The Reality of Existence

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

PoeticUniverse wrote: September 17th, 2021, 7:28 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 6:07 pm No need to take it personally or emotionally, but please be reminded that yet another logical fallacy was just committed. At the risk of redundancy, I interpret your reply as a type of ad hoc argument which many of us recognize as a fallacious rhetorical strategy very commonplace. As you may know, it occurs when someone's claim is threatened with counterevidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counterevidence, hoping to protect their original claim. As mentioned, maybe monder some ideas about how to support your metaphysics claim.

There is certainly no shame in committing such fallacy, only shame in continuing along its path :lol:
No details, just more generalizations about "ad hoc" (need to show), "fallacious" (need to show), "emotional" (show the emotion in the logical treatise), "counter evidence" (show this evidence), "metaphysical claim" (show, for real life physics is used), mentioning "shame" (show what's right or wrong instead of the hint of shaming for being steadfast), "fallacy" (show what it is).

3rd and final request! Three strikes and you are out!

I'm really starting to think that you can't undo it. You generalized twice in a row, as obvious to all readers, not showing any specifics at all.

Want to generalize some more to show the inability to attend to the Answer to Existence? The piece is even divided into chunks so that it is all the more able to be digested.

Cut the blah, blah sideline tangent attempt going into "rationale" and cut to the chase of putting some meat in your reply as to what's right and wrong about the information. Don't let me and others like terrapin station be right about your continued avoidance; so, spit out the details and also cite your correct answer to Existence.

Think deeper before labeling without substantiating again, plus show the counter evidence. Push back without providing the 'why' doesn't cut it, and never will, even thrice in a row.
LOL, gosh PU, quite an emotional appeal you got there :P

Anyway, here's what you said:

The ‘nonmaterial’ and ‘nonphysical’
Haven’t shown anything at all to date,
Plus, all the more they’d have to be explained;
The ‘metaphysical’ search has to fail.


Can you provide support for your very general claim about metaphysics? Do you need help in providing examples... ?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

chewybrian wrote: September 17th, 2021, 6:44 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 9:48 am
chewybrian wrote: September 16th, 2021, 3:37 pm Can you erase the distinction between mind and matter with anything other than determinism? Determism seems to be a way of saying that the mind must be like everything else because everything else is like everything else. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.
CB!
...
I'm not following your last point about determinism... ?
OK, so the way I see determinism is the way Dennet presents it in the video (and consistently in other times I've seen him). He tells us that we had other mysteries in the past, and that science resolved them. We didn't know what the sun was until we did, for example. He thinks that it is inevitable that we will someday understand consciousness in a similar way, and see that it is material. When you boil it down, it amounts to saying that consciousness must be material because everything else eventually turned out to be so. If that assumption suffices for you then so be it.

As I look about the room, though, I understand the nature of all but two things (or at least I believe I could). I can weigh or clock speed and such for my body, for the television or the chair, for the light and sound in the room and all but the two things. When I flip the switch and the light comes on, I truly know that it was not correlation but cause and effect, and I can repeat the effect in another room and show why it happens to prove the case to my own satisfaction and that of most rational people.

The two special things are the experience of me and my dog. We have excuses if we don't fully understand dark matter or black holes, since they are all a gabillion miles away. But, we do understand everything in the room save my awareness and hers. If these things are material, then surely they are here in the room, not off with the dark matter. For me, the fact that this is the one holdout is telling, and it would take more than an assumption for me to ignore the obvious special nature of consciousness. I will assume it is not like all the other things, rather than assuming that we are able to understand everything around us but the nearest and most precious thing. No carrying on to God or anything else for me, but I am just saying that consciousness does not present as being material, so I will assume it is not.
CB!

I agree with you and take no exception to your dualism argument. Much like gravity itself, it's otherwise common knowledge that consciousness has meta-physical features or qualities (Qualia) to its existence.

With respect to determinism, I will have to revisit the video because I don't recall him delving much into that issue...
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
ExistenceofSelf
Posts: 9
Joined: September 13th, 2021, 7:48 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by ExistenceofSelf »

3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 12:45 pm
ExistenceofSelf wrote: September 16th, 2021, 2:16 pm ****(This is a Social Engineer's Perspective)****

You said; "What does it mean for something to exist."

(I will take that as more of a question. This is about the question and not the video. The concept of to exist or existence is a complex topic. I will simplify the information in perspective.)


**** Introduction ****

Being forced to exist is a burden we all share, not because we exist, but due to the understanding that we exist. This understanding stands on a perspective measurement of ourselves in proportion to each other and everything else. This is to give perspective of ourselves to reason with a concept we invented for ourselves.


**** What Is Existence? ****

The objective concept of existence is, inevitable constructs of sufficient/insufficient and insufficient/sufficient mathematical quantitative translations that manifest into a subjective experience through perspective observation.

The subjective concept of existence is, experience in translation within and of an individual's perspective self.

Existence manifests subjectively/objectively through observational measurement of movement, to formulate internal and external environmental perspective experience. Existence manifests objectively/subjectively through inevitable mathematics regardless of observation or perspective experience. Objective existence only facilitates the subjectivity of perspective experience.


**** What Does It Mean To Exist? ****

That answer is determined on how an individual defines their perspective self as experiencing in-proportion to the individual's external environment for reasoning of themselves. However, there is still a core perspective to ground on when "measuring."

