In case you guys didn't realize, NOS just keeps repeating the same thing again and again. He's not interested in a real discussion or a conversation. You will not change his mind, because that's not what he's here for. And that's perfectly fine. Just don't waste your time sticking around after you say your piece.

I think he was ultimately just whining about American education. I love patterns, though, and the one he provided was intriguing. — frank

Sure, its an interesting thought to bring up! Appreciate the contribution.

The only issue I have with this is the regression of definitions. Ie. A tree is a plant, a plant is a living thing a living thing is ... at so forth all of which by your reasoning has some previous essential property contained within the next. So what is “thee” essential property in the first place? — Benj96

In terms of biology, likely your first experiences with the plant based on your cultural upbringing. This would be different than for a biologist who has plants categorized down to very exacting definitions and standards.

Are there trees without branches? — Benj96

Yes. If I trim all the branches off of a tree, its a "tree without branches".

Sure. He would say the ever-waning commitment of Americans to foreign wars is a side effect of diminished national cohesion. — frank

Wouldn't that be due to an increased national cohesion? If a broken up cohesion, there would be too many counter parties that would disagree with foreign interventions. Its expensive and costly to the citizens. We were in Afghanistan for 20 years. I'm not sure a nation with low cohesion could continue to support such a foreign war with the changes in elected officials.

You're basically agreeing with Kurth that the US is an example of federalism. It's not much of a nation-state. — frank

But you stated earlier:

The USA was a functioning nation-state from the end of the Civil War until sometime after WW2, when it began to evolve into a post-modern state — frank

I'm noting that the USA was not a functioning nation state during this time. Arguably federalism took a nose dive during WW2 and that is when we became more nation-like. I suppose my point truly though, is that I don't understand how he determines his post-modern definition, and that America fits that definition.

But, I am also going purely by your summary and not his article directly. I'm quite sure I'm missing something or not understanding the full context.

Definitions are a combination of three factors.

1. Essential properties - These are properties which are absolutely necessary to the word. A tree is a plant.
2. Accidental properties - Properties that the definition can contain, but are not essential to its identity. "A tree can have branches".
3. Context - A societal or intentional situation that changes the essential and accidental properties of the definition. "That plaster statue is a tree." (It is not essential that a tree be a plant, as we are within the context of artistic representations, and thus plaster).

The difficulty is nailing down the context of the situation. If you note that "Trees are made of plaster" when talking about biological trees, you are wrong. If you note that "Trees are made of plaster" when talking about art, you are correct. Oftentimes people aren't debating the essential or accidental properties of a definition, but the context of it.

1. Doesn't need a large conventional army, but rather defends through deterrence, and attacks via high tech stealth weapons. — frank

But we have one of the largest and possibly the most powerful militaries in the world. This only happened after WW2, where prior we only had a minor maintaining force. When we fought Britain for independence, we used ambushes and gurilla tactics instead of meeting them open on the field. As of the modern day, the United States aggressively uses its military for regime change as well as deterrence. Iraq and Afghanistan were not acts of deterrence.

Does not engage in mass production for a national market. It's economy is characterized by an economic divide. There's a "high economy" which is comprised of financial institutions and managers of multi-nationals which are focused on a global market, and a "low economy" made up of low-skilled service workers. — frank

I don't see how this is different from economies once money and trade were invented. The high economy has always sought to obtain more capital at any means. They do not produce for the nation, they produce for themselves. The great pyramids were not for the benefit of the nation, but for the benefit of the "God emperor" who sat on the wealth built by the underclasses.

Does not contain a cohesive political class, but has a somewhat stalemated government running a multicultural regime. — frank

I would re-read the history of the founding of America. America was so divided and multi-cultural that we initially had the articles of confederation which granted extreme power to the states with an incredibly weak federal government. The reason for this was the identities between the states, (And the political elections within the states) were so different from one another. America has always been a multi-cultural and non-cohesive political entity. If you read history, there are constant struggles and debates on how the country should be run over time.

Can you give an example demonstrating where woman have more rights than men? I think that would help your OP. Currently you're stating an opinion, which may or may not be accurate.

But to broadly answer your question in the abstract, it depends on what you mean by "More rights". Since men and women have biological differences, there may be rights specific to anatomy that could be more numerous than men, and vice versa. So in the sense of pure quantity, there would not be a problem. If you mean women should have rights that explicitly deny men their rights, then no, that should not happen.

Ah, the analytic/synthetic distinction. Long ago when I first wrote this philosophy, I used the analytic and synthetic distinction instead of distinctive and applicable knowledge. The problem was, as you likely know by now, I had very different definitions from the a/s distinction. When I shared the paper or ideas with other individuals I ran into major problems.

First, people wouldn't listen. They wouldn't try to amend the definitions, and insist that I was just "wrong". Not wrong in my underlying amendments of the definitions, but wrong in trying to change them to begin with. Understandable.

Second, people took their vast knowledge of analytic/synthetic knowledge and would cite philosophers or other criticisms of the a/s distinction without understanding or addressing the points I made. It was straw man after straw man, and few people I found are willing to hear, "No, that's not what this version of the a/s distinction means, this is why that doesn't apply."

So I created new terms. This forces people to understand the terminology if I want a conversation. Of course there are still people who don't want to explore something new, but they never wanted to listen when I was redefining the a/s distinction anyway. What I didn't lose were the people who wanted to discuss concepts, but were turned off by word redefinitions. Yes, I redefine some words slightly, but I think by that point people are in the conversation enough that it naturally leads to that.

Are the names I made very good. Probably not. I'm not great with coming up with names! I like distinctive, as it flowed nicely from discrete experience. "Applicable" is probably not very good, but I'm not sure what else to call it. I view words as place holders for concepts, and I view placeholders as contextual. As long as the word works in some sense within this context, that's fine by me. I see it as "Applying distinctive knowledge" to something other than itself.

But I am very open to new naming! Perhaps creative and comparative knowledge? Identity knowledge and confirmable? Dynamic and static? The problem of course with all of these comparisons is if you interpret the word meaning a particular contextual way, they don't quite work either. The contextual implication of the words in their general use gets in the way when trying to apply them in context to the argument. The reality is, the knowledge I'm proposing has never existed before. Its a concept no one (I have read) has proposed. So perhaps I need new words entirely and should research some latin.

