If you wish to talk about different ‘types’ of knowledge and meaning I’m up for that. The rest of what you’re saying doesn’t hit me I’m afraid.

Perhaps someone else can help you move the discussion along?

It a round abouts way that was what I was inferring. There are flavours of realism rather than a church of realism.

In the general view realism is just saying ‘When I walk out of a room I don’t believe the room ceases to exist, although in my immediate sensible experiencing it does - in some sense of the word - cease to be ‘appreciated’ as concretely there.

The OP had framed some extreme form of realism I doubt many would align to unless they were only using that definition within a specific context.

I have responded? The problem is epistemic. What is meaning is a matter for epistemology.

If you want it may help to distinguish different ‘types’ of meaning? Can there be meaning without humans? I don’t see how and if there can be then what do/could we mean by saying this?

Personally I cannot comprehend 1000 years let alone a million or more. To talk about ontological ‘meaning’ in those terms is always bound by my present finite existence (soon to be non-existent).

Actually I think we can calculate "exact" probabilities e.g. in the chance of getting a heads on a single coin-flip is "exactly" 50%. No more, no less. — TheMadFool

Nope. As good as 50% but not exact. For starters force of coin flip, wind factor and the weight distribution of the coin are all physical factors in the real world - not to mention the rare occasions where a coin lands on its edge.

Granted, in day-to-day speech we refer to a coin toss as being 50-50.

Yes, I'm sure about 70% - it's a definite quantity - but are you certain that it'll rain or not? — TheMadFool

If you cannot answer that question yourself I don’t think I know what you’re trying to talk about? ‘Definite quantity’? This is just word play isn’t it. Giving an ‘exact’ number doesn’t mean anything out of the context it is given in.

Honestly, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Sorry :(

In terms of probability I don’t have to. I don’t need to prove the the origins of DNA to say it exists. Clearly DNA is possible because it exists. Clearly no monkey can write the entire works of Shakespeare because it is impossible (meaning it is so mathematically ‘improbable’ as to be called mathematically impossible).

There are theories about how DNA forms over time, but it does remain a mystery. We know enough about chemistry to to infer it came about without some ‘supernatural’ intervention. It was impossible for Stone Age man to get to the Moon too, yet today we can go to the Moon - it is possible that I will go to the Moon even if it is highly unlikely (point being I cannot give you an accurate prediction as to how likely as I cannot see into the future).

Teleological claims aren’t really anything other than ‘human’. Ontological claims are more or less scientific of epistemic issues. The origin of DNA is a scientific issue not a philosophical one. If your question is ontological and/or teleological the I can only ask what you mean by ‘origin’ and/or ‘purpose’ - hence the epistemic issue cannot be avoided.

Would it also be fair to say that a ‘realist’ isn’t dogmatic and therefore a ‘realist’ is more or less someone who leans more towards a ‘realist’ take on the world?

I still find it strange that people think either this or that philosophical perspective is some in unbreakable unity of truth when it’s little more than a perspective tool. A so-called ‘realist’ must necessarily hold some inkling of opposing perspectives as functional, to some extent, or they wouldn’t lean toward ‘realism’ they’d just simply state their position without the inclination to name it.

Any profession toward ‘-ism’ means you hold the opposite perspective in view as a worthwhile perspective does it not?

In my view? You said ‘mathematics’ so I don’t have an opinion on the matter. Certainty, in mathematics, is - for example - 1+1=2. I don’t have an opinion about this.

Mathematical probability isn’t based on observation/experimentation. It is used to interpret experimentation and observation thought aided my measurements.

Don’t conflate the abstract with the concrete when talking about mathematical models and reality.

Scientists are capable of rhetoric too. All they are trying to do is get the point across that a great many things are probable over a long period of time that are impossible over a short period of time.

Talking about the ‘meaning’ of DNA is like talking about the ‘meaning’ of electrons or gold.



Clearly DNA is not impossible? What are you talking about?

The OP seems to have read Damasio ;) I suggest the rest of you follow suit if you haven’t done so already.

