If there is a cat on the mat, then the statement "the cat is on the mat" is true. Of that, I am absolutely certain and very well ought be.

Agree?

...you cannot be absolutely certain that you typing on your computer keyboard is what is true in an objective sense — Possibility

This is confused, and unnecessarily so. My typing is an event, an occurrence. That's what's happened and/or is happening. The report thereof is what was/is true. Of that much I can be absolutely certain, and very well ought be.

Personally I reject the objective/subjective dichotomy, but for far different reasons than are being discussed here.

We can be absolutely certain about what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. That is the basic point of our disagreement.

If you mean to say that - based upon the data showing that the universe is expanding like an air balloon - we can confidently surmise that it came from a singularity, or some such. I readily acknowledge and agree that that is a commonly held belief. It is also supported by current observations.

Big Bang requires that the concentration of energy required to produce what is currently within the universe as we know it to 'fit into' an indefinable volume, an immeasurable amount of space-time. Before the event, all of the necessary ingredients for that explosion to happen just come from nowhere.

It's magic.

it is not useful in discussion — ttjordy

Yes, that is exactly right.

If the aim is to place equal value upon each individual human, simply because they are human. If it is best to offer all others(strangers, in particular) a certain modicum of respect simply because we are all human, then we can succeed in doing so without neglecting the uniqueness of each and every individual human. The differences can make the world such interesting and sometimes wonderful place.

"All is one" neglects all the differences. "We are all one" may. Some differences ought not be neglected.

No need to concede. I do not disagree with the underlying sentiment of "We are all one", if it is to treat other people in ways that show an underlying priority and/or value has already been placed upon them... simply because they are people. We are all the same in that we are all subject to the individual particular circumstances making up each one of our lives, respectively.

If that is agreeable to you, then we are in agreement. That's the best starting point. A bridge of mutual understanding.

We cannot be certain about everything. It quite simply does not necessarily follow that we ought not be certain about anything.

It is true that Donald John Trump is not a reliable source of information regarding the covid19 virus. I am absolutely certain of that.

It is true that I am currently typing on my computer keyboard. I can be absolutely certain of it. That is most certainly true.

Thus...

Neuroscience shows that we continually predict our future interactions with the world, rather than simply responding to stimuli as it occurs. — Possibility

Does it?

I would think that neuroscience - if it shows anything - would show that we do both, because we do. If anyone or anything sayd that we do one or the other, as if the two are mutually exclusive, as if it cannot be both, as if we do not do both... well, they're quite wrong about that.

Best to discard that belief in search of much better. There are plenty.

This is what the ultimate idea is. And I know that it is very inconvinient if we don't differentiate between things — ttjordy

What you suggest is the epitome of what counts as being untenable. If you do not draw a distinction between anything, there is no language use. The belief you hold is existentially dependent upon language. Perhaps most importantly... If what you say were true, there could be no such thing as language use.

But there is.

Refraining from drawing any distinction requires an immediate sudden stoppage of all language use. If you acted upon what you espouse to believe, you would have to stop talking, or be guilty of suelf contradiction and/or a performative contradiction...

Using distinctions as a means to demand we stop drawing them.

Yeah... no thanks.

I think everything is the same... — ttjordy

Your beliefs on this matter are the same as mine because they both include energy?

C'mon man. Think about what you're writing.

But they are both energy, so they must be the same. I think everything is the same. We are one. We are all the big bang. — ttjordy

This is wrong.

Energy is energy. Flour is flour. Flour is one - of many - necessary elemental constituent of apple pie. All by itself, flour just does not have what it takes to be an apple pie. The same holds good of energy and thought.

I mentioned that thoughts are electrical signals — ttjordy

Again... electrical signals may be one necessary elemental constituent of all thought, but flour plays the very same role in apple pie.

I in fact, see thoughts as energy and energy was, is and will always be the same. — ttjordy

Good for you. Thought requires more than just energy. Seeing thoughts as energy is akin to seeing flour as apple pie.

Do that which would make the world a better place if done by everyone who finds themselves in whatever particular situation one finds themselves in.

Addressing one's needs and wants assumes some remarkable demonstrable difference between the two. The difference is clear enough sometimes, but not so much at others. I'm not sure there is one all the time.

