• There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Nelson E Garcia
    You lack enough information to determine whether the concept is one worthy of consideration. You need to wait until my exchange with Andrew M gives you more clues because you are too far away from what I mean. — Nelson E Garcia

    I'm pretty sure his patience ran out like mine did, but I could be wrong. People don't like being frustrated and then condescended to, so there's a limit. Just tell us what you've invested your entire ego into and we'll let you know it's horribly mistaken. Trust me they are good at; keeps you fresh.
  • There is no Independent Existence
    There is a large difference between logical schemes and materiality. Talking about materiality does not board, penetrate, or even significantly reach it. So if you have a prejudice against dualities, if you think all things are set in a single plane, the plane of language, or the plane of nuclear elements, or the plane of logic, or mathematics, you are somehow handicapped for the totality of reality. — Nelson E Garcia

    So, for the sake coherence could I summarize the position as a belief that if the right mind 'percepts' the intended target the truth about the target will be manifest. And one ought expect it may deviate from information gained by other means.

    Putting it in my own words in hope of bridging this communication canyon.
  • Vaccine acceptence or refusal?
    ↪Book273
    We do not know the long term effects of this vaccine, this virus, or the technology of the vaccine. It's all pretty new stuff, perhaps mild caution is in order. — Book273
    Hence the reason hesitancy is rational on an individual level. But, taking the individual risk or perceived risk was what I thought I owed the people I live around. We know the long term effects of not vaccinating and that is mutating an already easily spread virus; that seems to wipe out the elderly fairly well.
  • Is the Biblical account of Creation self - consistent?
    My point is that, if someone believes in miracles, there are many who do, but numbers do not matter, then it is reasonable that Creation itself could have been a miracle. — FreeEmotion

    If irrational things are rational, then can this irrational thing be rational? Certainly.
  • Which books have had the most profound impact on you?
    Rectangle
  • There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Banno
    Like a fine honey glazed reality that necessitates conjecture. Spoiler Alert ID
  • Logic and Disbelief
    They don't believe us, so they are atheist. Sounds logical.
  • Survey of philosophers
    I monitor all the vats.
  • There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Nelson E Garcia
    If you had simply a novel approach to reality that's one thing, but if all this is for enjoying a X belief is rational, then I'd like to know what I'm buying.
  • There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Nelson E Garcia
    Maybe, but at first glance this seems like we have two different types of facts. And the lessor or "least real" suffers from it's logical derivation instead of empirical observation. To me this is counter-intuitive because I could have a fact sheet about a building and know far more than looking at it in person. Unless we are talking pure aesthetics. What is gained by subjugating logic to observation?
  • Free Speech and Censorship
    You wouldn't want to turn the emergency management notification system over to some one that simply had a wild imagination and strong feelings regarding what cities ought to be evacuated. Trump is a case where the speech was being made from a vantage point that couldn't lose credibility fast enough to match the quality of the statements. Generally people will give up some free speech temporarily to fulfill the duties of a job or function; others apparently will not.
  • There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Banno
    Some information seems relative to the observer. Is it being suggested there is an ideal head size one must have in order to gauge the size of a hat?
  • There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Nelson E Garcia
    Again, actuality (pre-existence) is no negation of unobserved facts, but those facts are logical facts, not perceptive facts. — Nelson E Garcia

    The building example gives me something to work with, thanks. Does it matter what medium of perception I use? Looking versus echo locating? Both direct relationships with the senses. Suppose I look at it through night vision googles to see the heat signature that I am blind to otherwise. Where would these fall?

    Before going to far; is there some novel conclusion that is supposed to be drawn that can't otherwise be assailed?
  • There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Nelson E Garcia
    ↪Cheshire It is a controversial feature of my metaphysical persuasion to only rate as reality what is perceived, while anything else pre-existing out of mind’s sense-targeting I rate as actuality, not reality. The controversy is large because I claim science in its totality operates within actuality. Only perception (directly and in close proximity) reaches realness and if that was not enough a controversy, human cognition I divide between reception and perception. — Nelson E Garcia

    Supposing this is the case I have a couple of questions regarding the demarcation line between in and out of the mind's sense-targeting. Keeping with the inner core of the earth as an example, I see two possible cases under your criteria.