At this point though, feel free to use the a/s distinction to help you understand the concept. I'll correct where the a/s distinction doesn't apply. Let me get to your points now.

...analytic expresses the contrary: "a proposition whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept" — Bob Ross

To compare to distinctive knowledge, we need to remove proposition, predicate, and subject.

Distinctive knowledge - A deduced concept which is the creation and memorization of essential and accidental properties of a discrete experience.

This then leads into applicable knowledge, which is loosely based off of synthetic knowledge.

synthetic generally means (philosophically) "a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but related" — Bob Ross

Applicable knowledge - A deduced concept which is not contained within its contextual distinctive knowledge set. This concept does not involve the creation of new distinctive knowledge, but a deduced match of a discrete experience to the contextual distinctive knowledge set.

Context- when the symbol/identity of one or more sets of distinctive knowledge are identical, while the essential and accidental properties of the symbol/identity are different. "A rock" in the context of geology has different essential and accidental properties than the context of a 5 year old child for example. This can further be compounded when a person is able to comprehend the essential and accidental properties of a distinctive context, but unable to actively apply those properties due to inability. For example, being a blind geologist has a different applicable context than those with sight.

As you can see, while there are some similarities, they are very different.

(Noting synthetic) which clearly describes (in my opinion) the extension of one's own "creations" (projections) onto the "world", so to speak. For example, the concept of a rock (or just a rock, so to speak) on the floor doesn't have any inherent properties that necessitate it be called a "rock": I synthetically projected that property onto it. — Bob Ross

Both distinctive and applicable knowledge can be seen as the extension of one's creation on the world. A discrete experience (the rock) has no inherent properties that necessitate it be called anything. Distinctive knowledge is when we create those essential and accidental properties that allow it to be called a "rock". This is our creation upon the world. Upon finding finding a new discrete experience (potential rock) we attempt to match our definition of a "a rock" to "the discrete experience". If we deduce that the essential properties match, we have applicable knowledge that "the discrete experience" is a match to "A rock". This is another extension of our creation upon the world.

this directly entails that a lot of topics traditionally viewed as "controlled" by the mind can also be applicable knowledge (analytical knowledge)(e.g. imagination, thoughts, etc). I'm not sure if you would agree with me on that. For example, thoughts are analyzed (~discovered), not synthesized (~projected). — Bob Ross

This doesn't quite fit. Projection can happen in both instances of knowledge. It is more about creation of identities versus deduced matching of experiences to already established identities. But both can involve the projected world.

In other words, and this goes back to my subtle disclaimer that "synthetic knowledge" is a child of "analytic knowledge", we analytically discover that we synthetically project. — Bob Ross

To translate into this epistemology, we always start with distinctive knowledge. So I distinctively create the identity of applicable knowledge. But then, I am also able to applicably know the distinctive knowledge of "applicable knowledge" successfully. So I both distinctively, and applicably know the concept of applicable knowledge.

Once I applicably know applicable knowledge, I can also applicably know that I distinctively know. We can then apply this knowledge back to the initial claim in the beginning that, "I discretely experience." I established a definition of discrete experience, then apply the concept successfully.

Moreover, going back to our discussion of whether "distinctive knowledge" can be induced, this also implies that the deduced validity of a subset of memories (in relation to another subset) is applicable knowledge (discovered: analytic), as opposed to being distinctive knowledge (projected: synthetic): which would be where, if I am currently understanding your view, we went sideways (our argument was presupposing the analysis of memories as "distinctive", which is incorrect). — Bob Ross

The act of experiencing a memory is part of the act of discrete experience itself. For example, "I remember seeing a pink elephant." Whether the memory is accurate when applied is irrelevant. It is the memory itself that is distinctive. The act of attempting to match your memory to a different discrete experience is application of that memory. The deduced outcome of that match is the applicable knowledge. But if I attempted to show there was a pink elephant that existed, the deduced outcome of that would be applicable knowledge.

For example, my assertion that memory A is valid in relation to the set of memories S would have to be analytical (because I am discovering the "truth" of the matter), whereas labeling it as "memory" + "A" and "memories" + "S" would be synthetic. — Bob Ross

Memories in relation to other memories are distinctive. "Pink elephant" combines our distinctive understanding of "pink" and "elephant". The application of that memory for its accuracy is applicable. "I remember seeing a pink elephant in my room last night," is distinctive. "My memory is an accurate representation of what happened in reality" is applicable. Was there really an elephant? Was it pink? The outcome is irrelevant to the knowledge of the memory itself.

If I am understanding your distinction correctly, then I agree here except that applicable knowledge is not relatable to an induction directly. — Bob Ross

There may be a misunderstanding of what is meant by "directly". If I make an induction that the next coin flip will be heads, the result that is experienced and deduced will be the outcome of the flip. If I deduce that the coin lands on heads, (instead of just guessing it did) then I have a "resolution" to my induction. This is the relation that I'm talking about. I guessed heads, and it ended up heads. My guess was correct. I guessed heads, and it ended up tails. My guess was incorrect. This resolution is applicable knowledge.

A hypothetical deduction is when we take an induction, and take the logical deductive conclusion if it resolves a particular way.

I don't think this is true. A hypothetical deduction is a deduction wherein each premise is hypothetically granted as true: it is a valid deduction due to it conforming to the necessary form of a deduction. — Bob Ross

The hypothetical is a possible resolution to an induction. If there was no induction, there would be no hypothetical. The coin can land either heads or tails. We can hypothetically deduce that if it lands heads, X occurs, and if it lands tails, y occurs. But the hypothetical cannot exist without the induction as a source of alternative outcomes. A deduction leads to a necessary conclusion, not a hypothetical conclusion. Only inductions can lead to hypothetical conclusions. That's the whole point of the IF. If there was no uncertainty in the outcome, we would not need the IF. I don't think we're in disagreement here beyond semantics.

the former implies inductions are valid premises of a hypothetical deduction (which is wrong), whereas the latter implies we can dispense of that induction. — Bob Ross

To correct this, I am saying inductions are necessary premises to create a hypothetical deduction. The IF implies uncertainty. If you remove the IF, it is no longer a hypothetical, it is not a deduction.

Hypothetical: IF the penny lands on heads (Implicit uncertainty of the initial premise happening)
Non-hypothetical: The penny lands on heads (A solid and certain premise)

I'm not certain I agree with this. The induction does not resolve a particular way: — Bob Ross

Can an induction ever resolve then? If I say, "I believe the next penny flip will land on heads" will I ever find out if I was correct in my guess? All I'm noting is how we figure out the outcome of the guess. That must be done applicably.

but, rather, a deduction can resolve an induction by either dispensing of it (as now it is known that the induction happened to be accurate or it wasn't) or retaining it as not directly pertinent to what is newly known. — Bob Ross

I'm simply noting the accuracy of the induction. I think you're taking two steps here, noting the accuracy of the induction, and then deciding to dispense or retain it. For example, I could deduce the penny lands on tails, but still insist it landed on heads by inventing some other induction like "an evil demon changed it", or simply not caring and insisting it landed on heads regardless of what I deduced. The second step of deciding to stick with or reject the induction is a step too far from what I'm saying. All I'm noting is the deduced outcome after the induction's prediction comes to pass.

However, now we must deal with a second order proof pertaining to why we ought to believe that because they related in a particular way in the past that it will hold in the future (aka hume's problem of induction). — Bob Ross

I have already concluded that you cannot make any knowledge claim about the future. You can only make inductions about the future. The smartest way to make inductions is to use the most cogent inductions we already know of. So we would make our decisions based on the hierarchy of the inductions we have at our disposal. Just because we can speculate that the rules of reality may change in the future, doesn't mean its possible they will. Since we know what is possible and probable, it is possible and probable they will continue to happen in the future.

Great points again Bob! I hope I adequately showed why the distinctive and applicable distinction of knowledge might be inspired by the a/s distinction, but is not the a/s distinction itself.

I believe Kant has it correct. Time is a descriptor, not an actual river. Essentially time is the relation of objects and forces in a causality state. So lets say we have states 1,2, and 3, all moving forward in causality by their numbers. If we somehow re-aranged the state of the universe back to 1, we did not travel through 2 and 3. We caused state 1 to be again, we did not travel backwards though causality.

Multiple worlds explain potentials. But like potential and kinetic energy, kinetic is what actually happens. This doesn't mean there must be a world in which one person dropped a ball, and in another world another person did not.

What has happened has happened. What has not happened, has not happened. There is no reversing it or going back.

A Philosoophy of Science course by Paul Hoyningen can provide great info on a systematic methodology of knowledge evaluation. — Nickolasgaspar

Hello Nickolasgaspar and thanks for your contribution. I'm sure you had good intentions, but its not very helpful to me. Is there something in particular in the argument or conversation that you noticed such a course could help? Could you perhaps summarize the points he makes to show me its relevance to the OP or the following discussion?

We can look to the law for an example. The court is presented with these types of issues all the time.

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If a person is caught lying on the witness stand, they can be punished by law for perjury. That is clearly the government restricting a person's "free speech".

Lies seem to be extremism, at least in court. If a business lies to customer's about its product, they can also be legally liable. But white lies to your wife or husband? They seem fine. If you yell "Fire!" in a theater and people rush out and get hurt, that also doesn't seem protected. I suppose its about the risk and cost to people that certain lies cause which would break the idea of "free speech".

I don’t care for your points or your hypotheticals. — NOS4A2

Then I suppose you don't want to have any further discussion.

Nonetheless, despite our disagreement, your examples of why you fear of laissez-faire is all I really wanted to know. So thank you. — NOS4A2

As long as you have received other view points and considered them, that's really what's important. At the end of the day, people are going to believe what they want to believe. Here in these forums, we hopefully push ourselves to consider that the world is bigger than those beliefs. I appreciate the engagement up to this point.

My reasons for preferring it are moral. I think it is wrong and unjust to control people, to confiscate the fruits of their labor, or to impose someone’s will upon another’s if they do not deserve it. — NOS4A2

Who's going to enforce that though? If there's not a government what is the replacement? That's the question I keep asking. The world is not shaped through good intentions and an emotional desire that we all get along. If there is no government, I posit, as has happened throughout history, that a bunch of gangs and warlords are going to rape and pillage your property for themselves. They will not be swayed by your moral objections. You alone will not be able to stop them.

The same applies to matters of trade and enterprise. If anyone rigged the game in their favor as much as states have done—skimming, stealing, exploiting, extorting, racketeering, money laundering—he’d be thrown in jail. — NOS4A2

But the state is the one who throws people in jail. Absent the state, no one gets thrown in jail. People who do these things to others just don't disappear if the state is gone. What do we have to stop them if the state is gone?

No laissez faire regime has failed because no such regime has existed. — NOS4A2

And yet this is despite the theory being around for over 100 years. Why is this? If its such a successful theory that is obviously to the benefit of mankind, why hasn't this happened anywhere in the entire world?

So I’ve read your objections and still prefer the idea of separating the state and economy. — NOS4A2

I would have preferred you explain why you think its better for a company to inject lead into gasoline knowing full well the dangers to health and society, and lying about it for profit. Maybe explain why its more beneficial to have meat packing plants with unsanitary conditions and horrid working conditions. Do you think zoning should be done by businesses? That they should be able to dump chemicals in rivers or land fills that cause harm to people who live in nearby homes?

Finally, you didn't address the point I made that often times business steps on the rights and liberties of other people in pursuit of profit. Government regulation can help minimize this. Without government, what is going to help this?

It would really help if you address the potentially negative sides of laissez-faire. If you only insist on seeing the positive, can you really say you've thought about it? No. Here on the philosophy boards we cannot love our own ideas. We put them to the test, try to prove them wrong, and see what comes out at the end of it all.

The problem I have is I haven't heard your well thought reasons for Laissez-faire, but talking points that are generally spouted in pop-culture. I'm unaware of your education background, so I think before we continue, we need some outside references. Laisezz-faire is not an untested ideology, and throughout history, it has often failed.

Preserving human liberty is not a 1-to-1 ratio with regulating the economy, and it is neither rationally nor emotionally satisfying for me to accept such non-sequiturs. — NOS4A2

In Laisezz-faire capitalism, the state gets out of the way of corporations as much as possible. No monopoly regulations. No laws mandating that the vats the company pass scientific sanitary standards. No laws mandating zoning, buy outs, minimum wages, health and safety standards, etc. This is tied directly with what many consider the rights of individuals. Plenty of people don't like their water and air polluted. Here are a few examples to check.

