So, in exactly what sense is my statement untrue? What we directly experience is our senses. — Art48

As I noted, this is a metaphysical question, not a factual one. The proper way of evaluating metaphysical issues is in terms of their usefulness. I think saying that what we experience isn't real is denying the meaning of the reality of our daily lives—pork pies, pomegranates, pandas, Priuses. And what do we get in return? That doesn't mean your way of seeing things is wrong, only that it is not right either. It's just a matter of perspective.

For instance, we may sense water but if it's a mirage, there is no water, merely the sensations that normally indicate water. — Art48

Of course, our senses are fallible. We make mistakes. In my way of looking at it, that means we don't see reality clearly, perfectly, not that what we see isn't reality.

I'd at least add the present craze for giving inadequate, even inept, answers to philosophical questions using bad physics. — Banno

Ha, ha, ha, ha....Hey‽

...for example? — Banno

As I've noted before, many, perhaps most, disagreements here on the forum come from 1) failure to adequately define the terms of the discussion; 2) mistaking metaphysical issues for matters of fact rather than convention; or 3) focusing on trivial or pointless formalities at the expense of insight, e.g. squawking about logical fallacies. Add to that inapt, unrealistic thought experiments; quoting famous philosophers as a substitute for thinking things through; irrelevant comments and non-sequiturs; personal attacks and uncivility...

I can't claim never to have participated in some of these practices, but I try hard every day not to do so again.

does it actually matter if the tree is a theoretical construct or a physical construct? — invicta

I assume you're answer is "no." If so, I agree with you.

The idea of matter being a theoretical construct is independent of solipsism. We do not directly experience matter, let's say, a tree. Why? Because we can only experience the physical sensations of touch, taste, sound, light, and odor. We have no special tree-sensing sense. — Art48

People are always saying this, but it's really untrue in an important sense. The only worthwhile thing "direct experience of the external world" can mean is what we can experience with our senses along with any technological extensions we can devise. There's a song I've been singing for a long time here on the forum—it's metaphysics. Now, I love metaphysics as long as it's useful, but I think this particular one is not.

Of course, no metaphysical position is more useless than solipsism itself. It ranks up there with the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, Descartes' malevolent demon, simulation theories of reality, dreaming butterfly, and any other position that can't be verified and isn't useful. I didn't include @Wayfarer's Hindu mythology in my list because I think it is specifically aimed at and useful for undermining our human need for stories and explanations; although Hindus, and Wayfarer, probably wouldn't describe it that way.

Grasping at straws. Comforting just-so stories. But not clear, critical philosophy. — Banno

Much of what you call "critical philosophy" is grasping at straws and just-so stories. The parts that aren't mostly consist of pointing out that much of what is called "critical philosophy" is grasping at straws and just-so stories.

That is an unorthodox way of defining intuition, but I'll work with it. — Judaka

Yes, and that bothers me. I don't think it's really a different phenomenon, just a different understanding of where it comes from. I'm not sure about that.

I wouldn't say it's just about pre-existing models though. It's about the habits one has in terms of favouring factors for interpretation, relevance, narrative, characterisation etc. It happens in an instant. Take a simple comparison between a stereotypical introvert and an extrovert. Their preferences, how things make them feel, what their interests are, they're going to manifest in what things they choose to focus on, and how to characterise those things, or feel about them, interpret them and so on. — Judaka

That's one of the things I meant when I wrote "a combination of experience and inherent capabilities." That probably should have read "experience and inherent capabilities and tendencies."

I am not criticising intuition as you describe it, I am saying that one's intuition should be evaluated by what it produces. And that what it produces is of the utmost importance, and one should aim to determine their desired outcomes and influence their intuition in the ways one believes are likely to produce them. Do you agree with that? — Judaka

Yes, I agree.

A couple of quotes from some of @Wayfarer's past posts.

The God-realised being - Ramana Maharishi, another Indian sage, died 1960, was the archetype - realises that only God is real, and says that the apparent world of multiplicity and strife is actually māyā, an illusion, with which the mind has become entanged through avidya, ignorance. (Although, this is a rather different 'God' [if there can be different Gods] to the stern patriarchal figure of the Old Testament - the Hindu name is Brahman.) — Wayfarer

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. Which actually dovetails nicely with some elements of Platonism, i.e. the 'unforgetting' (anamnesis) of the state of omniscience that obtained prior to 'falling' in to carnal existence. Note well however the mention of 'taboo' in the title. — Wayfarer

I steal these whenever this type of subject comes up. Thanks again Wayfarer.

Forfar or Killie? — universeness

Mull.

This is a pragmatic approach to knowledge. — Cidat

Agreed. Knowledge is all about useful information. What other possible meaning can it have? Can't get more pragmatic than that.

The most common definition is "Justified True Belief", but there are examples called Gettier cases that show that one can have a justified true belief that is not knowledge because the justification for the belief is false. — Cidat

I, and many other people, think justified true belief (JTB) does not reflect how people know things or use the knowledge they have. As someone who had to deal with data, information, and knowledge for 30 years as an engineer, I think JTB is just silly. The one question that's important when dealing with information is—Can I use this information to decide on what to do next? You can't wait around to be sure something is true, you only have control over the level of justification you can provide.

I've run out of steam on this topic. — Jamal

I've found that about 150 posts is an ideal length for most discussions. After that, everyone, including me, starts repeating themselves. I'm not surprised you've had enough.

I could not disagree more, — universeness

Now you're just looking to start an argument. Let's share a meat pie instead.

Perhaps you have low standards of evidence or aren't very skeptical. Personal experience on its own isn't good enough to believe something is true. — GTTRPNK

You ignored my comment and just repeated what you wrote in your previous one. You're also commenting on a post I made a month ago. Let's just leave it at that.

Yes, I've written it in an unclear way, but we could replace "we" with "our brains" in many places in my OP. I'm unsure to what extent evolution is responsible for this phenomenon, as the alternative of not simplifying should be unworkable. Nonetheless, I agree evolution has played a significant role here. Much of what I'm describing occurs so quickly that we experience stimulus emotionally before even having a chance to utter a single word. Conscious thought takes a lot longer because it's much slower. — Judaka

I'm ok with this as long as you're not equating what I'm calling "intuition" with what you call experiencing stimulus emotionally.

Our brains are highly adaptable though, you've mentioned that you've worked as an engineer, and I'm sure that gives you a unique perspective where it's relevant. One that I wouldn't have, and your brain would use this to instantly pick things up, in this non-conscious way. That's a very highly specific knowledge that has worked its way into your thinking that wasn't there naturally. That's not intuition, it's the result of your education and experiences, it's different, right? — Judaka

As I noted in my previous response, I have run into disagreements about whether what I call "intuition" is really intuition or something else. In my understanding, intuition is a reflection of a model of the world I carry around in my head created by a combination of experience and built-in mental structures. It's something I am aware of in myself in a very substantial way. When I come across something new, I can compare it with my existing understanding of how the world works to see how it fits. All this usually happens before or at the same time the process enters my conscious awareness. I know from past conversations that many people don't experience it that way.

How we interpret, characterise, and emphasise, the narratives we create and the way in which we perceive things, even when done automatically, is influenced by our thinking. Consider how a sophisticated ideologue sees the world, through the narrow lens of his doctrine, that's not intuition, that's the result of their commitment to that ideology. — Judaka

Hmm.. that's a good question—are ideological beliefs part of intuition. I'll have to think about that more.

The simplification is mandatory, yet we do have some control over how it happens. Some ways in which we simplify are strongly determined by biology, but not everything. — Judaka

Sure, and what you said about my engineering background is relevant. In a sense what engineering has to do to actually decide how to proceed is to snip off a lot of specific information, e.g. use averages rather than individual data points. In engineering, when we say "rational" we generally mean calculable using accepted engineering and mathematical methods; what we would call "standard practices."

I consider truth to be most important in terms of realism, if one's plan relies on a thing being true and it isn't, then that plan is certain to fail. Outside of realism, one shouldn't use the truth to justify themselves, as this world contains many truths and what matters is which ones you're using and how, and that's not justified by something being true. How similar is that to what you meant? — Judaka

I agree with this, although I tend to describe it differently. I need valid information, i.e. knowledge, in order to make decisions. Knowledge has to be justified. Most importantly, that justification must take into account the uncertainty of the information and the consequences of being wrong. What you call "realism" is not a yes/no approach.

Sure, Anecdotal is a type of evidence but it is weak evidence when trying to convince someone else. I can just say "Cool story, bro" and not think twice about it. — GTTRPNK

I agree that it would be weak evidence in court, but at some level I find it convincing. Whether or not I take it as evidence for God, I do recognize it as something important that rationalism, or materialism, or whatever you call it misses.

Thanks, I guess there is some value in asking the question at the same time. — Sumyung Gui

A little history for you—The moderators here on the forum decided to lump all anti-natalism discussions into this one thread because they annoy some people. I mean the threads annoy some people, not the moderators. Well, the moderators annoy people too. So, anyway, you might find yourself responding to posts that are really old. Also—if you start a new anti-natalism thread, the moderators will likely move it here without telling you.

For your information—@schopenhauer1 is our resident anti-natalism expert.

Hi. Welcome to the forum. Agent Smith is no longer on the forum, so you won't get a response from him.

Can I go now? — Jamal

You provided a quote. I provided a relevant response. I didn't see it as a disagreement, just a different perspective. That's as far as I intended it to go here in the "Currently Reading" thread.

T Clark gave a very good rebuke of it which I agreed with. — invicta

My comment to @Jamal0544 was not a rebuke at all. It was a substantive response to a substantive post.

Yes, good point and I see that. But it’s not enough is it? That a country beset with racism was founded on egalitarianism might prompt us to wonder if there’s something wrong, or at least deficient, with that founding idea. — Jamal

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea. It's the failure to live up to it that's the problem. It still forms the foundation of my understanding of morality.

A politics which took this seriously should therefore not propagate even the idea of the abstract equality of human beings. They should rather point to the bad equality of today … and think of the better condition as the one in which one could be different without fear. — Adorno, Minima Moralia

This kind of idea always seems to me to miss the point. For me, it comes back to the words of the US Declaration of Independence—We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—All people are created morally equal. Equally deserving of respect and freedom. Whatever differences there are are overshadowed by that unavoidable equality.

We address matters of unworkable complexity by limiting the number of factors involved and simplifying those factors further by establishing a sole purpose and importance. The criteria for what is unworkable complexity is low. To express one's self, in thinking or communication, there needs to be a concise message. Of all the points of possible relevance that could be brought up and used to reach some type of conclusion, it is not feasible to use more than a handful.

The limitation of logic lies in our limited capacity to deal with more than this handful of factors, and that each factor must be limited further still by meaning. — Judaka

I think the factors that can be considered are already limited by the structure of our minds and perceptual machinery. Evolution has already done what you are discussing—created a mind that simplifies reality to a limited range of factors to promote quick decision making. That doesn't mean that more simplification can't be accomplished within that already limited set.

How many choices must be made to reach one's conclusion? To eliminate the number of potential factors to a manageable amount? To give each point the meaning necessary to justify its relevance? The very process of thinking precludes the possibility that one hasn't created a circumstance with parameters resulting from the prerequisites of simplifying for limitations of expression. Maybe an AI that could send millions of bits of information in a second to another would have a chance to go beyond that, but for humans it's impossible. — Judaka

I don't think this is how thinking works, at least it's not how I experience it. Most of my decisions are not rational or logical. That doesn't mean they're irrational, rather non-rational. I think the mind is constructed to take in large amounts of information, seek patterns, and then compare that to a model already created from a combination of experience and inherent capabilities. Often that is below the level of conscious awareness. I think that's what we call intuition, although we always get into arguments when we talk about that here on the forum.

Using the tools at one's disposal to create their truth, one's thoughts should only be evaluated by what one produces with them. Unreasonable arguments that bring a person happiness, therefore, produce happiness. Well-reasoned, intelligent arguments that bring a person despair, therefore, produce despair. Happiness is preferable to despair, and so the illogical and fallacious perspective is correct. — Judaka

Maybe. On the other hand, sometimes facing up to an unpleasant truth now leads to greater future happiness or at least to less future suffering.

It's one's goals, and what's being aimed to accomplish that should be used to measure the value of the perspective or position. The methodology for measuring the various pros and cons is what matters, rather than evaluating the logic or truthfulness of the ideas. Those goals might be personal, social, financial, or for the sake of producing competence at something and so on. — Judaka

I think this is similar to how I see things. I take a pragmatic view - all thinking is aimed at action. Truth is just a tool to help us decide what to do next.

The alternative is to make choices without thinking about them, or pretending like they're done for some nobler reason. Influenced by what you've been taught by your culture, your upbringing, family values, performing gender roles and whatever else. Instead of having an unrewarding loyalty to such influences, isn't it better to instead aim to produce something valuable? — Judaka

I don't know if you are talking about intuition when you say "make choices without thinking about them." If so, I disagree. Intuition is thinking; useful, valuable, effective thinking: just not rational thinking.

For the first time in my life, I am able to spell his name without copying and pasting from a Google search. — Jamal

I'm going to stick with Knee-chee.

