Well I am a part of this world, no doubt there. But I am not the world. I have different experiences than a walking stick bug. I have limitations in my will. The fact we can say our interpretations of our perceptions do not fit the reality of the world outside of those perceptions indicates this as well.

Are you trying to say we are defined not apart from reality, but by our limits in relation to it? I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

This does seem mostly to be putting the symbols in a more modern day friendly form. However, the input of a specific number is logically unneeded. The point is handled by "at least one". If a specific number of things are important in your proof, then we should be using a different proof.

Perhaps a better word would be "context". Then you can break it down into its most basic logical components.

context(Greece)
claim(all men are mortal)

After reading more, I think I see the aim here 3017amen.

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology]
— 3017amen

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology] — 3017amen

3. Jesus had a consciousness that transcends logic. True false or something else?

Nothing can transcend logic, because logic arrives from one undeniable fact. What is logical, is what exists. If God exists, then God existing is logical. If God exists, it is our descriptions about God that must be logical. Just because we might have some incorrect descriptors, does not deny God's existence.

So if we say God is both timeless and in time, it is our definitions that we must take care of. Kind of like the car situation. Its just a problem with us using general descriptors that aren't quite the same.

A true contradiction can be shown through math. 1=1 Now equality is entirely, 100% the same thing. There is zero difference in even the tiniest point. The problem is I think you're taking general words that are similar, but not quite the same.

Its like saying, 1.00001 = 1.0000001. The decimals have a lot of zeros, and for most general purposes, we shave off the remaining decimal places because we don't have time in communicating to use exactness everywhere.

A lot of descriptions of God are like poetry. What they are trying to convey is the majesty and mystery of God. A fine pattern in poetry is to relate things we normally think as the same in a general context, result in an odd dissonance when placed in a context they normally wouldn't.

So for example, we say God is omniscient, omnibenevent, and all the omnis, we are stating these things to convey that the power, goodness, and knowledge of God are so great in comparison to ourselves, we are insignificant. It is to evoke awe. They are not intended as logical arguments.

Now this does not mean that we cannot make them into logical arguments by putting the dropped decimal places back. Yes, it is impossible for a God to do anything, even contradict itself. So a simple fix is to add the decimal places back that state, "God is as powerful as it is possible to be within existence." Basically instead of saying God = infinity, we say God = The biggest real number expression of power in existence.

When you say God is timeless, you can say, "God is the origin. There was nothing before God. So God did not form by time, but was the beginning of time. God of course then is still involved in time. Time is not a substance, it is simply the observation that objects have a set relational position at one moment, then another set relational position at another moment. God cannot be outside of this.

Finally, Jesus did not have a consciousness that transcended logic. If Jesus existed, and he had his consciousness, then it is a logical possibility. There is nothing illogical about proposing that Jesus was God expressed as a man, only the difficulty in describing what that would mean, or how to prove such a thing.

I understand the zeal for belief in God. There is nothing wrong with that. It does not make you unintelligent. It is a hallmark of intelligence that we should be curious about and question about God.
But a zeal for a belief in God should not allow us to dismiss the reality in front of us, or ignore logical principles. Perhaps that means you will have to abandon certain ideas about God. Or perhaps you will have to add the decimals back to some of that poetry, and understand the point in a new light.

At the end of the day, if God exists, he gave us a brain that is better than, for all we know, anything else in the entire universe. God would not want us to throw that away to believe in God. How are we any better than the animals then? God would want us to use that brain to discover God as God actually exists, and not simply be inspired by poetry, or how we might desire that God exists.

I am obliged to use the language we have. — unenlightened

That is a given. But within the language we have, my point still stands. If I'm reading you online, its not the same as if we were speaking with one another, so we have to be careful with the word choices we use. I always worry I come across as cold or overly harsh, when all I wish to do is have a nice discussion. =)

my intention was to convey that the distinction and identification we get is a feature of perception, not of reality as such. — unenlightened

Ok, I think this explains your point better. So why do you believe that perception is separate from reality? If I see the color red, is the sight itself not real? When I taste an apple and find it delicious and another tastes an apple and finds it repulsive, is that not real too? What about my perception that though I wish to fly by my mind alone, I find that I cannot?

Think about all 3 circumstances, and see that each is an indicator of the self. What do those perceptions tell us about the self? How are they real, or unreal?

Wonderful! I believe we are both in agreement, and yes, this conversation was as much for my clarity as yours. It is a rare event that two philosophers come together and think with a mind for the answers to life's questions without worry about ego. I believe you have taken the seed of your idea, and grown it into a strong sapling that will not break in the wind, nor yield easily to an ax. Your focus on goals is a way to make it very relatable and simple to begin with, and the process as a whole is compact, but logically sound. I look forward to seeing where we go next, and I am hopeful a person of your intellect and hard work will be able to make something of it beyond these forum posts once this is said and done.

As for the definitions, absolutely lets table it. Depending on the goal of your epistemology theory, it may not be needed. I think we are ready for your next branches.

