...where the self~world distinction is bridged from the start and so doesn't build in a dualistic Hard Problem. — apokrisis

In other words, the obvious is simply denied in the first place. If we dismiss what is obvious, the hard problem is no more. That's very similar to the scientific way of dealing with the problem of time. Deny that time is real, and the problem of 'what is time', goes away. It's just denial of the obvious.

It looks like the law is meant to encourage frivolous lawsuits. If you have pent up sexual misgivings, seek "injunctive relief".

A person or animal decides to doubt.. — Harry Hindu

I don't think you know the meaning of "doubt", Harry. It signifies an uncertain state of mind. Therefore your assertion that a person must decide to doubt is directly contradict to the nature of "doubt", as deciding signifies a form of certainty.

How can an organism decide to do something without knowing it's doing it?? — Harry Hindu

Now you are misusing the word "decide". Many, in fact most, actions performed by living beings are not produced from a decision. Biologists don't really know the true impetus behind most living actions, but we can surely say that the majority of them are not derived from decisions. So your question here is derived from the false premise, that an act of an organism proceeds from a decision, when in reality most of these acts do not derive from decisions.

A person doesn't need to know language to know it is running. Knowing how to use a language and knowing how to run are two different things. — Harry Hindu

I agree, knowing how to use language is completely different from knowing how to run. But notice that the question here concerns knowing that oneself is running, which is completely different from knowing how to run. In order for a person to know that oneself is running, I think It's quite obvious that the person must know what "running" is. Otherwise it is more likely that the person would misjudge oneself as running, because the judgement would be nothing better than a guess, when the person doesn't know what "running" signifies.

When you were born and while you were an infant did you doubt anything your parents, or anyone in a position of authority, told you? — Harry Hindu

Of course. This is just more evidence that you do not understand the meaning of "doubt".

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness. — Gnomon

Try considering "infinity" in this way Gnomon. It is a principle established for the purpose of allowing us to measure anything, or everything. There can be no quantity greater than what we can count, because we allow the numbers to continue indefinitely. Further, any quality which can be quantified, such as spatial extension, size, will be measurable, because we allow this principle, that numbers can extend beyond any physical thing. Therefore any, and every physical thing is deemed as measurable, because of this principle, numbers are infinite.

Now in modern mathematics, axioms have been produced which attempt to make infinity itself something which can be measured. But since "infinite" is correctly attributed to the tool by which we measure, allowing anything and everything to be measurable, and we now make it a thing being measured, we effectively create a thing which cannot be measured, infinity itself. Infinity is something which the mathematical axioms pretend to measure, but which really cannot be measured (this is the sophistry of the mathemagjicians).

That infinity cannot be measured is demonstrable logically. The first proposed infinite measuring system, the natural numbers for example, would require a larger infinite measuring system, to measure it. This would thwart the first infinite measuring system's capacity to measure anything, with the proposition that there is something larger, which by definition, it cannot measure, i.e. the system larger than the infinite system, proposed as the means to measure the infinite system. Now the meaning and purpose of "infinite", as the tool which can measure anything, is lost, because we now assume that the infinite numbers cannot measure everything, because there is something bigger which measures it.

This produces the principle that there is always something bigger than the measuring system applied, something which cannot be measured by that measuring system, a bigger measuring system, and our measuring capacity to measure everything, has been thwarted. We have posited the principle that our measuring system is not big enough, by allowing that it can, itself, be measured by a bigger system. So this is a new feature of any measuring system, subject to that axiom, it can be measured by a bigger system. Therefore we always have to come up with a new system to measure the last. So there is always a need to produce bigger and bigger infinities in an attempt to measure everything, and we proceed toward an infinite regress of larger and larger infinities, measuring systems. In reality, the definition of "infinite" has been altered, to switch it from a principle which allows us to measure anything, to make it something which can be measured, when we haven't provided ourselves with the tool to measure it. And of course this is self-defeating.

At a certain point, the contradictions... collapse under their own weight. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think you might be surprised at how immense the structures supported by contradiction might be. The issue being that ideology is weightless and such metaphors are inapplicable. There is no straw that breaks the camel's back.

If physical symbols are thoughts materialized, my concern is there doesn't seem to be a mathematical law that governs/determines the transformation of thoughts into physical words (spoken/written), very uncharacteristic of matter & energy (the physical world). — Agent Smith

I guess that's why philosophers often say that thoughts are not part of the physical world, not matter and energy, but something else.

But I wouldn't say that the physical symbols are actually thoughts materialized, explicitly, I'd say they are more like things created as representations of thoughts.

How do you know that you are doubting anything? Can you be certain that you are doubting? As I have said before certainty and doubt go hand-in-hand. It seems to me that you cannot doubt without the certainty that you are doubting. If you doubt that you are doubting, then you are doing something. What are you doing if not exhibiting a certainty of what you are doing whether it be doubting or not? — Harry Hindu

I really don't see your logic Harry. Why do you think that when a person is doing anything, doubting for example, the person must be certain of what oneself is doing? Do I need to be certain that I am running, in order for me to be running? The person who doesn't even know the word "running" would still run, and it would be impossible for that person to know oneself to be running. Likewise, the person who doesn't know the word "doubt" would be doubting without the possibility of being certain that they are doubting.

I can see that we may be more likely to doubt knowledge coming from others than we are in doubting our own knowledge. This is why we have rules of logic about pleading to popularity and authority. In using these rules of logic, are we doubting the propositions of others or becoming more certain that what they are saying is wrong and you are right? — Harry Hindu

I can't grasp your question here. When I ask someone to justify something, then, generally I am doubting that person. What this says about my own belief is that I believe that I ought to doubt others. It doesn't mean that I am certain that I ought to doubt others.

Very often, the sign is in no way similar to the thing which it signifies. That's an indication of the lack of necessity between the two, such that the relation may be random. It is important that we remember this, in order that we recognize that a theory, even though it is the correct theory, does not necessarily hold a relationship of semblance with the thing that it represents. This non-necessary nature of this relationship excludes the possibility that the relationship is scientific, or mathematically precise.

So, in theory, if thoughts are energy, we can change it into matter. — Agent Smith

You pass your thoughts to another person by speaking them or writing them down. When they are spoken or written down they are "changed into matter".

...the brain controls EVERY aspect of the body... — Garrett Travers

Are you totally oblivious to the reality of reflexes?

No, your research agreed with me, not you. — Garrett Travers

Since eyes evolved before brains, we can conclude that these eyes were not tools of the brain. So the general statement that eyes are tools of the brain is not true.

No, your research agreed with me, not you. And I pointed that out to you by quoting it. Did you miss that part? Here, I'll do it again:

"This has never been shown before," says Levin. "No one would have guessed that eyes on the flank of a tadpole could see, especially when wired only to the spinal cord and not the brain." The findings suggest a remarkable plasticity in the brain's ability to incorporate signals from various body regions into behavioral programs that had evolved with a specific and different body plan."

You completely misunderstood your research. — Garrett Travers

Read what it says. The findings suggest that body parts had evolved with "a specific and different body plan" than that given to them by the brain. Therefore the body part does not require the brain for its existence, and the part did not exist as a tool of the brain. Nor did the brain create the body part as a tool of the brain.

And do some research on that eye thing, you're completely clueless about it. — Garrett Travers

The research has been done, and referenced above. You are in denial of the facts, because they are incompatible with what you believe. So be it.

Now, it's time for you to address even the first topic of the research I've posted, or scram. — Garrett Travers

Sorry Travers, just like you are uninterested in the truth about the relationship between the eye and the brain, I'm not interested in the research you posted.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten how to read now.

The brain and body are ONE, not separate: — Garrett Travers

Now you're really not making sense. Are my feet a part of my brain?

What do you think it means when it clearly states, overtly, "There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process?" — Garrett Travers

It means, that there is no need for an information processing organ (brain), in order for there to be an organ which receives the information (eye). Therefore we can conclude that the organ which receives the information (eye) does not exist as a tool of the organ which processes the information (brain).

Your not paying attention Garrett. The eye does not need the brain, and most likely evolved into existence prior to the brain. Therefore it does not exist as a tool of the brain.

Check Wikipedia on "The Evolution of The Eye":

"Eyes and other sensory organs probably evolved before the brain: There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process.[19] A living example are cubozoan jellyfish that possess eyes comparable to vertebrate and cephalopod camera eyes despite lacking a brain."

The eye is the tool that the brain uses to generate sight. It has no function without the brain. — Garrett Travers

Did you read the article, and see how the experiments showed the tool to function without the brain?

"How?" is still a mystery, but the leading theory is that all structures of the brain operate in a complex network of unparralleled sophistiction. By produce, I mean emit, generate, or otherwise enable. Much like eyesight is produced by the brain, so too is consciousness. — Garrett Travers

If you unite the eyes and the brain, in this way, you cannot say that it is the brain which produces eyesight, because it cannot be done without the eyes. And if you separate eyes from the brain, then you need to account for how an eye can see without a brain: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130227183311.htm#:~:text=2-,Eyes%20work%20without%20connection%20to%20brain%3A%20Ectopic%20eyes,without%20natural%20connection%20to%20brain&text=Summary%3A,neural%20connection%20to%20the%20brain.

Either way, you are wrong to say that eyesight is produced by the brain.

Momentum is a property of a body with mass. Photons have no mass. Photons do not transfer momentum.

Because the motions involved are infinite the virtual pool has to deliver infinite possibilities of momenta and energy (or positions and times). Virtual particles encompass all energies and momenta needed for the interaction at hand. :smile: — EugeneW

I don't understand your use of "momenta". Momentum requires mass. All these virtual particles with infinite possibilities, doesn't produce any mass.

Where did you generate this idea from? That's not true at all. Humans (all life forms, really) achieve homeostasis through acts that accrue the resources that allow them to do so. Homeostasis is the basic impetus to action. — Garrett Travers

I was objecting to your use of "equilibrium" as the defining feature of good. Obviously I do not agree with you, that we get our sense of good and evil from a homeostasis. And homeostasis is not an impetus to action. Homeostasis may be a condition which provides for the capacity to act, but that does not mean it is the impetus to action. A capacity requires a cause to be directed toward a particular action. The cause, which directs it toward one act rather than another (sense of good) is the impetus.

Obviously not, because good is attributed to acts, and equilibrium is attributed to a lack of activity. "If you want to get to heaven, you got to raise a little hell".

Maybe all particles are basically massless. Maybe them interacting renders mass. — EugeneW

This would be very strange, because "interactions" are explained in terms of the fundamental property of mass, inertia, according to Newton's first law. Now you are proposing a type of "interaction" which is completely free from Newton's first law. This would mean "interactions" involving no mass, the consequences of which, mass and its primary feature inertia, are created from nothing ("nothing" being whatever things that are not subject to Newton's first law).

I disagree. If doubt were fundamental then what would you be doubting if not some certainty? It seems that in order to doubt you must have some certainty to doubt prior to doubting it. — Harry Hindu

You're not making sense Harry. To doubt a certainty is contradiction. The fact that you are doubting it means that it is not a certainty. To doubt is to be uncertain. To be certain of something is to be free of doubt concerning it.

I don't see why you believe that it is required to have certainty prior to having uncertainty (doubt). Obviously human beings are evolving creatures, and human knowledge has come into existence as have human beings. Therefore, if certainty is knowledge, as you propose, uncertainty is prior to certainty, as the form of animalistic belief prior to knowledge. It makes no sense to say that uncertainty (doubt) requires an underlying certainty, or else knowledge would have to come into existence from some form of certainty which is prior to knowledge. But this undermines your proposition that knowledge and certainty are the same thing.

China is also making moves in Central Asia, pulling those states into its orbit (and out of Russia's). This will certainly accelerate that process. Russia is too big and too culturally different to become a true Chinese satellite, but it could be accelerating on that trajectory with long term isolation and economic decline. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I suppose China might rescue Russia, by purchasing it from Putin, they might have enough money. That's assuming Putin hasn't already sold out to the devil.

That is the problem with "mass". It's just not at all understood by physicists. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. But then we have "energy" which could be velocity without mass, hence velocity with no momentum. If there is no mass which is moving, then what is the velocity attributed to? What a mess physicists have found themselves in, due to the adaptation of speculative theories which are not grounded in sound ontology.

Then you have overlooked me. — EugeneW

That makes two of us. Joe Mello spits out a lot of nonsense without thinking first.

I get what you're saying but I think that it can be argued that habitual behavior has also been selected as a trait conductive to surviving. For me, it is one of those yin/yang relationships. Certainty has no meaning without doubt. — Harry Hindu

I am not dismissing the importance of habitual behaviour, or the role of certainty. What I am saying is that it must be the case that uncertainty, doubt, is necessarily more basic or fundamental than certainty. This is due to the fallibility of certainty. Since a living being can still be wrong, even in instances when that individual has the attitude of certainty, then there must be a mechanism whereby we doubt even the most basic certitudes, or else we'd all die from our mistakes. Some of us do not doubt our fundamental certitudes, and some of us die from our mistakes. Some of us do doubt our fundamental habits and certitudes, and since this trait often saves us, it is selected for in evolution.

The conclusion therefore, is that the beliefs are fundamentally not certainties, because the living being who holds a belief is conditioned through instinct and genetics, to naturally doubt the belief. This is an evolutionarily beneficial trait which has been selected for. So positing something like hinge propositions, as fundamental beliefs which are somehow beyond doubt, is simply an incorrect representation. The evolutionary process has ensured that beliefs do not actually exist in this way. The propensity to doubt, is fundamental to, and inherent within all belief. The condition of certainty, I suggest, is added to the belief afterward, therefore not fundamental to belief. It is layered on, as an attitude toward belief, not actually part of the belief.

Right. So here on a philosophy forum, discussing topics that are on the fringes of human knowledge, there would be a higher degree of playing devil's advocate - in proposing ideas that you don't necessarily believe but would like to see if there are any rebuttals to. The forum does have it's fair share of fundamentalists that you find in the religious and political discussions where what people say, they really mean, or "know" is true. And then there is the every-day-talk where most of what people say, they believe because we talk about each other, the events of the day, the world, etc. — Harry Hindu

I think you misrepresent "believe" here. That a person believes something does not imply that the person is certain of that. So I can propose ideas, which I believe in, but not certain of, with the intent of allowing rebuttals from others. Then I might be inclined to change my mind. The fact that I change my mind does not mean that I actually did not believe what I claimed to have believed. It simply means that I allow the uncertainty which is inherent within belief, and more fundamental than certainty, to rule within my mind, such that I am always capable of changing my mind, no matter what the particular belief might be. I do not allow myself to develop the attitude called certitude. This is what is called having an open mind, and it is the trait of an honest human being who is true to one's own nature as an evolved life form. Professing certainty as fundamental to one's beliefs, to justify one's attitude of certitude, is the self-deception of closing one's mind to the reality of belief.

Our sense of good and evil, is the source of both. — Garrett Travers

I think the question was, what is the source of the sense of good and evil.

War against Ukraine seemed inevitable for a long time, and yet Putin is blamed for that. So if anyone goes to war with Russia Putin is to blame for that also? It is a funny sense of logic that blames a country for going to war with another country, invading it, and then blaming that country when other countries go to war with it, invading it. If that is the argument, might as well state it. — FreeEmotion

It's not the argument. I don't think a country is a type of thing which can be blamed. A country is not a being with intention. Individual people are blamed, and ought to be held accountable, but to direct blame at a country is to attribute responsibility where none can be attributed, resulting in no one being held accountable. You seem to understand this in your reference to G. W. Bush, above. Good historians describe the actions of individuals, not the actions of a phantasm entity (a country).

