If you haven't already, read the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with Aristotle's "first principles" in mind — 180 Proof

No, I haven’t read this book yet. Thanks for the recommendation! I going to write it on my agenda of “next books” :up:

At some point you just choose an ending, if not, then you would never conclude anything. — Sam26

Completely agree! :up:

"Inference or proof is parasitic; it requires knowledge by other means which it can then use to extend what is known." — Sam26

It is interesting how your friend, Dr. Bitar correlates inference and proof with “parasitic”. I see his metaphor. Exactly as it is, inference, proof, knowledge, etc... extend themselves as parasites to what is known.
I guess we can see the parasitic example in a positive side! Faraway from pandemics or illnesses!

Above me pay grade, mon ami! You're on your own! Danke for the exchange. Bonam fortunam!

Hmmmm.

bona fides my friend! You are welcomed!

... facts. They don't exist apart from human minds. — Gnomon

:chin: So "human minds" are human minds-dependent "facts"?


:

"Inference or proof is parasitic; it requires knowledge by other means which it can then use to extend what is known." — Sam26

Which are your thoughts about that quote?

So "human minds" are human minds-dependent "facts"? — 180 Proof

Say what?
Alls I'm sayin is that our understanding of what's real or unreal, true or false is subjective phemomena, not objective noumena. That's why Kant concluded that we KANT know the ding an sich (true ultimate perfect reality, which I call "Ideality"). All we know is our own concepts about perceived reality. So our "facts" are "human-mind-dependent". G*D only knows what's what out there in the Real world.

Unfortunately, most of us assume that our mental models are perfect representations of Reality. Although empirical scientists do generalize, they are aware that their models are never perfect, and fall short of absolute Facts. Hence, the necessity for methodological skepticism.

That's also why Aristotle made a distinction between Universal Ideal Generic Forms (morph), and particular physical Instances (hyle) of those Ideal Abstractions. Science attempts to generalize universal Facts from a few instances. In practice though, our common language too often allows us to confuse physical real Instances (Things ; Facts) with metaphysical ideal Forms (Universals ; Truths) ; the Ding with the Ding An Sich. :worry:

Ding an sich :
noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man, however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because practical reason—i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent—makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon#ref182175

Universals :
The Problem of Universals asks three questions. Do universals exist? If they exist, where do they exist? Also, if they exist, how do we obtain knowledge of them? In Aristotle's view, universals are incorporeal and universal, but only exist only where they are instantiated; they exist only in things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_theory_of_universals

Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certain knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt

Platonic Form :
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.
___Wiki
Note -- Those perfect Ideals exist only in the mind of G*D (or Spinoza's Nature), not in the minds of mortal men. If there is no eternal state of Being, there is only imperfect ever-evolving reality -- no absolute Truth. G*D's ideals are the ultimate objectivity that fallible humans futilely strive for in Science & Philosophy. Hence, if there was no G*D, we would have to invent one to serve as the Ideal Objective Observer.

"Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance 'God', or 'Nature'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Spinoza

MIND-DEPENDENT FACT

Say what? — Gnomon

Exactly! :smirk:

(The implication of what you wrote, G-mon. )

Anyway.

Yeah, the map =/= territory but that is precisely why the map is useful as a map. The map (i.e. mind-variant "representation") is an aspect of the territory (i.e. mind-invariant "ding-in-such") used to track other aspects of the territory and, in this way, the "ding-an-such" is approximately (partially) – though, yes, not completely – known (pace Kant). The efficacy of map-making/using for relationing to the territory is factual and not merely "a matter of opinion" (i.e. mind-dependent). Enactivism, a subset of embodied embedded cognition (EEC) – ever heard of it? :roll:

Clearly, Gnomon, you don't drink bleach – no doubt because the "representation" of its toxicity corresponds sufficiently with the bleach's "ding-an-such" for you to heed the poison warning label. Anti-realism (i.e. immaterialism) is demonstrably bad for your health. :mask:

MIND-DEPENDENT FACT

Oyxmoron.

e.g. Asylums are filled with "Jesuses", "Napoleons" & "Klingons". :sweat:

Clearly, Gnomon, you don't drink bleach – no doubt because the "representation" of its toxicity corresponds sufficiently with the bleach's "ding-an-such" for you to heed the poison warning label. Anti-realism (i.e.immaterialism) is demonstrably bad for your health — 180 Proof

I also don't imbibe 180 proof Materialism. It's bad for your mental health; even for those who don't believe in immaterial Minds. :joke:

Anti-Idealism :
Type-A materialists hold that phenomenal facts (insofar as there are such facts) are necessitated a priori by physical facts. Such a materialist denies that physically identical zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds are coherently conceivable, denies that Mary (of the black-and-white room) gains any factual knowledge on seeing red for the first time, and typically embraces a functional (or eliminative) analysis of consciousness.

Type-B materialists accept that phenomenal facts are not necessitated a priori by physical facts, but hold that they are necessitated a posteriori by physical facts. Such a materialist accepts that zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds (often both) are coherently conceivable but denies that such worlds are metaphysically possible, holds that the factual knowledge that Mary gains is knowledge of an old fact in a new way, and typically embraces an a posteriori identification of consciousness with a physical or functional property. ___David Chalmers
http://consc.net/papers/modality.html

PS__Maybe "G-mon" is a type A Materialist. Phenomena is a function of Noumena. In that case, Phenomena are recognized as models of Noumena because the a priori template of Aristotelian Categories (Quanta/Qualia) fits the incoming information. Partial fit = questionable; No fit = false. :cool:

Assuming evolution is true,

1. Our senses would've evolved to get as close to the truth as possible as any deviation from veracity would significantly lower one's odds of survival, sensu amplo, oui monsieur?

2. If one studies/examines life rationally, it sometimes feels pointless, vide the alleged Sisyphusean nightmare scenario as depicted by Albert Camus. Ergo, evolution could've/should develop systems that in a sense lessen the burden of existence and one way of doing that is to create illusions that deceive us into thinking life is, to put it mildly, abso-fucking-lutely amazin' (maya).

If evolution is to succeed with humans, it has to balance reality with illusion, hit the sweet spot so to speak just so that we stay alive long enough to transfer our genes to the next generation. Wicked!

If evolution is to succeed with humans, it has to balance reality with illusion, hit the sweet spot so to speak just so that we stay alive long enough to transfer our genes to the next generation. Wicked! — Agent Smith

Yes. Evolution weeds out un-fitness, but useful (pragmatic) "illusions" (models of reality) are fit-enough to pass the survival test. Donald Hoffman doesn't deny that there is a real world out there. He just argues that our mental models of reality are based on limited information & experience. He uses the analogy of computer screen icons as abstract & simplified symbols of the underlying complexities hidden inside the processor.

Hence, he agrees with Kant, that we don't have direct knowledge of (real) things, just our indirect (ideal) mental representations of them. And he concludes that our imperfect replicas of reality are "good enough" to guide us through the exigencies of evolutionary extraction (culling of the herd). Good enough is near the balance point ("sweet spot") between too much and too little. Even if it doesn't hit a home-run every time at bat, it will be sufficient to result in a high batting average. :smile:

PS__Even as the technological extensions of our senses add more detail to our world model, we discover that, like fractals, the subtleties go on toward infinity.


The Case Against Reality :
As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Note -- Hoffman insists that our survival was not due to a "true" picture of reality, but to a model (that I call "Ideality") that is true-enough for minimal fitness. For example, our ancestors survived for millennia without knowing much about Physics, or Quantum Physics, or the vastness of the universe. So, they "got by" with their superficial models of the entangled complexities of the underlying & overlying world that is hidden from our eyes -- but not from our sense-extending technology. :nerd:

Superb post!

Given the choice truth or survival, we've been programmed to opt for the latter. A delusion/illusion can make the difference between life and death and hence the abundance of cognitive biases which, though leads us away from the truth, keeps us safe and sound.

Given the choice truth or survival, we've been programmed to opt for the latter. A delusion/illusion can make the difference between life and death and hence the abundance of cognitive biases which, though leads us away from the truth, keeps us safe and sound — Agent Smith

So interesting point of view, indeed. :100:
But I do not understand why truth and survival are connected and why do you think an illusion can make the difference between life and death?
Probably I am wrong, but I guess they both complement each other.

Syllogism: Thanks to the act of survive, I can find the truth. Thus, If I found out the truth, it does mean that I have survived.

The Case Against Reality : — Gnomon

@Agent Smith Ok, I just read it. Sorry for the comment, I understand it better now!

