So you think there is just ONE way to fight a war? One way to use military power? — ssu

I think if you read that sentence in context, you'll see that I meant precisely the opposite. That I encounter that kind of oversimplification, from those on Israel's side, and similar versions for those on the other side.

For myself I find the whole thing painful. Which is a wussy response given the extreme pain and worse for those actually invovled. But it seems like if you talk to anyone and you do not see the issue as simple and there is the one team to be extremely critical of period, you are in for being called a Nazi or some kind of colonialist. .

And this trickles down into practical matters. For example, for those on Israel's side, there is only one possible response to the Hamas attack and any suggestion, even exploratory that anything else could be done is anti-semitic. There are equivalents on the other team.

What is even more terrible is this spiritual tradition sets one up for a lifetime battle against oneself. It's a cult of self-overcoming, rooted in self-hatred, unrealistic goals and struck by a fear of relapse into all that enables one to identify with other human beings, i.e our innate weaknesses. — Sirius

In the main I agree. Though I would add that I think one can, actually, win or 'win' this battle and not longer have the parts of oneself one had. One has successfully dis-identified them to such a degree that the neurons involved have withered - take that as a metaphor or literal description depending on your paradigm. That's not a path for me. I have sympathy for people who want to eradicate parts of themselves they associate with pain. And I actually believe that if you follow the practices for a long time you can end up in less pain. But also less who you were. If you don't like those parts of yourself, well, go for it. If you do, well, then it's probably going to be just as you described.

There is a universalization of both the goal and process where one cuts off parts of oneself. I don't think it is a universal. But I don't feel much urge to stop people who decide that's what they want to do.

Do you agree that writing is a process of approaching only ourselves? — javi2541997

For me I think there are two different kinds of facts mushed together here, at least potentially. It think writing is a lonlier and more solitary form of art and communication than other arts and also then spoken communication is. That is the experience. Now when I go in myself I will find stuff that I stole absorbed took in accepted from other people, including the whole language itself. Writing is communal in the sources sense but individual in the experiential sense. I create in a few art forms and one of the reasons I write much less than I used to is precisely because I want something more social...in the experiencing. Any writer who thinks they came up with everything on their own is confused. But the experience, is very alone.

Religious conservatives have their reasons for supporting Israel. The US has used Israel for all sorts of things in the region - both liberal and conservative administrations, but conservatives have certainly also considered this useful. Conservatives who are, say, anti-semitic, are likely to be even more anti-Muslim/Arab. (yes, not all Palestinian's are Muslim). You also have a classic liberal-conservative split in analyzing causes, I think. Liberals - systematic, chronic abuse and disidentifying the population from its government. Conservatives - focus on the recent horrible acts. Of course people on both side can manage to do both, but I think there are tendencies. Collateral damage is viewed differently between liberals and conservatives. So, whatever is happening to the people of Gaza does not have the naked evil of what happened in the first attacks by Hamas. And Hamas is the Palestinians to Conservatives more than to Liberals - speaking in very broad strokes, exceptions abound.

In other words there are similarities to debates about punishment for crimes and who is responsible.

For myself I find the whole thing painful. Which is a wussy response given the extreme pain and worse for those actually invovled. But it seems like if you talk to anyone and you do not see the issue as simple and there is the one team to be extremely critical of period, you are in for being called a Nazi or some kind of colonialist. .

And this trickles down into practical matters. For example, for those on Israel's side, there is only one possible response to the Hamas attack and any suggestion, even exploratory that anything else could be done is anti-semitic. There are equivalents on the other team.

Yes, I can hear or 'hear' my verbal thoughts sometimes. I do hear voices that seem not to be the main part of me. Sometimes it can, for example, be a critical voice. I understand that voice may not seem possible since sound is not bouncing around in my brain, but then lights are not flashing around in my brain and I can certainly see images with my eyes closed, and these happen also when my eyes are open but are not what I am seeing externally. The brain can create sounds or if we want 'sounds' just as it creates images.

So, so far I am describing thinking in words that can have a (very muted) auditory or 'auditory' aspect. I generally identify with these. That's me working away on something. And also I can hear or 'hear' words/sentences sometimes that seem, for example, to be addressing me, even with my own name.
For example, just as I might out loud say something like 'You're such an idiot, John.' I can have a similar thought arise, within me. I don't experience doing this second kind of thought, though generally I consider it a part of me. IOW I don't experience the agency aspect of this second kind of thought voice.

These are not, by the way auditory hallucinations. I have a lot of experience with meditation, phenomenology of mind-type research, and introspection, so I think I actually notice these very rapid often quite subtle phenomena, where others might not.

I also mull/contemplate/think a lot without words and I think this gives me a contrast to notice these things.

I suspect that many people if they slowed down would hear or 'hear' these things also.

I hope I've understood the OP correctly and am topic. I could go from there to respond to the more philosophical end of the OP, but I think that's a focused start.

So, who will be to blame if AI will be used for purposes of massive destruction? AI itself or Man who created it and uses it? — Alkis Piskas

Oh, humans. That seems like a different issue to me.

The atomic bomb was created based on Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2. Can we consider this formula "dangerous"? Can we even consider the production of nuclear power based on this formula "dangerous"? It has a lot of useful applications. One of them however unfortunately has been used for the production of atomic bombs, the purpose of which is to produce enormous damage of the environment and kill people on a big scale. It has happened. Who is to bleme? The atomic bomb or the people who used it? — Alkis Piskas

This seems not really to the point. It seemed like you were painting concerns as merely irrational and perhaps stupid. But intelligent people are concerned and there are a number within the AI industry itself who have dropped out because of their growing concerns. Who would be judged to be to blame is a separate issue. What step in the process of the development of something is also irrelevant to my response.

So, what are we supposed to do in the face of such possibility? Stop the development of AI? Discontinue its use? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I think that's be a good idea. Won't happen most likely and part of the reason is the way concerns are framed by others.

