Nothing can be known.

Would you even be able to tell the difference? Then being awake would feel no different to being asleep. — Cidat

Non sequitur!

‘What if everything is an illusion? In that case I definitely overpaid for my carpet’ ~ Woody Allen. — Wayfarer

:rofl:

Therefor Socrates got it all wrong and deserved his hemlock. — stoicHoneyBadger

Interesting! I like to look at it backwards (like my nephew K). The Hemlock deserved Socrates. It's (the Hemlock's) ancestors "worked so hard" - entreating Fortuna (what else can a plant do?) on an hourly basis - to make sure that when the Athenian "mob" finally decides to execute Socrates, one of their descendants would be oh-so-conveniently ready-at-hand to provide the means to end the life of the famed Greek gadfly. The Socratic Hemlock lineage's "hard work" paid off - it managed to, just by sitting there in the ground and doing nothing, asphyxiate a Greek legend.

”I should like to know which is worse: to be ravished a hundred times by pirates, and have a buttock cut off, and run the gauntlet of the Bulgarians, and be flogged and hanged in an auto-da-fe, and be dissected, and to row in a galley -- in short, to undergo all the miseries we have each of us suffered -- or simply to sit here and do nothing? That is a hard question,' said Candide” — Pax

Good question. However, the choices don't make any sense. I didn't know Voltaire was logically that inept!

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene. — Voltaire

Hmmmmm...

I'm confused. — khaled

That's part of the process.

Resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad" makes no sense. — khaled

It does and that's why I don't believe you,

read the whole thread. — khaled

Makes no sense either. — khaled

Try harder. Reread what I said and it should become clearer.

For your benefit, I'll repeat what I said.

The Trolley problem:

Pull the lever, one innocent dies (bad). Don't pull the lever, many die (bad). This is the meat and potatoes of the trolley problem.

It's both bad.

The Protagorian solution: Pull the lever, many are saved (good). Don't pull the lever, one innocent survives (good).

It's both good.

A similar argument applies to Kantian ethic in re the murderer at the door thought experiment.

What makes a moral dilemma a moral dilemma is that we don't know what to do, not that both options are good/bad. — khaled

That's exactly why we don't know what to do - moral ambiguity. Two options are provided and both seem equally bad and good.

Ok but which should I do though? This doesn't help. — khaled

Protagoras paradox makes it a clear as crystal. Please read through my previous posts.

This makes as much sense as resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad". — khaled

Exactly!

The ascetic follows the example of the Buddha towards non-existence — Possibility

:up:

To Those Interested

The Desire Conundrum:

Buddha: Desire leads to suffering. To be free from suffering, extinguish desire.

Bikkhu: To extinguish desire, I must desire to extinguish desire. In other words, one can't extinguish desire for to do so we must desire (to extinguish desire). If I desire then I suffer and we're back to where we started: desire leads to suffering.

Psychology can not be a science like chemistry because its subject matter -- the minds of human beings -- are not directly observable, and moreover consists of billions of individuals who are all capable of obfuscation, deceit, dishonesty, distrust, willful stupidity, and more (as well as brilliant understanding and very sharp perception). — Bitter Crank

That's exactly the point! Psychology isn't/can't be a science. For it to come anywhere close to being a science, it needs people to be honest when reporting their thoughts, feelings, intuitions, whathaveyou and as we all know, honesty is (not) the best policy.

You're missing your point. If you read an analysis of the dilemma it points to logical argumentation of the kind that was taught to would-be lawyers by Prodicus, Protagoras and other ancient rhetorician, and by Plato too, and is still taught in law schools. Proficiently arguing either side of a case is essential in today's legal profession. There is no ethical point made there by either side, it's just formal argumentation. Therefore your Protagorean ethical conclusions are just your own inventions. — magritte

First off, thanks for filling me in in the details of Protagoras' technique (counterdilemma) - I didn't know Protagoras was part of the legal curriculum back then.

