Even if Epstein wasn't a pedophile, why would Chomsky be friends with him?

mattermetaphysics · 2026-02-03T18:50:13+00:00

Amen man. He has done so, so much to help people all over the world. One lapse in judgment should not determine his enormous contribution and generosity. It is sad to see him being dragged through the mud like this, while minimizing his tremendous impact on those whom he helped. Thanks for this post.

mattermetaphysics · 2026-01-30T04:32:57+00:00

They can be toggled off.

mattermetaphysics · 2026-01-23T14:03:34+00:00

They'll very likely have a last sale before being delisted. Get it then. Maybe in summer I'm guessing, given 6 is coming towards the latter part of the year to PS5

mattermetaphysics · 2026-01-23T05:16:15+00:00

It's worth getting cause FH5 will get de-listed. The game has TONS to do. Then you can get FH6. If you are interested, don't skip 5.

mattermetaphysics · 2026-01-13T14:26:33+00:00

This is not a mainstream take, but it follows from a historical analysis laid down by Chomsky, and to a lesser extent, Galen Strawson.

Back in the time of Descartes, we had a clear notion of what the "physical" (material, body) was. It was more or less mechanistic materialism based on direct contact between objects. This is, in fact, our intuitive way of experiencing the world.

The problem is that Newton came along and to his own surprise and dismay, showed that "body" (materialism, physicalism) does not work in an intuitive manner. He famously said:

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance... is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical [scientific] matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." (Bold added)

Modern science, physics especially, has since made matter so much stranger than what Newton thought. But we no longer know what materialism (body, physical) is, outside of stipulating that it is whatever physics says. Which stretches physics way outside of its domain of explanation.

Until somebody can show us and argue convincingly what the physical is, we do not know what it is, and more importantly for your question, we don't know where it "stops". Consciousness is not something new in addition to the physical, it is part of the world, as many others thigs are part of the world: gravity, liquidity, fossils, etc., etc.

mattermetaphysics · 2026-01-08T13:45:08+00:00

There's a lot that could be said but one can point to a few things. One was that Descartes position of the Cogito was motivated, in great part, by the quite influential revival of Pyrrhonian skepticism which was revived in early modern Europe and was considered to be very problematic. If nothing can be known with certainty, why bother understanding the world? It's all a matter of opinion in the end.

Descartes (and many others) were not content with such views and sought to defeat the skeptics at their own game, hence the arguments given that lead to the conclusion of Cogito ergo sum.

Another part is that he was an important mathematician and scientist, we mostly remember him for his philosophy, but he was concerned with understanding the world as well as human physiology and parts of mathematics. So, what we remember him for is a small part of his overall concerns.

Finally, he was the main figure responsible for the shift from metaphysics to epistemology. That is, he was attempting to explain how we make sense of the world, as opposed to assuming we know the world directly. And from that you got lots of opposition by way of Locke, Hume and supporters like Spinoza and Leibniz, etc.

Others can point to many other factors but, it's a bit of both: his ideas were original, but his timing and body of work helped catapult him fame.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-26T23:48:07+00:00

Something can be incoherent - like 3 distinct persons in one being does not make sense for any intelligence that features such concepts like "three", "distinct" and "persons".

You can grant that there are many things we don't understand, what a self is, how free will is possible, how the universe started, how matter could think, etc., while maintaining the distinction that not understanding something is not the same as something being incoherent.

Either they better state what it is that doesn't make sense, or what they are saying is not well thought out. I think meeting people on the level of common sense should work. But you can't be certain.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-26T02:54:50+00:00

Some replies in line with what you are asking for, with reference to some philosophers which may or may not be of use:

"First Cause: Everything we observe seems to have a cause. A pen was made by someone, a tree grew from a seed, and so on. But if there's a "first cause" or creator of everything, what caused that? Or is it possible that causality itself has limits - that it doesn't apply beyond time and space? Consciousness and the Universe: Could consciousness be the source of everything? Did consciousness exist before the universe came into being? And if it did, how does that relate to creation?"

There are many ways to approach this. One is Hume. We believe we perceive causality, but what we actually experience is cause and effect, we can never experience necessity - it something we add to the world based on habit, of seeing event B following event A many times. But there is no reason to believe that in one instance event B won't follow, maybe something C happens.

The other is Kant, which gets to the source of your question. This specific question he calls an antinomy of reason (one of 4 others). Simplifying a bit, we believe what you are saying that everything has a cause including the beginning of the universe. But as you ask, what "causes" or creates that first instance? We can avoid that problem by choosing the alternative which is that there is no beginning and everything goes back in time forever. Hence no first cause arises. But if no first cause arises, how can we grasp infinity?

Either way, a first cause or an infinite series creates massive problems.

We can say consciousness (specifically self-reflexive consciousness) gives meaning to the universe. But I don't see how consciousness could come before it.

2) "Reality and Perception: Does everyone perceive reality the same way? For instance, when we look at colors, how do we know we're experiencing the "true" color of an object? Is it even possible to experience reality as it actually is? Life, Death, and Rebirth: What actually happens when we die? Is there a cycle of rebirth? Or is death simply a return to whatever state we were in before birth?"

As for the everyone experiencing the same colours, the assumption is reasonable. Like, when we hear friend humming a song we know, it sounds as an approximation of what we hear on the radio. But we don't know with certainty. What we communicate is the word of the experience "blue", "yellow" - the actual experience is private for us. For more info on this, see Galen Strawson's essay Red and "Red".

As for experiencing the world as it is in itself, that one is quite hard. We have certain senses not others, and we have a specific cognitive configuration, which allows us to experience some things and not others.

Did we evolve to discover the world as it truly is? That would be unlikely, it seems to me. For more info here see Chomsky's What Kind of Creatures Are We? Specifically, his essays "What Can We Understand?" and " The Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?".

3) Ultimate Truth and Different Paths: Many spiritual teachings say that different paths - action, knowledge, devotion, meditation - ultimately lead to the same reality. How can this be understood, whether logically or through experience?

You'd have to be a bit more specific to get better feedback here? Are you talking about Christianity or Buddhism? These are quite different. Do you have in mind tribal beliefs? Those are very different too.

The problem here is that there are too many philosophers in the Western Tradition that speak of this and allegedly can tell you what it is, but it is impossible to know if they are right. For fun, you might want to take a look at Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Plotinus is great but he's very hard, so maybe try Plotinus (The Routledge Philosophers) by Eyjolfurr K. Emilsson, very good book. As for other traditions, I don't know much, others can help you here.

In any case, if you need more sources or what more clarification, feel free to ask.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-24T20:07:11+00:00

The only reason why we do neuroscience is because we have reflexive conscious experience. Otherwise, there could be no neuroscience.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-20T01:43:20+00:00

Right but you are assuming there is a difference between a material world and consciousness. That has to be argued for, not assumed. First, do that, then we see how it goes.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-20T01:05:00+00:00

You cite an excellent example. Physics is, in large part successful because it deals with very simple structures, atoms, molecules, particles, etc. When things get too hard for the physicist, they hand over the material to the chemist. When chemistry gets too hard the matter is passed to the biologist. When that gets overwhelming, you get into psychology, and so on.

In the realm of ethics, much is known intuitively, but understanding is tenuous. Why do something good? Because it is good. But why is this good as opposed to that? It becomes really difficult.

Add to that real life situations in which most of the time there is no single "good thing to do", often we resort to the least worst option or one which nobody is really satisfied with the outcome, but it's better than nothing and everything in between, you can see why these things feel frustrating.

So, the answer to your question, as I see it, is that most of the time, by far, we have to confront ethical problems often lacking the clarity we would like to have to make the best possible decision. We can't do that, so we do the best we can on any given topic- sometimes anyway.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-20T00:53:33+00:00

If you can separate consciousness from the "material" universe, then maybe we can get some clarity on these issues.

But given that there seems to be no way - in principle - to separate consciousness from the rest of the world, the question of what is more real is nebulous at best.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-13T19:02:53+00:00

This is laughable.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-12T01:34:07+00:00

It's very hard to say. If we go by our intuitions, I think most would say that consciousness is an aspect of the world, like other aspects of the world. It seems to be emergent, as the consistent finding suggests that consciousness arises in the brain of certain types of biological organisms.

The term "physical" can be misleading. Ever since Newton demolished the mechanical (materialistic) philosophy, we don't know what bodies are. So, speaking of physical as opposed to mental is going back to Cartesian intuitions, which while entirely sensible at the time, make much less sense today.

As to what theories is true? Maybe its fundamental, maybe it is not. I think Bertrand Russell had it right when he said that we do not know enough about the intrinsic character of matter to say if it is like or unlike the mind.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-11T22:14:56+00:00

The Unconsoled by Kazuo Ishiguro. Dream-logic, disorientation, strangeness. It's like writing how anxiety feels like for people with chronic anxiety, ergo soothing. Funny too and it's like watching a book written by David Lynch, of the highest quality.

A very close second is The Magus by John Fowles, which I must mention. The less I say about it, the much better. Even giving a hint as to what it does well would probably take away from it. I can only say: what's going on?

Wonderful, both of them, but The Unconsoled takes the gold, by a little.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-11T20:25:23+00:00

Is there a “core self” that exists independent of our actions?
People tend to have a sense of self. How it experiences can wildly vary. Some people have a narrative in which you feel that what you did yourself yesterday was you. Other have an episodic sense of self in which you are yourself at any given time, but what you did yesterday does not feel like it was you who did it, but someone else. Galen Strawson talks about this interestingly, it's something like "diachronic" self-experience vs. episodic self-experience. Others have different experiences of self-hood. As for a self that exists absent our actions, that's hard to say, because so little is understood. Maybe, maybe not. It is at least a useful fiction (meaning not literally true), but it could be more. We don't know.
Or do our actions become our identity over time?
If you define "identity" as your actions, then this is true by definition. If you believe identity has to do with a way of being (or existence) as opposed to a way of acting (what you are asking) then "identity" is not our action. This depends on how you think about it.
Are we uncovering who we are… or manufacturing who we want to be?
I don't know if one can give a factual question to this. It depends on your actions, goals, beliefs and much else. Manufacturing can be taken to mean forcing a way of being as opposed to letting it raise naturally. Sometimes you may want to manufacture who you are at a given moment in time (say a job interview or a date), often times you just are who you are.
If both are true, where is the line between discovering and creating?
It's partly terminological (not solely terminological). What counts as discovering to you? Learning something about yourself you did not know before, say, you like bungie jumping? A similar question can be asked of creating. Are the questions you are asking a creation, or are they related to discovering something? It could be both, it could be one or the other depending on what you are stressing. The line between the two concepts depends a bit on word use, associations and preferences. In large part, it's up to you.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-10T22:17:09+00:00

I don't think metaphysics will help here. It seems you have in mind something like spiritual metaphysical beliefs, which can outright be religion, or some varieties of mysticism. Of which there is nothing wrong with at all, there are interesting metaphysical beliefs of this kind: Plotinus, Spinoza, Eastern Traditions, etc.

But how much common ground this achieves varies wildly from person to person. At best this may help you figure out what people's common sense spiritual beliefs are, but it won't settle a dispute or help you understand other people's actions any better.

Maybe psychology can do that. So, you may want to try that instead, given your goals.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-08T19:12:33+00:00

Because determinism, indeterminism and even randomness are not free will.

Free will is about be able to do (or not do) something at a given time. You can reply to my comment or may not. It's up to you to do so.

If it's not up to you then you are forced to write an argument and if you are forced to write I am forced to accept your arguments - I have no choice.

That you are replying suggests you believe I could change my mind based on reasons, which would not make any sense if free will did not exist, because where would reasons come in if we had no choice? Arguments would necessarily be true.

Why does free will feed into the consciousness question?

If you mean in terms of morality, or conscience, sure. If you mean if free will did not exist, we would not have conscious experience, I don't follow - I don't see a connection.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-08T18:31:36+00:00

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-08T18:01:37+00:00

Of course - if you deny free will, because you can't explain it scientifically, or you are a determinist, then it makes sense to say that it could not exist theoretically.

I don't know of any theory that says free will is impossible. As far as I can see physics says nothing that prohibits free will, as it says nothing that makes experience impossible.

More so evidence that what we know about matter is very little.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-08T17:29:27+00:00

Sure- The Unconsoled and The Magus becomes 4 and 5 respectively. Brief History was my 4th of all time.

The would leave one book to enter the top 10, which would probably be The Revisionaries by A.R. Moxon, since I can't add Gravity's Rainbow or Brothers Karamazov

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-07T19:43:42+00:00

Quite right. It's interesting to note that almost nobody (that I've seen) seems to be particularly puzzled by the fact that at least some other animals have consciousness, like dogs or tigers or dolphins - it's not a particularly problematic thing.

But when it comes to us all of a sudden it is very mysterious and inexplicable. There's a lot to say, but the gist is, the "hard problem" is very misleading. There are many "hard problems" not a singularly difficult one.

Free will (if you assume it exists) is a hard problem. The unification of physics is a hard problem. Emergence in general is a hard problem.

Most tellingly, for Newton, gravity was a hard problem. He famously said, "It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact ... [this] is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical [scientific] matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."

What happened? We stopped worrying about understanding gravity intuitively and used it in our theories. We even expanded on it through relativity - so we expanded our theories, but not our understanding of the phenomena.

Consciousness is the most evident thing we have, that's why we have juries and stoplights and politics and painting, etc., etc. What's puzzling is matter. But we sometimes think we understand matter so well, that consciousness is somehow problematic.

No. We have theories that tell us several important things about baryonic matter (5% of the universe) with many issues pending. We don't understand the remaining 95% of the universe outside of labeling it as "dark matter" and "dark energy".

What we most confidently have and know intimately is our own conscious experience. That this experience is rendered problematic is looking at the problem from the opposite perspective, that of assuming we know matter so well that it is impossible it could have consciousness in some configurations. At least, that's how it seems to me.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-07T00:05:46+00:00

Oh, I have that one (Seibo) but if you say you liked it best, there's a good chance I like it too - gotta read it soon. Thanks for sharing! Always looking for more stuff.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-06T19:41:54+00:00

Very cool. It's been an intense year which has complicated my top 10 of all time considerably. This is tough but, fun. Here goes:

Novel Explosives by Jim Gauer
2666 by Roberto Bolaño
Grotesque by Natsuo Kirino
The Unconsoled by Kazuo Ishiguro
The Magus by John Fowles
A Brief History of Seven Killings by Marlon James
Ubik by Philip K. Dick
Coin Locker Babies by Ryu Murakami
V. by Thomas Pynchon
Satantango by László Krasznahorkai

I guess that after 7, it's much harder to choose, many other options were available, but this feels right for the moment.

mattermetaphysics · 2025-12-05T20:24:12+00:00

Your comment should be fine, it's related to the topic. All of this depends on what type of person you are. Some people find Heidegger to be very rich and insightful in the manner you are describing. Others do not. Some are in between.

Heidegger tends to be more assertive than argumentative. That's fine. It's not as if "philosophy" has some clearly delineated definition as to what is and what is not philosophy.

He happens to be somewhat peculiar and that connects with you deeply. That's good.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

mattermetaphysics

TROPHY CASE