With a simple smattering of charity you could just have offered that they are maybe trying to say that phenomenon is all we have via sensibility?

@Corvus I think that is all that is being said?

I'm not being stubborn, but I just don't see how it follows. If you said, "Anything beyond is not anything for us," I'd see your point. But why would you assert that "for us" encompasses all there is? — J

Have you read Kant? If you have then refer to what he says about negative and positive noumenon.

Nothing more to say (you can search this very site to find examples of myself and others pointing out this difficult obviousness).

Because what 'is' for us is all there is for us. Anything beyond is not anything. (again, Kantian noumenon).

We cannot even speculate about what we cannot ever comprehend; therefore, there is nothing we cannot speculate about or comprehend. — J

I think you made a mistake there.

Because we can only experience what we experience. We can discover only what is availble to us via experience-- because that is all there is for us.

We cannot even speculate about what we cannot ever comprehend. This is basically Kantian Noumena (a term which defies itself!). Obvious, but confusing if you get hold of the wrong end of it.

If someone is satiated then they must experience something negative. Furthermore, someone who does not feel any negativity prior to some pleasure feels the pleasure in a more muted manner than those who have suffered somewhat for said pleasures.

It is probably here where we can claim that a 'bad' pleasure would be overly harmful negativity. The key is to balance and find the sweet spot. This is more of less where Aristotle ended up.

Does the article actually show modelling and probablity though? No. It is simply a far flung hypothetical. Next week they will be running something like 'What would happen if we were hit my an asteroid?'

Nothing wrong with speculating about all manner of things. There is something intrinsically wrong with pushing an agenda when the facts do not align with the data though. I cannot read the article so no idea what it says or what it concludes. I like the New Scientist because it does cover some more niche ideas so I hope they did a decent job of it?

It wouldn't hurt to listen to Berlin here in terms of what philosophical discourse has to offer people:

An Introduction to Philosophy - Isaiah Berlin & Bryan Magee (1977)

Initial thoughts on it? Looks kind of interesting.

Stupidity has its boons my friend ;)

Well I’m not in a position to argue with that. — Punshhh

If you can so readily admit that you are wiser than most people most of the time (possibly myself included). It is tough thing to question one's views and understand that they are in part driven by beliefs rather than any substantial evidence-based reasoning.

Human stupidity has its advantages though :) Sometimes we accidently do something extraordinarily amazing that no person of reasonable intelligence woudl ever have tried in the first place! :D

I said this:

I've just learnt over time that when it comes to scientific analysis in the public sphere it is always hyperbolic. When it comes to actual human atrocities on other humans it is usually underplayed. — I like sushi

Someone followed up with an example of such hyperbole.

My original point was that the main concern I have is with predictable weather causing huge disruptions to food supplies and widespread famine > and the other horsemen too if severe enough.

It all started with this:

Don’t forget when the tropics become uninhabitable. — Punshhh

Which is hyperbole.

FIN bye

It is serious, but I can see solutions to that... — ChatteringMonkey

We have no food. You have food > War. Planning ahead would be nice and there are schemes in place already to try and diversify. I doubt it woudl be truly global tbh, but I can see some nations losing out if farming became unpredictable for several staple crops in just one season.

If you go below certain thresholds of bio-diversity the whole network could collapse, and then we're talking millions of years to recover. — ChatteringMonkey

This is hyperbole.

A potential globewide famine is kind of serious. Biospheres being wipedout is not ideal, but nature would recover faster than I imagine human civilisation would in the event of widespread famine.

I've just learnt over time that when it comes to scientific analysis in the public sphere it is always hyperbolic. When it comes to actual human atrocities on other humans it is usually underplayed.

That is nto goign to happen. I think some of the scaremongering is finally coming to an end.

The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. Other than that there will be bumps in the road not a a collapse of civilisation.

Question, doubt and speculate.

Avoid conclusive answers outside of abstract structures.

This is not shameless promotion as I have barely any time to write on here anymore but it probably touches on the kind of thing you are talking about. Popper's poitn about the transition from Closed to Open Society is somethign I feel is too readily overlooked:
Open Society, Open Wound

Neither you or Banno can tell the difference between "identical" and "epistemically identical", apparently. — Millard J Melnyk

Can you explain as clearly and as succinctly as possible then please?

