to say that acceptable philosophy is ... science. :sad: But I've been wrong before...]

So what would you say the difference was between "gut feeling and faith" and the subject matter of what you're calling "serious" analysis? If we're not analysing empirical facts, then we must be analysing feelings and beliefs, surely? I can't see a third category of stuff that is neither empirical fact, nor the product of our minds (feelings and beliefs). — Isaac

Perhaps this is simply a lack of imagination? :chin: Consider - only as an example (there are many others) - whether I might be a brain in a vat. :chin: There is no empirical evidence at all. But I can still make useful observations. Here's one example (there are many others): whatever the actual nature of reality, I have access to only one, the one my senses and perception shows me, so I might as well live with that, and deal with it as best I can.

This latter is not the result of a rigid analytic process, but my observation is not based on feelings and beliefs, but on structured, critical, thinking.

Let's say there is though, we'd then be stuck on this idea of "seriously" analysing it. As opposed to what other form of analysis? — Isaac

As opposed to a formal, logical, scientific analysis, which is impossible in these cases.

But...most problematic of all, you use the term 'we'. That 'we' can do this analysis suggests a collaborative exercise, and yet if we're not working with empirical data (that which we agree is the case) then how can we even begin to construct an analytical language with which to have this discussion? — Isaac

Common sense, coupled with structured, critical, thinking. Isn't this what philosophy is? :chin

But what we cannot do is actually determine which are true, right, best, or any other measure. — Isaac

Exactly! There are significant issues where there is no certainty to be found. But the issues exist nonetheless. So, do we simply abandon all thought of serious consideration, just because a scientific analysis is impossible? You might, as you choose; I don't.

Everyone is a metaphysicist. — Coben

I am Spartacus! :rofl: :up:

Whether one leans towards theories extending from use of empiricism and logic or one leans towards “gut feeling” and pure “faith”, there is an inherent need for humans to conceptually grasp the big picture and this is where metaphysics’ finds its true value. — Dave Davidson via Gnomon

This is an unexpected gem. :smile: But it still promotes a misapprehension, I think. For issues where empirical evidence is available, scientific analysis is possible. But when the issue falls short of this, usually due to insufficient empirical evidence, or none at all, we assume that no serious consideration is possible.

This, I think, is an error of binary thinking: no scientific analysis is possible, therefore no form of analysis is possible. Not so. Although formal analysis is not possible for some issues, serious consideration remains a possibility. We need not automatically retreat to <<<“gut feeling” and pure “faith”>>>. Even where the tightly-focused requirements of scientific analysis are impractical, the broader approach of philosophy still has much to offer.

There's another error of binary thinking hidden here: no scientific analysis is possible, therefore no form of serious analysis is possible. The mistake here is to believe that there is only one analysis tool (science). This is a fallacy. Philosophy can often address issues that science cannot.

Many of the issues that metaphysics deals with are of the type where scientific analysis is unhelpful. Considering such matters is much more difficult than simple science. But this is no excuse to abandon reason or reasoning. A quick search for "critical thinking" or "structured thinking" gives all kinds of help. Here's a quote from just one example:

Classifications and Types of Thinking

Convergent or Analytical Thinking: Bringing facts and data together from various sources and then
applying logic and knowledge to solve problems or to make informed decisions.

Divergent thinking: Breaking a topic apart to explore its various components and then generating new ideas and solutions.

Thinking: Analysis and evaluation of information, beliefs, or knowledge.

Creative Thinking: Generation of new ideas breaking from established thoughts, theories, rules, and procedures.

The source of the above text is here.

In this case Voltage and Current are proxies for Energy. — Gnomon

Energy = Voltage x Current x time

:chin:

Solid.

I think the presocratics with their water, fire, etc. are just as confused as modern physicalist scientists. — Coben

Earth, water, air and fire = solid, liquid, gas and energy. Not so far from modern science? :wink:

The primary substance is confusion. — Coben

You may be on to something here. :smile:

A battery is charged with potential (voltage), and it is possible to actualize that latent power in the form of actual current (amperage). — Gnomon

Metaphors that contradict the literal meanings used are very confusing. A battery is charged with energy (Joules). The power stored is measured in Watts. When the battery is connected to an electrical circuit, the terminal voltage - or potential difference - 'pushes' the electric current through the circuit.

Voltage is not a form of potential energy, any more than current is a form of actual energy.

Sorry to appear nit-picking, and for the potential derail, but this isn't a minor misunderstanding, it's a hotch-potch of confusion. :wink:

Perhaps so. :chin:

This thread is about threads being derailed. It is also a good example of how this derailing can and does occur, if there is no will among us to do otherwise. :chin:

So I am completely in favor of the anti-religious crowd offering their thoughts, even if occasionally they are poorly formed and not terribly logical. — Hanover

Well yes, but...

