Philosophy Discussion Forums

Atla wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 12:07 pmIf something isn't made of matter or energy then what is it made of?

Historical remark:
The philosopher-scientist Wilhelm Ostwald (a Nobel Prize awardee in chemistry [1909]) developed a view he called "das energetische Weltbild" ("the energetic worldview") aka energetics or energeticism, according to which energy is ontologically prior to matter, with energy being "die allgemeinste Substanz" ("the most general substance"), and matter being nothing but "ein Komplex von verschiedenen Energien" ("a complex of different energies").

Ostwald's "energetischer Imperativ" ("energetic imperative"):

"Vergeude keine Energie, verwerte sie!"
—
"Don't waste energy, use it!"

(Ostwald, Wilhelm. Der energetische Imperativ. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1912. p. 13)

This thought came to me while chatting with Gertie on another thread. On one hand, correlation of brain states and thoughts are no proof of brains generating consciousness. Likewise, the fact that numerous brainless organisms display what appears to be awareness is not proof of their internality.

We are stuck. Ultimately our statements here reflect what we want to believe.

Greta wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 6:08 pm This thought came to me while chatting with Gertie on another thread. On one hand, correlation of brain states and thoughts are no proof of brains generating consciousness. Likewise, the fact that numerous brainless organisms display what appears to be awareness is not proof of their internality.

We are stuck. Ultimately our statements here reflect what we want to believe.

ANd the fact that you seem to have a bowl of cornflakes in front of your face; holding a spoon in your hand, with orange juice and tea, with toast near to hand is proof that you have breakfast.
Nor that the fact that I am typing away on my laptop is proof that I an writing this thread.

I can not go on to prove that black is white, whist is black and immediately get run over on the next zebra crossing.
Enjoy your philosophical delusions.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 6:12 pm

Greta wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 6:08 pm This thought came to me while chatting with Gertie on another thread. On one hand, correlation of brain states and thoughts are no proof of brains generating consciousness. Likewise, the fact that numerous brainless organisms display what appears to be awareness is not proof of their internality.

We are stuck. Ultimately our statements here reflect what we want to believe.

ANd the fact that you seem to have a bowl of cornflakes in front of your face; holding a spoon in your hand, with orange juice and tea, with toast near to hand is proof that you have breakfast.
Nor that the fact that I am typing away on my laptop is proof that I an writing this thread.

I can not go on to prove that black is white, whist is black and immediately get run over on the next zebra crossing.
Enjoy your philosophical delusions.

In philosophy, when people refer to "arguments", they are referring to positions. I doesn't mean everything has to be a fight. So it is actually not necessary to rail against other as if they killed your cat. The anger is all about you, not the other person. If one is busy lashing out at others over trivia, they fail to present any cogent argument.

Greta wrote:In philosophy, when people refer to "arguments", they are referring to positions. I doesn't mean everything has to be a fight. So it is actually not necessary to rail against other as if they killed your cat...

I agree with your objection to the relentlessly adversarial and mocking style of discussion that some posters adopt (particularly the use of acronyms like ROFLMAO). It just ignites flame wars. But I think part of the problem is the format in which we communicate (written word rather than face-to-face). I suspect that some phrases, in that format, appear more adversarial and mocking than they were intended to be. But I could be wrong. The security of anonymity is probably also a factor.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 11:57 am

Faustus5 wrote:Yep, that was exactly what he had in mind.

Judging by the section of the Royal Institution lecture to which Atla directed me, Dennett was also talking about the concept of "memes". But it's the same general idea. Talking about a software process (in a computer or, in the case of memes, in human brains) that is analagous to the evolution of a biological organism.

Atla tells me I've misunderstood Dennett and that he's dangerous. I don't know enough about him to comment on that. I still don't fully understand what Atla is so worked up about. He said in another thread that most computer programmers "think information exists on its own". I tried to work out what he meant by that and apparently got it wrong. As yet, I don't know what he means by it.

Alta tends to post as if he has some ideological agenda based on some relatively esoteric view, and if you're either not already in the cult or you don't quickly intuit and agree with whatever exactly the esoteric view is, he dismisses you as not worthy of receiving explanations, and he does so in a very easily-offended manner that devolves into flaming.

A few posters here do the same thing, unfortunately. Creation/evolution is another.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 2:36 am

Greta wrote:In philosophy, when people refer to "arguments", they are referring to positions. I doesn't mean everything has to be a fight. So it is actually not necessary to rail against other as if they killed your cat...

I agree with your objection to the relentlessly adversarial and mocking style of discussion that some posters adopt (particularly the use of acronyms like ROFLMAO). It just ignites flame wars. But I think part of the problem is the format in which we communicate (written word rather than face-to-face). I suspect that some phrases, in that format, appear more adversarial and mocking than they were intended to be. But I could be wrong. The security of anonymity is probably also a factor.

Also, If you're 6'2", kinda biker-looking and a bodybuilder that will tend to make in-person exchanges not so inflammatory.

Greta wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 6:08 pm This thought came to me while chatting with Gertie on another thread. On one hand, correlation of brain states and thoughts are no proof of brains generating consciousness.

Definitely not proof, but that's a red-herring, because empirical claims are not provable period.

It comes down to reasons to believe a given claim rather than a contrary claim.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 8:04 am Alta tends to post as if he has some ideological agenda based on some relatively esoteric view, and if you're either not already in the cult or you don't quickly intuit and agree with whatever exactly the esoteric view is, he dismisses you as not worthy of receiving explanations, and he does so in a very easily-offended manner that devolves into flaming.

Actually you guys are the ones with the outdated esoteric views, Atla simply moved beyond them 1-2 decades ago. Of course Atla is mostly just fooling around on philosophy forums for fun, but trying to explaining some basics over and over again, only to be met with befuddlement, isn't much fun.

Atla wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 10:56 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 8:04 am Alta tends to post as if he has some ideological agenda based on some relatively esoteric view, and if you're either not already in the cult or you don't quickly intuit and agree with whatever exactly the esoteric view is, he dismisses you as not worthy of receiving explanations, and he does so in a very easily-offended manner that devolves into flaming.

Actually you guys are the ones with the outdated esoteric views, Atla simply moved beyond them 1-2 decades ago. Of course Atla is mostly just fooling around on philosophy forums for fun, but trying to explaining some basics over and over again, only to be met with befuddlement, isn't much fun.

I've never seen you try to explain anything. It would be nice to see you do that, though.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 12:49 pm I've never seen you try to explain anything. It would be nice to see you do that, though.

That's the problem, most of the time I'm explaining stuff as simple I can, but it simply doesn't register for you and most other people. Even though they are really simple and basic things that are only 2-3 levels over your head.

Atla wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 1:11 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 12:49 pm I've never seen you try to explain anything. It would be nice to see you do that, though.

That's the problem, most of the time I'm explaining stuff as simple I can, but it simply doesn't register for you and most other people. Even though they are really simple and basic things that are only 2-3 levels over your head.

Can you give a couple examples of posts where you explain stuff? Most of the time, as with this post, you seem to just be sniping at people and positioning yourself as "superior."

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 1:21 pm

Atla wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 1:11 pm
That's the problem, most of the time I'm explaining stuff as simple I can, but it simply doesn't register for you and most other people. Even though they are really simple and basic things that are only 2-3 levels over your head.

Can you give a couple examples of posts where you explain stuff? Most of the time, as with this post, you seem to just be sniping at people and positioning yourself as "superior."

That's what we started with, I explained several big philosophical issues where you were wrong or clueless. Nothing got through.

Btw did you honestly think that you guys with average "existential" intelligence can really have a go at philosophy?