Your picture seems to be saying we are being coerced by evolutionary forces. — Andrew4Handel

In a sense, yes. I believe, and I'm not straying off the beaten track in this, evolution is all about survival and to ensure this it caused the development of a pleasure-pain system that's tuned to ensure our survival as long as possible and also to guarantee that we engage in the procreative act as much as possible.

sado-masochists — Andrew4Handel

The masochist is sometimes mentioned to counter the claim that pleasure is what drives; after all the masochist wants to be in pain rather than experience pleasure but the catch is that the masochist derives pleasure from what is painful to us. In other words, even the masochist is in pursuit of pleasure albeit in an unconventional way.

If anything masochism proves that pleasure can work in weird ways and can make us do almost anything. What if pleasure were associated with death? I'm almost certain that that would be a veritable extinction level event for humanity. Considering the power of pleasure then it makes complete sense that evolution would enlist its aid in the game of survival.

If one weighs whether one wants to act in a certain way in specific circumstances, and, if the reasons add up so that they mostly want to act that way, then that act would best satisfy their preferences with respect to how they want to act in those specific circumstances. Is this correct? — Aleph Numbers

I'm not quite sure if I catch your drift but since reason is part of your thesis you should know that there are irrational desires/wants/preferences. If one thinks carefully about some of our desires/preferences it turns out they're irrational - in other words your preferences/desires/wants are proven to be unreasonable. For instance you may fall in love with a gorgeous actress and may want to be in a relationship with her but, of course, most of the time this will be impossible. If one persists in this irrational desire it could land you in trouble e.g. a restraining order may have your name on it.

As I said, I do not use numbers that aren't counts or measurements to describe reality. So, I would not use subjective "probability." It is only a mathematical disguise for prejudice.

What are the odds of the flipped coin landing on edge? — Dfpolis

This is a good question, you know, because I think it's happened for real but we should discuss this some other time as it's not relevant to my thesis as there are clearly only two options regarding any observation viz. is it real or is it not.

Pyramids — Yozhura

That bigger is better is an old, now obsolete, mindset. It seems it's far more difficult problem to miniaturize. With modern technology we can easily construct pyramids of even greater dimensions than are found in Egypt and that too in half the time.

Money — Yozhura

Money is important but only as a means. If someone promised you a trillion dollars on the condition that you can't use it, would you take it?

Circuit board — Yozhura

Possibly but we seem to be part of the problem - like a virus - and not part of the solution unless there's a twist in the plot at the end. That would be interesting in a villain is actually the hero sort of way.

Clock of life — Yozhura

1. Happiness + Immortality
2. Happiness + Mortal
3. Sorrow + Mortal
4. Sorrow + Immortal

The list above arranged in order of preference.

Thanks, this is what I was trying to articulate. — debd

:up:

It's perfect as you wrote it. All I did was gild the lily.

:ok: To be fair, let's hear your side of the story. How would you model the situation using probability.

Reminds me of the saw the dog in the manger. To my surprise it has a sexual interpretation. "Collapsible...er...javelin" :wink:

This is a well-considered statement. I second it but that would mean, if taken only a step further, that an actual Chinese Room is, well, conscious - is itself a mind capable of understanding and all that jazz that mind/consciousness is about. Yet, that seems an extraodinary claim to make - thinking here about superorganisms.

Your take on this also implies that, if we flip it around, that consciousness maybe an illusion; after all, if one is under the impression that a Chinese Room is incapable of understanding then, we too must be incapable of doing so.

I got one! Say society turns into a supremacist dystopia where the physically (and I suppose for this example mentally, either of) superior are allowed to live in some "super city" where everything is perfect and the rest of us average folk have to scrounge on the outskirts of barely maintained living complexes. This super city the elite live in is walled off and can be sealed off in an airtight fashion just in case. Now say, in their attempts at security and longevity their defenses end up failing or malfunctioning during an outbreak or major weapons malfunction or a nuclear meltdown, trapping everyone inside and resulting in there being no survivors. Stuff like that could happen. — Outlander

There's no competitive element to this in the sense it isn't actually a case of one side meeting the other on a batttlefiled where strengths/weaknesses work with or against each other. No side has a hand in causing the opposing side's auto-destruct sequence. I suppose one could say that the enemy of my enemy is my ally. Can you look into this and get back to me.

That said, you've made a pertinent observation - the reality of what's seen in a lot of films viz. the self-destruct button. Strengths can be a double-edged sword - useful for offense but can be/become a liability. I recall discussing our so-called superior intellect in this regard. However, anything that negatively impacts our survival at any point in time, sooner or later, would be a weakness. I sense a mistake in this line of thought but can't quite put my finger on it. I mean if a strength/weakness is defined in terms of how advantageous/disadvantageous something is for survival then how do we explain the Architect's statement to Neo in The Matrix?

Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness. — The Architect (The Matrix)

We need to get past the contradiction of course.

To all those who're interested

I think we need to look at the issue differently. At this point I'd like to call on stage the concepts of relative probability and absolute probability. There's nothing complicated in these concepts - the former is a comparison between probabilities and the latter is a particular probability taken alone. As an example if I compare the probability of one person hitting a target and the probability of a different person hitting a target, it's relative probability but if I just look at each probability by itself it's absolute probability.

That out of the way, let's consider the scenario in the OP.

1. S = The probability that the observation O is real/not for each person (X, Y, and Z) = 50%

2. R= The probability that the observation O is real when all three (X, Y and Z) observe O = 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5%

3. N = The probability that the observation O is not real when all three (X, Y, and Z) observer O = 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5%

In terms of relative probability, N is less than S i.e. the probability that observation O is not real when all three make the observation is less than the probability that observation O is not real when only one of them make the observation. There's a significant, and desirable, drop in the probability of O not being real. In other words, having more observers causes the probability of the observation O not being real to fall considerably.

However, in terms of absolute probability, the probability of O being real even when all three observe O is still low, a pathetic 12.5%.

This is peculiar. Because the probability of reality of O is a subjective probability, therefore the mathematician has to consider the reality probability independent probability from each other.

Let me illustrate. Given a coin of heads and tails on the sides. Given that the coin is tossed, the probability of heads or tails in one toss are equal, at 50% each.

Now. X, Y, and Z each toss the coin once. You say that the probabily of tail is 12.5%, and the probability of heads is also 12.5% of any given ONE toss. That is simply absurd. The probability that the coin will land on heads (or else tails) in each one of the three times of the tosses, is 50% times three tosses, and averaged over three tosses.

If the observation decided to be true is 50-50 by each of X, Y, and Z, then the observation's probability is (50%+50%+50%)/3, just like in the coin toss. — god must be atheist

You need a brush-up course in probability theory.

There was research done in the paranormal. Unfortunately or fortunately, you be the judge, all positive findings of such phenomena have been demonstrated to be due to flaws in experimental design, errors when conducting experiments and even deliberately falsifying data. I guess interest slowly faded away with the lack of evidence to support the paranormal and funding with it.

That is a totally different question than asking if the meter reading was real. The question of reality is ontological, that of what suffices for publication is methodological. — Dfpolis

There are two layers to observational data. First concerns its reality and the second concerns its correctness. For both, we need multiple observers. The probability calculations are the same for both and the error commited is identical in both cases.

No, it does not have priority. The presumption is that unless you have a medical history of hallucinations, what you see is really there. Priority goes to relevant questions, not to vague and unsupported possibilities. In the first quotation above, you posed the standard of publication in a peer reviewed journal. No such journal has ever asked me to submit medical records showing I have no history of hallucination or mental illness. — Dfpolis

So, if I'm hallucinating myself conducting a high-precision experiment with hallucinated equipment and hallucinated colleagues, I can publish my findings in a scientific journal?

