Critical thinking involves being able to analyze the merits of arguments, and it also means being able to discern the character and trustworthiness of sources (people being a type of source).
Both are important skills to be developed, separately.
The bigger problem of judging people rather than arguments is judging people based on their man given credentials rather than on their character and motivation.

Nice way to frame the question.
The question is part of a more essential question. What is the ultimate or first cause of an effect? Me, or something else?
Is it necessarily the case that one thing causes another, or that a cause and an effect are separate phenomena?

In a sense money doesn't have a final destination. Money is nomadic and people's banks, wallets etc are money motels :lol:

Edit: Another question. Does the gov own the fiat currency? Gov faces are on it and in USA free masonic symbols. I'd think whose faces and symbols are on money should indicate something about who controls it.

*A fiat money is a type of currency that is declared legal tender by a government but has no intrinsic or fixed value and is not backed by any tangible asset, such as gold or silver.

Fiat currency is debt based pyramid scheme.

Which is the greatest advantage to control?
Brute force, money, or opinion.
Opinion.

Governments are a minority. They could not rule without control of opinion.

Money's worth is based on opinion, and convincing people to participate in wage slavery depends on controlling opinion.

It could be argued that governments and money are themselves fictions.

:ok:

Capitalism is just the free market economy.

At its root capitalism is economic anarchy.

What matters to us is survival and evolution. So when we ask if something matters, we are asking is it necessary for survival and helpful toward evolution.

Can I live without this?
Is this empty (going nowhere) or full of potential?

I more or less agree. Although we have come a long way over the last few hundreds of years. I agree that we are far from knowing about everything about the world around us. — dclements

Thanks. I don't agree that "we" have advanced a long way, on average, over the last few hundreds of years. But could be that we are measuring society by different metrics. I would say that technology has advanced. Not people. I am open to the possibility I am wrong.

Deleted

There's as much evidence for goblins and zombies as there is for ghosts. — Xtrix

I think this is appeal to ridicule?

Who knows if there are ghosts, aliens, or practically infinite number of unknown things in this mostly unknown world?

Its like if a deep sea fish claimed there is no such thing as animals that can fly or no such thing as animals that can live outside of water, or no such thing as technologically advanced talking apes who built technology with which they can fly.

The knee jerk sceptics have been holding back scientific and technological advancements, thinking they are protecting it

Stephen Pacala's statistics strikes me as like only blaming the CEOs of corporations for the majority of sweat shop slavery. As if we privileged first world peeps who buy sweat shop produced items aren't the main cause.

When in history has not a minority

If anyone is genuinely interested in testing it, I think the easiest intuitive ability is empathic telepathy, since we are a highly social "species".

Try to feel other's emotions directly instead of inferring them from facial or vocal expressions.

I can feel out very distinct qualities in the vibes of people, and it feels as real as smelling distinct smells or any other of the senses.

I doubt its supernatural. How a radio or TV can receive and transmit information would seem supernatural if didn't know how antennae works. (Which I don't understand, but assume others do)

Our brains are incalculably more complex than radios and TVs, so it doesn't seem like a huge delusion to think brains might be able to transmit and receive waves.

It occurred to me that either/or might not be the best way to frame the question.

Rather, to what extent do I live in simulation?

My guess is that most of what I think of as "the real world" is my own projection and narrative, most of which I adopted from somewhere.

Returning to the contradiction of anatta & cogito ergo sum, how do you propose we resolve it? — Agent Smith

Just don't assume either is true. Instead, clarify what you mean by the word 'I'?

I see it that, the Buddha took neti neti to its conclusion and remained silent on the truth, recommending neti neti to others.
Descartes also followed neti neti, and shared his conclusion rather than recommend neti neti to others.

I think whoever wrote this Wikipedia article on it expressed it quite nicely:

[/In Buddhism, the term anattā or anātman refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.

Bold added. Why is this also in quotes when I do not have the quote commands typed around this sentence?

When Vacchagotta the wanderer asked him point-blank whether or not there is a self, the Buddha remained silent, which means that the question has no helpful answer. As he later explained to Ananda, to respond either yes or no to this question would be to side with opposite extremes of wrong view. Some have argued that the Buddha didn’t answer with “no” because Vacchagotta wouldn’t have understood the answer. But there’s another passage where the Buddha advises all the monks to avoid getting involved in questions such as “What am I?” “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” because they lead to answers like “I have a self” and “I have no self,” both of which are a “thicket of views, a writhing of views, a contortion of views” that get in the way of awakening. — https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

Anatta (no self/Buddhism). How would you resolve the contradiction therein between anatta (Siddhartha Gautama) & cogito ergo sum (René Descartes)? — Agent Smith

Is this what you mean by Anatta?

The meaning of ANATTA is a basic Buddhist doctrine affirming the nonexistence of a soul, essence, or any other enduring substantial entity.

As far as I know, Buddha Dharma doesn't have metaphysical doctrines.

My favorite Sutra on the topic of not-self is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
I don't see any claim about the non-existence of self here and its quite thorough in its rejection of what is not to be considered self. I'd be interested if anyone could point to a sutra where the Buddha claims there is no self.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. — Walk Whitman

The 'I' casts off the illusion of 'I' and yet remains as 'I'. Such is the paradox of Self-Realisation. The realised do not see any contradiction in it. — Venkataraman Iyer, also known is Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi

True. But I don't know any example of them. — javi2541997

Marriage ceremonies, graduation ceremonies, inauguration ceremonies, award ceremonies, funeral traditions, birthday and holiday rituals. Pledging allegiance to the flag. Customs? "Blood brother" blood sharing and pinky swears. Hand shaking and high fives.

I see a ritual as a symbolic gesture.

Often its an outer appearance meant to convince you of an inner essence.

It has some parallels with magic tricks, as both are dealing with convincing appearances, but magic tries to convince you of literal occurrences while rituals try to convince you of inner essences.

I think when there is an essence, the outer symbolic gesture is often unnecessary.

Sometimes rituals/ceremonies can work like placebos / self fulfilling prophecies.

Ironically you are assuming I was not being serious.
Everything I say is serious, especially when I am being playful.

Thanks for the reminder. I believe that there is no such thing as being too skeptical.
I believe one's capacity for wisdom is precisely aligned with the degree of one's capacity to doubt.

In my opinion a person is not likely to be a philosopher unless they are doing some original thinking steeped in a deep understanding of key philosophical texts or matters. — Tom Storm

I think many share this view approximately.

Playing devils advocate for another view, there is this bias that I don't know if there is a name for. Basically, is a philosopher a well noted philosopher because they had more unique and/or cogent thoughts than other philosophers, or are they considered to have more unique and/or cogent thoughts because they are well noted?

I think I would bore quickly of TPF if there wasn't much uniqueness or depth of thought.
The thing is, when someone doesn't have the full package of what it takes to be a super star, their unique and deep thoughts won't be noted as much.

One more thing is build up. When there is a big build up of an idea and its expressed in a professional and technical way in a published book, it is more likely to be taken seriously.

There is also perhaps the issue of population growth, both in humanity at large and the increase of noted philosophers, making more competition for standing out, and perhaps more commitment required to absorb the history and common technical terms. But even then, without friends that are already notable to call your work notable, you are less likely to be noted.

Ps. Thanks for contributing to the thread, everyone.

Do I really exist or is some evil demon fooling himself into thinking I exist so that he can have fun tormenting his imaginary friend?

Not a koan for the feint of heart.

You are giving a good pragmatic angle.
Having reasonable amounts of doubt and faith can work well when using inductive reasoning..

As far as duductive logic goes,
"Everything needs a reason" itself requires justification. That itself would lead to infinite regress. Its a belief based on induction. "Everything I observe appears to be an effect of something else, so probably everything has a cause" or something like that. (cause and reason aren't exactly the same thing but...)
"Some things don't require a reason" on the other hand, doesn't lead to infinite regress.

The proof that "Some things just are without reason" is that the alternative is absurd. (Nothing would be knowable as everything would be based on infinite regresses)

The belief that 'everything needs a reason' is an example of failing to understand the limits of reason. Is there a name for that?

Excuse me if that is off somewhere. I feel I am making an error somehow but don't see where. If someone could point it out.

I should also point out, reason is based on something a-rational? It comes from somewhere, doesn't it? Our first knowledge itself can't be rational. Rather, we have data and then we use reason to organize it. Though some say we can't have any data without already having some kind of rational framework in place to register data as data?

As if a man had had his legs bitten off by a shark, and we all earnestly inquire what is the most important problem; that he is drowning, that he is bleeding to death, that he is losing consciousness, that his cries are not heard, or that the shark is coming back for more? — unenlightened

Causal Reductionism:
Assuming a single cause or reason when there were actually multiple causes or reasons.
Logical Form:
complex cause, fallacy of the single cause, causal oversimplification, reduction fallacy — logicallyfallacious.com

I also found listed "6 common errors when solving problems"
with one being, "Most incorrectly believe that root-cause analysis ultimately finds one cause."

If you were to ask four people--“What’s the most important part of a car?”--you might get four different answers: the key, the engine, the driver, the battery. Each person thinks he or she is “right.” The person who says the battery is the most important part thinks that, without the battery, all the other parts wouldn’t function. It makes sense, but this same argument could be used for the key, the engine and the driver. The bottom line: There is no one right answer. There is no part of the system that is “most important”; without any element, the car won’t run. In this instance, four people provided different answers; all of them told the truth; not one is wrong.

This seemingly paradoxical statement reveals a misconception behind root cause—the thinking that one thing caused the problem. People use the logic that if that someone didn’t follow the procedure, not following it caused the problem; if the procedure were followed, the problem would not have happened. Yet like a car needs all its parts to function properly, a problem requires multiple causes to happen. And those multiple causes make up the root cause. Put another way, a root cause isn’t one cause but a system of causes working together.

~reliabilityweb.com

Our minds could be like messed up rubix cubes. The Buddha only helps us straighten out rather than give us new knowledge.






"Nothing changes, just rearranges" - Lyrics of Korn's "It's On!"

Interesting! Quite obviously you're using a different definition for nothing. We're allowed to do that. Create worlds of our own, with unique rules & objects, and whatnot. I wish I had the time to explore Yohan's universe, but looks like I'll have to do it on another day. Hope you don't mind. — Agent Smith

"But I don't expect we will get anywhere debating the topic." :smile: Don't mind at all.

I have the opposite dilemma. I can't differentiate between matter and nothing.

Matter is elusive. Some mysterious whatever somewhere outside of personal experience, causing the experience.
Trying to define matter is infinite regress?

I don't see how matter triggering subjective experience is any different than a computer simulating subjective experience.

Both matter or simulator are unfindable in experience, by definition, since they are defined as being independent of and the cause of the experience.

But I don't expect we will get anywhere debating the topic.

Malus Deus. :chin: — Agent Smith

What do you think of Apex Predator- Malus Deus, for a band / album name?
*Looked it up. "Apex Predator' is already taken. Malus Deus is also a band.
I wonder if there is any negative term or word in existence for which there isn't a metal band named after it. Could we coin a law for this phenomenon?

Are you unfamiliar with the term "climate denial" or is this just disingenuous nonsense? If the latter, I'm not interested.

If the former, you can look it up. — Xtrix

I have looked it up, and I'm not seeing any climate denial here.

Its nn interesting contrast to Soc's conscious ignorance.

Isn’t it sad how far one has to go as a climate denier? Literally to the point of arguing that because we don’t understand everything, and can’t be 100% certain, we can’t make statements about global warming.

Funny how this stupidity doesn’t get invoked unless the subject matter has been politicized — or, in the case of creationists, goes against religious belief.

Suddenly they become “skeptics” or, sadder still, argue that they know more than the thousands of people who have studied the issue their entire lives — all because they’ve spent a few minutes reading Bjorn Lomborg.

Nothing else quite exposes one’s ignorance and irrationality like this. In politics and economics there’s always some wiggle room — in science, it’s obvious. — Xtrix

Which 'climate' exactly are you suggesting is being denied?

Don't blame the tool, si? — Agent Smith

True. But then the KEY to wisdom cannot be the same key to foolishness, can it?
Rationality leads to technical truths which can be used for good or ill. Technical truth is not wisdom.

A pragmatist vs one who enjoys poking holes in others arguments?

I'm trying to see if there's a pattern by phasing out a being from the equation. God → →\to AI → →\to the laws of nature. Automation. — Agent Smith

So nature as AI?

I think technical explanations are an infinite regress. You can keep asking "why" forever.
Only reference to a being can be final. Its like asking why an AI things or does what it does. You can't understand the why of what an AI does just by studying all the data of the AI. You have to think outside of the data.

Is God an accountant?
Are there AI accountants? — Agent Smith

Are you implying that God could be an AI?
You know, if God is, lets say, an imaginary friend. Aren't imaginary friends technically AI?

Step 1: Find patterns (what?)
Step 2: Explain the patterns found (why?) — Agent Smith

Can you explain what it means to explain?
I think of explain as spotting even more pattern. Like, "How does this pattern fit with other patterns?