Forming applicable knowledge takes time and careful reason, something the world does not always afford an individual before a decision must be made. With the understanding of distinctive and applicable knowledge, just like I can shape our discrete experiences into better expressions and tools for greater success, I can manage and shape my inductions as well. — Philosophim
He believes it is possible that he could view his current worldview as flawed and based on a false (view of) reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence
Maybe I am missing some obvious point, but I was wondering if it is also possible to include the subconscious with regard to the discrete experiencer, or see it as a parallel axis or something? As I am very much more fluent in intuition, emotions and feelings, I am trying hard to focus on the task at hand and not dive into that. Still, I thought this feedback could fit the bill without digressing. — Caerulea-Lawrence
Read Husserl. — I like sushi
I am not sure it can be made more accessible, though, without losing its inherent strength. At least that is something I am pondering whilst reading my earlier comment. It made an impact on me, but I imagine that was also due to it being outside my regular way of thinking, but also because of the specific instructions about how to go about reading it. Without both, it might just end up being mislabeled and added to other categories, without the growth in mindset it can have (More at the end). — Caerulea-Lawrence
If there is a small nit-pick I can mention, I do not like the word Irrational... It has some bad connotations, and made it harder to focus on the content and remember it. — Caerulea-Lawrence
God-damn, I am so pleased about understanding the "secret" to the Evil Demon example. Well played by you, too, on that one. There were some hints there that made me question it a bit more, not sure how you did it. Like you subtly 'forced' the meaning or something, not sure. — Caerulea-Lawrence
The growth from reading this — Caerulea-Lawrence
And in that sense, maybe it is true to say that science is underestimating consciousness a bit too much, and talking about NDE's this way is a kind of backlash to a certain unwillingness, on the flip side, to bother with acknowledging Distinctive Knowledge at all. — Caerulea-Lawrence
How anything you are saying is different from what he was outlining with phenomenology. — I like sushi
How to approach reading this paper: This may seem odd, but it is important to come to this paper with the correct mindset to keep discussion where it needs to be.
The discussion on this paper is intended to be an analysis of the terms and logic within it. Your primary approach should not be introducing your own idea of knowledge. Please make your own topic if that is what you desire. — Philosophim
Read the entire argument before posting please. If you have not read the full argument and have only read part of it, like just the summary for example, do not post here. I have encountered this multiple times in the past. It is extremely rude and a waste of my limited time to pursue a question or counter and find the person hasn’t read the entire argument where this would be answered. I welcome all background levels and will not find any discussion poor as long as you have read the paper. — Philosophim
↪Philosophim So I just wasted my time reading your post? Thanks. Bye. — I like sushi
Any such assertive claim that the creature is definitively one or the other, would be contradicted indirectly by my inability to observe the face of the entity. Such a belief would be inductive. — Philosophim
How is it different? — I like sushi
I did not say that. — I like sushi
I have used this system of knowledge to solve all of the problems and paradoxes that I know of in current day epistemology. — Philosophim
What you have done looks pointless. — I like sushi
You clearly didn't read the OP. — Philosophim
↪Philosophim
What does your proposal have to say about the probability of Last Thursdayism? — RogueAI
I wanted to get your take on this: am I misunderstanding or misremembering the view here? By point here is that, upon further reflection, it is insufficient to use the inductive hierarchy you have proposed because they do not supersede each other absolutely in the manner you have proposed. The context and circumstances matter — Bob Ross
let’s prove a plausibility is more cogent than a possibility and probability under certain conditions. — Bob Ross
. Making a complex example without carefully and correctly identifying the chain of reasoning, and when it relies on sub-inductions, is not a counter.
Every part of the design is an accidental property except for it being a box and having air (as defined above). You have never experienced a design X which was not a box-with-air. — Bob Ross
If these are truly accidental properties, then they are not in consideration
As a reminder of an accidental property, these are properties that are variable to the essential. So a "tree without branches" would have no bearing on its identity as a tree. So we can eliminate the variables X and Y from our consideration.
As it is irrelevant whether the design matches X or Y, if I am given a box and I know that probability is 51/49%, then the more reasonable guess is to guess that the box I am given is the 51% chance that it does not have air.
Implicitly, what most people would think in this context is, "Box X is designed to have air, Box Y is designed not to have air." These would become essential properties for most people in their context of encountering billions of each kind and having the same outcome in regards to air.
If its truly accidental, then the person would not even consider Box X or Box Y as being associated with having air, because it doesn't matter.
The examples so far are doing nothing to counter the underlying claims about essential and non-essential properties, they're really examples in which you need to correctly identify if a property is essential or non-essential based on the person's context. Once that identity is complete, everything falls into place.
You don't have to have an example at all to question my conclusions Bob, its like an equation.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.