Ok, after reading your reply, I think I understand your real issue.

Your issue isn't Solipsism. Your issue is epistemology.

I want to pose to you a question. How do you know anything? What is the difference between belief and rational conclusions?

You are applying this question right now to "solipsism", but neglecting to apply it to everything else. Unless you first answer the question, "How do I know anything", then the you cannot know that solipsism is correct, or incorrect. At best right now, solipsism is a belief, and the idea that other people exist is also a belief.

But how do you know the food you eat will not kill you? How do you know the apple you eat tomorrow is still good?

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism.

No, the default here is that our interpretation of reality all exists in our mind. We are very constrained in reality, and need "something" to connect with. We see because light bounces off of objects, and this is provable. Try moving your mind outside of your head. Can't do it can you? There are serious rules and restrictions that require "something else" for us to interact with.

Fortunately we also have science to help us there. I highly suggest googling neuroscience. You should see all of the advancements scientists are making in understanding the brain. Why is this important? Because you'll realize that you and everyone else have a brain. That reactions from people are repeatable. That people need to eat, or they die. You learn that you were born of another person, like everyone else. It turns out that there are things beyond our sensations. That we can LACK a sensation, but still be affected by things in the outside world.

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists.

You can do a very simple experiment. Chat with another person. If they understand you, then you know that they at least think like you in terms of language. You can come across other people who speak in a different language than yourself. You can then learn that language, and find there has been a consistency all along. You could even test this yourself. Record people speaking spainish, learn spainish, then come back later and see that they were speaking something meaningful all along.

Solipsism is mostly the idea that you are the progenitor of the world. That is clearly false. The idea that we interpret the world through our own lens? That's just normal thinking. We all do that. But still, you might be saying, "Yeah, but how do I KNOW?!" And the answer to that is, "How do you know anything?" What separates the link from belief to knowledge? We're back again to epistemology, which is the core of the issue.

In my ramble, I just want to clarify the points.

1. The fact that our minds interpret the world does not mean our minds create the world. We need some "thing" to interpret.

2. The fact that we all interpret the world though our minds, but do not understand other things as they are in themselves, is not solipsism. That's merely a given in how we function.

3. The question of what separates our interpretation of the world as "beliefs" vs. "knowledge" is the question of epistemology. "How do we know other people exist?" is really just one of the many questions of "knowledge". Just like, "How do I know I exist", "This apple exists?" etc.

Conclusion: Start studying epistemology and neuroscience. Then you will be able to answer the real question, "How do I know anything?", which will lead you to the rest of your answers.

Ha ha! I'm glad you didn't take that the wrong way. Really, you've done a magnificent job with what you have.

Now, for what it's worth, I do think that there is a thread within the model that makes it stable across time and context (which is related to logic) — TVCL

I agree with you on a personal and intuitive level. You have a solid foundation which I feel is going to be very difficult for people to find a loose brick in.

Yes, I agree with problem 1. Epistemology is bogged down with a lack of clarity. I believe your proposal is a fantastic solution to problem 1.

Problem 2 is interesting. Back when I started epistemology, I actually began the investigation to know the idea of a God, and prove ethics. The problem was I couldn't prove any of those until I knew what knowledge was!

I believe I understand what you mean though. You are answering the problem, "Why should we seek knowledge?" Because you've realized we don't HAVE to seek knowledge. It is a choice. Please continue, I am interested to read where you want to take this!

But aren't our foresight and thought also the fruit (the result) of some electrochemical reactions :) — KerimF

Yes! Fantastic! I did not want to add such details until I find people are willing to think on them. Some find such details "annoying", but philosophers enjoy them.

Yes, we are no different from the atoms around us, we ARE the atoms around us. Our brains are the result of these chemical reactions. So why are brains special? Because a brain is essentially "life". Look at the universe and watch any chemical reaction. It does not regulate itself, it simply burns out eventually. Life however seeks to renew its own chemical reaction. When it is running out of energy, it actively seeks to obtain more.

This is the beginning of sentience. An awareness of the world beyond your own personal chemical combination. Humans have the evolutionary height of this awareness. We can recognize far more then food vs not food like basic life does. We can see how chemical processes happen, and manipulate them for our use.

I guess you mean... we, humans, are given the ability to discover what are still unknown to us of its rules (of ‘The Existence’), so that we can add new forms of existence, inert and/or living things. — KerimF

Yes, exactly.

It may well be that consciousness itself is a functional process. Ever thought of that? — Olivier5

You might not understand what a functional process is. Think of water. Water is made up of H20. It is the combination of these atoms and molecules that we see in mass as "water". If you get down to the fundamentals, you see that "water" doesn't exist, only molecules of H20. It is the emergent of functional process of all of those molecules gathered together that our brain processes as "water".

Consciousness is just like water according to Dennet. Our brain is the underlying mechanical process that functioning as a whole, produces consciousness. So when you talk of consciousness as a functional process, do you mean it is the result of the functioning of the brain, or something else?