We are morally certain that our careful observations are correct. Moral certitude means that we can rely on a proposition in good conscience. It does not mean that our belief in it is infallible.

I assign no numerical values to what cannot be counted or measured, because, strictly speaking, it is meaningless to do so. Of course, people do assign probability numbers to their beliefs. One might interpret such probabilities in terms of the odds of a fair bet, but such numbers are not a measure of the probability of a proposition being true, because there is no such probability. If the proposition is meaningful, by which I mean that it asserts some determinable fact, then it is either true or false relative to a determined context. — Dfpolis

The choices available are simple: an observation is real or not. You don't know which. Probabilistically, 50% chance of it being real and 50% chance of it being not real. There's no two ways about it.

It depends on what you mean by "being real." Still, the existence of a third option is irrelevant to what I said.

Your claim is that "X is either y or not y" justifies assigning equal probabilities to y and not y. Since a flipped coin will either land balanced on its edge or not, then (by your logic) there is a 50% chance that it will end on edge. I do not see how you can escape this conclusion. — Dfpolis

There are two possibilities (real/not real) and either one is as likely as the other. 50% chance of being real and 50% chance being not real.

We come to understand logical truths, like the principle of non-contradiction, by abstracting from various experiences — Dusty of Sky

:ok:

contradictions — Dusty of Sky

First thing to notice here is we're worried about logic and reality not in agreement. The one thing that gives us sleepless nights is the law of non-contradiction, the possibility of it being violated, and for good reason I suppose. If contradictions are ever allowed, then the specter of ex falso quodlibet threatens to cause havoc:

Ex falso quodlibet is Latin for “from falsehood, anything”. It is also called the principle of explosion. In logic it refers to the principle that when a contradiction can be derived in a system, then any proposition follows. In type theory it is the elimination rule of the empty type. — Google

However, there are systems of logic that allow contradictions, and such systems are designed in such a way as to forestall ex falso quodlibet. Honestly, sometimes I feel all this is just a game. Anyway, the point is there are logics that can handle contradictions pretty well or so some tell me.

However, what I can't wrap my head around is how contradictions can be thought of as possible. Suppose there's this blank space: (.......). I now write in this blank space a proposition, say about god: (God exists). Then I contradict myself and say god doesn't exist: (God exists). In effect, I'm back to square one, the blank space: (.......). After all, (God exists) = (.......). There's no net effect on the blank space i.e. a contradiction is not a proposition at all ( :chin: ). How then can it be true? Unless of course, in the case of my example, God doesn't exist is not God exists. As you can see, we need to look at "not" or negation differently.

A lot of species reproduce without the aid of pleasure. Sexual pleasure is most pronounced in humans but not necessary in things like plants and fish. Sexual pleasure has lead to a huge proliferation of pornography which in itself does not lead to reproduction. Pleasure seeking seems somewhat divorced from survival in this sense. — Andrew4Handel

This phenomenon deserves its own name. I'll call it the instrumental-intrinsic fallacy - this fallacy is committed when you confuse the means with the ends and is most likely to occur in hedonistic settings for the reason that pleasure/pain is an all-dominating influence.

Sex is pleasurable and the purpose of sex is to perpetuate the species. The end here is species health in terms of numbers. The means is sex. The pleasure of sex is there to make sure we're always motivated to scoodlypoop. It's small wonder then that such an important evolutionary function as sex has so much pleasure associated with it. The insturmental-intrinsinc fallacy is committed when sex is seen as an end in itself and not as the means of the true end, reproduction and the culprit is pleasure, the pleasure of sex.

But morality, which is most pronounced in humans seems to be most concerned with welfare/pleasure — Andrew4Handel

Again, from an evolutionary point of view, all survival-oriented behavior have pleasure associated with them. Morality then is only a means to ensure the species survives.

What bears mentioning though is what I call the conflict of pleasures between the pleasure associated with behavior whose sole beneficiary is the individual and the pleasure that comes with behavior that benefits the tribe. These two are not always in alignment and hence morality as a means to achieve balance of pleasures with the express purpose of optimizing our chances of survival.

There's more that can be said.

Utilitarianism which talks of "the greatest good" seems pleasure based also. — Andrew4Handel

Read above.

I feel like we need to transcend pleasure as a source of motivation or as an end goal. I am not sure why exactly. But facts don't seem to have any relation to pleasure. The evolutionary picture has been seen at odds with facts. Are our beliefs motivated by survival and success or unemotional reason? — Andrew4Handel

If by "transcend pleasure" you mean there's a flaw in the way evolution has shaped our pleasure system and that it needs to be either tweaked or discarded then I'm for it but only if there are good reasons for doing so. In fact we are actually doing this - ensuring freedom and thus reproductive opportunities to good people and imprisoning or executing bad people, in effect removing them from the gene pool. It appears that we're thick in the midst of a human breeding program (and we don't know it).

Personally I don't know what to pursue. Should I pursue pleasure or some other kind of state of enlightenment? — Andrew4Handel

As I said, pleasure is just there to inform you that what you find pleasurable has some value to survival either at the individual level or for the tribe as a whole. If you wish to "transcend pleasure" then I regard that as a positive development for the reason that one would have to rise above our evolutionary programming, programming that has, without your consent and involvement, forced you to have preferences, likes and dislikes. In essence then to decide to go against pleasure is, at the very least, a declaration of freedom.

For example, your reaction to this. Pride in one's work can be excellent for the creation of anything from a vaccine to a great work of art. It is an emotional assessment and most highly skilled people will have pride. Of course there is problematic pride, but in your response it is as if these emotions are necessarily metaphorically the equivalent of a car crash. Disgust is something we evolved to protect us from, for example, disease and also to enforce social norms. It creates societal cohesion. Obviously if one differs with others about what is disgusting (and what is moral) one can consider their disgust wrong. But likely we accept our own. It is part of being a culture/group. Jealousy is, just on my gut (emotional:razz: ) reaction, the trickiest. Now as I hone in more with my analytical mind I still think it is the most likely to be problematic, however it is a natural byproduct of the strong feelings of attraction/love we feel for certain people. In a philosophy forum, I can't really see it being helpful — Coben

The progress of society if one could call it that has been one from chaos in prehistoric times to order in modern times. This transformation of society has been mirrored by a shift in emphasis from emotions to reason. Am I correct?

No; there is clearly something being weighed here, the observation is "real".
However, the proposition that I have N kilograms of gold needs further investigation to confirm.
Is the difference clear now? — Mijin

So you would immediately run toward a shimmering image of water in a desert? Every such instance is for 100% a desert oasis? What about hallucinations?

The probability will depend on the specifics of what's being measured and how. It's something calculated, not something known apriori from the number of alternatives. — Mijin

Well, what are the "specifics"? As far as I can tell an observation is either real or not real - two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities. I'd be more than happy to see your version of the mathematical model appropriate for the issue at hand.

No it's not calculated like that. Can you respond to the argument I just made, refuting this (with the cookie example) — Mijin

How is it calculated then? The cookie example is an unnecessary diversion. Anyway, here goes...

If there are cookie crumbs on your shirt, I'm 80% confident you did it. If your fingerprints are on the cookie jar, 50%. But if I see both things, then by your logic, it's somehow less likely than either individual piece. — Mijin

I admit that assigning initial probability values is rather arbitrary BUT not in the case of the scenario that I presented in the OP - the value 50% is fully justifiable. However, once this is done, probability calculus takes over - there are fixed rules on how to calculate combined probabilities and that's that.

All I can say is Bayes' theorem seems applicable but that, from preliminary examination, doesn't solve the problem.

RIP Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg :flower: :death: :flower:

Descartes: I think, therefore I am
Lichtenburg: Thinking is occurring.