I don’t even know what any of this means and why I should try to understand what appears to be unfounded speculation using terminology that hasn’t been defined clearly (there isn’t even an attempt to state what is meant by ‘being’, ‘independent’ and/or ‘known’, let alone how they are relatable in the context they are set out in).

I’m just curious about what the hypothetical infinite monkey scenario has to do with reality and DNA?

It may be worth taking on board that ‘impossible’ means extremely unlikely - it is impossible for a monkey to write the entire work of Shakespeare (meaning it is probabilistically so improbable that statistically we say it is ‘impossible’). It is also possible that on some given beach the wind will blow the sand to for a perfectly constructed scale model of the Taj Mahal ... yet this has, and will, never happen.

Clearly DNA is more than a statistical possibility!

You’d have to start off by defining ‘god’. It certain ways I’m willing to accept a broad definition of ‘god’ as legitimate - if say you mean some all pervading non-conscious force.

As an example of a common human notion I am also willing to accept the existence of ‘god’ as a representation of some capacity of the human psyche and/or as a fundamental symbolic form of ‘humanity’ as a whole and some unknown yet explicit sense of ‘betterment’ for humanity.

Then there is panpsychism, which I personally find to be a mostly faulty concept because it is mostly referring to some ‘other’ sense of consciousness - which would mean it is a ‘consciousness’ we cannot be conscious of (thus why call it ‘consciousness’?)

Probability is the mathematical study of chance which basically considers events that are uncertain. We can't make definite claims in probability. — TheMadFool

Yes we can. The ‘definite’ claim is probabilistic though. Mathematics operates within abstract hypotheticals it is not based experimentation.

If we set up a mathematic problem where the outcome is A or B we can never ever get an answer other than A or B - the probability of getting A or B is 100%.

If you’re simply stating that mathematical models do not map 100% onto reality then why are you bothering to state this? It’s obvious. I guess some mathematical model would map onto the entire universe but I don’t see how we’d have anyway of knowing this even if we happen to stumble across it by pure fluke.

@creativesoul @Marchesk @Isaac @fdrake @Mww

What is there to say about ancient people’s assuming that our vision ‘shone outward’ rather than light ‘shining inward’? Now we know different and to suggest to think otherwise is counter intuitive goes against what we know historically. From this can we rightly assume that the natural human instinct is to view our ‘seeing this tree or that table’ as projected outward rather than as given by external illumination?

What I am getting at here is that when we ask “What is it like to experience X?” how can we possible start talking about how light comes into the eye when we don’t actually experience sight as ‘light coming into my eye and sending signals to my occipital lobe’. The scientific evidence for this does nothing to alter the initial experience of ‘seeing’ prior to this scientific attitude.

Also, in terms of language, if I talk about the sunrise do you experience the sunrise. Of course you don’t, yet language almost convinces you that you’ve just experienced this said ‘sunrise’. Talking about something is the experience of talking about something not the experience of said ‘thing’.

Along these lines if we talk about ‘what it is like’ what does that sentence mean? The ‘like’ is a redundant word because we’re not really asking about ‘likeness’ at all. To be a bat is to be a bat, and to be human is to be a human. Start by asking what it is to be human as you’ve got a little more insight into this yet no doubt you’ll find yourself equally as stumped when it comes to articulating what it is to be a human assuming the question is redundant because you are one.

We could shift this into another area maybe? Essentially you’re doing highly speculative hermeneutics (in the true sense of ‘hermeneutics’). This then turns into an epistemic problem combined with theology.

Yes, because I’m trying to figure out what is ‘philosophical’ about this musing? What is your point exactly?

Mythos are clearly the expression of human psychology. I’m not sure exactly what in Genesis you think says this compared to the hundreds of other myths around the world?

Is there anything specific? Where does Genesis mention head size metaphorically or otherwise?

Pretty much all the ones not deleted? Take look and compare them.

The one about populism has some thought behind it, the one about math and prob too. I could list them, or you could just take a look yourself?

It was a poorly thought out and poorly worded thread. I guess if a repeat thread was made asking about what does and doesn’t qualify as ‘sentient’ as well as exploring AI and consciousness, then it might not look so redundant.