Seems reasonable. Before I do it myself, can anyone see how to save my original analysis? — Jamal

Doesn't your analysis assume there are no balancing unintended consequences that come with the improvement in conditions, e.g. the progress in technology has made it so the consequences of war are much more extensive and destructive. Isn't it also a bit circular - consequences are judged positive when compared to criteria based on Enlightenment values? Just because you and I share those values doesn't make them universal.

It's not just writing — Judaka

Agreed. I oversimplified a bit.

There's a difference between saying certain religious beliefs are less preposterous than others and saying all religious beliefs are preposterous or saying all religion is preposterous. — Ciceronianus

No, there's not. And be honest - you meant to say that religious beliefs are preposterous. Now you're trying to get off the hook on a technicality.

I never said that religion is preposterous. — Ciceronianus

You wrote this:

I think that certain religious beliefs are less preposterous than others. But I doubt believers care whether they're more or less preposterous to others, and will be unimpressed by any argument that they're beliefs are unreasonable regardless of whether they're told there is no God or that particular beliefs about God are unsupportable. — Ciceronianus

So you said religious beliefs are preposterous. Is that different from saying that religion is preposterous? They seem the same to me.

Seems to me that one of the problems showing up in this discussion relates to whether "progress" means things are getting better or just that history is directional - that current knowledge can build on past knowledge.

I really like what Kuhn is saying. Is that from "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" Maybe I should get around to reading it.

The undeniability of progress is easily overstated, especially by those who believe they have made the most, - 'that surely cannot have been accidental?' — unenlightened

I don't think that's right, or at least it's not all there is to say. History is directional because the present can build on the foundation laid by the past. We're not smarter, or at least not much smarter, than humans were 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago.

Then someone figures out a new farming technique that further boosts productivity, and humans are able to store knowledge and teach future generations about this improved technique. It's an inevitable consequence of our ability to learn and teach. — Judaka

Isn't that all progress is, an inevitable reflection of the fact that we can talk to the past and use the knowledge they give us and talk to the future and give them the knowledge we have now? It all comes down to written language.

If we just look at claims about God and about QM, the claims themselves may see equally preposterous. — Art48

And that's all I said in response to what I see as a thoughtless comment. Not thoughtless as in impolite, thoughtless as in without thought. As for the rest of your comment, I'll just say what I've said before, I believe quantum mechanics represents out best current understanding of the behavior of the universe at subatomic scale.

When it comes to the crux, the attribute I dislike most in any field (politics or faith) is the gatekeeper who thinks they can tell ordinary people how they should live their lives and judges others for making different choices. — Tom Storm

Agreed. I admit I would be harsher on religion if I didn't see believers so often the victims of poorly argued criticism. I think I'm more offended by the weakness and thoughtlessness of the arguments than I am by their content.

An ad hominem is a kind of explanation for the inconsistency I guess. — praxis

I don't understand what you mean. No need to explain; we can leave it at that.

Curious that I find that surprising. Maybe it’s because he stated that “religions are experts in causing harm” and historically you seem to look down on that sort of biased statement towards religion. — praxis

@Tom Storm generally has a nuanced and self-aware take on issues, including this one. He is skeptical but often generous when it comes to human nature. He also knows a lot about people and has a pragmatic take on most things, including philosophy, which matches my own pretty well.

I have problems with many practices in politics, atheism, religion, science - any belief system that causes harm (as I see it). Now I happen to think religions are experts in causing harm (based largely upon personal experience and familiarity with their works) but religions are by no means alone in this. I don't just think it's a question of being large. I think there are plenty of small organisations that commit abuse upon their adherents/members. I do hold antipathy towards institutions. I don't think this comes out of atheism, more out of skepticism and perhaps nascent or inchoate anarchism. But that's for a different thread. — Tom Storm

I generally consider you one of the reasoned voices on this type of subject.

There's no shame, TC, in admitting you were mistaken aboth both comparing QM to religion and suggesting that QM is the kind of thing a great scientist like Einstein could believe in or not believe in. — 180 Proof

Another non-sequitur. Another contentless response. Nuff said.

That's a classic equivocation fallacy. Who is saying religion is the only source of evil shit on earth, just one of the main players. Certainly that would be my point. I have no more love for politics than I have for religion. I am a political bigot too. — Tom Storm

My point was that it's a problem of large institutions, not religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, not an antipathy to large institutions in general.

To be clear, I never called you a bigot and I don't think you are one. I don't think I've ever called anyone on the forum one. If I did, it was a mistake.

Actually, projection is "bad philosophy". — 180 Proof

Another non-sequitur and an argument based on your imagination about my mental state. No further questions. I rest my case.