• The First Infinite Regress
    Because it already happened in a particular way, as per what was going on at the time. — PoeticUniverse
    Intuitively, saying something 'just is' and could not have been otherwise seems problematic. Is it a matter of perspective relative to time?
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    Claiming unawareness is nonsensical because it entails awareness. If awareness is the only possible state of affairs one may claim then evolution has occurred in a guided form; by simply the deduction that it can not be otherwise. Due to the nature of all beliefs.
  • The First Infinite Regress
    ↪PoeticUniverse
    No, they can't tell where the car's sound is coming from, for it reflects from the environment. — PoeticUniverse
    Genuinely, never knew this; So, Why? is like a human halting problem. What if we complicated it to every question being; "Why and Why not otherwise?".
  • The First Infinite Regress
    We tweak/trash the axioms (hypotheses/theories) as and when they contradict empirical truths. These axioms (hypotheses/theories) would answer the question, "why?" with, It Just Is, exactly what axioms are. — TheMadFool

    Hitting a law of thought does please the intuition. It is what it is; but if that is the answer to every why then meaning or reason is something we impart on things. It has no existence without the human mind or perhaps a more complex explanation is in order. Is it always true that it just is?
  • Parts of the Mind??
    the entire mind takes part in all aspects of mental life. — T Clark
    In a healthy adult I think that is certainly the case. When an individual is traumatized though some of the "bridges" become difficult to access and create the experience of being separated. I agree though with your comment.
  • The First Infinite Regress
    I guess it can only end with "I don't know" unless we know absolutely everything? — Down The Rabbit Hole

    Why?
  • Evolution and awareness
    if our faculties of awareness - or rather, 'faculties of awareness' - are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then none of us are 'perceiving' reality at all. — Bartricks
    Evolution was guided because I have an X type of awareness instead of a Y type of awareness. — Cheshire
    Y type of awareness = "none of us are 'perceiving' reality at all."

    You describe the counter to JTB and then toss in the qualifier "guided/unguided" and apply it to evolution. It's like a diversion and then quick sell. If it's causing distress I can pretend to believe you. At this point, I don't mind. You are right in the sense, JTB is inaccurate. It's more of an academic tool than a real world description; like comparative advantage in economics.
  • Evolution and awareness
    I mean, what do you think my argument is? — Bartricks
    Evolution was guided because I have an X type of awareness instead of a Y type of awareness. In the structure of a filibuster in the key of E.
  • The First Infinite Regress
    ↪DingoJones
    I'll count it. Not ideal, but it is a solution. Well played.
  • Happy atheists in foxholes?
    ↪baker
    I can see two sides to it depending on some details. There is the issue of hopelessness; the neglect of physical and emotional needs. On the other hand, a foxhole denotes an active war context in which the cortisol response would make the notion of "happy" almost satirical in a neurotypical person.
    Then, the subtext surrounding the discussion. You stated above the "bragging" more than the case had originally been the object of heightened interest. The idea of selecting a belief based on the benefits of believing it and not the perceived truth of the matter seems odd. But, religions have always had a strong sales department, so seeing it from the other side isn't completely unusual. I guess we can thank Pascal for that one.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    Premise 1 doesn't 'look like' an 'if...then' statement. It is one. Not looks like. Is. — Bartricks
    Right, and if..then statements requires a connection between two things that are not satisfied by an 'or'.
    The conclusion doesn't follow from 1 alone. It follows from 1 and 2. — Bartricks
    One has to be true and it isn't. I can't make it true and I won't pretend it is; because I think that's a disservice.
    So, if you have a problem with premise 1, address the argument I gave in support of it. You haven't. — Bartricks
    It's unintelligible, probably means something to you but otherwise requires a cipher. And it's unnecessary because people can't "know" the outcomes of hypothetical evolutionary system alterations.

    If you have no problem with premise 1, but have a problem with the conclusion, then you need to address premise 2 and what I said in defence of it. — Bartricks
    I obviously have a problem with premise 1, why would you think otherwise?
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    So, if I deny "If X then Y" I am not thereby denying either X or Y. — Bartricks

    Right, but no one accused you of that; your first premise which is...1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything.

    It looks like an if...then statement. But, you can't defend it because you have ZERO reason to suppose you know the outcome of 1 type of evolution(unguided) versus another type of evolution(guided implied).