It is a popular enough topic to warrant something new to offer and/or a particular argument posed.

It’s ‘hypothetical’. There is no evidence, or consensus, that we all of a sudden developed language. There is hard evidence that shows certain language capacities we have scattered among other animals.

Your scenario is interesting but hardly applicable to reality. If you were just generalising about human evolution, then yeah, at some point we progressed - likely due to a build up of cultural traditions selected for a more ‘intelligent’ communicative capacity.

Some of us, likely most of us, carry DNA from various human relatives (Neanderthals and Devonians). Genesis came from Babylonia. A great number of creation myths are similar and a great many are quite different.

I’d sooner vote for banning Tim Wood than preventing religious people fro discussing on a forum where some of their more ‘radical’ ideas may actually be questioned rationally and politely.

I don’t see how creating a bubble as to what can and cannot be brought into philosophical discussion would be helpful for anyone. That said specialised forums for ‘Ethics’ or ‘Philosophy of Science’ can be great too. There is a need for sites that look at the broader field of play just as there is for ones that look at the narrower field of play.

I was under the impression this was a forum that dealt with every aspect of philosophical discourse. Theology and the Philosophy of Religion are necessary parts of human activity and so I don’t see how it would help to cut them off?

That said it does help if people take their arguments up in the correct forum rather than spilling over into other areas. It will inevitably happen from time to time though.

If a square can only fit through a square hole and it passes over a circular hole, it may as well have passed over no hole at all. Or you could say where there is no square hole there is no hole. Further why say ‘square’ as ‘hole’ would suffice. Otherwise we could end up saying there are circular holes everywhere that we cannot comprehend which for the square is no different to saying there are only square holes.

Even our speculative capacity is limited. Language does have a habit of throwing up sentences that possess little to meaning.

That said I would say certain ideas within the scheme of ‘moral relativism’ is essentially a detriment to morality/ethics at large.

Why I say we may be living in a post-ethics world, all cheesy punning aside. Whatever morality humans may have been marginally capable of is transforming into "what I like" and "what works". — Enrique

You’ll have to provide evidence for this and counter evidence. I would certainly say things may have become more turbulent due to increased communications resulting in more intimate cultural exchanges. On a global scale I don’t really see what you’re talking about.

This doesn’t see part of the discussion? What am I meant to take from that comment? Is it true for everyone or for one instance (in terms of the persecutor and the victim)?

That was a mistake of interpretation that hinged on ‘subscribing to worldview’ remark - which we went over.

It doesn’t take a genius to see why I arrived where I did given your inconsistent proclamations:

Imagine person A who does not use the term "race" but hates asian people, and does not think that they should be allowed to live anywhere near person A and their family.

According to your definition this person is not racist.

Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.

According to your definition this person is racist. — creativesoul

Followed by:

They are both racist because they both subscribe to the racist worldview. My contention is one cannot hate Asians unless he believes such a distinct group exists. — NOS4A2

The confusion arises because you weren’t precise with your terminology. Distinct ethnicities do exist, yet they are not the same as biological races. I read the sentences as two separate sentences because they didn’t appear to be leading from one to the other.

This doesn’t distract from the obvious disjoint that you clearly admitted. You still spoke outside of your own claims about what defines ‘racism’. It is there in black and white.

This is too tiresome so you can have the last word if you wish.

I’ve no idea what ‘this country’ is. I mostly try to view such questions as it plays out for humanity at large than focus only on this or that particular group/nation. I imagine Venezuela wouldn’t be the best place to live at the moment and North Korea doesn’t look great either.

Differing cultures and customs and language is more ethnicity than race, so I wouldn’t call someone a racist for distinguishing between ethnicities, though I would if they conflated the ethnicity with the biological races of those involved. — NOS4A2

...

How can one devalue someone because of their race while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists? — NOS4A2

...

— NOS4A2

How about if I state that there is only one human race and then say I hate latinos? Can I be called ‘racist’ then? By your definition I’m not being ‘racist’ am I? If not then what would you call me? An ‘ethnicist’ maybe? The term doesn’t exist, instead we use ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’ and/or ‘prejudiced’. — I like sushi

I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them.