Secondly, yes, you seem to be right about the Protagorian counterdilemma being applied to ethical issues as "...your (my) own inventions" - I've never encountered it before.

That, however, doesn't make it wrong!

Great, but this neither Kant's case not his argument. — tim wood

:chin: You're kidding, right?

Nor did I try to. All that I did was disqualify on the basis of failure to understand your particular example from Kant. Which lack of understanding, it being pointed out to you with a reference for correction you apparently ignored, has had zero effect on you. This does not disqualify the rest of your argument; it just makes it suspect. — tim wood

All that I know and you haven't been able to refute it is there's moral ambiguity - telling the truth is good but letting a murderer know where faer next victim is is bad (good and bad). On the flip side, lying is bad but concealing your friend from a murderer is good (good and bad). This peculiar state of affairs is just the kind of situations where Protagoras' counterdilemma techinque is cut out for. That's all there is to my argument.

If you can't be bothered to defend your defamation of an entire field of research, perhaps consider not publishing it. — Isaac

Just pointing you in the right direction as I did would be doing you a big favor - you would be disabused of your erroneous view that psychology has anything worthwhile. As I mentioned earlier and as some other posters have already mentioned psychology resembles mysticism and mythology and that's like someone telling you that you look like a monkey - definitely not a compliment.

Eh?

I suppose there are people who indeed prefer to lounge around all day and be waited on. But is everyone like that? I doubt it. — baker

Nobody wants to work. :point:

hard work. — baker

:point: I wish I could make the finger point up.

By this reasoning, eagles are smarter than us because they have better eyes. — Olivier5

Non sequitur. Nothing I said would imply that. All that needs to be borne in mind is that both vision and thought are information processing - the eyes process visual data and the brain pattern data.

1. Quote an expert claiming that the whole of psychology is not a science and we might then have something to go off, other wise bringing up expert testimony is useless. — Isaac

I'm sorry, I'm too tired to search for references to that effect. Suffice it to say they exist and a Google search will take you to numerous criticisms of psychology especially on the matter of its pretence to science.

2. "I'm warranted to doubt the claims of psychologists that what they're doing is science" is not the same as "psychology is simply mythology in modern form" is it? Not by a very long margin. — Isaac

That's a distinction without a difference. If it isn't science and some explanatory theory is being posited, it's just mythology in disguise. Psychology is a giant leap indeed but unfortunately backwards to a time before Thales of Miletus when myths dominated the lives of people.

If there were an expert in the field who claimed that the whole of psychology was not a science, then you would have cause to doubt that the whole of psychology is not a science. Since you've neither provided such an expert, not limited your claims to just doubt I can't see what relevance your little syllogism might have to the matter at hand. — Isaac

Google. The truth is out there.

Pets (dogs) are property — Oppyfan

having sex with their dog — Oppyfan

Something doesn't add up.

Property includes stuff like land, houses, diamonds, couches, lamps, mirrors, cars, etc., objects that most people can't get intimate with in a way that would make sex/intercourse/coitus a natural consequence.

To have sex with a dog then means dogs aren't property like the ones I listed above - bestiality with a dog would mean we can get physical with it like we can/do with a human partner, an unmistakable sign that dogs, when humans have sex with them, are elevated to the status of a willing and eager mate.

I wonder though if a dildo or a vibrator should also not be treated as property - they too are "mates" technically speaking. The key difference between dildos/vibrators and dogs being the former are non-living (like most other properties) whilst the latter are living, not only that they're also intelligent.

What an utterly stupid thing to say - your chosen side in any controversy is automatically right simply by virtue of there being a controversy. — Isaac

Why is it stupid wrong?

Criteria for accepting expert testimony:

1. The expert must be unbiased
2. The expert's comments must be limited to his area of expertise
3. The expert must be reliable
4. There should be consensus among experts (no controversy)

Ergo, if experts don't see eye to eye on an issue, here psychology, I'm warranted to doubt the claims of psychologists that what they're doing is science.