I believe that it wll be more consctuctive to start talking about amd actually taking legal measures against harmful uses of the AI. Now, before it gets uncontrollable and difficicut to tidy it up. — Alkis Piskas

Both dialogues are useful and neither benefits from painting people with concerns as silly or stupid. Both dialogues can happen at the same time. The problem with modern technologies and I mean the very recent ones like gm, nanotech and AI is that they are even less local than previous ones, including nuclear weapons - unless there is an all out nuclear war or a significant limited nuclear war. I don't see companies and governments as mature enough to handle and do oversight over these new techs. And in the US, government oversight is very controlled by industry.

I can't really see your post, the one I orginally responded to as constructive, however. But it's good to know constructive processes are ones you value. I little probing brought that out.

So, let these people worrying about the threats. Maybe they don't have anything better to do. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Yeah, it's just morons who worry about this. People without the intelligence to think of your solution to the problem....

A single computer -- or even a whole defective batch of computers-- may stop following orders, i.e. "stop responding the way they are supposed to". And if such a thing happens, these computers are either repaired or just thrown away. What? Would they resist such actions, refuse to obey? — Alkis Piskas

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/02/geoffrey-hinton-godfather-of-ai-quits-google-warns-dangers-of-machine-learning#:~:text=Dr%20Geoffrey%20Hinton%2C%20who%20with,his%20contribution%20to%20the%20field.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/30/1178943163/ai-risk-extinction-chatgpt#:~:text=Newsletters-,Leading%20experts%20warn%20of%20a%20risk%20of%20extinction%20from%20AI,address%20the%20threats%20they%20pose.

Those people are so silly for missing the 'unplug and throw away the computers' solution that I have to add an :grin: myself.

Plant consciousness is where the current edge and debate is the most interesting.

Excuse me for butting in, but may I ask whether there is a reason why you only recommend scepticism about powerful large entities - not that that's inappropriate — Ludwig V

What you're calling butting in seems to me part of normal posting here, so butt-in away.

That said, I focused on scepticism about powerful entities because politics was the context in the OP which I was responding to. I do think it's perhaps more important to practice regular scepticism in relation to entities with a lot of power, given what they are capable of. I think of that as a kind of healthy chore, done regularly, like cleaning one's bathroom and throwing out old prescription medicines. Personally I rely on intuition with most individuals and so my sense that we should have a kind of standing skepticism of all powerful entities doesn't carry over into my dealings with individuals. IOW not regularly in the kind of chore or healthy habit I suggest with powerful entities.

I have nothing against skepticism regarding individuals, and should they have any power over me -bureaucrat, boss, landlord, etc. - then it rises to chore level. Something that I think should be done. I meet someone at a party, well, I don't give them the keys to my house, but I might not be skeptical, even casually meeting them a number of times.

If I love someone they've got to deal with my skepticism of them. Not because of power but because of how important the effects are, and then usually we spend a lot of time together and the process of building trust means overcoming caution, which is a sort of skepticism. I release intimate information slowly. If they make a disgusted face over one of my dear interests, are condescending if I mention a problem, skepticism will arise all by itself. So, for me the process of coming to love entails a kind of gauntlet of skepticism people go through. Immediate family from childhood are a different story.

I'm not recommending this or saying it's right. Just admitting it. I think this is natural for most people, though I can't be sure. I'm not especially skeptical about stories people tell me as I get to know them - unless something is setting off warning bells. If I like someone I tend to trust them about many basic things: if they say they are sick and can't come over, I tend to believe it. If they say they work as a dentist, I will believe it. And so on. The skepticism is more like...is this really a person I can get even closer to? Is this really a person I can admit my foibles, faults, failures, weaknesses, confusions, problems to? How much of my shadow can I show this person? or the odd things I believe or feel?

I’m not suggesting we not question authority, experts, or laypeople who disagree with us. Skepticism is good. But cheap, selective skepticism isn’t. Especially when it’s only employed against our perceived enemies. — Mikie

Treat power with skepticism. So, both the Republicans and Democrats have managed to convince people that there are two sources of approaches and one of them is right. It's a neat binary system, they agree about this, yet disagree about which one of the two sanctioned positions (set of positions) is right. Be skeptical about that binariness. Be skeptical about both teams. Be skeptical about corporations. Be skeptical of government. Note conflicts of interest, Apply Cui bono? Don't even assume they know why they are doing what they are doing? Lying to yourself first can be helpful before lying to others.

Of course this is easier for me than it might be for someone who thinks generally Republicans are right or that generally Democrats are right. Or who thinks generally, for example, the pharmaceutical industry means well and tests its products responsibly.

So, I am agreeing, but I want to shift it to a meta-level. Not 'also be skeptical about what "your" team is telling you' but be skeptical you have a team and that there are two teams/approaches. Be skeptical about the bad apple theory of problems. Be very skeptical about what powerful entities tell you that X has to be done. Regardless of whom you might feel comfortable sitting next to at a dinner gathering.

That is the difference between pragmatics and truth as providing the guiding principle. For reasons unknown, the philosopher seeks the truth. Some people feel comfortable with pragmaticism, and accept without doubt, the principles which currently serve them. The philosopher always wants to move ahead and proceed toward the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are philosophers who are pragmatists and pragmatism(s) is(are) philosophical positions inside philosophy, so I don't accept the dichotomy implicit above. It seems possible you are conflating epistemology in philosophy with the correspondance theory of truth.
I was also reacting to what I think is overly binary in saying he 'deceived himself'.

Reread my post, I said "when the two disagree" — Metaphysician Undercover

You're still going to need both and I was supporting what he had asserted around that. I am certainly not saying we can't be fooled by our senses, just as we can by reason. Unless you are a rationalist, there are going to be empirical facets to getting past illusions. You can absolutely decide that X, based on sense impressions, was false, but any demonstration of this will have empirical work around it.