I too am excited! I think we're whittling down the remaining issues, and this is looking good. There are just a few questions and clarifications left.

If we considered the alternative and found that we could not in fact walk with our feet but must do so with our hands — TVCL

I hesistate to address this, as I don't want this to lead into certain other questions yet. We're trying to solve the questions of applicability, so lets disregard the question which will hover, "Who determines definitions?"

Instead, what I will assume so we can resolve this portion (unless you think going into that right now would help), is that we know what definitions are. This is necessary, for then we can say we know what beliefs are. So lets define walk. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/walk?s=t
"to advance or travel on foot at a moderate speed or pace"

If you move using your hands, you can say you were able to mobilize yourself using your hands, but you (under the assumptions we are working on) could not say you would walk using your hands. That is because you are introducing something that is not the definition into the definition.

Lets use another example, the old stand by of, "A bachelor is an unmarried man." If we found an unmarried woman, then called her a "bachelor" because she fit part of the definition of being unmarried, we would be violating the portion of the definition that notes it must be an unmarried man.

This would violate what we have set up so far. We cannot have a contradiction in our belief for our belief to be knowledge. If I hold that a bachelor is an unmarried man, then conclude that an unmarried woman is a bachelor, I have a contradiction. The same applies with, "Walking with your hands," Walking uses feet. If I say I can walk with my hands, and hold the definition of walking as is, I have a contradiction.

Application as mentioned does not have to happen only in realms beyond the mind. In showing that a woman cannot be a bachelor, we have used no actual woman or man, because we have determined this logic through the definitions we hold alone. The 2+2 = 4 math equation is the same. While someone could tell us the definition of 2, 4, and addition, we can apply this within our minds in regards to other definitions such as five. Thus I can, without being told, apply 2+2 in my mind and realize that 5 would not be the answer, because it would contradict the definitions of the numbers I hold.

The application in the mind can be summed as, "Applying beliefs to other beliefs without contradiction." The belief could be a definition, or a belief that has been applied without contradiction, aka., knowledge. The application outside of the mind would be a different application, though with the same rule that it cannot be contradicted in its application, and result in a different type of knowledge. I find it helpful to call this "realm or area" in which application is occurring, context. Thus we can apply beliefs within the context of our mind, or the context of empiricism and result in different contextual knowledge.

I believe this gives you the consistency that you are looking for. Further, this will let you clarify a goal by context. Thus I could have my goal be, "To learn if a woman is a bachelor in the context of my mind," and have another goal be, "To learn if a woman is a bachelor in the context of empiricism". This compartmentalizes the goals as a person wishes, and allows a way to establish the limitations one desires in their pursuit of knowledge.

If this is amenable, I believe you have the base you need to continue. The question that I tabled, "What determines definitions?" is something you may want to ask yourself next. You may find this irrelevant to your pursuits however, and feel free to ignore it if you wish. Regardless, what you have constructed so far seems like a solid foundation. Amazing work!

The problem OP, is you define a "you" in your premises.

The skin is the parish boundary of the self. — unenlightened

The remote senses establish the existence of a world beyond the skin a world of things and others — unenlightened

Memory allows for learning, and the integration of the senses. — unenlightened

So I'm having a hard time following the conclusion that we can't get a "you" out of that. "You" is the thing with the skin, senses and memory. Then there is the world of others. If such a claim is a fallacy, then we need to see some indication why. All you've done is present arguments against this fallacy through your premises.

Nice! — 3017amen

I took this to mean you understood why the driving/not driving idea was not contradictory logic, and did not press the issue. Acknowledgment of such things is unimportant as long as you understand in your own mind. But I see you've continued to insist on this paradox in the thread, and now I'm not sure if you were simply dismissing the point. I have great respect for your viewpoints, and enjoyed our conversation in my last thread immensely.

Do you understand my question about controlling being defined as conscious or unconscious being key to the issue? It is thus. If you define controlling as conscious, then the moment a person controls unconsciously, they are no longer in control, and not driving. Thus their death was due to a lack of driving on their part.

If you define controlling as something that can also be subconscious, then yes, the person drives to their death while daydreaming. We could say that their subconscious control was not enough to handle the vehicle when it came into a situation it needed conscious control.

If you understand, there is no need to reply. This conversation seems to have become a little heated, and in such cases, an acknowledgement does no one any favors. If you disagree however, feel free to reply with a counter point.

technically, this is only "provisional" because we have no means of knowing whether reality will not contradict a given piece of knowledge later (as of yet). And so, we could either consider if "provisional knowledge" or say that "all knowledge that we have is technically provisional". — TVCL

Great! Truth is the only thing that is certain. Knowledge is our best rational guess at what the truth is. As such, we can imagine that something might come around that may prove our guess wrong one day.

Ok, now we get to a potentially very technical and difficult to discuss section. I will try to break down your examples and see if I can demonstrate the applicable as I have come to understand it.

1. Make gold by touching it.
This is a perfect example of the logic you have concluded. Nothing within the sentence structure necessitates any defined link between the two. You can believe you can make things into gold by touching them. You know you have this belief. What you don't know is if you apply this belief by actually touching things whether this will turn these things into gold.

So you apply it. You take you finger, touch a rock, and it does not turn to gold. Reality has contradicted the application of your belief, not the fact that you had the belief.

2. I want to walk
The problem with this example is the word "walk" is defined as using feet. You aren't confirming that using your feet allows you to walk, because that's part of the definition of walk. If we change the structure to,

a) Goal: "I want to walk"
b) Belief: "I can walk"
c) Outcome: "I am able to walk"
d) Conclusion: Therefore I can walk.

I think this works more the way you intended. You have a belief that you can walk, then you apply that belief, by trying to walk. Reality does not contradict you. The definition of walk is subsumed in the goal, as we know what walking entails. For your purposes, we have a goal, a belief, and an attempt to confirm or deny that the belief fits the goal. Yes, I know this is technical, a subtle difference, and seems like semantics, but this is an important for part 3.

3. To know how 2+2 makes 4

While in your second example, the reliance on a definition for your conclusion was subtle, here it relies on definitions almost exclusively. At this point, we've said, 2+2=4 because there are a set of definitions that tell us 2+2=4. That really doesn't prove anything except that a bunch of definitions say certain conclusions should happen. At this point we've said, I have a belief, and it is proven because I have that belief.

Lets reshape this once again to fit what I feel you are trying to do.

Goal: I want to know if 2+2 makes 4
Belief: I believe 2+2 can make 4
Effect: I make sure I understand the definitions, then I actually add 2+2 together. I find it makes 4 without contradiction.
Outcome: I know 2+2 can make 4 by application

Now I will clarify, you do not have to do math empirically. There are many beliefs and concepts we can test within our own mind, especially if they are products of the mind itself. But it is still an application of our belief to see if it is contradicted. If I stated 2 objects + 2 objects make 4 objects, you would need to apply that with objects. You could imagine objects in your mind, but they aren't actually objects. You need the real deal. What level you need to apply your belief at is determined by your definitions. Thus you could know the definition that 2+2 = 4, but you won't know if that belief is knowledge within your mind/empiricism/etc. until you apply it for yourself within the scope of the potential application.

And yes, if this is what you are going for, this is separate from science. Science rigorously tries to disprove a hypothesis, whereas we are simply trying one application, and determining whether we are contradicted. Still, every belief that is applied is falsifiable by the fact it is being applied. If it is contradicted when it is applied, then we know the belief is false. If it is not contradicted, then it is "knowledge". This should also answer your final question, that 2+2=4 is a falsifiable belief if one applies it.

As others have echoed here, such an issue should probably be relegated to a medical professional. If however you want an idea of what dissociation is apart from the mechanical, we can speculate.

One thing we've learned over the decades of studying the brain is that the brain is composed of several different parts and functions. A part of your brain handles digestion, and your heart rate for example. Consciousness can be seed as a regulator of manager between certain parts of the brain. Some things you have control over, others you don't. But consciousness is part of the brain itself, meaning it is influenced by those separate parts as well.

It has been my idea that certain parts of the brain want things, and the degree that they wish to express themselves over others varys. People with a temper for example have to manage a part of the brain that gets angry easily, and it can be very difficult for the consciousness to control.

So on that note, I could speculate that there is a part of your brain that heavily still desires alcohol. You as the conscious regulator understand and tell it no, but it may in effect be "fighting back". This makes it more difficult for you, the conscious part, to remain in control.

Fortunately, we understand that neurons can be trained to strengthen and diminish the strength of neural signals through repetition. If you keep shutting down the urge to drink alcohol, and keep steady on your decision, over time you might be able to tame that part of your brain.

Of course this is PURE speculation. Please only use thoughts like this to give meaning or some semblance of peace to yourself. In all matters medical, speak with a professional.

Driving is the controlled operation and movement of a motor vehicle, including cars, motorcycles, trucks, and buses. In that case, it was controlled, yet not controlled. — 3017amen

Alright, what is your definition of controlled? Does it have to be conscious controlling, or can there be unconscious controlling?

But I 'was' driving the car, otherwise, wouldn't have crashed and killed myself. So in a proposition, I was both driving and not driving holds true. Hence violation of LEM. — 3017amen

If you noticed, I gave you two definitions and noted that what "driving" is depends on context. You are saying, "I 'was' driving the car". What is your particular definition of driving? Is it that you are conscious? Your full attention at the wheel? Can you drive while daydreaming? If you break down what it means to drive, I'm sure you'll find its impossible to both drive and not drive at the same time.

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. As a proposition, it's logically impossible to explain (its nature) as it would only violate LEM. — 3017amen

If you run into a contradiction when constructing words, then you should examine your words more closely.

Driving the car could mean many different things depending on context. Let us define it your way however, that a person needs to be actively paying attention. If that is the case, when you are daydreaming you ceased driving the car. You may have been holding the wheel, but you were not paying attention. Thus you died because you stopped driving the car, and started daydreaming.

