Remember that by dismissing the LNC you accept ALL contradictory ideas as both being true, not just one. — Harry Hindu

How? The law of noncontradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

Disproving such a law does not mean that the opposite applies - merely that the law doesn't always apply.

By dismissing the LNC I accept that:
Some contradictory ideas can be both true.
Some contradictory ideas can be both false.
Some contradictory ideas cannot be true in the same sense at the same time.

You mean to say "everyone has their own logic" and that there's no such thing as universal logic. — Agent Smith

Yes. Logic is subjective, I have no doubt about this - otherwise we wouldn't be flinging hundred of thousands of words back and forth in this forum.

I shouldn't do this but I could do this. — Agent Smith

Would you compare the colour of an apple with the sides of an triangle for me? I'm curious how it would go :P

Have you ever gone against your own logic in any given situation? I don't think I have. I don't think I could. Imagine being a perfectly joyful person attempting to kill yourself. You could try. Would you be capable? Probably not. Likewise, people that do commit suicide go against an instinct that is supposedly hardwired into us. They do so because to them, it is the logical thing to cease their suffering rather than continuing it.

Logic is a monumental force. We see it today in the divide of our society regarding Covid and all that. Both parties are reasoning perfectly logical in their own frame of mind - yet the other, to them, appears completely delusional. If you take it as the principle that guarantees us a persistent worldview, as I suggest, then we might even consider it as an anchor for our identity. Logic ties our impressions of the world together and identity is rooted in our world- and self-view.

If I don't do this, does it lead to a contradiction? A category error? Yet, if the point is to explore the mind world, why get bogged down by (silly) rules? The man who refused to compare the sky to a dog is better than a man who does? — Agent Smith

When I do something like this in programming I get:
Error CS0019 Operator '==' cannot be applied to operands of type 'int' and 'string'
and my program stops and cancels.

How would we go about comparing sky and dog?
1. We list all characteristics that is sky.
2. We list all characteristics that is dog.

We look at our list, see that they aren't comparable by any of their characteristics and throw that error code "Can not compare type 'animal' with type 'location'. My program (comparison) stops and cancels.

"AI with thinking restrictions" is not too far off. We can view anything in the frame of programming - as a language it's reflective of human experience afterall.
I wouldn't call it restrictions though. Just like a computer program, we have certain functionalities and certain procedures on how we process anything.

Machine learning is only as good as the data/training you provide your algorithm. It's the same with thinking and logic. I make more experiences (data) and train my algorithm (logic) - in turn, my ability to assess (thinking) and handle future experiences grows (learning).

If not, we need proof that the universe is logical. Do you have one? Your post in the other thread of mine was interesting to say the least. — Agent Smith

Well, I'm not a defender of the idea that the universe is logical. As stated, logic to me is clearly subjective. I suggest that providing a seamless experience may be foremost. Meaning that if the world appears to be logical, it is because I've constructed my world view to be logical.

Quantum superposition as I've mentioned in the other thread supposedly breaks the law of non-contradiction. I don't really want to talk about quantum theory too much. I hardly have a clue about the math you asked about in the other thread and in the end they mostly remain theories - with many open questions and things we do not know yet.

However, I would like to point out one more quantum aspect that may be supporting my ideas. The Observer effect. It strikes me as fascinating that these quantum particles would remain in undetermined, paradoxical states until they are measured.
The question I ask myself is: What happened?

The obvious option is that it's the quantum particles own behaviour. It changed when measured, simple as that.

Another option is that the quantum particle does not change at all. It actually is undeterminable and paradoxical and chaotic. However, as we are "made" with a seamless experience as primary feature, we can not perceive impossible things - hence the experience we can not understand is translated to something we can understand - one determined logical value at a time.

Why not? Is illogic always involuntary? — Agent Smith

I don't think we ever act illogically on our account. Every decision we make is made through logic. It's always other people that tell us "you're acting illogical" because their logic does not pertain to our logic. That, or we learn that our action was illogical afterwards - that is the natural process I have described.

Why? — Agent Smith

Thoughts and logic go hand in hand. If I want to think of a particular thing, I first have to know the thing. I've showcased how we learn of new things through association and comparison. Comparison in itself is an act of applying logic. Logic is the principles we appy to check for consistency. It makes sure that our comparisons are valid.

When you perceive something that looks like an apple, you immediately recall your "apple reference" and logically determine whether you're looking at an apple - only then do you proceed to active thought where you might think "Oh, how nice would it be to eat this apple."

