So, if I've understood your question properly, consciousness abstracted from any functioning system is indeed impersonal, in that sense. — bert1

Ergo the implication is that subjects are not conscious (or impersonal)?

All true. But what of self-sacrifice in an instance where, according to the social reality, it would seem completely futile? [ ... ] Do we still self-sacrifice here? — BitconnectCarlos

This depends on the particular persons engaged that "futile" situation. I do not see how "the afterlife" is a primary motivating factor

:up:

:up: :up:

I can't subscribe to a philosophy that doesn't know what knowledge is; it would be contrary to my daily experience. — Vera Mont

:up: :up:

[W]hat is the point of doing philosophy? — Angelo Cannata

Well, to begin with it seems, "the point" is to interpret questions we (still) do not know how to (definitively) answer and thereby reason towards more probative questions. Or, in other words, "the point of doing philosophy" is learning how to overcome (or, at least, mitgate) the ignorance of one's own ignorance.

Throughout history and across cultures many many nonbelievers have sacrificed their lives in order to protect their families / communities and/or to oppose various tyrannies. "Belief" in some "afterlife" – or any fact-free, faith-based story – in order to gain a "reward" (or punishment) isn't a necessary motivator and, IMO, more often than not, is only useful for deluding weak minds into throwing away their lives "in the name of (the cause)". Ethically, as a rule, martyrdom isn't an argument (& ends don't justify means – especially those means which undermine or negate their ends). Just my 2 shekels. :victory:

Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out? — Vera Mont

Humans will probably never know.

If so, is that due to our limitations or time constraint?

Both.

Are there things beyond our range of perception, ...

Yes: planck and relativistic phenomena ...

beyond our ... imagination or

I can't imagine it.

our ... ability to devise instruments?

Certainly (re: technical impossibilities).

Or are there things we are not meant to discover ...

How about a "God" that hides from us?

or not able to comprehend?

Well, 'narrow AI systems' like AlphaGo neural nets play the strategic game Go in ways which are incomprehensible – black boxes – to the best human players and students of the game. I suspect in the coming decade or so we'll encounter many more 'black box solutions' – rendering our species cognitively obsolete – in disciplines automated (colonized) by AGI such as finance, engineering, computation, molecular biology, nanotech, neuroscience, chemistry, fundamental physics, ... public administration, etc.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/896858

16April24 – $22.84 per share

It seems like you are anchoring your ethics in reducing harm, and not progressing towards flourishing. — Bob Ross

On the contrary, I propose that moral agents flourish to the degree effectively 'preventing and reducing harm and/or injustice' become habits. This form of moral naturalism I call aretaic disutilitarianism (i.e. agency-cultivating active opposition to both (agency-disabling) harms and injustices).

:up:

I don't think that the negatively, intrinsically valuable (such as 'harm' that you refer to) is more valuable ... — Bob Ross

I neither claim nor imply this. How do you get that from my 'preventing or reducing disvalue'?

15April24, Las Vegas, NV:

All across the country ... These are
Trump abortion bans. — Kamala Harris, VPOTUS

Do you remember the "red tsumani" that didn't happen in 2022? :mask:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573

Biden "Boom" Market (since 2021)

NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:

26March24 – $57.99 per share :gasp:

15April24 – $26.61 per share :down:

heroism and martyrdom — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, and thereby devaluing this life by making a "leap" into some mirage of "afterlife" (e.g. "72 virgins"). :eyes:

Nice try. :smirk:

Do you have any thoughts? — Bob Ross

At this point only a few of my own ... from a 2023 thread Is "good" indefineable? ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/778879

and also from one our previous discussions:

some varied (modern) readings:

• On the Genealogy of Morals, F. Nietzsche
• Human Nature and Conduct, J. Dewey
• The Sovereignty of Good, I. Murdoch
• Reasons and Persons, D. Parfit
• Natural Goodness, P. Foot
• Creating Capabilities, M. Nussbaum — 180 Proof

I can't make sense of what you're saying. Maybe @bert1 will more cogently answer the question I put to him.

