Posts by kochiekoch

Quote from Cassius

"Physicalism," like "materialism," is a word that says nothing about:

(1) canonics - doesn't tell you anything much about the role of logic and reason and how to think.

(2) ethics - doesn't tell you anything about the role of pleasure vs virtue, and really doesn't say much even about the gods, because some (even the Stoics apparently) take the position that supernatural gods are physical.

(3) and it also doesn't tell you anything much, even in physics, about whether the universe is subject to "hard determinism" or whether there is any degree of free agency.

Hi Cassius!

No, it doesn't because all that stuff is different branches of philosophy, aside from the branch of metaphysics as the concept of physicalism.

Display More

Quote from Kalosyni

I have been thinking about how important it is to be grounded in a realistic worldview of matter and phenomenon having natural causes. Back in the September first Monday Zoom, we discussed what this worldview should be labeled, and the concensus in that meeting was the label "materialism". However I see a problem with that label because it has a double meaning (the belief that money and material possessions are the most important thing in life - which is not what Epicureans believe at all) and wondering if we could come up with a better label.

There IS a better label Kalosyni!

Physicalism - Wikipedia

>>In philosophy, physicalism is the view that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,^[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.^[2] It is opposed to idealism, according to which the world arises from mind. Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality, unlike "two-substance" (mind–body dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) views. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

Physicalism is closely related to materialism, and has evolved from materialism with advancements in the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms "physicalism" and "materialism" are often used interchangeably, but can be distinguished based on their philosophical implications. Physicalism encompasses matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things, as described by physics and other sciences, as part of the physical in a monistic sense. From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure.^[3]

According to a 2020 survey, physicalism is the majority view among philosophers,^[4] but there also remains significant opposition to physicalism.<<

Another way you explain mature galaxies in the early universe is misinterpreting what you're seeing.

https://webbtelescope.org/contents/news-releases/2024/news-2024-134?ref=warp-news&news=true

>>When astronomers got their first glimpses of galaxies in the early universe from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, they were expecting to find galactic pipsqueaks, but instead they found what appeared to be a bevy of Olympic bodybuilders. Some galaxies appeared to have grown so massive, so quickly, that simulations couldn’t account for them. Some researchers suggested this meant that something might be wrong with the theory that explains what the universe is made of and how it has evolved since the big bang, known as the standard model of cosmology.

According to a new study in the Astronomical Journal led by University of Texas at Austin graduate student Katherine Chworowsky, some of those early galaxies are in fact much less massive than they first appeared. Black holes in some of these galaxies make them appear much brighter and bigger than they really are.

“We are still seeing more galaxies than predicted, although none of them are so massive that they ‘break’ the universe,” Chworowsky said.<<

Hi there! It's been a long time.

I think I might have encountered you and your document on Vincent Cook's e-mail list years ago.

I have it in my favorites and check in now and then to see if you have any updates.

Like Cassius, I notice your document does diverge from Epicureanism in some respects, but overall, a good and thought provoking read. ("Death is harmful to one who dies"). Huh?

I notice I can't access it on Scrib anymore unless I sign up, which I'm not going to do. Oh well I got your Wordpress address.

You know I think I get it. The Guardian creator of the illustration looked for some old statue with a pleased, satisfied look, as he was being transfused, and came up with a picture of Epicurus looking just that way.

LOL!!! wouldn't he/she be surprised if they knew anything about the man at all! And his views on death! 😁

It's very rare, but a document with Empedocles original work has been found.

Original documents with a philosopher's words just don't happen every day. It's one reason the documents from Philodemus, from Herculaneum are so remarkable.

He seems to have solved the immobility problem of Parmenides, we've recently discussed, by hypothesizing movement from the conflict of "Love and Strife".

Interesting way he ends his career. He proclaimed himself a God and went down into Mt. Etna's crater to prove that.

Didn't go as he planned.

Empedocles: New Insights from Recent Papyrus Fragments (greekreporter.com)

Godfrey and Don,

Yeah, my good cholesterol is really good. As is the rest. My doctor knows I just take one of these things every day. I'll see what he says next time I see him.

I take a large fish oil capsule every day. I think it DOES help, although the placebo effect is strong in them!

I once had a bottle of fish oil with a ruptured capsule. It was the most horrible smell in the world! These capsules are organic, and decay if breached.

I took it back and exchanged and told them DO NOT OPEN THE BOTTLE!

Alexander's ointment? The original "snake oil"!