Forbes evaluation of the 2008 crash. https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/18/depression-financial-crisis-capitalism-opinions-columnists_recession_stimulus.html?sh=45acd8d22ef2

When you introduce government regulation, Laissez-faire is over. And you agree that government regulation is needed to preserve the rights and liberties of individuals. Maybe you don't really believe in Laissez-faire, but perhaps a minimal level of regulation? If you believe at times that the government has overregulated, I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. But the moment you allow laws and regulations that business have to follow to preserve the rights and liberties of individuals, the only question is, "How much?"

Here's an article in Forbes 2008 about how Laissez-faire, allowing markets to regulate themselves failed.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/18/depression-financial-crisis-capitalism-opinions-columnists_recession_stimulus.html?sh=45acd8d22ef2

"To paraphrase Churchill, capitalist market economies open to trade and financial flows may be the worst economic regime--apart from the alternatives. However, while this crisis does not imply the end of market-economy capitalism, it has shown the failure of a particular model of capitalism. Namely, the laissez-faire, unregulated (or aggressively deregulated), Wild West model of free market capitalism with lack of prudential regulation, supervision of financial markets and proper provision of public goods by governments."

If you're more interested in a video, this one should explain why regulation is needed to defend human rights and liberties. Of particular note, check the section where leaded gasoline was invented and see what the "free market" did with it.



Finally, there's Upton Sinclair's famous exposure of the meat packing industry. https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-muckraking-the-meat-packing-industry.html#:~:text=Upton%20Sinclair%20wrote%20The%20Jungle,emerged%20in%20the%20United%20States.

Fairly famous, but you might not be aware of it. Essentially food factories were unsanitary, dangerous, and risky for both employees and consumers who had little alternative.

One can and should do that without a state because, if history is any indication, the state is often incompetent in that regard and violates those same rights. According to author RJ Rummel, the body count for which the state is to blame in the 20th century is 262,000,000, and this is only acts of genocide. — NOS4A2

Have you compared to the body count of entities that are not the state? The number is irrelevant if you don't. Ever studied the death count in collapsed states where its warlords run around? Have you also compared the good that state has done? Developed infrastructure, roads, sewage handling?

Barring that, have you ever studied any society that did not have a tribe, chieftan, or some type of laws and rules? The idea that you can ever live a purely free person from "state" influence only happens if you find a cabin in the woods somewhere and go off the grid.

I would just read for now. To make a fully educated judgement, you must engage in all sides of thought. I think you've seen the pro Laissez-faire side, but its imperative that you see its anti. Now after reading and thinking on these, if you still think Laissez-faire is good, come back and talk. You can use some of the examples I gave, or more of your own. But I feel until you are aware of these other facts about free market and its politics, its more a discussion of faith then one of thought.

As for taxes...we can come back to it after this.

For every man who would exploit his neighbor is another who would not. This is why I have faith in the absence of state fetters. What prohibits a man from exploiting his neighbor is not the state, but a conscience and a reasonable set of moral principles. — NOS4A2

Correct. But what punishes a man and makes them pay for exploiting their neighbors is the state. I don't think you are so naive that you believe everyone is intelligent and of high moral character? Tell me, how does Laissez-faire handle criminals, brutes, thugs, and slavers?

Would you seek to dominate others should there be no state? — NOS4A2

The wrong question. "Would there be people who would seek to dominate others should there be no state?"

Absolutely. There are very real evil people in this world who will lie to your face, pay you pennies, and throw your body quietly in a ditch if it were convenient to them. If people were always perfect NOS4A2, then all forms of economics would work. Socialism and communism in their ideals would end up just as we envisioned. The problem with ideals is they do not factor in evil. I'm sure you would agree that pure socialism or communism does not result in the ideal utopia envisioned. This is because the reality of man is it must always plan with the idea that evil will exploit others if given the chance. Free market capitalism is no exception to this.

The moral and just way to fund any institution is voluntarily, whether through subscription, donation, etc. — NOS4A2

I don't want to pay my taxes this year, is that ok? Can the government properly budget and afford the judges and law enforcement needed to ensure people don't abuse and take advantage of the system?

I don’t want to abolish democracy, nor do I want to completely abolish the government. I just don’t think the task of government is to meddle in our livelihoods. — NOS4A2

You need to clarify by what you mean by "meddle". You seem to contradict yourself here when you also include

No. One is not at liberty to interfere with another’s liberty. — NOS4A2

That's not laisezz-faire. That's regulated capitalism, which is what we have today in America. That takes an enforcer, or in our instance, the state, to ensure this happens.

NOS4A2, instead of defending your argument, for fun and exploration, attack it. Find the holes in it from your perspective. Every idea has pros and cons. If you cannot see the cons in an idea, then you have not thoroughly thought of the consequences of it, and are grasping at something that is emotionally satisfying, and not rationally satisfying.

Well, that's probably my deeply hidden fruitfly brain part talking then. The part beneath the olfactory lizzard part. I smell powerful tendencies here... :smile: — Hillary

And its ok. We all have do or have done it at one point in our life. Its a shared human struggle. The thing is, all of us lose time to time, and some of us just give in. In a situation of competition in which there is no outside enforcer, one person is going to slip up (or intentionally) not be fair. And that's all it takes. A game cannot be played correctly unless everyone involved follows the rules.

NOS4A2 believes that the state as a function itself is oppressive. Its a common political refrain, mostly because he seeks dominance himself. He sees the state as dominating people, and his lizard brain doesn't like that. He's likely not thinking about all the circumstances or situations that would arrive if the state was eliminated. People will always have to fight others seeking dominance, whether or not they personally seek it themselves. Without some type of societal rules, and an enforcer of those rules (government) someone else will come in, dominate, then set the rules and enforcement up to ensure they retain their dominance. Its an unavoidable part of humanity.

My dear gracious good god... Where did you grow up? Ah, of course...you're a philosopher! — Hillary

Ha ha! I suppose I am. But I'm also a person who likes history. History has shown us that what I claimed was true. Wars, monopolies, slavery, etc. I would say about 80% of people are fine just living their lives without bothering others. But 20% of people want dominance, and don't care who they hurt to get it. Did you know that fruit flies like to dominate one another? They only live 8-15 days, but if you put a bunch of fruit flies together, they'll do a dominance fight where they flip each other over to show who gets that space.

The brain of a fruit fly is insignificant, and yet this primitive need for dominance still exists. It is a powerful drive in almost every living creature. In fact, I want to ask what was your motivation when you wrote your reply? Read it again. Was it done to educate me? Reach out and connect with me? Start a deep conversation? No. You did it to for status. To ridicule me and put yourself on top.

Now if you did that on a philosophy forum where there are no stakes, what do you think happens when there are resources involved? Millions of dollars at stake? Tons of land and power? You think everyone is going to resolve their differences for these resources with kind words, reaching out to one another and sharing? You already know the answer yourself.

My own view is that the state is formed through conquest and confiscation. I don’t believe in any social contract theory. — NOS4A2

I have no problem with this. The problem is, if its not government forming through conquest and confiscation, its something else. Mobsters, neighbor, etc. Government is not special, it is one off the many long lines of people and institutions that will seek social dominance through the threat and realization of violence.

Laissez-faire capitalism also results in conquest and confiscation. Capitalism needs a third party regulating it. It needs courts and laws. Otherwise the path of least resistance is to get money, murder your competition one way or another, and dominate everyone under you in as close to slavery as you can.

Now if I'm wrong, please point out where. In the absence of government, do people just all get along? You don't think anybody will seek to gain power over other people through wealth, hired cooercion, and dominance?

Can something cause its own existence? No.
— Philosophim

Oh, okay then. Brilliant. Don't bother addressing the argument in the OP. Just say stuff and it'll be true. — Bartricks

Actually, fair. I did not read to the end, and that is my mistake. Simultaneous causation doesn't make any sense either. If you're going to say something exists for eternity, why bring more than one entity into it? There's still the question of why both entities have existed for eternity in the first place. The answer is the point I made earlier. Eventually something can be explained by the fact of its existence, but not by something prior to it. That is logically certain. There is an end in which there is no explanation prior up the causal chain, even if its existed infinitely. Why after all did that thing exist infinitely opposed to finitely? Because that's just what is.

But the state is a monopoly of the kind you describe, destroying the playing field for everyone else, and willing to maintain it with compulsion and violence, with free reign to wage war, dominate each other, and ensure no one has any way of beating them again. Unfettered statism seems to me the greater threat than some entity from a game. — NOS4A2

Depends on how the state is formed. That's where elections come in. When the state is held accountable by the people involved, it must consider the people to some extent as people at the table who must be sated. This is much better than being dinner for the powerful.

Unfettered anything is bad. A pure authoritarian state is no better than rule by a mob boss. And unfettered capitalism does not escape this as well. I'll add to my original statement as well. Unfettered capitalism has no concern for limited resources or long term planning. Why make lightbulbs that last longer when people won't have to buy as many? Strip the forests down today and worry about the long term consequences tomorrow.

A state that is influenced by the people is the only way to ensure there is some accountability by the powerful. Because if there is no accountability, the powerful will not do so on their own.

Here's the thing: There is never freedom.

If its not the state, its your powerful neighbor. If its not that, its the mob. If its not that, its something else.

Humanities natural state when given free reign is to wage war, kill each other, dominate each other, and have someone come out on top that seeks to control everyone else. The same with unregulated capitalism.

Capitalism's unfettered goal is to destroy itself. This has been tested in games and social experiments repeatedly. Everyone starts off the same, but then winners and losers are determined. Eventually, the winners carve out a path to ensure no one has any way of beating them again, resulting in the death of capitalism.

The best way to regulate a system, is when you have governance influenced by the people involved.
While it is not perfect, as no one ideology ever is, people always have some type of say and influence to minimize the implementation of the winners destroying the playing field for everyone else.

Can something cause its own existence? No.

Can something exist and there be no prior causal reason for why it should exist? Yes, and its logically necessary that this exist for at least one thing in the causal chain of existence.

Fair enough. I’m not sure the far right would employ multiculturalism or socialism as state doctrine, for example. — NOS4A2

I think those are good points.

I appreciate the examples but I just don’t know what purpose they serve. — NOS4A2

The point is we should be giving examples of the far left that are different than examples of the far right. The examples you gave were not examples that are isolated to the far left, but shared with the far-right. Can you think of unique approaches to governance that the far left does that the far right would not do?

It’s true. The left used to be about freedom and individualism. Now it’s statist, reactionary, and collectivist. That’s why the old divisions hardly work anymore. — NOS4A2

No, you are false. We are talking about the extreme. The extreme left and right use the exact same system of division, controls, and authoritarianism. The difference are the targets.

big government, nanny-statism with an emphasis on identity politics, activism, and anti-capitalism. — NOS4A2

Let me give you examples.

Big government: Texas recently banned people from getting abortions, including if you're raped. This is state power over individual freedom. Florida recently mandated school district can't say anything that makes people uncomfortable regarding sexuality. The proper way would have been for local school districts to each handle this as the community wanted.

Nanny-statism with identity politics- The far right has used government to divide blacks out of districts to ensure Democrats do not win seats. Dog whistles have been confirmed to be used for years. I already mentioned gays, we can talk about single mothers back in the 80's. The far right nanny's not the populace, but the powerful. Tax breaks, deregulation, as well as tax incentives for large businesses that create lower tax burden's than the rest of the population. Law enforcement that will break up protests by people to ensure business continues without interruption. Favorable bankruptcy laws and stock market laws favor the wealthy while a lower status individual who takes out a college loan is enslaved to it for life.

Activism: Oh boy. Lies that the election was stolen and we need to make sure "our" guys are in charge of counting next time? Anti-abortion and anti-gay activists. Anti-teachers and finding ways to criminalize drug use and poverty that disrupts wealthy people's lives instead of helping out.

Anti-capitalism: True capitalism means the government largely stays out of business except to regulate and prevent bad actors. This does NOT mean that you don't tax businesses. The far right loves government interference here. Florida's retaliation against Disney because it had a different opinion. Massive tax breaks and deregulation for businesses, especially those that donate. Favorable laws and taxes for the powerful industries like the oil, coal, and medical lobby.

There are plenty on the left and the right who are not extreme. They favor different targets, but go about using minimal government, government with oversight, and compromise. Very few people are extreme because very few people are fully right or left. Most of us have a blend of left and right views based on different situations if we don't brain wash ourselves into thinking party identity is somehow our identity as well.

I’m not sure that’s true. To identify the left wing all you have to do is ask them. — NOS4A2

My point was your identification of the far left was not unique to being on the left.