    If you fail to acknowledge this for the pathologically umpteenth time I will send an invoice.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    ↪Cheshire And you don't think clearly either. — Bartricks
    If X, then Y
    If X , then (empty set), then Y

    Not better.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    I don't speak in double negatives.
  • Evolution and awareness
    Presumably you think you've already done that. You haven't. If you say "X presupposes Y" and I say "No it doesn't" that doesn't mean I am saying Y is not the case. — Bartricks
    If X, then Y
    If X, Not Y, Then Y

    You: I know the outcome of guided evolution is X
    You: So, the outcome of unguided evolution is Y
    Me: So you know the outcome of two types of evolution
    You: Yes, No, Maybe, Cake
    No one: Compelling.
  • Happy atheists in foxholes?
    Is this just petty rhetoric? The notion there is a religious alignment that makes people "happy" under life and death circumstances is absurd.
  • Evolution and awareness
    Where did I argue that you can't discern them?
    — Bartricks
    This statement implies you can discern the difference between the products of unguided VERSUS guided evolution.
    ---If this isn't crystal clear then just stop. We are wasting electricity.


    It supposes you would know the difference between the two.
    — Cheshire
    Here I am confirming your implication in the first sentence. Which is just the first bit over again. So not complicated. And your response to your own implications are the negation denoted by the word No.


    ↪Cheshire No it doesn't.
    — Bartricks     — Cheshire

    The above represents the requested contradiction. Feel free to make philosophical noises at it.
  • Parts of the Mind??
    What ways have we tried to divide the mind? And can they operate separately from one another? — TiredThinker
    Yes, in my amateur experience you can separate the mind by the stages of brain evolution. So, the reptilian mind that concentrates on safety and resources, the mammalian mind that has more emotional and empathetic functions and then the human mind that acts as an office manager and creates the illusion of a single mind during real time experiences. So, two minds and an executive function that can act in the moment. It translates the needs of the others into a human level of complex planning and attention. But lacks a separate history in the event of separation.

    To answer your second question, I don't know that personality could survive death, but if there is a collective mind of the universe; then perhaps you join it in a passive role.
  • Happy atheists in foxholes?
    What is the secret to being happy in a foxhole? Probably, align your expectations with some one who is in a foxhole.
  • Philosophical Plumbing — Mary Midgley
    ↪Banno
    Are we trying to fix philosophy? I thought this was just for complaining.

    I would submit we ought start by eliminating the infinite regresses, starting with empiricism. It seems like there are no perfect sources or ways to look and absorb knowledge directly. If the truth of complex things are not simply the product of manifest truth then why does philosophy concern itself with over simplifications of the world. But, in a non-dogmatic sense. A lot of things are obvious and don't benefit from volumes of semantic analysis. Is that the direction the essay intended to point?
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    I quoted you contradicting yourself at your request, so that would be the
    Point? Do you have one? — Bartricks

    The over arching point is probably that your conclusion could be right in theory, but this argument doesn't prove it. It seems like you may be arguing more for sport than to actually fix it, so really nothing more to say about it that hasn't been repeated 3 or 4 times by myself and others. Feel free to pretend you don't understand. Cheers.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Cheshire
    Saying "I don't know what your talking about" is an evasive dismissal;     — Bartricks
    - again, what are you on about? — Bartricks
    Where did I argue that you can't discern them? — Bartricks
    It supposes you would know the difference between the two. — Cheshire
    ↪Cheshire No it doesn't. — Bartricks
  • Changing Sex
    Yes but we don't know how effective this treatment would be in general because it is not being tried. — Andrew4Handel

    Your reference is a subset of people presenting with schizophrenia. Is this confirmation bias or something else?
  • Changing Sex
    ↪Andrew4Handel
    You know that's in one person nearly 30 years ago?
  • Changing Sex
    ↪Andrew4Handel
    There is no evidence that gender reassignment improves mental health. One study claimed that in 2020 but they have to recant their findings due to statistical errors. — Andrew4Handel
    If I thought this was a fact it would probably have an effect on my conclusions. Do you mean to say there is no evidence that you personally acknowledge, because there are transgender people who subjectively experience some relief.
  • Changing Sex
    I'm not wanting anyone to suffer. Talk about mis-judging people... Look in the mirror. — Harry Hindu
    Ok, we can agree on that much that wanting others to suffer is morally wrong.

    Do you acknowledge that transgender folk alleviate their own suffering by their actions?
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    Saying "I don't know what your talking about" is an evasive dismissal; instead of accusing you of this crime I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Your first premise is non-sequitur by your own admission.