Aristotle basically was the first of the Greeks to lay down our modern scientific process (feel free to attack and debate this...). — ProtagoranSocratist

I think I heard most say Hobbes laid down the foundations of Modern Science.

With writing in general, I think the most popular principal is concision: you try to take something you write and remove as many words as possible, getting a similar message across. However, many would argue that such an approach doesn't always work, especially when describing something complex. — ProtagoranSocratist

I agree. I like the way Kant put it in COPR (not that I memorised verbatim). He said in trying to say somethign precisely we can make it fairly obtuse. I also like Husserl's approach about diving into the 'obvious'.

If possible I think a multifacted approach is best. Be both concise and then back it up with greater detail where needed. I think of Heidegger here, as for me he wasted a lot of paper explaining concepts I already took to be obvious. I am certain there are texts out there I woudl read and need greater detail where others would not. This is just the nature of our own individual starting points.

To make the question more direct and concrete, what philosophy writing will make your writing survive better through the ages, what philosophy writing will receive little in the way of fame, praise, or hostility? — ProtagoranSocratist

All I can say abotu this is that people come along and generally change the landscape of philosophy a little by reiterating those who came before them more concisely OR by applying old ideas for modern application, which can reveal something of quite unique interest.

I feel where we are the moment is in a state where too many people have too narrow a field of interest. I think we need more of Berlin's 'Foxes' who have a more comprehensive overview of various subjects, rather than being confined to their own little corners--often oblivious to how misguided some of their thoughts are.

To look deeper into this I think takigna page from writers of fiction could be of extreme use. Neitzsche was someone who broke the mould in some ways, but sadly I think too many recently have tried to mimic his approach instead of doing how he instructed--to rise above and discover yourself beyond yourself.

I can. You are using terms in one specific context and then saying this meaning they are identical in other contexts.

Premises:
[1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical.
[2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks.
[3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence.
[4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk

1) This depends on how you are using the terms 'belief' and 'thought'. A belief can be a thought (I guess where it is not it woudl be referred to as somethign liek an 'Alief'), but a thought cannot be a belief.
2) Nothing is certain unless framed in an abstract framework. Having a degree of belief is perfectly rational (ie. believing a dice roll of 6 is more probable than not if I roll it 100 times).
3) No. It is called doubt and/or scepticism. These are kind of important. It is not unwarranted to state that a 100 dice rolls will almost certainly result in rolling a 6 (Entropy is evidence of highly improbable thigns being reclassified as 'impossible' for common purposes).
4) Insisting that belief and thought do not differ is to take an irrational stance. You have stepped beyond the limits of what such language is capable of by tagging colloquial language as if it is a mathematical truth.

The objection I presented is that we can think something without believing it. It follows that belief and thought are not identical. — Banno

I think it is fair to say that there are given contexts where they are used synonymously, yet even then we could perhaps extend this and say they are identical in the sense that light blue and dark blue are identical as being shades of blue. Meaning, both are ponderings.

Because the gap between “I think” and “I believe” seems to be hallucinatory. — Millard J Melnyk

In given contexts they are most certainly synonymous. "I believe I am breathing" is hardly the same as me saying "I think I am breathing". The first is an ironic statement and the second is a flight of fancy.

Beliving something and Thinking it are quite different in some contexts and practically identical in others. It is irrational to say Blue can mean Sad and that Red can mean Passion that all colours are synonymous with this or that emotion. This is kinda what you are doing with Think and Believe.

I do not think so. We can trust someone's opinion but it is necessarily based on our own misjudgments of character.

When I think of trust I think of friendship and the people I can rely on to say what is difficult to say rather than say nothing. Trust for me is an Active Function not passive

It is precisely the insistance of some 'God'/'Law' given Right that leads to their abuse. For those they matter too they do not even need to be mentioned.

Do we really want to end up sounding like people who say things like not believing in God means you have no morals.