This thread is about the left wing, though. — NOS4A2

Correct. But to identify the left wing, you must show how it is different than the right wing. You cannot talk about one without the other.

Whatever it is, it always reads to me as big government, nanny-statism with an emphasis on identity politics, activism, and anti-capitalism. It’s no so much extreme as it is routine. It’s fashionable. — NOS4A2

The extreme right favors big government, nanny-statism with an emphasis on identity politics, activism, and pro-wealth acquisition for those who already have power. (Sometimes this is claimed to be capitalism, it is often times not).

The extreme's of both side are detrimental to a country, usually devolve into some kind of authoritarianism and manipulate the populace for control.

So the difference is about social safety nets. The extreme left would have the state take care of everyone's needs? — frank

The state would take care of whatever they deemed the minimal bottom line for equality, but they would not take care of the powerful. This would likely come at the poweful's expense. The extreme right would have the state take care of the needs of the powerful, and that may result in everyone's else's expense. Both will use the state for their agenda.

↪Philosophim Is identity politics a sign of leftism? — frank

No. Both left and right partake in identity politics. I would say the left uses identity to achieve equitable egalitarianism while the right uses identity to continue to assert and justify the powerful to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to those less powerful.

I also want to make it very clear that both taken to their extremes are awful, but both taken to a certain extent are very beneficial to society. There is no winner here.

I personally find the categories of left and right to result in lazy tribal thinking. I find it much more helpful if a person examines an idea on its merit, because right and left seem to be personal tribal identity, and cause people to avoid even considering certain ideas for fear of going against their identity.

That being said, the left is typically about egalitarianism with equal opportunities. The far left would be a large change in societal laws that result in more equitable and baseline starting points in society. One example I can think of would be universal income. This would result in a baseline standard that all people had to work with. Some of course would use that opportunity better than others, but every one would have at least that.

Another example of far leftism would be wanting to consider a person's entire background and evaluate their advantages or disadvantages before deciding how you will treat them in any situation. So for example, if a person came from an uneducated background, you would take the extra time and effort to change your language, approach, and education. Think about a bank teller offering a loan to someone at a particular interest rate. The far left would require that the bank teller explain to the person how much it will cost them over the years, and give alternative options. Someone not left would just offer them the loan, and leave it up to them to make the decision themselves, regardless of their education.

The more left you are, the more the powerful are expected to expend effort and sacrifice for the less powerful. The more right you are, the more acceptable it is for the powerful to exert themselves without any concern of the consequences of those less powerful than they are.

However, if you mean "induction" ~> "deductive conclusion" -> "analysis of induction" — Bob Ross

Yes, this is my intention.

With regard to the second sentence, I think you are suggesting that Applicable Knowledge can be a conclusion that is an induction, which I would strongly disagree with (if I am understanding that sentence correctly). — Bob Ross

No, I simply mean that someone can do induction ~> inductive conclusion -> analysis of second induction as a conclusion of the first induction, and this would not be applicable knowledge.

I think I am starting to understand better what you are conveying. Essentially (and correct me if I am wrong) you are utilizing "applicable knowledge" as a distinction to emphasize that which is not in our control and, thusly, must be discovered as opposed to projected. Although I think there is a meaningful distinction between "discovery" and "projection", I think ultimately it is all discovery. — Bob Ross

This is a good way to break it down. And yes, I've never denied that knowledge is ultimately deductions. But, ultimately all molecules are made up of atoms. It doesn't mean that the creation of the identity of separate molecules doesn't serve a helpful purpose. However, I think you've made some good points, and I will have to go back to my original definition of applicable knowledge. While I think we use applicable knowledge to resolve inductions, the act of resolving inductions in a deductive manner is not applicable knowledge itself. Applicable knowledge is when we attempt to match an experience to the distinctive knowledge we have created, and deductively resolve whether there is, or is not a match.

I can also flip a penny, look at the result and wonder if I've seen it before. I then try to match the symbol to what is considered "heads" in my mind, and I do so without contradiction. This is distinctive knowledge. — Bob Ross

No, distinctive knowledge is when I create an identity when I flip the coin. There are no limitations as to what I can create. I can call it one side "feet" and the other side "hands", with their own essential and non-essential properties. If I attempt to match the coin's side to an identity I created previously with distinctive knowledge, then I am attempting applicable knowledge. If I conclude what I see matches the essential properties of the definitions I hold, then I have applicable knowledge that there is a match.

When you stated "seems familiar", I can see how that could potentially imply an assertion that it actually is familiar, which would imply that it has been seen before (which is an induction). — Bob Ross

This is the induction I'm talking about. When you believe that what you've seen matches distinctive knowledge, this is an induction, not a deduction. The act of checking, understands that you don't know the answer until after you've checked. You can deduce, "I don't know if what I've observed matches my distinctive knowledge." But if you are going to try to match it, there is uncertainty until you arrive at a deduced outcome.

But I realize I am stretching what it means to be an induction here. The idea of deductively matching to the identities you distinctively know, vs creating identities you distinctively know, was the original way I described applicable knowledge. While I have tried to see if there is an implicit induction in the act of matching, I'm not sure there is now. Its not necessarily an induction, its the experience of the unknown, and how you attempt to deal with it. An induction is really just an extension of the unknown. And whether our deduction is distinctive or applicable (an attempt to match to distinctive) is really just a way a person has decided to resolve an induction. Do we attempt to match to our identities, or create a new one?

That being said, I'm glad we've explored this route, as I believe examining the resolution of an induction seems to be important. I also still claim that one can only resolve an induction applicably. Only after that can they create new distinctive knowledge. An induction relies on distinctive knowledge in its claim. First, one must resolve the induction based on that distinctive knowledge. If one changes the definitions prior to this induction, one is not really testing the induction, they are avoiding it and making another claim. After one has resolved the induction based on the distinctive knowledge of the definitions originally made, then one of course can change and amend their distinctive knowledge as I've noted before.

"Does this side of the penny match heads?" is a completely neutral assertion, because it isn't an assertion at all. I am not inducing that it does match or that it doesn't. So that "question" coupled with the "answer" would be, in this case, distinctive knowledge. — Bob Ross

While I agree with everything you've said here, I want to note the solution would be applicable knowledge if you tried to match "heads" with your distinctively known identities. If you decided to create an identity, that would be distinctive knowledge.

"resolution" of an induction is simply utilizing our knowledge to ascertain how aligned it was with true knowledge, which is a spectrum (it isn't a binary decision of "I resolved that it was true or that it was false): my induction could have been correct to any degree, and incorrect to any degree. Likewise, it is a continual process, we simply take the knowledge we have and utilize it to determine how "correct" our induction was, but we can very well keep doing this as our knowledge increases. — Bob Ross

An induction can be resolved with another induction, or a deduction. If one "resolves" an induction with another induction, its not really resolved. In the case of an induction's resolution being another induction, we have taken a belief, and believed a particular answer resulted. In the case where we applicably resolve an induction, we have removed uncertainty. Of course, this has never meant that knowledge could not change at a later time as new distinctive knowledge is learned, or we obtain new experiences and deductions that invalidate what we knew at one time. But the future invalidation of a deduction does not invalidate that at the time it was made it was a deduction, and what a person could applicably know in that situation with what they had.

But when considering something really complicated like evolution, it is much harder to see how one would ever holistically know such: it is more that we have ample knowledge grounding it (such as evolutionary facts and many aspects of the theory), but there's never a point where we truly can deduce it holistically. — Bob Ross

There are cases where if we analyze the chain of reasoning, we'll find inductions that have never been deductively resolved. That's where the hierarchy of induction comes in. Further, areas where cogent inductions are within our logic should always be noted as possibilities we can always go back an attempt to improve on. There is nothing wrong with noting that a claim to knowledge has inductions without deduced resolutions within it, if it truly is the best conclusion we can make. But glossing over that it is an induction is not a resolution either. Some things which we know are at their core cogent inductions, with hypothetical deductions as the assumed resolution. If that is the best we can do with what we have, then it is the tool we should pick.

And, yes, inducing that Gandolf is a real person does put it in a different light, which is simply that it no longer indexically refers to a movie. I'm not sure how this necessitates that this distinction ought to be made as "induction" ~> "deduction" vs "deduction". I know deductively the indexical properties of the given proposition, and thereby can ascertain whether my assertion actually does pertain to the subject at hand or whether I am misguided. — Bob Ross

This example was only to demonstrate the importance of looking at the chain of thinking, and how it is important to realize that deductions in isolation do not necessarily tell the full story of what a person knows.

Although I see the meaningful distinction here, I don't think this has any direct correlation to your "distinctive" vs "applicable" knowledge distinction. Firstly, someone could actually have meant to bet on Buttercup but instead associated the wrong horse with the name on accident. Secondly, they could be simply trying to change because their bet was wrong. It isn't that we want definitive "deduced answers", it is that we want definitive answers (which can be inductions). — Bob Ross

I went into societal context here. In this case, society will not accept an individual changing the definitions involved in the original bet. Despite the individuals intention that they bet on "the other horse", the reality recorded by society is that they bet on the losing horse.

This again is more of an example to demonstrate the importance of resolving a situation that is "unknown". While originally I proposed the resolution of the induction was applicable knowledge, I feel confident at this point to go back to my original meaning, which was that one could solve this uncertainty applicably, or distinctively. The point here is to emphasize once again that resolving inductions with deduced resolutions is an important societal need and should be considered in any theory of knowledge.

I am failing to see how hyperfocusing on one contextual distinction (distinctive and applicable) amongst a potential infinite of contextual differences is meaningful. — Bob Ross

As I've noted so far, I believe the decision to create an identity, vs match to an identity one has already created is a meaningful distinction that is important when trying to resolve knowledge questions. We can go into this deeper next discussion if needed.

I partially agree with you here. but it is vital to clarify that science does not solely seek to prove something is false and, in the event that it can't, deem it true (that is the definition of an appeal to ignorance fallacy). — Bob Ross

I did not mean to imply that science marks as "true" whatever is not disproven. It simply notes such alternatives are not yet disproven. I don't want to get into the philosophy of science here (We have enough to cover!), as long as there is an understanding science takes steps to disprove a hypothesis, that is the point I wanted to get across.

What do you mean by "potential inductions"? I would hold that there are no inductions in deductive premises. If conditionals are not inductions. — Bob Ross

A hypothetical deduction is when we take an induction, and take the logical deductive conclusion if it resolves a particular way. This deduction is not a resolution to the induction, this is a deductive conclusion if the induction resolves a particular way. Just as a hypothetical is a potential deductive conclusion, every hypothetical has a potential induction it is drawn from.

If I state "I think this is red", and then attempt to match it to "redness" abstractly am I making an induction (originally). However, I can see something and ask "what is this?" or "I wonder if this is a color?" and then match it to "redness" abstractly to deduce it is red. An induction is not necessary, but can occur. — Bob Ross

I agree. This is why I'm going back to my original definition of applicable knowledge, which is when we attempt to match our experiences with our previously established distinctive knowledge and deduce an answer.

Thank you for explaining your view on libertarian free will. I have no disagreement with this, as this is simply a distinctive context you've chosen. Part of what I refine into the distinctive knowledge of "I" is that which wills. How I am formed or determined is irrelevant to how I define myself. This does not negate your distinctive context either. If such a distinctive context is useful to yourself, then I see no reason not to use it.

But, does your distinctive context escape the epistemology proposed here? I would argue no. You still need a set of definitions. You can create a distinctive logic using the definitions you've come up with. The question then becomes whether you can applicably know it in your experience. If you can, then you have a viable distinctive and applicable set of knowledge that works for you. I of course can do the same with mine. If I expand the definition of the I to also include "will", then I can prove that I can will my arm to move, and it does. And in such a way, my definition of "I", and having control over particular things is applicably known as well. I personally find the idea that I control things useful to my outlook in life. You personally do not. For our purposes here, I'm not sure this difference between us is all that important to the main theory.

But what is this principle (Inductive hierarchy) based on? Knowledge or a belief? This is the presupposition of which I don't think we quite explored yet. I don't see how it is necessarily deduced (therefore knowledge) for them. — Bob Ross

The hierarchy of induction is distinctively known based on the logic proposed earlier. I have always stated that despite our conclusions of what is more cogent, they are always still inductions. Meaning that choosing a cogent induction does not mean the outcome of that induction will be correct.