It seems like you misunderstand the nature of science. The senses are not the foundation of science, science is based in hypotheses, theory. Your empiricist theory has misled you, another example of how human beings allow their senses to deceive them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Science is empirical. It is based on observations. People will create hypotheses based on models, which were also built up on research using empirical processes as their center. One of the reasons the scientific process is open to revision is precisely because it is an empirical approach to gaining knowledge.

And, hey, that was a kind of slimy way to talk to me. I was not impolite to you so you didn't need to go ad hom. And before I am told I don't know what ad hom means, yes, you didn't make a formal ad hom fallacy, but it was definitely 'to the man.' And the first paragraph was also slimy though less direct. The philosopher wanting the truth compared to others are comfortable.......Get over yourself and your implicitly claimed bravery. Talk about senses in the sense of sense of oneself getting in the way of things.

I'll ignore you from here on out. My patience for these kinds of little dominance games is pretty much zero.

This is exactly why it's correct to say that the senses deceive. When the sensible "cues" are missing, we draw the wrong conclusion. You say: "The sun does go up and down, from the point of view of the surface of the earth. It could not be otherwise." Obviously, it could be otherwise. It could be that the surface of the earth is spinning in a circle, and the sun is staying put. And if you wrongly assume that you, on the surface of the earth are staying put, because the "cues" of moving are missing, you would wrongly conclude that the sun goes up and down from the point of view of the surface of the earth. Therefore, you failed to account for the motion of the earth in your assumption, and allowed your sensed to deceive you. — Metaphysician Undercover

It decieved him in a context that is almost completely useless to most of us most of the time. So, yes, if one wants to understand the motions of the solar system parts, his assessment is off, in nearly every other human context, he's got a perfect fine interpretation. And one that can be useful.
And reason can also deceive. But since he goes ahead and advocates for using both, I'm not sure what the overhanding problem is.

If you do not see that reason is far more reliable than sense, and when the two disagree it is far more reasonable to accept reason over sense, then I think you're right when you say further progress is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

which was in response to a quote that included...

Senses and reason are both capable of misleading us and are our only resources for finding the truth. Junking one in favour of the other is incomprehensible to me. — Ludwig V

Seems to miss the point. We don't have to give up either. Reason is pretty useless without the senses, at least to any empiricist. IOW the senses are, for example, the foundation of science: in observations.

... isn't anything that occurs a phenomenon? Something that happens ...
— Bylaw
Events are phenomena, abstractions are not. — 180 Proof

It seems to me when I am thinking about an abstraction, or abstracting, this is an event. There would be the physiological side of this also.

Maps are also territories ...
"Maps are" abstract, or imaginary, "territories" like memories. We cannot 'experience' abstractions because our 'experiences' are structured by abstractions. Do you believe that 'real numbers' or a 'map of Middle-Earth" are phenomena? — 180 Proof

If I have a map of New York City. It is a map of NYC and a piece of paper with various inks on it and other physical features. The map is not imaginary.

That said, I would include the mental phenomena involved in imagining as phenomena.

Unless there is some kind of dualism here and amongst the things that happen, those things that are mental are not phenomena and those things that physically happen are phenomena.

↪Bylaw To my mind: a "memory" is a map and "phenomenon" is the territory. A "rememberance" isn't an appearance to the senses (i.e. phenomenon). — 180 Proof

Maps are also territories, just not the territory they portray. I agree that remembrances don't appear to the senses, but isn't anything that occurs a phenomenon? Something that happens, and in this case experienced.

I suppose I'd add to this what seem to me the coherency of the phrase 'mental phenomena'.

So, where does the process of sensing take place. (this is not skeptical question - for example, how could it be other than in the brain? - but rather one trying to see what your position is)

"Memories" are functions, not "phenomena". — 180 Proof

1.
the faculty by which the mind stores and remembers information.
"I've a great memory for faces"
2.
something remembered from the past.
"one of my earliest memories is of sitting on his knee"

When one has a memory of an event, it seems to me that memory is a phenomenon. One could put it in verb form: I just remembered what it smelled like in the car, but it seems 'memory' can refer to the function or the phenomenon of remembering. That experience.

This argument can be translated into the following:
If culturists believe in God, then they take God's existence to be true
If culturists take God's existence to be true, then they will act as if God exists.
Therefore, If culturists believe in God, then they will act as if God exists.

Culturists do not act as if God exists. Therefore, culturists do not believe in God. If culturists believed in God's existence, then they would assess and assent to truth propositions they take for granted when claiming belief. Moreover, they would not avoid confrontation or evaluation of their religious beliefs. The truth has nothing to fear from investigation. If they believe in what is true, then there should be no concern from investigators who doubt the religion. There is, however, fear of investigation. Fear that would only exist if they themselves doubted what they believed to be true. — Epicero

