The Democrat Party Hates America

[Atla]

Alexis thinks that I'm insane (almost like an empty shell) because I'm in total denial of the spiritual realm, which he thinks is of central importance in our lives. So he hopes to fix me (cure me), and is growing frustrated by the failed attempts. I think Alexis is weak and delusional for dedicating his life to something that only exists in his imagination and hallucinations - I have better things to do than that.

Atla, no. No!

You are one of my success stories.

See? You are all better now. Just a bit of mop-up. But mere details.

One good turn deserves another. Help your brother Darkneos!

I will be standing by, overseeing the Healing.

Oh in that case, thank you. Bless you.
(Although I feel I haven't changed one iota.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh in that case, thank you. Bless you. (Although I feel I haven't changed one iota.)

These sorts of changes occur at a level that you are not (yet) aware of.

[Atla]

Oh in that case, thank you. Bless you. (Although I feel I haven't changed one iota.)

These sorts of changes occur at a level that you are not (yet) aware of.

I understand now, thank you.

[Darkneos]

Are you a graduate in that field?

No but I've read the works of those who are. Though the problem is there is more disagreement then anything else.

Atla appears to have read the works of people who are highly qualified scientists too, so the phrase "when you get into the graduate level stuff" looks like a bit like a poor choice of words.

You should be careful to avoid giving others the impression that you are formally educated in areas where you are actually an armchair enthusiast. You don't want to end up like Immanuel Can who is notorious for dropping little hints that he is a credentialed scientist and philosopher even though he is blatantly a retired English Lit teacher with no education in philosophy at all.

That's why I said once you get there there's more disagreement than anything else.

[Darkneos]

If this is something about me having lost my connection to the very real spiritual realm, I've seen too much to not know that this realm is an illusion.

Is this real or just sarcasm at them?

Alexis thinks that I'm insane (almost like an empty shell) because I'm in total denial of the spiritual realm, which he thinks is of central importance in our lives. So he hopes to fix me (cure me), and is growing frustrated by the failed attempts. I think Alexis is weak and delusional for dedicating his life to something that only exists in his imagination and hallucinations - I have better things to do than that.

Oh I got it, from the wording it made it sound like you thought the spirit realm was real.

[Ben JS]

Breathing rhythmically might help, Ben.

I hereby recognize the concession of your defeat.

Stay in your lane, Alexis -
pretend to do philosophy,
and you'll be revealed the fool again.
-

Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

I asked you directly to present your argument or claim concisely.

In a philosophy forum,
establishing and clarifying someone's claims
are the first steps before scrutinizing / examining them.

I revealed your ego,
and how it impacts your actions -
and you declare it nothing.
i.e. you're not going to engage in self reflection

This is the anticipated response of a narcissist.
Further adding credibility to the accusation.

Can you link to, or give, a summary of whatever argument you're making?

Hollow words.

Your words are hollow, yes.
I've established this.

That you accuse a direct philosophical inquiry into your claims as hollow,
reflects a distortion of your priorities on a philosophy forum.

Philosophical inquiry is not hollow - your uninformed opinions are.

Better luck next time.

Ta, ta

[Darkneos]

Breathing rhythmically might help, Ben.

I hereby recognize the concession of your defeat.

Stay in your lane, Alexis -
pretend to do philosophy,
and you'll be revealed the fool again.
-

Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

I asked you directly to present your argument or claim concisely.

In a philosophy forum,
establishing and clarifying someone's claims
are the first steps before scrutinizing / examining them.

I revealed your ego,
and how it impacts your actions -
and you declare it nothing.
i.e. you're not going to engage in self reflection

This is the anticipated response of a narcissist.
Further adding credibility to the accusation.

Can you link to, or give, a summary of whatever argument you're making?

Hollow words.

Your words are hollow, yes.
I've established this.

That you accuse a direct philosophical inquiry into your claims as hollow,
reflects a distortion of your priorities on a philosophy forum.

Philosophical inquiry is not hollow - your uninformed opinions are.

Better luck next time.

Ta, ta

Still more hollow words. At least Big Mike had something even if there is a strong possibility it was AI.

[Ben JS]

You're still not the arbiter of truth.
You can present your egotistical opinion,
but at least have the selfawareness to preface it as such.

Your opinions aren't facts of reality, narcissist.

EDIT:

Feel welcome to answer my direct philosophical inquiry into your position.
If so, I'll probably get back to you tomorrow.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I hereby recognize the concession of your defeat.

I accept my utter defeat at your hand.

I bow before you (in a manner of speaking), supplicating you to show patience, to grant toleration for one like myself, so encumbered by self-generated ignorance.

[Will Bouwman]

The precise, predictable easy traction that physics gives us in physical situations is not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena. And yet, it's not possible to deny the existence of mind.

So what do we make from that?

That you don't understand physics.

Well, somebody doesn't, that's for sure.

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.
The "precise, predictable easy traction that physics gives us in physical situations", quantum mechanics and chaos notwithstanding, is due in large part to the technology developed to observe and measure phenomena. That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making. See here for example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... we-know-it

And somebody's a little weak on logic and epistemology, as well.

It is not possible to deny phenomena, which are epistemologically guaranteed, it doesn't follow that it not possible to deny the existence of mind. So yes, somebody is a little weak on logic and epistemology.

You can't "deny" without having a mind.

Well, you have to define you and mind. If by you, you mean a mind then in that worldview, of course you can't.

If you "deny" that there's cognitive choice, then you can't be making a cognitive choice when you do it.

The words vacuous and tautology leap out.

And you would have to be responding to physical preconditions, rather than to truth.

That's pretty much the claim of determinists.

So now you can no longer justifiably be convinced of the truth of your own statements.

Well again, you should know by now that I am acutely aware that, with two exceptions, all propositions are theory laden. I am not a determinist. Unlike you, I understand that determinism accounts for the phenomena just as well as free will, and that my preference for free will is a choice. Or maybe just my nature.

[Belinda]

That you don't understand physics.

Well, somebody doesn't, that's for sure.

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.
The "precise, predictable easy traction that physics gives us in physical situations", quantum mechanics and chaos notwithstanding, is due in large part to the technology developed to observe and measure phenomena. That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making. See here for example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... we-know-it

And somebody's a little weak on logic and epistemology, as well.

It is not possible to deny phenomena, which are epistemologically guaranteed, it doesn't follow that it not possible to deny the existence of mind. So yes, somebody is a little weak on logic and epistemology.

You can't "deny" without having a mind.

Well, you have to define you and mind. If by you, you mean a mind then in that worldview, of course you can't.

If you "deny" that there's cognitive choice, then you can't be making a cognitive choice when you do it.

The words vacuous and tautology leap out.

And you would have to be responding to physical preconditions, rather than to truth.

That's pretty much the claim of determinists.

So now you can no longer justifiably be convinced of the truth of your own statements.

Well again, you should know by now that I am acutely aware that, with two exceptions, all propositions are theory laden. I am not a determinist. Unlike you, I understand that determinism accounts for the phenomena just as well as free will, and that my preference for free will is a choice. Or maybe just my nature.

How free is your free will? Can you quantify your free will? Is your free will maybe like a grain of salt that not merely mixes with water but is dissolved in a given volume of water?

[Will Bouwman]

How free is your free will? Can you quantify your free will? Is your free will maybe like a grain of salt that not merely mixes with water but is dissolved in a given volume of water?

I'm not the person to ask. My expertise is in easy stuff, like quantum mechanics and relativity. I quite like Roger Penrose's take, or at least the bit I understand, which in a nutshell, is that consciousness is not computable, which I presume means it couldn't be the product of purely mechanical processes. As I said though, I'm a bit out of my depth when it comes to philosophy of mind.

[BigMike]

How free is your free will? Can you quantify your free will? Is your free will maybe like a grain of salt that not merely mixes with water but is dissolved in a given volume of water?

I'm not the person to ask. My expertise is in easy stuff, like quantum mechanics and relativity. I quite like Roger Penrose's take, or at least the bit I understand, which in a nutshell, is that consciousness is not computable, which I presume means it couldn't be the product of purely mechanical processes. As I said though, I'm a bit out of my depth when it comes to philosophy of mind.

Fair enough, Will—and honestly, if you’re already comfortable swimming in quantum mechanics and relativity, you’re doing just fine. Don't sell yourself short. And yeah, Penrose’s view is certainly a bold one. His Orch-OR theory, developed with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, proposes that consciousness arises from quantum processes in microtubules within neurons—an attempt to step beyond what he sees as the limits of algorithmic computation.

Penrose argues that consciousness is non-computable—that no Turing machine, no matter how complex, could fully replicate it. It’s an intriguing proposal, one that draws from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and quantum indeterminacy to suggest that human understanding and insight must involve something more than classical computation.

That said, the theory’s been met with a lot of skepticism in the neuroscience and physics communities. A major hurdle is the so-called “warm, wet brain” problem. Quantum coherence is notoriously fragile—it tends to collapse quickly in environments like the human brain, which is noisy, warm, and biologically active. Many argue it’s just not plausible for delicate quantum states to persist long enough inside neurons to play the kind of role Orch-OR suggests.

Still, Penrose’s challenge to mainstream materialist views of consciousness has been valuable in pushing the conversation forward. Even critics concede: at least he’s asking hard questions with intellectual rigor, which is more than can be said for most pop-theories of mind.

[Immanuel Can]

That you don't understand physics.

Well, somebody doesn't, that's for sure.

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

What has this got to do with anything? It's not at all clear to me what you're trying to plead here. Physics is the study of physical stuff. It has no opinion about the existence of anything else. We know that. Where are we going? No claim of physics warrants any metaphysical claim, simply because physics doesn't deal with any of that. It doesn't even propose to.

That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making.

This is an expression of what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

If you "deny" that there's cognitive choice, then you can't be making a cognitive choice when you do it.

The words vacuous and tautology leap out.

Then think again. "Denying" is a cognitive process, not a physical one. How many ounces in a "denial"? See? No physical properties, and yet its reality is undeniable, because it's the thing you're doing right now.

Just stop. Look at yourself. The empirical evidence is right in front of your eyes, or rather, in the realization of your own performance.

I am not a determinist. Unlike you, I understand that determinism accounts for the phenomena just as well as free will, and that my preference for free will is a choice. Or maybe just my nature.

If "choice" exists, the Determinism is false. In a Deterministic world, there would be no genuine "choice" at all.

See? Again, what you are doing this very moment is all the empirical evidence you're going to need...and it's right in front of you.

[Belinda]

How free is your free will? Can you quantify your free will? Is your free will maybe like a grain of salt that not merely mixes with water but is dissolved in a given volume of water?

I'm not the person to ask. My expertise is in easy stuff, like quantum mechanics and relativity. I quite like Roger Penrose's take, or at least the bit I understand, which in a nutshell, is that consciousness is not computable, which I presume means it couldn't be the product of purely mechanical processes. As I said though, I'm a bit out of my depth when it comes to philosophy of mind.

Consciousness is not coterminous with free will. *There are several qualitatively different states of consciousness among which are states that include voluntary decisions.

Roger Penrose is a physicist and mathematician not a neuroscientist.

* Consciousness is popularly intuited as what medical personnel call "responsive" i.e. reactive to stimuli.