The probability of a jack being pulled out of a deck of 52 cards. The most cogent guess with that information is that any card but a jack will be drawn next. But a jack can still be drawn. This is more cogent that not knowing how many of each card are in the deck, but knowing that at least one exists in it. We may guess a jack will be drawn without odds, but that is not as likely to be correct as when we guess with the odds that could have been known. Again, even if there is only 1 jack, it does not negate it may be drawn.

And of course, speculating that a jack can be drawn in a deck of cards, when we have never seen a jack be drawn, and do not know if there is even one in the deck, is even less cogent. There of course could be a jack, but its less reasonable to guess there is a jack before one knows the deck contains a jack. And of course, we could be shown the deck, that there is not a jack, but still guess a jack will be drawn. While this is irrational, perhaps the dealer did something outside of our applied knowledge, such as slipped a jack in when we weren't looking.

But is the hierarchy of inductions applicably known? No, that would require extensive testing. These are fairly easy tests to create however. First, mix different card types into a deck on each test. Show the person the odds of the cards in the deck, and have them guess what card will come next. Second, don't show the person the odds of the cards in the deck, just tell them what's in it. Third, don't show them what card types you shuffled into the deck. Finally, show them all the cards in the deck, then have them guess a card that is not in the deck. Do this hundreds of times, then chart the percentage of guesses that were correct for each cogency level. Do I have confidence that such a test will reveal the more cogent the induction, the higher chance a person's guess will be correct? Yes.

Great points again Bob. I think you have thoroughly shown that I can not expand applicable knowledge as the resolution of an induction. It is that we resolve inductions using applicable knowledge. The results of that resolution can then be used to make new distinctive knowledge. I think this is enough for me to cover right now, and I look forward to your further critique!

You could try sharing that evidence if you like
— Philosophim

Every creature and the sky beneath which they life is proof of God. — Hillary

Its a nice thought. If that is enough for you to believe in a God, and such belief enhances your life, I don't want to take that away from you. But for someone like me, I need more than that.

Then why do I see the evidence all around me and you don't? — Hillary

That should be clear right? If I'm a mathamatician, will I know what its like to be a baseball player? All of us have different experiences in life. You could try sharing that evidence if you like.

That's good. I'm not convinced, but I'm sure others here are. My experience with mathematical dynamical systems that progress forward or backward in time makes me cautious. — jgill

Thank you. A cautious mind is a careful mind. It is only a logical argument, and not an evidenced argument. Still, the origin of the universe is something likely outside of evidence, and logic may be all that we ever have.

The rest of your response, really, is just that 'anything is possible' - which is not actually an argument. — Wayfarer

In almost any other case, you would be right. The difference here is that its a logical conclusion. Anything was possible is not the argument, its the end result.

And unless you have some idea what you're looking for, then there's no way to look for or assess evidence or what should be regarded as evidence. — Wayfarer

Agreed.

You could use an old story I've heard Christian's use.

A person is in their home when a neighbor walks by and tells them them the person in their house needs to leave. The house owner says, "Don't worry, God will save me."

Later, the flood hits, and the floor is flooded. A boat comes by and offers the house owner a trip out. The house owner replies, "Don't worry, God will save me."

The flood gets even worse and the owner can now only sit on their roof and wait. A helicopter flies by and offers a rope ladder to climb aboard. The house owner shouts, "Don't worry, God will save me!"

The flood over takes the house and the owner dies. When the owner arrives in heaven and meets God he states, "God, I prayed that you would save me from the flood, but you didn't stop it!"

God replies, "I sent you a neighbor, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you want?!"

Generally, people don't want deep philosophical discussions. Its why apologetics works so well. Use the appropriate manner of speech with your audience, and you'll be more likely to convince them.

They might point to something like the "anthropic cosmological principle", and argue that, even though it seemed likely that the Universe should emerge from the Big Bang into a state of chaos, it actually emerged in just such a way as to enable the formation of stars, complex matter, and then living beings who can reflect on all of the above. — Wayfarer

Hello Wayfarer, good to hear from you as always! So, the whole point in realizing a first cause is logically necessary, is realizing there is no limitations as to what a first cause can be. We may look at the universe and believe, "Its unlikely this could happen by chance," but there's actually nothing to back that.

Probability and likelihood are based on the prior rules of causality that lead to outcomes we are aware of. We think, "Well inorganic matter doesn't suddenly organize itself into an engine, only intelligence can do that." And we're correct when prior causality is involved. But when something has no prior causality, anything can happen. Its why we readily accept that a God, possibly the most complex and powerful thing a human can imagine, was not designed, but was a first cause.

The problem is, this can also be applied to anything else. We cannot say it is unlikely that a universe formed from particles simply appearing, because there is no prior causality that would make it more, or less likely to occur.

So is a God possible. Logically, 100%. But so is anything else you can imagine that was the start of the universe. As such, a God is not logically necessary to explain the universe's origins, it is one of an infinite imagined possibilities of what could be. Despite the unlimited potential of first causes, ultimately, what actually happened are the first causes within our universe today. Those can only be gleaned by going up the chains of causality to find them.

Thus, the potential is only there when we do not know what those first causes are. But the reality of what those first causes are can only be gleaned by finding evidence.

But if God is uncaused, then such a being is not contingent and not dependent on anything. So there's an ontological distinction here - a distinction in kind - which I don't think your OP is reflecting. — Wayfarer

Perhaps my OP was written poorly then. My point is that any first cause is not contingent or dependent on anything. Meaning if I do not know the origin of the universe, but know there was a first cause, all imagined and unimagined possibilities are equally as likely. A God, not a God, some explosions, a calm entrance, eternal existence, etc. None or contingent or dependent on any prior causality (thus rules or restrictions), and so any were possible.

Nice posts Gnomon! I appreciate the citations and nice presentation. :smile:

A first cause didn't "happen", it just is (or was). It couldn't "pop into existence", because that implies there is an existence (experiencing time) into which it can pop - in which case, this existence is the first cause. — Relativist

Well, there is possibly more than one first cause. A first cause means the first cause in a chain of causality. It is quite possible that first causes can pop into existence even if other chains of causality exist. But, if there was nothing at one time, and then something appeared, the lack of anything else wouldn't negate that it appeared. There would of course be no outside observer watching for the first appearance of something, but if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it still makes a sound.

I have no problem with there being a first cause, but it seems likely to have been some sort of quantum system. — Relativist

I'm actually not positing what first causes are. I'm sure there are a lot of opinions on what are first causes, but proving one is difficult. Not that we shouldn't stop trying!