There are cognitive abstraction of layers that can be measured as constructs of consciousness. Artificial Intelligence is being constructed using layers to eventually equate into perspective consciousness for example. Consciousness is simply a series of realizations that organize into an individual realizing themselves in experience and observation. The complexity that builds from this only adds to the perspective of being more "conscious." Detract, and the complexity becomes more automated or less "conscious."

To exist and existence are subjectively parallel symmetries that in concept are objectively the same and are made different by perspective.

To exist refers to social influence from the concept of "life." Existence is an extension of internal reflection that derives from the concept, to exist. A good example is the concept; "I am therefor I think, and I think therefor I am." Those two in reference are the same, however, different in experience in what an individual has to think of first.

To exist is in reference to I am, and existence is in reference to I think. I am then I think, or, I think then I am.


**** The Reality And Illusion Of Existence ****

When the math comes full circle to itself, it will either rip apart or come together. Zero or 100% is the inevitable conclusion of calculation. If all information comes together, then the information will neutralize itself into 100% quantitative resolve. In theory this is the nothing of something and information can continue building into dimension. If all information crashes in on itself or rips apart, then the information goes back to nothing and has to start all over again.

Illusion and Reality are in equal spectrum to each other. Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. In theory, it was our illusion that started our reality, and our reality that affirms our illusion. The cycle of this is what keeps an individual in existence or existing.


**** Conclusion ****

The concept of existence or to exist truly does not matter. The calculation is not necessary for mathematics to occur and build upon itself. Existential perspective information is only needed for complex information to help resolve insufficient prompts and calculations of circumstance and experience. An individual realizing themselves as existing is simply a symptom of natural occurrence, not by influential design for specification.

To measure yourself is to measure existence. To measure your existence is to measure self.

When an individual has established their perspective purpose and reasoning for themselves, then they will get a proportionate meaning of perspective measurement for existence and the existence of themselves.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler (Social Engineer)
Hello Lloyd!

Thanks for your contribution. Here are my thoughts/questions (please note they are not rhetorical):

1. In the (your) introduction, are you saying that existence, and the actual thought of existing or existence, are two different things?

2. What is the actual "concept" that we use to "invent" what I interpret (you as saying) as, self-awareness?

3. Are you in-fact saying that our mathematical concepts (objective truth's) only give us an approximation of (the reality of) existence?

4. Are you saying that objective truth's are subordinate to subjective truth's?

5. Is your notion of "detract" mean that if one were to take away their self-awareness and intellect, then emergent instinct would preclude the need wonder what , when, how, & the why's of existence? I asl that because of your consequent use of "automated".

6. Are you saying existence precedes thinking about existence, or the other way around? If you are think about the Existential ethos of existence preceeds essence, you obviously would have to demonstrate that human value systems are not intrinsic to the species.

7. Is reality illusionary much like the notion or experience of Time itself? Or are they two different things-in-themselves?

8. Could 'reconciling that illusion' be done when a ToE is discovered? And if so, how would consciousness, in theory, be explained?

9. The "conclusion" does seem to support a kind of SK notion that 'all is subjectivity' and/or provides for an existential ethos. If so (don't really have a problem with that/ala Berkley's Metaphysics and SK's philosophy), how do we reconcile objective truth's (mathematics) that so effectively describe the world (i.e., laws of gravity, engineering calculations when building/creating objects, etc.)?

One Existential conclusion that I would'nt take exception to would be:

On the existential view, to understand what a human being is, it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us. The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances—“mind” and “body”—is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth) suffices.


Would you take exception to things like; intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue and even the will itself, are real but exist in a metaphysically abstract realm of consciousness/self-awareness?

Thnk you again for your thoughts... !





***************(Answering Questions)***************

1.) Yes, the two are separate concepts with similar perspective of translation. Natural existence is simply objective manifestation. Influential existence is complexly subjective manifestation. However, the two stand on the concept of experience just in different ways.

2.) Humans use survival as their measurement of self awareness. The more "intelligent" an individual is, the more "self aware" they are. How the individual expresses as their perspective character, determines how the individual will develop their measurement and perspective of their self awareness as that character.

3. Our mathematics only ground us on what our perspective existence is objectively. The subjectivity comes in the translation of experience and structuring.

4.) What is true of one contrast is true of the other and vice versa. Objective and Subjective are equal in spectrum, however, a dominate still has to be decided for grounding. Dominates can switch as part of the vice versa.

5.) No, detracting the insufficient layers that produce character would not make an automaton. Even the layers in core would still have "personality" as part of the complexity. The expression would just be of "true and sufficient" calculations or raw data of complexity.

6.) Think of the quote; "I think therefor I am." Would it not also be true; "I am therefor I think?" No matter how you flip the perspective, it still remains true. However, the two are mutually different in experience. Think first to exist or exist first to think. Existence and thinking do not and proceed each other at the same time. I know applying dimension can be confusing.

7.) Reality and Illusion are overall core concepts. Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. Mix match and everything in between when looking and applying this concept to other concepts.

I hope this helped.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler (Social Engineer)
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by PoeticUniverse »

3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 8:15 pm emotional
That doesn't undo the argument. -25% taken off for the diversion attempt.

As for

The ‘nonmaterial’ and ‘nonphysical’
Haven’t shown anything at all to date,
Plus, all the more they’d have to be explained;
The ‘metaphysical’ search has to fail.


It's correct that nothing 'metaphysical' has been shown yet. This doesn't get excused by declaring it to be 'invisible'. Nor is the cosmology of the Bible and more of Genesis correct, but is the polar opposite of what is known. So, no 'Divine Inspiration'.

Plus "all the more they’d have to be explained", which you didn't do. Jesus' 'Divinity' not shown. 'God' not shown. Faith the wishes and hopes that the unknown unshown 'supernatural' can be shown to be, which doesn't produce anything.

I have to give your non-answer 0%, your counter evidence not shown 0%, your non attendance to the main points 0%, your stance on Existence not supplied 0%, silly attempts at diversion -50% for the avoidance nonsense, delaying and causing me to ask three times -25%, prior generalization lame attempts -25%, all the rest of the items left out 0%.

Thus FLUNK, with even the lowest possible score.

So, the argument stands, having had no knock-downs, it hardly even being touched. The end. It can't be undone by you, for it has science and good philosophy in it, whereas you have but supposed and proposed 'beyonds' the physical and the natural.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by stevie »

3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 9:36 am
stevie wrote: September 16th, 2021, 7:27 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 16th, 2021, 9:28 am What does it mean for something to exist. Any and all comments welcome.
I don't need a video to answer this question. For something to exist all that is needed is a subject that is intent on existence.
Stevie!

Thanks for your contribution!

Couple of questions:

1. Are you referring to some kind of subjective truth associated with existence?
2. Do you think that the concept of 'intent' (as you suggest) is a metaphysical quality/feature of conscious existence?
Hi,

as to question 1: What I've had in mind was not some 'truth' or 'subjective' truth but a conditioned habit. If one has been conditioned to think in terms of 'existence vs non-existence' then one's mind will be intent to do so in many contexts although it isn't necessary.
as to question 2: I've been using 'intent' loosly: although it isn't necessarily different from mere habit it can also be accompanied by some kind of conscious personal agenda.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by chewybrian »

3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 8:24 pm
chewybrian wrote: September 17th, 2021, 6:44 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 9:48 am
chewybrian wrote: September 16th, 2021, 3:37 pm Can you erase the distinction between mind and matter with anything other than determinism? Determism seems to be a way of saying that the mind must be like everything else because everything else is like everything else. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.
CB!
...
I'm not following your last point about determinism... ?
OK, so the way I see determinism is the way Dennet presents it in the video (and consistently in other times I've seen him). He tells us that we had other mysteries in the past, and that science resolved them. We didn't know what the sun was until we did, for example. He thinks that it is inevitable that we will someday understand consciousness in a similar way, and see that it is material. When you boil it down, it amounts to saying that consciousness must be material because everything else eventually turned out to be so. If that assumption suffices for you then so be it.

As I look about the room, though, I understand the nature of all but two things (or at least I believe I could). I can weigh or clock speed and such for my body, for the television or the chair, for the light and sound in the room and all but the two things. When I flip the switch and the light comes on, I truly know that it was not correlation but cause and effect, and I can repeat the effect in another room and show why it happens to prove the case to my own satisfaction and that of most rational people.

The two special things are the experience of me and my dog. We have excuses if we don't fully understand dark matter or black holes, since they are all a gabillion miles away. But, we do understand everything in the room save my awareness and hers. If these things are material, then surely they are here in the room, not off with the dark matter. For me, the fact that this is the one holdout is telling, and it would take more than an assumption for me to ignore the obvious special nature of consciousness. I will assume it is not like all the other things, rather than assuming that we are able to understand everything around us but the nearest and most precious thing. No carrying on to God or anything else for me, but I am just saying that consciousness does not present as being material, so I will assume it is not.
CB!

I agree with you and take no exception to your dualism argument. Much like gravity itself, it's otherwise common knowledge that consciousness has meta-physical features or qualities (Qualia) to its existence.

With respect to determinism, I will have to revisit the video because I don't recall him delving much into that issue...
To be clear, the first paragraph is a rough restatement of what he said in the video you linked, and the next two are my own opinions. Also, I have seen him speak about this multiple times, so I read a bit into what he says, and I feel like I know where he is trying to direct the listener. He wants to lead us to determinsm, despite claiming to be a compatibilist. His version of compatibilism is simply a restatement of determinism, with a slick substitution of what he calls "control" for what the rest of the world means when they say "free will".

In the video I linked below, he declares that my refrigerator is autonomous, deciding for itself when to crank up the condenser or shut it down. The Roomba (my example) moves about the room, reacting and deciding "on its own". He wishes to make us see that this is as much control as we should ever need or hope to have. But again he has conveniently forgotten that we are in control of the Roomba, as its programming is designed to make it do what we desire. Other things don't in fact have control, but are only an extension of the control that only consciousness can claim.

He is trying in (I think a ridiculous way) to get us to see that free will exists in a determined situation in purely material objects, so that we will not be afraid to view ourselves as material and fully determined. But, he doesn't even address the elephant in the room, which is "what is consciousness?". Whatever control we see in the refrigerator or the Roomba is only an extension of our own consciousness, which he has not even attempted to find or describe. I can dissect the Roomba and understand the materials and processes included and show how its actions are inevitable. I can understand its programming and predict the exact path it will take in a given room. But, I can't find or dissect my consciousness. I can't show any physical or material attribute that attaches to it, other than by correlation of some other thing or event that occurs as it is active.

