Thank you; good objections.

I agree that the evidence seems to indicate that we are precognitively affected by the external world, — Janus

I don't think 'precognitively' is accurate. We aren't affected by anything but sensation. The sensation is not the things in the external world. The effect the external world is having isn't on our mental faculties - Its on our physical sense organs. We are only cognizant of that, not the 'external' object, as it were. Is my understanding...

Your idea that something is presented "within the mind" — Janus

As I conclude, that isn't my idea. I don't think i've said that, either. If so, apologies. Presented to the mind. But only sensuous data is presented - not objects. (having come back to add this, I think we're probably agreeing there?)

But it is tendentious to think of our perceptions and judgements as being somehow separated from those precognitive processes — Janus

Is this to say that there is, in fact, a direct link between our impressions and whatsoever caused them? I think that can be inferred, because otherwise we couldn't have cognition on this account. But, that isn't to say there's anything superficially the same about htem. I think that's the issue i'm trying to zoom in on. The 'external' object never appears to us, in any way.

which, as far as we can tell, are both within and without us — Janus

I don't think that's the case. Whatever it is (we seem to agree, mechanically, for lack of a better word here) that causes our impressions can be entirely removed from any consciousness of it. How our sense organs pick something out of hte external world to convey to the mind, is where the issue lies - what governs that, seems mysterious to me (though, that's on this account - so i could just be wrong).

It does not follow from the fact that we can consciously know only that which appears to us, that it is illegitimate to say that there is a world of existents external to our bodies. — Janus

Oh. I'm really sorry if it's come across that I'm denying an external world/external objects. It just requires that we have zero access to them and cannot gain access to them. My account requires them to exist, though. I think that covers the remainder of your post lol.

The problem is that the only way we have to check the reliability of reason and logic is to use them on themselves. — Angelo Cannata

This doesn't...really... seem to be the case to me, though I understand this fairly well-worn objection (Godel and all). Logic, being (in the context Im taking it) a closed system, doesn't need to be 'checked'. Its either accepted or not, to my mind. Obviously,. something can be logically consistent and false, which is why we use empirical data to check our reasoning as a matter of possibility. I suppose I don't feel an issue exists here, but plenty of much, MUCH smarter people do So i could just plainly be wrong.

Hi Beverley :) Thanks a lot for this exchange.

What I've been trying to demonstrate in different ways is that... then everything turns very odd and nothing seems to make sense — Beverley

(underlined is my edit) And i have disagreed, in the form of the below response..

we cannot experience the entire of anything, or the fact that nothing appears to matter, or that, if we take the total of the universe, nothing exists — Beverley

These simply don't follow from my assertion. I can't actually see how the any of these follow from each other. How would not experiencing the entire of anything mean nothing matters? That wasn't the position. The position was that we can't experience the Universe in it's entirety, and therefore is isn't even 'a thing' to us, and so cannot matter. That, to me, is not the same as what you're objecting to - though, i admit freely I f'd up in a previous post misusing that phrase so apologies.

It's quite hard to understand the other objections, in this light, to respond to - but I will try!

As a very simplified example — Beverley

I'm sorry, I'm really not seeing how this example has anything, whatsoever, to do with 'experiencing the Universe'. You have pointed out that an Apple can be grasped, if adequately proximal, everywhere in the universe. Barring some weirdness yet to be discovered, I agree with that - seems fairly clear.
This says nothing about my contention. Which is about experiencing the Universe, not an apple. The rules are not the same. They couldn't possibly be the same. Because we cannot 'grasp' the Universe, in any sense of the word. That said, let me try to illustrate why they are not even comparable, let alone the same:

The Apple is an object, graspable, in some sense. Some people can't grasp apples. Some can.

Absolutely no one, of any kind, can 'grasp' the Universe. It isn't possible. It's not even conceivable. It's not an object in the way an Apple is. How could we assume the same principles apply? Fwiw, I wouldn't say an apple 'matters'. Its functional, as far as humans are concerned imo. but that's a digression.

The reason is because we can see the laws of the universe playing out here on earth, and this allows us to know, or experience, what is happening out there as well. — Beverley

To me, no it doesn't, and I can't grasp how your getting there.

the essence of the universe, — Beverley

This one just has me scratching my head. Can't understand what you're trying to say because 'essence of the universe' is meaningless in and of itself. What are you saying with that phrase?

Maybe that is why the universe matters so much because it relates ultimately to everything we know and everything we are. — Beverley

Again, it doesn't matter. It can't matter (on my account). I have to say, quite a bit of this response seems to be a bit mystical. Is that how you are writing?

They do not rely on empirical considerations, which at the very least, removes the problem of my own judgement mattering. I guess I could still be worried that, despite logical consistency, my judgement is wrong - but that seems to be not all that possible unless im being dishonest - which is another mater.

Though, having had a peruse of your book I would assume you have an objection to that somehow...

How could there be an internal world if there were no external world? — Janus

Here i'm using 'internal' to mean "confined to mentation" I guess. I personally take there be an external world. I wasn't meant to be an actual descriptor.. just trying to use the common words.

We know the external world as it appears to us — Janus

It doesn't appear to us. It appears to our sense organs. Our sense organs then present something which is not the external world to our mind. We don't know the external world.

we cannot know the nature of what might exist beyond our capacity to sense as appearance. — Janus

Exactly why the above is true. I'm not seeing an objection other than the issue of my, probably, illegitimately using 'internal' there.

we do not mean the exact same, identical thing — Leontiskos

Correct. Unsure that it follows that communication is impossible. Its imprecise, for sure.

endlessly misunderstanding each other. — Leontiskos

Yep. And our efforts in communication are to minimize the misunderstanding.

If identity cannot be partial, then you must have no persistent identity. — Leontiskos

Correct. And this question (of personal identity, what it might mean, and how it might obtain/what it might consist in) is actually the exact mission of my (about to get underway) philosophical career. It's possible that some form of special pleading has to accepted for the term "personal identity" to have any meaning.

Weird - this was a post in response to Leontiskos which he has quoted below. I have no idea how i mucked up bad enough to delete it, but there we are.

This means that we have no idea about reality, mirrors, mirroring, being; we have no idea about anything and we cannot escape this conclusion. — Angelo Cannata

I simply don't see how this is the case, unless you are restricting this claim to sensible 'idea's. The 'external world' hypothesis, in any reasonable form, to my mind is based on acknowledging that fact and using reason and logic to get past the obstacle of sensory perception. The hypothesis wouldn't be required if we didn't understand that we can never conclude, from sense, one way or the other.

It comes from The Doors Of Perception and Heaven and Hell (one book, two essays) but its essentially trip reports from a Mescaline experience or two.

Apparently, it goes to C.D Broad's Examination of McTaggart's Philosophy which im unfamiliar with.

My conception of it is derived from a Huxleyean type of idea of brain-as-receiver. Its (as you'll probably quickly note) used by Huxley to understand apparently inexplicable psychedelic experiences. So, that's where I found it too but i feel it, at least allows, if not encourages, a non-reductionist view of Mind/Consciousness without having to reject any of hte physical/bodily/neural indications of consciousness.

My only retort, in jest, as seems the case, would be that If you can alert me to a Radio signal without hte use of a receiver, i'll be interested in the technique ;)

Thank you mate - appreciate the response. While I'm not as dire, I feel roughly the same.

My only comment is that I think you'd get a huge amount of pushback on Pacifica, as this would be seen as an aggressive appropriation of Pasifika :)

Ah, i see, cool, thank you. While I don't intend a debate about it, for closure, I agree that dualism is probably a bad conception, but I am unconvinced the mind arises from the body (rather than appears through the lens of the body - in some sense).

The first: I don't disagree (including, and I can't see why this needs pointing out, but there we go, the internal part of our body).

The second: I'm unsure I necessarily get what you're trying to reject. There is obviously an internal world, and it seem empirically true that our internal world (sense) can't access the external. Are you able to pinpoint what about that you're rejecting?

I don't think that's true - muscle memory is still an activity of hte brain with extremely low processing time. Its more like a pre-record in the mind.

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. — Chet Hawkins

How? Noting that, as far as I can tell, the rest of the paragraph states your opinion, not an argument for this relationship being absolute.

Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective. — Chet Hawkins

morality is only one thing, objective. — Chet Hawkins

This could only make sense to me if you could justify the former claim (that Morality is = Happiness up or down).

My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness — Chet Hawkins

This seems to be true. But the next lines seem to betray a certain kind of moral self-reference. I'm unsure you could support your first contention while maintaining this position. It reduces happiness to an opinion in solely your mind, in sorting out what is virtuous/moral or 'happiness-inducing'.

My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues. — Chet Hawkins

I don't really disagree here, but as with above, I don't think you can support an 'objective' account, when it seems to be relying on subjective aggregates of opinion or use. If 'virtue' is just what people, in aggregate, take to be virtuous, given people actually differ in degree (i.e what constitutes a virtuous intelligence? Hard pressed to find agreement across the globe there i'd say) and kind (i.e some think EI is the only measure of Wisdom (further complicating your account) and some SI, etc...) it seems that you have a patent obstacle to your first couple of assertions on empirical grounds. What are you grounding the objectivity in? I can't find that in your exposition.

My 6th contention — Chet Hawkins

I found this whole assertion incoherent. Probably just me not getting it, but wanted to note why I haven't commented on it reasonably. I just don't get wth is going on there :sweat:

Entirely related to any previous comments (well, with any intent anyway!):

I understand that most 'evidence's for physicalism amount to mainly evidence that mental states are 'intertwined' with, or 'closely related to' neural activity.

Is this not, though, a slippery way to state that evidence? If it only presents correlation of close relationship, this seems to leave most positions except Absolute Idealism alive?

Can you anticipate your response (in regard to the above, not your immediate visceral response) to a Trump win? I'm merely curious.

For if one is unable to know anything about the external world, then one can not make any claims about it at all – even claiming that knowledge about it is impossible, because that too is knowing something about the external world – namely, that it is unknowable. — Thales

This strikes me as entirely a claim about the mind, and not about the external world. It's, in fact, rejecting any notion(as in any.. not any particular, but any) of an external world on the basis of a claim about our mind. "The external world is unknowable" is better formulated as "Our minds are unable to directly interact with the external world, and therefore, our minds cannot know anything about hte external world" which says nothing about the external world, to me, but entirely something about our mind's limitation in relation to it. Its unknowable to our mind, not in and of itself.

Fair enough - It certainly seemed like the implication was that a particular disagreement isn't possible and that it must be at a 'higher' level i.e what Good is, or what X is rather than whether its 1 or 2 (good, or bad). Sorry for misunderstanding.

"You can have peace and prosperity, rights and safety, or you can have war. We're better at war than you are; why don't we try peace?" But alas, I do not think the Palestinians are at the moment, and maybe for another generation, able to give a competent answer. — tim wood

Competency, for the actual ethnic group 'Palestinian' in the face of such a suggestion would be
'Fuck off' - Just without violence this time.

The point here is that if two people disagree with respect to a predication, "X is good," then they are either disagreeing about what good is or else they are disagreeing about what X is. Your Arabic case is just another example of this — Leontiskos

Hey dude :)

It seems to me disagreeing about what comes under the category 'good' can obviously be a particular disagreement.

I often (as a pretty centrist person) have discussions that begin with establishing what is considered 'good'. A case in point is transwomen in women's sport.

Generally, I establish that we both (the interlocutor's position doesn't matter to this idea) are after the same thing - reduction of suffering, and general respect for people with different views and presentations. So we have a categorical way to assess each of our claims, and whether they come under this agreed definition (in the particular case).

We then discuss the differing opinion, with recourse to the agreed 'Good'. In this case, I do no think transwomen should be competing in female sports (at elite levels), and the other, lets assume, does think they should.

They believe it is a method for achieving the Good we agreed on. But I disagree. It isn't. It's a bad method.

The details and positions are, again, not important. I don't think we could be wrong, because we already agreed on what 'Good' is. There's no daylight. The disagreement is what can come under that label. Not the X, not the Good... The categorisation.

The Good, however, as an ideal, can never be constructed in accordance with a conception, hence remains a different kind of judgement. — Mww

:ok:

I see no point in continuing to comment on this issue — Philosophim

:ok: And not at all ironic. I agree fully, whether I'm wrong or not :)

How about if we think of god as beyond our comprehension instead of a person with supernatural powers? — Athena

I understand what you're getting at, but that category is far too broad to have a name. What aspect of 'beyond our comprehension' are you pointing to? Anything beyond our comprehension? Seems a bit of a McGuffin.

We must stay awake to learn the logos, the reason why things are as they are and can we change this or not — Athena

Isn't this the entire thrust of philosophical thinking? What's the special occasion in this case?

You are a pleasure because you make me think about what I think and because you do so without putting me on the defensive — Athena

I am very glad to hear that - I feel the same. Being wrong is really helpful for me, too!

Remember the question is the most important thing. With the question of why acupuncture works,a second system of pain messages was discovered and with that chi was proven. Here is an explanation of chi. — Athena

I truly, seriously do not think there is anything to support this position.

Could you please present me with unbiased, peer-reviewed work that shows that 'chi' is real? Having been ensconsed in new-age groups and thinking for a decade or more, I did look into Qi very deeply because i 'bought' it at the time. It seems to me there is literally nothing, anywhere at all, that can be trusted to legitimate that concept. Would be very much open to something which shows - without ideological investment - something reaosnable about it. While I'm, not ale to run the video right now (at work) from what I know of him, Jesse Enkamp is a typical McDojo internet talking head with very little in the way of sensible takes. Have run in to him/his work around Jiu Jitsu many times over the last few years and its routinely been shown as nonsense designed to make money.

If not, my bad.

But imo a risk that must be accepted and taken. — tim wood

This is astounding level of honesty - I often see an inability to note that these risks actually exist in many areas - so, refreshing.

Tbf, any person at least five years younger than Trump is probably a better option. Though, that gives them room to prove me wrong :lol:

In no real order, other than to make the conclusion sensible:

THIS is condescending. — Philosophim

It really, truly is not. I have noted exactly why it is a legitimate avenue to take. I'm unsure, again, how its possible you are still pretending that you're pointing out a flaw here.

I appreciate the discussion, but lets let him weigh in now if he chooses. — Philosophim

I see he has, and I shall (below) defer.

That's just ego talking, not an addressing of the points. — Philosophim

This is what I, and he, see you doing. Please, don't have such a blindness that you cannot apply this exact same thing to yourself. Because, the only evidence you have is in that direction.

I'm not interested in talking to a guy who after I've already pointed out he agrees with me on issues of the OP — Philosophim

He doesn't. Which he has explicitly stated, multiple times. I'm really, genuinely convinced you are way deep in a sunk-cost fallacy here.

There's one major difference. We're discussing the OP, not his theory. — Philosophim

*his objections. It is clear to me you are not open to an honest discussion of what's going on here and I don't think you're doing it on purpose, so no guff. But, I have done my part - I shall retreat. Good luck to both on not missing what could be a great discussion :)

Having success in one area does not mean you'll be successful in another. — Philosophim

I agree, but that wasn't what i was suggesting.

If he's honest, he'll give it a shot. — Philosophim

That's a fair call, but if, to his eyes, you're not giving good-faith responses, you can see why he wouldn't bother, regardless of honesty. If someone repeatedly speaks past you, ignoring what you're saying, you wouldn't be partial to spending more time nutting out their problem for them.

not objections, and he doesn't understand the OP. I could go through paragraph by paragraph and show why, but I did that on his previous post and he's still not getting it. — Philosophim

I'm unsure that has occurred. I went back the last few longer posts between the two of you. I don't think those responses are dealing with his objections. But you are convinced that he 'doesn't get it'. This is, again, the exact attitude I am trying to highlight. You are not engaging with his objections with replies like this. You are claiming he doesn't understand - which is also what he is saying to you. Surely, you can understand that if he has the same notion you do, there might be something in it (might be on your side too!!) Maybe a better approach would be to zoom in on a single issue he's taken, and really nut out that one issue. I would suggest the best point would be the Planck scale issue between you. This should be understood between you before anything else gets off the ground as its a totally empirical consideration - you could find out its merely a misuse of 'scale' instead of 'unit'. Or C could find that out, and with that, your explications are sensible to him.

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"? — Philosophim

This post is an example of where I think you've failed to address much at all. You've (imo, very condescendingly) asserted that he's using a Straw man (I can't see where) and then not dealt with his clear, precise objections. Again, this doesn't even mean you're wrong. It just means there's no chance for a decent discussion, anyway. The quote and reply immediately after this line is meant to convey somewhere C may be fed up with going back to restate his issue.

Thus in either case, we have something which has no prior reason for its existence, thus a first cause is logically necessary. — Philosophim

I do not see how that follows. Perhaps C doesn't either, and so you're not past the first hurdle in his eyes. But I haven't seen either of you zoom in on that, if that's the case it follows that everything beyond that would be problematic, between you. Could that he wants you to address this specifically and ensure you're not walking on stilts.

I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," you're committing a fallacy. — Philosophim

That's not at all what he did. If your argument fails the first hurdle of its premises being legitimate, how would understanding the actual argument matter? If someone gives me an argument that rests on a P1 of "All white men are racist" as gets bandied about, their actual argument isn't relevant. That is an empirically wrong premise. That may be happening here, it may not. I'm saying it needs to be addressed before the rest of your argument could be worthy of discussion.

In terms of concrete examples, I have given a couple by way of quotes (and now the above). But your responses seem to amount to "No, he doesn't get it" without ever addressing his actual material objections (Planck scale, that your logic is dimensionally-restricted etc..). Its very hard to know how to respond to that without repeating that i think it might be the other way around. I also would call your assertion of his ChatGPT posting as a 'troll' to be extremely weird, and clearly a dodge. The post goes through, in detail, the logical inconsistencies of your OP. Im unsure you can beat that by just saying C was doing something wrong in seeking it.

Regardless, your reasoning is a totally unnecessary confusing web when we already have the math that points towards this outcome. It's all already there in the physics, but you seem to just want to lift up your argument and reasoning as something beyond it, which it's not — Christoffer

This seems a really clear, concise summing up of why he is flustered by your long-winded replies. They don't actually seem to get past the objection here. That's why I suggest zooming in. Don't try to address fifty things in a post. Pick one thing and press him on it, if that's the issue. If you're willing to engage ad infinitum, respect. But be reasonable about what you're engaging - particularly if you see his responses as scatter-shot straw men :)

Gotcha. Just seems odd this article declares him a winner with marginally more than 50% in.

Yeah, that's far less than I expected in terms of disparity. With that many votes to come, is it at all likely he wont win?

Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. — Philosophim

This is exactly the type of non-engagement I am seeing throughout the exchange. I don't know nearly enough to know whcih side is closer to 'correct' or whatever the actual case is - I'm just saying how it appears to someone in that position. I would suggest that your 'Baffle Them....' assertion is likely unconscious projection.

I have had to accept (with Banno, particularly) that I just dont get it, despite being convinced at every stage that Banno is not reading or paying attention, at least. I think the humility to accept that someone in that kind of position is probably on to something is reasonably helpful. I am merely trying to let you know it appears the same is happening here. The actual arguments aren't - that - relevant. I don't see you addressing them.

I did say that. But that wasn't addressing the bulk of what he's talking about because I wouldn't know whether you were both right. It was a very specific point I addressed there. I am only speaking about your conduct, not your arguments. I simply do not see you addressing hte objections. You might be 100% on the right side of hte issue.

I may need a hand - I'll have a muck around this evening (its 3pm rn) and get back with whether I need your help :) I do already have Discord/an account so hopefully wont be awfully hard.

I agree they do.
Then, they both(Bob and the dumb kids) know what a butterfly is, and the other pieces of information (in one case, it's appearance, in the other, its origin) don't seem to bear on the respective knowledge claims. It doesn't seem to follow that the opposite (in each case) is required to bring the information to the level of 'knowledge'.