But how did you come to understand the underlying "mechanical" processes if not by some kind of observation? It sounds to me that you are simply talking about different views of the same thing. A view from the micro is no more "fundamental" than a view from the macro. To label one as "fundamental" and the other as "illusory" is simply projecting value on a particular view of the same thing. You are ascribing to another form of dualism - the fundamental vs the illusory. You haven't rejected dualism. You ended up embracing it. — Harry Hindu

Dennet isn't saying that we can't use observation. We have to observe the underlying mechanical process after all. What he means by "fundamental" is "its small component parts that make up the whole." Its like H2O are elementary (fundamental) parts of water. You can't do science with "water", but you can do science with H20. Water is the "illusion" (Dennet's poor word choice that I personally wouldn't use) and H20 are the fundamental building blocks. Same with your brain and consciousness. I think everyone can accept that.

The "illusion" of the entire process has causal power. It isn't the underlying mechanical processes of pixels displaying colors based on 1's and 0's that then drives my behavior to respond. It is the words that I read that drives my behavior. — Harry Hindu

Sure, Dennet isn't denying this either. I swim in water, I don't swim in H20. The idea of H20 for my day to day purposes isn't going to matter. But if I'm a scientist, the fundamentals of why I'm able to swim in water deal with the molecular chemistry and forces involved. Dennet is trying to understand how consciousness, "the illusion" functions on a molecular chemistry level so he can understand it at a scientific level. And thank goodness. Can you imagine if we had people denying the idea of chemistry for water? We would never figure it out!

Now does that mean that the "illusion" is useless to study? Not at all. For my purposes, water is great to drink. Its just useless for Dennet's purposes, which is to discover the underlying fundamentals that produce the result.

Any person who has the character to admit to a mistake becomes a giant in my eyes. You have my utmost respect and forgiveness! It is water under the bridge.

Truth be said, and you are free to call me whatever you like :), I see exactly the inverse. — KerimF

I will call you a thinker and a good person! =D I would rather hear true disagreement then false agreement.

It is me who perceive 'The Existence'. And without this perception I would be just an inert piece of matter — KerimF

With my outlook on existence, it does show that humans are very special. We are one of the few pieces of existence that has obtained sentience. As such, we get to see the universe, or ourselves, for what it is. As such, we can shape it into something with foresight and thought, instead of the blunt result of chemical forces.

With intelligence, we can create more "existence" then what is merely here. Would a computer build itself? Not likely. Will a rock ponder the meaning of existence? Not so far anyway. We are a concentration of actual and potential existence like none other in the universe. We just must not forget that we are a part of this universe, and respect the rest of existence around us as well.

It has been a nice chat. Regardless of your conclusions, enjoy the day!

If consciousness cannot be understood by our perception of it, then what does that say about our other perceptions of the world? — Harry Hindu

To clarify, he is not saying we cannot understand consciousness from observation. Its there, it exists. We observe it, and we have our own opinions on it. But it doesn't explain what it is FUNDAMENTALLY.

Check my fire example for one. Another example is the screen you are observing right now. Does the light of this forum post explain the fundamental mechanical process that is letting you observe it right now? No. That is all Dennet is saying. Underlying the screen is a series of small pixels that are being turned into RBGY colors based on 1's and 0's on your machine. We don't see that. We see, "the illusion" of the entire process constructed into something more manageable and meaningful for us.

Perhaps Dennet's word of "illusion" is a poor choice. He doesn't mean the screen you're seeing isn't real. He's just saying that the underlying fundamentals are not the screen you "see". Without those underlying fundamentals, you would not be able to "see" the screen. But the "seeing" of the screen is not what's actually creating the screen.

And that's all I believe Dennet is saying about consciousness. The thing that we "see" is the result of the mechanical processes of the brain. But the end construction itself is NOT a fundamental, it is the result of the entire process. But I think we both understand this, we're just having a symantix disagreement.

The ultimate question that needs to be answered is how is it that evidence for my consciousness from my perspective is different than evidence for my consciousness from your perspective. — Harry Hindu

I don't think that's what Dennet is trying to address here.

what I am trying to establish is not just one model to be chosen from many, but the truth.
— TVCL

Do you agree with this? — TVCL

No, I don't agree it is the truth. What I can agree from your model, is that your model is something that can be known. It can be applied in this instance between the two of us, and it seems to have consistency. But will that be the case when another person is introduced? Will it be the case 5 years from now if humanity makes some new discovery about knowledge we had never considered?

The real question to be asked is, "Does the knowledge model apply to itself?" Because if it does, then we have created a model that, according to us, will give us a more rational method of claiming things that are not contradicted by reality. But we can never claim that such knowledge is "the truth" with certainty, but that is "the truth" with rationality.

Further, this is a model that represents concepts in a way that are usable and digestible to certain people. There will be some that this model is not enough, and for others, that this model is too much. There are almost certainly other ways of expressing the concepts detailed here in greater or lesser detail, with different words, different languages, and different outcomes. At the end of the day it is a tool that fits a certain person and size of problem. Is this tool effective at solving the problem for a good number of people? That is a question that can only be answered by putting it in the hands of several people, and seeing what they do.