For fuck's sake.

https://www.psychol.cam.ac.uk/research/research-centres

What of that list looks anything even vaguely resembling Jung and Freud.

Do you people bother to do even a shred of research before vomiting up your ad hoc reckons? — Isaac

I said what I wanted to say. It's obvious that psychology is far from being a science at par with physics or even for that matter biology. Why else all the controversy surrounding its scientific status? No smoke without fire is how I see it.

Prime numbers are a pattern: numbers that have exactly two factors, 1 and itself.
— TheMadFool

That is not a pattern - it’s a concept. — Wayfarer

A concept is a pattern. For e.g. the concept of love, I chose a hard one, is, on the whole, a positive attitude - that's a pattern of emotions/feelings that can be found in those who love. Essences, the meat and potatoes of concepts, are nothing more than patterns.

My view, in brief from above, is that science is about replicable results from experiments. Psychology about speculative theorizing about things not adequately subject to experiment, and usually understood not to be. — tim wood

:up: Psychology is exactly as you describe it - more, some even might want to say mere, speculation than anything substantive. A poster even compared Jung's psychology to mysticisim and to tell you the truth that such a comparison is possible speaks volumes about the lack of credibility vis-à-vis psychology taken as a whole.

Coming to Freud, the alleged person who put psychology on the map, one only needs to look at how his theory is centered around the so-called Oedipus complex. Oedipus being the perfect analogy for Freud's theories is a dead giveaway - psychology is simply mythology in modern form.

figuratively speaking. — Wayfarer

I'm somehow not convinced. Pattern detection (sensing) is what the brain/mind literally does - the laws of nature (science) are patterns in the behavior of matter & energy, consequentialism is an ethical pattern (greatest happiness principle), I could go on but you get the idea.

Completely different. I've been through with others, why mathematical reasoning is more than pattern recognition - for example with respect to the sequence of prime numbers. They don't form a pattern but are grasped by reasoning, by understanding the concept of 'divisible' - which is also not a pattern. — Wayfarer

Prime numbers are a pattern: numbers that have exactly two factors, 1 and itself. There maybe no patterns in a list of all prime numbers and that squares perfectly what I said - our brains/minds being pattern sensors can't accept that, it's like switching off the lights for the eyes, or putting earplugs in our ears, so on. Thus prime numbers are of great interest to mathematicians, they want to uncover a pattern in it.

@Harry Hindu

Reasoning is a sensation, no?
— Harry Hindu

No. Burning your fingers is a sensation. Two plus two is not a sensation. — Wayfarer

I'm not so sure. This has been bothering me for a while and I'd like to pick your brains regarding the issue of mind as a sensory organ. My reasoning is rather simple: just as the eyes sense light, just as the ears sense sound, and so on, the mind senses patterns (numbers are patterns, ethics too, truth is all humans think about are patterns). Put simply the mind is a sensory organ like the eyes, nose, ears, tongue, and skin are; it's a pattern sensor

One might object by saying,

Very simple. Senses are for info gathering, reasoning is for info processing. — Olivier5

How different is mental info processing from that which takes place in the eyes when it sees something? No difference, in my humble opinion.

You haven't really addressed any of the points I made. Nonetheless, thanks for relating the interesting story of a Mr. John Astor. G'day.

No. What Protagoras really said, and what he was accused of having said by contemporary and later pundits becomes relevant when you repeat or emphasize certain unimaginable conclusions in his name to support either an argument, or in this case, the format of an argument. — magritte

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. As you should've already noticed, I'm talking about the trolley problem in consequentialism and the murderer at the door in Kantian deontological ethics. Protagoras' views on ethics is irrelevant.

Where he comes in though is his ingenious method of responding to dilemmas, here moral ones, with counterdilemmas. That's the extent of Protagoras' involvement in this thread about moral conundrums.

According to Protagoras, in the real world, the identity and closeness of that one person as against who the others are makes all the difference. — magritte

If you mean to say there's an asymmetry in the choices, there are none. That's why they're dilemmas in the first place.

