The noting of the current limitations of science being able to objectively capture personal experience are just that, a limit.
— Philosophim

They're not that. There are limitations to scientific method in this respect as a matter of principle, which you're not seeing. It requires a different kind of approach to what has been up until now understood as scientific method. — Wayfarer

If I don't see it, try to show me. What is the different kind of approach you wish to propose? Otherwise this is retreating into your own mind, and I cannot follow.

As a footnote to the above, what really is 'physical'? Is the brain physical? Living organisms? I question these assumptions, because living organisms generally display attributes and characteristics that can't be extracted from the laws of physics or chemistry alone. — Wayfarer

I have nothing against questioning these assumptions. The physical world is matter and energy. To have something non-physical, you would need something that does not fit in the category of matter and energy. But questions and gaps alone are not an argument. We can doubt anything we want, including the fact we are ourselves. Maybe we're really possessed by some other being and only have the illusion of control. But such doubts are only plausibilities, and plausibilities are only limited by the imagination.

To have something more than a plausibility, there needs to be some viable angle beyond 'a doubt'. I've gone over a few with you before. Can we detect energy from thoughts? When we die is there some measurable essence that leaves the body? Are there things missing from the behavioral mode of consciousness that cannot be generally explained as, "You are your brain?" As far as I can tell, no. Get brain damaged, you become a different person. Get drunk? Your consciousness changes. Surgeons and psychiatric doctors have decades of real results from viewing consciousness as from the brain. So what specifically is missing that "You are your brain" cannot explain in terms of behavior?

When you say living organisms display attributes and characteristics that cannot be extracted from the laws of chemistry and physics alone, could you give some examples? Can you show that these examples invalidate the idea that, 'You are your brain?"

In my opinion that is a very cold, black and white way of looking at it. Would you turn away a human trafficking victim, would you turn away an unaccompanied minor on the border? What about an asylum seeker. — Samlw

That's what the laws of a nation are for, especially a democratic one. We decide as a whole, not as an individual. If we're all so noble, we'll create laws that allow it to the capacity we think we can handle.

And if you were to say we should say no regardless then I would say that you need some compassion for your fellow human. — Samlw

And I say you are too self-righteous in your denial of the bonds and rules of your nation. Are you better than everyone else? You'll be the one to decide? Where does that stop? If laws are to be broken whenever we deem, what good are they?

You deny entry when the immigrant does not meet the countries established laws for entry. I don't think its any more complicated then that. If you want to let more immigrants in, change the law. If you don't, change the law. The one thing which is completely unacceptable is when immigrants are allowed in against the law.

There is some ability to infer some obvious physiological correlations like pain or epilepsy from neuroscience, but you still fall back on the assumption that subjective experiences are still ultimately physical, without addressing the real crux of the issue — Wayfarer

I really don't feel that you and I are that different in our intention here. Its been a while, but I've noted before that I am very open to a non-physical explanation of consciousness if there is evidence that there is. You and I may have a very different approach to 'what knowledge means', which is no surprise because its not exactly settled philosophy.

To me, knowledge is a tool, not an element of truth. Its an attempt by people to demonstrate a logic and process that gives us more confidence that what we say we know is more than a belief and wish. When I say, "We know that consciousness is from the brain," that can be translated to, "Everything we currently understand logically leads to consciousness coming from the brain. Its not that it couldn't be true that consciousness is apart from the brain, but there is not any viable evidence that demonstrates that its not."

Yes, I fully agree that neuroscience has not filled in all the gaps yet. But those gaps grow smaller every day. Pharmacology and neuroscience give us the knowledge in countless real world results that consciousness is a physical expression of the brain. Physical of course being matter and energy.

While we can muse about those gaps, prod, question, and study in the hopes of finding something different from the physical (which I encourage!) hypotheses and questions alone do not elevate themselves to knowledge, or even likely outcomes. There is the risk of creating a 'god of the gaps' here and stating, "Because we don't understand this fully yet, it has a viable chance of not being physical.' No, the reality is that its probably physical, as we've never encountered anything in life that isn't physical.

Its not that philosophy should 'catch up' or that science not being able to currently capture objective personal experience doesn't matter. Its the question of, 'What is philosophy contributing from these conclusions?' Is philosophy contributing a question with a genuine wish for an answer, spurring scientific tests, approaches, and real change in society? Or is philosophy trying to find something that isn't there, disguising wishes and fantasy as word play to keep some hope alive of a mortal shell that isn't shackled to physical reality? The former is what propels civilizations, while the latter keeps us in the dark ages.

My point is that our current knowledge of consciousness as a physical expression of the brain is solving real problems in the world. It works. It makes sense logically, and has decades of data and results behind it. Until there is evidence that subjective experience is something that isn't physical, it is safest and most logical to assume it is, even when we have gaps.

Something I've also mentioned before which I think philosophy should address is, "If consciousness is physical, what else can the physical do?" We are made up of matter, and yet this matter can get to a state in which it becomes aware, or functions in a way that we call 'life'. How much of a separation is there then from life and non-life? Is consciousness more ubiquitous than we believe?

If we can look at a brain and not see the picture that it envisions, what else are we looking at and not realizing what's going on internally? Does fire have a feeling? Could it be the old idea of 'the spirits of nature' was in some limited way, not that far off the mark? Are local ecosystems living in a way we don't see? After all, a brain is a bunch of interconnected neurons. Do the connections of the people in a city make a consciousness that we can never observe? What do these five brain cells experience, and will they ever be cognizant of their contribution to the consciousness that is 'me'?

The noting of the current limitations of science being able to objectively capture personal experience are just that, a limit. We should not be pulling the wrong conclusions from this limit. We should be asking ourselves if that means our conception of consciousness transcends to other forms of matter that we've discounted. But I find no good logic or arguments that lead us to question whether consciousness is physical. Again, anything is plausible, but we should not elevate the unlikely and non-evidenced suppositions as being in any reasonable competition with what we know today. Its been a good discussion Wayfarer!

We have seen that there are systematic reasons why the usual methods of cognitive science and neuroscience fail to account for conscious experience. These are simply the wrong sort of methods: nothing that they give to us can yield an explanation. To account for conscious experience, we need an extra ingredient in the explanation.

That 'extra ingredient' is missing from physical explanations: — Wayfarer

Yes, and that extra ingredient is the inability to objectively grasp other subjective experiences. Again, this does not mean there is some actual essence we're missing. It means we are at a limitation of what we can evaluate objectively: the personal subjective experience. This does not mean subjective experiences aren't physical. We can evaluate a brain objectively and state, "According to what we know of behavior, this brain is in pain." We just can't objectively state 'how that brain is personally experiencing pain'.

