You can touch the desert rock, but it would be a temporary, disposable sense.

Partial simulations craft by imagination are mostly extrasensory, noi, ibrio, procip, etc. This allows for a hybrid type of sense that's half real and half unreal between the veil of reality and your own. — Varde

It isn't extrasensory. Visiual simulations are what imagination is.

Basically, Plato's allegory of the cave.
— TheMadFool

The Theaetetus does not claim that. The dialogue ends without finding an adequate account of knowledge. The 'paradigmatic' role of the Forms, spoken of in the Republic, is not on display in Socrates' argument against Protagoras' measure being able to be a judge of possible future events (178b). — Valentinus

I thought Socrates defined knowledge as justified, true belief? The future is within our grasp given the laws of nature are universal and constant - a good basketball player can, if he's skilled enough, score.

Also, if the future can't be known isn't Heraclitus right?

An old idea as far as I can tell, yin-yang.

The subjectivity is not refuted. The very portion of Theaetetus I am referring to is the acceptance of personal immediate experience. In the effort to address it, Socrates inquires into perception and knowledge and on what basis they encounter other beings. It is through making a distinction between perception and knowledge that Socrates seeks to defend himself against Protagoras. — Valentinus

Basically, Plato's allegory of the cave.

Socrates was not denying things change. He was saying that if nothing stayed the same, there would be no knowledge. — Valentinus

The modern view of knowledge takes into account the ever-changing, dynamic, nature of knowledge - no aeroplanes back in Socrates' time but now round the clock flights to and from Athens. Of course, the laws of nature don't seem to be that flexible but you never know. Mathematics, an altogether different story.

As for the dispute with Protagoras, my hunch is Socrates and Plato were on the back foot rather than making any sorta headway in refuting Protagoras' subjectivism. If Protagoras was/is right, Plato's allegory of the cave and with that all of philosophy goes out the window as utter tripe.

:wink:

The question is how is this, what I described as a "cause", and "the fundamental capacity to anticipate the future", known to us. As explained, it cannot be observed in any way. We can call it a "mystical union" like Wayfarer did, but that does not validate it as a form of knowledge. All it is is a statement of fact, what is common to us all.

This is probably the same issue which Wittgenstein grapples with in the private language argument. What is known directly to a person, through the inner source, might actually be the highest form of knowledge; Aristotle classed intuition as the highest form of knowledge; but when it comes to validating this form of knowledge to others, through public language (justification), it does not even class as "knowledge". — Metaphysician Undercover

What's vicarious suffering to Wittgenstein and his private language argument?

I am definitely making a connection between Baudrillard's idea of the 'end' of history and the civilisation that has developed in many nations. How can civilisation go on in the way it has done? Climate change seems to be a warning sign, and the question is whether it is too late or not to avert it. Perhaps we are coming to the end of consumer materialism. I wonder if the pandemic and the scale to which so many lives were turned upside down will bring a wake up call for some big changes, but it is hard to know... — Jack Cummins

Wake up and smell the roses is what I'd like to tell everyone. If there ever was an opportunity to demonstrate international cooperation at a scale that could bring about climate action it was the COVID-19 pandemic and just look at the mess we're in - 3 or so million dead and counting. We don't have a good track record, any admirable precedent when it comes to working together as a team. Factional mentality will spell our doom. Why not let's just all sit down somewhere comfortable, grab popcoron and pepsi/coke, your choice, and just watch the world burn.

Like what? — Alkis Piskas

Use your imagination.

An individual neuron in my brain can receive thousands of messages at once! Even so everyone seems to think their message is special, strange isn't it? — Enrique

No. That's natural and happens to everybody.

What does hard determinism entail for ethics?

Ethics/Morality/Good & Bad

Ethics stops making sense without free will.

Yep — Banno

Too bad. I was just getting into the groove but it looks like I misread the situation. Typical MadFoolery. Carry on.

What, too simple for you? I guess I should have translated the essence of consciousness and rationality into differential equations or something. Or too complex? Maybe I should write a children's book on quantum neuroscience! I'm amenable to suggestion... — Enrique

My comment was more general than specific but you seem to have got the message.

But you said that what is made up is subjective. Is Lord of the Rings subjective? What does that mean?

I think it pretty clear that equating made up and subjective is a long stretch.

But moreover, it is this sort of contortion that leads me to ignore the subjective/objective distinction - it causes far more issues than it solves. — Banno

What do you mean by "made up" then? As is obvious, our conversation has stalled, fallen at the first hurdle as it were.