I believe TheMadFool gave this example earlier, where we can start with the infinite set 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., then remove 1 to leave 2, 3, 4, ... What's left is still infinite, yet it's missing 1. That can happen too. Infinity is funny that way. — fishfry

For finite sets,

1. K = {a, b, c}, L = {a}

2. Set difference: K - L = {b, c}

3. K - L =/= K

Where n(A) is the number of elements in set A,

n(K) = 3

n(L) = 1

4. Arithmetic difference: n(K) - n(L) = 3 - 1 = 2

5. n(K) - n(L) =/= n(K)

---------------------

For infinite sets,

6. N = {1, 2, 3,...} O = {1}

7. Set Difference: N - O = {2, 3, 4,...}

8. N - O =/= N

Where n(A) is the number of elements in set A,

n(N) = Infinity

n(O) = 1

9. Arithmetic difference: n(N) - n(O) = Infinity - 1 = Infinity

10. n(N) - n(O) = n(N)

I don't understand your point. I have argued that our minds are the bearers of moral value and that we can learn from this that our minds are immaterial. — Bartricks

Minds augment/enhance the moral value of the physical body. That, in my humble opinion, doesn't imply that the mind is immaterial.

The book that Thales Of Miletus (the first philosopher) read :point: Egyptian Geometry Texts. Don't even think of saying what Thales did with those books, found a separate discipline (philosophy), was/is easy peasy. To go from geometry to philosophy is a huge conceptual leap, not something an ordinary person can do.

Except this is a complete failure to understand what that scenario is as presented. Here for elucidation:
http://philosophical.space/f325/KantLies.pdf — tim wood

I humby disagree. You know the heart of the issues is dilemmas of moral ambiguity, perfect settings for counterdilemmas of the Protagorain kind.

Protagoras never said that anything goes, or all choices are the same, or even that morality is relative. Protagoras was a moral subjectivist. Expanding spherically starting with myself, first, morality is what is good for me, second, morality is what is good for us, third, morality is what is good for our culture. (i.e. screw all others.)

I think this sums up about 99% of the practical world. Naturally, Socrates had something more ethereal in mind. Socrates, against repeated protestations, twists the argument away from anything sensible to his own unattainable binary ideal Good. — magritte

Ignoratio elenchi. Protagoras' technique (counterdilemma) is my focus; nothing about his moral views is relevant.

Esse est percipii — George Berkeley (father of idealism)

1. If x exists then x is perceived.

1a. If x is not perceived then x doesn't exist

Now, what about x doesn't exist? What does that imply in terms of perception?

Can we say, if x doesn't exist then x is not perceived? We have to say yes because if it were false it leads to a contradiction.

Also, what about x is perceived? What does that indicate for existence? This is just the mirror image of the above question.

So we agree,

2. If x is perceived then x exists

In other words, perception = existence, they're one and the same thing.

However, there's a catch - the classic chicken and egg problem. According to idealism, you can't exist without first being perceived first but then you can't perceive with existing first. This has to do with God as a necessary being who ensures the existence of the universe via his perception.

You are equating existence and materiality. I only said dream objects are immaterial. I didn't say dream objects don't exist. — Yohan

They are the same thing. That was my point!

To exist is to be perceived means if it's perceived, it exists. Where are you getting "or doesn't exist from"? — Yohan

If to exist is to be perceived, to not be perceived is to not exist. The problem is to not be perceived is immaterial. Thus, you can't distinguish between, nonexistence and immaterial.

a mindless foetus or a corpse both seem to be things whose destruction is not morally bad — Bartricks

Interesting! So, we're treating fetuses like corpses but then the crucial difference - one is alive but the other is not!