...

Even so, you just admitted you’d call me racist even though I didn’t in any way make a distinction of ‘race’ so calling me ‘racist’ for hating latinos, when I stated I don’t believe there are human races — I like sushi

That’s fair. I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case. — NOS4A2

I think we naturally fear freedom too. We do at least have freedom to speak here. The site rules don’t allow for literally anything but it’s pretty liberal.

If you’re in a torture chamber they at least allow you internet access. Sounds like you’re accepting the torture against your better judgement. Why?

Resorting to accusations when the evidence is there is frankly petty. I cannot be lying by stating that your initial reaction to the hypothetical guy who doesn’t believe in human races yet hates latinos was to call him ‘racist’. You then amended this once I pointed the disjoint between your belief in what ‘racist’ means and what the hypothetical guy said.

There was no lie and I’m not a liar. Either you were being purposefully deceptive by saying ‘racist’ or your natural/instinctual language made you say ‘racist’. I assumed you wasn’t playing deceptive games.

I don’t see how can take whatever I thought you meant in the opening post as correct anymore. If you struggle so much with yourself about how to define racism and fail to use your claimed meaning in general speech then I don’t have confidence that you can cope with the nuance of what you mean, or don’t mean, by ‘colour-blind’ in the opening post anymore.

That said I do think it is bad form for anyone here to call you ‘racist’ or insinuate such - as has happened. You should at least walk away from this with some questions for yourself about how you convey your thoughts (if not you just wasted your time probably).

I’ve seen this before with Chalmers on a forum. All that happened was people made themselves look silly by basically calling his ideas stupid when they had clearly misinterpreted his paper.

It would work if only select members were allowed to discuss with the person directly and involve others by vetting questions a little that could then be offered up to the guest.

It’s worth a try.

I’ll stop banging my head against this wall I think

I guess I should simply start my own thread and see if I get any traction there instead.

Thanks :)

Another point would be making the distinction between an ‘inductive’ argument and a ‘deductive’ argument. Again, this is a common enough problem of misidentifying the type of argument on both the part of the person presenting the argument and those who respond. It’s so easy to miss this one sometimes.

What would be the point of all this modelling without its ability to promote accurate, relevant action - pulling causal levers whose structures we partially represented in the world? — fdrake

Assumption that there is ‘a point’. Pointless question as far as I can tell. What does i mean to ‘have a point’ or ‘be pointless’? We can ask what the ‘theoretic’ attitude is doing, how it is structured and how theories change.

You could just settle on the hidden answer to your question and say ‘accuracy’ is the point - that was essentially what you implied. I ask what else could a ‘model’ do other than refine itself in order to increase accuracy? If increasing ‘accuracy’ is the be all and end all then some ‘error’ is an optimal means of exploring beyond the immediate bounds ‘known’. We don’t purposefully make mistakes, yet we certainly can, and do, learn from mistakes brought about by ‘inaccuracies’.

All of this needn’t be led under the assumption of some abstract ‘input’/‘output’ system. That is merely an expression of the ‘theoretic’ attitude - a necessary means for distinction among the ‘white noise’. For further more ‘substantial’ evidence for this neural priming is an expression of this in the ‘natural sciences’.

I could actually say Humpty Dumpty is a story like this too. Originally we were unaware of all our problems and just mucked about on a wall. Then one day we fell off the wall - an unlikely and immediate evolutionary leap - and released we were fractured creatures and so started to stay in one place and ‘put ourselves back together again’ and then other tribes joined in - ‘all the King’s horse and all the King’s men’ - but we couldn’t make ourselves not know what we know.

Ergo Humpty-Dumpty is merely another rendition of Genesis.

That said there are a number of creation myths that tend to have common themes and most narratives in movies or books also repeat a certain common themes and characters.

Maybe someone has mentioned this already?

It makes sense writer not commit to strongly to their position. In a debate the purpose is to push home your point to ‘win’ the debate. In an argumentative exchange if the writer is only defending their claim then the discussion can quickly crumble.

