In no particular order:

Nietzsche
Socrates
Diogenes
Hume
George Carlin
Camus
Plato
Hitchens
Johnathan Haidt
Saul Williams
Aleister Crowley
Carl Rogers
Marx
John Lennon
Cornell West

Megadeth- “Peace Sells”

Are you aware of any linguistic concept that is relevant to the paradox? — TheMadFool

No. Honestly, this is all rather over my head. I’m just expressing my own thoughts, I don’t really have any technical knowledge of linguistics.

What's your take on this? — TheMadFool

It’s tricky, but the only thing I can think of is that D and N are not actually equivalent, they only appear to be. If you just look at the subject and verb in each sentence separately, you’ll see that they are opposite (“I want” and “I don’t want”). To want implies that you experience the feeling of wanting. If you want nothing, are you still experiencing the feeling of wanting? I would argue that you don’t, which is why I say that statement is self-contradictory. You can’t both want and not want.

What say you? — TheMadFool

I guess in this particular case logic doesn’t really matter since what you’re talking about is human emotion, which is by definition irrational. If you’re describing something irrational, your description wouldn’t be accurate if it was rational itself. Right?

Well what's the meaning of the word "physical" at that point then? — khaled

I don’t know exactly, but I find it more reasonable to assume that perhaps we aren’t aware of all properties a physical thing can have, as opposed to assuming things must be immaterial. For example, some physical objects have the property of “color,” but others do not. So why couldn’t it be that some physical things have a subjective quality, or property, that allows us to experience them directly? If I’m remembering correctly, Searle may have proposed something similar.

Care to expand on this? — TheMadFool

You seemed to be asking why in everyday language “I want nothing,” and “I don’t want anything” are equivalent. I’m saying it’s because in everyday language we don’t strictly follow correct grammar or other rules of language. I guess the bigger picture is that when we communicate we have an intent; there’s something specific we want to communicate, and in everyday language if we can figure out the intent of the other person we typically ignore any errors they may have committed. This is why at dinner when someone says “pass the butter” I don’t bother correcting them that it’s actually margarine. I know what they mean, and that’s all that matters. It’s the same thing with “I want nothing.” I know that “I don’t want anything” is what is actually meant, so I let it slide and avoid seeming like a know-it-all if I correct them.

I don't see how this is relevant. — TheMadFool

It was just an example of how we don’t really bother with technicalities in everyday language, and that because of this when these errors are made they go uncorrected, which allows them to persist in usage.

This is the paradox. Can you give this a second look if you don't mind? Thanks — TheMadFool

The more I think about it, I’m second guessing whether or not “wanting to continue wanting” is even possible, and I think the issue is the same as the paradox you describe.

If you think of “want” as a set or category that contains objects capable of being wanted (cars, money, sex, love, etc.), then I’m not sure that “want” can logically be in both categories. Nor am I sure that “not wanting” can belong in the category of things capable of being wanted for the same reason. “Not wanting” should be it’s own separate category filled with things that are not wanted (death, pain, COVID, etc.).

So in language, if we’re going to say “I want...” the “...” must be something contained in the category “want” and vice versa. Make sense?

Ok, seems reasonable, so what happens when we get everything we want? — Hippyhead

Two things:

1: That isn’t possible, because what you want is to continue wanting. So getting what you want means continuing to want.

2: That is actually the state of things right now. You’re continuously wanting, so you’re getting what you want.

Any ideas on that front? — TheMadFool

Ignorance. It’s the same with how in common language sentences that use double negatives are still interpreted as making a negative statement, rather than a positive one. “I don’t have nothing” literally means “I do have something,” but is usually interpreted as “I don’t have anything.”

I mean what's the error in taking the sentences, 1. Not to want and 2. Want to not want as equivalent? — TheMadFool

Because “not wanting” is not an action. It’s the lack of an act (wanting). So you can’t say that you’re performing an act by not acting. Wanting to not want is incomprehensible in the literal sense; like heat that’s not hot.

I have a response to the version of the want paradox that goes like so: I don't want anything = I want nothing. — TheMadFool

I started a thread a while back that basically dealt with this, but regarding belief instead of “want.” I would argue that “I don’t want anything” is not equal to “I want nothing.” To me, phrases like “I want X” imply an intent to possess/own something. Therefore, X must be an actual thing, and nothing is not a thing.

I always thought Nietzsche got this question right.

“Man would rather will nothingness than not will,”

IOW’s we simply want to continue wanting forever.

Maybe off topic, but this reminds me of Kierkagaard’s stages of existence.

As I said, you can imagine red. So what you're saying is that color itself is an electromagnetic wave? So if we were to imagine color using memory does that make memroy an electromagnetic wave? What is memory then? — khaled

My point is that our brains interpret the raw data (wavelength) into a form that we are capable of understanding (experiencing). Memory would be the place that data is stored, after it has been interpreted. I don’t know the specific mechanics involved in choosing to think about a certain memory, and then accessing my memory to do so.

how exactly does imagination work in your view? — khaled

Well, I wasn’t planning on bringing this up, but I think people tend to overestimate how good our imagination is. What I mean is when we imagine the color red, we really do not see it. We see whatever our eyes are focused on. Nonetheless, there is “something” that happens called imagining, but what exactly that something is is a mystery to me. I would say somehow our brains activate whatever neural networks correspond to the color red which causes us to experience it, minus any actual visual data or context.

So they're clearly not the same thing. — khaled

I agree, but I don’t understand why they both can’t be physical.

A bit of a side note, but do you think consciousness is required to experience qualia? There are animals with no brains, which implies that they are not conscious, which are still able to navigate their environment and discriminate between different types of things (food, mate, etc.).

I think it should be an elective course only. I can only imagine the shitstorm that fundamentalist Christian parents would create if philosophy was a required class. Not that I mind pissing off fundamentalist Christians, but you couldn’t pay me enough to deal with the everyday drama of teaching philosophy as a required class to any age children.

That said, for the backward or uncultured children (of which I most definitely qualified as), philosophy, or at least philosophical thinking, can bring some much needed intellectual excitement to their not-quite-yet closed minds. And maybe it could help with typical teenage angst or rebellion, or maybe it would just cause more, I’m not sure which.

So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes? — khaled

Memory. Because, as you’ve noted, you cannot imagine the color red without seeing it first. So when we imagine it now, we are just remembering or recalling our prior knowledge of what it looks like.

So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand? — khaled

No.

Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave? — khaled

I’m going to say yes. That is the only way we can experience the color red. If there is no wave, there is no color red.

Or that mind does not exist, or is not what it is claimed to be (immaterial). Or, if all is mind is not able to justify its conclusions logically it refutes itself. Or, if all is mind is not able to explain better the nature of the universe than materialism.

I'm not saying that the object is immaterial. — khaled

I wasn’t trying to either. I meant color.

I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property. — khaled

Then how do we see it? Similar to brain states and consciousness, I equate color and wavelength emitted. The emitted wavelength is what we are seeing. Certain emitted wavelengths are red. But the point is that we are not capable of seeing anything that is immaterial. Sight requires photons, which are physical.

And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness. — khaled

I worded it that way because that in itself may not be consciousness. I didn’t want to exclude whatever parts of the brain are active during sleep. They may need to be active in addition to whatever parts are not in order to be conscious. So the inactive parts of the brain during sleep relate to consciousness because they are a part of the whole.

Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball. — khaled

True, but what makes you think that the sensation of hitting a tennis ball isn’t physical? We can’t experience exactly what others do, and we can’t know exactly how others experience. But I don’t see how this calls into question whether or not what we experience is physical or not. I don’t need to know how you experience seeing a rock to know that it’s physical. We can only experience physical things. Therefore all things experienced are physical. Even if you’re trying to get at experience itself, it still must be physical, because it to is experienced.

For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color. — khaled

So you’re claiming that when we see color, we’re seeing something immaterial? Care to explain how that works? The fact that people perceive the same phenomena differently has no bearing on whether or not the object is physical. Our sense receptors have varying levels of sensitivity. By and large, that is what causes differences in perception.

If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”. — khaled

If true, this is news to me. But regardless, it isn’t as simple as quantifying our brain activity. The particular parts of the brain that are active also play a role. We are able to determine the difference between a brain that is awake, and one that is asleep, right? If so, I would claim whatever that difference is has to relate to consciousness.

I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”. — khaled

Perhaps it’s an indirect observation, but how can you be sure that whatever brain activity you’re observing isn’t consciousness itself? If you observe people hitting a tennis ball back and forth across a net, are you observing a game of tennis?