There is my technical answer. =) For what its worth, I believe that any model that wants to have a hope of being epistemologically useful is going to have some expression of the elements of consistency, applicability, and context. And for what that is worth, I believe there is a truth to that.

It's good to know that you have concluded that I have created a model that we have apparently ironed all of the kinks out of — TVCL

Ha ha! I wish. =D Lets call it, "major deal breakers" instead of "kinks". I don't mean this negatively either. Creating an epistemology without any major deal breakers is huge! Something without major deal breakers is a base upon which you can start, and begin refinement. There is no tool, especially one as new as this, that will not still have a kink or two left. You'll run into people that will point them out. You'll probably find some yourself as you use it and refine it. That is not a knock against it, that is the natural course of all things that we use. There may be parts you throw away or tweak in the future, but I believe you have a solid base.

So, a fine job! Feel free to continue, I'm happy to see where you wish to take this from here!

By the way, I wonder if the following question is philosophical:
What could be the meaning of life on earth if the human race is removed completely? — KerimF

Yes, this is very much a philosophical question. First, what do we mean by, "meaning"? For me, meaning is the act of existence. I'll explain.

Many of us ask the question, "What should I do in my life? How should I act"? with the idea that there is a greater purpose past this than merely ourselves. But there is an even greater question. Why should there be humans? Plants, animals? Why should there be anything at all?

Scientists found that at the big bang's inception, there was more in matter in the universe than there is today. They theorize much of the matter was cancelled out by anti-matter. The rest has persisted for billions of years to this very moment today. The one thing it has done, has existed. We are made up of that matter which has existed for billions of years without ending. Within each and every one of us, is the will of a universe that doesn't quit after billions of years.

So what is our purpose? To exist. And to foster the existence around us. To let people express their greatest selves. To let animals and plants live as they should. To persist and create new existences out of the combination of matter, as it has done for billions of years.

So would there be meaning if humans ceased to existence? Yes, the universe would still exist. Would it be a diminished place without us? Yes, it would be a tragedy to lose such a unique intelligence. While I feel we are an important and valuable part of the entirety of existence, we are not the only thing. That is my take anyway. =)

I wonder now, to how far I am disturbing, without my knowledge, the studies discussed by the philosophers around here and their students.

Don't you think, after you know me, that it is better for the forum not to have someone like me in it? I don't like be an intruder in any way. — KerimF

I think a person like yourself who is polite, listens, and wants to ask questions is always welcome! You have caused no harm, and it has been nice chatting with you.

I believe you should be checking with prehistoric anthropologists, not us philosophers.

Synesthesias materialized in the human brain which integrated modules responsible for syntax with those involved in dimensional perception. Abstraction was less and less differentiated into two types of cognitive imaginativeness, symbolic sequentiality and object dimensionality, but converted towards a type of introspection that hybridized properties of both. — Enrique

A claim like this should have a citation of some kind. How did you conclude this?

What we identify as full-blown symbolic art was probably seeded by narrational expression, — Enrique

Again, what do anthropologists say on this matter? If you are making claims to history, you need to cite people who have studied this history.

Dimensionality was no longer constrained to its role in assembling objects, and syntax to its role in formulating expressions, but began to fuse as open-ended proportionality, with reflection and vocalization having an underlying mentality which performs deductions upon entities that are instantiated as concept and yet transcend the delimitations inherent in all palpable phenomena, an infinitely permutable, disembodied, pure form. — Enrique

That is one sentence. This is a massive run on that can be broken down into simple and clearer parts. And its one of many massive run on sentences in your paper. For example, your first paragraph is only two massive run on sentences. This is a writing no-no.

This work is overloaded with SAT level words to lend the appearance of authority, but lacks any actual reference to authority. This narrative style implies lofty imagery, poetry, and a heavy use of a Thesaurus and Dictionary, not a clear set of premises with a conclusion.

Persuasive arguments use very simple, straight forward, and easy to understand points. They use advanced terms like "colloquial" if it helps simplify the sentence, clearly conveys the idea, and there is no better colloquial term to use. Complexity of your sentence structure does not convey to the discerning reader that you have a complex idea. It is not the cleverness or use of advanced words that convince us that you have the authority to know what you are talking about, but clearly organized and easily followed logic.

My apologies if this seems harsh, but I believe this is a seriously flawed paper if your intention is to convince us that this is the way humanity evolved.

I read the article. All Dennet is saying is that consciousness cannot be fundamentally understood by our own perception of it. In other words, the act of experiencing one's own qualia is not a fundamental or mechanical explanation as to what is going on.

This is further backed by the quote Strawson gives on Dennet from his 1993 expert, "“The idea that there is something like a ‘phenomenal field’ of ‘phenomenal properties’ in addition to the informational/functional properties accommodated by my theory” of consciousness “is shown to be a multi-faceted illusion, an artifact of bad theorizing,”"

Basically Dennet is shooting down the idea that you can have consciousness apart from the mechanical processes of the brain. Dennet believes consciousness is a result of informational and functional properties. There is no "consciousness" that is independent of this. It is not that Dennet doesn't think we call things pain, pleasure, etc,. What he's saying is these are the results of functional processes.