A few reactions to this:
1) it seems to treat belief as binary. If you believe, you have no doubt. If you believe you will spend time arguing with people about what you believe. If you don't like that situation, you do not believe. Either yes or no.
2) I don't see a lack of interest in debating one's belief to necessarily entail I don't believe in something. I can think of secular beliefs I have that I have very little interest in debating people about. How about evolutionary theory. I won't claim 100% belief in this, given the complexity of it nowadays, but the core ideas I believe in. I have no interest in debating it's truth with a non-believer. I'd wanna brush up on epigenetics, have a good argument ready for how the eye came into being and gaps in the fossil record and all the stuff that would come up. And apart from any rustiness on my part, I don't think there is either a moral compulsion to engage in those discussions nor some more fundamental entailment that if I believe something then at the least I have no objection to being available to defend my belief.
3) What does it mean to act like one believes in God? I see you mention some things, but I am not sure how I would identify culturalists or have any idea what percentage of identified Christians, say, were culturalists. I suppose if they said they believe in God and admitted under interrogation that they don't attend church, don't pray, never call out to Jesus in need, don't read the Bible, don't think about biblical rules and lessons and stories, etc., I might want to ask them what they do given that they believe there is a God. But I wouldn't feel like it is my place to tell them they don't really believe. Perhaps it's some vague, I feel that there is a higher power who cares and will take care of me. Period. Shall I consider myself having solved the problem of other minds and I can say, no, you really don't believe?
4) And then let's aim this the other way: How should I act if I believe in evolutionary theory, for example? If you follow me for a year with a documentary team, what would prove one way or the other that I am a mere culturalist, checking off a box because my social life and parenting was with people who also believe this? Or take a philosophical position like the one raised the The Ship of Thebes. If I say I don't believe it will be me in 25 years who gets to experience my retirement because all the matter in my body will be replaced, what would demonstrate I am a mere culturalist around this belief? That I save money for retirement? Perhaps I say that I still feel an affinity for the future other, I wish him well. How do I act if I believe in the Big Bang? How do I act if I am a physicalist or more to the point, how do we rule out that I believe in physicalism by pointing at my behavior? How many people here at the forum would be called culturalists if we studied their behavior to find proof they acted like they believed?

I do think there are people who just sort of check off a box, perhaps when entering a prison even, as a theist. They aren't atheists, it's a bit like checking off their race. It's just something that fell on them. It has little to do with their internal lives or behavior. But I don't think we get to tell them they aren't Christians, say, given our research. And not just because of the interpersonal issues involved, but we shouldn't even think we can tell from the outside. I also think this is possible for secular people to be culturalists. I have no idea how many are that. I do think people can be confused about what they believe. I don't have good criteria for demonstrating who is confused or dishonest.

I do think we can on occasion question someone's binary self-labeling. A man who proclaims himself a feminist, say, but can be shown to only call on boys in his classes, could be confronted with what seems and likely is a contradiction. He may well be shocked by his own behavior and admit there is not a binary yes to feminism in him. But this wouldn't rule out that he also believes things would be better if women were treated more like x and experienced less Y. We can be pretty complicated creatures. And his being shocked and dissapointed would be a sign, if that was his reaction, that there is or might be some truth to his identification.

I thought that you would mention that. But the atomic bombing at
Nagasaki was like an experiment. A bad one of course. But we saw its horrible effects and haven't tried again. Yet, during the whole Cold War period l remember we were were saying that it only takes a crazy, insane person to "press the button" It would need much more than that, of course, but still the danger was visible. And it still is today, esp. when more countries with atomic weapons have entered the scene since then. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, so far we haven't gone to a full exchange of nukes or any tactical use of nukes. But these wouldn't be mistakes. They would be conscious choices. My point bringing in nuke use was that even nukes, as long as they are single instances, or single leaks or catastrophies, are still local not global. Chernobyl would have be partly global, if the worst case scenario hadn't been offest by some extremely brave tech and scientists who were ingenious and paid with their lives. But in general, still
things like Fukishima are local. New tech like AI is potentiall global.

There are a lot of different lkinds of "boo boos" that we can make that are existential threats, which are much more visible and realistic than AI's potential dangers.
Indeed, a lot of people are talking or asking about potential dangers in AI tehchnology. Yet, I have never heard about a realistic, practical example of such a denger. — Alkis Piskas

Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk et al did not rely on sci-fi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence
There are plenty of people who work within the field of AI or have, or are scientists in related fields, or professionals who have well grounded concerns not based on science fiction.

Dangers created by humans can be always controlled and prevented. It's all a question of will, responsbility and choice. — Alkis Piskas

But it is precisely humans that need to control that which they do not control. My point is that we have not controlled technology previously and have had serious accidents consistantly. Fortunately the devastatation has been local. With our new technologies mistakes can be global. There may be no learning curve possible.

So, in my opinion, the dilemma is not about AI. It's about our will and ability 1) to educate people appropriately and 2) to control its use, i.e. use it in a really productive, reliable, and responsible way. — Alkis Piskas

The problem with AI (and also with genetically modified organisms and nanotech) is its potential to not be local at all when we mess up. With all our previous technologies we have been able to use them (hiroshima, nagasaki and the tests) or make mistakes (anything from Denver Flats to Fukushima to Chernobyl) and have these be local, if enormous effects. If we make a serious boo boo with the newer technologies, we stand a chance of the effects going everywhere on the planet and potentially affecting every single human (and members of other species, in fact perhaps through them us). And we have always made boo boos with technologies. So, yes, control its use, make sure people are educated. But then, we've done that with other technologies and made boo boos. Right now much of the government oversight of industry (in the US for example) is owned by industry. There is revolving door between industry and oversight. There is financing of the oversight by industry (with the FDA for example). The industries have incredible control over media and government, by paying for the former and lobbying the latter and campaign finance.

I see little to indicate we are ready for serious mistakes in these new technologies. Ready to prevent them. Mature enough at corporate or government level to really weigh the risks at the levels necessary.

But certainly not in principle. Consciousness is a phenomenon of the brain — Manuel

or it's a facet of matter in general. We don't know that consciousness is limited to brains. We don't know what causes it. Often when this is mentioned, the response is that we know that you can be made unconscious by various actions. Actually all we know is that we don't remember things from that period. Neuroscience says a lot about cognitive functions and their connection to neurons and glial cells and...so on. But that there is awareness/experiencing... is still unexplained.

Yes. As an adult human, fully formed with the self-aware bit, there comes an extra layer of reasoning that is a break from the rest of nature. That is the premise and I think it is still valid despite your interesting forays into child development. If a dog is hungry, it eats, it begs, it scrounges, it plays tricks, it fights for its food. There is no meta-narrative to this. — schopenhauer1

My point was that your op seemed to make it sound like our only motivations, without some later cultural belief, are move towards pleasure, move away from pain. I don't think that's the case. I have to point to animals and children to make an argument here since they aren't or have yet been captured by cultural beliefs. And even without a metanarrative, they do and will even move into pain/discomfort due to social desires and curiosity. Sometimes repeatedly.

