• Why You're Screwed If You're Low Income
    It's naturally permanent, because naturally there always will be those low income. — ssu
    No it isn't natural that there are low income (and we agree that low income are those who couldn't afford a lot of things that moderate and above average earners enjoy).
    You should read Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. This Graeber was advocating basic income for all, so that even low income people don't have to work the stupid jobs.
  • Typical reading speeds?
    ↪TiredThinker
    Time yourself using different philosophers. I used Schopenhauer for this purpose. But try JS Mill, god damn! Archaic language. Descartes -- you should meditate on his meditation to get his point. Aristotle -- he's good to read -- like an ocean wave.
  • Mad Fool Turing Test
    I've noticed that people who talk about "an AI" in this kind of context overestimate the capabilities of computer programs. Calling it "an AI" makes it sound like it's an entity, like a person, a mind. It isn't any of those things. — Daemon
    This is correct. Remember Sophia? It was presented in public as an AI that could "think" and interact with you. It can't. The handlers feed it information -- like a song, or answers to questions before the actual encounter. It's very limited. But people think it's the closest we get to an android. But it's really isn't. It's a cringe worthy creation of people.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Yes. I just don't see the point you're making. — EugeneW
    Neither do I see your point. So, are we good?

    I don't know if it helps your case but belief isn't knowledge, it's just one of three conditions for knowledge (JTB theory) and that being so, proof isn't necessary. You can believe anything you want; fairies, Tinker Bell, Rocs, anything's game when it comes to just belief. — Agent Smith
    Yes, one could argue like this as well. That's why I've been saying all along, why require proof of existence of god from believers? Why is there a special standard for this kind of belief that we don't see in others. And again, I've already mentioned the big bang, which no one here has countered. There's no proof of the big bang. Just some "testable evidence".
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪EugeneW
    Okay. Are we done now?
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    We agree! Proving god or proving dreams are two different things though. — EugeneW
    Okay, so now we're back to the pesky question of difference. In a logical argument, do you agree that god exists and claims that dreams exist are two different logical argument. One does not need it.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    And they can't proof that they're alive either? — EugeneW
    To me this is a stupid question, no offense. Why would you ask someone a proof if he's alive?
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪EugeneW
    Are you even asking these questions in good faith or you're just bored? I'm responding to your questions in good faith. But it looks like we're going in circles.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Why it requires proof? — EugeneW
    The belief in god. Those who say god does not exist because there's no proof of god's existence.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    So we can't proof to others we dream, perceive and are alive. So what? — EugeneW
    lol. So what? So, why does belief in god require proof of god then?
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    .
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Exactly! Get my point? — EugeneW
    WTF is this? What are you responding to? To my claim that we accept certain things without proof? Then we're in agreement. Thank you very much.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪EugeneW
    We could keep talking to each other and accuse each other of illusion or delusion.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    That's no proof your perception exists. For all I know you don't have a perception of reality. How can you proof to me you see the world? — EugeneW
    Then I could say the same thing with you -- all the things you post here are just your illusion and I'm under no obligation to respond to an illusion or delusion.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪EugeneW
    I have already explained somewhere in this thread what evidence are and what a proof is. For example, just because I see a person with sweaty palms, rapid heart beat, and deep breathing -- do I conclude that this person is at the moment fearful? No. That's not proof of fear even though those qualities may be present in someone fearful. Those aren't proof of the fear the person is experiencing. The only true reason why we know a person is fearful is because he says so.

    Same with dreams -- the qualities you mentioned aren't proof. They are, maybe, evidence suggesting one is dreaming, but they're not proof. We only believe that person dreaming because he says so.

    And let's go back to the big bang. There is no proof that the big bang happened. They could only point to evidential qualities present in the universe that the big bang is a very plausible theory, but no one in Physics community had claimed it is proof.
  • The meaning of life
    Snow is white to humans. It is a fact about human perception and language use. I have no issue with modest claims like cats being on mats, etc. But for me this does not tell us much about an objective world, just how a fragment of that world seems to us, based on the constructions of language and perception. — Tom Storm
    Okay, then that tells me you don't subscribe to an objective reality. Fair enough.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    A 1 hour dream lasts 5 minutes. REM. Seems good enough proof. A dog barking. Ýou talking in your sleep. Proof! — EugeneW
    That's not proof.

    Is this an empirical statement or a statement about grammar ? Or is it hard to say? — lll
    Empirical statement.
  • Free Will
    Mind over matter.
    ↪Agent Smith
  • Free Will
    ↪Agent Smith
    Yeah, I also have reservation as to his argument.

    But wow! Virtual choice sounds great! Especially about quitting smoking or other undesirable habits.
  • The meaning of life
    The thing is, I am not sure. — Tom Storm
    You can search for explanation of objective reality. Then decide for yourself if your understanding leans towards the subjective. I just gave you what is an objective reality is. For example, if you think that snow is white and blood is red, then there's your objective reality. Facts come in statements. So, think about that. "Snow is white" is a fact -- is it in the outside world? If you agree, then you agree there's meaning out there --that snow is white. And it is intelligible to us. We picked it out from the external world.

    But if you think that "snow is white" is not a fact, but our subjective interpretation of the world, then you don't believe in the objective world.
  • The meaning of life
    Reality? Not sure what is in scope here. In general, it seems to me that communities determine what is true through a collaborative exercise in creating agreement. You could say that truth is created not found. Examples of such truths might include - 'democracy as the best government'; 'the value of education'; 'god/s care about humans', 'the imperative of progress'... — Tom Storm
    Okay then, that means you don't subscribe to objective reality. Which is fine. I was merely saying that you clearly express it.
  • The meaning of life
    I am not certain what the term objective reality refers to. — Tom Storm
    Let's agree that objective reality is one that has facts and truths. So, facts, as we know, are actual/correct statements about the world.
  • The meaning of life
    I disagree that the 'outside world' is intelligible to us, but we may do better with our inside world - our thoughts. — Tom Storm
    Good. We're getting somewhere.

    So, would you agree if I conclude from it that you don't believe in objective reality?
  • The meaning of life
    We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. — Carlikoff
    This is the objective reality implication we often neglect when claiming we believe in objective reality. The corollary to claiming we believe in objective reality is, that the meaning lies in that reality, not in us, and we just found it out there. Because it is intelligible to us, it must be that the outside world has some form of meaning already prepared for us to discover.

    Do you agree with this? Because this is what we're really saying when we say there is meaning in that external reality. We discovered the meaning, we didn't create it.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    That's it! There is no scientific evidence of what goes on inside of matter. Science can describe the outside but not the inside. — EugeneW
    Science/Medicine has limits, it's fair to say. Dreams could run as long as an hour. If one could make a film of the dream while the subject is sleeping, then that's the proof of dreams. And we can't do that.

    It might seem odd to ask but how do we know perception exists? — Carlikoff
    Good to bring this up. As with any definition of perception, which you've already handled well, how do we know perception exists? Because to argue against it, or to even doubt it, is perception itself. In other words, we can't talk our way out of our own mind and say it doesn't exist. That's the logical double bind for ya. Cartesian.
  • Free Will
    Note that Schulkin does not say determined (or no free will). Instead, he argues that there are constraints.
  • Free Will
    That we can test every choice, simulate their effects for analysis, even the ones you don't like, must mean something, oui? If we come with preinstalled preference packages (no free will), your choice will be determined by them, obviously, but the point is virtual choices seem not to be affected by one's preference package. — Agent Smith

    According to Jay Schulkin, in his Possibilities and Constraints,
    To be is to be a mind. To be a mind is to be a decision-maker.

    Another passage from his essay:
    The world matters in the formation of such minds. Nature has limited, or constrained, the kinds of ideas that we can generate. Here one looks to the ecological conditions that minds adapt to for guidance. Nature has also insured that we can hit on the right ideas very often. Ideas are then not arbitrary. They are adaptive; they guide behavior. If the ideas are bad, they are rejected. The constraints on our hypotheses are tied to our creative potential....
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Your kindness is appreciated. — lll
    :smile:
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Probably because whether you dream or not has very little impact on yours and other's lives. — Philosophim
    This mirrors @lll explanation as to why belief in god is special and unlike dreams and pains and all other things we claim without requiring proof. And again, I ask, why is the experience of god -- sensation of the holy ghost, or whatever it is one experiences with god --as a private sensation like dream or pain, something to be proven? Our dear lll said because belief in god had led to war, deaths and whatnot. Then, I say are we not misplacing the problem here?