The way I view it is like a fire. A fire is the result of chemical processes combining with the wood and oxygen. There is no independent "fire" without these processes. Dennet is not denying fire exists, he's just saying that fire alone does not explain the fundamental cause of the flame, or the underlying process that we look at as a whole and abstractly call, "fire".

There are several variations of solipsism within the wikipedia article you linked. Which one is giving you difficulty?

As for your links, it would be much more helpful if you would give the general premises you're having trouble with. No one is going to look through other forum posts to see the issue that is giving you trouble.

This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. — Darkneos

Ha ha! Of course solipsism isn't the default. Otherwise we would all be sitting around going, "What if reality isn't only just in my mind? What if...things outside of my mind exist as well!?"

Relax. You know other things besides yourself exist. What you're having right now is your assumptions challenged. Yes you know these things exist...but why? And that is philosophy. Questioning the obvious in front of us to see if we can analyze it rationally.

One approach is proof by contradiction. Basically, try to contradict the idea that there is something outside of your mind. Then look for contradictions. I gave you an example earlier of not being able to control particular things. Go further than this. If there is only you, what are you made up of? Why can you be injured? Why do you need to eat, drink, and breath? Holding your breath is probably the easiest one to test. See what happens.

If everything was only your perception, what is doing the perceiving? If we are perceiving something, what is that thing if it is us? Is it really perception at that point? Then why is it limited? Etc. Anytime you come to absurdity or a contradiction, then you know you've run into an issue. And trust me, if its only you that exists, you'll run into all kinds of absurdities and contradictions.

"We cannot create a model for seeking knowledge which is not sought." — TVCL

Yes, I think I understand this. Sounds good!

But not only this, but to ensure that one's goals were also in accordance with reality to the best possible extent. — TVCL

If goals are also subject to the analysis of application and consistency, then I don't think there is a problem.

I think this is a good theory to assist a person in the day to day use of knowledge, and works to avoid the minutiae that epistemological analysis can devolve to. Well done! I had thought to introduce a few epistemological puzzles in here, but I find they are unneeded. This theory is about effective practicality, not games or large societal constructs.

Did you wish to take this theory anywhere else? Were there more advanced concepts you were considering? A pleasure as always to read and discuss, this has certainly been a treat!

I don't need to read it to know I don't endorse it. — FrancisRay

Congrats on a completely worthless contribution to the thread then. For anyone looking to have a worthwhile conversation, please post on the topic of the forum, which is the paper itself. I'm sure most people don't need to be told this obvious statement, but we get a few on here who don't understand basic logic.

Not a worry! There is one grain of truth we can get out of solipsism, and its that the only way we know the world is through our own perception. But that's really it. It doesn't mean we cannot relate to others, or that nothing exists that is not within our perception.

One way to think on this is your ability to create a perception that "reality" doesn't want you to have. Try jumping in the air and resisting gravity. Can't do it can you? It turns out you are perceiving things you have no control over. At best what solipsism can claim is "you" are the thing that you have control over. While things that you have no control over aren't "you".

So other people? We don't really have control over them do we? If we don't have control over them, they aren't "you". And what should we call others? Maybe..."things"? We realize that we perceive these things, and can react to it to an extent. But they can do things to us that we have no control over, so we realize logically that they do not only exist within us, but outside of us as well.

Which thoughts? — KerimF

The thoughts that you linked me.

Its logic (The Logic)?! This reminds me when a theist talks about the absolute truth or truths.
I mean an idea has to be examined by a person.
And a serious person examines it based on 'his' logic, not of anyone else (like saying this idea is true because it was approved by... ).
But I am also aware of the fact that a typical person likely sees in his logic, the absolute one that all others have to follow (much like how a theist sees his Truth). — KerimF

No, it is not my logic, but logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction. Deduction where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Because philosophy is exploring new venues that have not been determined yet, this is our true tool in deciding whether our exploration is worthwhile versus merely our opinion.

You remind me when I talk in a forum of theology about what I discovered concerning my being and the real world, many try to tell me that I am talking philosophy — KerimF

Ha ha! Yes, I understand. Some people believe philosophy means people spouting off personal opinions on things. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or a desire to know and understand how reality works. One way I like to describe it is thus: Science likes to test hypotheses, philosophy comes up with reasonable hypotheses to test.

Once philosophy comes up with a reasonable hypothesis that is tested and found to be useful, it becomes science. So if you use philosophy in regards to a philosophical God, you want to construct something that could be provable within a person's life. For example, if someone could philosophically prove that a God must exist, this would open up a new branch of study where we try to learn about that God. If we philosophically proved epistemology, that would become its own branch of science.

But this takes logic and reason to do so. There is a lot of speculation, but the speculation that is found worthwhile to pursue is that which is rational. Irrational or completely inductive ideas which can gain no solid grounds are ideas that are not seen as worthwhile.