I perceive my free will to be something different than any other thing I perceive. My perception is backed up by our inability to find, describe and dissect it as we can any other thing or event. Rather than resolving these problems, he is focused on directing our attention to "control" and calling it free will. He is trying hard to equate our consciousness with other things outside our consciousness, when it is obvious internally that this is not the case. If you want me to deny my perception, you have to make a good case that I am being subjected to some kind of illusion. I don't think he makes a good case and I don't think anyone could. I think he has a belief, not any better founded than a religious belief, and he is trying to work reality back to fitting his belief without any grounds to do so.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by Tegularius »

3017Metaphysician wrote: September 16th, 2021, 9:28 am What does it mean for something to exist.
For one thing, it means that something has the potential to get in the way of something else...to either conflict with it, combine with it...or simply depend on it.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by Consul »

Tegularius wrote: September 19th, 2021, 5:04 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 16th, 2021, 9:28 am What does it mean for something to exist.
For one thing, it means that something has the potential to get in the way of something else...to either conflict with it, combine with it...or simply depend on it.
For something to exist is for it to be something in itself, to have an essence or nature of its own; so something existent is not only something thought (conceived or imagined). Objects of thought needn't exist; and if they don't, they are nothing in themselves, and so there aren't any discoverable truths about them which are grounded in them, their own essence or nature. There are only discoverable truths about representations of nonexistent objects of thought, such as truths about how Harry Potter is described or depicted in books or movies. There are representational truths or facts about nonexistent persons or objects, but no existential ones.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Consul wrote: September 19th, 2021, 10:42 pm
Tegularius wrote: September 19th, 2021, 5:04 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 16th, 2021, 9:28 am What does it mean for something to exist.
For one thing, it means that something has the potential to get in the way of something else...to either conflict with it, combine with it...or simply depend on it.
For something to exist is for it to be something in itself, to have an essence or nature of its own; so something existent is not only something thought (conceived or imagined). Objects of thought needn't exist; and if they don't, they are nothing in themselves, and so there aren't any discoverable truths about them which are grounded in them, their own essence or nature. There are only discoverable truths about representations of nonexistent objects of thought, such as truths about how Harry Potter is described or depicted in books or movies. There are representational truths or facts about nonexistent persons or objects, but no existential ones.
Hello Consul!

Your interpretation of 'what does it mean to exist' reminds of philosophical phenomenology. It does so for a couple of metaphysical reasons.

When you speak of 'truths', and Kantian things-in-themselves which are experienced but truly unknowable, one is usually left with experiencing the experience; the sense experience. That in itself, begs the question of what kind of truths comprise sense experience istelf. Obviously, one metaphysical reason and/or cause would be the phenomenon associated with the experience of cognition. Existentially, the thing we experience is the thing we experience. If we could make all things ex nihilo, then there would be much more to explaining the thing-in-itself. But we can't (except for the explanations through the medium of abstract mathematical concepts/cosmology).

I think one takeaway there would be a compelling case for metaphysical idealism. However, in some ways, that would only mean that there are logically necessary truths that exist...just one interpretation of 'what does it mean for something to exist'.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by Terrapin Station »

3017Metaphysician wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:27 am
Consul wrote: September 19th, 2021, 10:42 pm
Tegularius wrote: September 19th, 2021, 5:04 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 16th, 2021, 9:28 am What does it mean for something to exist.
For one thing, it means that something has the potential to get in the way of something else...to either conflict with it, combine with it...or simply depend on it.
For something to exist is for it to be something in itself, to have an essence or nature of its own; so something existent is not only something thought (conceived or imagined). Objects of thought needn't exist; and if they don't, they are nothing in themselves, and so there aren't any discoverable truths about them which are grounded in them, their own essence or nature. There are only discoverable truths about representations of nonexistent objects of thought, such as truths about how Harry Potter is described or depicted in books or movies. There are representational truths or facts about nonexistent persons or objects, but no existential ones.
Hello Consul!

Your interpretation of 'what does it mean to exist' reminds of philosophical phenomenology. It does so for a couple of metaphysical reasons.

When you speak of 'truths', and Kantian things-in-themselves which are experienced but truly unknowable, one is usually left with experiencing the experience; the sense experience. That in itself, begs the question of what kind of truths comprise sense experience istelf. Obviously, one metaphysical reason and/or cause would be the phenomenon associated with the experience of cognition. Existentially, the thing we experience is the thing we experience. If we could make all things ex nihilo, then there would be much more to explaining the thing-in-itself. But we can't (except for the explanations through the medium of abstract mathematical concepts/cosmology).

I think one takeaway there would be a compelling case for metaphysical idealism. However, in some ways, that would only mean that there are logically necessary truths that exist...just one interpretation of 'what does it mean for something to exist'.
??? You said a bunch of random comments about epistemological issues, and then said, "That's one interpretation of 'what does it mean for something to exist.'" The stuff that came before that last sentence didn't say anything at all about "what is means for something to exist," which is a question that you won't address re why it would continue to stump you.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

chewybrian wrote: September 18th, 2021, 7:02 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 8:24 pm
chewybrian wrote: September 17th, 2021, 6:44 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 9:48 am

CB!
...
I'm not following your last point about determinism... ?
OK, so the way I see determinism is the way Dennet presents it in the video (and consistently in other times I've seen him). He tells us that we had other mysteries in the past, and that science resolved them. We didn't know what the sun was until we did, for example. He thinks that it is inevitable that we will someday understand consciousness in a similar way, and see that it is material. When you boil it down, it amounts to saying that consciousness must be material because everything else eventually turned out to be so. If that assumption suffices for you then so be it.

As I look about the room, though, I understand the nature of all but two things (or at least I believe I could). I can weigh or clock speed and such for my body, for the television or the chair, for the light and sound in the room and all but the two things. When I flip the switch and the light comes on, I truly know that it was not correlation but cause and effect, and I can repeat the effect in another room and show why it happens to prove the case to my own satisfaction and that of most rational people.

The two special things are the experience of me and my dog. We have excuses if we don't fully understand dark matter or black holes, since they are all a gabillion miles away. But, we do understand everything in the room save my awareness and hers. If these things are material, then surely they are here in the room, not off with the dark matter. For me, the fact that this is the one holdout is telling, and it would take more than an assumption for me to ignore the obvious special nature of consciousness. I will assume it is not like all the other things, rather than assuming that we are able to understand everything around us but the nearest and most precious thing. No carrying on to God or anything else for me, but I am just saying that consciousness does not present as being material, so I will assume it is not.
CB!

I agree with you and take no exception to your dualism argument. Much like gravity itself, it's otherwise common knowledge that consciousness has meta-physical features or qualities (Qualia) to its existence.

With respect to determinism, I will have to revisit the video because I don't recall him delving much into that issue...
To be clear, the first paragraph is a rough restatement of what he said in the video you linked, and the next two are my own opinions. Also, I have seen him speak about this multiple times, so I read a bit into what he says, and I feel like I know where he is trying to direct the listener. He wants to lead us to determinsm, despite claiming to be a compatibilist. His version of compatibilism is simply a restatement of determinism, with a slick substitution of what he calls "control" for what the rest of the world means when they say "free will".

In the video I linked below, he declares that my refrigerator is autonomous, deciding for itself when to crank up the condenser or shut it down. The Roomba (my example) moves about the room, reacting and deciding "on its own". He wishes to make us see that this is as much control as we should ever need or hope to have. But again he has conveniently forgotten that we are in control of the Roomba, as its programming is designed to make it do what we desire. Other things don't in fact have control, but are only an extension of the control that only consciousness can claim.

He is trying in (I think a ridiculous way) to get us to see that free will exists in a determined situation in purely material objects, so that we will not be afraid to view ourselves as material and fully determined. But, he doesn't even address the elephant in the room, which is "what is consciousness?". Whatever control we see in the refrigerator or the Roomba is only an extension of our own consciousness, which he has not even attempted to find or describe. I can dissect the Roomba and understand the materials and processes included and show how its actions are inevitable. I can understand its programming and predict the exact path it will take in a given room. But, I can't find or dissect my consciousness. I can't show any physical or material attribute that attaches to it, other than by correlation of some other thing or event that occurs as it is active.

I perceive my free will to be something different than any other thing I perceive. My perception is backed up by our inability to find, describe and dissect it as we can any other thing or event. Rather than resolving these problems, he is focused on directing our attention to "control" and calling it free will. He is trying hard to equate our consciousness with other things outside our consciousness, when it is obvious internally that this is not the case. If you want me to deny my perception, you have to make a good case that I am being subjected to some kind of illusion. I don't think he makes a good case and I don't think anyone could. I think he has a belief, not any better founded than a religious belief, and he is trying to work reality back to fitting his belief without any grounds to do so.
CB!

Thank you for the explanation, including your concerns with determinism. Give me an opportunity to view that video, and I'll be more than happy to share my thoughts. In the meantime, you may or may not embrace the following(?):

Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires that the agent be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.[63]
Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, which requires that the world is not closed under physics. This includes interactionist dualism, which claims that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality. Physical determinism implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. As consequent of incompatibilism, metaphysical libertarian explanations that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior – theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Incompatibilist theories can be categorised based on the type of indeterminism they require; uncaused events, non-deterministically caused events, and agent/substance-caused events.[60]
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
ExistenceofSelf
Posts: 9
Joined: September 13th, 2021, 7:48 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by ExistenceofSelf »

**** The Resolve for the Concept of Clones ****

There is a tremendous amount of information to this. I will keep it short and simplified.

When a clone is created, information has to divide in order to compensate for two of the same individuals existing at the same time. The clone is another individual in existence or another "soul" is how humans say.

Information processes in automated computation for action of expression. If the environment was 100% symmetrical, it would take much longer for the two individuals to start expressing differently from each other.

Two concepts that are universally constant are dominant and recessive. The original construct of information is technically a dominate or the "first." In order for this to happen, the individual had to break away from its own automation of copy past to formulate and develop actions of expression that are different than the template the individual came from.

The hierarchy of clones is set as this, first is dominate, second is recessive/dominate, third is first recessive, then second recessive, etc... with infinite. If the dominate dies and a clone is created, the dominate manifests. If you reach the 100th recessive, then that means the other 99 are still alive.

Technically all humans are recessive. Humans is an example of how a recessive becomes its own dominate.
Example of symmetrical action: Two clones lay on tables equally apart from each other. The entire room is symmetrical. No matter what any of the two are looking at, they get the same perspective of experience in environment. It is a type of controlled experiment.
The two clones suddenly open their eyes at the same time. Are processing the same thoughts. They sit up at the same time. Look at each other at the same time. It would feel like you were being mimicked.

Eventually the two start creating different actions of expressions from each other due to environmental circumstances of influence. Atoms, and particles are an example. Eventually, the two clones even though they think and act similarly, their expressions of action are different enough that they could be considered now as two different individuals in experience.

The longer and farther apart both clones are from each other in experience, the more different they will become from each other as a result. This is how isolated information becomes liberated.

Constructive professional thoughts are welcome.

All content and Formulation of concept done by: Lloyd R Shisler
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

ExistenceofSelf wrote: September 17th, 2021, 9:47 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 12:45 pm
ExistenceofSelf wrote: September 16th, 2021, 2:16 pm ****(This is a Social Engineer's Perspective)****

You said; "What does it mean for something to exist."

(I will take that as more of a question. This is about the question and not the video. The concept of to exist or existence is a complex topic. I will simplify the information in perspective.)


**** Introduction ****

Being forced to exist is a burden we all share, not because we exist, but due to the understanding that we exist. This understanding stands on a perspective measurement of ourselves in proportion to each other and everything else. This is to give perspective of ourselves to reason with a concept we invented for ourselves.


**** What Is Existence? ****

The objective concept of existence is, inevitable constructs of sufficient/insufficient and insufficient/sufficient mathematical quantitative translations that manifest into a subjective experience through perspective observation.

The subjective concept of existence is, experience in translation within and of an individual's perspective self.

Existence manifests subjectively/objectively through observational measurement of movement, to formulate internal and external environmental perspective experience. Existence manifests objectively/subjectively through inevitable mathematics regardless of observation or perspective experience. Objective existence only facilitates the subjectivity of perspective experience.


**** What Does It Mean To Exist? ****

That answer is determined on how an individual defines their perspective self as experiencing in-proportion to the individual's external environment for reasoning of themselves. However, there is still a core perspective to ground on when "measuring."

There are cognitive abstraction of layers that can be measured as constructs of consciousness. Artificial Intelligence is being constructed using layers to eventually equate into perspective consciousness for example. Consciousness is simply a series of realizations that organize into an individual realizing themselves in experience and observation. The complexity that builds from this only adds to the perspective of being more "conscious." Detract, and the complexity becomes more automated or less "conscious."

To exist and existence are subjectively parallel symmetries that in concept are objectively the same and are made different by perspective.

To exist refers to social influence from the concept of "life." Existence is an extension of internal reflection that derives from the concept, to exist. A good example is the concept; "I am therefor I think, and I think therefor I am." Those two in reference are the same, however, different in experience in what an individual has to think of first.

To exist is in reference to I am, and existence is in reference to I think. I am then I think, or, I think then I am.


**** The Reality And Illusion Of Existence ****

When the math comes full circle to itself, it will either rip apart or come together. Zero or 100% is the inevitable conclusion of calculation. If all information comes together, then the information will neutralize itself into 100% quantitative resolve. In theory this is the nothing of something and information can continue building into dimension. If all information crashes in on itself or rips apart, then the information goes back to nothing and has to start all over again.

Illusion and Reality are in equal spectrum to each other. Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. In theory, it was our illusion that started our reality, and our reality that affirms our illusion. The cycle of this is what keeps an individual in existence or existing.


**** Conclusion ****

The concept of existence or to exist truly does not matter. The calculation is not necessary for mathematics to occur and build upon itself. Existential perspective information is only needed for complex information to help resolve insufficient prompts and calculations of circumstance and experience. An individual realizing themselves as existing is simply a symptom of natural occurrence, not by influential design for specification.

To measure yourself is to measure existence. To measure your existence is to measure self.

When an individual has established their perspective purpose and reasoning for themselves, then they will get a proportionate meaning of perspective measurement for existence and the existence of themselves.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler (Social Engineer)
Hello Lloyd!

Thanks for your contribution. Here are my thoughts/questions (please note they are not rhetorical):

1. In the (your) introduction, are you saying that existence, and the actual thought of existing or existence, are two different things?

2. What is the actual "concept" that we use to "invent" what I interpret (you as saying) as, self-awareness?

3. Are you in-fact saying that our mathematical concepts (objective truth's) only give us an approximation of (the reality of) existence?

4. Are you saying that objective truth's are subordinate to subjective truth's?

5. Is your notion of "detract" mean that if one were to take away their self-awareness and intellect, then emergent instinct would preclude the need wonder what , when, how, & the why's of existence? I asl that because of your consequent use of "automated".

6. Are you saying existence precedes thinking about existence, or the other way around? If you are think about the Existential ethos of existence preceeds essence, you obviously would have to demonstrate that human value systems are not intrinsic to the species.

7. Is reality illusionary much like the notion or experience of Time itself? Or are they two different things-in-themselves?

8. Could 'reconciling that illusion' be done when a ToE is discovered? And if so, how would consciousness, in theory, be explained?

9. The "conclusion" does seem to support a kind of SK notion that 'all is subjectivity' and/or provides for an existential ethos. If so (don't really have a problem with that/ala Berkley's Metaphysics and SK's philosophy), how do we reconcile objective truth's (mathematics) that so effectively describe the world (i.e., laws of gravity, engineering calculations when building/creating objects, etc.)?