Appeal to ignorance. :roll:

:up:

I have to imagine that some fraction of WWJD evangelical Christians will be asking themselves sooner or later by this Fall:

According to the depiction of Jesus in the NT Gospels, who would it be more reasonable to expect Christ to vote for in the 2024 presidential election: Don Poorleone or Sleepy Joe Biden??

Hint: Who do you think he voted for in 2020? :mask:

What we do by choice either adds to or detracts from that essential being. A good deed, a positive action, a virtuous choice makes the inner personality better, stronger, more capable of facing challenges. A craven, underhanded, destructive act leaves pock-marks on the soul.
It's an old idea that endures in various guises in various religions.
And we do always know when we're committing an offence against our own best self. — Vera Mont

:100: :fire:

As usual you say it better, Vera, than I did more abstractly in a recent thread Why be moral?

[T]he (foreseeable) consequence of every action (or inaction) either

• helps more than harns,
• harms more than helps,
• harms and helps more or less equally
or
• (mostly it seems) neither harms nor helps

by which habits of judgment (i.e. virtues, vices) are reflectively cultivated. — 180 Proof

:up: Interesting. I've also made a couple of (less detailed) attempts at a "syllabus":

From a 2022 thread Ethics course in high school?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/662888

And more generally from a 2021 thread Best introductory philosophy book?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/567313

Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96

Both – in sum, context-sensitive, consistent and coherent, contradiction/fallacy-free, fact-based (as much as possible) and parsimonious discursive practices. Indefeasibility, however, is not required (though certainty – lack of evident grounds to either doubt or disbelieve relevant assumptions and statements (Witty) – greatly helps to preserve a discussion from devolving into a circle-jerk of empty rhetoric). YMMV.

I think there is a persistent confusion between self and consciousness which messes up a lot of the discourse. — bert1

So then "consciousness" is impersonal? For instance, my awareness of being self-aware isn't actually mine? :chin:

:smirk: :up:

How does God prove that he is God? — Moses

i guess "He" ain't so "Omni" after all ...

Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin ... There are a lot of ways to sin. — javi2541997

Well, "if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God" (OP), and if "God" is (at most) a Bronze Age fictional character (myth), then "sin" is just as meaningless, or impossible, as acting "contrary to the will of" Bilbo Baggins. QED. Again, javi, for emphasis I paraphrase Camus: stupidity is the only sin without god.

What is the true nature of the self?

The self is an illusion generated by the brain. This illusion vanishes when the brain dies. — Truth Seeker

You might find (the implications of) this discussion interesting ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894606

Thusly, the most (positively) intrinisically valuable state is universalized states of eudamonia (i.e., universal flourishing and deep happiness); and this is ‘The Good’. — Bob Ross

Given this statement, what is your question?

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin.

QED.
Agree — Art48

Yes.

:up:

What benefit to this life does anyone get from believing there is any "hell" (or afterlife) at all? Even if there is, Toothy, that doesn't change or impact here and now any more than the fact of Andromeda galaxy affects Earth today (or a billion years from now, long after all sentient species on Earth are extinct).

Radical non-dualisms like that of Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity, rather than elevating consciousness to supreme status. — Joshs

:up: :up:

It's a fact. — Wayfarer

:roll:

David Deutsch et al long ago convinced me that the Everettian interpretation (MWI) is both less inexplicable and more consistent with the experimental data than the so-called "Copenhagen interpretation". Besides, "it's a fact", sir, that Hilary Lawson is a quasi-p0m0, non-realist philosopher ("wanker") without any significant background in fundamental physics. :smirk:

You're confusing epistemology with ontology again (à la immaterialism, antirealism, subjectivism, etc), sir.

In other words, ultimate reality is not an alternative to conventional reality; it is the insight into the emptiness (śūnyatā) of inherent existence in all phenomena. — Wayfarer

Yes, (i.e.) the unbounded void of uncountable, endlessly swirling atoms ... natura naturans.

My somewhat crude question is, why should we care? — Tom Storm

Well, the alternative is 'to live carelessly', no?

Is this frame[work] really just for people who enjoy 'wanking about oneness'

:sparkle: :eyes: :sweat: :lol: :rofl:

... or does it have a tangible use in daily living?

Perhaps these reflections are used by some as a prophylactic against superstition, magical thinking, ego-fantasy, zerosum games, etc.

What is non-dualism? — Sirius

Ontological immanence¹.

What is the nature of an illusion?

Misunderstanding, or ignorance-denial, of the fundamental inseparability of everything from nature is "the nature of illusions" (i.e. superstitions) such as "non-contingent facts", "transcendent values", "supernatural entities", etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_of_immanence [1]

Does A equate with Metzinger's 'self-model theory of subjectivity'? — Tom Storm

I think (A) refers more broadly to eliminativism (e.g. D. Dennett, P. Churchland, et al) than specifically to Metzinger's 'representational-functionalism'.

???

Which seems more reasonable, or likely, to you, @Wayfarer (or anyone): (A) every human is a zombie with a(n involuntary) 'theory of mind'? or (B) every entity is a 'conscious' monad necessarily inaccessible / inexplicable to one another's 'subjectivity'? or (C) mind is a 'mystery' too intractable for science, even in principle, to explain? or (D) mind is a near-intractably complex phenomenon that science (or AGI) has yet to explain?
— 180 Proof

B is closest to the truth I reckon, but we can know other minds by inference ... — bert1

Well, I prefer (A) speculatively but (D) empirically; however, I find both (B) & (C) are incoherent (e.g. compositional fallacy & appeal to ignorance, respectively).

Every accusation he makes is a confession. :smirk:

Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion. — ssu

Behold the *Jihad of Estrogen* :strong:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

For the other trumpstains on this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573

:cool:

11April24 ("4-11")

Today in Trumpenfreude:

Given that over 60% of the electorate (re: 2020 & 2022 elections) are women AND that Criminal Defendant-1 & his MAGA-GOP circus clowns are campaigning on a promise to implement a nationwide "Federal Abortion Ban" (including e.g. The 1873 Comstock Act by presidential executive order) in stark contrast to pro-choice President Biden and the Dems' campaign promise to pass a nationwide "Federal Right to Choose Law", we anti-fascists have to thank ...

SCOTUS (Catholic right wing, MAGA majority) for overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 and thereby

(1) depriving over half of the US population and electorate Constitutional protections of access to safe, reproductive healthcare that also permits (so far 17) states to ban abortion (even without medical exceptions) and to criminally prosecute both women seeking to terminate pregnancies and their doctors et al

(2) causing GOP to underperform in 2022 midterms losing instead of gaining the US Senate and gaining only 9 out of projected 20-30 House seats to make their "red tsunami" into a "red ripple" ... and

(3) causing MAGA-GOP in 2022 to lose anti-abortion ballot measures in Kansas, Kentucky, & Montana, failed to even get on the ballot in Oklahoma and then, in 2023, failed to stop a pro-choice state constitutional amendment from passing in Ohio – all ruby red states with majorities of trumpers, evangelicals, "poorly educated" rural blue collar white men and women.

thank Arizona (swing state) for total abortion ban

thank Florida (barely red state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks

thank North Carolina (swing state) for pro-"abortion ban" and pro-"repeal women's right to vote" MAGA-extremist candidate for governor

thank Georgia (swing state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks

thank Nevada (barely blue state) for pending pro-choice ballot measure to amend state constitution

thank Pennsylvania (swing state) for pending anti-abortion ballot measure to amend state constitution

for mobilizing
Almost All Liberal,
Most Moderate &
also Many Conservative
Woman Voters which, IMO, increases the likelihood of a *blowout* worse than 2020 and reelection of Biden-Harris along with the Dems holding the US Senate, regaining the US House and, at least, 1 governorship (re: North Carolina). :clap: :mask: :party:

addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894200

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076

Can a brutha get an AMEN?! :sweat: :up:

@Benkei @jorndoe @Wayfarer @jgill @Fooloso4 @Mikie et al