The obvious choice for anyone that’s aware of it...



Here’s why.



Black then white are all I see in my infancy
Red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me
Lets me see

As below, so above and beyond, I imagine
Drawn beyond the lines of reason
Push the envelope, watch it bend

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
Withering my intuition, missing opportunities and I must
Feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines

Black then white are all I see in my infancy
Red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me
Lets me see
There is so much more
And beckons me to look through to these infinite possibilities

As below, so above and beyond, I imagine
Drawn outside the lines of reason
Push the envelope, watch it bend

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
Withering my intuition leaving opportunities behind

Feed my will to feel this moment
Urging me to cross the line
Reaching out to embrace the random
Reaching out to embrace whatever may come

I embrace my desire to
I embrace my desire to
Feel the rhythm, to feel connected
Enough to step aside and weep like a widow
To feel inspired
To fathom the power
To witness the beauty
To bathe in the fountain
To swing on the spiral
To swing on the spiral to

Swing on the spiral
Of our divinity
And still be a human

With my feet upon the ground I lose myself
Between the sounds and open wide to suck it in
I feel it move across my skin
I'm reaching up and reaching out
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me
What ever will bewilder me
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been

Spiral out, keep going
Spiral out, keep going
Spiral out, keep going
Spiral out, keep going

“That’s the way life is. You feel like shit one day, and die the next.”

-A guy I recently drug tested at work.

You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red. — khaled

Yeah, because we’re unable to visualize, or imagine particular wavelengths, etc. You can’t hear the color red either, because redness is a strictly visual property. So I don’t see what this proves. Redness is still a physical property, it just can’t be perceived through any medium other than vision.

Both have not been observed by the senses — khaled

I would say we can observe consciousness when we observe brain activity. We are able to correctly predict whether or not someone is conscious by observing brain states, right?

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. — Yohan

Thanks for clearing that up, at least now I know what I’m arguing against. I would say that to a certain, limited extent, we are able to observe whatever is going on in someone’s “mind.” Granted there is no apparatus that can decipher the precise content of your thoughts, memories, feelings, etc., but we are able to observe that you are or are not conscious, in an emotional state, thinking logically, etc. Being that there is a direct causal relationship between physical brain states, consciousness, and qualia, the evidence points to materialism.

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. — Yohan

I like to think those things not so much as things, but more like events. They will not reduce to one neuron, or 1,000 neurons. Nor will they reduce to neurotransmitters, hormones, or subatomic particles. The point I think that gets lost is that when a thought occurs, it is the result of very complex interactions that occur within the brain. So to use an analogy, thoughts are like races, as in motorcycle races, not ethnicities. A race isn’t really a physical thing, it’s an event that involves physical objects. When certain physical objects do certain things in certain ways, it’s a race. Same with thoughts, decisions, feelings, etc.

Except this would be more akin to a situation in which two persons are drowning and only one can be saved. — Tzeentch

Right, but the justification is the same. I guess what I’m getting at is that intentionally causing (allowing) harm is either ok or it’s not. If you try saying it is ok, you end up with conclusions that are undesirable. If you try to say it’s wrong, then there are still situations (I would say many situations) where you have to intentionally cause or allow harm in order to do the right thing (helping someone else).

I'd say the moral thing to do is to save one rather than to let both drown. I'd certainly not consider it immoral to save at least one. — Tzeentch

Well, yeah, we’re in agreement here, it’s just a matter of justifying it in a way that remains applicable in other situations as well. Life just seems too varied to apply any type of moral justification across the board in any and all circumstances.

:up: Did you happen to see my earlier Saul Williams posts? I think you basically can consider all of his songs as deep.

First, I don't think this constitutes harming someone. Whatever C needs help with, this harm has already been done in the past. Therefore C needing help is the starting point and not a result of A's actions. — Tzeentch

Ok, but by not helping C you are causing additional harm by allowing it to continue. If this type of action is permissible, then so are actions like allowing someone to drown, be tortured, etc. If your cook with that, then fine, but I’ve always seen neglect as a type of immoral act. C needs help, and you intentionally not helping causes C’s suffering to continue. Therefore you’re intentionally causing harm, or allowing it to continue, which to me amounts to the same thing since the outcome is the same. Therefore doing so is immoral.

Second, as I argued, the neutral situation here is that both B and C need help, and if A only has the capability of helping one or the other, he is still capable of producing a net positive effect where either B or C is helped, instead of both not being helped. — Tzeentch

Right, but your focus is on intention. So in this situation you are intending harm, or at least its continuation, which according to you is wrong. Unless you want to make a distinction between causing harm and allowing it to continue I don’t see a way out of the issue (other than giving up on intentions being the most important factor).

"I exist" is not an observation? What is it then? — khaled

I don’t really care about this, but if it were an observation, it would of had to been observed using one of our five senses. “I exist” is arrived at through deductive reasoning. Perhaps you could argue that it is felt or sensed, but Decartes doubted his senses/feelings.

I never get materialists doubting their own consciousness. — khaled

I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain.

Do you really think you're mindless? No, you don't. So, why waste people's time on such idiocy? — RogueAI

I’m being sincere, but you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself. You posit minds exist, but can’t or won’t define them. You also can’t or won’t provide evidence of their existence. You seem to have no problem disparaging my comments, but again won’t or can’t explain why. I’m willing to learn about your position and consider it. Are you willing to explain it?

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.

I agree with @Pfhorrest, but I come to this conclusion through different means. I simply do not think that the government, any government, has the right to limit its citizens “freedom” unless doing so protects the property or health of others. I should have the sole authority of what I do with my body, and what I put into it.

Now, does that create a better society? I’m not entirely sure, but at least it’s consistent, and the responsibility for a persons health lies, rightly, with that person.

But that isn’t the case. Someone is helped, it’s just that someone else is also harmed, and the intent doesn’t provide a clear decision on how to judge the act. If you know an act will cause harm and help, can you perform that act without intending to both help and cause harm? I don’t think you can. So if you try to live according to the maxim do (or intend) no harm it will actually cause you to also do no good.

Nonsense. — RogueAI

How?

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

Why?

So in these cases one's intentions do not match the actual results. In other words, despite one's best intentions one was ignorant of what was required to achieve the desired results. — Tzeentch

No, the intentions do match. I think you may be misunderstanding me. I intend to help Bill, and in fact do help him, but doing so also harms Tom, either intentionally or not intentionally. The other case is just the inverse of this. I intend to harm Bill, and do so, but doing so also helps Tom, either intentionally or not intentionally.

Lets take our friend with a psychological problem again. Lets say I want to help him, and I succeed in doing so. Who or what would be the party that is harmed in this example? — Tzeentch

Well, it depends on how picky you want to be. Perhaps I could argue that I am harmed in this situation, because you aren’t helping me with my psychological issues. Basically, isn’t it very likely that there is also someone other than this friend that you could have spent your time helping, but didn’t, and that they suffered as a result of that? These types of scenarios seem unavoidable to me since we can’t be everywhere at once. We end up having to choose who we help, and who we don’t help, with the limited amount of time we have. Also, I think there is a case to be made for neglecting oneself in the service of others, or vice versa.

Do you believe brains are identical to minds? — RogueAI

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.

:lol: I’m a dumbass sometimes...

An act of a person is moral if it is done with the intention of helping another. — Tzeentch

The question I see being problematic with this is what if helping one person inadvertently, or perhaps even knowingly, harms someone else?

An act of a person is immoral if it done with the intention of hurting another. — Tzeentch

Again, basically the same point with this. What if intentionally harming someone helps someone else?

And if in such a situation one does hurt others (without any intention) it is only a matter of ignorance. — Tzeentch

What if it is intentional, like when a boxer intentionally inflicts as much damage as possible within the rules in order to win the match? Perhaps the contractual nature of boxing, and sports in general, eliminates morality? If I say it’s ok for you to intentionally harm me, is it actually ok?

Since a person can never be said to be completely certain of anything, he is always to a degree ignorant, and therefore is not capable of a perfectly moral act. — Tzeentch

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe you could argue that a perfectly moral act actually requires some level of ignorance. I find it difficult to think of an act that is essentially vacuous, that only affects one person at one particular time and place. Because of this, it is likely that what helps one person may unknowingly harm someone else. So, if one were omnipotent, and was aware of these unforeseen consequences, would s/he even be capable of only intending to do good? Basically, I think most, perhaps all, moral acts are the type of situation where doing A helps B, but harms C. If we have full understanding, then doing A is intentionally causing both harm and help at the same time, which isn’t perfectly moral.