I'm a minimalist in life and theory(theory and everyday practice).

Good stuff. What does one really need? Positive social interaction. Trustworthy and dependable neighbors and friends. Contentment.

True belief about the world and/or oneself.

That's on page numero uno in my book.

My opinion of thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and subconscious mind. — Justin Peterson

Time and existence are in no readily apparent conflict. At least they are not in one that I can ascertain.

Time and existence are inseparable. There is no such thing as instantaneous existence. There is always a period of time involved. We cannot always know how long something has existed, but we can know that there is a duration of time involved.

Shawn, I have one thing to stress and then a suggestion. Changing one's programming requires coming to acceptable terms with what was happened, is happening, and sometimes with what one thinks is going to happen.

A healthy thought life is not all that hard to achieve so long as you take advice from reliable source.

My suggestion is to intentionally and deliberately set each and every presupposition(pre-existing belief you have about anything and everything) aside whenever it is possible and learn to see the world via borrowing another's eyes. We each have a worldly fingerprint impressed upon us as a result of learning how to talk about the world and/or ourselves. We adopt belief about what sorts of things to aspire towards and what sorts of things to despise; what sorts of behaviours are acceptable and what sorts of behaviours are not. We are taught how to treat others. We are taught how to think about others. This teaching does not require explicit language describing the situation as it's happening. Rather, we are shown by witnessing that very behaviour.

There's an author from Toltec lineage/background 'named' Don Miguel Ruiz. The author wrote a book called "The Four Agreements", which brilliantly explains a method for cultivating an everyday healthy thought life. I personally set all of the religious bits to the side, as they aren't needed to benefit from the wisdom in that book. It's been well over a decade, but I retain fond memories.

I strongly suggest it as a read for anyone and everyone who wants to change the way they think and thus feel about the world and/or themselves. It's a great starting point.

All the thoughs we had, have and ever will have already existed forever — ttjordy

That is false. It is also a prima facie textbook example of infinite regress. Neither is acceptable and when combined they certainly count as good reason to discard that belief, as it is written.

I caused so much confusion with that sentence. Excuse me. I did not mean that he did not say infinite regress. But that my reply to him contradicted what he said. — ttjordy

You're good.

:smile:

I mean, there's plenty of room to build a bridge of mutual understanding.

Considering the fact, as it appears to me, that countless old problems are yet not solved to the satisfaction of all parties involved, I would say there's no pressing need for new ideas - they would just add to the backlog of uncracked riddles. — TheMadFool

I do not understand this logic...

So, given that there are unsolved problems, no need for putting forth new ideas, because that will just add to the problems?

That's rubbish.

Solutions are ideas. Condemning all new ones restricts and/or unwisely limits the breadth of the scope regarding what counts as a solution. If we condemn new thought, we imprison our solutions to only old ideas.

:brow:

That seems a bit unwise, to say the least.

Understood. They are unacceptable, because they are untenable. This is proven by the fact that they inevitably lead to a reductio ad absurdum.

Turtles all the way down.

God did it.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Etc.

It neglects the fact that all interactions occur in time, along a timeline of events, which we demarcate in a number of different ways using a plurality of means.

Simply put: If what you say is true, then no thing changes. That's clearly false because it contradicts with what's happened and/or is currently happening. Falsehood is unacceptable.

Dispense with such belief, immediately if not sooner.

Ok. You're still wrong though.

Exactly not what I said.

What matters 'the most' all depends upon some specific situation/circumstance/context, for 'the most' is only meaningful when being used in comparative analysis. Don't forget, there's also what doesn't matter the most. Sometimes, there are a number of distinct but equally important things that all matter 'the most', because the absence of any single one of them would render the existence of something impossible. For example, hydrogen and oxygen both matter the most when we're talking about what matters 'the most' for the existence of water.

Looks like a question made for wasting time...

We all know our world is inherently meaningless. — Cidat

Our world includes thinking and believing creatures. Thinking and believing creatures attribute meaning. Our world is not inherently meaningless, unless we wish to claim that thinking and believing creatures are not a part thereof.

Writers don't invent words, yet can create something new with them. — 3rdClassCitizen

Someone, somewhere along the line coins a term, or a begins some new meaning/use of a pre-existing term for the first time...