On the other hand, if the writer marks out their position as a one of at partial suspicion and provides some inkling of how they doubt their own claim then I am much more willing to engage as all too often people cherrypick evidence that bolsters their claim and believe the mere quantity of evidence is a sufficient and solid position from which to dig in. A singular point can decimate an argument, but if the writer doesn’t even present the possibility of their view having gaps and cracks in it they tend not to take on board counter evidence unless they can either turn it on its head or counter it.

I’d say the ‘innocent’ are naive, dangerous and/or irresponsible. I don’t quite see how that qualifies as ‘good’ in any context. Of course the problem is then exactly what context we’re talking about ‘innocent’ in? I think the manner I have outlined the term is specific yet probably at odds with exactly what you had in mind when you said ‘innocent’.

I don’t think the law is there to protect the ‘innocent’ either way. The law is fluid so if it is in place to protect some ‘innocent’ group/s then who is ‘innocent’ is always shifting with the times too - as the law does change.

Being ‘innocent’ is effectively ‘not knowing better’ about a situation. It is being ‘naive’ without any understanding of what ‘naivety’ is. If we’re instead saying ‘innocent’ means not having the ‘power’/‘capacity’ to protect yourself then is it ‘good’ to encourage this by offering protection. Much like raising children do we lock them in a room to ‘protect’ them. In this sense the ‘law’ is about freedom of choice befitting each person - the pursuit of an optimal set of rules that furnishes society with an overall, and gradual, increase in personal freedom. For me the crux of the issue is more about creating rules that allow the progressives to increase overall freedoms whilst reducing freedoms for those that lack a capacity to handle uninhibited freedom. The masses and the individual necessarily suffer for mutual benefit - basically I’m talking about the social contract here.

All that said the law is there to ‘protect the innocent’ only in the sense that we’re all ‘innocent’ to some degree and that ‘protecting innocence’ isn’t akin to encouraging people to be innocent - which is a difficult problem.

What is more every extension of my freedom necessarily inhibits someone else’s somewhere in some way. None of us are ‘innocent’ so for this reason I am against ‘protecting the innocent’ because I don’t believe they actually exist. I am for protecting the ‘naive’ though but only if it is combined with action to decrease ‘naivety’ rather than foster a culture of juvenile attitudes that have no mature attitudes to balance them. It is here that I would say education is the key factor. Generally we’re taught to be ‘more mature’ yet when we get older the quest is to return to our more ‘juvenile’ youth in order to reap the benefits of both (to explain further I mean systematic and structured thought is the general attitude of modern education - structure is undoubtedly important - yet once we progress further in education we’re asked to resort to a more freewheeling mindset and to rekindle that ‘juvenile’ flame and be creative).

The ‘law’ is merely a institionalised means of indoctrinating the public rather than creating greater over all freedom. I certainly don’t live my life in accordance with the law. I regard people who do as monsters in the making, yet I can’t honestly say I have a better alternative that is easy/possible to implement. The law is an expression of governmental power and of public attitudes - both concern me but I don’t adhere to either with anything like a dogmatic grip. When push comes to shove my sense of morality is tested by the extent of the punishments dished out by the law I am willing to suffer for what I inherently feel to be ‘good’. The extreme end of such an attitude does lead us to another dark place too as if one is under the impression that their own beliefs are better than the law then they’ll be willing to suffer a great deal and no doubt cause great suffering under the ‘delusion’ of arrogance.

As I believe in humanity at large, and generally like being human, I side with increased freedom at the cost of a loss of innocence because I think humans are ‘good’. I guess if you think humans are ‘bad’ then you would be inclined to say the ‘innocent’ need protection at all costs. I prefer more freedom than more innocence, and I cannot see how one doesn’t necessarily counter the other.

We should, and can, do as we please. As it turns out what we do do is create laws that express our ‘average’ attitudes, but no one is ‘average’. Given that we all mostly agree than under most circumstances ‘killing’ is ‘bad’, and we’re constantly discussing under what circumstances ‘killing’ is sometimes necessary, then we’re pointing roughly in the right direction as this has happened alongside more and more people possessing more and more freedom.

