Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

Philosophy Discussion Forums
A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.


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
By Halc
#469641
Sy Borg wrote: November 10th, 2024, 8:25 pm The BiV is an INVALID tool regarding skepticism. I have no problem with questioning reality, but if the tool used is simply impossible nonsense, then it's of no use.
It's not impossible nonsense. In fact, your basic religious dualist position is exactly that, a mind hooked to something that it isn't. There is zero knowledge of how said mind works, hence no evidence of its plausibility or impossibility. They don't just suppose that it's possible, but suppose that it's actually how it is, except the interface to the physical is strangely unexplained, grounding my justification of rejecting that sort of arrangement.

The Boltzmann Brain is also pointless. Sure, there it technically a non zero chance that a brain could emerge in a vacuum, although that number would be exponentially greater than the total number of atoms in the universe, and is thus simply fiction.[/quote]You seem unaware of the numbers involved. First, you're comparing one number with an infinite one. Sure, in a given space and time, there's a tiny chance of one, but there's not only infinite space, but also infinite time. The mathematics needs to work out the probability of a real brain vs that of the BB existing, and with some theories there are incalculably greater odds of the latter than the former.

For instance, Tegmark's MUH suffers from this. He posits all mathematical structures to exist, but any BB is just as much a mathematical structure as any structure that contains evolved observers, and there are far more of the simpler BB structures than the relatively complex ones where complex physics allows the formation of natural observers.

Point is, it the analysis isn't pointless as you assert it to be. The universe seems to be a very improbable thing, as is argued by the fine tuning argument for it being a deliberate creation. One needs to either accept that argument or come up with an alternative, and so many of the alternatives suffer from the BB problem.


I've tried to make myself more clear, and you said that perhaps you've not done it yourself, but I see no clarification, just repeat denial of something where denial isn't the point.
Another fanciful notion that proves nothing, demonstrates nothing, other than as a fable, like the hare and the tortoise.
That's another interesting topic, demonstrating all sorts of interesting problems that need to be solved. Ignoring those problems just shows a lack of interest or lack of ability to confront objections. Waving them away with denials contributes nothing to addressing them.
It would be fab if reality was not as it appears.
I personally think that quantum physics has demonstrated that what you call reality isn't the nice neat classical thing that it appears to be. This is one of the few things where science has proven something, and not just theorized it, and even then the proof rests on empirical evidence, brought into question with issues like those being discussed here.
but it is clearly APPROXIMATELY as we perceive it.
I'm far more in the 'stranger than we can imagine' camp.
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#469642
Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pm
Sy Borg wrote: November 10th, 2024, 8:25 pm The BiV is an INVALID tool regarding skepticism. I have no problem with questioning reality, but if the tool used is simply impossible nonsense, then it's of no use.
It's not impossible nonsense. In fact, your basic religious dualist position is exactly that, a mind hooked to something that it isn't. There is zero knowledge of how said mind works, hence no evidence of its plausibility or impossibility. They don't just suppose that it's possible, but suppose that it's actually how it is, except the interface to the physical is strangely unexplained, grounding my justification of rejecting that sort of arrangement.
By “your basic religious dualist position” do mean “your” as in the standard garden-variety dualism or are you suggesting that I am religious? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

Sure, if we knew how minds worked, we would have created artificial ones by now. No argument there. I don’t think the BiV notion illuminates the hard problem. It does not reconcile first person subjectivity and third person objectivity. I see it as just a cul-de-sac, as stated.

Not sure what “arrangement” you are rejecting - the BiV?
Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pm
Sy Borg wrote: November 10th, 2024, 8:25 pm The Boltzmann Brain is also pointless. Sure, there it technically a non zero chance that a brain could emerge in a vacuum, although that number would be exponentially greater than the total number of atoms in the universe, and is thus simply fiction.
You seem unaware of the numbers involved. First, you're comparing one number with an infinite one. Sure, in a given space and time, there's a tiny chance of one, but there's not only infinite space, but also infinite time. The mathematics needs to work out the probability of a real brain vs that of the BB existing, and with some theories there are incalculably greater odds of the latter than the former.
The chance of a Boltzmann Brain existing might as well be zero, whatever absurdly large number describes the odds of it happening. That’s a good thing too, because the poor brain would be faced with the unspeakable horror of existing in a void. It wouldn't last long.

Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pm For instance, Tegmark's MUH suffers from this. He posits all mathematical structures to exist, but any BB is just as much a mathematical structure as any structure that contains evolved observers, and there are far more of the simpler BB structures than the relatively complex ones where complex physics allows the formation of natural observers.
I don’t always agree with Tegmark for the same reason. He extrapolated the math to a point where suppositions are heaped upon others. He's an interesting and provocative thinker, though.

Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pm Point is, it the analysis isn't pointless as you assert it to be. The universe seems to be a very improbable thing, as is argued by the fine tuning argument for it being a deliberate creation. One needs to either accept that argument or come up with an alternative, and so many of the alternatives suffer from the BB problem.
Fine tuning is trumped by the multiverse, but both are highly speculative.

My preferred alternative is to say I don’t know and follow the evidence, eg. CMB, James Webb, LHC, while considering (but not adopting) left-field ideas. For all we know, this might not be the first Big Bang (or whatever) but the trillionth. What if there are informational residues that influence the initial states of new universes?


Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pm
Another fanciful notion that proves nothing, demonstrates nothing, other than as a fable, like the hare and the tortoise.
That's another interesting topic, demonstrating all sorts of interesting problems that need to be solved. Ignoring those problems just shows a lack of interest or lack of ability to confront objections. Waving them away with denials contributes nothing to addressing them.
I addressed it. I started with Occam’s razor and added the general implausibility of these remote brains, which I think misunderstands the relationship of brains and consciousness. The whole point of brains is to protect a metabolism and reproductive system. That’s what brains do. That’s why they evolved. An isolated brain has no purpose, like an isolated liver.


Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pm
It would be fab if reality was not as it appears.
I personally think that quantum physics has demonstrated that what you call reality isn't the nice neat classical thing that it appears to be. This is one of the few things where science has proven something, and not just theorized it, and even then the proof rests on empirical evidence, brought into question with issues like those being discussed here.
Quantum mechanics is another matter again. One can think of quanta as the informational building blocks of reality, although we have no idea if smaller things exist that impact the seemingly erratic behaviour of quanta. Things can theoretically meaningfully happen in reality down to the Planck scale, but apparently you’d need a collider the size of the solar system to find evidence one way or another. Sometimes we simply have to accept that there’s a lot of stuff we don’t know.


Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pm
but it is clearly APPROXIMATELY as we perceive it.
I'm far more in the 'stranger than we can imagine' camp.
I have used that Haldane quote myself on this forum a number of times. I obviously see no conflict with my views and Haldane’s. My issue is with some of the anthropocentric and neurocentric things that humans can imagine.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#469643
Sy Borg wrote: November 11th, 2024, 12:09 am I addressed it. I started with Occam’s razor and added the general implausibility of these remote brains...
Occam's Razor is a heuristic, a rule of thumb. We use it (only) when we want to make a decision, but do not have enough evidence or information to do so. It's a guessing-tool that seems to work more than 50% of the time, so we retain it, and use it, on occasion.

Then you add the vague objection of "general implausibility", while offering no justification for your feeling/belief that it is implausible...

This is not refutation, it is desperate-seeming denial. Or so it looks to me.



Sy Borg wrote: November 10th, 2024, 3:51 pm Go on, keep telling yourself that your leprechauns and brains-in-vats are potentially real, and then be a patronise and misrepresent the ideas of those who don't buy into such fanciful notions, who prefer to consider actual reality rather than pretend that magic might be real.

Reality is real. It is as presented, at least in a relative sense. Our dogs perceive more or the less the same world as we do, with some differences. Even an ant often perceives the same things, but its world is very different. Microbes could be said to live in a very much different world but, if an asteroid struck, our subjective worlds would converge.
None of this has any purpose in this discussion. You simply seek to dismiss that which you do not believe.

The world you describe, to which I think we all subscribe too, is the world of physics. It is Apparent Reality. I have been trying to discuss Actual Reality, a subject which you seemingly are averse to considering at all. Is it just that yiu aren't interested in metaphysics, or do you want more, perhaps to discredit the very notion of Apparent and Actual Reality by ridicule, thereby discouraging its discussion? It might seem so...?

I admit I don't really understand your reticence.
Last edited by Pattern-chaser on November 11th, 2024, 7:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#469644
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2024, 11:53 amOur senses will always sense apparent reality, because that's what they do.
Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 6:16 pm To be a little more precise, there's a difference between what is perceived and what is sensed. There's a lot of processing that goes on between the sensing and the conscious perception layer. Useless stuff is (hopefully) filtered out. But your point stands, the contrast between how we perceive the world and how it is.
I admit I have deliberately shied away from sensation and the process of perception that follows directly after it.

It seemed to me that it might serve to offer further confusion, in a topic that seems plagued with misunderstanding, both now, and in our philosophical history. Is the background to this ... resistance to discussion, the old sciencist/analytic trope that metaphysics of this type is unworthy of serious discussion??? 🤔
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#469645
Sy Borg wrote: November 10th, 2024, 8:25 pm Another fanciful notion that proves nothing, demonstrates nothing, other than as a fable, like the hare and the tortoise.
Amusingly, the main use and purpose of such ideas as BiV *is* as a fable, a teaching-story, like the hare and the tortoise. ... But then we realise that it has its value as a teaching story because it could *actually* be true. No-one asserts that it *is* true, but only the possibility that it could be. That is its lesson, I think?
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#469654
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 11th, 2024, 7:01 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 11th, 2024, 12:09 am I addressed it. I started with Occam’s razor and added the general implausibility of these remote brains...
Occam's Razor is a heuristic, a rule of thumb. We use it (only) when we want to make a decision, but do not have enough evidence or information to do so. It's a guessing-tool that seems to work more than 50% of the time, so we retain it, and use it, on occasion.

Then you add the vague objection of "general implausibility", while offering no justification for your feeling/belief that it is implausible...

This is not refutation, it is desperate-seeming denial. Or so it looks to me.
I see. My refusal to play along with the fanciful brain-in-a-vat notion is "desperate" and "denial".

Please think before posting. This is a philosophy forum, not a repository for silly thought bubbles. If there was a skerrick of evidence that we do not actually exists in reality, fine, but ALL evidence points to reality being real.



Pattern-chaser wrote: November 11th, 2024, 7:01 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 10th, 2024, 3:51 pm Go on, keep telling yourself that your leprechauns and brains-in-vats are potentially real, and then be a patronise and misrepresent the ideas of those who don't buy into such fanciful notions, who prefer to consider actual reality rather than pretend that magic might be real.

Reality is real. It is as presented, at least in a relative sense. Our dogs perceive more or the less the same world as we do, with some differences. Even an ant often perceives the same things, but its world is very different. Microbes could be said to live in a very much different world but, if an asteroid struck, our subjective worlds would converge.
None of this has any purpose in this discussion. You simply seek to dismiss that which you do not believe.

The world you describe, to which I think we all subscribe too, is the world of physics. It is Apparent Reality. I have been trying to discuss Actual Reality, a subject which you seemingly are averse to considering at all. Is it just that yiu aren't interested in metaphysics, or do you want more, perhaps to discredit the very notion of Apparent and Actual Reality by ridicule, thereby discouraging its discussion? It might seem so...?

I admit I don't really understand your reticence.
I am reticent against the idea of us being brains in vats, just as I am reticent about the flat Earth, Moon landing denials, Reptilian infiltration, Jesus rising from the dead, and the existence of leprechauns. People can be imaginative. One can enjoy the ideas without taking them seriously.

Give me a decent hypothesis - something that is even vaguely feasible - and I'll join in, but don't expect me to blindly accept obvious science fiction as fact. There is too much blind following of bad ideas, just because some academics say so. No. I will judge ideas on their merits, not on their sponsors or popularity.
User avatar
By Halc
#469659
Sy Borg wrote: November 11th, 2024, 12:09 am By “your basic religious dualist position” do mean “your” as in the standard garden-variety dualism or are you suggesting that I am religious? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
Yes, the former. It isn't necessarily garden variety since only some of them posit the mind as a separate object of sorts, something that lives on after the death of the body. That sort of mind is very much a BiV of sorts (a disembodied mind that is or is not always connected to sensory input), and I brought it up as an example of a fairly mainstream idea that some claim is necessary, and yet you dismiss as a dead end cul-de-sac.
The chance of a Boltzmann Brain existing might as well be zero, whatever absurdly large number describes the odds of it happening.
The question is, what are the odds that you are one? Hand-waving it to zero is not a justification. The numbers are dependent on the model, and no model has been specified.
I don’t always agree with Tegmark for the same reason.
That you don't agree with Tegmark is no surprise. That your reason is one of which you don't demonstrate an understanding is unbelievable.
Fine tuning is trumped by the multiverse, but both are highly speculative.
By which multiverse, and how does it trump the fine tuning thing?
For all we know, this might not be the first Big Bang (or whatever) but the trillionth.
Are your referencing some sort of cyclic model where the bangs are numbered?
I started with Occam’s razor and added the general implausibility of these remote brains
Neither of those falsifies it, and nobody is proposing it, so applying these attacks on plausibility is besides the point.
Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pmMy issue is with some of the anthropocentric and neurocentric things that humans can imagine.
Agree with that
User avatar
By Lagayascienza
#469660
If apparent reality is all we have, then why not choose the apparent reality of a mind-independent universe, the reality of physics? At least physics works. It will continue to progress and enlighten us. But Idealism, brains-in-vats, simulations ... these are just dead-ends that cannot progress and can never enlighten us. There is nothing to see there for philosophy or science. They are just mind games that lead nowhere for people with too much time on their hands. No one can give me a single piece of empirical evidence for any of them. I leave the door ever-so-slightly ajar for Idealism in case one day someone will. I am not hopeful.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#469662
Halc wrote: November 12th, 2024, 1:29 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 11th, 2024, 12:09 am By “your basic religious dualist position” do mean “your” as in the standard garden-variety dualism or are you suggesting that I am religious? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
Yes, the former. It isn't necessarily garden variety since only some of them posit the mind as a separate object of sorts, something that lives on after the death of the body. That sort of mind is very much a BiV of sorts (a disembodied mind that is or is not always connected to sensory input), and I brought it up as an example of a fairly mainstream idea that some claim is necessary, and yet you dismiss as a dead end cul-de-sac.
The chance of a Boltzmann Brain existing might as well be zero, whatever absurdly large number describes the odds of it happening.
The question is, what are the odds that you are one? Hand-waving it to zero is not a justification. The numbers are dependent on the model, and no model has been specified.
I don’t always agree with Tegmark for the same reason.
That you don't agree with Tegmark is no surprise. That your reason is one of which you don't demonstrate an understanding is unbelievable.
Fine tuning is trumped by the multiverse, but both are highly speculative.
By which multiverse, and how does it trump the fine tuning thing?
For all we know, this might not be the first Big Bang (or whatever) but the trillionth.
Are your referencing some sort of cyclic model where the bangs are numbered?
I started with Occam’s razor and added the general implausibility of these remote brains
Neither of those falsifies it, and nobody is proposing it, so applying these attacks on plausibility is besides the point.
Halc wrote: November 10th, 2024, 10:20 pmMy issue is with some of the anthropocentric and neurocentric things that humans can imagine.
Agree with that
I find.

That breaking.

Up posts into.

Tiny.

Bits destroys.

Con.

Text.

And.

It is.

Not.

Worth the.

Trouble of

Reviewing older.

Posts back.

And.

Forth.

In.

Order to reply.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#469664
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 9th, 2024, 10:59 am If we assert that the nature of reality *is* WYSIWAI (or any of the others), *that assertion* is unfounded and unfoundable.
Halc wrote: November 9th, 2024, 6:34 pm Agree with your statement, but want to point out that many realize the significant different between what is seen and what actually is. Per Heisenberg: "“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”
Agreed. But it seems not everyone agrees:
Halc wrote: November 9th, 2024, 6:34 pm I suspect Sy Borg gives a far greater correspondence between the two, but it's Sculptor1 that takes WYSIWAI most literally:
Sculptor1 wrote: November 8th, 2024, 7:06 am Yes. Worlds are ideas. And yes none exist without the consciousness of subjects to create them. This inevitably means that the world you live in and the world that I live in are necessarily not the same world.
It seems to me that Sy Borg's comments are founded upon the unspoken axiom of WYSIWAI, that Apparent Reality and Actual Reality are one and the same thing. That Apparent Reality *IS* Actual Reality. Not two things so similar that they seem identical, but that they are one thing, unquestionably, without even the possibility of doubt or challenge. That all else is philosophical frippery.

While Scupltor1's comments seem to me to accurately describe the many different perspectives that we all apply to the "world", i.e. to Apparent Reality. Many perspectives applied to one thing.

In contrast, the metaphysical speculation about the connection(s) between Apparent and Actual Reality are not about one thing, but many. I.e. the many different possible explanations of the nature of Actual Reality. Sculptor1 does not choose even to cknowledge the latter, that I can see.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#469665
Sy Borg wrote: November 11th, 2024, 4:56 pm I see. My refusal to play along with the fanciful brain-in-a-vat notion is "desperate" and "denial".

Please think before posting. This is a philosophy forum, not a repository for silly thought bubbles. If there was a skerrick of evidence that we do not actually exists in reality, fine, but ALL evidence points to reality being real.
Wise words. You are posting in this discussion like an isolated grown-up trying to bring a group of wayward adolescents 'back down to earth'. But when one of them says, "Hey, wait. What is it that makes you think that's so?", your only answer seems to be that of the perennially-frustrated parent: "Because I said so!"

You seem unwilling or unable to explain why your POV has value. You say only, as you repeat once again what you have already asserted, that it's "bleedin' obvious" that you're right, and that all other views are "ridiculous".

"Silly thought bubbles"??? Once again, I suggest that, on this philosophy forum, insults are counter-productive.

You point out that this is a philosophy forum. Yes, it is, and it is quite common for people to ask their fellows for *justification* of a particular viewpoint. It's considered normal, in philosophy circles, to do this. And it is usually the case that the request for justification will be answered, not dismissed with insults, yes?
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Lagayascienza
#469713
BiV is a silly thought bubble. Once the point is made that we could not tell with 100% certainty that we are not BiVs, and once we accept that we don't experience ultimate reality but only that which is apparent to us via our sensorium and technological extensions thereof, the BiV thought-bubble leads nowhere, so we pop it. It's just philosophical frippery.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#469767
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 12th, 2024, 10:52 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 11th, 2024, 4:56 pm I see. My refusal to play along with the fanciful brain-in-a-vat notion is "desperate" and "denial".

Please think before posting. This is a philosophy forum, not a repository for silly thought bubbles. If there was a skerrick of evidence that we do not actually exists in reality, fine, but ALL evidence points to reality being real.
Wise words. You are posting in this discussion like an isolated grown-up trying to bring a group of wayward adolescents 'back down to earth'. But when one of them says, "Hey, wait. What is it that makes you think that's so?", your only answer seems to be that of the perennially-frustrated parent: "Because I said so!"

You seem unwilling or unable to explain why your POV has value. You say only, as you repeat once again what you have already asserted, that it's "bleedin' obvious" that you're right, and that all other views are "ridiculous".

"Silly thought bubbles"??? Once again, I suggest that, on this philosophy forum, insults are counter-productive.

You point out that this is a philosophy forum. Yes, it is, and it is quite common for people to ask their fellows for *justification* of a particular viewpoint. It's considered normal, in philosophy circles, to do this. And it is usually the case that the request for justification will be answered, not dismissed with insults, yes?
I don't understand your vehemence about this. Lagaya sees my point. Yes, we can say that our perceptions are all just signals in our brains - except they aren't. Those signals are intimately linked with other body systems. It's a larger system. I likewise suspect that AI will never become conscious unless it is embodied, with energy supply needs.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#469778
Sy Borg wrote: November 15th, 2024, 4:13 am I don't understand your vehemence about this. Lagaya sees my point. Yes, we can say that our perceptions are all just signals in our brains - except they aren't. Those signals are intimately linked with other body systems. It's a larger system. I likewise suspect that AI will never become conscious unless it is embodied, with energy supply needs.
There is no "vehemence", but only misunderstanding. Points that I make in the arena of metaphysics, you interpret as if they belong to the arena of physics. And so we avoid understanding one another.

What you say here 👆 relates to physics (and biology, etc), but it has nothing to do with metaphysics, and therefore nothing to do with the points I have offered.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Lagayascienza
#469779
If physics has no relation to metaphysics, then metaphysics has no relation to anything. In which case metaphysics would be just pointless mind-games. Fortunately, there is more to metaphysics than philosophical frippery such as BiV.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

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

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 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

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


Questions needing to be asked. Is Israel preparin[…]

After 1947, Israel agreed to a two-state solu[…]

A Woman's Freedom to Choose

I once witnessed the case of a young women[…]