    The inner core of the earth exists in actuality; in the sense we can get information about it but it isn't there because there isn't a direct path between our senses and the inner core of the earth.
    or
    The inner core of the exists in reality, because of the gravity I feel for a positive sense or the lack dangerous radiation hitting me because of the magnetic field as a negative sense.

    Which are you implying to be the correct interpretation or neither. I realize it's later qualified, but I'm looking for a starting point.
  • There is no Independent Existence
    ↪Nelson E Garcia


    I would be willing to suppose that the universe is expanding to keep up with how far we are looking, but mind actualization seems to limiting to be the only requirement for existence. Things that are out of view still need to remain in existence in so much as other variables states rely on them. The inner core of the earth is probably always there without the need for anyone constantly pinging it.
  • Vaccine acceptence or refusal?
    ↪Book273


    I think this is one of those cases where if we all do what we want then the collective outcome is worse. Like, that beautiful mind movie. So, on the individual level for everyone hesitancy is rational. Personally, I see it through social contract theory; where if you choose to live in society you ought do what keeps the society alive. The last person to get vaccinated probably won't need it, but we don't know who that is so the only successful approach is over-vaccinating the required number of people. I think we have the right to make selfish decisions and be held accountable for them, so in some sense I agree.
  • Atheism is delusional?
    Atheism is a belief based on the assumption that evidence for God would exist if God exist. It's an honest assessment of the information we have been provided. I think all religions are probably wrong and God probably still exists. I would be the first to admit it's an irrational belief, but I have a few other irrational beliefs, so it isn't entirely problematic.
  • What is your understanding of 'reality'?
    I think reality is a form of participatory realism. We exist to manifest and give meaning to the universe's collective dream that requires consistency because it is shared. Detailed proof to follow or not.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Shawn
    I'm pretty satisfied with the 'Old' New World Order shit. It was paranoid and logically disconnected but we could all agree there was some base reality. Anecdotal, but I've been arguments lately where I literally didn't know the 'what' of the disagreement. My problems aside; I agree they aren't his 'fault', technically pence and the cabinet have the authority to prevent a lunatic from running the country straight to hell.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I'm starting to think things have gotten a bit out of hand.
  • Is strict objectivity theoretically possible?
    ↪Isaac
    Some to type of bio-electricity, it's a bit outside of my wheelhouse. But to simplify the matter. If your correct then it must be because there's something to be objectively correct about. No?
  • Is strict objectivity theoretically possible?
    ↪Banno
    I know and your probably right; I don't subscribe to the proper definition of knowledge. I don't think it represents knowledge as we find it in nature. Do we know some things better than others? Edit: I mean to say; that the truth value is somewhat a statement of intent. If I wrote down "everything I know" some of it would be wrong. And you'd say I didn't know it then; which is fine I suppose. But, when it's the case that everyone when tasked with this hypothetical writes down something that isn't knowledge by your definition, then it's reasonable to call the definition into question.

    Shame to hear about the cup, sort of had a lot riding on it.
  • Is strict objectivity theoretically possible?
    ↪Isaac
    I'm trying to figure out how you hurt your foot without accessing objective reality. Your perception of the table didn't cause an injury.
  • Is strict objectivity theoretically possible?
    Are we back to qualifying reality again? I trust you told them about the red cup and your theories concerning object permanence?

    If there was no objective reality* then we can't be wrong about anything and yet philosophers constantly disagree. We know lots of things that are objectively true and we're wrong about some of them. The whole debate is a symptom of over idealizing knowledge. Can I know so something beyond doubt; well to doubt it implies there's a way it actually is; so doubting objective reality can be known implies it is otherwise.

    *or access to it, or "provability", etc.
  • On Bullshit
    ↪Banno
    Interesting how folk want to jump to the end. — Banno

    Actually, I unintentionally overlooked Black's article entirely. It's interesting that every case involves some type of misrepresentation. I see what you mean about skipping to the end, now that I've read it.

    I thought the account of Russell's use of tactical bullshitting was brilliant. The difference in proper lying and the degrees of humbug seem to rely on the knowledge of the state of affairs. Barnum for example would have been shocked to find he owned a mermaid; where as humbugger #2 would be pleased to discover his misguided understanding had lead to a true statement.

    He's trying to make sense of how one could be said to be deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief but somehow fall short of lying... — creativesoul
    By misrepresenting one's certainty regarding a belief versus the belief itself produces a type of misrepresentation that falls short of lying, unless certainty is implied by the context.
  • On Bullshit
    In order for a series of statements to remain bullshit I'd argue they have to fall below some threshold of importance. In example, if your instructing some one on how to disarm a bomb over the phone. Any information you pass without qualification would imply a high degree of certainty, because of the "importance" of the information being accurate.

    I can imagine plenty of cases where a lie is considered bullshit because it lacks importance. Such as embellishing a story, conflating plausibility with actuality, or simply reporting assumptions like facts. In addition to making careless omissions for the sake of maintaining a position. All of which can be considered lies if the truth of matter is of great enough significance. The Boeing 737 Max is a good example where the context alone makes the misrepresentation of certainty a lie, so a lie is severe bullshit I suppose.

    Using the height example, from above, if I'm measuring a rope for bungee jumping and some one misreports the distance to the ground; they aren't bullshitting, but rather telling a lie. The number itself isn't the "lie" but the misrepresentation of the certainty regarding the number is the lie.
  • Why shouldn't a cause happen after the event?
    Well, why not? Why shouldn't a cause happen after the event? — Banno

    If your talking mechanics it's best to preserve the definition of cause for the sake of coherence. But, in the sphere of discontent apes such as myself the cause often comes after the event. Hence, inductive reasoning has a purpose. Knowing what an action in the present will result in the future is often the cause of the action.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    To refresh a previous argument of mine, operational knowledge can well be, ontically, not erroneous. Nevertheless, this is not currently possible to prove epistemically.

    Are we not somehow agreeing to this? My only issue here is that infallibility to me is an epistemic property. My bad if I didn’t make that explicit previously. Maybe this facet makes a notable difference? If not, then we indeed disagree. Call it a day?     — javra

    I'm satisfied.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    To sum the just stated, one has to be omniscient to have infallible knowledge. — javra

    The conclusion I do not share. I don't have to prove how impossibly correct I am in order to have infallible knowledge. In order to prove this or that is infallible knowledge is another issue entirely.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    “All my beliefs—including this one—are not perfectly secure from all possible error.” — javra

    No, this I like. I agree.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    In laconic review of what you have yet to reply to: Operational knowledge cannot be demonstrated to be devoid of all possible error; ideal knowledge is devoid of all possible error, but it is only a conceptual ideal and not that which can be utilized in practice. I've argued why this is so at length in previous posts. — javra

    I mostly nearly agree. I just prefer to leave the door cracked instead of closed. True, no demonstration may be possible, but this doesn't mean ideal knowledge is impossible - only not demonstrable.

    Hence, I view your quoted statement as category error, for infallible knowledge would need to be proven in practice in order to be obtained. And to prove it in practice requires infallible justifications for the given belief in fact being true. Explain why it is not the case if you disagree. — javra

    Gladly, you don't have to prove you have infallible knowledge in order for it to be obtained. I concede I can't prove when or if I obtained infallible knowledge and yet I maintain its possible that I do and do not know it.

    Are you ready to prove how the law of noncontradiction is perfectly secure from all possible error? If yes, please do so. If you can’t then (1) is not infallible (this as per the aforementioned definitions). — javra

    If the strength of my argument rests on my ability to doubt the law of non-contradiction, then I would get a new argument. I'm sorry, my position presupposes logic.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    If I haven’t mentioned it in a super-explicit form before, I will now: my stated affirmation is itself fallible; i.e., not perfectly secure form all possible error. Here is not addressed “infallible for all practical purposes” or “so close to being infallible that it makes no difference in everyday life”—but, again, technically infallible in its being perfectly secure form all possible error. And again: A fallibilist will fallibly know that he/she holds no infallible knowledge (not even in this affirmation).

    Hence, no contradiction, not for the fallibilist. Contradictions only appear when an infallibilist account of knowledge is taken into consideration.     — javra

    You literally stated it was both perfectly and not perfectly secure. It's a direct contradiction, unless one just chooses to ignore it to maintain a position.

    In a further argument:

    1. Infallible knowledge is possible or not.
    2. Premise 1 is infallibly correct.
    3. Infallible knowledge is possible.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    And, as previously discussed by me, just become X is liable to error (i.e., less than perfectly secure from all possible error) does not in any way signify that it is therefore erroneous. — javra

    And I'm arguing this is the reason infallible knowledge must possibly exist. What is infallible knowledge, but knowledge without error?

    Before you answer I still have a lot to respond to from above.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    But in short, you believe that infallible knowledge is possible to obtain; I don’t. We might be at a standstill on account of this disagreement. — javra

    Perhaps, but we will at least know why.

    Again, I’m one of those fallibilists / philosophical global skeptics that uphold the following: any belief that we can obtain infallible knowledge will be baseless and, thereby, untenable. — javra

    Isn't this being put forward as infallible knowledge, because its so well evidenced to render any counter argument baseless and untenable. If so, it proves itself wrong.

    more to follow.
  • What's the fallacy here?
    which fallacy of relevance it makes? — 0cards0

    It's a bit of a card trick if that makes any sense. The issue isn't whether an atheist can prove or disprove something. The hidden issue is whether anyone can know anything "absolutely". To prove my point just select any two substitutes for "God doesn't exist" and atheist. In example:

    to know absolutely elephants can't fly one must have infinite knowledge.
    but to have infinite knowledge one would have to be god.
    it is impossible to be god & a wizard at the same time.
    wizards cannot prove that elephants can't fly .     — 0cards0

    Have I proven wizards can't disprove flying elephants. I submit that I have; And yet I feel it may just be the way the argument is arranged that makes the conclusion seem accurate. In order to illustrate that point here's the argument again without the "tag-a-longs'.


    to know absolutely one must have infinite knowledge.

    but to have infinite knowledge one would have to be god.

    it is impossible to be god

    [a subject] can not prove [a statement] .     — 0cards0

    So, essentially its not relevant whether anyone has infinite knowledge or why they don't, because absolute proof is generally considered an unreasonable standard. If the author was being honest they would include an

    atheists cannot prove [absolutely] that god doesnt exists. — 0cards0

    An atheist can prove to a reasonable degree of certitude that God doesn't exist. That is why there are so many atheists.




    :All quotes where edited for illustrative purposes, these are not the actual statements made:
  • Knowledge without JTB
    In other words, your use of knowledge here is that of an absolute, or infallible, knowledge. That "we may not ever know if it is actually ontic"—for example—is only a problem when one believes such infallible knowledge can be had. Come to believe that we cannot hold infallible knowledge in practice for anything, and this problem fully dissolves, for we then can and do fallibly know "if its actually ontic"--and no other form of knowledge is possible. — javra

    I still disagree, but I'm starting understand why...I think. To dodge a bit of confusion, I'm reading [absolute, infallible, ontic, ideal, and objective] knowledge to be the same thing. I disagree that it is a problem to not know when our knowledge infallible, so I don't see any reason to subscribe to the notion we can't have it. I think your saying something like 'we can subjectively know if we have objective knowledge, because objective knowledge isn't a thing'. I suspect much of our knowledge approximates objective truth to a very high degree. Right or wrong is this where our viewpoints differ?

    I found your statement somewhat ambiguous and was doing my best to cover all the bases, just in case. — javra

    I was kind of afraid that might be the case.

    Implicit in this sentence, hence proposition, hence thought is an assumption of held ideal knowledge. If it weren’t, I don't see how this would be an issue. — javra

    Sorry, this doesn't translate coherently to my ape brain. I don't disagree or agree.

    We do operationally know when we are in possession of objective (which I interpret to mean what I previously specified as “ontic”) truth. This, again, because our beliefs of what is ontically true are well justified to us and, in the process, not falsified as in fact so being objectively true. But as to holding an ideal knowledge of this, this cannot be had till infallible truths and infallible justifications can be provided — javra

    I'm reading "operationally" to mean subjectively or non-ideal; Really, the above sounds contradictory even though I'm pretty certain it isn't intended to be read that way. It's the "..so objectively true" that I'm confused about.

    I'd say we are at about a 50/50 communication barrier versus philosophical disagreement. I propose we establish three single statements we disagree on, so i know where to go from here. Perhaps the following is reasonable. Agree or Disagree

    1. A person may know something objectively true and objectively know when they know it is objectively true.

    2. You can not 'subjectively/operationally' know when something is objectively true by definition.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    ↪javra

    I disagree.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    ↪creativesoul
    this makes more sense.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    The conversation has gotten of the OP. It still applies. None of us are applying it.
    1h     — creativesoul
  • Knowledge without JTB
    ↪creativesoul
    This doesn't make sense.
Home » Cheshire