I don't think Chalmers is trying to suggest that there is a soul or essence in that sense. I'm certainly not trying to resurrect a Cartesian soul. But I also think that the physicalist picture that arises from denying the reality of consciousness (in effect) is also mistaken, because it's grounded in faulty premisses from the outset. — Wayfarer

There is nothing faulty with the physical evaluation of consciousness and the brain in observed outcomes and behaviors. Give a person anasthesia, and you can knock them unconscious. We can know personally what its like to be knocked unconscious, but we cannot objectively know what its like for another brain to experience being knocked unconscious. The physical experience does not deny that a consciousness has a subjective component, it simply understands that objectively explaining the personal experience itself is outside of the realm of testing, as we need to know what its like for another consciousness to be that consciousness.

Its really just a variation of the old, "I see green, you see green, but do we really experience the same color?" Does this mean that green is not a wavelength of light, or that our conception of green in daily use is faulty? No. We still have physical eyes, and physical brains that interpret that light into the subjective experience of 'green'. We could poke around in your brain and trigger you into saying, "I see a green tree," We just can't objectively know what the personal experience of 'I see a green tree' is to you specifically.

The problem is the 'hard problem' has been used far too often by people to mean more than it is stating. It does not deny the physical reality of consciousness that has been discovered by neuroscience. You are your brain. The question is, "Can we objectively understand your brain as a subjective experience?" That's currently outside of what we can objectively know, and may never know, at least in our lifetimes.

Its not a difficult concept, but people try to make it difficult because they think its a way to make us more than our brains. Its not. The only way we're going to get that answer is continual research into neuroscience. Philosophy may have more to bring to the table, but I'm not seeing any further discoveries from this line of thinking.

I'm interested in how Neurolink is developing for example. This is a great article on the idea of how it will feel. https://medium.com/swlh/neuralink-what-do-isobars-feel-like-when-they-move-ff3070198263

Here's an article on the first patient playing Mario kart with the Neurolink: https://www.pcmag.com/news/neuralink-patient-also-uses-brain-chip-to-play-mario-kart

As we can see, the physical brain and consciousness is alive and well in terms of behavior and interfacing with other forms of reality like computer chips. What does THAT feel like? What brain activity are they recording to do that? This is the exciting stuff we should be thinking and talking about. Will we be able to achieve the science fiction dream/nightmare of having chip interfaces do more for us like access memory, help regulate our emotions, and more? Will all of this data through multiple chip use begin to map out the brain in ways we haven't imagined yet? If we want philosophy to stay relevant, we need to follow the discoveries that are being made today, or find some way to push science into areas we want to explore like 'personal experiences'.

That is your particular intepretation of the problem. David Chalmer’s original paper doesn’t say that. — Wayfarer

Correct, I was not quoting Chalmers. And its not an incorrect interpretation of the problem either, set for a layman's understanding. At the core of the hard problem, the issue is that we cannot objectively evaluate subjective experience, or what it is like to be another being. I go into more depth in some other posts here, see if my answers jive or not.

He never says that the problem is what it is like to be a conscious individual that isn’t ourselves. — Wayfarer

If we were able to objectively evaluate the subjective experience of an individual, we would have no hard problem. He doesn't have to say those exact words to understand the reason behind his claim.

Which he proposes as a 'naturalistic dualism'. The key point being the emphasis on 'experience' which is by nature first-person. — Wayfarer

Right, we cannot objectively evaluate subjective experience. So since we can't use objectivity in regards to 'what it is like to be the consciousness', we have to use non-objective terms. He can use the word dualism if he wants, but he's not implying that subjective consciousness isn't physical or some 'other'. He's just noting there's no objective way to evaluate the subjective experience of being consciousness in physical terms, as we have no way of evaluating what its like to be something we are not.

The point is to hammer home that the hard problem is not, "Is our consciousness in our brains?" Yes, it is. There is no soul, or other essence as neuroscience has shown repeatedly. It just means that we cannot objectively talk about the subjective experience of being conscious, because we have no way of objectively knowing what the personal experience a person is feeling when they say, "I feel pain". We can see their bodily reactions, their actions, and their brain functions, but we cannot currently understand what that 'feeling' is, unless we are that person themself. Perusing through your Chalmer's quotes, I don't see where I'm at odds, so we might be in agreement here.

Just for the record, that isn't the standard way of stating the problem, and it isn't David Chalmers' way (he coined the phrase). You can listen to Chalmers describe it here: He defines the problem as "how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences in the mind." — J

Correct. I'm noting it in a way that avoids the standard confusion of, "So we don't know if the brain causes consciousness? Its the subjective point that needs focusing on for most people. Because we cannot currently objectively know what a subjective experience is like, this makes it incredibly hard to say, "This is the subjective experience the brain has, and this is the objective physical brain mapping that causes it."

Consciousness, as a behavior, is capable of being mapped to the brain and is the "easy problem". We can monitor your brain, vitals, and behavior and say, "Objectively, they're in pain". But can we objectively say, "And this is their subjective experience of pain"? No. That's the hard problem.

Any thoughts we would have about it implies our consciousness, not someone else's, so it's impossible to know. — Skalidris

Correct.

"How can we objectively measure and explore the purely subjective experience of being conscious?" With our current understanding of science, we can't.
— Philosophim

Well we can't, however advanced sciences become, that's what this "logical proof" is about. — Skalidris

Never say never! Yes, this seems impossible today. But science is full of 'making the impossible possible'. Did we conceive that cell phones would exist 300 years ago? That mankind would ever be able to travel to the moon? Judging what is possible in the future based on what we know today has a history of throwing egg on the face of our collective human race. :)

This is why it is viable to call it 'the hard problem' instead of 'the impossible problem'.

I believe this is the point Skalidris is making: it is not about the advances in science. Even defining consciousness leads to problems. — Carlo Roosen

I only put that because perhaps one day we will actually be able to know what its like to be someone else. But with the knowledge we have today, this is the hard logical limit of our understanding, and thus we have an issue of objectively evaluating subjective experience.

Any thought experiment you try will fail on me, because you are not talking about the sense of being conscious, but about the content of that consciousness. — Carlo Roosen

Correct. We can monitor and map your brain to when you say you experience consciousness. We can map the brain to your behaviors, and even note what you are thinking before you are aware of it. But we cannot know what it is like to BE you. To BE your consciousness.

I am not following how we only know through contradictions (between our experiences and reality). I can imagine perfectly fine a person who infers correctly, without contradiction, that their conscious experience is representational; and then proceeds to correctly identify that there must be a thing-in-itself which excites the senses which, in turn, begins the process to construct the conscious experience which they are having. — Bob Ross

Lets break this down. First, remember at this point that there is a difference between having the idea of what a 'thing in itself' is, and whether its something that exists and is knowable. We also need to break down what we mean by 'knowable'.

This is why in my knowledge theory I broke down what knowledge is into two camps. Distinctive, and applicable. Distinctive is 'knowing the experience I have'. So if I have an experience of a 'goat'. That's the experience I know I had. Then there's applicable knowledge. "Was that actually a goat, or was it a sheep I misidentified?" "Distinctively I know the definition of a goat and a sheep. But was my belief that what I experienced was a goat, correct in reality? So I have the distinctive knowledge of 'experience' of identifying a goat, but not the applicable knowledge that the identification of a goat was of an actual goat.

Ok, now back to 'things in themselves'. As an identity, I can distinctively know what 'a thing in itself' is. "A thing in itself is a logical conclusion that there is something that I am observing, but can only observe it through the senses and brain interpretations. But because I can only know it through observations, I can never know it apart from the interpretation of those observations". How do I applicably know this? According to its definition, I cannot.

So what is applicably knowing? If I take a definition of a goat, and apply its properties to a creature without contradiction, and without it overlapping a separate identity I've created in my mind (like a sheep), then I applicably know that creature as a goat.

Of course, unknown to me, its a space alien. Its so good at disguise, that there is no way with my current capabilities that I can detect its a space alien. "The thing in itself" is a space alien, but I applicably know it as a goat. Now this first part is simply a primer to the next step, "I applicably know that this thing is a goat, but I can never applicably know if that's 'the thing in itself'.

If I can only know applicably through testing, observation, and a lack of contradiction, how do I applicably know of something apart from all sensation and interpretation? I would have to 'be' what I am trying to applicably know. Its like consciousness. I can observe that my friend is conscious by their actions. But do I know what its like to 'be' that friend? To know them as they are 'in themselves'?

Applicable knowledge is obtained from our interactions and interpretations of the world. We know a 'goat' by the fact that its not contradicted. If our 'goat' started flying and shooting laser beams from its eyes, our applicable knowledge would then be contradicted. But even if it did not, if it was really a space alien, we would only be able to applicably know it as a goat. "The thing in itself" is the conception of something which CANNOT be applicably known. Therefore it is entirely a logical conception that results from our understanding that 'we cannot be what we observe, so we can only known it from our outside observations of it'.

Can you cite something we could say is knowledge that did not require any experience to gain it?

The most basic example that comes to mind is mathematical knowledge. Your brain necessarily has to already know how to perform math to construct your conscious experience; and this is why mathematical propositions, in geometry, are applicable and accurate for experience: the axioms of geometry reside a priori in our brains — Bob Ross

This is incorrect. What we have is the ability to discretely experience, and over time, learn to conduct comparisons and quantities between them. A newborn does not come with the knowledge of 'addition', '1', or anything else. This is all learned over time through experience. What they have is the capacity to understand these relations, but by no means does this entail that there is some innate born knowledge.

For example, we applicably know math through 'base 10'. But math can be in any base. Base 2, or binary, is the math we use for logic circuits. Hexadecimal, or base 16, is used to calculate computer memory. Are we born with the innate knowledge of hexadecimal? Did you know when you were born that the number for base ten '11' is 'A' in Hexadecimal? Of course not. Just like you had to carefully be taught base ten, and basic math as a kid, you would need to have the experience of learning hexadecimal.

As for geometry, this also has to be learned. As a baby, you don't quite understand depth perception yet. It takes time. You grow and learn how the world works as a physical set of interactions. You have to be taught, or can learn through logic and observation, that "A squared + B squared = C squared" on a triangle. But all of these things have been rigorously proved over centuries through careful testing, observation, and application. None of this is known innately.

Mathematical propositions are valid in virtue of being grounded in how our brains cognize; and they are only valid for human experience. They are true, justified, beliefs about experience—not reality. — Bob Ross

They are valid in the fact they can be applicably known in reality. It is 'the logic of discrete experience'. But this must be experienced, tested, and learned to be applicably known. We can of course create what ever experience of math that we want distinctively. I can distinctively create a math in base Steve. Steve + Visit = Snacks for example. But this can only be applicably known if ever time Steve + Visit happens there always results in Snacks.

Perhaps that’s where the confusion was: the a priori knowledge we have is not knowledge about reality, but about how we cognize it. — Bob Ross

The ability to think is not generally prescribed as 'knowledge'. Just like the ability to 'move my limbs' doesn't mean I know 'how to move them to walk'. This is why I noted earlier we were very close on the definition of apriori. I agree that we have instincts, innate capacities, and 'our innate existence'. But none of that is 'knowledge'. Knowledge can only be obtained after some kind of experience. Even distinctive knowledge is the creation of an identity that we then remember. But we must first have an experience to identify because we can claim knowledge of it.

So what is a flower apart from any observation

I would say that we merely say that there is some thing which is exciting our senses, and of which we represent as what we normally perceive as a flower. — Bob Ross

Correct. But notice you've described how you know a flower purely through your representations and senses. What is a flower apart from that? What if the thing in itself that we're 'dividing' into a flower is really a few other things around the flower? What if the air two millimeters away from the flower is also part of the flower in 'the thing in itself' but we just don't interpret it that way? What if its a space alien? (I really like that example don't I?) What is it like to BE the flower? These are all things that are outside of our capacity to applicably know. This limit is a logical reminder that there are some things outside of our applicable knowledge. At that point, we induce if you recall. So a thing in itself is not a probability or a possibility. It is a cogent inapplicable plausibility. It is a concept that we can never applicably test, but one that pure reason cannot seem to do without.

And that's all the 'thing in itself' is. Its an unknowable outside of the mind existence.

Agreed; but that’s not a purely abstract thing, then. It is a concrete—unknown. — Bob Ross

It is purely an abstract thing that cannot be applicably known. Its plausible that it is a concrete thing. We know that we cannot applicably know it. And that's as far as we can go.

First, lets clarify what 'the hard problem is'. Is it that we're conscious? No. Is it that the brain causes consciousness? No. The idea that consciousness is caused by our physical brains is the easy problem. The hard problem is, "Will we ever know what it is like to BE a conscious individual that isn't ourselves".

In other words, we ever be able to duplicate the experience of being another person? Or an animal? An insect? Because despite all of our capability to study the actions of a consciousness, we can't 'experience' what its like to be that consciousness. Its very much like the question of, "What does it feel like to be water?" We say its not conscious because of its behavior, but what is it to BE water?

Lets say that one day we're able to replicate what seems to be consciousness from the brain. How do we objectively determine this? Do we don a helmet on another person and ask them, "We're emulating your consciousness. Does this feel what its like to be you?" Beyond the fact that it would be a conscious being thinking about the consciousness outside of their consciousness, where's the objective test? The measurements that don't rely on subjective experience? They don't exist. Because to know what its like to be conscious is a subjective experience. There is no objective measure but the honesty of the subject itself. And can such experiences be communicated in words? Can the person experiencing a perfect replica of the consciousness as a third party observer really have the full experience?

If anyone tells you, "The hard problem is proving that the brain causes consciousness," they misunderstand. It isn't even "Why does this cause concsiousness" that's the hard problem either. Its really saying, "How can we objectively measure and explore the purely subjective experience of being conscious?" With our current understanding of science, we can't.