George suggested that Rene went 'too far' with the Cogito and that he presupposed that the 'I' exists. Who is right? — Tom343

If thinking is occurring then there must be a thinker - that's the Cartesian "I". Descartes's "I" is that which is thinking, nothing more and nothing less.

What wouldn't be on the checklist is the words "real" or "not real". — Mijin

That's odd. The first thing that needs to be established is whether an observation is real or not. If you don't have that on your checklist, you could end up, well, chasing mirages to, say, measure the amount of water in it.

Also consider a scenario where you observe a gold ingot on a table. Before you start measuring its weight, you must first determine whether the ingot is actually real or not, right? You couldn't measure the weight if it weren't real.

The question for me is whether you're interested in understanding this, or if the whole thread is just for you to proselytize. Numerous examples have been given as to why the number of alternatives has nothing to do with their probability. Ergo there is no reason to assign a probability of 50%. — Mijin

Ok. What you say implies that the probability has to be something other than 50%. Two possibilities - either less than 50% or more than 50% - make your choice and explain why.

It's not as simple as one operation; the actual calculation of a P value depends on the specifics of how much data is being collected, what the noise range is for that data and so on. But yes, as we gather more data our confidence in a proposition goes up.

Multiplying this number, as you've done, comes up with obviously absurd results. Imagine I am trying to figure out if you ate my cookie. If there are cookie crumbs on your shirt, I'm 80% confident you did it. If your fingerprints are on the cookie jar, 50%. But if I see both things, then by your logic, it's somehow less likely than either individual piece.
(and note, even if you quibble with the actual numbers, the point is, as long as they are less than 100% this will always be the case; multiplying them will decrease our confidence, by your logic. — Mijin

If three people are involved, the probability that each one's observation being real is 50%. The probability that all three of them are observing something real is calculated thus: 50% * 50% * 50%

P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B/A) but since these are independent events P(B/A) = P(B) and so we get the following: P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B)

A devastating choice either way, but I would choose emotion. I'd rather be a rather poor primate than someone with no emotions. To no longer love my wife, nature, my kids. To no longer care about myself, kindness, connecting to others. To not have motivation for anything even to reason. To be a think, a calculator and one with no reason even to calculate since I have no motivations anymore. No goals that I care about. — Coben

Most of the time I feel the same way but which would you rather have around you when a tiger or lion makes its way toward your family? Cold logic or warm love?

Emotions and reasoning are not neatly separated in the brain. Further you need non-rational - as opposed to irrational - processes when reasoning. Intuition and feelings of correctness, completion, having checked carefully enough, feelings that something is missing
surround and support the process of reasoning. Reasoning in human brains is not like programming. Small bits of feelings are present throughout the process and necessary for that process.

A person without emotions is severely handicapped as a thinker. — Coben

In my humble opinion the two emotions that matter the most are sorrow and joy - both, I'm led to believe, are causes of woolly thinking. Other emotions like jealousy, anger, hate, love, etc. are usually stumbling blocks insofar as clear and logical thinking is concerned.

From an evolutionary perspective, brains, logic with it, were later additions to our repertoire of abilities. The brain adapted/adapts to the enviroment and not the other way round.

From a creationist perspective:

God on the sixth day [the last day] of Creation created all the living creatures and, “in his own image,” man both “male and female.”  — Britannica

Here there's some uncertainty. Did God create us, our brains/minds, to be compatible with the universe or did God create the universe to be compatible with our brains/minds? Did God create the universe for us or were we created for the universe? If the former then logic isn't empirical and if the latter it is.

Which g/G is that? :roll: — 180 Proof

All g/G.

There is no proof, as of yet, that god doesn't exist.

I can't — Outlander

There usually is an exception to every rule.

Basically, we've yet to hear your definition of strength and whether or not it is primarily physical or mental. — Outlander

Quantitative differences (counts/measurements) in money, weaponry, physical prowess, mental ability, and population, to name a few, are strength disparities. Negatively viewed, fewer weaknesses than your competitors in the same areas go toward your strength.

1. Not everyone has picked up on it, but the "real" and "not real" thing is a bad framing right away. As Mww correctly pointed out, we know the observation is real, the question is just whether it points to some new phenomenon or just, say, noise in a cable or something. — Mijin

I beg to differ. When you observe something, say a reading on weighing scale that reads 12 kg, what's the checklist you have to go through before you come to the conclusion that there is a mass that's 12 kg?

2. The idea that if we have two options then those two options must have 50% probability is a logical fallacy. I can't seem to find the name of the fallacy right now, but it is a known, named fallacy. Probability does not work like that.

That raises a lot more questions than answers, friend.

3. Multiplying the "50% chance of being real" is also wrong. The whole point of repeating the experiment is to raise our confidence level that it wasn't just experimental error. To the extent these numbers make any sense at all, the 50% needs to be updated after each positive result.

It's being updated - probabilities are being multiplied. What other mathematical operation would you say is the correct method of updating to the final probability?

Not by my definition of "real." If your meter read 17, for whatever reason, you really observed 17. — Dfpolis

Does that single measurement suffice in, say, writing a paper that's to be submitted in a peer-reviewed journal? I don't think so.

Of course you do. Unless you have a sensory, neural or cognitive disorder, all the clues point to the fact that what you observed what was really there. As I said earlier, your use of "real" is non-standard. — Dfpolis

That could be it but I'm mainly interested in the distinction between real and hallucination - this has priority over whatever may follow, right?

Your subjective certainty is more likely to reflect your childhood experience than your observation. If you are only 50% sure that what you saw is real, that says your self-confidence has been harmed -- not that there is any question involving reality. — Dfpolis

Indeed it's an issue of confidence. How confident are we that a certain observation is real or not? By the way, do you mean that you would assign a value other than 50% to the probability that a single observation is real? What are your reasons for that?

So the odds of a coin landing on edge is 50%. — Dfpolis

There is no third option between being real and not being real.

And its interpretation. Perhaps you observed x because your electronics failed, not because of what you believed was the experimental arrangement. Perhaps your sample was contaminated or unrepresentative. I can think of many possible scenarios, none of which call your experience or veracity into question, only the adequacy of its description — Dfpolis

Exactly. All what you said boils down to the issue of whether a single individual's observation is real or not.

Every observation of the same supposed type is a different token. None is exactly the same. You report, "I did x, and observed y." Someone else does x, but does not observe y. Does that mean that you lied? Or that y was a miracle? Or does it mean that factors not included in x lead to the observation of y? All are possible, but statistically, the last is most common. — Dfpolis

:ok: However, I feel introducing causality at this point is entirely unhelpful and distracting. The issue is plain and simple: One person observes something. Is it real or not? Scientific repeatability requires other people to make the same observation and that being successful validates the observation. There's a flaw in this as I've pointed out.

On what basis are you calculating the probabilities? — Dfpolis

It's very simple actually. If I happen to make a single observation I'm uncertain whether it's real or not which, phrased differently, means I have no clue whether it's likely to be real or unlikely to be real. Now, I must assign a numerical value to the probability of my observation being real. If I assign a value greater than 50% to the probability that means I think it's likely but this contradicts my assertion that I'm uncertain - I don't know whether the observation is likely or unlikely to be real. The same logic applies if I assign a value to the probability less than 50% in which case I would be saying the observation is unlikely to be real and that again contradicts my state of uncertainty. The only probability value that fits my epistemic state - uncertainty (not knowing whether likely/unlikely) - is 50%.

Well if that's all that matters. More quickly yet more brutal eh? That's.. an interesting conclusion. Are we still defining strength as physical or mental or a toss up? Again, you'd be surprised what a few inventions can do.. — Outlander

Well, name one occasion where the weaker side ends up on top in the game of survival.