Moral value? I guess, going by what you said above about fetuses & corpses, life in and of itself, simply being alive, immediately and unequivocally, confers moral value. So moral value looks something like this:

1. Physical life. Moral value? +
2. Physical life + Mental life. Moral value? ++

To be perceived is to exist is false.
— TheMadFool
For an idealist this is a tautology, or self-evident. It can't be disproven from second order logic. (to be is to be perceived) — Yohan

In other words, if perceived then either exists (like a stone) or doesn't exist (like a dream/hallucination). There's nothing to disprove since the consequent is a tautology (exists or doesn't exist). If the idealist agrees to this, as you seem to be claiming, as I said, fae can't distinguish between that which exists (say a stone) and that which doesn't (a dream or a hallucination). This is where Descartes comes in I believe.

But didn't you agree that dreams are immaterial? Are they not perceptions?
For an idealist dream matter and non-dream matter are both ultimately immaterial, that is, mental. Material is a perception, but perception isn't material. — Yohan

As I said, the idealist, through perception (percieved or not perceived) alone can't tell the difference between existent things, nonexistent things, and immaterial things.

1. If perceieved then either exists or doesn't exist

2. If not perceived then doesn't exist or immaterial

That's all I have to say and can say. Steel man that for me, will ya?

It's good enough for me. — 180 Proof

I totally understand! Ignore me.

I don't actively try to stay "current" anymore — 180 Proof

That's not good, not good at all. You have a good handle on history (philosophy, politics, religion, science, whathaveyou). You, unlike me, have time for the present and also the future (keep up with the times as it were). Buck up 180 Proof. You're one of the leaders of the pack! :lol:

The idea of 'keeping up to date' is interesting in regard to philosophy because in many ways it deals with the eternal questions — Jack Cummins

Bad Jack, bad! :lol:

up to date — Angelo

What's up-to-date? :rofl:

Jokes aside, my favorite database updating tool is Google News - it provides a balanced mix of the latest in almost every area of human activity - superheroes to supercolliders. However, I usually don't dive deeper than what the headlines say but occasionaly I click through the nested links and before I know it, I'm lost in (cyber)space!

I like your point about the illusion of complexity. Very interesting. — darthbarracuda

One or a few simple rule(s) [mechanics] and we have chaos [gas particles demo] :point:



Complexity (chaos) is an illusion then, no?

The rule with gas molecules is rather simple: Hey gas particles, remember how you move is determined by the angle and the force with which you're struck under the rubric of the law of conservation of momentum. All gas particles follow this rule and yet, the motion of all the particles is/seems disorderly/chaotic, almost as if there are no rules.

Something similar maybe happening in the moral universe just like in the particle universe - there could be a very simple, easy-to-understand moral rule we all, looks like unwittingly, follow but when we zoom out and look at the bigger picture as it were, it's chaos, another name for complex/complicated.

How might I distinguish a material object from an immaterial object? We have to give a coherent definition of 'material' and 'object'. Objects in our dreams are experienced virtually identically to objects in our waking world, would you agree? I guess I could say any or every object in my dreams are, ultimately, immaterial. And is there a difference between dream objects and other objects? Again, what exactly do we mean by 'object'?
To your second question. I know I exist, I don't know that anything else exists. At best I may be able to say anything that is self-contradictory
doesn't exist. — Yohan

Some of the issues you raise seem like waypoints that should've already been passed to discuss materialism vs idealism. You know, like what "object" and "material" mean.

Anyway, you bring up an important topic in this debate - dreams, by extension the mental phenomenon known as hallucination. Granted that as the great idealist George Berkeley claimed, "esse est percipi" (to exist is to be perceived), dreams & hallucinations demonstrate that,

1. To be perceived is to exist is false.

Returning to Berkeley's statement, it implies,

2. to not be perceived is to not exist. (note this statement).

Coming to what "immaterial" means, off the top of my head I can say, to be material is to be perceived. That means,

3. To not be perceived is to be immaterial.

Compare statements 2 and 3 above. If not perceived then, either nonexistent or immaterial. In other words, there's no difference between nonexistence and immaterial. That's why I asked you to name one immaterial object and one nonexistent object, secretly hoping that you might just pull it off but I wasn't holding my breath if you know what I mean. Basically, idealism can't tell the difference between nonexistence and immaterial and that isn't good, right?