...there are no new thoughts. They always show up as a combination of signals in the brain that were composed of previous thought... — ttjordy

Infinite regress...

On my view...

All thought and belief, ranging from the simplest to the most complex, consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between different things. If intentional and deliberative thought is a kind of thought, and I'm right about what all thought and belief consists in/of, then intentional and deliberative thought consists of mental correlations satisfying whatever counts as being intentional and deliberative thought as compared/contrasted to/with other kinds.

Having been interested in doing philosophy for some time, I've a significant amount of uncertainty regarding the criterion another is working, especially in situations such as this one, as it is quite the nuanced conversation. Common sense tells me that that name could be rightfully, meaningfully, acceptably, and/or sensibly used in a plurality of differing ways, not all of which are amenable to one another. More plainly put, it could be used to pick out all different sorts of things, including many things that are not what I'm picking out to the exclusion of all else. Hence... my apprehension is prevalent.

Here's the simpest use/sense of that term that makes perfect sense to me...

Intentional and deliberate thought always consists of a creature focused upon something in particular. That kind of thought and belief would show itself early on. If such thought existed in it's entirety prior to language use, then it does not consist of language use.

Language use could become the focus. Language use certainly helps determine the focus. Language use can and does become an integral elemental constituent of the thought and belief of language users. Language use becomes a necessary elemental constituent of thought when that thought includes mental correlations being drawn between language use and something else.

Intentional and deliberate thought does not always include language, but certainly can.

So, how does language use effect/affect intentional and deliberate thought?

It broadens the scope.

I don't know what to tell you then Shawn. The number of cases and deaths increase daily.

Looks like a conflation of belief and truth, but I see that Banno is participating here, so I'm out. He's probably already voiced the right concerns.

Of course. The case numbers and deaths continue to be on the rise, even with all the social distancing measures and shut downs. Imagine what would happen if all those infected were allowed to mingle freely...

Children are not the victims. Their safety was being taken into consideration. Many many more children and families would have contracted and died from covid19 had we not shut down.

We still do not have what it takes to reopen without seriously increased numbers in unnecessary deaths.

What was the point of shutting down schools? It's not kids travel to Malaysia or China for the matter. — Shawn

Short answer. To protect the public with the only means available at the time. To stop the spread of covid19.


Longer answer...

The only way to stop an infectious disease pandemic is to stop the spread. That's easiest and entirely manageable only when the case numbers are low enough to do effective contact tracing and mandatory quarantine of those infected. When those steps are taken, the overall damage is tremendously reduced and public safety is highest. In addition, everyday life for most people goes on far less impeded. There would have been no need to shut everything down, as a last resort for public safety, had we been aggressively tracking and tracing all the known cases early on.

Unfortunately, we began taking the steps necessary for reducing the spread, and all the damage that results from a pandemic far too late, and thus were forced to reduce the spread by the only means left available to us.

In order to stop the spread, those who are infected must be isolated from those are not. In order to know who is infected, we have to test people who are symptomatic and people who are not. We do not have the capability to perform the sheer numbers of tests that needs to be performed. So, we currently - still - do not even know how many people have the virus. We also do not have the tests that we need in order to ascertain that much.

Social distancing measures are the next best thing, including the shut down of all non essential activities... including schools.

I do not understand how pre-schools and schools got shut down. How did this travesty happen? — Shawn

The travesty is not the shutting down. That was - and is still - required for public safety.

The mistake in public programming(the language being used to talk about the pandemic nearly across the board atm) is to call the shut down a travesty, as if it is the problem. It's not. Rather, those measures were taken based upon our knowledge of how to best stop the spread of infectious disease which is, in turn, based upon our own past experience of them.

What does that have to do with your own expressed desire to reprogram yourself?

Ah... I think you're referring to the current collective attempts at restarting the American economy which are attempting to have Americans accept the fact that some people will die?

Cruelty is accompanied by unnecessary harm and lack of concern for another's suffering. Accepting death is not(or does not necessarily/always include that as well). Nor does accepting the fact that death happens require also being apathetic about it.

Not sure what the mention of GDP has to do with this.

We're raised to accept death, can you believe that? — Shawn

Yup, I can believe that. What's wrong with accepting death?