Suppose you have a world that is completely immaterial, perhaps a solipsistic universe if there is only one conscious experience (related to you), or the internal workings of god's mind, or the end product of a simulation but without any hardware to simulate on.

Now, in this world, can you still have objects that move around in an orderly fashion? Of course, every example we've ever come across in regards to laws does involve some sort of "hardware". When it comes to video games, the hardware is the computer chips that the computer program "operates on". When it comes to our minds and generating our conscious experience, the hardware is our brain. When it comes to the entire universe, the "hardware" is the world itself: concrete objects that exist in the world that the laws of the universe "operate" on. Note that I use the word operate in quotes because whether or not laws are merely descriptions about the world or are prescriptive, they still "work with" hardware.

Now, can laws operate on a purely immaterial world where there are no concrete objects, and all objects are mere images or abstractions of some sort. Is there anything incoherent about this? If not incoherent, is there anything implausible about this?

Actually the first question is whether can it be helpful, then how.

To make it clearer I am not referring to sadness, I am referring to the actual mental disorder.

Hey, I've been interested in philosophy for a while! I was wondering what philosophers should I study to understand topics such as self, identity, and our relation to the world and those around us? Sorry if it's a weird question, I'm not an expert, and I know philosophers tend to study things like ethics and truth, but what about identity? What about what it means to be a well-adjusted human being? Thanks in advance!

If will is true who's to say 'possession' (alienation from one's will) isn't something one might will in order to prove unknowingly that one has not only will, but a will that matters—however mysteriously—with true transcendence; which is thusly so precisely ineffable? A truth whose very remembrance produces an instant forgetting. And what if the latter is taken as a given of true intelligence vs AI?

The relevant SEP article lists works mostly from 1990s onward, and nothing older than 1960. Were philosophical issues pertaining to trust or distrust explored in works before that, or perhaps by some authors outside of the analytic mainstream that the article focuses on? It's especially interesting to hear about works dealing with (dis)trust in political or social contexts.

Sorry if this is not a philosophy question (though I think it is). But let's imagine a scenario - you win the lottery. The chances were 1/10000.

How likely would it be that you winning the lottery was not something that was determined by the 1/10000 chance? Since the chance was 1/10000, does it mean that the chance of it actually having been just pure chance, is also 1/10000? To me, statistically speaking, it makes more sense that if you won a lottery which was very unlikely to have been won, it would actually be much more likely that you won the lottery by some other circumstance, that was much more likely to occur than the 1/10000 chance.

What do you think? I hope I formulated my question well.

Hi everyone!

Hopefully, this is the right subreddit for this question.

I'm an English undergrad student working on an essay (due tomorrow night) regarding Lewis Carroll's Alice books and how he uses logic, games, and mathematics in Through the Looking Glass.

I know Carroll played a significant role in developing symbolic logic, but I'm struggling to properly understand its concept in a way I can confidently write about. To be more precise, I want to talk about symbolic logic as a concept and how it is considered mathematics and philosophy, etc. You know, as if the reader has no prior knowledge, except I ALSO don't have any prior knowledge, and I'm running out of time...

When I Google it, I mostly get results for the more modern math stuff, but I'm really looking for what Carroll would be doing, especially with language. I've found many papers about its application/analysis in the Alice books, and I understand that. I think I'm looking for a summary of Carroll's Symbolic Logic book or something along those lines.

Could someone please direct me toward any reputable source with a *general* explanation of Symbolic Logic according to Carroll?? (I'm not worried about access; I can figure out something if I don't have access to it)

Also, if someone can give me a quick breakdown, that would be awesome, too; it'll make scanning his work and identifying what I need a lot easier.

I'm sorry if this is vague or hard to read,I am VERY stressed right now LOL

Thank you so much for your help in advance! Anything and everything will be helpful!!

Hey all, I'm afraid I amn't from a philosophy background and so much of my knowledge comes from the interdisciplinary study I have done. To cut a long story short:

I am looking at a very niche topic in local history in which people of the time believe a miracle had occurred. The medical commission brought in to investigate the the "miracle" however are known to have altered the language used by the people due to the religious biases held by the people.

As I understand it, a testimonial injustice refers to the decision to discredit the testimony of an individual due to some trait possessed by the interviewee. Additionally, while it seems rational for medical professionals of the time to place less weight in such a testimony, I am not sure if changing the wording of those testimonies is an example of a testimonial injustice or perhaps another form of injustice. Any advice on what to look into would be interesting

I understand why Russell has the different approach to logicism, but what are the philosophical implications of the difference on mathematics?

My understanding is that Descartes does not clearly address this notion in the Meditations or any other significant publication, if this is not the case please indicate where he does so.

My doubt pertains to the following dilemma. Descartes claims that the objective reality of sensible modes can be doubted insofar as their accordance with the formal reality of the rest extensa. This is sound, as some kind of correspondence theory of truth. He also claims however that the clear and distinct perception of mathematical modes of res cogitans can be doubted by considering the agency of a deceitful God. This seems to raise some issues.

If mathematical objects are a formal reality of res cogitans then there is no underlying thing to which they can correlate and verify truthfulness or lack thereof. The simple clear and distinct perception would in itself consistute the entire ontology, and veracity, of mathematics. If there is an underlying thing however, then what is it? Is it another finite substance? Descartes only distinguishes between res cogitans and res extensa, is there a third substance encompassing the modes of intellect that are not sensible? If there is no such thing, then again, how can we pose the very possibility of doubt?

Thank you for pointing out misunderstandings and further reading.

Yes i know not questioning is always understood as keep doing/following/obeying something despite everything about that thing. What about the absolute? Not questioning as whole not tied to anything

Like belief : Do you need to believe in god? Do you need to not believe in god? Both oppose each other but its never: why do we have to question?

İsn't it sometimes best to not question? To not have a goal? Not To pick sides?, To go against? ,Try to change others? Or to be changed by them?

What about an existence where: nothing/no one go against anything. doing what people should have done without motives related to anything?

Does it always have to be a reason (for the good, for the bad, to be against, to help, for god, for science, for future)?

If either: bad, good or just the definition of "morale" was irrelevant. Just doing a thing in the sake of doing without motives. Just living because you live to live?

Yes. "To not question" might go against the whole existence of philosophy itself . But do we really need an answer for anything and everything /we do/ that's done /in existance/ that is existent/?

Yes i know this whole thing written here is questioning at its most yet its about the idea of not doing it. But wouldn't it be better for everyone to lose motives and exist for the sake of existing as simple as is?

By "faith" I don't mean only in a religious or theological context but rather in the epistemic context. Specifically I'm looking for philosophical discourse related to unjustified beliefs, i.e.supported by neither empirical evidence nor arguments.

I find the ethical frameworks of Kant and Hegel really interesting, but their views on social issues seem a bit outdated now that society has changed so much. I really like their work, though, and I’m curious if there are any modern philosophers who build on their ideas to address today’s issues. I’m interested in topics like abortion, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, right-wing populism, and euthanasia. Any suggestions?

I recently learned that a close friend at university might be voting for Trump.

First, there is the importance of respecting privacy in democratic processes—voting secrecy is often thought of as important to free choice such that we should refrain from inquiring into others’ votes. Yet, given the high stakes of this election and the closeness of our friendship, I also believe that thoughtful, civil discourse can foster mutual understanding and possibly moral growth.

In this situation, I am curious about the morally appropriate response. If she opts not to discuss her choice, how should I balance my respect for her autonomy and privacy with my desire to understand and potentially challenge a viewpoint that feels impactful? What is my ethical obligation here, if any, to pursue dialogue?

Not to mention, if she is unwilling to engage in discussion, would it be wrong to distance myself from the friendship? To what extent should shared values play a role in our friendships, and is it morally justifiable to reevaluate a close relationship over such political differences, especially if dialogue is off the table?

How can you argue against certain meaningless rituals, and how do they differ from symbolic actions, such as wearing a wedding ring or placing flowers on a grave?

For other reasons I’m asking is cuz Happiness is vital feeling, truly enjoying life and making best of it. It can be derived from materialistic things. And bring comfort. Security you connect better with people emotionally and Socially.

Why should due process exist for everyone ? And why is vigilantism or mob rule bad

It seems like at least in some cases we can prove guilt without needing legal processes. For example when someone gets caught in the act by 5 or more random people who do not know each other. Or on CCTV , should such people still deserve presumption of innocence ?

As for punishment when guilt is proven , one thing that often gets brought up is that emotions cloud us from making rational judgement on this matter as well but I find this argument weird because without emotions we wouldn't have a sense of what acts are right or wrong in the first place , why is punishment any different ? We need emotions to view certain actions worthy of punishment in the first place so why should we stop at there and not extend it to the consequences of such actions as well ?

If we are defining rule of law as a system where no person is deprived of their liberty except through legal procedures and that there is equality before law and equal protection of law

If evidence is whatever raises the probability of a hypothesis (it is), then wouldn’t me seeing that my glass of water has moved constitute some evidence that there is an invisible fairy that moved it? Or if I found lots of Gold buried under my house, would it not be evidence that there is a leprechaun that cares about me and put it over there? Because these conclusions seem somewhat unintuitive.

I stumbled upon this argument but I don't know the name or details.

I find it very convincing.

Basically, it argues that all behaviors, human or animal, are caused by the environment, because even culture and genes are shaped by the environment, not the other way around.

Critics will say humans could shape their environment, but this desire also comes from the environment and we cannot break this loop. Even man-made environments are just the same relationship.

It's like determinism, we cannot escape it, it's a one-way trip.

The concepts seem the same to me. I know determinism is more of a cause effect situation but would like to get more clarity on their difference

Hi! I'm a cognitive neuroscientist - not a philosopher - who after hours or reading still cannot understand the direct/naive realism perspective on perception. Firstly, what is the actual meaning of the word "representation" as it is used in philosophy? I don't understand how representation cannot be involved in perception; we must perceive the word through neural activity, which in some way must "show" us (or represent) the objects of our perception, so how can such a neural representation be bypassed such that we perceive things "directly" (whatever that means). Or does representation not mean "neural representation" at all?

I've also always been curious about whether the direct or naive realist would accept the following empirical evidence:

• That neural activity is needed to perceive anything. Without neurons, or a brain more generally, there is no perception or consciousness
• That neurons are inconsistent in their responses and cannot encode the world perfectly/directly
• Hence, perception is a process of inferring the "ground truth" of the world via noisy sensory data
• That neural activity is not just feedforward and even the earliest sensory activity is modulated by feedback from "higher" brain regions
• Thus, there are prior expectations / predictions / internal models that modulate perception
• That sensory representations (or activity, if the word "representation" cannot be used) are not fixed but highly flexible, adapting to both short-term/immediate sensory input and long-term sensory statistics

I'm not even sure whether these facts are inconsistent with direct realism or not, such is my confusion as to what it means! If you can, I would appreciate replies that communicate in simple terms and/or in a way that will be more intuitive for a cognitive neuroscientist and psychophysicist. For whatever reason, I can rarely make sense of philosophers' arguments, which I suspect is mostly an issue of communication style (yes I know this is a bit critical, but I just have to be honest - feel free to slander me in return!).

Appreciate any efforts to help me out here!

Or is it already depends upon our hormones and nervous system?

Actual infinity is completed and definite, and consists of infinitely many elements. Potential infinity is never complete: elements can be always added, but never infinitely many.

According to Aristotle, actual infinities cannot exist because they are paradoxical. It is impossible to say that you can always “take another step” or “add another member” in a completed set with a beginning and end, unlike a potential infinite.

i agree with aristotle it does not make sense to say to say there is an finite lake with infinite number of Fishes.

can inorder to have infinite number of fishes you need infinite lake.

I ask this under the pretenses of recent conversations I've had about my particular art style with other artists. The ones I'm friends with treat it as "real" art but many I don't know say it's doodles or something else that obviously implies a lesser quality due to the abstract nature of said piece.

My question is, from as objective of a view you can give to art, is calling something a doodle even really an insult? Like isn't a doodle with some level of intent still art, albeit not the most high effort version of it?

And if effort is a factor in what you consider to be art, what is your threshold and why?

Edit this probably violates the rules to which I apologize, moderators where should I post instead?

Undergrad philosophy question (I'm sorry).

I know this is a common critique that has been rebutted, but it really does seem that the description of what makes something computational is so broad that everything can be said to be computational. However, there are non-computational functionalists that believe there are cognitive phenomena that are not computational in nature.

I'm a neuroscience major, so I really need an empirical example or I will just feel shakey on this lol. Does the critique that the mind's functioning is temporally sensitive or nonserial take computationalism out of the running?

I apologize if this has been asked before but I'm trying to figure something out here. My friends and I are well educated but a lot of them are more in the liberal arts whereas I'm an engineer. We all love having thoughtful discussions and whatnot But I often feel left out when they start bringing up stuff related to philosophy and political theory. They'll throw around Kant and hagel and things like that, And I just don't know what these guys talked about or stood for. I want to understand but I have absolutely no idea how to. One of my friends who is an engineer has a deep understanding of all this but it's because he straight up just read their work which blows my mind. Maybe it's because I have ADHD but I definitely do not have the ability to sit down and read hundreds of pages of dense philosophy. I started listening to the podcast History of philosophy without any gaps, but I just realized they're on episode 450 and are only at the Renaissance, so I don't think that's going to be the most accessible way for me to understand what my friends are talking about when they bring up Foucault.

So my question is, is there any kind of guide or direction anyone can point me towards to just form a basic understanding of the big names in philosophy so that I can follow along in these conversations and understand? I'm not asking for a complete shortcut, I'm happy to spend many hours reading or listening to stuff in order to do this, But I need it to be more accessible than reading direct texts from the authors because that would require me probably taking notes and spending a lot of time on every page just to make sure I'm comprehending it. Thank you so much!

This is a topic I’m not too familiar with, but I have not actually found any serious arguments against virtue ethics. Almost all of them fail fairly easily, even some that try to use psychological studies. Is there anything convinced out there? If not, why is consequentialism just as popular? Are philosophers unaware of it? For those of you who do not take this position, why is that so? Thanks!

I've been self-learning philosophy and so far I've read the Euthyphro, the Apology, and the Crito. I've been reading the pheado but I've been getting bored. can I read the republic and the Pheado at the same time or will it not make sense?