Human Rights are not upheld in many countries because they have different laws. We can amend laws, to some degree, but they are not the be all and end all of individual human actions. I would argue they are small things compared to the power of individual human will. To question what we will is basically how laws come into being.

Anyway, maybe this is not the thread for this. No intention of derailing, so I guess it can be taken up elsewhere.

You are checking to see if a social construct fits into another social construct. That is why I pointed out that human rights are social constructs.

Things like religious rights are not so important to the devote. They will do as they do regardless of any reasonable arguments against them. Reason has limits.

Human Rights - Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.

We can specify this further with personal and group rights. — Philosophim

Human Rights are a social construct. We are not born with legal documents that are backed up by some higher power. This is something that is so blatantly obvious that people miss it and construe our creation of Human Rights as something we have always possessed.

I believe this may help focus how people approach legal rights.

Everything will be fine. Don't sweat it.

Seriously. Just because we are stupid and focus on negative things more than positive it does not mean there is nothign positive going on.

I am right. You are wrong. Because I say so.

Infallable!

Robin Dunbar woudl be worth a look in that area.

Anyway, looks interesting how you are trying to define morality. I am curious what your position has in common with emotivism and how if differs. I see a kind of commonality in you saying that morality is cooperation much in the same manner emotivism frames morality as based on emotional attitudes.

Where and how does your approach differ? How so? I mean in terms of rational approach rather than the origin of approach. Would it be too much of a stretch to call what you mean as being a game theory or morality instead of cooperation as morality? If not, how so?

Think write think write think write. Mostly write. Or try speaking to camera (as you see I have tried!). Attempting to articulate what you think you know/mean can reveal interesting questions or assumptions you needed notice you held.

I am VERY happy to help if you want? It is probably most worthwhile picking a question and exploring different ways you could answer it.

If you are in your 20's I would recommend getting a reasonable idea about the science behind our understanding of reality in terms of physics, the cognitive neurosciences and general anthropology.

Feel free to DM me :)

Who is living in the real world now? Any suggestions you make will not change the reality.

Bye. Done here.

Consequences of breaking laws may be good or bad.

It is quite simple. If there is a law you find abhorent woudl you follow it anyway just because it was the law. Obviously not.

The law/police do not dictate how people behave, although they do undoubtedly influence many decisions people make.

'Possible Worlds'

So you would rape girls with blonde hair if they used buses if it was the law? Come on!

The laws are not rules to live by. They are forms of Positive Liberty put in place to protect individuals. They can, and are, misused. People overtime force governing bodies to amend laws or throw them out.

Generally spekaing Negative Liberty trumps Positive.

It makes me a criminal? How so? You think I have killed people. Even if I had if there is no evidence then it does not matter what the law is.

If law said to rape every girl with blonde hair you saw on a bus would you do it. Generally speaking we act as our conscience dictates not the laws of the land.

I already told you I decide how I act in relation to whatever the law says. This means if I really wanted to kill someone I would. Laws do not necessarily stop anyone from doing anything.

The State means nothing to me. I am a human. In reality I do adhere to rules because I either agree with them, or it is a necessary trade off. I judge what to do.

I do nto think it is right to punch people, steal money from people or kill people. It is not hte law that makes me think this way. In effect, a lot of what I do is what I believe to be just. I am no saint, so I do undoubtedly make mistakes.

I abhor the idea of people looking to some body of laws, so as to abscond from taking carefully considered acts. People usually choose tyranny over freedom (which is responsibility).

It sounds like you know the answer to your own question. So WHO?

I thought it was clear I was talking about a larger time scale hence:

The cultural climate dictates the laws from generation to generation. This is almost certainly the case back to the dawn of civilization. — I like sushi

Either way, the same kind of civilization building around the globe has generally resulted in people choosing Human Rule over the harsh realities that mother nature threw at them.

People? If they 'write' it at all.

Popper refers to Closed and Open Society. Maybe there is something in that that may help you? Any idiot can write something and call it a Law. This is only true for the society they live in if people agree to it and adhere to it for the most part.

Items like taking someone's life are generally considered taboo in all communities.

The cultural climate dictates the laws from generation to generation. This is almost certainly the case back to the dawn of civilization.