To be perceived is to exist is false. — TheMadFool

For an idealist this is a tautology, or self-evident. It can't be disproven from second order logic. (to be is to be perceived)

, off the top of my head I can say, to be material is to be perceived. That means, — TheMadFool

But didn't you agree that dreams are immaterial? Are they not perceptions?
For an idealist dream matter and non-dream matter are both ultimately immaterial, that is, mental. Material is a perception, but perception isn't material.

First, though, it's important to be clear on the differences between (1) proof or demonstration or inference, (2) debate, and (3) cooperative inquiry. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Are you suggesting we clarify that here, or are you saying that we should establish which of those we are using as a goal and framework?

Question: Is it merely a matter of demonstrating understanding of your opponent's argument and being articulate to present it well? Or should you also strive to make an even better argument with more facts and better logic? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't know if there is a rule. I focus more on clarity than adding substance. The latter is hard to do if I believe the argument is lacking in substance. Its harder to do than I thought.

We have such little point of agreement that I think you even disagree that we have little point of agreement. I feel as much hope trying to convince you against materialism as I would trying to convince someone the world doesn't rest on the back of a giant turtle.
IOW, whenever you say "matter" I think of an extraneous thing like a turtle, that is premised to exist and be necessary without justification.

Steel manning won’t prove the other wrong because they may interpret their inability to understand your position as a result of faulty reasoning on your part.. They can say your position is incoherent.
I’m neither a materialist nor an idealist, but I’m game. — Joshs

Well they need to question the parts that don't make sense to them until they can form a steel man. Even if the position is incoherent, it should at least have a faux-coherency that they can express. There is going to be a reason they believe, even if it's not good, you should be able to see how they got tricked and why the trick has a convincing allure. If they won't bother to be flexible enough to grasp where the other is coming from, then they lose, and the audience or moderator can vote on this. Of course a close minded person won't admit it

Name one immaterial object and name one thing you know for certain doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

How might I distinguish a material object from an immaterial object? We have to give a coherent definition of 'material' and 'object'. Objects in our dreams are experienced virtually identically to objects in our waking world, would you agree? I guess I could say any or every object in my dreams are, ultimately, immaterial. And is there a difference between dream objects and other objects? Again, what exactly do we mean by 'object'?
To your second question. I know I exist, I don't know that anything else exists. At best I may be able to say anything that is self-contradictory
doesn't exist.

↪Yohan It doesn't establish proof because we could both be wrong. It's an interesting take but to steelman a position is protecting it from criticism and ensuring it's errors are never corrected. So, I would argue that we try and tear down our own positions and see what's left. I do think there is a better way to argue and Karl Popper defined it as an attitude that “I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.” — Cheshire

I don't see the need to over exaggerate the power of their argument. I mean being charitable enough to express their point of view as well as you reasonably can. For example, maybe their argument isn't horrible, but they aren't expressing it well, so you express their argument in a clear way...rather than focussing on how it is poorly expressed.
I agree that the best thing may be to tear down one's own arguments though. The Karl popper thing is ok I guess. I prefer to have some structure

I have no idea what "steel man" means in this context. — T Clark

I'm saying we should make sure we understand the other before we argue against them, and encourage the other to demonstrate they understand us before we try to defend against their straw man version of our argument.

One should always try to be a theoretical advocate for the opposition. Professors will often assign a student to a side, whether the student agrees with that side or not. The student must then put on zealous advocacy for that side. I've watched it change minds. I've also seen an opponent make a better case, and show a better understanding of his opposition than his opposition does. On this very forum I have, in the past, asked an opponent to please make my case for me just so I knew he understood what I was saying. He declined. — James Riley

I think it's great for the mind to stretch beyond it's prejudice and bias. Often there may not seem to be a clear answer once one has honestly and vigorously argue from both sides of a position.

I can agree with most of that, but I think skepticism is more than being open to something being false. I would define it more like assuming something isnt true until there are good reasons to believe it is true. The skeptic says “prove it.”. — DingoJones

What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false, before it has been proven true or false? Making assumptions goes directly against the spirit of reason. Every mistake in reason amounts to making some assumption. Prove everything, assume nothing. That's the motto of reason .

My point was that you shouodnt be so open minded that you believe anything. Skepticism is just as valuable as an open mind, finding a balance between them is key to not believing in nonsense and/or incorrect things. — DingoJones

Open minded means I'm open to the possibility that something is true. Sceptical means I am open to the possibility something is false. Neither leads to belief or disbelief, of themselves. I can be entirely open minded to a possibility, yet find no compelling reason to believe the possibility is an actuality. I can be entirely skeptical of a possibility being an actuality, yet not believe it is not an actuality.

though we should have an open mind it shouldn't be so open it falls out — DingoJones

God forbid anyone should open their mind completely up, and thereby have full capacity to use it.

Adults running around believing characters in children's stories are real has slowed down social progress — Cheshire

It's very hard to convince someone to change views without first building rapport and trust. This is why first Steel Manning the other's view, then offering an argument against it, politely, will on average work better than characterizing the other's point of view in the worst possible light before arguing against it.
We have to be an example of discipline and thoughtfulness if we want others to also employ discipline and thoughtfulness.

But why do we care how others pursue happiness. — SteveMinjares

Some atheists and some theists are content with themselves. Others feel a push to convince other's to believe as they do. I would guess out of a subconscious insecurity that maybe they are wrong, and the more they can convince others to believe as they do, the more they themselves will believe. I know I've been in that state of mind. I'm probably in it now. Anyway, it's another part of human nature. Fighting against the maladies of human nature usually serve to further irritate them. It's easier to light a candle than than curse the darkness? Maybe after one has managed to refrain oneself from cursing the darkness, which is hard.

We need to dispel this notion of a tyrannical sky daddy if humanity is going to progress. The masses cling to this idea of eternal salvation and this myth stunts psychological growth and prohibits humanity from realizing its destiny. — K Turner

But won't the majority turn to more materialism and consumerism to fill the void of existential angst and meaninglessness without some belief in something more than material existence?
Do you think existentialism is a viable solution for all?

I think if you interviewed the best detectives, scientists, whatever, that they would be people that while trusting their intuitions, are also humble and skeptical of their abilities, which would be one of the reasons they have gotten so good. I don't know, btw, if we are going too far off from the thread theme. We can PM or start a thread if you want, unless you think this ties into the main theme?

I want to say all beliefs. I think there's only so many options for any proposition.
I prefer to think levels of suspicion. Certainty I consider an absolute. I'm certain or I'm not. I can't be kind of certain, or 99% certain. If I have doubt, any at all, I am 100% NOT certain.
I would guess most of us have had an experience of thinking we were certain or at least totally convinced something was true and then found out we were wrong, so then on reflection we can't really say that we were whatever percent certain, rather we had 0% certainty and only a very convincing degree of suspicion of a truth.
I don't think certainty is necessary to make decisions, which I guess we agree on. I think it is very hard to avoid the illusion of being certain as well. I'm not sure if I would say such is a problem, actually I think problems are just subjective judgment on a neutral reality, but I do think it's an error of judgment and I'm trying to avoid it to the best of my ability.
I agree that some beliefs maybe more important to take the time to critically examine than others.
When it comes to philosophy I like to try to dig to the root issue and I think how does one know is pretty close if not to the root of philosophy while a lot of other questions are skimming the surface until that question is answered.

My current reasoning suggests to me that there are four options:
I know
I don't know
I don't know and I suspect or have a guess
I don't know and suspect to the point of being convinced

My question is when is it justified to go from suspecting or having a good guess to actually being convinced something is true without actually knowing it is for a fact.

to me it seems more reasonable to never be convinced until one knows for certain.

Edited to shorten and add better punctuation.

Deleted

Why do you say that it's self-evident when you take the trouble of proving it? — TheMadFool

If I say it's self evidently hot, because I directly experience the heat...I'm explaining my experience, which is self evident. I can also point to sweat and other things caused by heat. Something can be self evident yet also given indirect inferences to its truth as well. However, indirect inferences are not proof. When did I claim I was offering proof? I said my view cannot be proven to someone who has a radically different view.
How does your question add to the topic?

Non-existence doesn't exist by definition therefore existence must always exist?
Ok, I can make the same argument for anything...
Eg. Non-thinking can't exist because by definition it doesn't exist. Therefore there is never non-thinking.
Non-God can't exist, therefore there must be a God.
So basically, if this argument works to prove existence is always existing, it must also prove that everything that exists always exist, since the existence of their absence is impossible.
Hmm, might actually have some merit.

That's odd because you seem to be "...providing arguments..." — TheMadFool

How did you arrive at this conclusion? To what do you owe this insight to if not thinking?

What I mean by "everything supervenes on thinking" is that no matter what this exercise of homing in on the "...most useful skill..." involves, it, for certain, requires us to think well. — TheMadFool

I owe the insight to sight. I just see it.
You say we need to think well, I say we need to look well.
Which came first, thought or language? I would
argue thought is a language.
Anyway. Consider the color red. Do we need to think or analyze to know what red is?
Is there any thought that isn't a reference to an experience?
I am in part playing devil's advocate, because I have no idea what thought.
I suspect when people talk of thought they are talking about creating order internally. My experience is that I have an experience, then it leaves an imprint on my memory. If I observe the memory closely or from far away, I recognize different details, different patterns. To me I am discovering, rather than creating order.
Reality is already the way it is, isn't it? I don't organize reality. I get progressively more observant of its orderliness.

How does everything supervene on thinking?
Most failure of understanding is due to an inability to see the obvious, rather from an inability to think.
— Yohan

How did you arrive at this conclusion? To what do you owe this insight to if not thinking? — TheMadFool

It's self-evident to me. It's like asking how I came to the conclusion of an axiom. I can't prove axioms by way of logic. Axioms are pre-logical, based on direct knowledge.
What ever we think revolves around our view. Two people with opposing core views will not convince each other of their views by providing arguments. They have to see the other's view in order to understand where the logic stems from.

There's some truth to this but I was asking more about your idea about people's 'inability to see the obvious.' I don't think we can see without thinking. We see, then we process and put what we see into some context. This might be different if you were enlightened (a category of human I would consider contentious at best). And what is 'the obvious'? — Tom Storm

I think it was Orwell who said to see what's in front of ones nose requires a constant struggle.
Our conditioning is the problem. It makes us filter what will or will not register in consciousness.
I would argue that unbiased awareness is the root of intelligence. Thought is just the breaking down of information. Awareness organizes data automatically and effectively if it is not hindered by biases.
Maybe I can say the greatest ability is to be aware without bias. Or to not get in ones way.

Moral objectivists: Where are moral values outside of the mind?

Imagine you could somehow see everything.
Would you have any need for thought?
What would there be to think about if nothing was hidden from sight?
What can thought do but reach tentative guesses by way of inferences through symbols?

Humans mistake thought for reality.
That's why there are all these ideologies. That's why people go to wars. That's why people do so much harm to make money. That's why people believe lies.

Adaptive ability doesn't quite cut it because it fails Kant's maxim. What if everyone adapated (to each other)? I would adapt to you and you would adapt to me but that doesn't make sense because if I adapt to you, you wouldn't need to adapt to me and vice versa. — TheMadFool

Seriously?

Thinking well. Given everythjng else supervenes on this one skill, it would stand us in good stead if each and everyone of us honed it to perfection, if possible of course. — TheMadFool

How does everything supervene on thinking?
Most failure of understanding is due to an inability to see the obvious, rather from an inability to think.

Seeing indeed involves a range of other skills. Think about how complex the brain is. You can't see without consciousness. To have consciousness the brain needs to have the skill of self organization , self management etc.
You also have to have the skill of receiving the light Into eye, skill of eye sending information to the brain, and then brain translating or making sense of the information...(rogh estimate abouthow seeing works, I don't know)

I guess I'm blind to the context you have.

Are you essentially arguing that non-attachment is the overarching skill here; or resilience? — Tom Storm

Here I agree it's context dependent or not answerable.

Is adapting to change different to accepting change? What do you consider to be a change requiring an adaptive shift? — Tom Storm

Well, it seems like you adapt naturally so you don't have to contemplate all that it involves.
Often foreign language learners ahnderstand the rules of the language better than native speakers becayise the natives follow the rules unconsciously.
I'm naturally very resistant to change and risk, so for me adaptability is a skill for me to learn.
I moved to a foreign country. Five years in I haven't even learned the language.

I think most skills involve other skills. Eg. To read you need the ability to see, memorize, think etc.
Are there any skills that don't involve a range of other skills?

You got me thinking very basic.
I think now as the most useful skills:
Being, awareness, action, and relating.

Maybe persistent toward the goal, flexible in the means/strategies

It's ok to hate evil as long as you recognize that evil is a disease rather than a person.

The law of noncontradiction applies to logic, not to reality. There is no restrictions in reality, but restrictions in logic. Logic is all about restrictions.

My questions to moral absolutists or moral objectivists...
Do you believe some values are subjective and some objective? Eg. Which flavor of ice cream is the best? Is that subjective?
If you agree it is, I ask what makes moral values more objective than amoral values of taste?
Without someone there to form an opinion or make a value judgement of good or bad...where is the goodness or badness itself, outside of a judge? Don't all values require a person to form them?

Consider a leopard eating a family of young innocent bunnies?
Presumably the bunnies and their mother would judge the act as horrible. And presumably the leopard would consider it good.
Where is the goodness's or badness independent of the opinions of the animals?
Animals presumably are amoral?

What makes human acts objectively moral or amoral?

Personally I'm fairly convinced karma exists, and so I consider acts that cause unnecessary pain to others as acts which will cause me pain in the future, so I refrain. My sense of community and empathy also play a factor in my decisions. Harming others causes me guilt and shame, or hardens my heart making me less able to enjoy emotions and connections with others.
I believe there are some objective consequences on oneself and others by acts. But calling them moral or amoral because of the pleasant or unpleasant consequences seems like an unnecessary conceptual addition...which adds painful consequences.

Consider. If you don't like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pain. So don't eat it. That's enough to say right? We don't need to say one shouldn't eat it. Should is extra baggage.
Likewise, it's not necessary to cause others pain. And causing others pain will not be good for your own sense of self worth, or for your reputation. And why harm your own community? You will feel good about yourself and people will like you more if you treat others from a place of empathy.
Where is the need to add should or should not?

Merely focusing on "putting things aside" and "moving on" can move one away from some problem, but not automatically toward a valued direction in life. While moving toward a valued direction in life takes care of everything else.
(It's similar to the difference between running from danger and running to safety.) — baker

I think this is a good caveat. It reminds me of the book The subtle art of not giving a F. I think it says something about finding something worth giving an F about, and lesser things you will care about less.
Sounds true. I think the more unhappy people are, the more trivial things have the potential to bring them down.
If you know who you are and your worth, then what could an insult do. You have to be insecure or ignorant about yourself to be offended in the first place.
As Man's Search For Meaning says, when we have meaning we can tolerate suffering. I think it says one way to have meaning is find a goal or role that is meaningful to you.

Maybe one could say the most useful skill in life is the ability to discern the valuable and unvaluable. Or what would you say is the most useful skill?

Posting something that endorsed an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. — fdrake

As a semi self-identifying Jew, I would just like to voice my, perhaps short sited suggestion, to consider not banning anti-semitic conspiracy theory posters outright. I don't know exactly what your criteria is for what constitutes antisemitic, but I like to hear people's concerns about "my people", as empathy can help to dismantle people's hate, and they may open their mind to reason. I think a philosophy forum is a good place for sensitive topics to be discussed with objectivity. If they have bad reason's for their beliefs, then this is a good place for those bad reasons to be exposed for all to see.

Do I decide what it is that I will?
No
Am I restrained from doing what it is I have been determined to will?
No

Do I have free will? Not in the sense that I can control what I will. But I am free to do as I will

FWIW, I'll introduce you to the notion that everything in this world consists of immaterial mental Information (ideas), including Matter. Neuroscientist Don Hoffman has produced an update of Kant's idealism. And my own thesis of Enformationism concludes that both Energy and Matter are forms of universal Information. :smile: — Gnomon

Honestly I lack motivation to read the links. But I'd discuss it if you feel to. I'm a little confused about how matter is a type of information. When I hear the word 'information' I think of form or structure. Bring to my mind the analogy of ocean and waves, where the waves are forms of water. Idealists say the water is essentially something like awareness, and the materialists say its forms of matter. I don't get what it would mean to call the water 'information', as for me that refers to the wave, the form, rather than the essence?

I want precise criteria for how to discern a subjective experience from an objective one. I want to know exactly where subjectivity ends and objectivity starts.
Is it not the biggest problem?
I don't think its acknowledged enough. It's not just the hard problem of consciousness, it's also the hard problem of objectivity or the hard problem of ignorance

You wrote this 5 hours ago and no one has responded but, possibly out of my depths as usual, I am daring to speak. — Jack Cummins

Maybe nobody else responded because there is already some ontology threads up... I wanted to try and explore the implications of each view point, and see if they lead to any absurd conclusions. I don't see how if all is matter...that that doesn't mean matter has thoughts and that matter can be deluded etc. To me it doesn't sound right. I guess my concern is the same old concern, and such doesn't bother materialists.

I am inclined to think that none of these positions contains the full perspective and that mind and matter are weaved together, with neither coming before or after. Perhaps the underlying truth is at the heart of quantum reality, Plato's forms, Kant's transcendent reality or even Jung's collective unconscious. — Jack Cummins

I don't know. I do think monism is the answer. But does that mean mind and matter share one essence, that one is a version of the other, or something like that? If one is a form of the other, I have a really hard time understanding how mind can be a form of matter. The fundamental essence should be whichever is simpler, more basic. Consciousness is undoubtable. I have direct access to it, as it. Matter on the other hand...no matter how much we know about it, the question can always remain, what are its mind-independent properties and how is mind able to experience something that is non-mental? Shouldn't awareness only be aware of things within its own scope? Just like, taste can only perceive flavors. Mind should only be able to sense things which have its nature.
But its annoying because to me it sounds like common sense, yet materialists don't share these views apparently. I can't wrap my head around their perspective and I wish there were a way to overcome the communication gap.

For what it’s worth, if the only reason for believing in minds is that they explain consciousness, then how is this anything more than a “god of the gaps” style argument? “Brains can’t explain consciousness, but minds can, therefore minds exist.” All the while completely overlooking or ignoring the fact that minds themselves require an explanation. Hitchens’s razor seems to dispose of this rather quickly. — Pinprick

Mind is just a basic word for whatever goes on inside of a person, as opposed to what we can observe about them from looking at their physical characteristics. At least I think that is how people who disagree with you are defining it. Thought, intellect, feelings, will, memory, impressions. Mind is kind of a catch all word for the combination of all those things. You can claim those things are not all part of a singular thing called a mind, but what appears absurd to many is claiming those things are reducible to matter.

To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist, only brains do. Until some sort of evidence can be presented that shows minds, of the metaphysical/immaterial variety, are even possible of existing, I see no reason to change my belief. I’m always open to the possibility that there is evidence that I’m not aware of, however. — Pinprick

The burden of proof is on the materialists to demonstrate something non-mental.

My view is basically that being, nature, reality, whatever we want to call the one thing that is everywhere, is "god"
Here are some intuitions about the nature of reality:
1. Reality is singular. One without a second.
2. Reality is universal.
3. Reality is self-existent (uncaused and independent)
4. Reality can't be created or destroyed (it's eternal, in the timeless sense)
5. Reality is unlimited. (infinite) (although its limited when we turn it into a concept)
6. Reality is maximally simple and maximally complex
7. Reality is perfect (if it were not, that would mean that reality somehow contradicts itself, which would be absurd.

However, I do not mean the apparent dualistic time-bound phenomenological world, but the inherent essential absolute reality. (Maybe that is a word salad. Maybe not)

I think it depends on what a person wants.
-If someone (genuinely) wants to be murdered, then it's not (at least not necessarily) immoral to murder them. (Let's say they are old and sick and have already lived a fulfilling life, as an example).
-Someone is middle aged, lived a decent life up to that point, their kids are already grown up, their divorced, of average to below average health. They have a moderate preference to live than to die, but isn't so attached either way. They would rather be murdered painlessly than endure any great hardship in life.
-Someone is young, full of great hopes and dreams, and would rather suffer any great hardship than lose their life. They would even prefer to be raped or tortured than to die. For such, murdering them may be the worse thing you could do.

I don't mean to show age bias. An older person could value their life or be as valuable to society as a younger person, or more. However, I do think it can be argued that murder is worse or less worse depending upon how many days of life one has deprived someone of(though I don't think its the only factor) so that, if you have a 20 year old and an 80 year old who both equally value their life and are r equal in their contributions to society, and assuming the 80 year old would die sooner, it could be argued that it would be more immoral to kill the younger person.

Edit: As a side note, I think people tend to over-value existing. What matters is depth of living, not just being existing. Many of us are already living as if were mostly dead already, and would prefer to live mostly out of a fear of dying, rather than of genuinely loving life...I'm one of such people, unfortunately, to an extent