The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? Of course that is not saying that is a reason for invasion, I do not have the intelligence to decide that, but it is a powerful undercurrent that has to be recognized. — FreeEmotion

But here you are making the same mistake, and doubling it up, to go even further with that mistake. First you mention what the US wants, as if a country is a type of thing which could have intentions, instead of pointing to what individuals want, as if everyone within the country wants the same thing, and this constitutes what the country wants. Then, you extend this to a group of countries, "its allies", as if a whole group of countries have one intention, when it doesn't even make sense to say that one country has intention.

Since Quantum Fields consist of dimensionless-points-in-space, they are "real" only in the sense that they have the Potential to produce physical particles. — Gnomon

You could say that the point signifies something. So it's similar to when some one draws a map, and marks a point to signify a city. The point signifies something, but what it signifies does not at all resemble a point. The spacetime is mapped and the designated points signify something, an aspect of that which is being mapped

A vacuum fluctuation can be seen as an eternal presence of a particle in the vacuum. — EugeneW

What is this concept of "a particle in the vacuum"? Is it a vacuum, which is not really a vacuum because there is something there, which must be a particle, but it's not really a particle because it has no location? So it's not really a vacuum, nor is there a particle, just convenient terms.

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!? — Manuel

Yes. It's the only way to give Putin what they think he deserves. War against Russia, whether clandestine or overt, appears to be inevitable.

This is about as clear as it gets. These kinds of beliefs are not tied to propositions and/or statements, they are primitive, animal if you will. They are belief states revealed in a non-propositional way. We show these beliefs in innumerable ways. They are non-linguistic beliefs.

All beliefs are expressed in acts of one kind or another, i.e., either in linguistic and/or nonlinguistic acts. — Sam26

I think you misunderstand the nature of "belief". There is always some degree of doubt, insecurity, uncertainty, underlying all belief, inherent within belief, and this feature allows us to adapt to the unknown aspects of an ever changing environment. The more primitive the belief, the greater the degree of uncertainty, as is evident by the capacity of base instincts such as 'fight or flight', and superstitions, to overpower fundamental rational beliefs.

To represent "belief" as a sort of foundational certainty which excludes an individual's inclination to assess the possibility of mistake, is simply a false representation of belief. In reality, the possibility that I am wrong, therefore uncertainty, is the foundational aspect of belief, which we attempt to overcome through training. Certainty is acquired, while uncertainty is instinctual, and the acquired will never completely suppress the instinctual, as it is structured on top of that foundation.

The ingredients for life, all the necessary chemistry, were all present in the oceans of the earth roughly 4.5 Gya. These life molecules were randomly distributed in the water. It so happened that some of these biomolecules came to be at the same place, in each other's vicinity, and they interacted in the right proportions to produce the first life. The rest is history.

Note this is knowledge and not ignorance. — Agent Smith

To me, your example looks like this: All the necessary ingredients for a cake were distributed around the kitchen. It so happened that they came to be in each other's vicinity, interacted, and produced a cake. Ignorance, not knowledge.

Are you familiar with the principle of plenitude? Roughly speaking, it states that if given enough time, all possibilities will be actualized. So if we assume an infinite amount of time, then everything possible will be real. Check out the infinite monkey theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Here's an example of what I am saying. We can represent the certainty as the basis for the habitual activity. I know that the act X will have the outcome of Y, so act X for the purpose of Y becomes habituated, and I tend to proceed with very little doubt. The light turns green, I walk across the street, for instance.

However, before I cross the street I glance around to see if anyone is running the red. This is "the check", which is a manifestation of the fundamental uncertainty. The check has to be more fundamental than the certainty, in order that it might at any time overrule the certainty. The habit can be broken. If the check is allowed to be overruled by the certainty, then eventually I will step in front of an errant vehicle.

One might model the certainty as more fundamental than the uncertainty, as is the case when hinge propositions are modeled as free from the tendency to doubt, but this is a false model. It is proven false, because those who do not perform the check get the Darwin award, and this trait of relinquishing the check, is not maintained. So the uncertainty of the check is supported by evolution, and its overruling the certainty of habit, as a more fundamental aspect of living beings is verified in this way. And the check as an uncertainty based activity cannot be modeled as a habit because it is different (habit being similar) in every field of activity yet common to them all.

Then you typing and submitting your post is evidence of your underlying uncertainty? — Harry Hindu

Right, the reason for posting here is to submit my ideas to the criticisms of others. My ideas are forever evolving, because of my uncertainty, and the role that others play in changing my mind.

You seem certain of what you say, but if your admitting that your certainty of what you are saying is an illusion and that you know its an illusion I would have expected a lot less of telling others what they fail to realize (as if they are wrong and you are right) and more humility on your part. Are you certain that certainty is just an illusion? — Harry Hindu

To state something as a proposition, is to make a proposal. It does not imply 'I am certain of what I wrote'. This is your misinterpretation, derived from, (and a very good demonstration of), that faulty notion that actions are based in certainty. That you interpret my proposal as an indication that I am certain of the truth of what I write, shows that you are committed to this faulty way of understanding. I write in my habitual way, but this does not mean that I am not ready, willing, and actively looking for reasons, to break the habit if necessary. I walk across the street right after the light turns green, and it appears like I am certain in that act, if you do not notice the more subtle act of me looking around before crossing. In the case of writing, the more subtle act occurs within my mind, as thinking, so it's even more difficult to notice.

When primitive man or modern man interacts within his environment, they show their basic beliefs by what they do, or the way they act. So, if a primitive man picks up a stone, that shows that he or she believes something about his or her environment, something fundamental, something very basic. For example, it shows that they believe there is a stone there, that they have hands, that they are a body distinct from other bodies or objects. These kinds of hinges, for the most part don't change. On the other hand, there are other kinds of hinges that we accept as certain (not epistemologically certain, but a certainty that's reflected in our actions), and they are expressed in other ways, maybe ritual dances, praying, that the Earth is flat, etc. These kinds of hinges change over time, and they are culturally dependent, and also dependent on our current fund of knowledge. — Sam26

What you, many others in this thread, and Wittgenstein himself, fail to recognize, is that doubt and uncertainty is what underlies human actions, as inherent within them, essential to them, and impossible to remove. Certainty is just an illusion we create when we're asked to justify our actions. But as Wittgenstein demonstrates, such justification cannot be applied to the foundation. Therefore, uncertainty, the possibility of mistake, and the consequent risk management, is what truly shapes and forms our actions, at the most fundamental level. You might say that we have a very deeply seated fear of failure, because it manifests as pain.

This is simply a feature of the reality of the human being's presence in a temporal reality. The future is indeterminate, and the human being is inadequate in its capacity to bend the future, to suit its will. This manifests as the fallibility of human knowledge. To represent human actions as based in some underlying certainty about the future, rather than as based in an underlying uncertainty, produces a false attitude of certitude, by those who represent actions in this way, and this is conducive to grave mistake, and the consequent suffering.

I wouldn't really say that chance is ignorance, but it's more like the way that we represent our ignorance. So for example, if I do not know the cause of something, I might say it was a chance occurrence. In this case, what "chance" represents is the fact that I do not know. But it's a misleading usage, because it creates the appearance that I do know the cause, and the cause is something called "chance".

Abiogenesis is not supernatural in character. It's an explanatory model that has at its heart, chance/luck/randomness. — Agent Smith

The problem being that chance/luck/randomness is not an explanation of anything, nor was spontaneous generation an explanation of anything.

Realizing full well that we're but guests in the house of God, it'd do us good to not forget that the house always wins. — Agent Smith

That's a mixed metaphor. The house wins in gambling. When you are a guest in someone else's house, you are the winner, by the graciousness of the other.