It would seem the best that could be hoped for would be determining the neural correlates of various states of consciousness as reported by subjects , but that doesn't answer the so-called hard problem. — Janus

:up:

Infinity is solved by solving knowledge. How do you know what infinity is? Is infinity an actual thing, or is it a conceptual framework of an algorithm? — Philosophim

We cannot know the whole if we only know a part. We may know a rock, but as there is no information within the rock that it is part of a mountain, we cannot know the mountain by knowing the rock.

If infinity was an actual thing, such as infinite time, we may know a finite time, but as there is no information within a finite time that it is part of an infinite time, we cannot know an infinite time by knowing a finite time.

The only other way to know an infinite time is by experiencing an infinite time, which would take far too long.

Similarly with space, numbers, etc.

Therefore, infinity may be an actual thing, but we can never know. All we can ever know is the concept of infinity.

As with most scientific concepts about which we have knowledge, including the Big Bang Theory, Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Universal Law of Gravitation, Newton's Laws of Motion, Laws of Thermodynamics, Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle, Evolution and Natural Selection, Theory of General Relativity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, such knowledge of infinity can only be metaphorical.

I mean an objective morality that would apply regardless of being human or having a culture. — Philosophim

I'm curious what you mean by a morality regardless of being a human. Can you clarify?

because people are still looking for a soul. Its not really a philosophical discussion, but a faith based and emotional discussion. Once neuroscience ends that avenue, I'm sure people will look elsewhere. — Philosophim

Are you a physicalist?

Finally, rationality is once again, knowledge. As we can see, there is no greater need in philosophy then solving epistemology. — Philosophim

I have some sympathy for this as a potential resolution for some of our seemingly intractable questions. Any ideas for some directions? Do humans in your view have access to facts/truth beyond the quotidian (and even then...)?

Personally, I don't see any real breakthroughs happening in my lifetime and even then I wonder how much we'd understand when most of us still can't understand Kant? Possibly at some level it doesn't much matter. :wink:

Perhaps, but as Raymond Chandler said “A writer who is afraid to overreach himself is as useless as a general who is afraid to be wrong.” — RussellA

:up:

...understanding is of concepts that only exist in the mind... — RussellA

...governments don't exist in a mind-independent world. — RussellA

...understanding can only ever be a better understanding of the concepts existing in our mind and can never be an understanding of what in a mind-independent world caused these concepts in the mind. — RussellA

You have concluded our world is mind-independent?

You have concluded our world is mind-independent? — ucarr

My world consists of what I know, and everything I know exists in my mind. What I know are feelings such as pleasure and pain, concepts such as governments and chairs, sensations such as the colour red and a grating noise and beliefs such as the principle of cause and effect and that my sensations have been caused by something external to me.

I know that there is a world that exists in my mind, and I believe that there is a world that exists independently of my mind.

I also believe that within this world that exists independently of my mind, there are other minds, such as John's and Mary's.

My belief is that this something external to our minds is not another mind but is mind-independent.

My conclusion is that our world, the world of me, John and Mary, consists of minds and between these minds is something that is mind-independent.

A puzzle solved fits some other puzzle.

...everything I know exists in my mind. — RussellA

Only the contents of your mind hold the status of knowledge?

I believe that there is a world that exists independently of my mind. — RussellA

I also believe that within this world that exists independently of my mind, there are other minds, such as John's and Mary's. — RussellA

Everything external to your mind holds the status of belief?

Is your belief Justified True Belief (JTB)?

My belief is that this something external to our minds is not another mind but is mind-independent. — RussellA

Do you believe the contents of your mind depend upon the mind-independent world as their source?

Do you believe the mind independent world, not being a mind itself, cannot and therefore does not know itself? {Acknowledgement -- For the mind independent world, not being a mind itself, "itself" is meaningless.}

If you believe the mind independent world is the source of the contents of your mind, but is not itself a mind, do you also believe the mind independent world cannot and therefore does not know you exist?

If your answer to the above is "yes," do you also believe the link goes in one direction only (mind independent world to RussellA's mind) and, moreover, do you believe that mind independent world conveys to your mind its contents without any intentions whatsoever?

I mean an objective morality that would apply regardless of being human or having a culture.
— Philosophim

I'm curious what you mean by a morality regardless of being a human. Can you clarify? — Tom Storm

Morality should transcend humanity. It should apply to other plants, animals, and even the physical interactions of the universe. The moral question boils down to, "What ought to be." When people focus on human morality that will always be a subset of morality in regards to the entirety of existence. And since human morality is a subset of what would be an objective morality, focusing only on humanity will not answer the greater picture.

because people are still looking for a soul. Its not really a philosophical discussion, but a faith based and emotional discussion. Once neuroscience ends that avenue, I'm sure people will look elsewhere.
— Philosophim

Are you a physicalist? — Tom Storm

I don't know what you mean when you say physicalist. I tend to avoid labels because they mean too many different things to different people. If you want to know what I believe, what I stated is my viewpoint. If that viewpoint leaves you with questions, feel free to ask and I will answer to the best of my ability.