One Existential conclusion that I would'nt take exception to would be:

On the existential view, to understand what a human being is, it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us. The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances—“mind” and “body”—is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth) suffices.


Would you take exception to things like; intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue and even the will itself, are real but exist in a metaphysically abstract realm of consciousness/self-awareness?

Thnk you again for your thoughts... !





***************(Answering Questions)***************

1.) Yes, the two are separate concepts with similar perspective of translation. Natural existence is simply objective manifestation. Influential existence is complexly subjective manifestation. However, the two stand on the concept of experience just in different ways.

2.) Humans use survival as their measurement of self awareness. The more "intelligent" an individual is, the more "self aware" they are. How the individual expresses as their perspective character, determines how the individual will develop their measurement and perspective of their self awareness as that character.

3. Our mathematics only ground us on what our perspective existence is objectively. The subjectivity comes in the translation of experience and structuring.

4.) What is true of one contrast is true of the other and vice versa. Objective and Subjective are equal in spectrum, however, a dominate still has to be decided for grounding. Dominates can switch as part of the vice versa.

5.) No, detracting the insufficient layers that produce character would not make an automaton. Even the layers in core would still have "personality" as part of the complexity. The expression would just be of "true and sufficient" calculations or raw data of complexity.

6.) Think of the quote; "I think therefor I am." Would it not also be true; "I am therefor I think?" No matter how you flip the perspective, it still remains true. However, the two are mutually different in experience. Think first to exist or exist first to think. Existence and thinking do not and proceed each other at the same time. I know applying dimension can be confusing.

7.) Reality and Illusion are overall core concepts. Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. Mix match and everything in between when looking and applying this concept to other concepts.

I hope this helped.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler (Social Engineer)
Lloyd!

I agree that on its face, the more 'intelligent', the more self-aware. Does that have any 'evolutionary advantages', I wonder?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

chewybrian wrote: September 18th, 2021, 7:02 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 8:24 pm
chewybrian wrote: September 17th, 2021, 6:44 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: September 17th, 2021, 9:48 am

CB!
...
I'm not following your last point about determinism... ?
OK, so the way I see determinism is the way Dennet presents it in the video (and consistently in other times I've seen him). He tells us that we had other mysteries in the past, and that science resolved them. We didn't know what the sun was until we did, for example. He thinks that it is inevitable that we will someday understand consciousness in a similar way, and see that it is material. When you boil it down, it amounts to saying that consciousness must be material because everything else eventually turned out to be so. If that assumption suffices for you then so be it.

As I look about the room, though, I understand the nature of all but two things (or at least I believe I could). I can weigh or clock speed and such for my body, for the television or the chair, for the light and sound in the room and all but the two things. When I flip the switch and the light comes on, I truly know that it was not correlation but cause and effect, and I can repeat the effect in another room and show why it happens to prove the case to my own satisfaction and that of most rational people.

The two special things are the experience of me and my dog. We have excuses if we don't fully understand dark matter or black holes, since they are all a gabillion miles away. But, we do understand everything in the room save my awareness and hers. If these things are material, then surely they are here in the room, not off with the dark matter. For me, the fact that this is the one holdout is telling, and it would take more than an assumption for me to ignore the obvious special nature of consciousness. I will assume it is not like all the other things, rather than assuming that we are able to understand everything around us but the nearest and most precious thing. No carrying on to God or anything else for me, but I am just saying that consciousness does not present as being material, so I will assume it is not.
CB!

I agree with you and take no exception to your dualism argument. Much like gravity itself, it's otherwise common knowledge that consciousness has meta-physical features or qualities (Qualia) to its existence.

With respect to determinism, I will have to revisit the video because I don't recall him delving much into that issue...
To be clear, the first paragraph is a rough restatement of what he said in the video you linked, and the next two are my own opinions. Also, I have seen him speak about this multiple times, so I read a bit into what he says, and I feel like I know where he is trying to direct the listener. He wants to lead us to determinsm, despite claiming to be a compatibilist. His version of compatibilism is simply a restatement of determinism, with a slick substitution of what he calls "control" for what the rest of the world means when they say "free will".

In the video I linked below, he declares that my refrigerator is autonomous, deciding for itself when to crank up the condenser or shut it down. The Roomba (my example) moves about the room, reacting and deciding "on its own". He wishes to make us see that this is as much control as we should ever need or hope to have. But again he has conveniently forgotten that we are in control of the Roomba, as its programming is designed to make it do what we desire. Other things don't in fact have control, but are only an extension of the control that only consciousness can claim.

He is trying in (I think a ridiculous way) to get us to see that free will exists in a determined situation in purely material objects, so that we will not be afraid to view ourselves as material and fully determined. But, he doesn't even address the elephant in the room, which is "what is consciousness?". Whatever control we see in the refrigerator or the Roomba is only an extension of our own consciousness, which he has not even attempted to find or describe. I can dissect the Roomba and understand the materials and processes included and show how its actions are inevitable. I can understand its programming and predict the exact path it will take in a given room. But, I can't find or dissect my consciousness. I can't show any physical or material attribute that attaches to it, other than by correlation of some other thing or event that occurs as it is active.