If you feel that following should be true,

a) To be immaterial is to not be perceived, you'd have to agree that,

b) To be perceived is to be material, is true

Idealism can't/won't accept b.

Let's summarize,

1. To be perceived is to exist [false]. Dreams, hallucinations. So, to be perceived is either to exist or to not exist.

2. To not be perceived is to not exist.

3. To not be perceived is to be immaterial

4. Either perceived or not perceived

Ergo [from 1, 2, 3, 4],

5. Either (to exist or to not exist) or (to not exist or to be immaterial)

Simplifying 5,

6. To exist OR not to exist OR to be immaterial

The bottom line is, whether you perceive or not, you can't tell the difference between existence, nonexistence, and the immaterial. :chin:

Hence, Descartes' cogito ergo sum.

As for the nonexistence of the self-contradictory, I agree but that definition doesn't seem relevant to idealism & materialism.

The idea of immaterial objects and one sided coins. — Cheshire

:ok:

life ought to be examined. — Shawn

psychology — Shawn

:up: Genius!

Luckily or not, you decide, psychology seems chockablock with multiple theories that seem to lack overlap zones giving nothing for theorists who want some sorta unification to work on. It's all blind people shooting in the dark - mostly guesswork, imaginative sure but true, probably not.

Since ethics concerns itself at least in part with daily decisions and behavior, should a criteria of an ethical system be that it is simple and easy-to-understand? — darthbarracuda

The Real World Is Messy

Should we expect an ethical system to provide not just a theoretical but also a pragmatic guide to life? — darthbarracuda

The Real World Is Messy

The point of ethical theories is to sift through all the incidentals and zero in on the essence and see if it's possible to build a working ethical model centered on that - happiness (consequentialism) and duty (Kantian ethics), etc. It reminds me of science - reducing even the most complex phenomena to a set of simple principles. It bears mentioning that, in line with your thoughts, ethics too, like the chaos of a pitched battle is nothing but pressure, maybe just as simple. The complexity we perceive in ethical issues is then only an illusion.

If anyone is interested I'd like to have a steel man competition with a materialist, myself being an idealist. — Yohan

Name one immaterial object and name one thing you know for certain doesn't exist.

I don't see even an apparent paradox. E.g. children don't want to take unpleasant medicines yet the ones who recover from illnesses do. No paradox. WTF are you talking about, Fool? Comparing "wanting" and "doing" is a category mistake. — 180 Proof

Medicine isn't the same thing as work - the former improves the situation (you become whole again) but the latter no matter what else it does, definitely can't be consideres an improvement (you have to work still). Your counter-analogy fails.

The paradox is clear as clear can be. Nobody (men & women) wants to work but, now that I think of it, women want to work. Women have an agenda (equality) over and above the real reason why people work (survival) and that makes them want to work. Women perceive work as part of the feminist struggle. That makes them blind to the fact work is not some kind of privilege or mark of superiority that men possess; instead it's actually a heavy burden, such a heavy burden that men would like nothing better than to get rid of it asap.

I don't expect for mine to be equal to my male counterpart, I plan on making more than him. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's the spirit! :clap: :up:

What you said here is germane to the issue I raise in this thread. Work isn't just about survival then, it also has the added feature of empowering people through money. If women earn the same/more than men then they (women) level the playing field in a manner of speaking - they can enter into relationships with men on an equal footing, not as a dependent but as a partner, even a boss :smile: . This makes a huge difference to women who are probably fed up of being under men's thumbs.

Thus,

1. Everybody wants to work (for power/money)

2. Women want to work (for power/money)

The power money gives, the effect work has, comes from its power over survival. The more/better you work, the more money you earn, the more independent you become, the more assertive you can be, in short equality.

However, if there were alternative means, a way other than having to work, to achieving what some governments call self-sufficiency...and more, men and women would grab them like their life depended on it, and actually it does.