But lets say driving the car means being behind the wheel in a conscious or subconscious state. In that case, daydreaming meant you were driving the car in a subconscious state.

If there is one thing that is incontrovertible, is that you cannot have something both true and false.

Because people like that understand that the continual existence of certain people is worth more than their own continual existence. Think of it another way. If no one's else's lives hold any import to you, why not kill everyone if you could get away with it? I believe that if most people were given this option, they would not do it.

There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes. After all, consciousness itself operates that way. — 3017amen

When something is logically impossible, it means it is something that cannot exist. Something cannot be both true and false. Consciousness is not an impossible attribute. It is clear consciousness exists. We could have contradictory ideas of how consciousness exists, and these can be thrown out. But consciousness itself must operate on some logical means, because consciousness is not both true and false at the same time, its very much true.

They are separate becau — TVCL

"What will your theory serve?" Those who seek knowledge. — TVCL

In regards to potential knowledge versus a belief:

They are separate because belief is potential knowledge and knowledge accords with reality. Beliefs are excluded when they are inconsistent or inapplicable. All that remains is [provisional] knowledge. — TVCL

To clarify, what you are saying is that a belief that has not been contradicted is 'potential knowledge'. A belief that has been contradicted is a 'belief'. But if knowledge is what has not been contradicted, and potential knowledge is what has not been contradicted, is there a difference?

I think I see what you're trying to go for, and its a means of application to decide whether you have reached at knowledge, versus potential knowledge. If I believe that I can flap my arms and fly, but I never try it out, do we want to say that is in the same category as knowledge? I don't think that's what you're going for.

Perhaps we could say something like this. A belief which has been contradicted by reality, is a contradicted belief. A belief which has not attempted to see if reality will contradict it, is an unverified belief. I would say both of these categories are still belief, and not knowledge. And this fits within the terms you've crafted so far. You know that knowledge can only form when it cannot be contradicted, but one must try to actually contradict it for this to be. I believe this also fits in with your aims of a rational person who wishes to seek the truth.

This leads us back to falsifiability. I want to make sure we're both on the same page as to what this means. To be falsifiable means that there is a way to test if it is in accordance with reality. This is a hypothesis. It is a proposition that we can test and discover if an attempt to prove our claim as false will pass or fail. So to fit in with your example, ""The revolution will eventually come", your are correct, this is not falsifiable. It does not become falsifiable until we place restrictions on it that let us actually test it. But until it has actually been tested, it cannot be potential knowledge either. This is because we can construct a contradiction.

If I claim, "The Revolution will not eventually come", then both I and another person could have contradictory potential knowledge. If we understand however that they are both merely untested beliefs, we do not run into a contradiction. This applies whether we put a timeline to test it, or not. If we claim two contradictory beliefs are both potential knowledge, we run afoul of our core rational argument for what knowledge is: something which cannot be contradicted.

Because knowledge is something which cannot be contradicted, I do not think we cannot allow the idea of potential knowledge. The logic can be crafted as thus.

k = knowledge, p = potential knowledge

If k, then !k = false
If p, then !p = true
but p =!p is a contradiction, and knowledge cannot have a contradiction.

This is why I believe potential knowledge as you have defined it now, cannot be a fundamental part of your knowledge system, even if we do not wish to be as precise as science. Ok, I hope I didn't spend too much time on that part.

One of the main differences is that I have not yet made one appeal to data/empiricism/observation to support the argument. — TVCL

I do not think that you need to. We can hold a belief in our head that we cannot contradict with our own beliefs. But then when applying those beliefs in any way, be this empirical, data, or observation, this belief cannot be contradicted by the respective empirical, data, or observation realm.

Hopefully this explains why I will take your advice and use the term "hypothesis" but I will use this to refer to the approach, but not the goal itself. — TVCL

Great, I am in full agreement. I did not mean to imply they should be joined, just that you needed something to explain the process that we arrive at the goal. I'm think I fully understand now, I appreciate you re-explaining. =)

It is more than Sophists you will have to worry about. Your base theory is very close to science at this point, but science does not allow non-falsifiable claims. If you allow non-falsifiable claims into the realm of knowledge, we are also back again to what you mean by provisional knowledge. How is provisional knowledge separate from just a belief? Further, if you do not address non-falsifiable claims, how will you convince someone to use falsifiable claims? Let me give you an example.

Early on in America, there was the idea that taking an anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloriquine would be a good fight against Corona. After all, they seemed to hit what was needed, and a few people who took it had better results. There was no need to try to prove these things false for these people, and many accepted it. It turns out upon more scientific study in which falsification was applied, the medication did not have appreciable effects, and could potentially kill you.

In only preaching to reasonable people, you are only preaching to the choir. And in that case, why would reasonable people not just use science? If you are to create a new theory of epistemology you must ask yourself who is going to use, and what are the alternatives for other people to use?

This brings me back to a couple of points I made earlier. People are not always rational. If you let them escape a rational argument, they will. If you don't fight them from a place of intellectual certainty and clarity, they will think they are right. They will take that with them to the world, and knowledge becomes a thing of relativity and who is more forceful in their beliefs. On the flip side, rational people aren't going to learn or use a method of epistemology that has easily identifiable holes in it.

Your competitor with rational people is science. Your competitor for those who do not use science, is a vast variety of personal opinion, bias, and induction. What will your theory serve? Who will it save? Just something to consider.

This is not a criticism of a single argument that you have presented — TVCL

No, not a worry! And I hope my statements were not taken to be a critique of your approach either! I feel like your intention is to produce an epistemology that is rational, and can be understood by someone who is not a nit picky philosopher. This is a very good thing. To this end, I understand what you mean about not addressing the Sophists. My only concern is that you will be critiqued by a lot more than them in this particular instance. And this is what I truly meant by airtight. If you fight to make it airtight, you will likely fail, but your failure will be difficult to identify, and arguably irrelevent. If you do not make it airtight, you will assume you can let things slide, but you will misjudge on this and leave yourself open to holes you never thought of.

I would re-examine once more belief, knowledge, and potential knowledge, and see if the terms as defined are clearly different from one another, and useful to your purposes. At that point, I will accept whatever you decide, and we can move onto where you would like your theory to go from here. Again, your work and dedication to this topic are always appreciated. I know the effort it entails.

"Perhaps the most common attitude for neuroscientists is to set the hard problem aside." — RogueAI

Certainly, that was just one aspect, on the mechanical side. What about the second aspect? Does that cover what you wanted addressed?

Thank you for the link. — TheMadFool

No problem! Anytime.

The Hard Problem is WHY are we conscious AT ALL and HOW does consciousness arise from non-conscious stuff? — RogueAI

I see now. Lets break down into two ways to interpret this to see if we can get to the problem then.

First interpretation: The answer to the hard problem is through the mechanical workings of the brain. A good read on this is here from 2018 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-neuroscience/ He has a section on the hard problem, and correlates of consciousness as well. He will do a much better and in depth job of covering the role of neuroscience as the essential ingredient in the mind/body problem at this day and age.

Second interpretation: We don't care about the mechanical why and how. Any attempt to link a physical action to a thought in the mind can only be correlative, because when I cut open a skull and look at a working mind, I can't see the thing its thinking about. This is the hard problem.

Lets break it down further. Your second part, "HOW does consciousness arise from non-conscious stuff?" in the non-mechanistic way.

How does water arise from hydrogen and oxygen mixing together? Water does not catch on fire and burn, (normally) but if I take the hydrogen and oxygen out, they are highly flammable. The idea that new states arise out of the combination of the elements is a given. Now we know the mechanical function behind it. But in the non-mechanical sense of, "HOW does this happen?" ,we honestly don't know; it simply does. This of course does not mean that we think such reactions happen apart from the mechanical processes. We do not envision a separate realm that actually produces the fire or water, and the mechanical processes are merely correlative. We are looking at hydrogen and oxygen separately and do not see fire. Why then is it so hard to believe that consciousness is simply another combined state of matter?

You are a combination of matter and energy. You are a carbon based set of chemical reactions, that has the property that unlike, "non-living" matter that burns its reaction out, you actively seek to replenish it and keep it going. You are simply another expressed combination of the elements. Your consciousness is part of that. This is honestly the only reasonable conclusion backed by the reality we are aware of. The idea that somehow this consciousness is not an expression of matter comes from...where? We have never observed any expression of existence that has not come from matter and energy. It is merely an idea from the imagination, and has no bearing in reality.

I have written a paper on knowledge here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge
I feel questions like the "hard problem" come up because of a misunderstanding of the knowledge of our ideas, versus the knowledge of our application of these ideas to reality. To simplify it, just because I can imagine a unicorn, does not mean one exists in reality or has any bearing apart from the fact we can imagine it. The hard problem is like asking why we can envision a unicorn, but can't find one. It is a misapplication of our ideas to reality.

And for the first part of your point, "WHY are we conscious AT ALL", the answer is the same. The how is the description of the process, and the why is the existence of that process. If you mean to take this back to why is there humanity, the Earth, anything really, we are beyond the question of consciousness. Matter and energy can be combined a particular way to form a consciousness. It is done in billions of beings on this Earth every day, and not a radical statement. Why is matter and energy able to do this? Why does anything exist at all? A topic for another time.

I can go on and give more examples, but I feel I need to make sure I'm on the right track with how you see what the hard problem is. Feel free to critique or correct my assumptions in any way, I will try to reply the best I can.

I'm not sure. I don't follow any one particular individual. I just like to read the news and see new things that are being discovered. Here's a pretty good article that sums up a bit of the history through the 1990's to today. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1

Perhaps there are aspects of this that you might be more interested in exploring.

The principle 'it happened like this before, therefore it will happen like that again', is not logical, nor reasonable in any way. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you conclude this? Now some instances of predicting the future based on the past are illogical. But will you say that predictions on physics and math are illogical? All predictions are illogical? My desire to eat an apple because I liked the taste in the past is illogical?

Repeatability, we can understand as being the necessary condition for a general principle, produced by induction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the claim that the future will be a certain way is always an induction. But we can have logically based inductions, and irrationally based inductions. For example, I can claim the probability of an evenly balanced coin flip will be 50% over time. This is based on the knowledge we've gleaned from the past that we assume still stands. Knowing this information, it would be irrational to predict that it is 10/90% probability for heads/tails.

And that is the point I am trying to make. A rational assessment of the situation can allow you to avoid making a mistake. Note I was not intending to imply a guarantee. You can still make a rational choice about something, and it turns out to be wrong. But making a choice based on logic and previous knowledge gets you in a better ballpark on average than a guess that ignores or does not consider these things. Have I communicated this better? Feel free to point out if I need to clarify.

As is evident then, there are two possible reasons to seek status and which reason motivates people will determine how well a person makes us of his/her status. — TheMadFool

I agree with this. I feel the evil comes in when people solely pursue status for personal gain, and disregard the part where they have a duty and responsibility to others. Personal gain is also necessary for higher roles, as the person in higher status often has more demanded of them. Without any personal reward at all, few, if any people, would be willing to do it.

I think what you're saying is often true, but it doesn't account for evil in its entirety. — BitconnectCarlos

True. I believe the pursuit of status for its own gain is one of many roots of evil.

I do agree that evil is in our nature. But I also believe that we can learn to control and refine it. And I think that for the majority of humanity, there is some desire in us all to do so.

Nietzsche for instance points out that even asceticism or saints are ultimately also an attempt to gain status... — ChatteringMonkey

I would argue that while some people do this, they would be the people who are seeking status for itself. There are people who do such things without regards to status, and have had such status placed on them by society. It is the later who are the true saints and ascetics, while I would argue the former are pretenders.

Oh, my apologies bongo fury. Not a worry! Disregard my comments then.

In other words, I've provided you choices that represent every possible value P(real) can assume. So, "that doesn't work" is essentially nonsense. — TheMadFool

Ok, you're ignoring the discussion of theoretical probability, the cave with the bat scenario, and everything else I've put forward and simply keep repeating the same thing without addressing them. You have made your choice. Enjoy the discussion with others, there is nothing more to say at this point.

A good question. There are a few reasons for this. First coherency can allow a repeatability of positive results. Think about superstitions. I have a lucky rabbits foot, therefore lucky things will happen to me today. Maybe they did one day. And maybe you will have lucky results happen to you all day, or at least ascribe those "lucky" results to the foot.

At that point you're missing out the real reason you had a lucky result. Maybe it was your confidence to try new things you liked. Maybe it was the fact that your natural charm got you to get the waiter to switch your seat out for a view outside of a window. If you're missing out the real reason why good results happened to you, then you're leaving it up to chance.

The second is to avoid negative results. Lets say that I want to go paragliding but don't finish the training course because "My lucky rabbits foot will make it all work out." Perhaps it does. But you and I know that the rabbit foot had nothing to do with it, and his belief in the foot made him make a decision that could have been deadly. And of course, perhaps it doesn't work out at all.

It is a decision to be rational however, and if someone does not experience negative consequences from being irrational, or does not ascribe their negative experiences to being irrational, many people will choose the easier path of being emotional. In this case, they will reject reason for their "superior state" of emotional opinions and biases.

Yes, she has knew knowledge of the experience of red now. I don't know how these objectors are defining knowledge that Mary's experience of red doesn't qualify as new knowledge, but I can't imagine this definition of knowledge being well thought out.

Apparently you take all counter-arguments that are based purely on logic and language, as malicious, direct, and uncalled-for attacks on your ego. — god must be atheist

No, I pointed out your inappropriate attitude in you use of language is one of ego and that you ignored the counter point that your argument was a straw man. You still have not addressed this counter point, which fully addressed your argument.

You do not have a "provacative" style. Its rude, demeaning, and is not interested in hearing the argument, or further discussion. Provocative arguments get directly to the meat of the argument, and should "provoke" thought, not animus. Anyone who assumes being rude or demeaning during a discussion is somehow "intelligent" is someone using this cover as an excuse to be a rude person for their own self-satisfaction. Perhaps you were under the impression that because some people who purport to be intelligent use it to demean others, that is what intelligent discussion is all about. It is not. If you are unaware that your word choice is rude, then you have received feedback, and I invite you to change going forward. If you wish to see a way to critique an argument in a respectful manner, look at the way Coben typed his reply.

I invite you one last time. I gave you the point that your argument was a straw man argument. If you were unaware that your word choices were inflammatory, it is forgiven if you continue on with the argument itself. To your points, you will need to read part 1,2, and 4 if you are to attack what I mean when I say you can believe you will win the lottery, but know by probability that you are unlikely to win it.