You asked what common sense was. I explained it. That's the point. "Common sense" in the quote by Wittgenstein is nothing but a bad translation that alters the effective meaning of his point — god must be atheist

I see. Thanks a ton :up:

Obviously I can't speak for Wittgenstein, but substitute intuitive sense for common sense and the whole paragraph makes intuitive sense.

Common sense does not mean in German what it means in English. In English, it means the sense that is common to all. Which is in itself an impossible proposition in most cases. In German (and in Hungarian, coincidentally, as in most other European languages) common sense is expressed as "reine Vernunft", or tiszta esz, in Hungarian, or Nyezhdravanskoye Nyiho in Russian: pure reason, pure brain, pure thinking. A sober mind. That sorta thing, nothing to do with consensus. Thus, Wittgenstein's uncommon sense is dictated by his personal intuitive thought, which is different from mine or yours; but the slavish stupid fucking asshole translators are incapable of bridging some differences in lingual constructs. — god must be atheist

Oh, what's the point? Thanks

It is the absolute nothingness which results through death that makes it an equaliser and neither the manner of the death nor the circumstances have any bearing on this effect. — Judaka

I beg to differ. Is there a difference or not between a short life and a long life? Don't people say that someone was fortunate to have lived to a ripe old age? Don't people say things like, "he died too young?" All these common utterances indicate a felt injustice in dying early, kicking the bucket prematurely. In other words, death occurring too early counts as a loss, vindicating my claim that death is not an equalizer - some die too young - this is unfair - and those that do die young are usually underprivileged - this is also unfair. A double whammy.

Maybe in death we experience eternal calm without the annoyances of life. Would it matter a million years from now if ten years ago someone had more fun than you? Anyway, I think everyone's experience of life is very similar. Envy is not so much sinful as illogical — Gregory

It appears that it does matter whether someone had more fun than someone else. That's precisely the reason people are more grieved by the death of the young rather than the old and that's why death is unfair - more underprivileged folk are taken away from us than those who have it good.

You're not a very patient person. — Outlander

What means you by that?

Oh you better not. Some of the weakest people you can imagine are some of the strongest physically or in terms of social power. They never had to do anything for themselves or go through what someone who has to struggle to do what others have the inate and unearned ability to do. True weakness seeks power, be it physically or by position of authority. Anything to be the bigger man and lord over others without ever actually having to sacrifice, risk, or otherwise "do" anything difficult.

While the scales were forever tipped in the battle of brain versus brawn in the favor of the former the first time a tree fell atop a boulder creating the first lever, with each subsequent innovation an obscenely overwhelming victory for the former, strength is only half physical. At most.

In regards to the previous sentence, you're not incorrect. If something ever happens to the favorable circumstance or physical endowments one decides to build not only their entire identity and sense of self on but meaning of life on as well, it'd be like watching the training wheels fall off of a bike ridden by a toddler. At best you'd be left with an angry, confused child- at worst something not even Jane Goodall would recognize as human. If they keep themselves alive that is. Which is a toss up.

Not everyones like this. Any sensible person would want to keep themselves healthy. Of course. One who chooses either brain or brawn over the other will never know either. — Outlander

All that matters is this: the weaker side dies more quickly and in more brutal ways than the stronger.

They won't die? You can't have weakness without strength and vice versa. There's always going to be someone on top and another beneath. Someone has to pay the piper. The difference is one will never have to face their weaknesses while the other will never be able to hide behind circumstance or "an easy life" and call themselves strong — Outlander

Read my replies to other posters above.

Sometimes the word "valuable" seems synonymous with creating pleasure

For example I value music because it gives me pleasure and I value charity because it increases well being.

But does pleasure have a value in itself?

I am using this definition of value "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something." A situation I am thinking of is enjoying food.

