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?

There is a problem with inductive reasoning. Scholasticism used Aristotle and the Bible as the foundation of education. — Athena

A person who is using a screw to fix a pipe also has a problem. Inductive reasoning is a tool. It has its proper applications, and improper applications. But no one throws away their screwdriver entirely just because it can't fix a pipe.

We did not come to the modern age until much later and there was a terrible fight and strong backlash to Aristotle's inductive reasoning. — Athena

Right, because someone asked the question, "What if Aristotle is wrong?" To explore that, that particular person had to explore several inductive reasons too. Rational thinking is not, "I have the right answer". Rational thinking is a process of working through a problem to a solution. And that requires both inductive reasoning to figure out different possibilities, and deductive reasoning to narrow it down to necessary conclusions.

Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation” of the inference—the “logic” or “process of argument” that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). The problem of meeting this challenge, while evading Hume’s argument against the possibility of doing so, has become known as “the problem of induction”.

If you are interested, I have essentially solved that problem here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 There is a nice summary on the next immediate post. Essentially there is a hierarchy of inductions. The close they are to the process to gain knowledge, the more cogent they are. Inductions are absolutely necessary tools in rational thinking and discovery. We just have to understand them and use them correctly.

Manuel said "I suppose a bare minimum has to be symbolic representation akin to something that arises with language use. Animals do not have language, if by "language" one has in mind propositional knowledge." — Athena

This is defining the term to exclude animals without debate then. This is also an incredibly narrow term that historically has not required language use. I would not agree this is a requirement for rational thinking, just a requirement for linguistic thinking.

Perhaps we can focus on logic. — Athena

Logic may also be too strong. Rational thinking is the ability to piece premises together and come up with potential solutions. Those solutions may be wrong. A rational thinker can then eliminate that wrong answer and try another route. Logic often implies deductive reasoning, but many would argue that inductive reasoning is also necessary for rational beings.

Here is a clear example of thinking which is not rational. If you poke a caterpillar with a leaf in a way that doesn't harm it, it will squirm like its being attacked. Every time, it never stops. Its a purely reactionary mind, with no forethought, adaptability, or ability to react to memory. Whereas we have a monkey using a tool. How many tests did the monkey have to do to get the right stick? What did they try before sticks? Rational thinking is a process which requires memory, adaptation, and often times proactive and not reactive.

Intuition is defined as the ability to acquire knowledge without the use of reason [1]. Some liken intuition to a gut feeling, or to unconscious thinking.

The problem with this definition is it does not describe whether the person's intuitive thinking was the result of previous rational thoughts that one has subconsciously accepted, or instinct. One can have an intuitive behavior driven by instinct, previous rational thought, or trained habit.

So in the case of the crow, while we see they search through the branch and pick a twig of the correct size, we never saw if the crow had ever toyed around with the branch before. Maybe earlier they tried other materials, saw certain ones did not work, and finally found that a small branch did.

Working through a process to find what works, and does not work, seems like rational thought. It does not mean a being has to use math, language, or any higher level tools or processes that humans do. Can it reason through a novel problem and come up with a solution? That's really the question.

We know humans can be aware of some of that thinking in a way we call rational thinking. Rushing out to hang someone for committing an offense with other men dressed in white sheets, is not rational thinking even if the men are aware of their reasoning. Their reason is not the careful reasoning of science. — Athena

This is why the definition and meaning of the phrase "Rational thinking" needs to be clearly listed and agreed upon first. If we all have different viewpoints of what the phrase "Rational thinking" means, we're never going to come to an agreement. as to whether an instance of a crow using a tool is an instance of rational thinking.

Best not to overanalyze it or elevate it to have any deeper meaning then that.
— Philosophim
Didn't you want to use it in order to explain something about gloves? — Banno

No. The gloves are simply a thought experiment they used to explain the idea. The idea is what is being explained, the gloves are just a starting point to make the idea less abstract.

Its a logical footnote to prevent solipsism is all.
— Philosophim
I don't understand how. — Banno

If everything is constructed by the mind, and there is no 'thing in itself' that we are interpreting, then all of reality would be in our mind. A thing in itself is a logical note that there is a reality that exists even if we aren't around to interpret it.

And once you represent it, it is the thing...

I've never been able to see the point. It seems to me to conceal more than reveal. — Banno

Its a logical footnote to prevent solipsism is all. There is something underneath our representations which we cannot fully understands that is real and affects us. There's nothing else to really explore with it, so that's really where it lies.

Nor, while we are at it, is it clear how it applies to gloves. Is the supposition that a glove-in-itself, about which we can say nothing, is neither left nor right handed? — Banno

This is old philosophy we're dissecting. From an era before WWI, computers, and Netflix. Its a historical study about a thought experiment that was used as nothing more as a medium to bounce the idea around that there are some things that we can ascribe to reality, and arguably some things we can't. Best not to overanalyze it or elevate it to have any deeper meaning then that.

Why not drop the thing-in-itself in favour of the thing? At least then we can say something. — Banno

I agree that is the end take out of all of this. A "thing in itself" is a logical consequence that should not be considered anymore than its base logical necessity. As long as 'the thing in itself' does not contradict our representations (IE, cutting my hand off means it doesn't work anymore, no matter how I try to represent it otherwise) we can hold them.

Trying to figure anything more out about the thing in itself is pointless. You can't, you can only represent it.

We need something 'in itself' to represent.
— Philosophim

Why? — Banno

How do you represent something unless that 'something' is there?

But only a conscious being can construct a point of origin or use.
— Philosophim
This looks to be a play on "use". Only conscious beings construct. But that tells us nothing about space.

If the conclusion here is supposed to be that space cannot exist without conscious beings, and hence that some form of antirealism must be true, then it is very unconvincing. — Banno

No, that would be stupid. The point I've been making through the thread is the separation of representation vs 'things in themselves'. We need something 'in itself' to represent. The question is really about whether 'left' and 'right' as representations are things in themselves, or simply representations of direction through conscious origin. As I noted earlier, there not being a 'left' and 'right' in itself doesn't mean that there isn't the existence of two hands in particular points in space.

If the crow questioned if the stick would work, and proposed an experiment and then explained the results, the stick must be this long and have this strength to work, and we tested his experiment and found it to be true, then we have rational thinking. — Athena

So then if we took a human, and they did the same thing as the crow without saying any words, we would think that wasn't rational thinking? How did the crow arrive at that conclusion to do what it did to begin with?

Help, my thoughts may not be in the proper order or maybe I am not using the right words? I think I destroyed my argument. :chin: — Athena

Not a worry! We're here to think, and ideas can shift and flow. Honesty, questions, and exploring possibilities are all part of a good philosophical mind.

I don’t see why we need to imagine the glove floating in an empty container. Nor would the addition of a human spectator answer the question of whether it is a left or right glove – it is neither. — cherryorchard

Its a thought experiment used to convey an underlying idea. You're making an innocent mistake of focusing too much on the specifics of the thought experiment, and not what its trying to get at. The specifics of the thought experiment are irrelevant as long as you understand the main idea its trying to convey.

The point is that sometimes the existence of a thing does not innately imply things we ascribe to it. We ascribe direction based on points of origin, or use. But only a conscious being can construct a point of origin or use. Do left and right describe things in themselves, or are they purely constructs of an intelligent observer?

Ok, so the glove can fit a right hand or left hand
— Philosophim

I'm not sure I follow. As Banno says:

If the gloves have palm and back, then you can certainly tell which is left and which is right. — cherryorchard

Because the authors were not talking about gloves with palms and backs. They were specifically providing examples of gloves that had no distinct indicators that they were for left or right hands. Think of disposable plastic gloves that medical providers use if that helps.

If the question is whether 'left' and 'right' exist independently of any specific spatial observation point, I can't imagine how they could. — cherryorchard

This is the important part. But does that mean a right and left hand don't exist? No. The issue is in trying to describe 'things in themselves'. You really can't. Any descriptor or knowledge of a thing in itself is going to be a representation. So we can know there is reality, just not know what it is if we could not interpret and represent it in some way that relates to us.

Adding more objects doesn't fix that. So there is no "up" in itself. — frank

There is a distance between a set point in itself, and another set point in itself. "Up" is an interpreted relation between our observation view point, and that relation. So yes, "Up" does not exist in itself, but the Earth, and the distance to space for example, does exist in itself.

Yes, some animals can think rationally. It depends on how you define 'rationally' of course. If you define it as, 'the brain processing humans do', then its not. I don't ascribe to this definition, but many do implicitly.

Here is a crow using a stick to get food. Do you think this is rational?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfrxkEpfX8

This is about "Things in themselves" a concept which is easy to misunderstand. Let me see if I can do it justice.

A "Thing in itself" is 'reality'. It is "What is". What we do as people is observe light, air vibrations, etc, then piece together a coherent assessment of "That thing in itself" that we can process and make sense of. But if you think about it, the "Thing in itself" is not the light bouncing off. The falling tree does not make sound, the air from the crash does. As such, it is impossible to know what "A thing in itself" is. Its that upon which we represent with our definitions, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge.

Generally, the debate is, "Can we know what a thing in itself is?" Can we know what reality is, apart from our interpretations of that reality? And the answer is "No". What we call "space" has no directionality, as directionality is related to our interpretation. It doesn't mean that space doesn't exist or that something like "up" doesn't exist 'in itself'. It just means that our interpretation of what is, that exists without contradiction, still isn't "what is".

And this makes sense right? If you can only interpret something, you can't know what the something is without interpretation. In a more relatable sense, you can't actually 'be' another consciousness than yourself. You can interpret another human being, make beliefs about them, assessments, etc., but you can never understand what it is like to be "That person in themselves". And to really make sure this is understood, it does not mean that "That person in themselves" does not exist. It just means you're ability to understand and know about it is limited by the aspects of information and interpretation.

So ok, lets see if we can make the above conversation make more sense then a late night edible conversation.

this basic argument in the 1768 essay is that Leibniz’s view does not enable one to distinguish between a left handed glove and a right handed glove, insofar as the relations of all the parts to one another are the same in both cases. — SEP on Leibniz

Ok, so the glove can fit a right hand or left hand. That's the thing in itself (which we shouldn't be able to know). We ascribe to that glove, "Its a right handed/left handed glove", but because there is nothing innate in the glove itself that would necessitate that its right or left handed, we can make a belief, but not a solid claim of "that's what it is in itself".

Yet if God had created just one glove, it would have been one or the other. — SEP on Leibniz

What he's doing here is noting that the glove was made with intention. So the design does not convey the intent of the glove, but the designer had an intent for the glove. This is pulling the idea that 'things in themselves' are of course intelligently designed. And if you understand the what I noted above, you get into some absurd logic. Essentially even though we interpret reality, God actually understands and knows reality as it is 'itself'. How? Magic. And continuing to create a reasonable argument with magic ends in nonsense.

Another way to look at it is that God is another stand in for 'conscious intelligent being'. And its Gods interpretation that the glove be used for right hands only, so therefore its a right handed glove. But God would still need the concept of right and left handed that does not exist in 'the thing in itself'. Generally when you pull God into a conversation, it gets weird. I'll try to leave that aspect out to make it more intelligible.

Right-handedness and left-handedness are not merely anthropic concepts since nature itself insists on handedness in twining plants and the shells of snails. But which direction is right and which is left can only be established by a conscious, embodied being. As he expresses it in the Prolegomena, “The difference between similar and equal things which are not congruent…cannot be made intelligible by any concept, but only by the relation to the right and left hands, which immediately refers to intuition” — SEP on Leibniz

In other words if there were no hands, we would not be able to ascribe that a glove was for a right or left hand. But since there are hands created by nature, we know there are right and left hands in themselves. Nature doesn't ascribe to it that, "This is the right hand", but it there are hands that exist on each side of the body. Our interpretation or 'intuition' is to know them as right and left hands. Nature doesn't know them as that, as nature does not ascribe to them anything more than they are. The mistake here is to think that there is another concept 'in itself', or as God would ascribe. A thing in itself has no concept, it just 'is'.

It is not clear whether this orientational analysis implies that wherever there is space there must also be sentient beings with pairs of incongruent parts, as well as top-bottom and back-front asymmetry. — SEP on Leibniz

So again, to know something is 'right or left' is a human concept based on relation. "Right" is what we call 'that horizontal direction' in relation to left which is 'the complete opposite direction' from a particular origin viewpoint. "Right" and "left" do not exist, according to the above, as 'things in themselves'. They are pure concepts based off of relations of our interpretations of things in themselves.

So that being the case, if right and left are conceptual relations, doesn't that mean that top, back, depth, height, and space in general is just a concept based on the relations that a cognizant being creates? Yes. But does that mean the things in themselves are not related to other things in themselves, as they are? No. Does putting God or Forms into the mix make it more confusing then it needs to be? Yes. :)

Ok, so now to finally answer your question!

On what basis do you make this distinction? Is it a matter of experiencing the world through a human body? Or is there something objective about it? — frank

The objective basis is 'the thing itself'. We have 'hands' in themselves. How we interpret them is up to us. We could call them "quack and bark" hands if we wanted. We could say that hands involve the forearm. We part and parcel our interpretation of reality as we wish. As long as our interpretation is not contradicted by the thing in itself's existence (I can cut my hands off and they will still work does NOT match reality) then we're good.

I like your points except the need for religion. I believe at this point in life that religion is a mental construct we use to deal with things in life that have no alternative solution. Just like "everyone thinks they're above average". Of course not everyone is above average, that's not how math works. But thinking that you are helps you make it through the world.

I do think religion can be very helpful to people, but not for this particular solution. As you noted,

words [...] have reached such a pernicious level of influence that they have no real or useful clinical meaning. — Abdul

Exactly. I see it on social media and culture. "I have OCD". No you don't. OCD is a crippling compulsion that is in no way reasonable. Do you wash your hands 10 minutes every day on the dot to the point your hands are bleeding and raw? Then you don't have OCD. You have an attention to detail, order, and habit, which is part of the human spectrum.

The problem is medicalized terms that represent crippling deficiencies, have been relegated to personality differences that people are uncomfortable with. The psychology industry makes bank off of it, and well meaning psychologists are trying to make people's lives better. Being sad is not depression. Not moving from your bed for hours after you wake up is. Popular culture looks for what is wrong with us, when it should be celebrating our differences.

Compound this with a for-profit medicalized industry, and we're marketing pills to people who are quite healthy, have no problems working and taking care of themselves, but are sold a magic pill to "make life better". This especially hits the youth hard. You have teenagers dealing with normal stresses and fears and thinking its "anxiety". A diagnosis becomes an excuse for poor behavior that you could easily overcome. Its definitely a problem.

The psychology industry has people who understand this as well. They want psychology to emphasize less what is wrong with people, and more what is right. As long as there is money to be made however, and people are more willing to look for an excuse for what's wrong with them instead of accepting that life is going to have struggles you have to overcome yourself, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Because capitalism adapted to serve people. 40 hour work weeks, paid time off, Osha, and fantastic government regulation make life pretty good and generally healthy for its citizens. Communism was a product of tremendous income inequality and the rise of corporate power. People wanted government to fix that, and communism seemed a good way to do so. If you have its pretty good in society, or at least aren't miserable, why bother changing the system?

Why? So you can feel particularly righteous? — wonderer1

No, because Bob is constructing something important to them, an ethical theory. They are trying to get to the underlying logic of ethics, which is in my opinion, one of the last areas where true philosophy is still desperately needed. We do things all the time in our life that we cannot explain intellectually, as Bob noted. I've spoken with Bob many times, and he is not a self-righteous individual. They are passionate, curious, polite, and in my opinion, a true philosopher that is open to critique and changing their mind.

This is what philosophers endeavor to do. It is to construct a set of definitions and principles and come to a logical set of rules that help humanity understand and explain things beyond a surface level. When you encounter a person like Bob, who is a rare jewel on these forums, understand that this is their motivation. Bob can of course defend themself, but I can vouch for their reputation and intent on this forum.

I am seriously pondering what you have written, and incorporating it, but you don't seem to do the same with what I write. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I am sorry you feel that way. I felt I understood it, but that doesn't mean I did. For what its worth, you have a good soul and I wish you the best going forward!

Your theory is nice, and thorough, but from my perspective, it can only be a piece of any moral theory. It only tells one part of a much bigger story. I am looking for a more complete version. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I agree. Its only a start. Maybe one day it will be more.

If there is something unclear so far, or there is something you want to get off your chest, let me know.

If not, thanks a lot for these sincere interactions so far, and I wish you well moving forward. It was a pleasure. — Caerulea-Lawrence

You as well Caerulea! You have been a wonderful person to chat with, and I'm glad to have met you. Please continue on your path and feel free to share it with others here. I'll see you around the forums. :)

I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasn’t really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. I’ll do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we aren’t necessarily disagreeing about ‘what is moral’, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Unvarnished truth is better than couched and unclear communication. I took no offense. :) I also understand where you're coming from completely. Let me explain.

I came up with the knowledge theory and then the moral theory years ago. When I first came up with the moral theory, I was terrified and put it down. The problem was if I didn't use it correctly, or set it up in a way where someone could manipulate it as a half truth as some people in power are want to do, it could be horribly misused.

Don’t you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I do. Its why I put it down so long. So what made me change my mind?

1. I wanted to know if I was wrong.
2. I have more experience in philosophy and a better sense of the big picture.
3. I've learned to trust humanity more.
4. AI is coming.
5. The standard for proof is high.

Generally humanity advances whether we want to or not. It is only by those who are careful, care about the outcomes, and have a vested interest in humanities prosperity over profit and exploitation that these advances are most beneficial. If I don't try, I'm leaving it in the hands of some who potentially does not have those considerations at heart.

I also believe in the human spirit more. There are evil people yes, but I would say the majority of us are neutral to good. Humanity always struggles with a new set of knowledge or technology, but ultimately benefits if they are willing to tackle it in the right way.

AI is also a real danger. I believe if AI advances without us having established an objective morality, we'll have the same situation that you fear. AI has no intuitions, no loyalty to humanity or life, and it may determine that if morality is subjective, it can be bent for its own benefit. If it has to reason though an objective consideration, in almost no scenario would it conclude that humanity, animals, or life on this Earth should ever be wiped out.

Finally, if I'm careful in the specifics, and continually expect a high bar to claim, "This is more moral", with it being open to being challenged with new information at any time, I believe the theory avoids easy manipulation. Once could manipulate it by 'lowering the bar', but people do that even with subjective moralities.

Based on what is known to you, does everyone you know, and have ever met, have the same moral standards for themselves that you have? I’m not talking about if they try to, or you can’t judge them because you don’t know their life etc. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. The moral theory is about existence being good. Meaning a person's existence is put into the equation. You can't say, "All people must do X", because not all people are the same. Its more about, "If you're X in this situation Y, and you have a choice between A and B, do B'.

Well, reading that, how do you feel? — Caerulea-Lawrence

I have no problem with it, except that I 'mostly' commit to those ideals. We are not perfect, nor should we expect to be.

By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I am measuring morals to the absolute reality of the situation. And in my experience, there is no other way. An absolute 'in every instance, do this' situation exists more rarely then you would think. We are part of existence, and thus we are part of morality. Morality does not have to be separate from us, but can be with us.

But I'm speaking in abstracts and feelings now. All I ask is for you to read the second part. If you read it and you don't like it, understood. But try to see what I'm doing first instead of fearing the unknown.