And I've already informed you that the probability for observation O being real can be broken down into three choices, mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive: — TheMadFool

Yes, and I have countered that by stating that doesn't work, and an alternative. So currently, I have stated this that no, it cannot be broken down in a probability, because you do not have a die.
If you so like, you do not have the number of power balls in a lottery. Is it 3,4,5? How many numbers are on those power balls? These things are what allow us to determine the theoretical probability.
But you have none of this information in regards to what is real, and what is not. I've even given you an example in the cave that can solve this problem so you can address your original argument.
You have decided not to address that.

Repeating the same thing in light of this does not further the discussion, it ignores the discussion. If there is something you don't understand in what I'm putting forward, feel free to ask. If you do understand, but are not addressing it, then I have said my peace and will leave here with the knowledge that you were unable to refute that your argument is incorrect. If this is fine by you, then so be it. If not, then you'll have to do more then simply repeat what you've already stated.

↪TheMadFool the wiki page for "ingenue" (from which "disingenuous") — bongo fury

So a person on these forums who could have any passing amount of knowledge or focus in different areas of philosophy comes on here, admits they did not know something, asks to learn something from the poster, and you mock them as being disingenous?

I studied philosophy of mind years ago. I do not remember many phrases like, "The hard problem". He did not use "the hard problem" in his questioning. If someone does not know something, and asks to learn something, then assume they are being honest until they know otherwise. Mocking people who can admit to ignorance fosters a place where people feel afraid to admit they are wrong. Do you want that in a place where our goal is to discuss and learn from one another? Don't you want an environment where people say, "I do not know, could you clarify, teach me more, etc?"

Think before you post such things in the future.

Ah, ok. Now again, you did not narrow what you intended by this scope, so I will do my best to address what you think the problem is based on the old Nagel paper.

Nagel's point is not incompatible with mine. Nagel is trying to note that one's personal experience is something that no one will ever be able to have identically. We can't post a picture on the wall for example of what you see before you, and it be the exact picture you experience personally. But what we CAN do, is measure your brain activity, and find brain activity that matches the personal experience you are having.

Understand that Nagel wrote this paper almost half a century ago, and such advances did not exist. It wasn't on his radar, or the scope of his topic. While yes, nothing will ever duplicate the experience you are having, that does not mean we cannot find the underlying physical processes that are causing you to have that personal experience. Modern neuroscience is at that step. I cited two papers which show this.

The first is the ability to read a person's mind and match it with a number the person is thinking of. When the person thinks, "10" we do not know the tonality they are speaking in (yet, we may in the future). But that is irrelevant. We know they are thinking the number "10", and are then able to represent this through a voice synthesizer. We have evidence now that the thoughts we have are able to be matched to the brain's physical process.

The second paper is the advances in consciousness. Consider for a minute that your conscious mind does not have control of your entire body. You cannot tell your gall bladder to produce more or less gall for example. There are certain areas of your brain you do not have access to. The brain has independent sections that manage certain tasks like sight, sound, and language. We know this because we have found damage or stimulation to these regions also affects people's personal experience in these areas. All of these areas need to be combined together into something coherent to be able to make basic judgments. It is worthless to see if it does not help you identify food from not food within that sight for example.

Consciousness is the cobbling together of certain resources to make decisions. Should I pursue that food, or should I not. With intelligence comes a greater ability to make judgements, and manage the different resources of the brain. All of this, is the brain itself. Philosophy is not about creating arguments based on ignorance. It is about creating arguments about things we are ignorant to, while basing it upon our limitations of the reality we know. If you wish to do viable philosophy in regards to the mind, old arguments that do not address modern day findings of neuroscience will be an argument based off of ignorance, and not very useful. Perhaps you will present me with a philosophy theory about the mind that neuroscience cannot be helpful in and prove me wrong.

You're talking experimental probability and it's a fallback measure when theoretical probability can't be calculated.

In our case, theoretical probability can be calculated. — TheMadFool

One of the reasons I like your posts is because you make me consider new avenues of an argument. Perhaps this will turn into a discussion between experimental and theoretical probability!
https://www.softschools.com/math/topics/theoretical_vs_experimental_probability/

As noted above, the theoretical probability of a coin flip is 50%. The experimental probability happens after we count the flips. So if we flip the coin 10 times, and it comes up heads 4 times, we have an experimental probablity of 60/40% for heads/tails.

Yet each probability is still based on a knowable. In the case of the theoretical probability, why did we say 50% versus lets say, 77//23%? It is because there is knowledge that there are only two sides. The coin doesn't appear to be weighted either. So it is reasonable to postulate a probability of 50% from the postulates we know.

But, we do not have two sides to the problem you've presented. We have identified two possibilities, but that does not mean we have two likelihoods. A better way to imagine this is a dice roll. Lets say you're on a game board and you have 1 space left to go to win. You must roll a 1 to enter, anything above will not let you. You have two options next turn. Win the game, or not win the game next turn. But there are 5 different outcomes we know of that you could lose the game, if we're using a six sided die. It would be unreasonable to say its a 50% chance, even with theoretical probability.