If they are trolling, though, that is another matter. — Hanover

...this is the important bit. This thread is not complaining about people expressing and arguing for their views. It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'.

But if threads on the relation of the fates and the furies and the muses are interrupted by demands for proof and suchlike Apollonian nonsense, then the forum loses interesting debate in favour of tedium and repetition. — unenlightened

Yes, I think this is a problem, distinct from the trolling that this thread centres on. Demands for proof, and for precise definitions (often of vague concepts that have no precise definition), derail many threads here in this forum, and elsewhere. I don't think it's deliberate. The people who do this actually can't imagine discussing something - anything - that can't be precisely described and defined. But, deliberate or not, it's still a problem, and I'm not quite sure how we might best overcome it. :chin: Any suggestions, anyone?

Well, those kind of threads where the views of others are respected and cordial manners dominate are few and far between. — ssu

And isn't that the problem this thread complains about? It may be aimed at religious threads, but it surely applies to all of them? We can approach it from a number of directions, but what it comes down to is a lack of courtesy. There is an unwillingness to oppose the argument without insulting the arguer. This is bad philosophy. VERY BAD philosophy.

Why don't we make this better? We can, if we choose to.... :chin:

Why do you find religious intolerance more offensive than say free will intolerance or capitalism intolerance or the various other intolerances pervasive throughout this forum? Why demand special respect for the religious (a group I tend to often actually align with)? — Hanover

If I have understood correctly, this topic is an appeal for the atheists to stop trolling religious threads. I.e. not preventing atheists from posting in these threads, but preventing atheists from trolling these threads, with the express intention of derailing the thread, preventing serious discussion.

To the extent that believers also troll religious threads, they should also be opposed. I haven't seen as much abuse from believers, but it would be rash to think that only atheists are guilty. All thread-trolling is unhelpful, and not supportive of grown-up discussions of any/all types. It should stop, or be stopped. :up:

So, basically, long story short, a big bunch of no-nothings can create knowledge by writing a Wikipedia page, yes? — Bartricks

Empirical investigation says otherwise. Your assertion is false. Most Wikipedia pages are well-written, reliable and accurate, so those who wrote them are presumably reasonably knowledgeable. In contrast, your comments don't seem to be accurate, well-written or true.

Wikipedia - 1
@Bartricks - 0

For instance, consider something you know a lot about. Look up a wikipedia entry on that subject, whatever it may be. Then notice all the mistakes. — Bartricks

Yes. I just did that. I looked at the page describing audio power amplifiers. There are always ways in which any article could be improved, but the article in Wikipedia is as good as one could hope, and contains no obvious mistakes.

Just like all your other comments, this one proves to be entirely without foundation. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Wikipedia is not an academically respectable source, as your institution should itself have told you. It is shot through with mistakes. Nothing on there is subject to proper peer review. — Bartricks

↪alcontali
Wikipedia is not peer reviewed... — Bartricks

Peer-review on Wikipedia

So, will you continue to create your truth by repetition only, as modern 'truth'-tellers do, or will you accept actual facts, according to the old-fashioned way of truth-telling?

Stupid is as stupid writes. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Indeed. :up: Well done for getting this far! :smile:

My religion says that it is [...] my duty [...] to fight evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Humans are consistently evil toward every other living thing in the world, and also to the world itself. [And very often to other humans too.] Now it's time to practice what you preach....

My religion says that it is not only my duty to try to grow my religion, but that it is also my duty to fight evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Dear @Gnostic Christian Bishop, there is a Great Evil destroying our homes, our livelihoods and ourselves. This Great Evil is humans. Please fight them for us, and kill them all if you can. Amen. :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:

It is easy to talk about the alleged god: "God does not exist." — god must be atheist

Prove it! No, I know you can't. That's why yours is a faith position, just like mine. But, unlike me, you assert your personal faith position to be factual, without evidence. Your reasoning is fatally flawed.

The soul is immaterial it cannot be a thing. — Sunnyside

Mathematics is immaterial, but I would have said it's also a thing? :chin:

Still, it is a common (and to me reasonable) conjecture that evolution has endowed us with a general thirst for pattern. — bongo fury

Yes, I consider my name equivalent to Adam (Christian mythology), "everyman", or even just "human", as the chasing of patterns is so intrinsic to humans. By choosing the name, I declare myself to be (typically?) human. :smile:

I always assumed @Pattern-chaser was named in answer to this question. — bongo fury

What question, pray tell? :chin

If I wrote something, and you don't understand it - does the responsibility of understanding not ultimately rest with you? — Shamshir

No, not really. You aren't our resident guru, you're a philosopher with whom we are all trying to exchange meaning. If you deliberately make it difficult for us to understand you, why should we expend the effort? :chin: