Sometimes proponents will suggest we dispense completely with the notion of "duty", which is entirely unreasonable and unpersuasive... — darthbarracuda

The concept of duty is necessary, as it helps to persuade us to act co-operatively. We are a social species, and it is as social beings that we are successful. That we are also resistant to society, and its demands on us individuals, acts against this, our primary advantage over other species. As individuals, we achieve little or nothing. As co-operating groups, we achieve ... well, just look around you! :wink:

Anyway, was interested in whether other people have studied feminist philosophies and such. What's your take on feelings such as care or love be the guiding force to moral decisions? Is it overly simplistic or elegantly simplistic? — Wallows

My thought would be "elegantly simple", but I don't know a great deal about it. Sadly I have not studied feminist philosophy, any more than I have studied African philosophy, although I'm sure both have much to offer that other philosophies do not cover. :chin: I look forward to learning more, maybe from this thread? Go for it!

Just exactly WHY are humans (and higher animals as well) conscious at all? It seems totally unnecessary and seems to have no survival value, either. — Unseen

Really? Doesn't consciousness allow us to deal with the world we live in, better than it was before we were conscious? For, in our evolutionary journey to our current state, there was a time when we weren't conscious. :chin:

"Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?", the OP asks. But it doesn't consider alcohol, the drug that causes the greatest damage to the greatest number of humans. It's difficult to consider the moral aspects of doing illegal drugs when the most significant drug is not considered because it isn't illegal. Doesn't this inevitably skew our discussions here? :chin:

I actually don't believe that it is possible to prove that anything is impossible except in the logical context or within a restricted context. — Janus

Agreed.

For an example of the latter it is currently impossible for me to levitate or walk through walls. I can prove that by trying to do it. Can I prove that it will always be impossible? No. Can I prove that it is simply physically impossible? No. Can I prove that it is physically possible? No. — Janus

So, surely we must conclude that anything we believe possible - not probable or likely, only possible - remains so until more evidence clarifies matters?

So, if you say that if something has not been proven to be impossible it therefore must be possible, that is binary thinking, and you are ruling out the "maybe"; the possibility that it is in actuality impossible even though we cannot prove it. — Janus

No, I'm not saying that. More binary thinking? :wink: If something has not been proven impossible, it may just be because we couldn't/didn't find the right evidence. Or it could be that there's something to it after all. We should allow for either of those, I think? [Or anything in between, if there is an 'in between'. :smile: ]

:up:

In the case of the first we can say that we know something is impossible if it defies laws of the excluded middle — Janus

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. — Wikipedia

So, for any issue where other answers are possible - such as "maybe" as well as "yes" or "no", offering just one of many possible examples - you have no answer. Binary thinking - "Answer yes or no!" - doesn't help here, I suspect?

:smile:

But long term I think it isn't that healthy and even impairs cognitive function. — thedeadidea

But if you have MS, as I do...?

I only pointed out that there are always alternatives. Again and again you assert that your one answer is the one and only answer, when other possibilities exist.

Actually we do know when a person is thinking of the color red. — YuZhonglu

That's not what I said. I referred to the (human) experience of seeing red. It's a very different thing.

You said that we could have educated versus non-educated guesses.

So I was asking what we could be educated about that would enable the sort of probability statement being made. Because one of the big problems is that there is no frequency data. — Terrapin Station

Ah, I see. You asked me before what strong and weak evidence were, and now you're asking what educated guesswork is. Hmm. I'm autistic, and my ability to tell whether you are sincere or not is ... guesswork. I don't have that skill. So I'm going to assume you're sincere. :chin:

Describing evidence as strong or weak is common, and (I think) well understood. And so is the concept of educated guesswork. No, it doesn't refer to a particular form of education. It just describes guessing based on what information we have, perhaps especially where the amount of information we have is much less than we might prefer. I think its purpose is to distinguish itself from random guesswork, which is based on no information at all, just a metaphorical (or even literal) dice roll.

2. If they did produce matter, we'd be at infinite matter density by now
3. If Eternal Inflation is natural and time is infinite, there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation instances simultaneously. — Devans99

I think an infinite 'space' into which expansion, and the like, could take place, would rather change your assertions. An infinite space could hold infinite matter without overflowing. No, I don't think this is fertile speculation, worthy of further thought. I merely offer possibilities that you seem to have glossed over. :smile:

I think actual infinity has no useful applications — Devans99

And yet, merely as a concept, it enhances our thinking, or at least it can enhance our thinking.

But infinity is a useful and meaningful concept. No matter how poorly it fits with some other stuff we invented. That's life, I suppose. :wink:

And then there are those who think merely establishing the possibility of X is sufficient to believe in X — NKBJ

Well, you know what they say: there's nowt so queer as folk! :smile:

Yes, it is. But there are many who will tell you things are impossible because they estimate them to be highly unlikely. This is usually done without evidence (that the thing in question is actually unlikely/improbable). In such cases, it seems necessary (although it shouldn't be) to state that things that are not impossible are ... possible. :smile:

Guesswork is educated if it's based on guesswork, but not if it's just guesswork??? — Terrapin Station

Yes, well, I had a lot of trouble parsing this:

And our education fueling probability guesses for which there is no frequency data would be? — Terrapin Station

Maybe I misunderstood, as I implied in my answer. What does the above sentence mean? :chin:

Do you not think/believe that there are many self-perpetuated problems, all of which are a result of people becoming bewitched by certain language use? — creativesoul

I believe we perceive all kinds of problems, and we try to solve them. I find it difficult to believe they all have one cause ("becoming bewitched by certain language use") though.

infinity is not a number — Devans99

This isn't news to mathematicians. When the concept of infinity was invented, there was a (perceived) need for it to be integrated into mathematics. (The alternative was to leave infinity standing alone and lonely, and this (apparently) was unacceptable.) The mess you observe is the result of that 'integration'.

How would you define the distinction between strong and weak evidence (preferably in a way that doesn't make it purely a subjective judgment)? — Terrapin Station

Strong evidence leads to a robust conclusion. A justified conclusion. Weaker evidence may point in the direction of the conclusion we seek, but does not justify it.

And our education fueling probability guesses for which there is no frequency data would be? — Terrapin Station

If I understand you correctly: guesswork.

Do the simulated people still have conscious experiences with a human Chinese computer? — Marchesk

Perhaps the only way we could tell is to interview the simulated people?

Some claim cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, of which I'm not so sure — tim wood

Alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year. There are no established instances of cannabis causing death. Not that cannabis is without harm - it isn't - but compared to alcohol, the differences are striking.

Could be!

Anything is possible...except stuff that has been established as impossible. — Frank Apisa

:up: That about covers it. :smile:

Physicalism is the idea that nothing exists except for concrete objects in the material world. But physics is the study of the mathematic principles which determine the behavior of these material objects. And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. You can't locate them under a microscope. So acknowledging that the laws of physics exist seems to contradict the theory of physicalism. Thoughts? — Dusty of Sky

It's much bigger than physics, I think.

Physicalism is the idea that nothing exists except for concrete objects in the material world. — Dusty of Sky

OK.

But science - the discipline(s) of science, not its subject matter - is not a concrete object in the material world. It's a concept, an immaterial thing. So it doesn't exist. The same applies to philosophy, for example. And religion. Oh, and politics. ... Capitalism. Greed. The American Way. Beauty. Happiness. Ambition. Joy. The list goes on and on...

Your arguments stand, I think. I can see no justification at all for this physicalism. It is wrong because it is incomplete. There are things that exist which it denies, or cannot see.

But when I think of spirit, am I thinking of the 'same' spirit as you? — YuZhonglu

We don't know. Just as we don't know if you experience red as I do, or what it is like to be a bat. Your objection - and it is a valid one - applies to many (most? all?) issues, and is not specific to this discussion.

I’m only guessing, be unlikely. — AJJ

How is a probability "guess" not just arbitrary? — Terrapin Station

Because there's such a thing as educated guesswork. Our guesses aren't random, but they are also (very) far from Objective. But a guess remains a guess, no matter how educated.

Yes, especially given that all evidence points to it. — Terrapin Station

Am I alone here in thinking that evidence can be strong or weak, and that weak evidence is not enough to justify a conclusion?

My fundamental point is that there are tools of reasoning available to us IN ADDITION to deduction and numerical probability, that - when applied correctly- lead to better (more reasonable, more rational) decisions than otherwise. You seem to be evading this, and merely stressing that these other tools do not lead to certainty. I agree that we tend to feel more certain than we're warranted, but that doesn't imply we should be abandon all tools of critical reasoning other than deduction and probability. — Relativist

It's usually me that argues for using the best tool for the job, and that logic and science are often not the best - or only! - tools available. :up: I haven't been evading this, it's just that I'm focussing on certainty: unjustified certainty. If we are building our theories on axioms and assumptions - and we are, because we have no choice - we need to be aware, I think, that this is what we're doing. Our world, in practice, is uncertain. That's my point. :smile:

Why isnt a quantity of evidence not equal to conclusive evidence? You keep avoiding the question. — Harry Hindu

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you wanted an answer to that. I thought it was clear of itself. Conclusive evidence is evidence that, taken together, logically justifies reaching a conclusion. No mere amount (quantity) of (lesser) evidence can do this.

The blackest of black-and-white examples is where our conclusions can be deduced from the evidence. Provided the evidence is gathered and understood without error, the conclusion is guaranteed, and thereby justified.

The farther we drift away from the deduction scenario, the less well-founded (justified) our conclusions are. I don't think this is a secret? :chin:

Ryudo — Shamshir

Thanks, not heard of that one. :smile: This is what you refer to, yes?

Assuming this is true, what should we do about it? — frank

I don't know. I suspect it's too late to do anything except perhaps to minimise the damage that will be left after we're gone (but there's little motivation for us to do that, is there?).

Conclusive reasons?

There would have to be good reasons ... to reach a conclusion. In this, and in many (most? all?) other topics. Without good reasons, we guess and carry on. And, as long as we don't mistake our guesses for something more well-founded, all is well. (IMO, of course.) I seek only to keep the door to the unknown ajar. :wink:

Without expert knowledge and insight into everything you cannot vote for experts to rule everything. — Christoffer

Indeed. The issue here is trust, I think?

Wu wei?

what is the dang problem with our profession? — Anaxagoras

That it pretends to be a science. The study of humans, especially their minds, needs to account for things that science cannot describe or deal with. It's too important to be disabled by the pretence of being a science, as though that was a distinction worth seeking out.

Most people on here are cantankerous, irritated, snarky, disagreeable, and generally pissed off at some comment almost all of the time. — schopenhauer1

That doesn't match my perception, in the months I have been here. I enjoy it here. It entertains me, and I learn stuff.

Yes. :gasp: :worry: :pray: