What does it mean to understand? — Agent Smith

Pattern recognition.

Logic/Rationality/Reason is the heart/nub/crux of wisdom. — Agent Smith

Thats what the logicians and rationalists want you to think. If that were true, then the nerds, dorks, and eggheads would have street smarts, am I wrong? Just being devils advocate.

I think dad jokes are basically puns?

It is really frustrating ... So much rage in that voice - I suppose its typical of death metal singing, screaming rather! I'm sure the vocalist is quite different from the persona he acts out on stage/in the studio. — Agent Smith

:100:
He's catholic.

I no longer wish to be a philosopher - an ugly, annoying Greek (re Socrates)! — Agent Smith

"No refunds" - Socrates

I want to clarify what I said about scientists.

I want to take it further. I think science and philosophy should be given each other's label.

Love of wisdom is more about understanding and pragmatism. This is how a lot of us view science. A way to understand the world, which gives us an ability to predict results, and gives us a pragmatic upper hand. Someone who understands things, and can predict outcomes, and makes balanced pragmatic choices, I consider a wise one, a philosopher

Science, knowledge, should be about seeking definite knowledge. It has nothing to do with theory (understanding). Throw away theory and focus only on what are certain about. Descartes approach to me represented the ideal of science, getting to the bottom of all beliefs to what one can be sure of. Socrates I also consider to have been a scientist, in realizing he knew nothing.

Haven't I said enough pseudo coherent babble?

As I see it, only bad arguments lead to infinite regress.
Contradiction and infinite regress are the two things I look for to test if an argument is grounded in reality.

Consider:
Schools basically kill the spirit of learning in countless amounts of children. Is that not akin to murder?

This is an example of the availability bias. Physical murder is obvious to the senses. Intellectual murder is invisible.

If we reduce this to mathematics:
Does 1+1 equal 2 because God created the rules of math, or does God proclaim that 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2?
Is there a third option? That God IS the rules of math?

What is the basis for axioms. Philosophy and science, any knowledge endeavor, relies upon axioms. Where do axioms get their authority from? What are axioms? Physical, mental, or something else?

Axioms don't strike me as physical. Therefor I am inclined to think they rest upon some absolute "mind" sort of reality.

Are axioms true because God says so, or does God proclaim the axioms because they are true, or is God the apex axiom?

Pending

After eliminating the possibility that the world 'exists', however you take that word, something else must be the case. No? — magritte

I don't know, I think I was talking nonsense

I think there are only so many fundamental ideas.
But an infinite potential for combination of ideas.

Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century:
Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others;
Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected;
Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it;
Refusing to set aside trivial preferences;
Neglecting development and refinement of the mind;
Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do.
Marcus Tullius Cicero

I am learning toward mistakes having to do with trust:
Trusting oneself too much or not enough.
And
Trusting others too much or not enough


"Better safe than sorry" sounds like a good motto for avoiding careless mistakes.

What would be the complimentary motto for when it is important to take a leap of faith rather than stay in comfort zone?

Maybe Socrates: I only know that I know nothing. (can't be sure of anything and will never leave comfort zone if expect absolute certainty first)

the next step is to explain these patterns and gain insight into the human psyche. — Agent Smith

Right. i was using the shallow meaning of study as in merely gaining knowledge or observing a phenomenon.
Instead of:
"a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation."
Or "careful examination or analysis of a phenomenon, development, or question"
Eg. What are mistakes? Why do we make them?

Unrelated:
For mistakes in context of foolishness, here is my current take on the types of foolish mistakes, or what leads to them:

1. Overconfidence and carelessness. (Leading to nontrivial reasonably avoidable mistakes)
2. Being negative about mistakes instead of focusing on learning a lesson. (Fixed negative narrative "I am a failure" instead of narrative of a learning curve "I am in a process learning by trial and error". Not grasping that mistakes are part of learning) AKA. unrealistic expectations: perfectionism. Biting off more than can chew at the moment. Not pacing oneself.
3. Not applying the lesson learned. (Mistaking knowing with being. Naive idea of what it means to learn.) Lack of thoroughness. Dunning Kreuger

In some sense, yes.
For example logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Errors in logic and thinking.

Then you have Aesop's fables and Panchatantra etc which are all about mistakes in judgment in every day living.

You can also look up "Life lessons" or proverbs, "words of wisdom", advices and tips, mottos, dictums, precepts, which are in most or many cases lessons learned from mistakes. Or, you follow those things to avoid mistakes.

Then, 'vices' can be thought of in a sense as character mistakes and 'neuroses' as errors in the psyche..

And then health or medicine can be thought of as the study/practice of avoiding or correcting health mistakes, isseus or 'disease'.

Anyway I am drawing out of the lines.
Technically the answer to your question is no, as far as I know.
But what I mentioned could be points or sources from/with which to investigate 'patterns of error'

Hmm, even methodologies could thought of as "mistake avoidance methods". As, we follow methods not only to get from point A to point B, but also in order to avoid errors along the way.

PS.
Don't know how much it relates, but I am big believer in 'via negativa'. Not only for describing God or the Tao or the ultimate truth (apophatic?) but also how to live well. The key to the good life is avoiding false beliefs and negative habits. Not adopting positive beliefs or habits. But, this could very well be a matter of temperament.

---Edit: On the other hand over focus on 'what not to do' could have the potential pitfall of becoming an “ironic process”, as in "Don't think of a pink elephant"

“ironic process theory,” whereby deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts actually make them more likely to surface.

There is a gigantic difference between not doing something and resisting doing something. Resisting is a type of doing. It is active.

There is also the unfortunate condition of being so error-phobic that one ends up doing nothing. That is where I am at now.

Atelophobia is an obsessive fear of imperfection. Someone with this condition is terrified of making mistakes. They tend to avoid any situation where they feel they won't succeed. Atelophobia can lead to anxiety, depression and low self-esteem.

The key to curing Atelophobia may be to not focus on what could go wrong...but without creating an ironic process. :chin:

P1: if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist — aminima

I believe this is the point of contention.

Why would nonresistant nonbelievers necessarily not exist if God exists?

p2. "Nonresistant" flat earthers do exist. — 180 Proof

Hmm, are you sure? The flat earthers I have observed online seem very resistant to evidence of round earth.

@aminima, I think what you are saying is that if God exists, he would be readily knowable to people that aren't opposed to the idea of him.
Like 1+1 equaling 2, God should be easy to deduce if he were a necessary being.

I think you are right.
However, like @Tom Storm pointed out, it depends on what the essential qualities of God are.

One of the major issues I observe is when atheists and/or theists conflate or equivocate between God as some necessary ultimate metaphysical ground of being and God as some being existing within reality. Eg, the Greek and Hindu pantheon of deities.

One argument is that ultimate reality should be so real that questioning it would seem absurd, non-sensical, self-refuting. Like questioning if 1+1 really equals 2.

I find it very easy to question the ultimate reality of this "world."
I can easy imagine it not existing.

In fact, a common question philosophers ask is why there is something rather than nothing. In other words, why does the world exist?
We ask this question because it seems strange that there is anything at all.
Intuitively timeless spaceless total nothingness makes more sense.
There should be nothing, but apparently there is something.
But it can't be made sense of.
Something coming from nothing doesn't make sense.
And the idea of this world of space and time always having existed also doesn't make sense.
If anything, this world existing is self-contradictory.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the case." Arthur Conan Doyle

I don't understand what you mean. For me you appear to be talking in circles. "Real is real, and imaginary is imaginary". Like 'real' and 'imaginary' are well settled and clearly demarcated.
I am confident we cannot have a conversation because I think our metaphysical foundations are diametrically opposite. Good day.

Real vs imaginary:
Its a bit like a drawing of a baseball vs a baseball that can be thrown around.
In normal speech if we ask if the drawing of a baseball is a real baseball, what is meant is, can we do with the baseball drawing what we can do with what we think of as baseballs. Throw them around.
A drawing of a baseball is not an unreal baseball. Its just not a baseball.
Or a plastic fruit vs an edible fruit.
When you imagine a baseball, ok its imaginary. But its still real as far as it goes. Its just you can't do with an imaginary baseball the same things you can do with a baseball that exists in consensus reality.

The key is steady eye contact.
— Yohan
The key to what? And with whom? — Seeker

Lucid dreaming is full of surprises and this is part of its fascination. We are not the sole creators of a lucid dream; there’s another force there, the force of the unconscious mind, a hotbed of emotions, associations, memories, instinctual drives and symbolic imagery.

The lucid dream is co-created: it’s a mutual dance. This is one reason why it is generally a wise idea to treat all lucid dream figures with respect, in erotic situations as in any other. It’s also helpful to expect the unexpected, remain mentally flexible, and learn to laugh at yourself. With this mindset, we can learn to dance to the creative beat of the lucid dream.

source: deepluciddreaming.con

First couple minutes good, but goes on too long and gets too religious at the end.

.

The key is steady eye contact.

If climate change is as serious as some are saying, and not close to being solved, as appears to be the case, will anything short of a major revolution suffice?

No people in the world ever did achieve their freedom by goody-goody talk and moral suasion: it being immutable law that all revolutions that will succeed, must begin in blood, whatever the answer afterward. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.

-- Samuel Clemens

You're my AWACS — Agent Smith

You are my ASAC :ok: (Heard the term on Breaking Bad, and I thought it might fit. You being an Agent and all) See you around, Agent :cool:

I pray to The Almighty that my performance meets everyone's expectations, but don't count on it, ok? — Agent Smith

Break a leg! :lol: (reverse psychology???)

reject accept Maya, don't we all enjoy magic? However, a big however, Maya bites deep & hard. Expect some cuts & bruises and even an early appointment with the Grim Reaper. — Agent Smith

I can feel the bitter medicine sting my tongue.
Enjoy the show. But expect the bill! Did you think admission was free? Your turn to perform is coming!

Negative visualization or futurorum malorum præmeditatio is a method of meditative praxis or askēsis by visualization of the worst-case scenario. The method originated with the Cyreanic philosophers and was later adopted by Stoic philosophers. — wikipedia

I might say 'pre-scientific rigor' vs 'scientifically rigorous'

I wonder then, where are the other monkeys? — Agent Smith

Isn't that the rest of us? Or do you think the rest of us know what we are doing?

Problem I have with an "All inclusive set" is that apparently I can imagine a larger and larger set, ad infinitum.
No matter how big I imagine "Everything" to be, the actual 'everything' may be a lot bigger. An ant's idea of "everything" may be a lot smaller than my conception. While God's or a much more advanced being's idea of "everything" may be much bigger than mine.

How do supposed rational beings, wise from practice in some cognitive gymnasium, stay cool under pressure? — Nils Loc

Through either
-Metaphysics - Understanding that the things that are an apparent source of stress may not having any ultimate (ontological?) reality. (“I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, most of which never happened” -Samuel Clemens.)
or
-Pragmatism
Reminding oneself that worrying and panicking doesn't help the situation. Instead of asking "What could go wrong" ask "What is the best thing I can realistically do?"

Why did the philosopher cross the road?

Because it was the most reasonable thing to do? — Nils Loc

Because he thought it was reasonable.

Nothing is what it seems.
Appearances are deceptive.
Truth is stranger than fiction!
Expect the unexpected.

Love it, hate it, sic vita est, si señor? — Agent Smith

Such life on social media!

I doubt there is really "pre-science".
Science is rather a spectrum from minimal to maximal scientific rigor.

...it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.
DESCARTES