If we push to ‘protect the innocent’ with more vigor then freedoms will be inhibited and the idea of ‘evil’/‘bad’ assumed by ‘innocent minds’ will inevitably cause more ‘lawful killing’, ‘lawful imprisonments’ and such based on naive assumptions about who should and shouldn’t have freedom. This would give the most opposed members of society the impetus to bring a greater extent of tyranny into the human social sphere.

Either way I’m not too bothered. There are dangers, but I don’t think we’re heading toward a dark age. Those days are done as far as I can figure out.

I think it would be impolite of me not to respond even though I said I wouldn’t do so given the extend of your post.

I was making the judgement from responses you’ve given to me and some others where you seem to be arguing against something that hasn’t been said or suggested.

Some of the names you mentioned do the same thing too, as do I and almost everyone at some point. I was pointing out that I observe this to be a consistent factor in your responses whilst even in other guilty parties there are lulls.

If you truly believe people are being disingenuous or obtuse (purposefully or not) then just be polite and/or resist the urge to respond - that is basically my position with you now (not that I am unwilling to listen or discuss, it just so happens that sometimes I don’t see any reasonable progress so I would rather step aside and hope for a better, and more amicable, means of continuing in the future).

When I have previously said I am acting as a ‘moderator’ I meant it in the capacity that it suits my purpose to try and speak in a manner that serves me not necessarily others. Moderate speech is helpful and we all know cool and calm speech (with the occasional careful little joke maybe) helps the discussion go somewhere - and I make no apologies for stating the obvious as it doesn’t hurt to remind ourselves that we’re all prone to such things and should look with charity on what is said and not take it too much to heart (assume the ‘other’ is sincere because if they’re not it is fairly easy for everyone to see that they lack sincerity if all you give them is a calm and mild-mannered expression).

I have said pretty much the same thing already to someone who gave you a father vicious response. It serves me to see this because the subject matter interests me yet I’m growing more and more impatient - several times in this thread - due to the emotional reactions I’ve seen, the derogatory language used (short of flat insults) and the needless accusations about all manner of things. That said a degree of ‘emotion’ and ‘political posturing’ is to be expected to some degree on this particular subject. Underneath it I’m fascinated by the way language can be used, the etymology of words and how these things shape our opinions of ourselves and others (that is my ‘dog in the race’).

I think there’s life in the thread yet, as always I try to hope for everything and expect nothing.

Good luck and hope frank, yourself and others can turn this discussion around a little more and get to the heart of the matter.

Note: I do now realise my analogy above can easily be taken as a slight. It wasn’t my intent. I love writing and sometimes bet carried away with metaphors without thinking too much about how it may be received in terms of being ‘insulting’. I do stand by my analysis though. You can consider it as genuine and being made in order to help the discussion or not. That is out of my hands.

Just to be clear. The ‘conventional’ use doesn’t fall outside of what I’ve said at all. A person ‘good’ at murdering is ‘good’ at murdering. It is a false assumption that ‘murder’/‘killing’ is inherently not good in a moral sense - which is nonsense. It just so happens that there a few circumstances where ‘killing’ someone could be deemed ‘good’. I’d say ‘rape’ is an item almost impossible to sell as ‘good’ though because I can only dream up completely ridiculous scenarios that would never actually happen.

That simply doesn’t ring true. Would you stand by and watch someone beat several children to death because causing harm is bad? Of course not. Context is everything. I’m just trying to point out, as Nietzsche did, that the eagle eating a lamb doesn’t do so because it’s ‘evil’ even though it may seem ‘evil’ to the lamb.

You may say it’s better not to kill anyone, but if all but a few follow your view strictly then the few can kill without any fear of resistance accept from each other. It is ‘immoral’ to follow the law without question and more moral to act against the law regardless of repercussions to self. The hero kills the child killer and happily goes to prison as a murderer. The coward follows the law and watches the children die.

I’m not saying anything strange here am I?

Why?