Again, do not take it as a criticism against your own ideas of faith and the afterlife. If they serve you in being a better person in life, who is anyone to take that away from you? But if it is to be examined philosophically, it must rise to a higher standard.

I believe what you are describing is called "the technological singularity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

There are a few theories on it, one of course being the end of the human race. Because ANY good theory of the future has to have our apocalyptic end.

Have you ever considered that you've never experienced love?

As for "unconditional", if you're getting technical, there is the condition that you be what you are, if what you are is loved. So technically, there is no unconditional love.

When people say, "Unconditional love", they mean, "There is nothing another can do that is natural to their person that will stop me from loving them". So for example, if a person gets laid off, which is something outside of their control, you don't stop loving them.

Love, not romantic love btw, is the understanding of a person's good, a person's bad, and still accepting them and wanting them to be their best regardless. So yeah, when you love a person with a bad temper, and they lose it that day, you still love them. You of course want them to get better, but you'll love them even if they don't.

Romantic love involves attraction and friendship, which complicates the issue. Attraction and friendship often have certain expectations. But love, which you can have for anyone, does not require such things.

If these thoughts give you comfort and help you live your life better, more power to you. I'm not advocating against that. But if you're interested in having a philosophical discussion about such things, it will be examined for its logic. If its an emotional or artistic presentation of personal experience and opinion, these things are more theological than philosophical.

For example, anyone can say "God exists" but how he knows his God is a totally different point. This explains how billions in the world could be called theist while many different images of God (if not gods/goddesses) are offered on the world's table to choose from :) Yes, and these God's images have different God's Laws to be observed by the believers. — KerimF

Certainly. The idea of a conscious being that created humanity is the heart of the philosophical God. There is no assumptions at this point of it being good, evil, Christian, Muslim, etc. It is merely the philosophical starting point of, "I believe there is a being beyond humanity that created humanity".

I'm just letting you know you can start there. =) You don't need to call it IT, as you're just using the philosophical God. So lets look at your premises to see if they are logical.

{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence. — KerimF

A "Will" assumes a conscious being. We have clear evidence of conscious beings being your parents. Yet you're claiming there's something beyond. The only thing we can conclude at this point is that there is something beyond humanity that created human beings that has a "Will" or consciousness. Thus the philosophical God.

The problem is this isn't necessarily true. It may be that life formed through chemical processes without consciousness. There is a scientific branch that studies this possibility called abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

{I} This ‘Will’ is perfect and allowed me to exist in this world just to offer me something special/personal. — KerimF

So, lets just say for fun that there is a conscious existence that created life, you want to claim it is perfect, and desires us to be special. Again, this is a huge assumption that cannot be logically drawn.

What you want to discuss is a perfect conscious being with a will that made us specifically for us to obtain something special. Again, this is just another philosophical God, with the same problems and issues that all other philosophical Gods have. Now if you personally have faith and believe in this, that's fine. But its faith, and not sound philosophy.

Psychology and neuroscience are your best bets for answers. Philosophy can speculate on questions that those two have not answered, but it is best for you to look at the answers before you start examining the questions.

Nicely written! I can tell you've put a lot of time and thought into this. I'll critique, but know that it comes with respect for the hard work and thought you've put into it. Here are some problems I see in the argument:

1. It's possible to talk and reason about a concept without having a precise, rigorous definition of the concept. — icosahedron

There is something implicit you are leaving out. "...if the goal is to ultimately discover what that rigorous definition of the concept ultimately is."

We start with the ephemeral and try to make it clear. That's the point of good philosophy. If we keep terms general and wishy washy based on a person's personal opinion, we're talking about loose subjectivity. At that point, we just stop wasting everyone's time and say, "Believe what you want to believe". But that's not rigorous thought or rationality. That's just giving up.

2. It's meaningful to talk about free will. — icosahedron

What is "meaningful"? You gave examples of what some people conclude free will is, but why is it "meaningful"?

People understand what is meant by free will, which is why they are able to have meaningful discussions about it. — icosahedron

Here is seems you are equating "meaningful" with "People understand what it means". If people understand what it means, then why is there a discussion and debate? The problem is many people do not understand what it means. Free will is an often addressed question on these boards. I would clarify what "meaningful" means in this instance.

In grade school you have probably reasoned about numbers like 1,2,3, and how they interact. Did the teacher provide you with a definition of these numbers? No. You intuitively understood what they meant from examples. — icosahedron

This is an example of a mistake you repeatedly do in your proposal. You are assuming people act, think, or have experiences in a particular way. Don't ever do this in a proposal. People don't think, act, or experience things the same way.

When I learned to count, my mother taught me using each finger to represent the number. There is nothing intuitive in matching the number "3" with the concept of three. Without being taught to think about the number 3, a person may very well just have though, "a bunch", and never conceived of math. I used to teach math for five years. If math concepts were intuitive, I wouldn't have needed a job. =)

If some fact or statement is immediately perceived to be true then it's reasonable to believe the statement unless you have a valid reason to doubt your perception. — icosahedron

Sure, no problem here. The problem comes into play when you think on it a bit longer, and start to get valid doubts on your perception. Free will for example. Many people think they know what free will is, then have an idea that puts doubt into their minds. If free will was still perceived to be true upon further reflection, then very few would question it. The fact that you had to write a paper showing why free will is intuitive and true, is evidence that it is not so cut and dry.

In this argument we have already achieved something that I've never seena anyone else arguing for free will achieve before, at least not explicitly. We have completely turned the tables of the argument. We made it so that the burden of proof is on the objector of free will to give a valid reason to doubt my perception of free will. — icosahedron

The argument has been made before, but it is a good strategy. =) I don't think you need all of the leadup for this though. You can simply state, "Look, free will as I perceive it works well for me. Give me a valid reason to doubt my perception of free will in a way that also works well for me." Start from there.

5. There is no rational reason to prefer determinism over indeterminism. — icosahedron

Then you do not understand what rational means. Rationality is using stable concepts to concretely understand the world with as little indeterminism as possible. Its the use of deduction, while minimizing induction.

Quantum mechanics does NOT show that the universe is indeterministic, but it does destroy all hope to prove determinism through laws of physics. — icosahedron

I think you're misunderstanding quantum physics. The only reason we are able to use it is because we have found deterministic limitations within the indistinct. We have deterministic conclusions that we cannot measure a quantum states and velocity at the same time. This allows us to accurately and reliably predict how things work. This is why we have cell phones that work consistently.

Unless you are a scientist, don't use quantum mechanics in your philosophy examples. Its to easy for non-scientists to attribute mystical qualities to it, when that's not the case.

6. Answer to the objection "But determinism does not give you free will. It only gives you randomness, and free will cannot arise from randomness, nothing about randomness is free, it's just random." — icosahedron

I don't have this objection, so am skipping it.

7. Answering the Sam Harris objection about predicting our choices before we become aware of them. — icosahedron

A good answer. I agree this objection falls flat.

Feel free to counter or point out where I've misunderstood your points!

I am sorry that you are not aware that my parents were just a tool, not the Will which is behind my existence (and their existence as well). — KerimF

Sorry again, because if someone hears you mentioning the word 'God', he would have the impression that you also know what it means. On my side, I am not sure what do YOU mean by (or how YOU define) this word. — KerimF

It seems like you're defining God as the Will behind your existence. But the only will I see for your existence is your parents. I'm assuming your grandparents are out too. Meaning that we're only left with something prior to humanity that has a will, so must be conscious. The usual placeholder for such a being is "God".

If this doesn't fit what you're trying to go for, then I have no idea what you mean by a will outside of humanity. I get that you're trying to be poetic, but it doesn't make any sense if we're to draw any logical conclusions from it.

Are you, by any chance, referring to the problem of induction? — TheMadFool

Yes. And you are completely correct. While we cannot ascertain that something will repeat, we cannot also ascertain that something will NOT repeat. Its why I liked your answer of tentative vs certain knowledge. We can be certain of what we know now. We can even make logical conclusions about the future of something based on what we know now. But that knowledge is tentative, as repeatability of the same knowledge in the future is something we cannot be absolutely certain of.

Your parents forced you into the world. All your questions should be directed towards them. If you're going to be talking about God, it doesn't really lead off when you're talking about your personal birth of being born into the world.

Well, I read a couple of responses. — FrancisRay

Which are utterly useless, as they lack the context of the paper. It never ceases to amaze me that people think they can judge a paper without actually reading the paper. I also never stated I agreed with Quine, I'm just indicating that I am familiar with several epistemological theories.

This is devolving into dumb ego. Read the paper if you're interested and converse on that. If you're going to comment on the paper without reading the actual paper, its a waste of both of our times.

Philosophim Your point is a fair one, but I see no point in reading an article that seems epistemilogically naive.even before I start reading. You can ignore me. — FrancisRay

If you haven't read the article, how do you know its epistemologically naive? I have studied and am familiar with the history of epistemology up through Quine. Lets be real: most people just don't want to read an article longer than a forum post, and look for every excuse not to. Which, I have nothing against! Its fine. But telling me it looks naive when you haven't read it? Come now. Just be honest and go about your day instead of trying to slight me.

the argument that I am trying to make is not concerned with how any or all knowledge comes to be known, only that knowledge which is sought. — TVCL

Ok, I think this clears up a significant amount of confusion and reservations on my part. You are specifically removing any consideration of knowledge which is not specifically sought out. As for the why:

because we cannot create a model for finding knowledge which is not sought — TVCL

I had to read this a couple of times, and I want to make sure I understand what you're stating. If I understand correctly, you are stating knowledge is an active process. Because we have to consider things such as applicability and consistency, this requires our active faculties. This is versus taking beliefs without question or consideration.