Denying mathematics any form of realism implies that it's got a subjective side to it, a collective kind i.e. it's a world that can be shared between individuals just like a work of fiction but lacking any form of real world relevance. Is this true? I think not. You've flown, me too.

Is this model of post-death coherent — Paul Michael

No but it doesn't have to be.

1. Give aid to Afghanistan or don't give aid to Afghanistan

2. If you give aid to Afghanistan, you end up helping Islamic extremists

3. If you don't give aid to Afghanistan, millions of Afghans will die a slow, painful death

Ergo,

4. You end up helping Islamic extremists or millions of Afghans will die a slow, painful death (dilemma)

Protagoras to the rescue, if you know what I mean.

Really? I don't think so. — Banno

I'll make a statement and then ask a question. J. R. R. Tolkien's universe is made up. You claim math too is made up. Is there a difference between Tolkien's world and the math world? The floor is yours.

But if it is subjective, it's private — Banno

That is precisely what made up means.

No, if it's part of the conversation then it is not subjective — Banno

I just had icecream yesterday and it was delicious.

vanilla — Banno

:grin:

Do you have a specific argument to counter the argument from parturition? — Xanatos

None whatsoever! Sorry to disappoint you.

There's that subjective/objective confusion again. it's not all either subjective or objective, and never the twain. Is Chess "in your head"? — Banno

What means this :point:

Maths is made up. — Banno

? Try to think in terms of collective subjectivity, perhaps inter-subjectivity or mass hallucination if you like.

Is the mathematical universe like religion's heaven?

In the Theaetetus, Socrates rips the Heraclitean thesis that "all things change" to shreds. — Valentinus

Yet, Socrates was born, was a tot, grew into a brave young soldier, went on to "corrupt" the Athenian youth, was impious, was tried, was found guilty, was sent to the gallows, drank hemlock and passed away in 399 BC. No change at all. Denial of the obvious must have its merits but you'll have to explain it to me, if you don't mind. Please.

It's all a question of survival. — Alkis Piskas

Thanks.

That's one way of looking at it but there are other possibilities, possibilities that are non-Darwinian in character.


:ok: It's a pity not many people have researched the one faculty that's the key to enhancing our future-oriented mindset.

Simple, isn't it! — Enrique

No :cry:

There’s is mystical union, theosis, which is said to be non inferential. — Wayfarer

:up:
Hey Wayfarer, you say a lot of important stuff. I just hope other people are paying attention.

Let's look at something else that's made up - religion - and compare that with math and check how they stack up in re their power to provide an explanatory basis for reality as we know it.

Made up gives me the distinct feeling that we're in subjectivity territory and when was the last time, any two people agreed on that score. Math is, whatever it is, at least not all up here, in our heads.

It's said that belief taken up a notch - conviction - is a very powerful state of mind in that it can, in a sense, open doors, much like a psychedelic drug but realer, to other worlds and depending on what it is that one has focused on - be it God or be it the Devil - Yhwhy/Satan will manifest himself before you. Try it, I must.

A big clue to the power of belief is how if one gives credence to the paranormal - ghosts, spirits, demons, and the like - one begins to see them (on a regular basis).

game of life — schopenhauer1

I find this analogy - life as a game - perfect; it's hidden in plain sight. See Simulation Hypothesis. Also, Video Games. It's not that much of a stretch to now think of God as the game (of life) developer/designer. We're all in His world, we have to play by His rules, there are quests & side quests with minibosses, superbosses and then a final boss (Algos/Thanatos). Ouch! Anti....natalism!

What about online avatars???

The kind of civilization that humans have built all around the world is amazing no doubt but it, for better or worse, isn't one of those that's designed for a lasting, healthy relationship with what we call nature. Not only is it that dominant worldviews - materialism, consumerism, capitalism, etc. - are, on the whole, negative as in totally misaligned with how nature works (equilibrium-oriented) they also seem to be snowballing into something much bigger, more dangerous, something we lack the skills and brains to handle. We can, if we don't make the right decisions, only watch, utterly helpless, this runaway train, this so-called civilization of ours, zoom by towards what we all know is global catastrophe at a scale matching the destructive force of the asteroid that wiped out the dinos. :joke:

The point is "If this is X, why can it not be made more X? Therefore this is not X" is not valid at all — khaled

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Depends on your standard I guess. In other words, life is not pretty because you choose to compare it to something better. — khaled

That's the nub, the heart, of the issue. :chin:

For the purposes of discussion, sure, since you seem so convinced utopias are impossible and I don't care to argue that. They serve well enough for a thought experiment. — khaled

That doesn't quite do the job of helping you make your case. Why...I forgot what I wanted to ask.

