I have been following the progression of this thread, and I do find it interesting. I’m eager to see where it goes!

I was wondering if you could explain in your own words how and why a State wouldn’t be formed to protect property rights and to set up markets. Is there still international trade under this system?

Calling it “instinct” or “innate knowledge” is splitting hairs in my view.
— Noah Te Stroete

What are they aware of? Not some intellectual content, but a desire? — Dfpolis

It is rather that the things they want to do will get them there.
— Dfpolis

I suppose I agree with this. — Noah Te Stroete

I thought about it. Then I agreed with you.

Well......there ya go. I’m a transcendental idealist, who must be an empirical realist by inclusion. I support different projections of reality, but adhere to the thesis that because there is some general empirical data, re: experience and therefore knowledge, potentially common to all rational humans, reality in and of itself is most probably one iteration of all those various and sundry individual projections.

Yes, we think of data differently, but herein I think we are both right with respect to what we each are saying.

Yes, we cannot mis-experience. Odd, isn’t it? We can easily misunderstand, misjudge, and even if those have philosophical explanations, we never characterize our experiences, in and of themselves, as missed. That bell cannot be un-rung. — Mww

I am in agreement with both of you. I understand the Critique of Pure Reason and see what it says as the best model of reality that I’ve encountered. What @Dfpolis describes seems in line with it except for his caveat in the “Foundations of Mathematics” thread regarding the “radiance of objects” or however he put it. Df is quite the philosopher! For someone with his knowledge base, he is very skilled at putting things into easily digestible chunks. Thank you, both.

It is rather that the things they want to do will get them there. — Dfpolis

I suppose I agree with this.

It is an example of instinctive behavior. If the child were old enough, it could know that had such instincts. I do not think that we should confuse behavioral propensities/desires with knowledge. For example adolescents have a sex drive, but not an innate knowledge of the mechanics of intercourse. It is rather that the things they want to do will get them there. — Dfpolis

I don’t know. Perhaps two teenagers without knowledge of intercourse were marooned on a desert island. Certainly they would figure out what to do. Calling it “instinct” or “innate knowledge” is splitting hairs in my view.

I’m sorry to bombard you. This is just very interesting to me. I’m sure you’ve heard of the neuroscience experiment involving “the God helmet.” It’s a helmet that electrically stimulates a part of the brain that when stimulated causes people to report having “spiritual experiences,” or seeing “God.” Since this is hardwired in our brains, what does this tell us about reality?

For example, how does a baby know how to suck on a bottle? Isn’t this an example of innate knowledge? If not, why? Don’t we already know things coming into this world that aren’t derived from sense experience?

My other question is: in the case of JF Nash, he had insight into his illness. Someone else may not have this insight. Does someone who hallucinates and doesn’t recognize it not have useful knowledge of reality?

The argument is mine. I'm a moderate, Aristotelian-Thomistic realist, who thinks that we can have different projections of reality, which is to say that we can represent the same reality using different conceptual spaces. — Dfpolis

I understand the gist. My question specifically is: is there knowledge that can come from something other than sense data, or that doesn’t have as its foundation, sense experience?

I don't think that reflective thinking is the means of experience. I think that reflective thought is how we seek to integrate experience into a comprehensible whole. — Dfpolis

My question is: is this empiricism, rationalism, or neither (such as in Kant’s view)?

So flow they do, along the paths they feel they must, but they empathise; they feel in unison, constrained by the interactive context of the material's organisation and constitution. — fdrake

Is there a “hard problem” in your view?

This is a very simplified picture, but it is instructive insofar as it provides hints on viewing where this new domain of phenomena; that which is studied by chemistry; came from. When fields interact they make particles, when particles interact they make atoms, when atoms interact they make compounds, when compounds interact they make chemistry. Organisation of one domain (atoms) can generate novel behaviours (chemistry) which have extra causal powers (chemical reactions) than what was organised (particle-particle interactions). The general principle suggested here is that when you get enough and the right sort of interactions between stuff, when interaction can organsie, you get new domains of entities which then stick out from their background. — fdrake

And when chemistry happens, we can end up with biochemistry. When biochemistry happens, we can end up with multicellular organisms, some of which have complex brains. When brains happen we get consciousness and behaviors. When consciousness and behaviors happen, we get all sorts of things, including all of the things of modern society; the areas of study, the technology, the institutions, the societal structures, etc. This is all an oversimplification on my part, but the hard problems of emergence are difficult to solve.