I have some sympathy for this as a potential resolution for some of our seemingly intractable questions. Any ideas for some directions? Do humans in your view have access to facts/truth beyond the quotidian (and even then...)?

Personally, I don't see any real breakthroughs happening in my lifetime and even then I wonder how much we'd understand when most of us still can't understand Kant? Possibly at some level it doesn't much matter. :wink: — Tom Storm

I wrote a pretty lengthy forum post and set of small papers on here exploring knowledge. It took many years of study and development, but I am extremely happy with it in my personal life. I use it to solve issues in my own life, and its a strong base to study and build from. Most people don't bother to read it to understand it, they just read it to try to shut it down in the first section. Only one forum goer actually bothered to read the whole thing and discuss it with me in depth, Bob Ross. He largely agreed with me on the broad strokes, but we had some issues on the language and some of the details I will forever respect him for it! If you want to take a stab at it, its here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1

In sum what is boils down to is noting that knowledge is a tool. It is based on the most rational conclusions we can make from our inner personal experience, as well as our inductive interactions with society. I am most proud of it not only because it presents a successful deductive approach to knowledge, but a rational approach to inductive knowledge which allows a hierarchy of cogency. Its ok if you don't read it though, its the norm.

Therefore, infinity may be an actual thing, but we can never know. All we can ever know is the concept of infinity. — RussellA

Great post, I agree RussellA. Perhaps infinity is the abstract concept of understanding there are always things to be known beyond our limitations.

Thanks for the considered answer.

In sum what is boils down to is noting that knowledge is a tool. It is based on the most rational conclusions we can make from our inner personal experience, as well as our inductive interactions with society. I am most proud of it not only because it presents a successful deductive approach to knowledge, but a rational approach to inductive knowledge which allows a hierarchy of cogency. — Philosophim

Sounds interesting. There's not much philosophy I can make sense of, but I'll check it out. :up:

...people are still looking for a soul. Its not really a philosophical discussion, but a faith based and emotional discussion. Once neuroscience ends that avenue, I'm sure people will look elsewhere. — Philosophim

Soul is the part of you that truly believes
Soul-belief comes to children naturally
After childhood it threatens to slip our grasp
Soul is the heart of vulnerability

I write the above four lines hoping they'll bring a response from you

Soul is the part of you that truly believes
Soul-belief comes to children naturally
After childhood it threatens to slip our grasp
Soul is the heart of vulnerability — ucarr

Hmmm... I realize this is not for me, but I don't think this sentiment is accurate. I never believed in a soul as a child. And I grew up in the Baptist tradition. Soul was just a word or metaphor adults used - something from the religious conditioning of their culture - pulled out occasionally to denote a concept they didn't understand or to stand in for the word 'people'. As in '1500 souls were lost on the Titanic.'

Soul is the heart of vulnerability — ucarr

I'm not sure this means anything, unless you force it to. What, in this sentence, are the words 'heart' or 'vulnerability' referring to?

Soul is the heart of vulnerability — ucarr

I'm not sure this means anything, unless you force it to. What, in this sentence, are the words 'heart' or 'vulnerability' referring to? — Tom Storm

Heart -- Remember how you told your best pal Marty in high school that Ruthie was your dream girl in this momentary lapse to insanity you even divulged hot summer night the week before classes started back how you woke from a Ruthie dream at three a.m. feeling that wet stain in your pajama pants and even had to make up story to mama concerning your late night lemonade run to the fridge with spilling to explain the soaked pajama crotch you steeped and wrung out before retuning to sack?

And then in hallway going to next class next day Luther, star school jock ribs you with "Hey, Georgie Porgie sweet on Ruthie wants an orgy. I'll make your orgy Georgie Peorgie!" "Naw, man!" You say when suddenly Marty says "Yeah, Georgie -- I mean, George. You love Ruthie dream girl, boy!" ?

And then you grab Marty's collar enough to throttle him down to hell as he falls dying choking on the linoleum the hottest chicks Midge and Miriam crack up as you turn not red but death-purple?

That's heart, man. The secret chamber padlocked and barricaded. It's the place at where we are really.

Well, where there's heart there's vulnerable. Matched set. Twins. Thaied for life.

Vulnerable -- simply means you can die. You can be embarassed, hurt, throttled, crushed, smashed, murdered, killed, annihilated -- did I mention destroyed?

Simple Test -- Wanna know if a soul you got? Ask yourself one question: Am I vulnerable?