Now while I think goals are a fantastic way of explaining why someone searches for knowledge, they can also be precursors to simply believing something without the need for knowledge. If my goal is to learn ethics for example, I could take a web of beliefs that construct an ethical morality that satisfies an emotional goal. If my goal is to believe in Santa Claus, it can drive me, but it doesn't necessarily drive me towards knowledge in Santa Claus. Same with the flat Earth examples.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that goals are not necessary or exclusive to the application of knowledge. Goals are the necessary precursor to seeking something, but that something can be about seeking beliefs that satisfy one's own desires. We say what separates a belief from knowledge is its applicable consistency. But I could just as easily have an inapplicable inconsistent conclusion if my goal is to have a belief without using knowledge.

So to go back to your beginning, I do believe that the precursor to knowledge is having a goal, or something a person wants. In trying to obtain that goal, a person might (not necessarily) discover that their conclusions may clash with reality. In wanting to obtain goals that are more likely to reflect reality, a person seeks a way to obtain a goal in the most rational manner. The conclusion a person can gain from this is beliefs which are applicable and consistent are the most rational conclusions one can make if they wish their beliefs to not be contradicted by reality.

I think however once knowledge is discovered, it is something one decides to integrate into future goals, but it is not a goal itself. Often times in pursuing our goals we are shown that they are impossible to reach. Either that, or we learn something we never event considered, and it opens up new possibilities for us. While the goals may change, the ever present undertaking of the process of knowledge remains with us. Do we decide to continue to apply it in every case? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And I think this is perhaps what you are trying to imply? The question perhaps here is what is the justification for deciding to use the process of knowledge in some cases versus not others.

This question is a version of the the problem of induction, which is not a simple problem to solve. I believe your answer is that it is up to every individual to use knowledge, or not. While this does simplify the issue, I believe it is a surrender that many people will pick up on. The question is begged, "Is there a rational way of deciding when we should use knowledge, and when we shouldn't?"

But I'll let you respond here to see if I'm on the mark, or still off a bit. Great reply, I think we're almost to the point we can start taking the theory into some common epistemological problems!

Hume's skepticism is about how certain knowledge is impossible but we can, in that case, run with tentative knowledge. — TheMadFool

This was my understanding too. Essentially Hume is stating that it is impossible to know what the future will bring. So any knowledge that asserts with certainty of anything beyond the present cannot be true. The only way we could know with certainty, is if we saw the result in the future. Of course, we can't function at all if we don't have some belief that things are repeatable, or that certain rules and laws will remain as such in the future. The lesson is we should always be aware that knowledge is a tentative grasp, and that we can never escape needing some induction about the future in our lives.

You seem to believe that knowledge is belief. — FrancisRay

Are you going by the comments here, or the paper itself? Because the comments here are only to get people to actually read the paper and understand the points. You will not glean my argument from the comments alone.

If you have read the paper, I will summarize to help you understand. No, knowledge is not merely a belief. There are two parts to knowledge. Distinctive, and applicable. In both cases, a belief that is subjectively deduced is the particular type of knowledge based on the context. Which part are you having trouble understanding?

I do not care about any of your personal philosophies of knowledge, I care about good criticism of the ideas of the paper. Now if you can apply your personal philosophies of knowledge to the paper, that would be fantastic! But generic personal opinion without addressing the paper serves no point.

The only reason I'm replying to this is to add to the chorus of rejection. Honestly, this OP isn't about philosophy, but conspiracy. You're a smart guy Gus Lamarch. Don't waste your gift and talents on trash like this.

Ok! Finally got some time to sit down and really analyze this again.

So there are some really good things with goals. I think they are a great way to start a search for knowledge. I just don't think they are a necessary precursor to knowledge, or work as an end. Lets keep our space example. I have a goal to discover that the world was flat. I am told before I go into space that water will float out in the open if you release it from its container. I don't believe the astronaut, or have any care or goal to learn this.

Once I am in space, I grab my water container, squeeze the straw, and sure enough, water emerges and floats there in space. I never had a goal in the beginning or the end, and yet it appears I now have applied knowledge that water floats in open space.

Perhaps this is where my issue comes from. It seems like you want to propose goals are a necessary part of knowledge, when I think it is an optional part of knowledge. Again, I really like it as an explanation for why we start seeking knowledge, but much of our day to day applied knowledge is not anticipated or sought out.

As for inter-goal applicability, while your explanation is more fleshed out, I don't think it solves the main problem. So far, I can decide whatever goals I want. Which also means I can throw out whatever goals I find contradictory, so long as there is consistency in my set of information.

What this leaves us with is a web of beliefs that are are not contradictory if we throw out evidence we don't like that fits our end goal. This is what a conspiracy theory is. Flat Earthers throw out any evidence or come up with interpretations that allow them to hold to their beliefs despite mounds of contrary evidence.

Like the unicorn case, perhaps much of this, or even all of this, can be solved by clarifying the context and applicability of the belief and separating the beliefs from the goal. I just don't think a goal is a belief, and I think you are extending to goals aspects of beliefs, when a goal is more the start of seeking out and obtaining beliefs which we may then consistently apply as knowledge.

As for the structure, all it needs is another draft review. You can tell you're thinking as you type, and you repeat a few things unnecessarily. I do it too, so I recognize it. =) As for the order, I think its mostly the introduction of doubt and definitions when you imply in your introductory paragraph that you're going to start with consistency and applicability. Again, absolutely no judgement. The paper that I wrote is 20 pages, but when I first wrote it, it was over 100. Lastly, my mention of it being a draft was to show that I was not going to word pick, but that I was looking at its overall concepts. Which, is still pretty good!

Pain is an emotional tool to help you avoid doing harm to yourself, and those around you. It is a vital part of being a functioning person. Would we like to be fully functioning people and also avoid emotional pain? Sure, I would like to fly and shoot lasers from my eyes as well. Unfortunately, despite what we want, it isn't happening.

Jack, this is more a theology question then a philosophy question. A philosophy question would be more along the lines of, "Is there a wrong that humanity can commit that is unforgivable?"

That being said, according to many interpretations, the holy spirit is God, and God is the truth. If you deny God, then you deny the truth, and you will not be forgiven on the day of judgement.

Again, to take this the more philosophical route you could ask questions like, "How does one know the truth? How does one know God?"

As for your personal fears about theological hell, I am sorry to hear you have suffered over it. While I do believe this should remain in the vein of philosophy, feel free to message me if you would like to discuss the theology of hell more in depth. I went through my own search in Christianity at one time in my life, and I do not mind offering to share what I learned.

Hello again Josh, no worry on the timeframe, we all have lives here!

First, I want to agree with you that Christianity is an exclusive religion. That being said, let me examine your argument for the apostle's beliefs to see if we can conclude they must have been correct.

1. The apostles of Jesus Christ believed that Jesus Christ physically resurrected from the dead.
2. If the Apostles had no evidence to base their belief off of, then their belief is irrational.
3. There is evidence on which the Apostles based their belief.
4. Therefore, the Apostles’ belief is rational. — Josh Vasquez

Since we're doing philosophy, lets adjust the above to be clearer.
1. Assume the apostles of Jesus Christ believed that Jesus Christ physically resurrected from the dead.
2. If the Apostles had no evidence to base their belief off of, then their belief is irrational.
3. If There is sufficient and reasonablee evidence on which the Apostles based their belief, the Apostles’ belief is rational.

Just some nitpicks above, and I think we're good to continue.

1. Jesus Christ either physically resurrected from the dead or he did not.
2. If Jesus Christ didn’t physically resurrect, then there must be alternate hypotheses / theories that
explain the Apostles belief
3. All other alternate hypotheses / theories fail in comparison to the physical resurrection hypothesis
4. Therefore, the explanation for the Apostle’s rational belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is that
Jesus Christ physically resurrected — Josh Vasquez

1 is sound.
2 is sound.
3 and 4 need an adjustment.

3. Assume all other alternate hypotheses / theories to Jesus' resurrection the apostles could think of were explored by the apostles and failed.
4. Therefore, the apostles rationally believed that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead.

As you see, the changes I made clarified a few implicit assumptions. They also take the view point of the apostles, and not ourselves. After all, we can come up with crazy theories I'm sure the apostles never thought of.

This leaves us with a problem however, Just because the apostles were being rational with what they knew, it does not mean they understood the truth. Back again to the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth. Prior to an understanding of space, this was perfectly rational. Yet, its not the truth.

We also have no evidence that the apostles were very rational people. They could have been, but they could also as easily not have been. There is a lot of assuming going on here either way.

So I think a rational conclusion we can make from this, is we cannot conclude the disciples rationally believed in Jesus resurrection, but even if we did, it would not conclude that what they rationally believed was true. I will note however, this is just from this evidence alone. Perhaps there is more out there. But within the confines of what we are proposing, I can see no other conclusion.

Still, the God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism). — DrOlsnesLea

And the non-God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the non-soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism).

The only conclusion is that anything could have been the first cause. As such, we cannot use what we know post origin, to explain the origin. Post origin does not need a God, and it does not need a universe without a God either. Either are viable options, but cannot be precluded from the post origin results we currently understand.

In short, there is nothing necessary to explain anything, except what actually exists.

I just came by to say I have not forgotten! I will have this answered at least by Sunday.

One of the most difficult acts of the individual to achieve is the total abandonment of any type of morality - which are chains that make it impossible for the individual to be fully potentialized — Gus Lamarch

Ugh, no. There are clearly moral and immoral actions. Perhaps we don't understand which one's are which as journey onto old age, but that is where we test and ask other people.

OP, you have to learn how to handle other people. The clerk might think he's just having fun with you. Its unlikely he would want to drive a customer away after all. Have you tried playing along? Throwing some lines back in good humor? If he responds positively, you'll know it wasn't serious. If he responds negatively? He'll probably stop. Take it one step at a time.

Morality does not only apply to other people. It applies to you too. It is not about superiority and inferiority, it is about living your life to the fullest with minimal negative impact to those around you. If it bothers you, the worst thing you can do about it is nothing.