Is the mere fact that you are in a state of pleasure valuable outside of any other context. Or is pleasure only of value when it is attached to a meaningful or ethical outcome. Definitions are tricky here because valuable, meaningful, pleasurable and ethical may have multiple meaning but also may rely on each other for part of their meaning.

Is there a value higher than pleasure? Does pleasure equal hedonism and act more like an insatiable addiction? — Andrew4Handel

One thing I noticed and I'm not that much of a noticer is that all emotions seem to be reactions in the sense they're an effect, a response, to something. Rudimentary understanding of causality says that causes must precede effects and the theory of evolution, if true, would require things that have some value to survival be causally associated with pleasure to keep organisms like us motivated in the pursuit of these values. Doesn't that mean that pleasure is just a reward system put in place by evolutionary processes to ensure that we become and remain addicted to stuff that are survival oriented? In other words traits that are basic survival tools were, at some point in our evolutionary history, coupled with a pleasure center for obvious reasons and this implies that pleasure, despite the claims of hedonism, doesn't possess an intrinsic value of its own - it's simply there to keep us coming back for more, all the while promoting behavior that's good for the success of the species in the game of life.

You have hit the nail in the head. This is a serious problem.

Have you read "The Black Swan"? It's a notorious no-BS book regarding this exact subject. — dussias

I was actually hoping to be proven wrong because the entire scientific community can't be wrong about this.

The new empty headed religion is already spreading! Praise be The Prophet! — Hippyhead

:smile:

Ah! Well, if we're talking about control and consciousness then I'd agree that not all instances have had someone steering the wheel. Makes me think about Hitler and Gandhi, though. — dussias

Why?

(By no means I'm saying that only emotions have been in control of the wheel, I'm just commenting that they have had their chance)

Who has had their chance?

However, a hypnotist is trained to perceive the world as 90% irrational and 10% rational. What do you think of this?

That they're probably on the right track insofar as understanding humans is concerned but the thing is irrationality isn't entirely attributable to emotion. Many people, myself included, aren't logicians and heck even logicians make mistakes.

Agreed. We haven't even gotten to the point of taking about if the only personality playing is the part of me that knows how to play chess and that all the other composite parts of my psyche are just spectating one personality play chess, where the spectators have already voted on who will win while the chess player is confined to playing out the game in response to a vote to either win or lose, based on the colour he is moving, black or white. — MSC

I suppose you're right.

Yes?

Could you elaborate — dussias

No control, no steering.

Do I love some reasonable arguments! But it's funny, emotions many times provide so much more information about the world. Pride, jealousy, disgust; these have steered humanity since its beginning. The problem is that, to obtain information from emotions, we need to open different channels, those more fit to noise and sights rather than words and meanings. — dussias

Steered?! You might want to rethink that. Does a drunk driver steer himself at 100 mph into a tree?

First, if I observe x, that is presumptive evidence that x happened. There is no a priori reason to suppose that x did not happen. — Dfpolis

:ok:

Second, the purpose of repeatability in science is not to confirm or dispute what you observed, but to see if you have correctly identified the factors causing x. Perhaps x was caused by some extraneous factor you have not identified. If I can set up my experiment using all the factors you identified, and observe x, that is good evidence that you have correctly identified the relevant factors. — Dfpolis

We're not on the same page on this. The very idea of repeatability is to either confirm or disconfirm an observation. There's no need to bring up the issue of causality because at the end of the day it's about an observation - whether it can be observed by different people in different settings.

Third, there is no rational basis for assigning numbers to things we cannot count or measure. Among these innumerables is the "probability" subjectively assigned to beliefs, and the "utility" of acts and decisions. Bayesian probability is simply transvestite prejudice -- prejudice in mathematical garb. Putting lipstick on it does not make it rational. — Dfpolis

What concerns us is whether a given observation is real or not. Either it's real or it's not. If one person makes an observation then the odds of that being real are 50:50. Any other value you assign would amount to begging the question - assuming the very thing you're unsure of.