Since when is objective = what everyone prefers? — khaled
There is nothing everyone who is, ever was, and ever will be, will agree on. — khaled
Notice the "At least seems that way". Very important. So at no point can you actually know it is that way right? — khaled
That much is true but not vice versa. If the method you select does provide the most accurate models it MAY not be wrong. — khaled
Why do you claim the existence of a "Best standard"? If there is such a thing then what is it? — khaled
But what makes you think a bunch of rocks floating in space imply some "Objective standards" with which some evolved ape on one of said rocks must debate? — khaled
unbiased — Pinprick
essentially the entire point of thought itself. This is demonstrated by its universal acceptance — Pinprick
disagreements on what is true, or whether truth even exists, but that is irrelevant — Pinprick
No one chooses to believe something because they think it’s false. — Pinprick
That a foot is 12 inches, that the correct spelling of “the” in English is t-h-e, that chess is a game, etc., etc. — Pinprick
Facts, such as my above examples, can be known with certainty. — Pinprick
I’m sure that’s true with some things, but I would limit those to only things that are not fully explained. — Pinprick
irrelevant to a thing’s truth value. — Pinprick
I believe that truth is objective, which isn’t to say that truth exists in all discourses, but just that if truth exists in a particular area of discourse, then it must be objective. I also believe that there are ways to arrive at truth — Pinprick
And that standard is explanatory power, because in order for any statement to be true, it must be able to demonstrate how it arrived at that conclusion. IOW’s it must explain something. — Pinprick
And what does this mean exactly? — khaled
And again, how does one know they’re unbiased — khaled
When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”? — khaled
So why are we having this conversation? — khaled
That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in — khaled
This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. — khaled
Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. — khaled
Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)? — khaled
How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? — khaled
At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory? — khaled
If minds are identical to brains and two people from ancient Greece are talking about their minds, it would follow that they're talking about their brains. The problem is that ancient Greeks COULD have meaningful discussions about their mental states. They could not have meaningful discussions about their brain states. They thought the brain cooled the blood. Therefore, brains aren't identical to minds. — RogueAI
That you aren’t letting your personal views (opinions) cloud your judgement, draw inaccurate conclusions, etc. — Pinprick
By being able to justify your claims logically — Pinprick
Are you claiming that a theory/idea that explains nothing can somehow still be true? — Pinprick
What exactly do you disagree with here? — Pinprick
What if I use these “true by definition” concepts to learn new things? Does that count as knowledge? — Pinprick
there is nothing that everyone will agree with. — Pinprick
See above example of measuring. — Pinprick
Once — Pinprick
If I hypothesize that I cannot walk through walls, and then proceed to attempt to do so, and fail to do so; then I can accurately say that I cannot walk through walls (at least at this particular time, with walls made out of this particular substance, under these specific circumstances, etc.). — Pinprick
I don’t understand any of what you’re trying to say here, so let’s start at the beginning. First, what is “mind?” Second, what’s the difference between “mind states” and “brain states?”
This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” — khaled
Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. — khaled
You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever — khaled
2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. — khaled
But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with. — khaled
But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge. — khaled
Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error” — khaled
Ok so I now propose to you a theory:
Pens never run out ink
I have just written a line with a pen
Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect
Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time. — khaled
At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time? — khaled
If you are equating minds and brains, why are you asking me "what is mind?" — RogueAI
I gave you an argument that if minds are brains, then talk of minds is talk of brains. — RogueAI
ancient peoples could meaningfully talk about their minds without meaningfully talking about their brains. — RogueAI
I’m not trying to make that claim. People are irrational, and will believe whatever they want, or are compelled/forced to believe. — Pinprick
If the point you’re trying to make is that people don’t always believe what is true, then of course I agree. There will likely always be someone that disagrees with everything, but this isn’t an issue with “truth” or “knowledge,” but with humans. — Pinprick
I came to the conclusion that "all is mind" by inference from the modern scientific theory that "all is Information". Einstein determined by theoretical reasoning that Matter is a form of Energy. Then Shannon determined mathematically that Information content can be measured by its degree of Entropy (negative energy). Which means that "Information" is equivalent to positive Energy. Therefore Information = Energy = Matter. Ironically though, the term "Information", prior to the 20th century referred only to the contents of minds, i.e. knowledge & concepts. Hence : Information = Mind.I feel like the "all is mind" position is a cop out position or even just laziness. — Chaz
I came to the conclusion that "all is mind" by inference from the modern scientific theory that "all is Information". Einstein determined by theoretical reasoning that Matter is a form of Energy. Then Shannon determined mathematically that Information content can be measured by its degree of Entropy (negative energy). Which means that "Information" is equivalent to positive Energy. Therefore Information = Energy = Matter. Ironically though, the term "Information", prior to the 20th century referred only to the contents of minds, i.e. knowledge & concepts. Hence : Information = Mind. — Gnomon
Technically, you are correct, but I was not speaking as a physicist. Mass is indeed an inferred immaterial property or essence of Matter. But humans never experience raw Mass. Like Information and Energy, all of our experiences are with the material containers of properties, qualities, and Information. :joke:Good on the equivalence, but more correct to substitute 'mass' for 'matter'. In e=mcc, 'm' is 'mass' and the equation is indeed showing equivalence, not that mass makes energy or vice-versa. — PoeticUniverse
Do you believe brains are identical to minds? — RogueAI
The burden of proof is on the materialists to demonstrate something non-mental.To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist, only brains do. Until some sort of evidence can be presented that shows minds, of the metaphysical/immaterial variety, are even possible of existing, I see no reason to change my belief. I’m always open to the possibility that there is evidence that I’m not aware of, however. — Pinprick
To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist, only brains do. Until some sort of evidence can be presented that shows minds, of the metaphysical/immaterial variety, are even possible of existing, I see no reason to change my belief. I’m always open to the possibility that there is evidence that I’m not aware of, however.
Stove's "Gem" is a bit over my head. But how does he accommodate Einstein's Relativity ?''The most direct refutation remains Stove's Gem. — Banno
Yes. I came to the "all is mind" conclusion from the evidence of Quantum and Information theories. The "hard problem" of how Mind and Consciousness emerged from insentient Matter and amorphous Energy can be explained by applying information theory to Evolution. This is not a religious belief, but a philosophical theory, based on cutting edge science.The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. Can “all is mind” justify its premises? — Pinprick
To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist — Pinprick
You tell me! — Heiko
If it was an observation empirical science would not be the enemy, right? — Heiko
I am just what wondering that Descartes got famous by stating something obvious. I didn't think that it was meant merely descriptive. Well, you learn...I told you already. It's an observation. You disagree. So YOU tell me what you think it is. — khaled
Hmm, as you are talking about ontics there is no difference at all.Are you implying that if something is not explained by empricial science it is not an observation? — khaled
I never get materialists doubting their own consciousness. — khaled
Do you really think you're mindless? No, you don't. So, why waste people's time on such idiocy? — RogueAI
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.