Even T Clark's dishwashing has an implicit narrative. He doesn't like doing dishes, but cleaning them will allow for use in the next round of cooking, so you must wash them if you want that. You don't have to though. You can decide to let it pile up. You can be a hoarder, walk out of the house, break all the dishes and buy new ones, etc. But T Clark is probably going to follow a simple enough narrative. — schopenhauer1

I would tend to agree that that example doesn't work as a counterexample. But, again, animals and kids will do things that cause pain due to motivations that are not dependent on cultural narratives.

And also drive us to do all sorts of things without immediate pleasure gained.

And I experience this driving me and others along with cultural beliefs as an adult.

And the tremendous frustration cultural beliefs have added when they have gone against motivations not dependent on cultural beliefs. You can feel these primal motivations chafing against the handcuffs. No one had to tell me to be social - though they sure added a lot of narratives about what was appropriate. I was willing to go through pain to get closer to other beings. No one had to give me a cultural belief to get me to explore and find out. And I was willing to go through discomfort and suffering to satisfy curiosity.

This all may seem tangential, but I think those drives undlie much of what we do, often despite cultural beliefs.

And the practical information I got or learned myself, including tacit knowledge about how to move and find out things, this merely extended the range and nuances of my core drives to be social and find out stuff. That knowledge had nothing to do with warding off the fear of death.

Aim for? I don't know about that pre-lingual. — schopenhauer1

I can live without the word aim, but there sure are motivations. I suppose I was thinking quasi literally that the child will aim his or her face towards other faces rather than other objects. There's already values and priorities.

This is narrative. Though positive ones I guess. I was discussing ways we use narrative to overcome things we don't want to do. — schopenhauer1

Yes, much practical knowledge is narrated, though we also imitate and learn by trial and error without narratives, especially as kids. And there will be steps in these processes that in and of themselves we wouldn't want to do, but to find out what's over there we may have to go through the thorny bush.

Again, I am not talking about an ideology like a religion necessarily, but cultural beliefs that confer a motivating force. The belief that for example, "Work brings money. Money brings necessities for living in a certain cultural way. This knowledge means I must keep working even if I don't really want to." — schopenhauer1

Sure. And I am not in any way denying these things exist. And some of these cultural beliefs even or perhaps often go against our primary urges. Curiosity killed the cat and any other memes, teaching practices, parental reactions, etc., that aim at stifling curiosity. Of course some stifling is needed - hey, what happens if I put the fork tines in an outlet? [a real example from my childhood curiosity. I was stunned that my father could figure out what I did after the lights went out without even finding the fork with it's blackened tines. I learned A LOT that afternoon

"I don't like this, but I will do it anyways". — schopenhauer1

But they certainly will do things they don't like if the motivation is present. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-16-me-6537-story.html

Additionally, humans generally fear pain, displeasure, and the angst of boredom, while seeking pleasures to distract from this angst. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an oversimplification of our motivations. We are social mammals. We want contact and intimacy with other creatures, especially our own species. We are curious, we wonder, even as newborns, about the sources of sounds and other sensory phenomena. These motivations are not driven merely by pleasure and pain, in fact we will aim towards painful experiences to satisfy our curiosity and social desires. All this in place before any grand narrative to distract or give meaning is put in place. In fact any belief system needs to engage with these motivations - and often channels them, judges them, gives rules to restrict them. It's not that your post is incorrect. These belief systems do do the things you say, but there is tremendous motivation in place before these systems are plopped on top of them.

Further all sorts of practical information is plopped on top of them, without the qualities of the belief systems you are talking about. IOW we are given knowledge of 'how things work' and 'where things are' and these add nuance and individual characteristics and more inspiration for individual ways of expressing curiosity (wanting to learn about things, people, the world, ourselves) and social urges.

I realize there is no immaculate separation between practical information and the kinds of belief systems you mention, but before any belief system is understood by a child they have tremendous motivation and the complexity of the ways these motivations can be expressed increase with practical knowledge accumulation, each step in the mastery of movement and communication and exposure to different facets of the world, including people. other creatures, things and enrivonments.

In order to deal with this tension, humans have created various systems of belief and value that provide us with a sense of purpose and meaning. — schopenhauer1

Humans have these things regardless. They don't need a theism or set of morals or idealogy to have a sense of purpose and meaning. Given that we are always exposed to belief systems it may be hard to tease out what causes what, but a look at children can see that one has little need of any -ism to leap out of bed, demand things, express curiosity in a wide variety of ways and deliberately engage with others.

An awareness of death may well then draw people to belief systems that assuage anxiety, but we already have tremendous motivations - not unlike all our social mammal siblings and cousins.

There are counterexamples. I am certain, for instance, that this post is in English, and my certainty is not a theory that I could revise if further evidence came along. — Banno

You could have woken up from a dream or a coma years later. Note: I am not arguing you should go around doubting such things.

I'd just say that if we counted something as knowledge and later it turned out to be false, then we were wrong, that it wasn't knowledge, and we have now corrected ourselves. — Banno

I can certainly live with this version and in many ways do. I suppose it depends on how long I worked with the 'knowledge'. The notion of absolute space and time, it seems to me we can place in the history of knowledge. If it was more hypothetical or worked for a very short time, then no.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that we don't give knowledge some utterly distinct ontological quality, especially in the present. If it's working really well, great, call it knowledge.

But the idea that folk can be wrong has fallen into disfavour, and it seems it is now considered no more than bad manners, even in a philosophy forum, to point out people's mistakes. Oh well. — Banno

I didn't undersand this. I do think people can be wrong. I am not saying that we don't make mistakes or we don't have mistaken theories, even, let alone hypotheses that seem to work for a while, but are false.

Of course, if folk are never wrong, then they have no need to correct themselves, and hence no way to improve their understanding. — Banno

Agreed, again. I can see, I guess how what I wrote might seem to mean that we are always right. Hm. My point is more that we don't need to go back and say X wasn't really knowledge. I am looking at the term 'knowledge' as a term meaning here's stuff we categorize as very trustworthy because of Y (our batch of rigorous criteria). So some now no longer consider true theory from the past is still part of our history of knowledge. The stuff we arrived at rigorously. Oh, it wasn't really knowledge. No, it was. Now we know better.

And this may seem like some petty or even self-contradictory idea, but my concern is not so much about the past, but the present. Oh, this is knowledge, it's true...period. That's the kind of thinking I think is problematic. Just because it passed rigor now it is seen as immaculatley in a different category. Rather than as the best we can do now.

So, in terms of JTB, I've often been bothered by the T part. It seems both hubristic and redundant. We have a very well JB. It isn't falsified so far (so a neo-Popperish criterion). There'e no better or more parsimonious explanation (a neo-Occam's Razor) and we'll keep it until it doesn't work or there's something better to replace it.

Yes, we can. My main point is that I think it's most useful to consider knowledge things that have been rigorously determined (and at least seem to be useful). Later we may find that they were merely approximate, or local or even not true, but they were knowledge. Like: it's ok that some of what we call knowledge will turn out to be false. The category is still useful.

And there is useful information that is false - Newtonian physics, for example. — Banno

Which I think is a nice example of knowledge not necessarily true. IOW I don't think our hindsight about Newton's work means that people were wrong to consider it knowledge. I think it was knowledge. (theoretical) Knowledge would be rigorously arrived at beliefs and I think we could still consider someone knowing what to do with some of Newton's laws as having practical knowledge. It'd be useful for certain jobs. They know stuff. Even if ultimately it is based on approximations and perhaps some incorrect ontological assumptions.

I don't see how grief can injure other people. — Vera Mont

Ok, that's good, common ground.

But derision and mockery can — Vera Mont

A couple of things with these two related acts: 1) they are more than expression of emotion. There would likely be verbal content in there. The person is not simply expressing emotion, but finding a way to communicate negative things about the other person or at least what they are doing. Of course, no society rules out derision. It would just be sanctioned for some things and not others. Wherever one sits on the political spectrum there are, within one's subgroup expressions of derision that are acceptable. And there are likely some in common. Someone advocating for pedophilia would meet derision and that derision would generally be seen as fine. That doesn't entail that derision in general is ok, but it's already got it's place. 2) Derision can hurt feelings, yes. And I think it's especially powerful in relation to children. That said, I don't think we can expect to protect each other from hurt feelings. Systematic derision, especially from adults towards children, well, that should be treated, I think, by intervention, but also by expressions of anger and perhaps derision aimed at people who do this. I say, we can't expect to protect people from hurt feelings. We also don't do this. And I think the whole pattern shifts if we move towards also allowing those with hurt feelings (so generally some mix of fear, sadness and anger) to express those feelings. These feeling are also suppressed in society and that hurts. Suppressing feelings in general hurts. Not getting to express feelings hurts. People choosing not to be your friend hurts. Not making the basketball team hurts. Failing a math test hurts. We are allowed to do all sorts of things that hurt people's feelings. And it would hurt feelings if we couldn't, either immediately or down the line in the future.

envy and anger can and does hurt feelings — Vera Mont

So, I have a similar reaction to these. Envy is a complicated cognitive reaction. There are emotions and also thoughts mingled in it. I think expressing those feelings does not add to the problem. Envy often leads to all sorts of passive aggressive behavior, trash talking people, undermining them. For the person themselves, not expressing the emotions (by themselves, with others) is a very unpleasant stagnant state. It's not really going anywhere. Actually expressing envy even to the person you are envious of, is actually a rather bold and honest move. It's a pretty vulnerable thing to do. I am angry at you and hurt because you have that girlfriend, got that raise, can jump higher than me. Perhaps with accusations of unfairness. If the other person can actually express their emotions, maybe the whole thing can move somewhere. But I see no reason to believe that holding in those emotions creates a net good.

And of course it wouldn't be good if tomorrow we all just let loose. But I do think the culture would be healthier if we moved in baby steps in the direction of expressing feelings, without jumping into action based them. I think a lot of violence is because we do not have middle ground (especially as men) to express feelings, including so called negative ones, so at a certain point there is the jump from suppressed rage (and other emotions converted to rage because they are scarier for some men), to violence.

And that is why children are taught to control their temper — Vera Mont

I think we have had these judgments so long it just seems true that these things must be suppressed.

and refrain from laughing at another's disability, physical or mental shortcomings, — Vera Mont

Again this is a complicated act not a simple expression of emotion. The person who does this, even a child, needs to feel superior to someone else and likely has not expressed their feelings of fear, anger and sadness about the way they are parented, failures in school or social life, feelings of inadequacy. We keep pointing to where the pressure bursts through and think we need to build better walls, without ever finding out what it would be like if we accepted emotions in general. And where I have been mocked by other children, I vastly preferred that to when it was suppressed by still present. To be held outside, dealt with more coldly. They are thinking the same things, but not saying them. Much better for me to hear it and be able to get pissed off and even sad, instead of living in this nebulous emotion fog where my emotions seem like reactions to things that aren't real. Or might not be real. Other people's reactions don't go away, they just go underground and still have effects. Also, we have to deal with all that then. If some kids feel like mocking a child for being disabled or whatever and we manage to get them not to express that, they are still not dealing with the roots of all that. They are behaving better on the surface. Where is that urge coming from? What happens if they express this and then the disabled child expresses rage and sadness back or his or her parents do? Or they all get together. I think there's this real pessimism and hopelessness in this collective decision to selectively suppress our emotions. And we are avoiding actually learning.

