If it only presents correlation of close relationship, this seems to leave most positions except Absolute Idealism alive? — AmadeusD

I say the following as a physicalist: most positions, including absolute idealism, ARE alive. The evidence for physicalism doesn't push the probability of those other ideas to 0. That's okay, the available evidence doesn't have to push other ideas to 0 - I, as a physicalist, have no problem with that. "The probability that I am wrong is above 0" is not a particularly hard thing for me to say here.

Seems to unfortunately be one of those situations where the word has a little bit of wiggle room in meaning. I don't think one definition or the other should be considered "wrong", I think people can just take the time to specify what they mean when asked.

"I'm an atheist" - "Care to go into detail on exactly what you mean by that?" - "Sure, I mean..."

Some words end up with that kind of clarification being required. It's not ideal but it's what we've got.

What makes it impossible? I take it your view is based on the immutability of a single timeline — Luke

Why would you assume that? That's very abstract. How about something more simple: it's impossible, as far as we can tell, because there's no known physical phenomena that could allow us to do it.

Love it. Magats will of course ignore, but this just goes to show what's been obvious the whole time: Trump didn't believe the election was stolen because of evidence, trump started with the conclusion that the election was stolen and has been doing everything in his power to make his followers and America believe the conclusion too.

He is a threat to democracy.

it's only by a small margin. — Tzeentch

I wouldn't call the commitment to a peaceful transition of power a small margin, personally. The difference between a dictator and just a president who is run of the mill shit is huge too me

What reason would any person who thinks Trump tried to steal an election have to "pause" voicing their view right now? I don't understand why you think that might happen, or had even a smidgeon of possibility of happening.

why is THAT the thing that makes you think they're insane? January 6 happened nearly 3 years ago, Biden is not saying something new. This has been said the last 3 years. "They're really doing it" wtf do you mean?

impossible because I don't think you can remove the qualia of human experience while leaving everything else physically in tact. I'd lean more towards the former reason.

perhaps you think p zombies are impossible. That's... one of the valid takes. I think they're impossible too.

Once you decide they're impossible, questions about what they do or what they believe become moot.

I know they're supposed to be behaviorally identical to us — RogueAI

That's right, and the thing you seem to miss out on in your op

but does it also believe it's in pain? — RogueAI

I would have thought they don't necessarily have any beliefs whatsoever, but I suppose there are various types of zombies one might think up for the thought experiment.

I don't think you've fully grasped what p zombies are

The wording might leave it open to him being removed from the actual ballot even if he wins the primary. "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution". It's not like this would stop being true if he won the primary.

it assumes a universal ground or standard, the good in and for itself. — Joshs

OR, perhaps they're merely suggestions that some people will find agreeable, and the people who don't can ignore it. Many people naturally have similar ideas about morality, even if it's not universal and objective.

This conception comes straight from the definition of god as the in-itself. — Joshs

You'd have to demonstrate that for anybody else to accept it.

In every other respect, the assumptions underlying your commandments are fully ‘religious’ in formulating an idea of the good that is universalizable. This requires a kind of faith in goodness, the same faith that underlies godliness. — Joshs

It doesn't appear that way to me. It appears to me like he's offering commandments to people who want to go good. No religious-like faith required for that. Some abusive want to be good people. Well, if you want to be good people, here are some ideas:

A few scientists started with a with a hypothesis. This hypothesis was since confirmed, but to the acceptance of this 'fact' had to depend on the assumption that this hypothesis was possibly correct, though ruled out by religious beliefs. They 'accepted evolution' based on evidence, but what compulsion should the church have for accepting it? Suppose someone came up with a natural explanation for the 'virgin birth' of Jesus? Would the church be bound to accept that 'scientific view?'. — FreeEmotion

I have no idea why you're asking these questions or how they're relevant to the conversation we had

The assumption that human evolution occurred preceded the evidence. That is how science works, you may say, very well. Without getting into scientific study myself, then I will have to make a guess as to whether the accepted scientific view is justified. — FreeEmotion

I don't know that that's how it played out in reality. What reason do you have to think that? That the majority of scientists accepted evolution without much fossil evidence of a lineage of humanoids leading to homosapiens?

glad the joke wasn't lost on you haha, there's always a risk it's going to be taken seriously when I say something like that

you only think that because you're biased and probably evil

I wouldn't want to change how you think! You seem very curious, which is only a fantastic quality to have

why does it seem like these are a series of homework questions?

Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. — NOS4A2

Nobody has a problem with his legal attempts at contesting it. Take it to a court, they look at it, decide if the case has merit. That's fine.

The problem was everything else he did to contest it. Like literally telling pence not to confirm it. Like asking governors to find votes.

It's like, if a football coach thinks a ref made a bad call that lost them the game, the football coach was within-the-rules means of contesting that call. But if that coach then just decides "we would have won if it weren't for that bad call" and he goes behind the scenes and bribes the guy holding the trophy to give it to him instead... that's not okay, is it?

Now, evolutionary biology has a clear and unambiguous answer to that question: we exist in order to propagate. — Wayfarer

I don't think that's what biology says at all. It says we exist because our ancestors did propagate. The casual reason for our existence doesn't necessarily say anything about a teleological reason for our existence.

Of course. I mean, duh. — Wayfarer

It's not a duh to the person I was responding to

Scientific theories have to limit themselves to natural processes and observations. Is this correct? In that case, any scientific theory cannot include any supernatural actions, a 'God of the gaps' or any types of miracles. If we take that as given, then it follows that the theory of evolution, in whatever corrected modern formulations even, is the only choice scientists have when it comes to a theory of origin of biological entities. Is this correct? — FreeEmotion

No, I definitely do not think that the only reason science accepts evolution is because there's no other option.

Science accepts evolution because we have a preponderance of evidence of evolution.

If there was no fossil evidence that there were human-like species that predated humans, scientists would today not be suggesting humans evolved from previous humanoid species. If the evidence counterfactually pointed to it, scientists today would say "The fossil records show humans spontaneously appeared on the earth 6000 years ago." The evidence doesn't point to that, so scientists don't say that.

https://youtu.be/V-titT14_0M?si=3JOgnqt9tfpAlNg6

This is a guy who thinks it should be legal to call a bomb threat on a plane... This guy's verison of legality is everyone else's vision of hell.

I'm not convinced that "being honest" can't be considered a verb phrase that takes the grammatical place of a verb, and functions in every way like a verb.

you thought the experience of auditory inner monologue was a German thing?

There are also many divergent views from within science about the overall adequacy of darwinian principles — Wayfarer

I think you're drastically over estimating the disagreement within science.

There are very few things with a stronger scientific consensus than evolution. Even the article you linked points to that:

There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact

In other words, the basics of evolution are pretty much unanimously agreed upon, and there are little tiny debates about certain details.

"being honest" is a verb. You can make just about any adjective into a verb in a similar way. "Being friendly". "Being angry". "Being green".

You can behave honestly. You can tell the truth. You can be trustworthy.

isn't honest an adjective?

According to the filing, around the same time the employee sent those messages, “an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count.” Meanwhile, Trump himself began pushing false claims about the TCF Center.

The accusations are confessions, of course.

what reason do I have to believe in the maintenance of the self as opposed to its constant creation and subsequent destruction and replacement by another self? — Lionino

None! In fact I accept the latter entirely. I mean, I'm not like 100% confident in it or anything, but it seems intuitively reasonable to me.

Ah okay.

Well in regards to the former, that's potentially a matter of interpretation though I would say most interpretations would not word it like that.

Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter. — Wayfarer

Bell's Theorem is precisely about ruling out the latter.

Why in the world would you write a post to me about people getting confused and having ill intents, if you aren't specifically talking about me, the very person who read your op and interpreted it for the words it said?

If you're not talking about me, there's no need for you to mention that at all. I'm being gaslit here

right, so it's acknowledged now that you chose to respond like that to me instead of just realising that I read your words at face value.

"He read my words at face value, he must have I'll intent, negative motives, he's so aggressive!"

Maybe, corvus, I didn't have any negative motive and I just read your words for what they were. You don't need to jump to conclusions about me or my motives in a situation like this.

But we can learn from confusions too - how human minds work for different people, and we can notice the backgrounds of their ill intentions and negative motive for the aggressive responses, — Corvus

Yeah, okay.

I mean I would totally love to just go back in time and you just say "oh yeah I see why you thought I meant that" instead of insulting me. That was all very unnecessary.

dang, you really don't want to just admit there's a bit of ambiguity in your op do you? You'll insult everyone else rather than just say "yeah I see why you thought it was about people who thought the world was real, that's what was in my title after all".

Interesting approach

I think they if you wanted this thread to be about a particular type of skeptical realist, there are words you could have used in your title and op that would have been unambiguously clear about that. For now, you will have to endure the confusion.

My definition of realist in this thread was the folks who believe in the objects which they can see only as real existence, — Corvus

It is? Your title implies it's about everyone who believes the world exists. I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Plenty of people who believe in Jesus and Santa and ghosts think the world exists.