I don't think that's a counter as much as a parallel. They both know what a butterfly is under different criteria.

Could it be that more accurately, Bob knows merely that a butterfly comes from a cocoon? This seems to go the President example pretty squarely - I'm of the view that we can know Bob will become President, regardless of whether we know what a President is.

Fwiw, I agree entirely with Christoffer. Do what you will with the information, but it seems patently clear you are not engaging with the objections and instead just rejecting that the person objecting understands you.

I think it would be entirely appropriate for Christoffer to stop engaging.

is for people who go outside. — Lionino

I assume this is aimed his having never been outside being required to not know what a Butterfly appears to be. Fair.

the thing that comes out of the cocoon, so he knows what a butterfly is for him, just not what a butterfly is — Lionino

Even for those people, the butterfly is the thing that comes out of the cocoon. It's appearance is further information than what the thing is, surely? He has, lets say, limited knowledge.

You know that it was a non-triangle, hence your conclusion. — Lionino

Yes, this is merely a reverse of the Butterfly example to try to ensure the logic is consistent (in the sense that knowledge can be derived from aspects of a thing - but that direct knowledge isn't needed. So Bob's knowledge of the A-Cocoon-B flow ensures that once he's told that B is a Butterful, it's knowledge.

ou use an argument about people not understanding you as your go-to defense against other's critique. — Christoffer

If you ever see me doing this, please be hard on me. Thanks

My position here (though, fresh, and likely to change) is that it really, truly, does not matter.
If he has a good notion of cocoon function (in it's most simple i.e Form A->Cocoon->Form B), and that the result is called, by tradition (or perhaps he knows the etymology, but not to what it refers), a butterfly, I don't think he needs to know what a butterfly IS. He need only know that the inevitable result of a caterpillar (which he does know about) entering a cocoon (and not dying) is "a butterfly".

I see the problem. But I don't think it's more than an epistemological discomfort. He' still justified in believing "a butterfly" will result, just doesn't know what it looks like.

Additionally, if someone where to simply tell me "I drew a triangle, but it doesn't have three internal angles" I am justified, despite having zero knowledge of what they drew in reality, of knowing that it isn't a triangle. I can be absolutely certain that a Triangle has not resulted from this drawing session, but i have no idea what the person drew (this one is messy and i expect it to be pulled apart.. go for it)

“we can determine the concept of a triangle from particular triangles, but how do we know, first and foremost, what a triangle is?”: well, the former is what determines the latter. — Bob Ross

Might be way late on this, but as noted in the other thread, practice! Hoping it makes per....sort of good. LOL.

We know what a triangle is because its conditions are contained in its concept. The concept itself determines what particulars are susceptible to come under that concept. We can't do that with 'good'. There is no a priori conception. It must be derived from particulars.. Imo.

What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. — Chet Hawkins

What? Subjectivists have no obstacle to relying on their conception of 'the good' and I, personally, am convinced this is what Bob is doing. Establishing a subjective measure for 'good' which has objective parameters.

I don't think 'the good' could possibly be objective. Even your 'version' is just your version. That's it. It has objective parameters, but choosing the basis for what those parameters capture is subjective as anything. Calling it objective relies on telling every other person in teh world that their conception is wrong, if it isn't perfectly aligned (ironically) with yours. It appears to, funnily enough, be doing the exact same heavy lifting Bob's is, but with a more 'This is Inarguable' flavour.

For the first response, my clarification was more in the opposite direction. One must know what a President is in order to know that Bob will become one/it. Meaning, knowledge of 'President' must come, in time, prior to being told Bob will become one/it for that to be considered knowledge of same.
It's possible your response still closes that out, I'm just unsure as I wouldn't want to assume where you are putting your defenders in.

On the second, fair enough. I guess what im getting at is that I do not think that is the case, whether a mere example or the essence of hte issue (though, i think id est is a bit out of place in that exact position of your repsonse).

I dont think one needs to know what a President is before being told Bob will become one/it to know that Bob will become one/it.

This could also be pointless - but i need practice for my upcoming papers LOL