Agreed, to some extent. By physical, I do not mean material: I mean mind-independent.

Even if we could not even know that it is mind-independently existing; the thing as it is in-itself is not purely logical (in that case): we are talking about some ‘thing’ which exists—we are talking in concreto. — Bob Ross

Agreed. But what exactly are we proving? All we can prove is that there is something mind-independent. That's it. And we can only prove there is something mind independent because we have experiences that contradict what our mind wants to believe about reality. We only know that there have been contradictions and that there may continue to be contradictions. We don't know what's causing it.

Now, once it has that capacity, of course, I agree it still has to learn how to walk; but this is disanalogous. — Bob Ross

My point is that capacity is not knowledge. Knowledge is learned through experience. Can you cite something we could say is knowledge that did not require any experience to gain it? And if you can, how is it knowledge and not a belief?

https://acidmath.com/blogs/news/here-s-how-bees-and-butterflies-see-flowers-no-wonder-they-love-them

As you can see in the above article, how a bee or a butterfly knows a flower is very different from how we do. So what is a flower apart from any observation? Is it actually a flower as we think of it? Is it an evil demon manifestation? Can we even call it a 'flower'? Or is it the part of something more? We just can't know. And that's all the 'thing in itself' is. Its an unknowable outside of the mind existence.

Huh, never knew about the guy. I think I have a much better argument then his here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

I go along very similar lines, but go a bit deeper then him. He gets stuck at infinite series, I do not.

We are not talking about some abstract thing, like a Platonic form, that exists in a supersensible realm nor are we merely talking about a concept in our brains nor minds—we are talking about a real object, a physical object, which simply is not cognizable by us. — Bob Ross

No, we don't know what it is. We don't know if its an object, if its physical, if it many things, or something beyond our imagination or comprehension. All we know is there is some 'thing', and 'thing' in only the loosest and most abstract sense. All of those words you used to describe it are words formed from physical sensations, or interpretations.

A ball is not a thing in itself for example. If we were to comprehend what the thing in itself was behind the sensations which lead us to interpret it as a ball, it could be a magical unicorn spinning in an endless circle spewing rainbows and evil demons that dance the cha cha. We don't know. We CANNOT know. It is a logical limit of knowledge.

'A thing in itself' is simply a logical abstract to point out this limit. It is not a 'thing' 'in' or 'itself'. It is a phrase of limitations. It is the constant understanding that everything we know is a representation, and 'the unknowable' the 'thing in itself' could counter our representations at any moment.

I am not following. If you agree that your brain has to know how to intuit and cognize objects in space independently of any possible experience that it has, then you cannot disagree with the idea that some knowledge our brains have are without experience. — Bob Ross

No, our brain does not have to know how to intuit and cognize objects in space independently of any experience it has. It has the capacity to do so. Just like our minds have the capacity to take light and concentrate on aspects of them. We have the ability to discretely experience, but that ability is not knowledge. We can know that we are discretely experiencing. We can learn that some of our discrete experiences can be applied to the world without contradiction, while some cannot. But we don't know which ones can until we apply them.

Think of it like this. A newborn has the capacity to be able to walk one day. Does it know how to do so apart from experience? No. It doesn't know how to walk until it tries to stand repeatedly and learns how to balance. It doesn't know how to talk until it babbles, gets responses from others, and learns language. It doesn't know how to do math until its shown a symbol called 'one', and shown this thing called 'addition'.

When you speak of knowledge without experience, you must speak of a newborn. Because every second after that new experiences are flooding that child's mind as it tries to make sense of the world. There is instinct and potential in a child, but the actual knowledge that a child has is gleaned from every experience they have.

E.g., your cognition has a priori knowledge on how to construct objects in space because it clearly does it correctly (insofar as they are represented with extension).

This is the part I disagree with. A child does not know how to construct things in space. It has the potential to. It then can know that it has, and can believe that its constructs match reality. Only after applying these construct to reality, can it know that its constructs are either concurrent with, or not contradicted by reality. But we can never truly know what reality 'is', because its always a representation of it.

Skimming over a couple of the other replies here, I think its the term 'thing' that's throwing people. We can rephrase a 'thing in itself' to 'the unknowable reality' Its not a 'thing' like an 'object'. Its just a logical conception that we always interpret reality, and we cannot know reality as it is uninterpreted. That's all.

Edit: I just realized there's other simple ways to explain it. The brain in the vat. An evil demon. The matrix. All of these are 'things in themselves' that we could never know. Its just the same type of argument.

I am not saying that the universe in its initial state was infinite. It could be finite or infinite. — MoK

Then we agree!

If something exists without prior reason, then it exists apart from any necessity of being.
— Philosophim
For objects, something where 'exists' is a meaningful property, well, most objects have a sort of necessity of being, which is basic classical causality. There's for instance no avoiding the existence of the crater if the meteor is to hit there — noAxioms

Right, you are describing something that exists with prior reason. Why does the crater exist? Because a meteor landed there two days ago.

But we're not talking about objects here, we're talking about other stuff where 'exists' isn't really defined at all. The universe existing has about as much pragmatic meaning as the integers existing. — noAxioms

Exists is to be. To not exist, is not to be. That's all that's meant by it. For something to have a prior reason for its existence, is to have prior causality. If something has no prior reason for its existence, then the reason for its existence is 'that it exists'. This is an uncaused existence.

That is an interesting post. I've never thought about it that way before. But is there necessarily a contradiction in existence being evil? — Brendan Golledge

No, because the initial point is that existence vs nothing is good. So inherently there is some good to existence. When breaking existence down into 'parts' or existences, we can find that some existences are better than others in their interactions. Whatever interaction creates more existence is better, while interactions that lower overall existence are worse.

As a very basic example, a small explosive to open up a mine allows access to ore for commerce and improved human life. A large explosive that destroys the entire Earth is evil as is erases all the potential and actual existence of life. But its best if we discuss the specifics in the article itself so you get the full idea and don't distract from the other conversations here.

A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Maybe in metaphyasics but not for modern fundamental physics — 180 Proof

If you are noting that no first cause has been discovered or proven in physics, I agree 100%

A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Because it is presupposed. And a good and useful presupposition it is, too. And of course because presupposed, logically necessary for any system in which it is presupposed. But is that the way the world works? And it seems to be for our local ordinary world. But if we stretch into into areas governed by either quantum mechanics or gen. relativity, it's all not quite so simple. — tim wood

Feel free to make your comment in that post so we don't distract from the OP. Long story short, yes, its still logically necessary.

Nice post. You may be interested in reading my posts here:

In any objective morality, existence is good
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

And while it is one of my earlier works and not as clear, this is a proof that leads to your conclusion here.

A first cause is logically necessary
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

This seems to have evaded the question. Sure, if it lacks a reason for being, it equally lacks a reason for not being. The question was where 'finite' was somehow relevant to that statement. — noAxioms

The intention was not to evade. The intention was to point out there if there is no reason for something infinite to exist, there can equally be no reason for something finite to exist. If something exists without prior reason, then it exists apart from any necessity of being. If it is, it is. And if something infinite can exist without prior reason, there is nothing to rule out something that is finite that exists without a prior reason.

But then, what is to prevent something uncaused that is also finite?
— Philosophim
Why should it be finite? — MoK

Why should it not? Its uncaused. Something uncaused has no reason for being. Which also means it has no reason for NOT being.

There is no logical difference between the two.
— Philosophim
I cannot follow why. — MoK

Think about the previous statement carefully. If there's no reason for something existing, then there's no reason that it has to have existed infinitely. Now take something finite that has no reason for its existence. If there's no reason for something existing, then there's no reason that it has to have existed infinitely.

Meaning something that is unexplained would exist, and we would know it exists by its being. But there would be no prior reason for its explanation beyond its simple being. Meaning, if something exists in this world that is unexplained, there is no reason why it should have existed finitely or infinitely.

The second premise is not the only scenario as one can also say that the material has existed since the beginning of time. — MoK

What caused the material to exist since the beginning of time? If there is no prior cause, then it is uncaused. Something that is uncaused has no prior reason for its existence. But then, what is to prevent something uncaused that is also finite? There is no logical difference between the two.

A thing-in-itself is the concept of an object which we cannot know anything about: so it necessarily is an object. You make it sound like it is purely abstract — Bob Ross

I see, I think this is where a major difference is. Its because it is an abstract. There is nothing to observe. There is nothing to verify. It is a pure logical concept. An object is "A ball" Its something that we can identify, observe, and conclude what it is. A thing in itself cannot be observed, identified, or concluded as anything more than the abstract logical concept that it is.

It seems like you agreed with me, so I am not following why you do not believe in a priori knowledge. If your representative faculties must already know how to do certain things and already has certain concepts at its disposal, then it must have a priori knowledge — Bob Ross

The point that I disagree with in apriori is that we can have knowledge without experience. We have nothing besides instinct and innate potential when born. What we reason with and on is through experience. Without experience, we have suppositions and unverified concepts. Even a 'thing in itself' is verified by the experience of having reality contradict our interpretations of it. If you recall my knowledge theory, I divide knowledge into distinctive and applicable for this reason. At one time, I used the apriori distinction, but found it problematic when I tried to remove experience from consideration.

You may want to start another thread on apriori and see what other people say on it as well. I believe the concept of dividing mental constructs and applied constructs as valuable, but apriori doesn't quite nail how the mental construct of knowledge works.

You cognition must have more than a mere belief to know how to do what it does. E.g., your cognition has a priori knowledge on how to construct objects in space because it clearly does it correctly (insofar as they are represented with extension). The necessary precondition for the possibility of experiencing objects with extension is that your brain knows how to do that. — Bob Ross

Correct, and this aspect of apriori I agree with. As you've noted, I call it 'instinct and intellectual potential'. But its not 'knowledge'. Knowledge can only be gained from experience, even the experience of the self. A baby may have an instinct to want to walk, but it still has to learn how. Instinct propels us to action, but knowledge is only learned by attempting those actions.

Love is an acceptance of another person's pros and cons. Despite knowing the imperfection of a person, you wish that they continue to live their best life, and are able to support them the best you can through their trials in life.

Every other 'addendum' to love includes things like 'family bonds' 'romance' etc. But remove all of that, and this is love.

Sorry for the belated response! — Bob Ross

No worry, I just got back a few days ago myself!

The metaphysical underpinnings for “1 + 1 = 2” is that our brains construct our conscious experience according to math insofar as the plotting of objects in space is inherently mathematical. — Bob Ross

Correct. That is an innate ability. But creating the symbol of '1' and base ten arithmetic are aposteriori.

Of course, the other alternative would be just say that math is a way that our over-arching faculty of reason nominally parses our conscious experience—which is the strongest version of mathematical anti-realism. — Bob Ross

No objections here. I think that works as well.

That logic is a priori does not entail that we can perform, intellectually, logic properly since birth. — Bob Ross

Correct. Logic proper must be learned through experience. The capacity to be able to learn and practice logic is innate. A fish cannot learn logic no matter how much it experiences.

The point is that a thing-in-itself is the thing as it is in-itself: of course, it is a separate note that one may not have any self-reflective knowledge of it. — Bob Ross

Agreed.

Knowledge is, though, a requirement for cognition: your brain has to know how to do things and how to apply concepts and what not in order to construct the conscious experience you are currently having. — Bob Ross

Belief is a requirement for cognition. Knowledge is a potential result of cognition.

Nothing about what we think is going to happen, self-reflectively, nor its contradiction entails that there is an object which impacted our senses (and of which we are experiencing). — Bob Ross

Correct. A thing in itself is not 'an object'. Its a logical concept. 'An object' is known by how it impacts our senses. Light reflects for sight, and air vibrations bounce for sound. 'A thing in itself' is the logical conclusion that there must be some reality that exists apart from our senses. Because we can only know 'objects' through our senses, we cannot know what a thing in itself is as 'an object' but only a logical concept.

You seem to be conflating the faculties which produce our experience with our self-reflective knowledge of that experience. Viz., I may be wrong that this object next to be is red, but that my experience contradicts me is not the same as reality contradicting me. — Bob Ross

No, I'm trying to note that there is belief and knowledge that is gained from the interpretation of our senses. I can 'see' red for example, but then notice the light wavelength is green. My senses experience red, but the reality is it is green. This is like a color blind person. Reality does not contradict my experience of red, only my interpretation that it is objectively red.

To me, I would agree that the best explanation, given experience, is that there are objects impacting our senses: but that is derived from empirical data from (ultimately) our experience itself. E.g., I experience getting knocked out by a ball, I experience an optical illusion, I study biology, etc. This is not inherently a process of reality contradicting me: it is me confirming hypotheses through empirical study. — Bob Ross

Correct. And the way it is confirmed is the fact that the interpretations are not contradicted. A 'thing in itself' is not an object though. It is the logical concept of an underlying reality that we can never fully know. 'An object' is part of the logical belief and knowledge system that is, or is not contradicted by reality. We use contradictions and lack of contradictions, because contradictions are the only true way we can asses whether we are at odds with reality. If there is no contradiction, then we cannot claim that we have affirmed the underlying reality, but that we are merely concurrent with it at some unknown level.

Wouldn’t you agree that you have to trust your experiences, to some degree, to even posit that reality sometimes contradicts your perceptions? — Bob Ross

Absolutely. But there is trusting your experiences, then trusting the beliefs and interpretation from those experiences. What you experience, is what you experience. It is our beliefs and interpretations of what that means in reality which is constantly circumspect. We only gain logical and emotional confidence in those interpretations when they are not contradicted.

It does not appear we are that far apart here on concepts, if at all!

Welcome to the forum! I hope you aren't too intimidated by the replies here. People just get to the point, and its not personal. :)

I do not believe in facts nor do I believe in good or bad. I do not believe that we truly know anything. — Plex

Do you know that for sure? Why should anyone agree with you when your own conclusion concludes you're not certain?

Is the value not found in the question rather than the answer? — Plex

No. If I need to know how much I can spend this month and not run out of money, I need the answer.

Why not learn more about a certain subject by asking more questions? — Plex

If there are no facts, then what we're learning by asking more questions are not facts either. So what are we doing?

I do not believe in answers, I do not believe in good or bad — Plex

Think about it for a second. You believe in nothing, can assert nothing, nor convince anyone of of anything. This strategy of, "We can't know anything' is what people do when they find it difficult to understand how we do know, and abandon all hope and pretend that providing no answer is somehow intelligent. Its not. Its the abandonment of intelligence. Its a trap of the mind to avoid thinking further.
Its giving up.

Am I wrong (if you believe in the existence of wrong)? — Plex

Yes. You can't say you're right. To do so, would be to assert a fact. I assert facts. You cannot assert I'm wrong, because me being wrong would be a fact. You can't even assert your own argument is real. I win by default.

Are you able to name a fact and if yes how do you know completely certain there is one? — Plex

Yes, the fact that you can read and write. If you could not, you could not read or reply to this answer, nor could you have written your OP. If you want to really think about what knowledge is, read here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

There is a summary right after the OP that captures the points.

To be fair, what you described is, in fact, a simplified statement of exactly what a priori knowledge is...so I am not convinced you actually disbelieve in it (; — Bob Ross

I really liked the term a priori when I first entered into philosophy, but I found it had problems over time. I do not believe 1+1=2 is apriori for example. Which is why I boil it down to instinctual and intellectual capacity. IE, that people are capable of doing logic is innate, but the practice of classical logic specifically must be learned.

This “logical limit” that you described is the same as saying, in philosophical jargon, “the thing-in-itself cannot be known, because we can only ever experience a ‘thing’ which was the result of a prior processes and of which pertain solely to the way our representative faculties are pre-structured to represent”. — Bob Ross

Close, but not quite. A dog can experience a thing as well, but it cannot come up with the idea of "a thing in itself". That requires language, thinking, debate, etc. It is not an innate conclusion, but one of applied reason.

But let me see if I can get closer to your point without apriori. If I understand correctly, you're essentially noting that we observe and conclude things about the world. Since we can only observe representations, how do we know there's something under those representations? We only know because sometimes, the world contradicts our interpretations. Therefore the only logical thing we can conclude is that there must be something beyond our perceptions and interpretations that exists. Its not a proof of "I see the thing in itself" its a proof of, "Its the only logical conclusion which works."

so you cannot understand what the ball is like itself at all—not just what it would be like without color. — Bob Ross

Correct. We know that aposteriori is what I'm claiming. We have the capacity to reason and understand this, but it can only be argued as a matter of logic, not any innate knowledge.

The paradox arises, and of which you have not really resolved, when you realize that you had to trust your experience to tell you that you exist in a transcendent world, you have representative faculties, and that those faculties are representing external objects—all of which are claims about reality as it is in-itself. — Bob Ross

Its not necessarily about trust, its about experience. You and I have both had instances in our lives where our perceptions and beliefs about the world were contradicted in unexpected ways. Thus we conclude that there is something that exists apart from our understanding and perceptions. Once we explore this further, and understand how the senses and the brain work, we come to the logical conclusion that we cannot know anything in this world apart from interpretation. Yes, even the "Thing in itself" is an interpretation. An simlilar analogy is 'space'. Space is 'emptiness' which is defined in relation to other things. "Things in themselves" are defined in relation to what we cannot interpret. Its a logical construct that helps us understand the difference between what we interpret, and 'what is'.

I don't see this as a contradiction, as long as one is not trying to assert that one has special knowledge of a 'thing in itself' apart from a logical representative construct itself. Yes, if we claimed, "That" is a thing in itself, it would be absurd. But we're not claiming this. We're simply claiming, "There are contradictions to my will and beliefs int the world. Therefore there must be something beyond my interpretation that exists independently. I cannot know what this is specifically, but the logical concept I will represent as "A thing in itself".

Good discussion as usual Bob! I always like how you drill in. I'm heading out on vacation this week to Yellowstone park with some friends, so I won't be available to reply for a while. I'll read your reply when I get back for sure. Until then, stay great and I hope the discussion is interesting!

I appreciate the story and advice. But is it any strange wonder that it involves children? A paternal outlook is a prerequisite to authority and undergirds the notion that other adults need to be governed as if they were kids. — NOS4A2

Ha ha! I don't think its too strange. While we could look at it as 'paternalistic', we can also look at it as 'serving a community'. I viewed it as a duty to help ensure the most order with the least disturbance. Not for myself, but for the kids. However, I did meet teachers who definitely got a kick out of lording over kids. I think kids tend to know. One evidence for myself is I was able to handle 'trouble makers' in my class without issues. Its because I didn't yell at them, single them out, or hold any grudges. It was the rules, and you always had a clean slate the next day.

But really what we're touching on is, "Status". What is it and who deserves it. Status at its most basic is the idea that there are certain individuals who are so good at a particular need or want of humanity that we look to them for guidance in those areas.

Good status is when it is purely based on this mindset. The person of high status does their best to serve the person who knows less, and the person of low status is polite, pays for, and listens to the person who has those skills. Bad status is when a person is motivated by their own ego to be in a position of power. When it isn't about serving the other person, but themselves.

The problem with collective action is well-enough known. There are too many conflicting interests among the individuals involved. But to insert a class of masters and institute coercive mechanisms in order to make it work is simply to put one or more persons interests over the others, and to exploit the rest in order to achieve those interests, which to me is immoral. — NOS4A2

Too true, and I agree. But I believe this is an incidence of bad status, not the good kind. The existence of abusive status individuals is always a concern, but we don't want to eliminate the ability for good status individuals to flourish as well because we're so afraid of the poor ones. To prevent this, we need to give those of lower status the ability to either leave the relationship with the higher status individual, or replace them. Thus in governance we have elections, and we let people regardless of status vote. This forces anyone who wants to stay in a position of power to serve the majority of their people, or at least the one's who vote. We also allow recalls, and have rights to block certain decisions from those in power.

Far better is it to find others with a common interest and coordinate and cooperate voluntarily. — NOS4A2

In most cases, I agree. But governance is something that we cannot withdraw from once a population reaches a certain size. Governance is about the resolution of all those difference conflicts over resources and culture. If governance was not there, history demonstrates that crime and war will be used by one side or the other to obtain what they want. Proper governance is the avenue by which we may obtain compromise without bloodshed or crime.