    IF you can't discern between the products of guided or unguided evolution, then it does not follow you can state with certainty the effect it has on awareness.

    Premise 1 states there would be no awareness in the case of unguided.
    Premise 1 could state there would be awareness in the case of unguided without contradicting any evidence.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    If you don't know what words mean then you are never wrong I suppose.
  • Evolution and awareness
    It supposes you would know the difference between the two. — Cheshire
    ↪Cheshire No it doesn't. — Bartricks
    ↪Bartricks
    Yes it does. You state 1 type of evolution results in 1 type of awareness. It is the entire cornerstone of your position.
    Look, I don't think you have a clear objection. Why don't you read what I said in defence of 1? — Bartricks

    Objection: You suppose 2 types of evolution and to know the result of each as a binary effect on your concept called awareness. I submit your powers of observation don't provide you with the ability to pick between them. Which you for some reason agree with...
    It supposes you would know the difference between the two. — Cheshire
    ↪Cheshire No it doesn't. — Bartricks
    Did you intend to concede the position or would you like to reverse this statement?
  • Evolution and awareness
    It supposes you would know the difference between the two.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    The intention of the argument is to prove that guided evolution is the case.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    It implies there is a thing such as guided evolution.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    You know exactly what I am talking about. You qualified the word guided with the prefix -un. You know what un means.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    It supposes there is a thing called guided evolution which would include knowledge of a mechanism and agency of which there is no evidence.
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    Is that some how different than secular evolution?
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Bartricks
    Nope, still haven't a clue what you're saying. The OP starts by presenting a syllogism. Which premise are you trying to take issue with? — Bartricks
    Mostly this one.
    If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything — Bartricks
    What is an unguided evolutionary force? Secular evolution?
  • Ad hominem, Ad Schmominem
    If I had my way, they would be disallowed – you should be able to put your objections to an argument in clear language without a label to give them false credibility. — T Clark
    The same rationale is why they exist. If a person has a legitimate argument then they wouldn't need to use a logical fallacy to convey it. Instead of explaining why this particular slippery slope argument is BS it's easier to generalize. It's like the philosophical equivalent of protesting being labeled a liar when you are not telling the truth.
  • Evolution and awareness
    I have literally no idea what you're on about. Here's my argument from the OP: — Bartricks
    You have implied there exist such a thing as
    unguided evolutionary forces — Bartricks
    or guided evolutionary forces which is implied. Then supposed you could know the difference one or the other would have on human cognition. Essentially stating, because things are the way they are I am correct. But, you take a step further and pretend to know how they would be different. The nature of an evolutionary system sort of disallows the ability to make that claim with confidence. Agree or disagree aside, do you understand my complaint?
  • Changing Sex
    People are given their name when they are born, and if you want to change it you have to get it approved by a court. — Harry Hindu
    Sounds like this started off as a counter-point, and a lightbulb came on. Either way, it's honest commentary.
    Why does sex/gender get special treatment when it comes to being able to control other's speech? — Harry Hindu
    To me this sounds like false victimization. I don't want to accuse you of that, so if you can explain why it isn't; maybe I'll understand where you are coming from. We both know you have never been controlled in this sense.
    I don't identify as a racist or an idiot, but I am called these names on this forum. Why are we not raising hell to stop everyone from calling people names for which they do not identify with and are offensive? — Harry Hindu
    Probably, because people interpret the lack of empathy for transgender folk as a willingness to hurt others for some type of self-gratification. Which is morally wrong. To answer your question directly; it's invalid argument because it equates some ones identity as being as significant as an internet insult. Which it isn't.
    What if I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith and expect you to address me as "My Master" and get my feelings hurt if you don't comply? Again, what makes sex/gender so special in this regard? — Harry Hindu
    Your repeating a false equiveillance, but using an extreme example. It is a dishonest argument and you know it, because it's ridiculous.
    The other side could use the same argument and ask why you are judging them for exercising their right to speak freely. — Harry Hindu
    And back to you are the victim here. All I hear is I'm threatened by these people and I want them to suffer so I feel better about myself. I've never felt threaten or burdened by transgender people so I don't understand why you do. To me they seem like an easy target and you have got something driving you to take shots at them. Am I missing something here?
  • The fact-hood of certain entities like "Santa" and "Pegasus"?
    A flying horse or species?
Home » Cheshire