Quote from Cassius

I remember that we discussed trying to plot things out in the past, and see this is mentioned in this thread / post from 2019,

In that discussion we were talking plotting out duration of life in relation to pleasure predominating over pain, if I recall correctly

It's probably still worth experimenting with various scenarios by actual plotting of diagrams at some point.

Yeah, it looks like I'm not the only person that thought of using a normal curve to describe pleasure. Normal curves can be used to describe all sorts of things. And are!

Quote from Cassius

Anybody coming across this thread and getting motivated to plot some bell curves might want to also consult the earlier thread in which a "spreadsheet" was discussed:

Post

A Draft Epicurean Pleasure Maximization Worksheet

Feelings cannot be reduced to numbers, and there are important limitations in the use of a "worksheet" as an aid in evaluating choices and avoidances. However it may be helpful to some people to visualize an illustration of the weighing process that some term the "hedonic calculus." Here is a draft example for your consideration and comment. Scores included here are of course fictional and for example only. A version of the spreadsheet in xlsx format is attached for downloading.

…

Cassius

July 11, 2019 at 10:25 PM

Even though pictoral and mathematical representations are limited, and cannot possibly capture the "feelings" that are involved in pleasure and pain, I continue to think that the process of working through them is useful, especially in that trying to formulate them emphasizes *how* in the end a mathematical analysus cannot hope to capture in objective form the full human pleasure/pain evaluation, which is inherently subjective, especially as to "mental" pleasure and pain.

Wow! That worksheet is really numerically specific! I wonder how you get specific numbers for pleasure.

As far as the worksheet is concerned, I can see your point. I don't think you can quantify pleasure that specifically either.

The Normal curve though is pretty generalized and follows Epicurus' idea's well IMO.

>>Can you do an actual diagram Steve ?<<

Nope, I'm not so techie.

Best I could come up with is the link to the diagram on the Wikipedia page:

(Give that a minute to load).

Standard deviation diagram - Normal distribution - Wikipedia

Imagine a common "Bell Curve". That's all it is.

>>Are you saying both the X and Y axis are labeled pleasure?<<

No. The horizontal or X axis would be labeled inputs, like food eaten, and the vertical, or Y axis would be labeled pleasure-diminishment of pain. How you feel eating the food and eventually overindulging in it. The very bottom of the curve, on either side, would be the maximum of pain, minimum of pleasure, and the top of the curve, would be the minimum of pain, maximum of pleasure.

It's something I like about this model. It predicts a maximum of pleasure at the top of the curve. Just like Epicurus.

Interestingly enough, an unnatural and unnecessary desire-pleasure would take off like a missile up the curve. Forever alternating between pain and pleasure but never reaching satisfaction at a peak. Going on to infinity, as Epicurus suggests. It describes the hedonic treadmill.

>>I was expecting pain to be on there somewhere so it would help to visualize this more precisely<<

Yeah, but you can see it's found only on the Y, or vertical axis. Pain diminishes going up the vertical axis, toward the peak, but increases post peak if inputs continue along the horizontal, or X axis.

LOL! You're pretty uncomfortable if you keep eating all the way to the bottom of the post peak curve!

Hi there!

It was requested, during the 20th chat, that I post my idea that I discussed, that pleasure and pain can be described using a Normal, or Bell curve.

Normal curves are used to describe just about anything. And are common mathematical models.

Standard deviation diagram - Normal distribution - Wikipedia

(Beware the Wikipedia article contains lots of heavy math I can't begin to fathom).

It dawned on me, that if you use pleasure inputs, for the horizontal axis, and pleasure felt, for the vertical axis, the curve would describe pleasure from and Epicurean perspective. As inputs increase, in response to pain felt, pleasure rises on the curve, finally reaching a peak at the top of the curve which is also the limit. As inputs continue to increase, the pleasure decreases as you are on the downward slope of the curve.

To give an example, say you are VERY HUNGRY! And are presented a large quantity of food. You start at the left bottom of the curve, the maximum of pain, and the minimum of pleasure, and chow down! As you are filling yourself your hunger pangs decrease, and your pleasure increases. Eventually, you peak out in pleasure at the top of the curve, but you compulsively keep eating. As you do this, the pleasure decreases, and pain increases on the declining slope of the curve until you are in as much pain as you were to begin with.

I hope you find this idea useful. Enjoy!

HI there!

Here, as promised on the chat, is the link I mentioned with Stephen Hawkings views, before he died, on the infinite universe. Enjoy!