Don't get me wrong. There's dark stuff in here. Caution is the watchword. And we need to get comfortable with our own emotions, alone, generally before we run around and plop it on strangers - which happens anyway, in part because of all the suppression. First with ourselves, then with people we trust immensely, then....and so on outward.

not to say they hate people, even if they do feel that way — Vera Mont

I used to find that horrifying, to hear that or express it. But the truth is we feel that. And if we are ever going to deal with things like the chasm between men and women, we are going to have to express that stuff. And to manage to listen. I can now hear that aimed at me and know that this feeling, like the others, comes and goes. And I can then with the other person see what is going on at root.

This is huge. It's long process and one we are engaging in. A hundred years ago men and women both had narrower ranges of emotions they were allowed to express and generally expressed less.

Emotions are of the moment; social interdependence is for the long term. — Vera Mont

But I think we are going to have to finally get to an honest interdependence based on full honesty. Slowly, carefully. Because while the moment you suppress a so-called negative emotion may seem improved, it didn't just go away. It's underneath, keeping away real intimacy, ready to pop out when the pressure builds, keeping you in a jailor/prisoner relation with yourself, adding this secret distance and I think actually contributing to violence and a lack of compassion.

We genuinely feel basic emotions on the individual level, and we genuinely share some part of the sentiments, cultural biases and loyalties of our collective, but we are also often injured by the genuine expressions of feelings of other members — Vera Mont

I can see if the expression is violent or some kind of act in the world - like making up stuff about someone on the internet. But do you include expressing emotions in sound, facial expressions, posture. Like screaming in grief, say.

I think there is a difference between someone faking it and someone who means it. — Darkneos

Me too. I was likely not clear.

If it's someone close then yes you'll be happy for them, but if not then you phone it in. — Darkneos

Or if you simply have a different reaction even though you are close.

Reminds me of the time I told my therapist I stopped loving my mom and felt bad because it seemed like I was supposed to do that, then he said it's ok. IT was a relief. — Darkneos

Right, and I think the transition from less genuine to more genuine like that is telling. You can't really doubt that this can happen after having such an experience.

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place
it is all just cause and effect response

An unstated premise is that if your feelings are cause and effect response, the feelings aren't genuine. Is there anything else we would say is not genuine because it is involved in chain of causes and effects?

But if you are being affected or influenced by something else then it's not genuine, you're being controlled. — Darkneos

If the world is deterministic, then everything is being controlled, in this sense.

I think the deeper question would be about how can we decide if this or that reaction is genuine. What does that criterion mean?

Can one change in such a way that our reactions are more genuine?

I think one can. I have experienced that. I realized that I was suppressing certain reactions, for example, because of societal or cultural norms. Through generallyl slow processes I was able to test my way to not longer going along with these. I still had reactions that were in a cause and effect chain, but one that feels better and feels more aligned with my nature.

I think most people will see some people as just trying to align themselves with norms while others try to feel there way into these norms (and think about them) to see if they actually fit them.

I think we all have a sense that person X congratulated us on gradutating or having a kid and it felt like someone going through the motions or performing a norm and someone who was genuinely happy. Or someone who managed to express something against the norm in those situations. Perhaps they thought we had a child too young or with the wrong person and even though you're not supposed to be honest, they were.

I think there is a meaningful distinction here around genuine feelings and not so geniune responses. And not, the feelings are probably real, even in people who try to suppress any 'wrong' reaction and present themselves 'correctly'. They have whatever they are feeling as feelings - though they may not want to notice what those feelings are if they don't fit. So, they may think they are happy you are happy with your new partner when really they are jealous. But their responses, the whole mess of it, is genuine, it just may not match their official position on what they are feeling.

Common sense may say that “Substance is Just a Word” is a deepity. I want to argue it is not: that in a substantial sense (pun intended), substance is just a word. — Art48

I agree, I think, and I'll come at it a different way, by specific example. Materialism (and in one usage physicalism) is a monism where there is only one substance,matter (the physical). This substance makes up an expanding set of 'things' that include stones and water and trees, but also gravitational fields, massless particles, particles in superposition, anti-particles, particles moving backwards in time, dark matter and dark energy, often consciousness/awareness is considered material or a facet of the material and likely anything that ever becomes considered real.

We call this set of things matter/physical.

It seems to me we could view it as a spectrum of substrances or call it 'real stuff', since it seems like the set of qualities, include lacks thereof, can change over time, and need not be necessary for the label. So, either is it a committment to rule out anything that isn't some substance, but we change what is necessary to be in the category, so that doesn't seem to work. Or it is a stance against a dualism/idealism/spiritism or anything with transcendent things (but since transcendent 'things' generally could interact with physical things, this would just be a committment to not believing they are real, yet. Since if they can affect the material, they could be then considered material/real.

It just seems to have become a placeholder term, when we could just have a set of 'those things verified to exist' and not commit ourselves to a substance.

I see this use of a term indicating substance as conventional, but with specific (and perhaps confusing) metaphysical baggage.

Got it

People seeing visions of god/s as evidence of God existing - No
People seeing a large monkey man as evidence of Bigfoot - No
People reporting their life turned around after they started believing in Allah as evidence of Allah - No
People seeing Elvis Presley at a filling station in Fresno as evidence that Elvis lives - No
People seeing a demon as evidence for Christianity - No
People claiming to have been abducted by aliens as evidence of aliens - No — Tom Storm

As for the rest. Yes, some people may think their single personal experience is proof. Those people exist. Also they make leaps in what it might be evidence for, such as in my UFO response.

However I think this is leaving out a lot of middle ground instances. Where some of the criteria I mentioned above for the speakers makes a difference.

I do follow a pragmatic theory of truth (a lot of the time) so this affects how I view things. I also see no reason to decide that if someone labels something supernatural it should be treated differently. The categorization may be wrong. I've met people who believe in some of those things, who do base their beliefs in part on anecdotal evidence, generally including their own experiences, but who do not assume that there is enough evidence for non-experiencers to be convinced by.