As @alcontali said somewhere else, the difference between a person when they’re alive and when they’re dead IS the individual person.

Not sure how this fits into the discussion, exactly, though; but it’s given me a lot to think about. :wink:

Thank you for that interesting take. It’s going to take me a couple of reads to understand it, though.

As feelings

Ok. Conclusions cannot be drawn, but the feelings of awe and wonder are self-justifying, in my opinion, as long as one admits that one doesn’t know what they mean.

What you say is true. What I have learned from these debates is that speculative philosophy is impossible to defend. However, there is still wisdom in religious texts if you are open to receiving it.

That’s profound. Thank you

I understand now that abductive reasoning isn’t very good in practical matters, and when it comes to spirituality, there is no logical or otherwise argument for these beliefs so they are not the domain of philosophy or science. They probably have no place on this forum. That said, are they harmful in any way? Why should I give them up?

There’s no good reason to trust them, seeing as how they only touch truth by chance, and one cannot know which ones do and which ones don’t.

Yes. Don’t burn bridges. Make bridges.

What you say is all true to my understanding.

Yes, that makes sense.

What I finally came to realize is that I am the common denominator in my life. While there are many things that can happen to us that is beyond our control, there are also many things that can happen - and do - that is well within our influence. Having a good grasp on the way things are helps. — creativesoul

I think I know what you mean. Wherever you go, there you are. I am trying to be helpful and not harmful, but sometimes my emotions get the better of me. That’s the human condition, though. The self (pride and ego) vs. concern for the community or specific others. I agree that accepting the world as it is is key to finding peace.

Thank you for the good wishes. Same.

I thought you might have more to say on the first part of my last post, it seems especially relevant given you agree that the best standard is the one that most reliably finds out what is true...could you please comment on that so I know how to proceed? — DingoJones

I’m not necessarily in disagreement with you. I have what I call spiritual experiences. Interpretation of them is difficult. Jumping to conclusions is easy, and I’ve had what many would say are some very bizarre interpretations of those experiences. However, saying that it is all brain malfunction is easy, too.

You seem to have insight, to me.

Learning how to come to acceptable terms with the same events is crucial to looking at the world differently. Looking at the world differently is crucial for feeling different about what you're looking at. — creativesoul

It’s been 39 years in the making for me. I think I’m finally making progress there, but medication is still necessary to keep at bay the psychotic episodes and manic and depressive episodes. I’m having a good week, month, year so far.

Well, I have a marked distain for modern day therapy. — creativesoul

Me, too.

I would say the best standard is the one that most reliably find out whats true. Would you agree with that? — DingoJones

I would. I don’t know how one would even touch truth, though, when it comes to spiritual beliefs other than through abductive reasoning.

Ok.

I am the father of mankind.

Ok.

Well said.

That makes sense to me. I just don't get what it's supposed to have to do with nihilism. Or "logical reality." — Terrapin Station

He’s either a continental philosopher, a psychiatrist, or a schizophrenic. That’s what I’m thinking pending further evidence. Either way, I can tell that I like him already.

Then why isn’t the same epistemic standard used for science used for ancient history? Because they are two different domains.
— Noah Te Stroete

I don't think you know what it means to be a physicalist, and you now seem to have lost track of our conversation. — S

My point is that there are different epistemic standards for different domains.

Science to me is not just knowledge, but it has to at least have the possibility through falsification to become knowledge. I know I don’t have the knowledge base that you have, but it seems to me that the lines of science is getting blurred these days seemingly in an attempt and hope for a TOE.

Then why isn’t the same epistemic standard used for science used for ancient history? Because they are two different domains.

I’m not disagreeing with you.

Ridicule is a natural human response to those things perceived as absurd. — JosephS

I realize that as a metaphysical truth. I was making a normative claim.

There's no universal epistemic standard, you must mean. And yes, you haven't told me anything new there. I've been over where the two standards differ, and why it's inconsistent to flip flop between the two extremes instead of maintaining an overarching consistent standard in your world view. — S

Because I’m not a physicalist! Sheesh

But again it's very dependent on being situated in a domain of discourse with an agreed lexicon and some sense of standards, which are probably not that common in current culture. — Wayfarer

Except in science. I was hoping to brainstorm with people here on this subject.

Interesting about the Buddhists.

Neither the former not the latter should insulate those who hold them from ridicule, but if we're talking about the tool of ridicule, the former provides a more expansive tool chest. — JosephS

I wouldn’t say “ridicule” is appropriate for any religion, except maybe Satanism. Questions are completely appropriate, though.