The situation you presented is a win the game/lose the game possibility scenario, but you haven't told us what dice you are using. It could be a 6 sided, 8 sided, 10 sided, or more! All we know is that we need to go one more space to win, but we don't know the rules of movement. You need to define when something would be real, and when it would not be real.

And perhaps I can help with this example so we can get back to your main point. Let us say you and a group of friends are in a cave that has harmless, but hallucinatory gas. The theoretical probability and experimental probability over the long term have been found to be that what you observe apart from the cave walls themselves has a 50% chance of being real. You and x number of people enter the cave. All of you see in the distance what appears to be a bat fly by a distant tunnel. Does your argument still hold now?

Obviously, I'm asking you for the neuroscientific answer to the Hard Problem to illustrate a point: there isn't an answer. The explanatory gap remains, an enduring embarrassment to materialism. — RogueAI

It was not obvious to me, sorry. I googled it. There is a ton on this, could you maybe give a better explanation of what you mean? I simply answered the question as given, and do not know what specific part of the hard problem you feel neuroscience cannot answer.

This is interesting, does constantly "easing" the boredom itself feel like a routine? Do you have an awareness of your distractions to distract from the boredom? — Cobra

No, it does not feel like a routine. Boredom to me is not something I distract myself from. It is an indicator that I need to stimulate my mind with something new. I do understand what you mean though by "doing something to distract from boredom". Sometimes when I'm programming, I'm bored. At those moments I play some music, or some type of distraction. But that is only at work, and rarely on my free time.

My hobbies are often entertainment or thought that is new. I enjoy writing philosophy, reading the news, and playing new video games. For me, I have to be "doing" something. Passively taking in things or repetitive chores quickly wear me out. And at that point, I simply stop doing them. I only tolerate boredom at my job, never boredom in my own life.

But, I also know exactly what I enjoy on my free time. Perhaps you need to shake things up a bit. Get out of your comfort zone a little. The other thing is you could be depressed. Depression is not sadness, it is the absence of all motivating emotions. When nothing brings you any emotional joy, dread, or anything in between, that is a sign. Nirvana is not actually heaven, it is often times a grey hell.

Finally, it could be that you are re-evaluating what others have imparted to you as important, versus your own sense of what is important. As we are raised, many things are pushed upon as as "valuable". Upon spending a few years having to actually live the life we put forward, many of us realize that this "valuable" thing might be valuable, but not to us.

You may be concerned that certain things others consider valuable no longer has any hold over you. That is not a loss of ambition. It is gaining your own perspective on what is valuable to yourself, and what is not. That is where true freedom lies, and the chance to pursue a life that is not one of boredom, but one of fulfillment.

When I say "the truth" the quotations are there to suggest that this is not actually the truth as it is claimed. — Judaka

I get that, but there are better words for that. What you are describing is a belief. If you're substituting the word truth for belief, its an improper use of language. It makes your statement confusing, and can lead to inaccurate conclusions.

The source of this irrational behaviour is not irrationality — Judaka

Again, this is an improper use of words. If it is an irrational behavior, then its source is irrationality. An irrational behavior cannot be the result of rational thought. And I don't mean to be a nitpicker or imply an air of superiority towards your post. I have been guilty of doing these things myself, and correcting them has helped my own clarity in thought and communication. I say this not as a better, but as an equal.

With this in mind, is this post trying to state that our beliefs are often irrational, based on emotions and biases, even when we should know better? Or is it that our beliefs are rational based on our limited perspective, but irrational if we are to analyze the entire situation scientifically?

I'm not sure you're using truth in the correct manner. Truth is what "is". It is reality apart from anything we desire or want. Perhaps a better replacement would be "The beliefs beside the truth"? Ideally we would buy perfume because of its quality, not because of other qualities irrelevant to the product. I suppose there could be a case made that a well advertised product is likely to have had money invested in it. As a "first purchase" we are more inclined to favor something with more money or class behind it then something that looks cheaper or classless.

But I get away from your point. People believe and act on things that are not the most logical or wise thing all the time. Thinking rationally takes effort. In terms of perfume, not thinking rationally will not cause a person to be financially or socially ruined. If people are willing to accept minor inconveniences or wastes in their lives for an easier choice, that is their choice; and it may be the most rational thing for them to do. No person can think at 100% rationality on everything, because the time and effort needed to gain and ascertain the knowledge needed would tax a person to immobility.

You cannot judge another's choices on how they live their life. We can provide education as opportunity, and help where needed. We should be more critical on ourselves first. For as you said,

"You probably think you're smarter than you are, more attractive than you are, less prone to error than you are - because most people are like that." Let us first lament ourselves before we lament over others.

I appreciate the feedback Coben. The paper defines knowledge as I go. I am answering this question in terms of the context of the paper. And yes, you can hold knowledge, but also a separate belief depending on the circumstance. In terms of the paper, this is the combination of two types of inductions, plausibility, and probability. I go over this in part 4. I can hold the belief that it is plausible I will win, but also know the probability that indicates it is not likely that I will win. There is no contradiction within the confines of the paper that I am aware of. Feel free to point out if there is one, but you will likely need to reference part 4.