That’s the problem. Who would you choose to decide what is true and false, and punish those who deviate from it? — NOS4A2

First, we of course keep the jurisprudence that has worked over centuries. Innocent until proven guilty, and burden beyond a reasonable doubt. One very simple way to determine it is to go after citations. If I say an article is one thing, when it clearly isn't, its either negligence or malfeasance. Fairly cut and dry. If a politicians claims they were under sniper fire in a helicopter, when all the military reports prior to this claim showed no snipers in that area, we have a clear contradiction between facts and statements.

At the least, this will incentivize people to think carefully about statements of fact before noting them. A short pause or a political candidate or social media entertainer can sometimes be enough to alter a culture which sees lies as highly beneficial with little potential cost if caught. Thus we let the courts handle it, and allow a prosecution and defense to hash it out in court. The prosecutor would provide the documentation of both the original source, and the improper citation, and have to convince the judge/jury that this was intention by the defense.

Anyway, been a lovely conversation, but I have to head out for the day. Stay well Nos, and good points.

Firstly, the phenomena are a result of the cognition of sensations and not things-in-themselves; and those sensations are limited by our sensibility — Bob Ross

Correct. A 'thing in itself' is a logical limit. If we observe some 'thing', there has to be something to observe. But if we are observing it, we realize we are observing it by interpreting things like light, sound, touch, and nerve firings. Logically, we cannot see the thing as it is 'in itself' because we are always observing it through another medium, and then creating one or many identities or discrete experiences out off it.

Even though I'm seeing a red ball in front of me, I'm really seeing the light and interpreting it. The light is bouncing off the ball, so something is there. But I can't understand what its like to see a ball without light bouncing off of it. I can't understand the feel of the ball without my nerves firing a sensation of touch in my brain. If I remove all of my senses, there is no way I can 'observe' the ball. And I cannot myself 'be' the ball.

But, despite my lack of observation, the ball is still there. Light still bounces. If someone throws it at me when I'm not aware, it will hit me and cause me to stumble. So the representation is not merely a dream or will, it is an attempt to grasp and understand. This is why what ever we attempt to represent must be applied or tested to see if what we represent is at the least, not contradicted by the underlying reality.

To sum it up very simply: We observe something. We interpret that observation as a representation of that something. Because we can only know that something through observation and interpretation, we cannot know that something as if it were unobserved and uninterpreted. Thus the placeholder for this logical determination is a 'thing in itself'. And there is nothing more to know about them then that.

Secondly, any given phenomena stripped of the a prior means of intuiting and cognizing it is left perfectly unintelligible (viz., remove all spatial, temporal, mathematical, logical, etc. properties from the phenomena and you have nothing left to conceptually work with other than a giant '?'); so whatever the thing-in-itself is will be exactly what is unintelligible: it is the 'thing' stripped of the a priori means of cognizing it. — Bob Ross

I do not believe in apriori knowledge apart from instinct. What some might call apriori, I call, 'intellectual capacity'. But the idea that we know something without being or analysis has never really logically worked for me. Regardless of your view on it, I do not believe a 'thing in itself' is known apriori, but only after logical analysis and experience.

Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so? I mean to say, why does language behave this way or what makes this true that language going on holiday is all that some philosophy amounts to? — Shawn

Because people mistakenly think that language represents reality. When the real key is we have to prove our language represents reality. That's a lot harder to do, and its much easier to come up with a solution using language alone then testing. This is of course necessary to discovery, but people who get befuddled by language tend to forget that such craft is a hypothesis of reality, not an actual discovery of it.

If we do trust our conscious experience to tell us about the things-in-themselves to some extent (as a necessity and way out), then how do we determine the limits of what we can know about the things-in-themselves? — Bob Ross

Nice post Bob. This is essentially the question, "What is knowledge?" I wouldn't call it a paradox per say, just incomplete. If you recall from my knowledge theory, reality is the undercurrent to anything we define and believe. We have evidence that there are things in themselves, because we have identities and beliefs that are often contradicted by something outside of our control. If I see a rotten apple and think, "That looks good, I'll eat that and won't get sick", the reality of food poisoning will invalidate your representation soon after you consume it.

Reality is, "The thing in itself". The limits of our representations of things in themselves is based on what is contradicted, and what can stand concurrently. Even then, we don't know if we're even interpreting what to do with the contradiction correctly. For example, it could be that a rotten apple is actually an infestation of undetectable aliens. However, its impossible to claim something like that from the representations we have. So we call it, "Rotten" or "A food state of decay that will make a person sick if they eat it." No matter how we represent the rotten apple, eating it will make us sick, and any other representation that it will not is contradicted by "reality".

So in sum, we are limited to knowing there are things in themselves by contradictions to our representations by experience. That's it.

I appreciate the critique. Thank you.

But in my defence the very small community I view it through is me. I only have one pair of eyes. The fact that you or anyone else are afflicted with the same limitation, and cannot view the world nor speak about it through anyone’s lens but your own, puts the very idea of a community lens into immediate doubt. — NOS4A2

I understand possibly more than you think. I grew up to a very different drummer. I had my own way of doing things and generally never favored group conformity. Not rebelliousness, just simply viewed the world differently then most. I don't mind being told what to do as long as its not for someone's personal gain at my expense. My personal value above all else is freedom. I genuinely believe in allowing as much freedom in a society as possible. But it is freedom within a society, not freedom from a society.

I was a high school math teacher for about 5 years in my past. As such, I was in a situation in which I had to manage anywhere from 1 to sometimes hundreds of kids at a time. You get to really understand people dynamics in larger populations. When I only had to manage one or two kids, rules were generally very lax. But as more and more kids enter into the picture, you can't be. Its like heating up a pot of water. More energy gets concentrated and if you don't put some type of lid on it, it bubbles over. You need clear, consistent, and fair rules. And you might think that the kids would be happier with lax rules in larger groups. They aren't. Nothing gets done. It becomes chaos.

Now, was I teaching math to lord it over kids and enjoy power? Hardly. I don't like putting people in a position where they have to listen to 'me'. But it was necessary that they listen to something, "the rules". To an individual, "the rules" may seem personal or restricting at times. But for a group, they're necessary. I had a strict no tardy policy. If you were late, you went to the office. Many kids hated it, but they all stopped being late within about two weeks. If I didn't have that? I would get tardy kids all year disrupting class.

My advice if you really want to see what group dynamics is like, is lead a group in some way. Organize a trip with a few close friends, then organize a trip with 30. Its night and day. "Rules" are necessary. And that requires some type of enforcement mechanism or governance. Done right, it creates respect and greater freedom within the group. Done wrong its a power trip and abuse. But not done at all? Its unorganized chaos where little gets done.

I’d love to get together with you and build safeguards and anti-corruption measures, but like the vast majority of human beings we do not have the power to do so. — NOS4A2

I think your input would be invaluable. True, we don't have the power to do so, but why be on these forums at all then? We have almost no power to do anything we come up with. Plato's "Republic" is a book about what the ideal Republic would entail, and he was no politician.

And it has long been overruled that falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded is indefensible, and was never a binding dictum in any law or otherwise. It’s just a popular analogy. — NOS4A2

I had to look that up, and you are largely right. Its never been overruled, it was just an analogy that was a non-binding dictum. In truth, it would only be a crime if the attempt to invoke panic succeeded and damages happened. Yet a theater that did not kick this person out would lose business overall, so there is some measure of culpability for the individual.

The issue we're currently having in society, is that is oftentimes profitable to peddle false information. There is little societal recourse for your father not getting the Covid Vaccine because they were told "Studies show you don't need it," and they die. Even if you can get monetary compensation after years of litigation, it doesn't bring your father back.

A carefully crafted bill that penalizes peddling knowingly false information for profit would curtail some of the outright falsehoods that have taken off in the social media age. But I also agree with you 100% that it must be carefully crafted. While it would be simpler to dismiss the issue for fear that a lack of nuance would cause more harm, the law can handle nuance well if the right people are behind it.

More often or not this leads to some sort of penalty for the deceiver, for instance the loss of credibility, and as a result, the social and economical fruits that come with it. — NOS4A2

I wish this were the case, but its often not true. Especially when someone is in a powerful position and the law does not punish them for their transgressions. If it were so easy to punish such things, why would there be a call for the law? There is a call for the law because society is currently inadequate at addressing these issues alone. We don't touch things like comedy, parody, or opinions, because its clear these things are not meant to be authorities on information. But when someone pretends to be an authority on information, when they clearly know what they are peddling is false, we're seeing in real time that there is a minority majority of society that cannot handle it.

I think the problem you often run into on these forums with your worldview NOS4A2 is your ideals are viewed through the lens of a very small community. Rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. This is not a corruption, it is a necessary thing that must happen to assist with new community problems. It is actually natural for governments to form as societies grow. Show me a society of a several thousand people in a small living space without a government. It doesn't exist.

Your other problem is that you see that government can be corrupt, therefore it must be corrupt. Or that its corruption is beyond a minimal sense. Government is a tool, and like any social tool, if wielded right, it helps society. How do you think we're able to speak our minds without getting shot by our neighbors? A free society requires the management of resources and broad human conflicts.

Recall what Jaspers said. Both censorship and freedom will be abused. — NOS4A2

Which is why you build a government with safe guards and anti-corruption measures. Free and frequent elections. Rights, etc. The problem is that the peddling of false facts is corruption of the free market of ideas. It has long been ruled that yelling "Fire!" falsely in a theater to cause a stampede for your own amusement is not defendable. Why then should people peddling false information for their own gain in other areas suddenly be off limits? Corruption does not just apply to government. It applies to every single person.

Misinformation is just false information. Under its heading falls satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, miscalculation, and so on. — NOS4A2

Is that what the book is including? Misinformation in such broad terms should of course not be prohibited. Generally when this subject comes up, its about actively conveying information to people that are lies, when the subject knows they are lies. So, not satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, or miscalculation.

To that, do you see an issue with creating laws that prevent outright deception and lies to people on public platforms? Or should we allow people to deceive others without any risk? The law already forbids revenge, violence, and other forms of 'community regulation'. Can the community properly regulate purposefully deceptive facts with less harm then careful laws and the courts?

I think worrying about misinformation is obvious. Lies are intended to distort reality for a particular individual's gain. A distorted perception of reality means more mistakes, missteps, abuse, etc. People die. Covid misinformation caused the death of thousands of people for example.

What you're really concerned with is, "Can government handle misinformation?" Of course. It already does today. Libel, slander, and outright intent to deceive for monetary gain are already handled fairly well under the law. There are a few keys that need to be in place if we were to expand the laws to other things such as "Misinformation to voters".

1. Innocent until proven guilty. This one I'm sure is obvious to you.
2. A high burden of proof. An individual must have clear evidence that they knowingly lied. It must be clear that the person did not imply that it was an opinion. "I think Ivermectin will help Covid" is different from, "Ivermectin has been proven to help Covid and is better than all the other medications out there."
3. A chance at remission. Sentencing or fees can be lowered or eliminated if the person in the wrong publicly comes out and admits guilt, and presents the evidence of what is actually true. The point is not to punish, the point is to ensure the public has access to the truth.
4. Harsh penalties on the campaign trail. This ensures it is more difficult for people who would deceive the American people to get elected.

Again, careful law crafting and jurisprudence can ensure misinformation is handled well without stepping on the first amendment.

But, the point with this thread is to imagine CFD in logical space, where in logical space everything is simply necessary. — Shawn

Logical space to my knowledge is the space of all possibilities, not necessities. Its a possible world logic, where anything that is not impossible can happen.

Modality in counterfactual definitiveness preserves unitary values. By doing CFD in modal logic preserves unity in outcomes as defined by the counterfactuals in logic alone. — Shawn

Can you go into more detail in how this applies to your idea? I'm not understanding how this addresses the point I made. Perhaps you're only noting what Wittgenstein said, which if that's all you wanted to explore, then to my understanding of the man, "Yes". If you want to discuss whether this is a practical way of thinking about knowledge, then it doesn't matter if we have a logical space in which all counterfactuals are open to us. To ascertain that one knows a fact, one would have to go through every single possible counterfactual, opposed to another person simply pointing out, "That's an apple because of X, Y, and Z"

The world cannot be made up of counterfactuals just by the numbers alone.

If it is the case that what is in front of me is an apple, then that is one out of an uncountably high number of other things I would have to tick through if I were to define that merely in terms of counterfactuals.

What is more pertinent, is we compare what is within the realm of plausible, possible, and probable to narrow down the amount of counterfactuals we cycle though. Thus we don't even consider the possibility that the apple is actually a hologram disguising a small grape. We don't consider that its an elephant that has been transformed into what looks like an apple. We use both the assertion that is is an apple, and a limited number of counterfactuals to what that assertion could also apply to with higher probability in the situation we're presented with.

If you genuinely care about the issue, read here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

There's a fantastic summary the post after if needed. It is the combination of objectivity and subjectivity that allows us to have knowledge.

That is knowledge of some things is hard-wired. It comes with the animal. This is not the thinking you described. It is more like the caterpillar reacting as though it were being attacked. — Athena

Correct, this is instinct or innate capabilities.

I think it is important to understand not all thinking is rational and thank you for your example of the caterpillar. It is also a baby's reaction to the change in the number of things. This is the stimulus, this is the reaction. Not rational thinking. — Athena

Absolutely I agree that not all thinking is rational. But back to the crow. If the crow had experimented with different things to get the food, and stumbled upon the branch, then remembered the branch, would that be rational thinking?