I like the word pinprick, for whatever reason. I think it started with the way the word is used in the Marilyn Manson song “Cyclops.” I had an artist friend and I thought “Pinprick Productions” would be a cool name for a production company. I liked the alliteration, and even came up with a logo and introduction thing you see at the beginning of movies. Basically, a black screen with dots of light being poked in it in the shape of a spiral (which again was a reference to the MM song). The word seemed to grow from there, and seemed appropriate for whatever I was doing creatively. I occasionally write poetry and used pinprick as a play on pen-prick. For philosophy, it seems to fit my style of primarily trying to poke holes in arguments, rather than create much of my own.

If you are equating minds and brains, why are you asking me "what is mind?" — RogueAI

Because you’re not being understood. I’ll elaborate my confusion:

I gave you an argument that if minds are brains, then talk of minds is talk of brains. — RogueAI

What do you mean by talk of brains/minds? Does talk of brains mean talking about things like neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters? Or does it mean talking about things like thoughts, memories, and ideas? If the former, then no ancient Greeks couldn’t talk about brains, because they had no knowledge of the existence of neurons, etc. If the latter, then of course they could, but that is really talking about the content of brains/minds. Think about a cup of water as an analogy. We can talk about the cup itself, it’s size, shape, material, etc.; and we can talk about its content, the water.

ancient peoples could meaningfully talk about their minds without meaningfully talking about their brains. — RogueAI

They could talk about the content of their minds/brains, but not about their brains/minds themselves. But that is only due to their ignorance.

This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” — khaled

If my personal views are irrelevant then I can still have them without them skewing my results. For example, if I’m measuring something, my religious, political, etc. beliefs will not influence my measurement. Therefore, my measurement is objective.

Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. — khaled

If you choose an untrue premise, then the argument isn’t logically sound.

You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever — khaled

Or, you’ll reach a premise that is also factual. Something like this:

Water is a liquid.
All liquids take the shape of their container.
Therefore, water will take the shape of its container.

This argument is logically sound and valid. It is also objective. This is an objective truth.

2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. — khaled

This does explain something. It explains what the value of “2” and “4” is, as well as what it means to add. Also, if this is referring to actual objects, it explains the quantity of those objects, or groups, whichever the case.

But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with. — khaled

I’m not trying to make that claim. People are irrational, and will believe whatever they want, or are compelled/forced to believe.

But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge. — khaled

If you don’t know how to add, and then you learn how to, don’t you now know something that you previously didn’t? Even counting can lead you to learn something. You don’t know how many pennies are in my pocket. You count them, and now you know. That’s new knowledge.

Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error” — khaled

If the point you’re trying to make is that people don’t always believe what is true, then of course I agree. There will likely always be someone that disagrees with everything, but this isn’t an issue with “truth” or “knowledge,” but with humans.

Ok so I now propose to you a theory:

Pens never run out ink

I have just written a line with a pen

Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect

Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time. — khaled

I think you should consider the opposite when making theories that presume eternal consistency. For example, you should see what the hypothesis “pens will run out of ink” concludes. Or that “when a force is acted upon an object, that object moves.” The conclusions of these experiments would provide causes. This would lead to the truth that force causes motion. If that is true, then it’s inverse(?) would also be true (that objects do not move unless acted upon by a force).

At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time? — khaled

I don’t really know if you can, but if you’ve tested every possible counter theory, and they’ve all failed, then what is left to doubt? But of course that just shifts the issue to knowing when every possible counter theory has been tested. I guess the point is that science isn’t meant to be static, or that 100% certainty isn’t possible (although Decartes’ cogito may be an exception). But does this have any relevance to whether or not explanatory power is the best criteria for judging a theory? Or that theories with no explanatory power must be refuted before they can be considered false?

If minds are identical to brains and two people from ancient Greece are talking about their minds, it would follow that they're talking about their brains. The problem is that ancient Greeks COULD have meaningful discussions about their mental states. They could not have meaningful discussions about their brain states. They thought the brain cooled the blood. Therefore, brains aren't identical to minds. — RogueAI

I don’t understand any of what you’re trying to say here, so let’s start at the beginning. First, what is “mind?” Second, what’s the difference between “mind states” and “brain states?”

And what does this mean exactly? — khaled

That you aren’t letting your personal views (opinions) cloud your judgement, draw inaccurate conclusions, etc.

