You are repeating yourself again and it still does not make any sense.

Speak plain English and give an example that is valid in everyday life, I do not know anyone that has to chose between A and B except in game shows. So either explain the process clearly or give up and read a book on human psychology.

And don't tell me that it cannot be done, because that would mean that your theory does not apply to reality.

Having either neither or both would be conservative and choosing one or the other would be progressive? — Outlander

Choices made can lead to positive or negative results, but the choice itself is neither. Do all changes have to be progressive or conservative.
I have seven shirts, one for each day of the week, how could it be counted as either progressive or conservative if I choose which one to wear randomly each day?

Help me out here, OP. :razz: — Outlander

Don't hold your breath there mate. It seems he thinks you need a dictionary, not an explanation.

Conservative is to leave things as they are, and progressive is to change things. — Syamsu

And he uses a rather deficiente one as well.:lol:

You are exploiting the complexity of people's decisionmaking processes to argue for ignorance on how decisionmaking works. — Syamsu

Not even you know how decision making really works.

I mean you don't offer a competing understanding, instead you just set out to make a conceptual mess. Probably in order to avoid dealing with emotions, because that is a common theme. — Syamsu

If you had read what I wrote, I asked for explanations of your theory to understand what you were talking about. Without understanding how can I propose a competing idea?

The spirit in this case are the emotions, the appreciation for eating the hotdog and burger. — Syamsu

So it is what I thought it was, the subconscious. I did say from the beginning that you were just adding fancy names to things.

Why would you eliminate humanity from the equation? — Pantagruel

The world universe does not need us to be here. Why would anyone think that anything we do would make the place better.

The human species is as much a part of the world (universe) as everything else, and so deserves the benefit of melioration. — Pantagruel

Would you care to explain why we "deserve" anything? Is it a part of nature, a natural right? a universal rule maybe? Based on what do come to the conclusion that humans deserve to construct principals such as this?
I think that it is rather preposterous to think that humans can be anything more than humans and therefore they will always act like humans. Most of human improvement has been accidental, coincidental or genetic, while the world has just gone about it ways trying to ignore us.

We can through effort make the universe less shitty by looking after it better, but make it better how?

Unless you are an anti-meliorist. — Pantagruel

I don't wear labels, thank you. Stereotyping, name calling are lame ways to to make yourself feel better.

meliorist = A disputant who advocates reform

anti-meliorist = a non disputant who advocates reform

or

anti-meliorist = A disputant who advocates no reform

It seems that you might be operating in a framework of meliorism, which is definitely my own orientation. — Pantagruel

The world is getting along just fine, actually much better without us humans right now so I think that is sort of a nonsensical idea.

That is to say, that basically any choice is either conservative or progressive, to keep things as they are, or to actualize a possibility. — Syamsu

Wrong, all choice are between any available options. They do not have to be either conservative or progressive. I am going to eat a sandwich, do I want it with butter or mayo? How can either one of those be progressive or conservative when I usually have neither or both.

Having alternative futures available, making of them the present, and then what the agency of the choice is, is a matter of chosen opinion. — Syamsu

Having alternate futures is acceptable, making them today is ridiculous.You can decide to do something today that will change what tomorrow might be, but it is impossible to make that today.
So what led to today being today instead of an alternate today was the choice you made yesterday.

And what was that agency then?

One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one's experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into. — Wiki

Where does your spirit fit into the picture?

The spiritual is defined as what did this job of making the choice turn out A.

It can only be identified with a chosen opinion. That is, choose an opinion that a choice was made out of fear, joy, etc. — Syamsu

Ok, let's try this. I chose a hamburger for lunch instead of a hotdog, A instead of B. What exactly did the spiritual do? Did the job of making the decision not come about because of the workings of my unconscious/subconscious reasoning abilities processing the knowledge that I have acquired in my life?

You should focus on the logic of it. — Syamsu

Please point out where that part is.

It doesn't fucking matter what to call it, it's about the logic. — Syamsu

If it does not matter why are you ranting on about it?

You want to give the words supernatural and subconscious the logic that it is agency of choices, and it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, go ahead. — Syamsu

You are the one using spirit, not me. I only asked if it was super natural because from what you are saying the agency of choice is apparently not part of a human.

What are you even talking about? — Syamsu

That is why I asked,

Is this spirit supernatural? — Sir2u

to try and find out what the hell you are talking about. Shame you never bother to answer questions.

I exhaustively defined it.

Then there is the question "What was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?

All subjective opinion, like an opinion that something is beautiful, or that a choice is made out of fear, is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. — Syamsu

How the fuck is the subconscious defined as being agency of choices, and a matter of chosen opinion what is in it? — Syamsu

I am pretty sure that you will find more of those professional philosophers that will agree that opinions, the choice of one thing over another, are made subconsciously. Most people decide that they are scared of something without really being able to explain why, or to explain why they decided that something is beautiful and not ugly.

And I never defined the subconscious as being agency of choices, but because I do not know what the fuck your spiritual realm might be I asked if that was what you meant. Lots of believers think that their soul is spiritual, while other people think that it is all in the brain which is mostly subconscious.

"One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one's experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into. Disagreement on the extent of one's agency often causes conflict between parties, e.g. parents and children. " — Wiki

It is therefore proven that there is a spiritual domain, constituting the agency of choices, from which is decided how the material domain ends up. — Syamsu

Is this spirit supernatural? Or is it just your personal opinion of what the subconscious should be called.

That makes three of us, you and me too.

Maybe if I had written "the answer to this question is yes" it would have been correct.
But the mind boggles at such profound levels of thinking.

Re writing a book on philosophy

I have an idea for a Philosophy book I want to write. — Ross Campbell

First of all are you writing or re-writing a book on or about philosophy?

Unless you have some entirely new insight into what the great thinker thought, some completely new answers to the age old questions, brand new rebuttals of philosophical thought of from years gone by, or new ways of applying old ideas in today's world, forget it.

There is not a person from anywhen in history that has not been blathered about ad nauseam in thousands of unread books throughout history.

If you want an idea about how or what to write, read "Plato at the Googlplex"

Fear is not a fact, it is your opinion that you were frightened. — Syamsu

Picture if you will this guy, 2 meters tall, 170 kilos, arm spread of almost 2 meters, each arm of which is thicker than most people's leg. He has long shitty looking hair and beard and a big scar running from his waist up to his cheek. He is running straight at you with a bloody big machete screaming " you're gonna die mother fucker".

The substance of what makes a choice is called "spiritual". — Syamsu

And fear is then just your spiritual choice and you can change it if you want. Yeah, OK.

It is simply the truth of how it works, that opinions are in reference to a creator — Syamsu

An opinion might be, in the sense that someone created it by putting certain groups of facts together and creating an opinion. But, by adding the facts they either come out as an opinion or a fact. That might be blamed on illogical thinking or ignorance, not necessarily on truth value.

But does not one who creates make the creation, is that not what creators are for.
So according to your reasoning there is little difference between the two,

Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence — Syamsu

Creation - implies a creator, which you say is the maker of opinions

chosen - implies subjectivity, definitely not effective as fact proving

material - implies that facts can only be "material things" or about them maybe, where as most if not all facts are inmaterial because facts are language.

Existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence - is maybe circular reasoning or redundant or ad infinitum because you are saying that it is a fact because other facts make it so and they are facts because other facts make them so and so on into infinity.

But apart from all of this, you still have not addressed the earlier post I made properly.

Here you seem to be stating that all facts are about creations, could you please verify that this is so.

Creation would mean that things are made by someone/thing, what proof verifiable facts do you have that any facts were created by anything/one? — Sir2u

Perhaps by a 1 to 1 basis in the mind meaning said proposed fact ie. 'the water is hot' corresponds to one or more things that can be proven. The water is 150 degrees farenheit. Steam is beginning to rise from the water. I stick my hand in it for more than a few seconds it will be very uncomfortable. Etc? The statement 'the water is hot' is therefore a fact not an opinion. Whereas 'the water is too hot' or 'not hot enough' may be the opposite. — Outlander

So why the hell does he not just say that instead of blathering on about creation and creators?

Well, you cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of for instance "fear". Which is in category 1, the creator category. — Syamsu

So fear is a fact or not? I know for a fact that I have been in fear of many things in my life(scared shitless sometimes), would that serve as a model? Where can I download a copy of the table containing the categories you are talking about?

You can make a painting to express what fear is, but it's not a model. — Syamsu

So what exactly would serve as a model for a fact?

And as there doesn't seem to be any other categories besides creator and creation, it is proven that facts are only about creations. — Syamsu

Please gives us a link to this proof. They have to be somewhere right?

But why don't you present a fact which is not about a creation. — Syamsu

I don't want to interfere with the presentation of your hypothesis, theory, conjecture or whatever you want to call it. It would just muddy the waters.

And I have not made any bloody stupid comments that need to be defended, yet.

So you cannot prove that your other "fact" was a fact.

Got any facts which are not about creations? — Syamsu

Here you seem to be stating that all facts are about creations, could you please verify that this is so.

Creation would mean that things are made by someone/thing, what proof verifiable facts do you have that any facts were created by anything/one?

A fact is a model. The fact of people verifying facts, is a model of people verifying facts. So a picture. — Syamsu

You stated this as a fact and I asked you to verify it.

To verify a fact, means to verify that the fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about. — Syamsu

I think that my cats have a better chance of catching their tales than you do of verifying that anything you have said can be verified by anything that you have said.

Picture factcheckers comparing facts, and what the fact is about. — Syamsu

I did not ask you to tell me to use my imagination, I asked you to prove that what you said was true. On a one to one fact to what the fact is about sort of thing or whatever it was you said.

Picturing thing does not make them facts.

To verify a fact, means to verify that the fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about. — Syamsu

If this is a fact, please verify using your own method.

“What is the answer to X?” — Pfhorrest

The only answer possible to this question is X itself.

“Y is the answer.” — Pfhorrest

How did you get X from Y?

X can only be equal to X and Y can only be equal to Y.

So again, explain your reasoning.

Nope, that’s not it. — Pfhorrest

Please explain you reasoning.

Told you that you could do it. :100: :party:

Spam spams spam

Yes.

What is wrong with (either) me or other people? — Shawn

If you do no harm to anyone and are content with your life, then just tell them to fuck off.

But if you make statements of unhappiness or other negative feelings then people will tend to give you advice.

Again, if you disagree with them you can still tell them to fuck off.

Try to live life without unnecessary complications is my motto. Unless of course something can be gained by a bit of extra complication of course.

Si, ma pourquoi ? — Amity

Multilingual?

Portolano two letters down from Port Orlando

And only dipshits have to announce their departure, sort of an ego booster to low self esteem. :rofl:

Mostly jerks on this forum. — jacksonsprat22

Well there will be fewer after you leave. Does the "prat" refer to the two parts or what is in the middle?

My god, there is a pandemic with people dying and you assholes can't rise above junior high school insulting. — jacksonsprat22

OK, we can all come along with you and help you solve the problem if that would make you feel better.

You can leave the door open as you leave, I think the cat is still out there. :cool:

FI you can work from home, theres a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

I can work from home, but it is more work with less travel. Sort of balances out in the end. Could or should it be done on a permanent basis, who knows.

It depends what you are teaching. — Banno

Why would that make a difference? Are some subjects more worthy of being none bullshit than others? I suppose that it would depend on what your philosophy of teaching/learning is. My basic idea is that student should learn how to learn regardless of and sometimes even despite the subject.

The crucial point is that the person doing the job sees that it is bullshit. — Banno

My job normally would include between 3-4 hours of travel everyday, the work itself takes about 20 hours. But the paper work, checking and reviewing and the other dozens of little things take up the rest of the time. But this load of not actually my work is mostly necessary to be able to do my job properly.
I have worked at many different jobs, but I cannot remember many that time was actually wasted. Probably because not many were actually task specific, usually there were a series of tasks set for the day, week or month, but few were actually accomplished in the estimated time set for them.

I am teaching from home right now. And it bloody well sucks.

The funny thing is that I seem to be getting better results than actual classroom work. And I don't have to leave the house.

I don't know if teaching is a bullshit job, but I cannot imagine anyone getting very far in life without going to school, at least until he can read and write.

We only need indexicals, contextuals from which to proceed, and with those conventional markers we can (and do) go back and forward as we see fit, without being bound to any one particular marker or unit.
So, in that sense at least, we need not assume a definite earliest time altogether, if that's what you meant. — jorndoe

OK, while I agree that we not need to assume an earliest possible time for everyday purposes, it does not make sense to asume that there can be an indefinite or infinite past.

This is puzzling. Are you now doubting your own conclusion? — SophistiCat

Not at all, saying that you doubt something is not reaching a conclusion, it is a statement of indecision. And the comment was about your use of the word "trivially", and whether or not one had to work to be able to reach a conclusion. How much actual work did you do to reach your conclusion? Read a book maybe about someone else's thoughts on the topic.

The way you originally stated it gave me the impression that you yourself thought it to be straightforward. — SophistiCat

It can be a straight forward idea and still be incorrect. As I stated, neither has more than guesses to support our ideas. Why should your way of thinking be better or more correct than my way of thinking.

Your mocking misses the mark. Indeed, we don't presuppose beer to have an origin - we know this from experience, inference or reliable report. Not so with time. I feel silly even having to explain this to you. — SophistiCat

It is not mocking, and you can feel as silly as you like.
And if you check the dictionary, we do presuppose beer to have an origin just because it exists, even if most people are unaware of the origin of it and have to do the research(google it) to find out.
You can do all of the research you like and never find out whether time is finite or infinite because no one knows, so no one can presupposes or postulate about it. They can only make guesses and try to prove them to be true or false.

But anyway, apart from all of that, I never postulated that time has a beginning. What I said was that the idea of time, a measurement, presupposes a starting point.

If you postulate that time must have a starting point, then you trivially get the conclusion that the past cannot be infinite. — SophistiCat

Whether it is trivial or not is only a matter of your personal beliefs, because you have no evidence of it being either the correct or incorrect conclusion.

Of course, no one who does not already believe the conclusion would be satisfied with that postulation, and even those who do ought to be leery about getting their prize without honest toil. — SophistiCat

How much honest toil is needed to reach an inconclusive conclusion?

You could say that time is just what we postulate 'time' to be, and you could then postulate it to have a beginning. But a more honest and satisfying approach would be to take 'time' as referring to something beyond mere postulation, something empirically known. — SophistiCat

You could say that beer is just what we postulate 'beer' to be, and you could then postulate it to have an origin. But a more honest and satisfying approach would be to take 'beer' as referring to something beyond mere postulation, something empirically known and do the bloody research to find out where it came from.

I think that my version makes more sense, and I do not have to refer to authorities to back me up.

And there is no bloody transportation either, so I am stuck here.

AAAAaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh :angry: :cry:

:chin: Did he/she notice?

Zophie stole the words from me. :lol:

How clever is the male mind at 76? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Depends on how devious it was before 76. :rofl:

Yeah, set me a cold one on the bar and let the music begin.

Talking of beer, I am having to ration it. They are not letting the shops sell booze, of all of the stupid ideas.

Therefore If you have an infinite past then there exists some past event that must of gone an infinite number of events to get to the present, but since addition from a point will always be a finite number, an infinite past is impossible and so would two event that have infinite events inbetween. — BB100

The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing. So I doubt that the past is infinite.
If your point is basically to say that time is not infinite then you are going in the wrong direction, you would have to prove that there cannot be an infinite future.