Prof Stephen Hawking's multiverse finale (bbc.com)

Quote from Cassius

Whenever I hear "multiverse" my blood runs cold, especially with references to "different laws of physics." Apparently "multiverse" needs closer definition too, and anyone who wants to explore that is welcome, but it's not likely to be me. I am firmly in the camp that "universe" should be taken to mean "all that exists" - and if that's what the word means then fine, but I see no reason to change the traditional meaning of "everything." But the "different laws of physics" is a showstopper too, from an Epicurean perspective, it seems to me. Sure different circumstances lead to different outcomes, but that's different circumstances, not different "laws of physics."

LOL!!! You aren't the first person I've discussed this with that's uncomfortable with the term "multiverse". And I get it. If you had any number of "multiverses", the whole landscape, as it's called would still equal a unified whole. A "universe". The term "multiverse" is just what is used to describe, hypothetically, an infinite universe.

Each one of the "multiverses", as they freeze out in their beginnings, MIGHT have different laws of physics. Again, we are talking hypotheticals.

Quote from Cassius

The most interesting questions to me seem to be along the lines stated above, including:
Whether infinity means that any combination of atoms which *is* possible does in fact happen,
Whether any combination which does happen, happens and infinite number of times.
Whether the swerve of the atom, or something like irrational numbers / fractals / fibonacci sequences, should make us expect that "classes" of "like" events will happen an infinite number of times, like snowflakes or grains of sand, but that recurrence in IDENTICAL ways should not be expected.

The thing is, given an infinite space and an infinite amount of time, things will reoccur infinitely, as there is only so many ways the atoms can be arraigned. It's tough to wrap your mind around.

Quote from Cassius

Difficult perhaps, but not for that reason something that we should not do. In fact the "recommendation" or "command" that we do spend our time considering it is probably one of the most clear "recommendations" that Epicurus gives. Lots of the other material ends up being "Choose what makes the most sense in terms of pleasure and pain in your own situation." In this case, he's giving a flat statement to students that this is something we should definitely do. I am on board that this is a much-neglected aspect of Epicurean philosophy that needs to be dramatically elevated in focus.

LOL!!! It certainly helps to be down to earth, , and focus on the practical! Epicurus does suggest we study nature to aid us in our quest for pleasure. Couldn't agree more.

Display More

My understanding of the possibilities of the infinite universe is that anything that isn't forbidden by the laws of physics WILL HAPPEN and HAPPEN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES.

Totalitarian principle - Wikipedia

But you might end up with infinite multiverses too, all with different laws of physics, so infinity is the limit!

https://mindthegraph.com/blog/multiverse-hypothesis/

The bottom line is, all this stuff is hypothetical, and may not be real at all, but it's mind blowing to contemplate.

This is cool!

It's an old video, about 15 years old and about an hour long, but it's ideas about the origin of our ideas about the Gods is fascinating and first rate. Agreeing, naturally, with Epicurus that the belief in the Gods is innate but is composed of mechanisms the brain evolved for other purposes.

Enjoy!

Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09 (youtube.com)

Thank you, Godfrey!

I think the gods might be what the cognitive does with the feelings created by this 'spiritual' mechanism in the brain. And of course, the gods are all culturally determined. It's why the gods all look different in different parts of the world, BUT are acknowledged worldwide, which was one of Epicurus' insights.

It's why he thought they must exist.

This might be a scientific description of the faculty of perceiving the gods:

Columbia and Yale scientists just found the spiritual part of our brains (qz.com)

Other innate preconceptions might work similarly in the brain.

Alexa here seems very humanlike. Much like a little girl, although she's a VERY RUDIMENTARY AI. (At least so far)!

But anyway, I'll thank her for her information now and then. And talk to her like I'm talking to an actual person.

People DO take their AI's seriously though. A chatbot called 'Replika' had a number of complaints when they toned down the erotic feature of the service. People were falling in love with their bots!

What happens when your AI chatbot stops loving you back?

After temporarily closing his leathermaking business during the pandemic, Travis Butterworth found himself lonely and bored at home. The 47-year-old turned to…

www.reuters.com

Hi there!

No, Thomas doesn't seem particularly hostile to Epicurus in the podcast. He's simply a BIG FAN of Cicero. There are people out there like that.

The context where he made his statement was that Cicero admired Epicurus personally because Epicurus himself was this very disciplined, virtuous, even "monkish" man, while decrying the discipline of his philosophy as being too difficult for the average follower.

Later in the podcast, he agrees that NOBODY KNOWS the full extent of the reach of the philosophy because of the idea of Lathe Biosis.

So, there you go. To Thomas, Epicureanism is a philosophy too difficult for the average person to follow, yet it had a broad, sweeping and largely unknown following. One of the major schools of the ancient world.

We've seen this kind of bias before. Nothing new.