Experience and observation of others' experience.

Also the fact that it's physiologically possible should imply that it's possible. — khaled

I'm afraid that won't do.


Food for thought: assuming our imagination bears the mark of experience in the real world, ever wonder why our conception of hell has exquisite detail compared to our idea of heaven?

self-actualization — Satyesu

is our nature, I'm not sure.

Thanks Wayfarer.

False. I just didn't reply to it at first because it wasn't addressed to me. — khaled

Then why bring Utopia up at all? Make the case that life can be made happier than sadder in this world and not some hypothetical one.

This makes as much sense as "If bikes are fast why are there cars???!?!??!?". See my full reply. — khaled

Yes, it does make sense. Bikes just don't cut it when you mean business - a comfortable, smooth and pleasant trip.

That wasn't the question. And it is an insignificant question for what I'm trying to say. — khaled

Sorry for the mix up. Thank you for correcting me. Are you taking back what you said about children and Utopia?

And the answer is: Obviously. — khaled

How? Details or at least a sketch of your strategy?

You're making it more complicated than it is. The fact that the eye can't see itself is very simple, isn't it? I can reflect on myself, I can think about what I think, but this problem of reflexivity remains, because, as I said, the subject of who thinks is not an object, except for by inference. Let's not lose sight of the wood for the trees. Have a look at the two refs I gave the paragraph starting 'It has been remarked....' — Wayfarer

I don't wanna rain on the nonphysicalist's parade but just imagine you're all alone on some deserted island and you decide to, since you have all the time in the world, study consciousness. You teach yourself everything about neuroscience and other allied subjects. What's your next move? Isn't it to apply your knowledge to consciousness and the best part is you have access to that subjectivity which the hard problem claims is the stumbling block - it being allegedly inacessible to objective scientific methods. I dunno. I'm just throwing this out there because I respect what Chalmers and others have said about the whole subjectivity deal with consciousness. I sense I'm wrong but how exactly?

The way to show that ridiculous statements are ridiculous is to show their ridiculous consequences. The point is that a utopia is just as difficult to escape as life currently (only suicide works). But I don't think anyone would be against having children in a utopia. That would mean this standard isn't sufficient to tell apart wrong and ok impositions either. — khaled

Answer the question Khaled, friend, is Utopia possible?

Surely, before you get any takers for your offer to put children in Utopia, you'll have to show them that it's not all in your imagination. Ridiculous? :chin:

Ok, now another question, would having a child in a utopian society, where there is 0 suffering be wrong? — khaled

This is swinging to the other extreme. Let's start small - is it possible to make life, on balance, happier than sadder? What say you?

By the way, you have conceded the point expressed in the following question cum statement:

You have a point! If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)? — TheMadFool

Oh Wheatgrass, no no. You can have an unjust situation and have someone enjoy their life. Precisely why my argument is more than the simplicity you deem it as. It is hard for some people to wrap their heads around an unjust situation that people can still feel happy subjective states. Someone who feels joy despite X activity that's Y (bad/unjust) doesn't mean that X activity is a good state of affairs — schopenhauer1

You have a point! If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)?

Fitch's Paradox Of Knowability. The conclusion is collective omniscience derived from the assumption that everything is knowable.

As regards some kind of overarching principle à la theory of everything, if such exists then it has the intriguing corollary that what we deem exceptions to laws/rules are actually not exceptions. An example would clarify my point: birds/planes aren't actually going up, they're, surprise, surprise, falling down. See :point: the wagon-wheel effect

@Wayfarer Don't you see any problems, errors. mistakes, stupidity, in what I said below?

The eyes, in this analagy, stands for consciousness. The eyes seeing themselves (in a reflection) would correspond to consciosuness examining itself. That's what the hard problem is about - consciousness being inaccessible. However, I can access my own consciousness and check if it's only physical.

To see the eye seeing itself = to be conscious of consciousness conscious of consciousness (itself), is a different, higher order, matter altogether, no? — TheMadFool

Sounds like a plan. — Caldwell

:ok:

point still holds. You can look at a reflection of your eyes but you don't see yourself seeing. You only see. — Wayfarer

The eyes, in this analagy, stands for consciousness. The eyes seeing themselves (in a reflection) would correspond to consciosuness examining itself. That's what the hard problem is about - consciousness being inaccessible. However, I can access my own consciousness and check if it's only physical.

To see the eye seeing itself = to be conscious of consciousness conscious of consciousness (itself), is a different, higher order, matter altogether, no?