And again, how does one know they’re unbiased — khaled

By being able to justify your claims logically, rather than resorting to some preference to do so.

When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”? — khaled

Well, that would be a subjective truth, but otherwise yes.

So why are we having this conversation? — khaled

Lol, now you’re starting to sound like me.

That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in — khaled

No one believes something because they think it’s false. Therefore, people believe what they think is true. If truth exists, it must have an object that it is describing accurately (some feature of the world, a concept, physical object, etc.). Therefore, any idea/theory that aims at truth must explain something. Therefore the best ideas/theories are those that have explanatory power. What exactly do you disagree with here? Are you claiming that a theory/idea that explains nothing can somehow still be true? If so, please try to give me an example, because I don’t even see how a theory that doesn’t explain anything can even be considered a theory.

This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. — khaled

What if I use these “true by definition” concepts to learn new things? Does that count as knowledge? BTW, those examples were meant to counter your statement that there is nothing that everyone will agree with. But, consider the example of measuring something. I can objectively say it is 12 inches long after I have measured it. I didn’t previously know the length of the object, but now I do, and because I used an objective form of measurement the knowledge gleaned from its use is also objective.

Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. — khaled

Well, at least partially incorrect, but I have no issue with this. But, this doesn’t mean every “theory” has to be disproven to be incorrect. Hitchen’s razor is a good example of what I’m getting at. Some “theories” aren’t really theories at all because they don’t explain anything, or because they simply assert premise(s) arrived at irrationally and draw whatever conclusions happen to follow.

Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)? — khaled

See above example of measuring.

How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? — khaled

Once. But, if there are changes in the environment that could have an affect on gravity, then the experiment would need to be conducted under those particular circumstances.

At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory? — khaled

One, unless something in the environment has changed. If I hypothesize that I cannot walk through walls, and then proceed to attempt to do so, and fail to do so; then I can accurately say that I cannot walk through walls (at least at this particular time, with walls made out of this particular substance, under these specific circumstances, etc.).

I think it's sort of a chicken and egg effect. Suffering causes a desire for things to be different than they are, and a desire for things to be different than they are causes suffering — Pfhorrest

But without suffering one would not desire for things to be different, right? Suffering necessarily becomes the first cause, or first link in the causal chain.

Since when is objective = what everyone prefers? — khaled

For me objectivity means unbiased. I don’t consider desiring truth to be a bias because it is essentially the entire point of thought itself. This is demonstrated by its universal acceptance. Of course there are disagreements on what is true, or whether truth even exists, but that is irrelevant. No one chooses to believe something because they think it’s false.

There is nothing everyone who is, ever was, and ever will be, will agree on. — khaled

That a foot is 12 inches, that the correct spelling of “the” in English is t-h-e, that chess is a game, etc., etc. People may mistakenly think otherwise, but that is only due to human error.

Notice the "At least seems that way". Very important. So at no point can you actually know it is that way right? — khaled

I only added that to account for different types of “its.” IOW’s it depends on the subject. Facts, such as my above examples, can be known with certainty.

That much is true but not vice versa. If the method you select does provide the most accurate models it MAY not be wrong. — khaled

So you’re saying the most accurate models could still be wrong? I’m sure that’s true with some things, but I would limit those to only things that are not fully explained.

Why do you claim the existence of a "Best standard"? If there is such a thing then what is it? — khaled

A standard aims to determine something, correct? For instance, to use one of your examples, if the aim is to establish which of two novels has the fewest words, then the best standard would be one that actually counts the number of words. But having “the fewest number of words” as a standard for truth makes no sense, as the number of words is irrelevant to a thing’s truth value.

But what makes you think a bunch of rocks floating in space imply some "Objective standards" with which some evolved ape on one of said rocks must debate? — khaled

I don’t think that. I don’t think that objective standards are implied by planets. I believe that truth is objective, which isn’t to say that truth exists in all discourses, but just that if truth exists in a particular area of discourse, then it must be objective. I also believe that there are ways to arrive at truth. Therefore, when considering whether or not a particular idea or theory is true, it is necessary to examine it’s methodology, because not all methods are even capable of arriving at truth in the first place. Therefore a standard is needed to determine which methods are capable, and which aren’t. And that standard is explanatory power, because in order for any statement to be true, it must be able to demonstrate how it arrived at that conclusion. IOW’s it must explain something.