I don't think we speak the same language on this subject, we certainly speak in different metaphors. What is a soul? Are you referring to an immortal/immaterial essence as per Aquinas? Or are you using it as a metaphor for conscious experience? The fact that humans, like animals, can be run over or shot or harmed emotionally points to any number of things, 'soul' not being one which springs out to me.

If your answer to the above is "yes," do you also believe the link goes in one direction only (mind independent world to RussellA's mind) — ucarr

No. As a mind-independent world causes changes to my mind, my mind causes changes to a mind-independent world, a case of Enactivism.

In Enactivism, cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. The environment of an organism is brought about, or enacted, by the active exercise of the organism itself. Living beings and their environments stand in relation to each other through mutual specification or co-determination.

do you believe that mind independent world conveys to your mind its contents without any intentions whatsoever? — ucarr

Yes. If a raindrop hits a leaf and moves the leaf, there is no intention on the raindrop's part to move the leaf.

Is your belief Justified True Belief (JTB)? — ucarr

No. If I have the sensation of the colour red, there is no doubt in my mind that I have sensed the colour red. I don't need to justify to myself that I have experienced the colour red, as I know it beyond doubt. It is knowledge, not because it is a justified true belief, but because I know that it is a true belief.

Other things I know beyond doubt is that for every effect there is a cause, in that self-causation is not possible, and that there is a world outside my mind, in that I am not a Solipsist.

I can intellectually question what I know to be a true belief, and wonder whether they are in fact true beliefs. But regardless of any intellectual questioning, there is still no doubt in my mind that they are true beliefs. For example, I may experience the colour red in my mind, and intellectually question whether in fact I really am experiencing the colour red, but no amount of intellectual musing will alter my visceral knowledge that I know beyond doubt that I am experiencing the colour red. I may in fact be wrong in my belief that I am experiencing the colour red, but being wrong doesn't change the fact of my knowing beyond doubt.

In Kant's terms, my knowing certain things beyond doubt is innate and a priori within the structure of my brain, a product of millions of years of evolution, where the brain has evolved in synergy with the world external to it.

Therefore, I know beyond doubt my sensations, I know beyond doubt these sensations as effects have had a cause, and I know beyond doubt some of these causes are external to my mind.

But as these causes are external to my mind, I may have beliefs as to what they are, but I can never know beyond doubt what they are. I can justify my beliefs as regards anything external to my mind, but I can never know whether these beliefs are true or not.

Pragmatically, it may not matter whether these beliefs about a world external to my mind are true or not, as long as my beliefs are sufficient to enable me to continue to more or less keep on living as an individual, and as part of a species that is able to survive as a cohesive group through time. A species does not need to know what is true in an external world in order to survive within it.

In answer to your question, by belief is not JTB. In my mind I have true beliefs that don't need justifying, and external to my mind I may justify my beliefs, but can never know whether they are true or not.

I believe that the human situation and the human being are one of the big puzzles.

Our cognitive capacities including our ability for self awareness and our ability to philosophise. Our minds. Our existential dilemmas and meaning making/pursuits.

What is a soul? Are you referring to an immortal/immaterial essence as per Aquinas? — Tom Storm

soul | sōl |
noun
1 the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
• a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

2 emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance -- The Apple Dictionary

In my earlier response to you I was referring to a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

Let's look at numbers, morals, the human brain and the world.

• We look at material objects and count them on our fingers. From doing this we say numbers describe the world around us.

• We look at human individuals behaving and we make judgments about right and wrong behavior. From this judgment we say morals describe the world of human behavior. Also, we say, because morals describe, qualitatively, human behavior, moral concepts can prescribe, via the law, acceptable/unacceptable behavior

Do you think moral truth, as perceived and understood by humans, is local to the human brain, or does it also have a presence in the world independent of human cognition?

In Enactivism, cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. The environment of an organism is brought about, or enacted, by the active exercise of the organism itself. Living beings and their environments stand in relation to each other through mutual specification or co-determination. — RussellA

Is it your belief that human mind and physical world enact and maintain an ecological handshake?

• Do human mind and physical world create together a Venn Diagram of an overlap, which is to say, a portion of each identity blended into a shared identity? As I eat the earth I become the earth? As I work the earth the earth becomes me?

do you believe that mind independent world conveys to your mind its contents without any intentions whatsoever? — ucarr

Yes. If a raindrop hits a leaf and moves the leaf, there is no intention on the raindrop's part to move the leaf. — RussellA

Is it your belief that rainfall in the rainforest that grows the plants results from random forces such as air currents, barometric pressure, temperature and the seasons?

I know beyond doubt is that for every effect there is a cause, in that self-causation is not possible, and that there is a world outside my mind, in that I am not a Solipsist. — RussellA

Is it your belief the world caused you?

Therefore, I know beyond doubt my sensations, I know beyond doubt these sensations as effects have had a cause, and I know beyond doubt some of these causes are external to my mind. — RussellA

Okay. So external world causes some of your sensations.

I may experience the colour red in my mind, and intellectually question whether in fact I really am experiencing the colour red, but no amount of intellectual musing will alter my visceral knowledge that I know beyond doubt that I am experiencing the colour red. — RussellA

Is it your belief your brain causes some of your visceral knowledge -- I know I'm seeing red. -- a priori without any help from external world?

So, there's a handshake between you and external world. The sense impressions of your sensory mind result from that handshake. Your rational mind, however, operates independently of mindless external world, creating knowledge of sense impressions a priori.

Do you find the above summary acceptable?

I am beginning to think that philosophy is a cry for help trying to make sense of the world we have been thrown into.

A puzzle solved fits some other puzzle. — 180 Proof

:up: I think so too, but the Quantum puzzle (solved) doesn't (seem to) fit the General Relativity puzzle (solved). The Theory of Everything remains uncracked except theoretically using Strings where the problem, ironically, is reversed from no choice (no model) to overchoice (a near infinite number of models). Odd that! :chin:

@Gnomon - String Theory generates a Theory of Everything that makes no observable predictions. Is Enformationism not similar in that respect?

Well I was referring only to philosophical puzzles (per the OP). Otherwise, I suspect neither QFT or GR are "solved" (i.e. complete) theories which may be why QG is so intractably elusive. String theory, btw, makes untestable (due to astronomically high energies required) predictions. And, as @Gnomon says, "Enformationism" is not scientific but "Meta-physical", therefore its a pure speculation (e.g. transcendental illusion) that does not make any predictions, testable or not, in the first place ... like "First Cause", "Intelligent Design" or other woo-of-the-gaps.

Well I was referring only to philosophical puzzles (per the OP). Otherwise, I suspect neither QFT or GR are "solved" (i.e. complete) theories which may be why QG is so intractably elusive. String theory, btw, makes untestable (due to astronomically high energies required) predictions. And, as Gnomon says, "Enformationism" is not scientific but "Meta-physical", therefore its a pure speculation (e.g. transcendental illusion) that does not make any predictions, testable or not, in the first place ... like "First Cause", "Intelligent Design" or other woo-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

:up:

Science is materialism's posterchild.

Anyway, I'm surprised that no one's mentioned paradoxes so far (4^th page now).

Do you think moral truth, as perceived and understood by humans, is local to the human brain, or does it also have a presence in the world independent of human cognition? — ucarr

I don't have good reason to think there are moral truths or moral facts - just intersubjective or communities of agreement about behaviours - codes of conduct if you like, which vary according to context and culture. It seems to make sense for killing, theft and lying to be proscribed or heavily regulated amongst a social species like humans - a community is unlikely to survive or thrive in the conditions of a failed state or failed tribe.

In my earlier response to you I was referring to a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity — ucarr

Then the word 'soul' is of no practical use.

I don't have good reason to think there are moral truths or moral facts ... — Tom Storm

There's no good reason to think 'suffering' is not a moral fact?

There's no good reason to think 'a natural person knows what makes natural persons suffer and therefore that she can avoid making a natural person suffer or reduce her suffering' is not a moral truth?

I was just wondering if you were going to pop up with something similar. You're right. I assumed Ucarr was referring to moral facts from a mysterious and transcendent source.

I am comfortable with the notion that causing suffering or allowing suffering to continue is morally wrong. I'm uncomfortable with the word truth.

I'm uncomfortable with the word truth. — Tom Storm

Well, aren't facts (non-tautologous) truth-makers?

Btw, "transcendent" being indistinguishable from imaginary or fictional, I agree there are no such "truths" (moral or otherwise).

Yes. I have been conditioned to always smell the whiff of Christianity and Platonism when I hear the word truth.

:smirk: :up:

In my earlier response to you I was referring to a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity — ucarr

Then the word 'soul' is of no practical use. — Tom Storm

Are you rejecting soul in favor of other words you regard as more appropriate labels for perishable human identity such as: mortal, frail, fragile, delicate, finite, terminable etc?

The fact that humans, like animals, can be run over or shot or harmed emotionally points to any number of things, 'soul' not being one which springs out to me. — Tom Storm

I assumed Ucarr was referring to moral facts from a mysterious and transcendent source. — Tom Storm

Is there any context, set of circumstances or the like in which soul could work as a practical label you could accept?

I don't have good reason to think there are moral truths or moral facts - just intersubjective or communities of agreement about behaviours - codes of conduct if you like, which vary according to context and culture. — Tom Storm

If a friend active within an intersubjective community to which you also belong should happen to say "Intersubjective agreement is the soul of worthy codes of conduct." would you find such usage acceptable?