Do you think panpsychists are committed to souls? I can't think of any time I've read a contemporary panpsychist talking about souls.

'panpsychism' is metaphysically indistinguishable from Stone Age
animism — 180 Proof

That's just innacurate. Most academic panpsychists I am aware of are a mile away from animism. My own views are somewhat closer to animism, but they're not captured by the wiki article either. You don't have to educate yourself on what panpsychism is if you don't want to of course.

There are a variety of panpsychists, but my guess is that most contemporary panpsychists are of the second kind you mention - the ones that think that consciousness is fundamental alongside other properties such as charge or whatever. I am in that group. The former kind of panpsychist I would guess would be idealists, although their motivation and arguments might be different from traditional idealism. Some panpsychists arrive at panpsychism via idealism, Timothy Sprigge for example.

Regarding the combination problem, you make an interesting point. However I think the analogy with other properties may not work. The combination of entities with physical properties does not necessarily entail the creation of new wholes - one could be merelogical about it. However the merging of conscious entities is typically assumed to create new wholes, which raises difficult question: What happens to the individual consciousness of the parts? Does that remain, so we have a multiplicity of consciousnesses, perhaps in a hierarchical relationship? Or does the consciousness get 'pooled' somehow, and prior individuals are lost? How does that work exactly and why? What triggers the merging? Mere proximity? Functional relationships which entail new powers/abilities of the new entity? And so on.

Israel are creating Hamas

thanks! I'll try the short stories i think. Crash never appealed to me a concept.

:up: Looks pretty good to me. I'm fairly new to political/.economic thought. Sortition would be fab.

The economic system we have divides all adult citizens into employers and employees. — Vera Mont

There are sole traders of course, self-employed individuals with no employees, but broadly you are right.

Short of a massive rethinking that you are inviting, I think a quick fix to this current capitalism (which seems to be reverting back to a feudalistic system) is a substantial wealth tax coupled with some kind of proportional representation (in the UK and US - many other countries already have it).

Can you recommend some good Ballard? I really liked Concrete Island.

Things without a mind are not conscious/aware. — Lionino

Sure, but there are no things without a mind.

In that case , aren't non-living things' consciousness different nature to the living things consciousness? — Corvus

I don't think so. Their consciousness is exactly the same type. Both are aware of something. What is different is what they are aware of. In the case of dead things, not very much.

All non-living things are conscious as well as living things.

You can keep calling it “genocide”, but you have no sentence from an authoritative tribunal that supports such an accusation — neomac

For that to happen someone has to bring a case. The process of gathering evidence, making arguments, hearings, and all the rest of it takes ages. And that doesn't stop people reading the law, looking at the facts, and applying the law to the facts themselves, and coming to a reasoned opinion.

You mean that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Israel must yield to Hamas’ demands? — neomac

I can't speak for Punshhh, but I don't think Israel should ever yield to Hamas' demands. What Israel should do is the right thing, regardless of Hamas demands.

I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. — Mikie

Indeed, but it's standard rhetoric for aggressive acts. I remember Tony Blair saying something like "Saddam, by his actions, chose to be invaded." A weird denial of agency.

Well, that's a proposal; what do you propose Hamas and the Palestinians do for their part? — tim wood

Give the hostages back once Israeli have undone as much of the harm as they can, got all settlers out of West Bank, etc

But until the hostages are released/accounted for, their being kept seems to me a carte blanche for the Israelis and their IDF. — tim wood

What about the reverse, until Israel stops occupying Palestinian territories, withdraw from Gaza and rebuild all the buildings they've knocked down and paid compensation to the families of all the dead, isn't that carte blanche for Hamas to hang on to the hostages?

Who could object to that, and why? — tim wood

Crucially, Netanyahu, because he doesn't want peace with the Palestinians until they're permanently displaced.

Yup. Netanyahu co-opting persecution of Jews cheapens it horribly.

It is a philosophical point. One theory of mind is that mental states are brain states. Arguing against that is philosophy. What's your point, philosophical or otherwise? Are you smelling a decaying God in the cupboard or something? I think I smell you smelling something.

I think the argument in the OP is unsound, but it's philosophy.

I don't consider myself an adherent to any religious system or practice, nor do i belong to any religious communities. But i think some claims which are often considered religious are true, for example, consciousness is ubiquitous, consciousness (but not self) continues after death. I also think creation myths should be taken seriously but not literally. I do wonder if they might reflect the phenomenology of the early universe in some way, or the psychological development of life, or something. I find the gospels to be extremely rich in valuable ideas. Likewise with other religions to the extent i am aware of them, which isn't much. So I'm not sure if in religious or not. I suppose i have beliefs which do affect my attitude to life and death, and how i relate to others, which are based on the ubiquity of consciousness.

In my experience, in the middle and south of England there is a tweely conservative monarchy-loving ultra-parochial cake-baking mindset which might be compatible with community feel but which I find quite horrible (but I guess that’s because I’m a rootless cosmopolitan, mostly Scottish and a bit prejudiced against the English). They're certainly not socialist, but I guess they do like the NHS (which I imagine counts as socialist to a North American). — Jamal

Ditto.

I lived in Suffolk. Very conservative. Ignorant, insular. Of course you can find your tribe anywhere with a large population, but you'll have to look, and probably drive. I hate England even though I'm English. There are pretty villages in Suffolk if you can stomach the culture. It is probably drier and sunnier on average in east Anglia generally, rain gets dropped on the Western hills. The fens (Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire) are flat and also conservative, but somehow a bit more relatable for me. Anyway. I live in Scotland now. Somehow i managed to end up in one of the only two conservative counties in Scotland. Still like it better than England, class is a bit less of a thing in Scotland in general. Still there of course and wealth matters obviously. Edinburgh has a marked class divide though it seemed to me, less so than the Highlands.

Oddly enough I've always wanted to move to Canada, less population density. Lots of wilderness. Tough winters though i guess. But no country needs a philosopher or social care lawyer.

I don't know if you mean that literally or not, but if you do then I pretty much agree with you. Physical models predict her behaviour as best they can, but she does what she does because she wants to. It just happens to be regular and predictable from our perspective.

The reason I don't talk about Kant is that I studied it about 30 years ago and I can barely remember anything about it, apart from that I thought it was probably nonsense. I don't want to inflict my vague recollections on the good TPF readers, and certainly don't want to give the impressionable among us the idea that I know what I'm talking about.

Yes, not heard of that one but I've come across the idea in a few places.

We should never have invented agriculture. I think we're fucked. We have outpaced our environment, and our DNA, disastrously. Amish-style is a good workable compromise I think.

@ButyDude Your OP introduces a lot of 'culture war' topics, which naturally excite some of the less moderate responses. To mitigate this, it can be helpful to pick one aspect and focus narrowly on it and ask a specific question ending in a question mark. Your OP does not clearly tell the readers what kind of response you are looking for, and a more hierarchical top-down approach might help you here, as @unenlightened says, we like to be told what to do. You present a very cursory characterisation of feminism and offer your rebuttal of your own characterisation (inviting accusations of 'straw man'). We are invited to insult you by confirming your own (correct) suspicion that you are waffling. Consider:

The women’s studies and historical women’s studies are mostly concerned with the idea of “power.” From the gender perspective, or basically the women’s feminist perspective, society is interpreted as a hierarchy of “power structures,” ranging from government to gender roles. I will offer a rebuttal to this interpretation of society. — ButyDude

Quoting a seminal feminist work here would be useful, to get a horse's mouth concept you can then attack. The second sentence here is very unclear. What is a 'gender perspective'? The 'feminist perspective' is not the same thing as the 'women's perspective', there can be male feminists (or can there? - a topic for a thread perhaps). Is there a perspective that all women share? If so, what is it? How do you know what it is? You set yourself up as disagreeing with (your characterisation of) the feminist perspective as interpreting society in terms of 'power structures', yet you seem to be endorsing that very view, that society very much is comprised of power structures. Are you therefore a feminist?

There is a lack of agreed definitions in your OP which would help focus the responses, I feel. @Banno says you are full of rage, which I gather from his own angry responses to you he approves. Similarly, @Banno thinks definitions are not helpful in philosophy discussions, so again, despite appearances, he seems to be your friend in this thread, and I your enemy.

EDIT: Here's a question I'd be interested in someone answering for me (I can't be bothered) "Are all feminist views anti-hierarchical?" Even that's probably way too broad and blobby a question to tackle.

You make ethical claims on a philosophy forum and then don't want to discuss ethics.

Go away. — Banno

Banno, isn't it customary to regard the OP as defining the scope of discussion in a thread?

I'm actually interested in the OP, but this thread seems to be going the way of all flesh. I don't know what the answers are, and I'm interested in hearing the arguments.

One persons misconceptions are another person's blindness.

One person's blindness is another person's wilful ignorance.

One person's exit is another person's entrance.

Is this about the British empiricists? Locke, Berkeley, Hume?

Do we infer the unperceived existence of what we perceive from the nature of our experience? If so, how? If not, why not? — OwenB

I'm not overly keen on the question. I'd need to know what the course material was to ensure I understood what kind of answer they want.

'Do we infer...' is different from the usual philosophical question of 'Can we validly infer...' Answering 'do we' isn't really philosophy is it? That's some kind of social science. Although maybe in the context of Hume, maybe 'do we' is appropriate, as he is interested in that as well.

@OwenB what is the context? What material has led up to this question?

If Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, they're remarkably bad at it. — RogueAI

October 7th was the first realistic chance they had to go full-on genocide. They couldn't have done that under the gaze of the rest of the world without a really good bit of provocation. And they got it. Makes me wonder if they knew. Anyway, they've been doing as much as they can get away with before that anyway, what with the settlers and land-grabs. Not that I can remember the details now.

All the statements i've seen from Israeli officials, while uncomfortable to me, appear to be sane, if heavy handed, responses to a terrorist attack aimed at maiming your population and geopolitical stability. — AmadeusD

https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-11/wipe-gaza-off-the-face-of-the-earth-the-statements-made-by-israeli-politicians-on-which-south-africa-supports-its-genocide-case.html

A few snippets from the article:

“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”

“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

“there are no innocents”

"Tally Gotlib, from Likud, has called for “merciless bombing from the air” so as not to endanger the soldiers and to stop “feeling sorry for the uninvolved Gazans” because “there are none.”"

This combined with the clearly unnecessary and disproportionate actions of the IDF in terms of destroying buildings and infrastructure, combined with the video footage of IDF soldiers having a laugh all adds up to intent to destroy Gaza and its residents. Israeli Zionists jumping around shouting about wiping them all out. Then there's the stuff about 'encouraging' Gazan's to leave and talk of moving settlers into the area. There's too much of this stuff for it to be put down to one or two rabid zionists. The intent seems really clear.

Even if I'm just watching left wing media, this stuff isn't made up by lefties. This is real isn't it?

For genocide, you need an actus reus and a mens rea it seems. You have to do certain acts. And you have to do them with a criminal intent, in this case, the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

The actus reus seems clear - plenty of killing, engendering mental health issues, inflicting very difficult living conditions.

Statements by Israeli officials, and the acts themselves, also seem pretty clear evidence of the mens rea.

EDIT: this is certainly enough to establish that there is a case to answer I would have thought. Actually hearing the case needs a lot longer of course.

"Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

Seems a, b, c are clearly engaged. Not sure about d and e.

One could argue that deporting people from a country that they don't live in, but want to live, is a bit different from deporting people from a country (or let's say a physical place) that they have lived all their lives and do want to continue to live. — ssu

Oh, indeed! It was a frivolous comparison. :)

Didn't the Germans at first think about relocating Jews to Africa? — ssu

The UK is doing that with asylum seekers. Pack them off to Rwanda. It's been blocked by the courts on Human Rights grounds so far, but the Conservatives are planning legislation that legally defines Rwanda as safe! The world has been missing a trick it seems. We should just pass legislation that says climate change isn't happening, Gazans don't suffer, the moon has an oxygen rich atmosphere and welcoming locals, and everyone is happy.

Time changes but it is not the same thing as change in physical. — MoK

Is that right though? I'm not sure what it could mean for time to change. Things move from one place to another, that is a kind of change. They do so at a speed, which involves a concept of time. But can't we just replace the concept of time with counting movements? We know Earth rotates 365 times in a year. A year is a unit of time. But we don't need that do we? We can say the Earth rotates 365 times for every one rotation of the Earth around the Sun. That's just movement and counting, no? Is time reducible to that? Or is time something over and above measuring one set of movements against another? If everything stopped moving, would there be any time? What does it mean for time to 'pass' sans movement in space?

I should do a basic physics course.

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

One view of time is that it is basically the same thing as change. Time starts when change happens. Not sure if this fits with science or not.

Here is my simple argument in syllogism form:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3) — MoK

@Banno How about:

1) Assumption: If change, then time
2) Assumption: If nothing to something, then change
3) Assumption: Nothing to something [object of reductio]
4) Therefore, change [2,3 MPP]
5) Therefore, time [1,4 MPP]
6) Therefore, nothing [3, some kind of a fortiori inference, like &elimination, seems reasonable]
7) Assumption: If nothing, then not-time
8) Therefore, not-time [6, 7 MPP]
9) Therefore, time and not-time [5,8 & introduction]
10) Therefore, NOT nothing to something [RAA]

Or something like that. May have missed out some bits. What lines do you cite for a reductio?

I give it a day

For example, philosophy used to be the general name for various sciences, but when these sciences specialized there was a shift in philosophy towards questions that didn't concern the sciences, such as ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and some left-over questions from psychology. Then with the linguistic turn there was a shift towards the nature of language. — jkop

Yes, science has been gradually annexing philosophical territory as it figures out a way to check an idea against the world in a publicly repeatable way. I'd less characterise these as paradigm shifts (which represent progress and no loss of territory) and more as straightforward redrawing of the boundaries of philosophy.

The linguistic turn is an interesting case. I think of it more as a fashion, but perhaps for some it really is a paradigm shift because, if successful, it renders large quantities of philosophy confused and obsolete. I just don't think it's successful.