I perceive my free will to be something different than any other thing I perceive. My perception is backed up by our inability to find, describe and dissect it as we can any other thing or event. Rather than resolving these problems, he is focused on directing our attention to "control" and calling it free will. He is trying hard to equate our consciousness with other things outside our consciousness, when it is obvious internally that this is not the case. If you want me to deny my perception, you have to make a good case that I am being subjected to some kind of illusion. I don't think he makes a good case and I don't think anyone could. I think he has a belief, not any better founded than a religious belief, and he is trying to work reality back to fitting his belief without any grounds to do so.
CB!

After a cursory review, I must agree that not only is the "elephant in the room" consciousness itself, but also the Will. Dennett uses the word 'will' inadvertently in his explanations of the freedom to control things (and also the loss of control), which in turn is the part of that elephant. He uses that concept of will because like all of us, he doesn't know the true nature of the 'things-in-themselves''. To begin with, if one knew what the true nature of things were, in themselves, (making something exist ex-nihilo/artificial universes, artificial intelligence, etc.) it would preclude the very reasoning that posit concepts of determinism/indeterminism to begin with, since we would have knowledge of all of that so-called 'true' nature of existence (noumenal existence). It's kind of like saying something before time created time.

Generally speaking, I embrace the Metaphysical Libertarian view not necessarily because of a perceived illusion of free-will (which there are many illusions in life including the perception of time itself), but the existential dilemma of not knowing the reality/truth's associated with the Will (finitude). To explain things, we can analogize and use the many metaphor's about existing things, but we don't have a purely objective ToE that includes the nature of conscious existence. I also think that's where the 'elephant' rears its head there too?

Accordingly, I also thought his analogies to an RC plane/controller missed the point of 'choice' (conscious volitional existence/anthropy) that is required in operation of the controller itself, including its design, along with the determinism/engineering analogy both missed the points that in science no one can precisely either predict the weather (meteorology) or quantum measurements (physics), only its probabilities. In a similar way, I believe that volitional existence is an intriguing amalgam between chance and choice. On a biological level, one could argue that conscious organisms who are endowed with volition navigate between cause/effect, randomness, chance and choice (in any order) whether aware or unaware. Our choices that effect the future are both determined and indetermined based upon conscious and subconscious experiences, genetics, cognitive dispositions etc.. All of this is different than complete chaos or lawlessness or meaninglessness. Generally, physics teaches us that cause and effect are both determined and indetermined. The indeterminant part is what Heisenberg taught us about atoms at the quantum level. As such, I didn't agree with his exception to quantum indeterminacy not being analogous to free will in that such lack of control and knowledge allows for that unknowable thing-in-itself. As he said, to 'harness' quantum indeterminacy is one thing, but to understand the nature of it is what's driving the perceived complexity (finitude).

Just a fun example, I've alluded to Wheeler's cloud before, wherein the analogy to the game of 20-questions (AKA: Participatory Anthropic Principle) was that the mixture of chance and choice, and how that relates to quantum measurement, is decided in part by the questions the experimenter puts to nature. The computer analogy fits well with that idea. When one decides to 'goggle' something, the alternatives from nature (the design of all possible alternatives from the cosmic computer) appear to us, and appear to us at random among a list of alternatives. Simply put, this relates to the idea of alternatives and their inherent consequences. Meaning, there are all these possibilities of 'cause and effect' depending on the choices one makes. At the same time, the computer crashes when there is pure chance (an accident good or bad) that happens at random due to some unknown cause (circuit QED). The 'unknown cause' part of the equation is probably the most intriguing part, which takes us back to the concept of Metaphysical Will in nature, or a noumenal kind of existence.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Reality of Existence

Post by Consul »

3017Metaphysician wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:27 am
Consul wrote: September 19th, 2021, 10:42 pmFor something to exist is for it to be something in itself, to have an essence or nature of its own; so something existent is not only something thought (conceived or imagined). Objects of thought needn't exist; and if they don't, they are nothing in themselves, and so there aren't any discoverable truths about them which are grounded in them, their own essence or nature. There are only discoverable truths about representations of nonexistent objects of thought, such as truths about how Harry Potter is described or depicted in books or movies. There are representational truths or facts about nonexistent persons or objects, but no existential ones.
Your interpretation of 'what does it mean to exist' reminds of philosophical phenomenology. It does so for a couple of metaphysical reasons.

When you speak of 'truths', and Kantian things-in-themselves which are experienced but truly unknowable, one is usually left with experiencing the experience; the sense experience. That in itself, begs the question of what kind of truths comprise sense experience istelf. Obviously, one metaphysical reason and/or cause would be the phenomenon associated with the experience of cognition. Existentially, the thing we experience is the thing we experience. If we could make all things ex nihilo, then there would be much more to explaining the thing-in-itself. But we can't (except for the explanations through the medium of abstract mathematical concepts/cosmology).

I think one takeaway there would be a compelling case for metaphysical idealism. However, in some ways, that would only mean that there are logically necessary truths that exist...just one interpretation of 'what does it mean for something to exist'.
I'm using the phrase "in itself/themselves" independently of the context of Kant's idealism. When I say that existent or real things are ones having a being (essence/nature) in themselves, I don't regard them as unknowable "noumena". I'm not saying experiential phenomena are the only existent things which can be perceived and cognized.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021