This thread, it seemed to me, began with the idea that we can rule out things like things batched under supernatural per se and anecdotal is meaningless and could never be evidence.

I think that's problematic because observations are anecdotes meeting criteria. (More criteria than the ones I mentioned around what we generally think of as anecdotes (scientific protocol stuff).)

And then because we all act based on anecdotes. I see that has twisted my reaction to your posts which are not following the OP line.

But if anecdotes are not evidence, period, well, most people are acting with great lack of care in relation to themselves and others and irrationally a large percentage of the time.

UFO's seen in the sky as proof of aliens - No — Tom Storm

Now you are using the word proof. Before it was evidence.
UFOs seen in the sky by navy pilots on hundreds of occasions. This included only instances where they were near enough to see that the objects changed directions in ways other planes and balloons (and other usual suspects cannot).
Note, this doesn't mean it's aliens, could be some kind of human made craft. But I think it evidence that something very out of the ordinary is happening.
Not proof, yes.

Sure, but it's a good shorthand in ordinary conversation. — Tom Storm

Right but in a philosophy forum it is an immediate claim to dualism

↪180 Proof Hundreds of folk say they saw Elvis alive after 1977. Apparently he must have faked his death and lives amongst us. He even showed up as an extra in Home Alone. :razz: — Tom Storm

Sure, you can have terrible heuristics when dealing with anecdotes. Or you can have good ones. Anecdotes can come from people suffering psychotic breaks, from experts in their fields, from people you know, from combinations of these things, from people with clear motives, from people whose motives would go against them saying X was true, to anecdotes based on stories with constructions like 'it must have been X because Y' and that makes no sense to anecdotes where the same construction is used in way that makes sense.

If we read your comment (and of course one gets to be polemical) it is as if this example shows that anecdotes cannot and should not be used as evidence. I don't see it as this binary.

Indeed, but I don't know what this has to do with my position. I never claimed people make decisions based on careful reasoning. I certainly don't - I go by intuition a lot. I simply made comment on whether I would accept a belief in supernatural claims (let's say gods, ghosts, demons) based on anecdotes. Answer: no. — Tom Storm

I believe you. I can see that the statements I was reacting to were in the context of that discussion. I read it as a more general claim.

I don't consider them good evidence — Tom Storm

I do. Obviously not all anecdotes. But I make decisions all the time that use anecdotes, often unconsciously, as evidence. I more or less have to. If I can check with scientific research and be pretty sure the research is not tainted by corporate funding, then I may well do that. I have other paradigmatic based criteria also. But there are all sorts of situations where I choose to consider anecdotes good evidence. I might wish I had great evidence, but it is good enough to sway me towards decision X, following pattern of behavior Y, giving Z a try and so on.

And for me it doesn't matter how the phenomenon in question is categorized. It could have been seen as elephants were being attributed psychic powers.

For example: people lving near elephants and then some non-African visitors thought that elephants could communicate over long distances - one non-African actually could feel what later was discovered to be the method of communication. — Bylaw

or that rogue waves were magical entities cast by Poseiden.

Rogue waves is another example. Current fluid physics/oceanography/meteorology ruled out the possibility of rogue waves. It wasn't possible given what they knew or 'knew'. It didn't fit then current models. Later after changes in technology confirmed what was dismissed as faulty emotional judgments on witnesses, then scientists sought out to explain what was going on.

What matters to me is the kinds of evidence I get and in many cases I cannot get evidence that matches the ideal rigor I wish it could.

Personally I think Supernatural is a poor term. It's a kind of unnecessary ontological claim (and one used by skeptics and believers alike).

I think we are probably done. You think anecdotes count as good evidence, I don't consider them good evidence. I get it... :wink: — Tom Storm

I think there is middle ground here. An observation in science is a tiny (rigorously controlled in good research) anecdote. We did X (with these testing protocols and Y happened 83% of the time.

Also not all evidence that comes to us is from scientific research. IOW I think we are forced to take from anecdotal evidence and other non-scientific sources evidence, given what life and the world is like. And we all make important decisions - in the sense of having effects on ourselves and other poeple - based on evidence from not scientifically controlled sources.

We parent, vote, try to find romantic partners, succeed at work and in freetime activites, seek out contacts, friends, employers..... based on all sorts of anecdotal and other less than scientific research level rigor sources.

We can make it all binary. Scientific consensus items here. Don't believe in any important way anything else.

But no one does this. They may seem to take that as an official position, but I don't think they could get by actually living it.

And if we go back to say the 50s it was scientific consensus that speaking about animal emotions, intentions, etc. was all ungrounded speculation. Meanwhile animal trainers, pet owners, indigenous people all went ahead and acted like and believed that animals were subjects with these internal states. It was actually professional damaging to speak about animals as fellow subjects with experiences, goals, emotions, etc.

There are paradigmatic biases in what is investigated and what models are allowed.

This doesn't mean anyone should be compelled to believe things on anecdotal and other not as rigorous as science is supposed to be. But at the same time it can be quite rational to believe in things that are not currently supported by consensus science.

I use the phrase not currently supported, to make a category different from 'contradicts or seem to current consensus science'. Since I believe this can be seeming and not outright contradiction I don't rule out a person being rational who believe something like this either. However it's shakier ground.

Great, though I was thinking more of elimination by deduction, I think.

But if someone claims something thing or event is supernatural, then the burden of proof is on them. — Art48

This is true regardless, or? It shouldn't matter what the person claiming X is the case categorizes the phenomenon as. What matters is if there is evidence (for communal acceptance, including scientific acceptance). And it also doesn't matter what others classify something as. Oh, that's supernatural so it can't be true. IOW this could well be a poor categorization and thus a poor deduction.

Doesn't (seem to) fit with current models should not rule something out.

And fits (or seems to) with current models doesn't get a pass, at least it shouldn't and not in science.