    Because such a belief has a fundamental way of altering that person, and other people's lives. — Philosophim
    And you repeated it here.

    When you have divine guidance, there is no possibility of thinking, amending, or improving. If "Gays are evil" for example, you can't have a rational discussion with that person, as they feel like they are divinely correct, thus your mortal arguments are against God, ignorant, and sinful. This stunts people's growth and makes them emotional animals. Satisfying for the person, but can potentially be terrible for themselves and society. — Philosophim
    I never said that belief in god frees one from responsibility. Hate against a group because god told you so is a responsibility that one has to answer to. The same way a person would act on a dream of end of the world -- this person has to answer to some authority if he acted badly.

    The illegality of one's action is not excused because he is allowed a belief in god. And if I may say so, what would you gain by asking a person, who acted badly based on belief in god, to produce proof of his god. Does that lessen his irrational behavior if he could somehow produce proof of god?

    Of course no one walks around with the kind of equipment needed to spot floaters :wink: - and - this does not affect your larger point. — EricH

    :up:
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    Ok, sorry about the crossed wires, I don't think our positions are changed by your update. — universeness
    :ok:
  • Freedom Revisited
    ↪Agent Smith
    Yes, deliberating the future is freedom in thinking as you're supposing things that haven't happened yet. No one can accuse you of making a decision that's already determined. Of course, they're gonna try to say, all future things are already determined. Then ask them, then predict something bad that's gonna happen in the future and let's avoid it. Or, try to predict some nuclear war in the far future, and let's change the course of our action. The future is not determined. We have the freedom to think how to shape the future.

    Non-action, as Schopenhauer indicated, is also a decision.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪EugeneW
    But I'm asking you, what's the logic of your asking if I'm awake? There are things we could ask and doubt, but you asking me if I'm awake is not one of those. Why ask me at all if you're doubting my state of awakeness? You sound like the atheists who continue to request for proof, after making a claim that god does not exist.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    With all due respect, you need to read a response more carefully.

    If every human alive stated that god exists then I would not be calling it a fable, because I would believe it too. — universeness     — universeness
    No. The below is what I quoted from your post. If I didn't see that, then that's not what I responded to originally. Please see below. I'm paralleling your post below.
    You were saying something about dreams.


    If each human you meet, confirms to you (if you ask them) that in their opinion, humans dream, then that is proof enough.

    — universeness

    So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god?     — L'éléphant
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    And why should one proof dreams? — EugeneW
    I did not even imply that in any of my posts. Back at ya -- why should I prove to you that I'm awake?
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    You might say you are awake but what if I say that I don't believe you? — EugeneW
    That's the thing -- I don't need to prove to you I'm awake.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    So atheism is logical as long as God is fictional ? Isn't that exactly what atheists say? — Hanover
    Incorrect. Atheists say god does not exist. Which is different than saying god is fictional. I just said that about bigfoot and company.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Do you have proof you are awake? You mean that you can never proof pain? — EugeneW
    I don't need to prove to myself I'm awake. But the question is, do you want me to prove to you I'm awake right now? So, my rebuttal is, why? What is your reason for asking? If I told you I had a dream last night and you responded by saying you don't believe me, the conversation stops right there.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    The existence of the universe is proof of gods. — EugeneW
    You know you can make a case about that. If physicists can make a case about the big bang by pointing to things present in our universe, you could also do the same with god. They call those things evidence that the big bang happened -- but mind you, those evidence could also be present without the big bang happening. It's not if and only if those things exists, that big bang happened.
  • Freedom Revisited
    ↪Constance

    I don't think you're agreeing with Schopenhauer. The freedom is in thinking, according to him. Our actions then becomes caused by our thinking. So, what conclusion could you form about this? The necessity is in our action, but freedom is in our thinking. Determinism is misplaced here. The ocean example is to point to you that one could think about an action, but chooses not to act on it.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    By the same token, can you proof to me that you are awake and not dreaming? — EugeneW
    Why would you ask that? Is that even intellectually honest? That's the thing -- this is not about JTB. This is about requiring someone to produce proof of his or her belief in god. What utter nonsense!
Home » L'éléphant