Now for the philosophical point (remembering that I don't care what Catholics think, I only care about what makes sense - which seems very different). — Bartricks

Given the choice truth or survival, — Agent Smith

Not "given." False dichotomy. 'Partial truths' have survival value; in fact, most of our "truths" are only partial / approximate, ergo fallibilist. Adaptive organisms are selected for traits which are effective enough (e.g. truthful enough) for finding food, mates and fending off predators long enough to reproduce profligately. The further removed from evolutionary pressures, the greater the opportunities to extend the scope of "truth"-making/telling beyond managing / satisfying the requirements of bare survival. Natural selection, Smith, generates only suboptimal solutions, and those which are effective enough tend to survive.

Fiction & so-called sublime doodads seem to take the edge off dukkha - by just the right amount and just long enough - to make us wanna procreate. Ah, but I repeat myself.

A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

There are certain priniciples e.g. the PSR (the principle of suffucient reason) that have to be, well, assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Yes. Another example of "principle of sufficient reason" could be: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" by Aristotle.
When you connect more objects in a way, there will be a system emerge. That system somehow hold new properties that does not exist in those object that form the system.

Or Cogito Ergo Sum by Descartes. At least, we can consider it as a "principle of sufficient reason" of my awareness of existence. :chin:

Right you are! Aye, aye!

Are you by any chance referring to holism and/or superorganisms? Of course you are; silly me!

I am referring to holism! The parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot be understood without reference to the whole.
But I am thinking right now that this theory could be so generic...
Trying to study each part specifically is important too. I do not want to be attached to any theory neither sound radical about it.
Probably, essence and substance can be better understood if we study it individually.

This :point: The Unexplainable is right up your alley.

Given the choice truth or survival, we've been programmed to opt for the latter. A delusion/illusion can make the difference between life and death and hence the abundance of cognitive biases which, though leads us away from the truth, keeps us safe and sound. — Agent Smith

An interesting perspective! It reminded me that lower animals have no illusions. For example, an ant is not concerned with "Truth", and doesn't worry about "Death", but only with what works right here, right now. Homo sapiens is a different animal though. Our rational ability to project here & now into the near future, causes us to worry about things that are not things, and about events that may never happen. We sometimes treat those imaginary possible futures as-if they are the wolf at the door. That's the root of most anxiety disorders. But the stoics among us understand, that if an imaginary wolf is at the door, all we need to do is not open the door.

Discerning True-from-False is sometimes taken to extremes by philosophers. That's why we need to be reminded by thinkers like Kant and Hoffman, that we have no way of knowing Absolute Truth. So, we have to do the best we can with our little cache of personally proven facts, and whatever useful truths we can glean from the experiences of others. We weave all those particular truths together with links of Logic, to fill-in the gaps in our direct & indirect knowledge. The patchwork result is Pragmatic Wisdom, not seamless Divine Revelation.

The BothAnd Principle is based on viewing "True-False" as a continuum, not as absolute extreme positions with nothing in between. So, instead of going to one-end-or-the-other of those simple-minded oppositions, philosophers are advised to shoot for the "sweet spot" at the Golden Mean. Apparently, species that succeed at maintaining an "even keel" (stability ; consistency) survive long enough to reproduce, and to propagate their informed genes (molded by experience) into future generations. That's not out-dated Lamarckism, but merely the observed fact that genes are not merely inert carriers of information, but are modified by the experience of their host (neo-Lamarkism). Moreover, humans have invented an artificial form of embodied experience : writing & recording (techno-Lamarkism).

Life is not simply a stark choice between door A (true?) & door B (false?), but a more interesting game with multiple options, some more true than others. Perhaps, what 180 Proof labeled "partial truths". The first of all Principles in the game-of-Life is "choose life". However, Wisdom is the talent to know how to choose the least-bad option, from a spectrum ranging between Good & Evil. Evolution seems to reward such Pragmatic Truth, instead of the vain treasure-hunt for the Holy Grail of Absolute Truth. Nevertheless, idealistic humans tend to err on the side of Truer Truth (e.g. philosophy ; science ; technology), thus advancing cultural evolution from Cave Man to Rocket Man -- from bare survival to thrival. :smile:


A cognitive bias is a strong, preconceived notion of someone or something, based on information we have, perceive to have, or lack.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias

Perhaps I speak too soon - the circumstances are such that some of the traits we possess can't be identified as good/bad for survival; are some qualities we possess being maintained/honed/discarded? Only time will tell I guess. In addition we seem to have created a quasi-Matrix-like artificial world for ourselves with its own set of rules and only a handful will survive for more than a few hours out in the wild.

Perhaps I speak too soon - the circumstances are such that some of the traits we possess can't be identified as good/bad for survival; are some qualities we possess being maintained/honed/discarded? Only time will tell I guess. In addition we seem to have created a quasi-Matrix-like artificial world for ourselves with its own set of rules and only a handful will survive for more than a few hours out in the wild. — Agent Smith

Don't give up on us yet. I hope our good qualities are not being "discarded". But sometimes one talent comes to the forefront, and another recedes. For example Darwinian Evolution emphasized the role of competition in the "struggle for survival" : mano y mano ; one-on-one. But other naturalists, such as E.O.Wilson, saw that cooperation within cohesive systems (Group Selection) was a major factor of evolution. The "honing" process works in more ways than one, to "maintain" a balanced system.

That maintenance includes Cultural selection & progression. In the 20th century, most Western societies rejected cooperative Socialism, and focused on competitive Capitalism as the main driver of social evolution (measured in terms of money). But, that "greed is good" policy resulted in some dire social consequences, as economic competition tended to let the cream rise to the top (the super-rich 1 or 2%), while the watery whey sank to the bottom (Zion in the Matrix). In reality though, what we now have is a hybrid (off-setting) system of Socialism & Capitalism.

However, Nature tends to automatically react to re-balance an out-of-whack system; sometimes via violent natural disasters. And Culture ("artificial world") also seems to offset extremes in order to harmonize the general human welfare. However, apologies to Marx, Social systems are unnatural, and seldom automatic. So the polarity may have to get very disproportionate before civil wars break-out. Hence the history of human culture seems to follow the up & down path made famous by Hegel. Yet, somehow the general trend seems to keep us, as a world-wide social system, on a fairly stable path. That may be because natural & cultural Evolution have an inherent stabilizing force to keep it on track. Being a pragmatic optimist, I call that implicit equilibrator "EnFormAction". :smile:

PS__One example of balancing Aristocracy (the few) and Proletariat (the many) is in the Parliamentary proportioning of Lords (few) and Commons (many). It acknowledges the social disparity, but tries to provide a political counterbalance. This is a cultural example of the natural balance between Predators (few) and Prey (many). It's an eccentric symmetry, and a dynamic balance, but it seems to work . . . . in the long run.

Social Re-Balance :
Picture a country plagued with financial struggle, unaffordable food, looting and rioting due to heavy disdain for the current regime, the wealthy exempt from paying taxes, and an expanding urban poor.
Thinking of the United States during the good year of our Lord 2020?
Think again. We’re talking late 18th century France.
https://www.polljuice.com/vive-la-revolution-comparing-u-s-inequality-with-1789-france/

THE EVOLUTIONARY DIALECTIC


PYRAMID PROPORTIONS

.

That's why we need to be reminded by thinkers like Kant and Hoffman, that we have no way of knowing Absolute Truth. — Gnomon

I see. So is that an absolute truth ? Or just a guess ? Just 'appearance' or 'phenomenon' ? Does the person a in private dream somehow figure it out ? And assume that everyone else must also be in a private dream ? But isn't this just more of that private dream ? Mere illusion ?

The trick is its vainglorious humility, its wilting arrogance.

I see. So is that an absolute truth ? Or just a guess ? Just 'appearance' or 'phenomenon' ? Does the person a in private dream somehow figure it out ? And assume that everyone else must also be in a private dream ? But isn't this just more of that private dream ? Mere illusion ?
The trick is its vainglorious humility, its wilting arrogance. — Pie

Is that your humble way of implying that, contra Kant, you do have personal access to "absolute truth"? What "trick" are you referring to? Do you think that Empirical Science reveals "absolute truth" that is hidden from "arrogant" philosophers? :smile:

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism - Do we need the Ding an Sich? :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/84710/kant-vs-scientific-rationalism-do-we-need-the-ding-an-sich

Well, I'm not sure how to judge your post. It rings true but, absit iniuria, that can be for so many reasons other than it being true if you catch my drift. Verisimilitude is rather complex it seems! I digress though.

What evolution selects for isn't gonna be something we can control if we don't do anything about our natural built-in reward-punishment system; as is obvious, that critical component of ours is not something we're in charge of. We follow our hearts and though our emotions tend to, by and large, make sense to our minds, sometimes we like what we aren't supposed to like and detest stuff we ain't supposed to detest. The conflict or disharmony between heart and mind (Xin), how well/badly these two work (together), will decide, in my humble opinion, humanity's fate!

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism - Do we need the Ding an Sich? :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible. — Gnomon

:100: :up: