This has become a pointless discussion.

I don't know about this OP. It is uncharacteristic of @Benj96 topics.

The greatest degree of information is found in the most random or irrational sequences. — Benj96

But no support for was provided.

The moral deliberation of someone is not free from variables he or she did not choose i.e. genes, environments since conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, experiences from the womb to the present. We don't have free will. We have determined and constrained will. This is why no biological being is morally culpable. — Truth Seeker

All design under glaze -- as a potter would say.

"We don't have free will" has become the unscratchable design in topics like this. The misconception of this idea of free will has lead to the kind of arguments like yours. "Lacking free will", if that's even true, is not synonymous with lacking conscious volition. Deliberation is a human activity. Please consult Aristotle and Descartes. We are not automatons that has a few moves in a very limited capacity.

What does a will even mean to you?

Hello friends!

I am somewhat concerned that a topic about politics and religion, society and religion, democracy and religion, or law and religion always starts as a complaint rather than an analysis.

What I mean by analysis is, let's start with a close look at the primal fear of humans -- because only then do we get to understand that the idea of "father" resides permanently in our psyche. Our fear of being "alone" in the universe is embedded in our biological makeup. It is not by accident that the first humans looked up in the sky when they sensed that a dark matter was about to snuff everybody out of existence.

'tis the truth. Work with religion, not against it.

You seem to think I cannot refer to anything that I have not experienced. But the reference of a word is established in the language in general, not by what I may or may not have experienced. — Ludwig V

Then you also do not understand what causal link is -- and this is what the BIV theory is pointing out.

So when I can refer to the President of the United States even if I don't know that Joe Biden is the President. — Ludwig V

Right sentiment, wrong example.

If hard determinism is true, then everything that happens, happens inevitably and no one has moral culpability. — Truth Seeker

Incorrect. I think @180 Proof has already touched on this. If determinism is true, we are destined to have an agency such that we are determined to
consider the moral obligation of our actions. If you are a moral agent, then you are capable of moral deliberation, therefore you are morally culpable.

There is a theory on punishment that argues that the denial of punishment to a person denies that person a moral agency, (moral agency to be the ultimate measure of what it is to be human).

And then, suppose he does come to understand that he's bad at reasoning - what then? If he still cares about the truth, but he has come to accept that his tools for discovering or filtering truths are compromised, what should he do? — flannel jesus

One can discover that they are bad at reasoning by bumping up against contradictions in their own thinking. This happens most obviously when others call them out on their contradictions, and less obviously when they encounter signs that their own beliefs are not coherent. One can become capable of understanding and perceiving contradictions even with very simple tools, such as an understanding of truth and falsity, and simple rules of inference like modus ponens and modus tollens. — Leontiskos

No to both quoted posts above. I have experienced people like this in real life and I now avoid having any discussion with them, except to greet them good morning, hello, how're you doin'? And when I say discussion, I mean the topic of everyday life, let alone serious current events.

They don't see the contradiction in what they say. They're not interested in learning or hearing about the contradiction in their statements. Mind you, when they're having a conversation, they speak with authority -- "I got bitten by mosquitos. See these bites?" I'd respond by saying -- those are flea bites, not mosquito bites, judging from the marks on the skin. She would then reason by saying, well I have a can of water standing in my yard. This is all she would hold on to for "evidence" that it's a mosquito bite. I could go on with this... you ask her, did you see any mosquitos at all? She'd say, no, but there's that standing water. :wink: lol.

It seems interesting to me (at least superficially) that some people seem to participate in philosophy primarily to understand the history of philosophical ideas over time (sometimes lingering in the classical, analytic or continental pools), while others see philosophy as an aid to personal development and critical thinking. The approaches seem quite different and seem to address different personality styles and needs. Thoughts? — Tom Storm

Indeed. That's a very astute observation.

Blame the movements of rationalism and mechanistic world for that bit of analytical snobbery. :wink: The farther removed the philosophy from the human touch, the better.

The classical philosophy shouldn't be among that group, however, because they really did connect the philosophical thinking to the human nature. Aristotle and Socrates. Also, let's not forget the Stoics and the Cynics

So is self reflection good? — Benj96

Self-reflection is good. Remember that in philosophy, the notion of the self can only be understood if at the same time we have a notion of "us" -- others. The contemplation of self is actually a modern occurrence in the history of human mind. It came later.

As this thread is not about BIV in particular, but simulation, I will respond to the below briefly:

If I am a brain in a vat, my claim is true, even if I can't refer to brain and vat, so long as "brain" and "vat" refer to the appropriate objects in that context. Perhaps I cannot know that my claim is true, but that's different. Actually, I don't really see why a brain in a vat cannot refer to itself as a brain in a vat. — Ludwig V

You do not understand what "refer" means, in other words.

I don't follow that.If it says (without evidence) that it is a BiV, then the utterance is true if that is indeed the fact. — noAxioms

Then you misunderstand what "true" means in statements.

Well, to quote the BiV IEP page, very close to the top:

Or, to put it in terms of knowledge claims, we can construct the following skeptical argument. Let “P” stand for any belief or claim about the external world, say, that snow is white.

[1] If I know that P, then I know that I am not a brain in a vat
[2] I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat
[3] Thus, I do not know that P. — noAxioms

But you did not go further into the argument. That is the opening argument for the BIV. But Putnam continues on to counter-argue that premises or claims above are necessarily false. If you're a BIV then to say "I am a brain in a vat" is false because you wouldn't be referring to a brain and to a vat. There's no reference at all! There is no causal link to make the argument sound.

So going back to what you said in your previous post that ...

A brain in a vat need not be a brain at all, but some sort of mind black-box. Introspection is the only evidence. A non-human mind in a vat being fed false information that it is a human living on Earth has no clue that it isn't a pink squishy thing doing the experiencing, or exerting the will. — noAxioms

If it is indeed just a black-box or non-human mind being fed false information, anything that comes out of its mouth referring to anything about the physical world is false.
Because to refer to a tree, snow, or brain, is to go outside of the BIV world yet isn't it true that we just made the argument that we are just a BIV. So, are you or are you not a BIV? You can't be both.

The simulation hypothesis is a pitfall -- it looks attractive because it allows us to make arguments like "how do you prove we're not in a doll house?" but we fail to recognize the contradiction of the utterance.

If I could experience the real world, then be hooked up to a machine that simulates the same thing I have experienced, seamlessly, that I would not be able to tell the difference, then the theory has made its point. — L'éléphant

If that's the point, we don't need the theory. We all experience dreams from time to time. And we know how to tell the difference. But we can't tell the difference while we are dreaming. What's so exciting about the theory? — Ludwig V

Actually, I take back what I said in what you quoted from my previous post. Let's start again.

The theory posits that there are a scientist outside the BIV and a BIV. If I am a BIV, I cannot make claims like "I am a brain in a vat" because I am making no reference to the "brain" and "vat". So, if I say that sentence, it is false.

A brain in a vat need not be a brain at all, but some sort of mind black-box. Introspection is the only evidence. A non-human mind in a vat being fed false information that it is a human living on Earth has no clue that it isn't a pink squishy thing doing the experiencing, or exerting the will. — noAxioms

I disagree with this. In the BIV, the brain is a given. That is, human brain. Because the point of the theory is skepticism, not that we are indeed brains in a vat. If I could experience the real world, then be hooked up to a machine that simulates the same thing I have experienced, seamlessly, that I would not be able to tell the difference, then the theory has made its point.

Anyways, long story short, superstition is a core component of the human psyche is the claim. — schopenhauer1

Okay. It is a component of the human psyche. And if you read about the evolution of humans, the primal fear goes back to the prehistoric times when a lot of factors were not understood, but could wipe out their entire population.

We never really got rid of this primal fear in us -- similar to the appendix (why do we have it?). Despite the progress that humans made in all aspects of society, the primal instinct never went away.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

It's not always true that it's better to stay in a difficult situation than to venture out there in the unknown because it could be worse. If you have become comfortable in a situation where you have to deal with a toxic person, it is worth trying out something else because the flip side is, you could find something better.

The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. — Hanover

Okay, sorry to hear that these organizations have biases as well.

What will prevail is that the supply will meet the demand, meaning that if there is no demand for unbiased or balanced reporting, it won't be in the market, at least not terribly long. — Hanover

But there will be, and there is a demand for unbiased or all sides of politics.

Or do you mean there will be no "mainstream" demand?

To that I say, do not underestimate the power of the intelligentsia. They were or are in the minority, working and writing stealthily, but they get the most bang for their ideas -- they are the secret sources of the academia and scholarly studies.

I think you should stop reading pop news articles and celebrity magazines. It sounds like you have been frequenting the unsavory crowds.

That's a good looking plate of pasta. Looks yummy. I am on the hunt for fatter fusillis.

We don't need to prove anything to anyone and we are always good enough. I also think that being happy or finding joy is perfectly compatible with meaninglessness. Joy isn't dependent upon inherent significance, it can come to anyone for any reason. I think our experience of this has less to do with what we believe about life and more about our disposition, personality and brain chemistry. — Tom Storm

:100:

There are people who can work into their 80s. I mean -- as an employee. To them, I say, wow! They don't need to worry about retirement savings because they work full time until they keel over. They do not stress out over their job.

Lakatos? — Lionino

No. They're not that fancy. They're practicing math scholars and philosophers.

This article argues that the ethical role of the media is in determining which side of a debate is most ethically correct and then promoting it: — Hanover

The news organization does not have to listen to that article if the news organization is truly independent.

Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course. — Hanover

Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that.

This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal. — Hanover

If the news organization believes in professionalism, they know what to do. Their judgment should prevail.

I'm ashamed. I'm not near that talent.

Spiral pasta is fusili, right? My favourite kind of pasta, superior to penne let's agree. I had pasta with pesto alla genovese homemade in Italy once, absolutely loved it. — Lionino

Fusili and their ilks. Yeah, I've given up on penne. Not my kind of pasta.

It can only be saved by deep frying in the shape of dinosaurs for dino-bites and then doused with ketchup. — Hanover

:grin: don't mind the children, @Lionino.

Spiral pasta with pesto sauce -- just grind the fresh basil leaves, lots of olive oil, salt and pepper, and parmesan to the consistency you like. Serve with whatever pasta of your choosing. Top with sun-dried tomatoes in olive oil.

But I chuckle at where it may have taken off: this idea that Math pre-exists our constructions. — ENOAH

I wish I still had the philosophy of math anthology book that featured the math philosophers who argued for the construction of mathematics as an empirical endeavor.

But, in most cases, the events didn't turn out as badly as I expected at the beginning. I thought I was very negative regarding facing confrontation, but after reading your post I am not feeling alone any more. — javi2541997

Yes, it is surprising what works out and what doesn't. It was a crapshoot. I went with my deepest feeling instead of always having to guard what I say to the detriment of my own principles.

We still have choice if we stay at a job or leave based on numerous factors thankfully. — Born2Insights

Three months ago I yelled at the president of the firm because we couldn't agree with the procedures of a project. I thought it was unethical. I didn't walk out of the office, but I cried. He walked away. I prepared myself for the worse -- fired. (at that point, I didn't care about the job anymore) Three months later, I got my review: not only I got a nice raise, but I got the best office in the suite.

I noted in a You Tube "documentary" recently that there is a tribe in the Amazon that counts by 2s. Was that embedded? I think math, like Language, and everything else accessible to human mind/experience is a posteriori constructed by Mind and accepted if functional, rejected if not. — ENOAH

Sure thing.

For example, every number is predefined, so when we build an equation or a formula, each one of the terms have already been defined -- and no wonder the equation works! :scream:

One of the things that we like to use as math object is the circle or a sphere because of the circumference, diameter, and arc angles. So, from this, we claim that math is out there waiting to be discovered and the proof of this is that circle and sphere exist in nature. We are obsessed -- no we lose our mind to it. In our mind the circle signifies antiquity and wisdom. It signifies disciplined and scholarly thoughts. Hey, the solar system is full of round things!

:100: :up:

In its critique of liberalism and its pessimism vis-à-vis incremental approaches to racial reform, CRT draws broadly from older currents of thought borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as newer ways of thinking linked to the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. — Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (2008), p. 344

Is this one of those No true Scotsman fallacy for damage control? "Woke leftism does not come from Neo-Marxism!". Let me know if otherwise. — Lionino

So how is the above supporting your claim?

Did they or did they not use the Critical Theory of the postmodern to write their own worldview? Derrida's post-structuralism certainly has nothing to do with critical race theory. So, how in the world did they spin it off to something else?

It's Critical Theory... not 'Critical Race Theory'. You should read it. — creativesoul


Both exist and one is derived from the other. — Lionino

I will consider this a joke until further notice.

Making no judgment whatsoever is silly. — Mikie

It's also dangerous.

and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself). — Bob Ross

Aristotle's eudaimonia -- the purpose of humans is eudaimonia.

It is not that mathematics differ in every culture -- there is a standardization of mathematics across societies. Just like there is a standardization of engineering across cultures.

But the postmodernists would argue that it is empirically derived. This is how you can argue in favor of a postmodern view. Mathematics has an empirical origin -- not from a universal truth. They are not there to question the veracity of the math methods -- they are there to argue against the objective truth -- (referring to a priori or universal truth).

It can be shown that we are living in a block universe once we accept the special relativity. You might be interested to read this. — MoK

That'll be for another day. Not sure if I accept the block universe. Thanks for the link. Good read.

I see, so you are claiming space and time are substances—contrary to your original claim. Unless you are just noting that they are not separate substances when you said they are not substances. — Bob Ross

I can't call spacetime a substance because a substance is a separate property from all the other things in the universe. I just explained in my previous post that you cannot separate spacetime from existence.

Aha, my plan worked after all. :grin: — praxis

All for the best. :razz:

Let's chill!

Apparently I’m not as funny as I think I am. :sad: — praxis

Whatever posts you've written in the forum which I had read, I liked your posts. You seem to be level-headed to me.
I didn't say this earlier because I didn't want you to think I was pandering.

Now, does that bolster your self-esteem?

I have very low self-esteem and tend to think the worst. — praxis

Jesus! That would cripple me to the point of not being able to participate in a forum like this. The fact that you're here and having that condition is a puzzle to me. I wish you the best.

Which sounded to me like you were arguing that we cannot determine what is exactly a posteriori and what is a priori, and that space/time are so entrenched in our thinking (being the forms of our experience) that we cannot make sense of a world without it.

This sounds like space and time for you are just the forms of our experience, and we cannot say anything about reality as it is in itself because we cannot think away these forms.

Was I misunderstanding? — Bob Ross

Yes, you were misunderstanding. Your conception of spacetime is metaphysical, but what I was trying to explain is it is more than metaphysical -- in fact, we should start with Einstein's spacetime continuum, which consists of the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension which is time. He posits that spacetime can shift shape.

So with that under consideration, space and time are, in fact, a physical reality. My starting point that human cognition is temporal (as well as spatial) is well within the dimensions of spacetime.

Are citizens responsible for the crimes of their leaders?

This is a poorly written question and certainly written to arouse the reactionary responses, not the intelligent responses.

There is accountability. In a representative form of government, the reason why we elect the leaders is to represent the people and to make the decision on behalf of the people, decisions that are beneficial to the people.
Crimes are not beneficial to the people. If the actions are criminal, then the leaders must be held accountable for those crimes. The people can vote the leaders out of office.