Sure. You could compare the colour of an apple to the length of the sides of a triangle. But that's an illogical comparison and in an actual situation aside from philosophical talk, you would not do this. It's not valid. Rather, you would compare colour with colour and length with length because that's the logical thing to do.

Thoughts are our threads and logic is the technique with which we tie them together, fabricating the cloth that is our mental makeup.

Our biological body, especially our brain, is ambitious in offering us a seamless experience. Just like our thoughts, the brain weaves our senses together, giving one coherent moving picture. Logic is the same. It's a function of association, chaining thoughts together to give one coherent stream of thinking.

In this sense, I disagree with the notion that "thoughts could be connected in many different ways other than logic". Logic is an automation. You can not stop it.

In order to think, we must perceive and experience different phenomena. The first time you encounter a unique phenomena, you learn about it. This is your reference. From this moment onward you compare any similar or same phenomena with this original phenomena. You examine if your impression of it is consistent. These references make up our toolkit for logic - and logic itself is the act of comparing these references to the thing itself, checking both for integrity and consistency in our stream of world perception.

In the same vein, I then disagree with the idea that

logical connections between ideas reveal truth/sense/reality? — Agent Smith

There is no truth or reality in logic. If anything, through logic, as it is based on our experience, we may reveal something about ourselves. But just because our logic allows us to have a seamless mind experience, it doesn't mean that it necessarily reflects reality in any way.

One practical example to demonstrate all that I mean:

1. You learn of "apple" as you eat a green sour fruit. This is now your reference.
2. You see another green fruit. It's form is very similar. You logically believe it is an apple.
3. You try the fruit but the taste does not match your reference. Your logic tells you that this is not apple.
4. You learn that this is "pear" not "apple". You now have two different references.
5. You get a third fruit. The form is the same as apple but the colour is red.
6. Based on your previous experience, this might be "apple" or "pear". Either way you know it to be "fruit"
7. You try the fruit. It tastes similar to apple but is less sour and more sweet.
8. Through the form, flesh consistency and similar taste, you learn that red fruit is also "apple"
9. Your reference is updated once again.
Apple is now: The shape of an apple. Red or green. Sweet or sour. NOT a pear.
Pear is now: Not the shape of an apple. Green. Sweet. NOT an apple.

This is how we learn our entire life, making unbelievable amounts of associations that in turn build our internal function for chaining thoughts - logic.

Logically in the classical sense (categorical, sentential, predicate logic), the key premise being the law of noncontradiction (LNC) can't be violated!

I'm concerned because there seems to be no deductive proof for The Fundamental Principle of Epistemology. — Agent Smith

This "law of noncontradiction" has essentially been disproven by the principle of quantum superposition.

I think the answer to your question is not a clear yes or no/A or B.

The brain regulates its activity mindful of what is present in our sphere of awareness. It actively ensures that disruptive processing going on in the brain is kept out of our conscious awareness and maybe even promotes constructive processing. — tom111

It's clear to me that this is the case to some degree. To begin with, the things that enter our awareness have already gone through some sort of filter. Every given moment there are countless of perception stimuli flooding our brain - but we pick the ones that appear beneficial to us as the center of our focus, allowing those impressions to form our train of thought.

What I'd like to point out here that this process of focusing on benefits is likely very instinctive, while the idea of what might be benefitial is highly individual. That is to say the decision-making of our brain works similar to any other learning - we make a conscious experience, leaving a positive or negative impression of our action, in turn offering a learning opportunity (positive experience -> positive reinforcement, negative experience -> negative reinforcement). Then, be it positive or negative, once any action or situation has had a significant impact on us, we will be much more aware and tentative should a similar action or situation arise.

The way you can imagine this working is that each synapse has a gate. The "intensity" of any given stimulation has to be strong enough to break through this gate. Once through the gate, it triggers all kinds of chemical reactions, making your brain and body do stuff. Unfortunately I couldn't find the paper anymore - but in a relatively recent neurological study scientists have found that the postsynaptic system essentially gives feedback to the presynaptic system. You could say that the part of your brain that computes solutions for you tells the part of the brain that notices things for you whether noticing a particular thing was good or bad.

I'd say this is a case of "The brain regulates its activity mindful of what is present in our sphere of awareness".

Let's examine the process from the other perspective.

B) The brain regulates its activity irrespective of what enters our consciousness, and higher levels of integration occur in areas of processing that ultimately lead to higher survival rates regardless of what it throws into our sphere of consciousness. — tom111

Now, as I said, what we notice and what we won't notice is a learning experience. That means until our brain does learn what to filter it isn't really capable of organizing what enters our consciousness. Think of a child that may be enchanted by the most trivial things and has it's attention jumping left and right all the time. This is a brain without priority and filter. Likewise, the act of learning could indeed by described as "higher levels of integration occuring in areas of processing that lead to higher survival rates." As I've explained - this is just what happens - the brain not just evaluates whether something was beneficial or detrimental, it also evaluates whether I should have noticed that something to begin with.

Having faith in humanity, as so many things, I deem a matter of experience.
I chose Option 3 because it's the most inclusive - but essentially I think all 4 options to be correct.

(Disclaimer - Godwin incoming)
Imagine you're a jew in WW2. There are people hellbent on destroying you. There are also people risking their own life in trying to help and protect you. Are you then gonna have faith in humanity or not?
There's many factors - the depth and intensity of both positive and negative experience, our own world view, the philosophies we accept and adapt into our life, psychological resilience, etc.


Here's a question to you all: Do you have "faith" in humanity? If yes; do you generally consider yourself an optimist? If no; do you generally consider yourself a pessimist?

The reason children are treated as innocent and less liable for their actions is not because of their body age but because of their mental age. — TheMadFool

Are you sure about that? When I interact with a child, I don't gauge their mental age first and then decided how to treat them. I treat them like a child because they look like a child - because their body is like a child. If during the course of conversation I notice that the child is "mature for their age" I may treat them differently - but initially I'll treat them like a child because they appear like a child.

Pertaining to law, there is a solid reason why you'd want to take the "body age" rather than the "mental age". Both concepts of IQ and mental age are actually heavily criticized as a measurement. There are too many factors for intelligence and different tests will come to different results. The law however can not allow for such variety. It needs to be clearly defined otherwise people will exploit any possibility of variety and find loopholes around the law. It requires hard and objectively measurable facts - like the age of the body which is clearly documented by a birth ceritificate - rather than a soft and subjective measure like IQ.

biological is nature, we agree, argument and my opinion is artifical does not exist in that meaning, artifical is a nature is premise. — Nothing

Artificial does not equate to "unnatural". Artificial is defined as "something made by humans".

You can argue that everything is natural, that there is no such thing as unnatural.
You can not argue that there are no such things that are made artificially by humans.

Hence my suggestion that the differentiation between biological/artificial is more accurate and practical than natural/unnatural.

I suggest the categories "biological" and "artificial".

They essentially explain the same differentiation that is commonly understood between "natural" and "unnatural" but they are much more precise in doing so.

victim - a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action

I'd like to suggest that there's two layers to being a victim. There is a societal aspect and a personal aspect.

1. The societal aspect of being a victim
This is where morale and law applies. One of the goals of a functioning society is to allow a peaceful and save environment for every member of society. Hence, any harmful behaviour that "creates" a victim is to be prevented. Further, there is the law that offers consequences for those that do violate this rule and cause harm upon others. Effectively, the societal aspect operates in regard to the perpetrator, preventig the perpetrator from causing harm and punishing him if he does.

2. The personal aspect of being a victim
This is about resilience, fortitude, our personal world view and how we deal with crisis. Society may dictate what happens to the perpetrator but as the victim, the damage is still done. The question then is, how do we deal with this? Ultimately we're along with our thoughts and emotions and we'll have to find a way to cope with our trauma. The personal aspect operates in regard to the victim, it is about overcoming trauma and continuing to live.

I think this is what T Clark means with

The essence of adulthood is that you don't blame other people for your misfortune. You take responsibility for your own life. — T Clark

Society offers prevention, punsihment and support - but ultimately, every individual is responsibly for their own happiness. It sounds crude but in the end there's only two options: 1. Suffer from what happened for the rest of your life. 2. Get over it

We find these ideas in Buddhism and Stoicism.
We can hardly control our circumstances. Life contains suffering.
What we can control is our mental states. Do I focus on the bad and spiral into negativity, or do I focus on the good and appreciate all that life has to offer?

1. We're not sure if our universe is an isolated system. The second law of thermodynamics may not apply as it is.

2. If our universe is an isolated system, it would cease to be if it came in contact with a different universe. The second law of thermodynamics would stop to apply as they interacted with each other.


Thermodynamics in space, as far as I'm aware, still has many questions open. It really depends what the "border" of our universe looks like - a question that we can't even begin to answer. Is there an edge of the universe? If yes, what happens if I attempt to cross the edge? Is it impermeable or can I pass through? If I pass through, do I arrive somewhere or do I cease to exist?

I think it might be better if I restate my point to that because a Primary cause is the cause of all things, it incorporates all things within itself. Therefore a complete eradication of the universe would be necessary to create a zero, which would then by necessity need an equal amount of antimatter to eradicate it completely, but because there is a fewer amount of antimatter(or so it is believed)than conventional matter, It cannot happen. Therefore, 0, in the complete sense cannot exist. — john27

I think it's undeniable that we know too little about the universe to make any statement that we can be certain about. It's not just antimatter - there's dark matter, dark energy, dark fluids, etc.
We're pretty sure that those things do exist because our universe wouldn't work out without them - but we can not directly observe them and surely are far from knowing all about them.

I'd still like to offer a viewpoint that may fit your thoughts.

One way to look at 0 is "nothing". Null. Non-existence.
But if we look at the formula you provided, there's also another way we make look at this formula.

What does a-a=0 tell us?
If we formulate it just a tiny bit differently, say a+(-a)=0 we immediately recognize that we have two polar opposites here. Polarity brings balance, equilibrium. The forces cancel each other out. As is the case with matter and antimatter.

Now as you read about Antimatter, you probably noticed that even when matter and antimatter meet, there is some "residue". Some leftover generated by the very act of the two polarities meeting. Consider this in terms of energy conservation. When two forces of equal magnitude clash, they'll stop - but their energy gets transformed into friction, heat, different energy.

So, I think it's entirely possible that in the beginning, there were equal parts matter and antimatter. Our entire existence may well be generated of that type of energy conservation of two polarities cancelling each other out. It kind of makes sense I think. In the context of a first cause, our 0, it could not be a complete eradication as you put it. Otherwise we'd still be at nothing. We need something to carry on, something that kickstarts and continues our sequence.

Now in practicality, this would assume that in order for zero to exist in our world, we would need to exile a substance from reality in order to create null. But according to particle theory, we cannot destroy a substance, only replace/displace its form. — john27

Antimatter

"Skeptic" is define as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

"Doubt" is define as a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction. — TheQuestion

You literally used doubt to define skepticism, then go on to say they are different. I get what you're trying to say - skepticism is a searching position, determined to sort out truth and falsehood. But doubt can be both - it can be a doctrinal stance of questioning, which is what enables a worldview of skepticism in the first place - or it can be purely emotional and baseless.

As a skeptic, you'll always have some doubt. But having doubt alone does not make you a skeptic.

Does a human really have any true rights at all? — Echoes

What is a true right? And more importantly, what does it mean to have a true right?

If I have a true right to live, will that prevent anyone from killing me?
If I have no true right to kill myself, will that prevent me from killing myself?

We have laws that protect our "rights". But this protection is a protection on paper only. Governments can change most of these laws from one day to the other, with no regard to the will of the population. More importantly though, there is nothing that can prevent someone from violating these laws and rights. There is consequences for violating laws - but there is no preventing it.

I don't believe in rights. I don't think rights are something "to have". And they are not true in any way. They are a concept with the purpose to inspire some or all strangers not to harm and/or murder me.

Yes, but people believe that an omnibenevolent god exists — ToothyMaw

That does not seem true to me. Rather, it seems that people believe that a human-benevolent god exists.

If we are to assume an omnibenevolent god and we are to assume that god is the creator of all, then god must show unlimited good will to all creation, not just humanity. The very idea of injustice is entirely human. It is not a moral dilemma (for most) to eat an animal - but to feed a human to an animal is considered evil. To god, kind to all, both must be of equal magnitude.

If we leave out the silly human concept of injustice, morale, etc and look at biology instead - if we look at organisms, from cell to human and beyond, there is no injustice. There is a simple, observable concept: Life nurtures itself through the dead.
Is this injust? I think not. I think it is incredibly kind. It means that no matter how you live your life, in the end you will be useful to someone or something. You will help some being further their own life, whether you like it or not. You have been given a wonderful role. You might dread the thought that you'll be worm-food one day but that too is god's benevolence (towards the worms that is).

As to the special problem, ontology suffers the slings and arrows of an innate problem of design with respect to PERSPECTIVE which, as quantum mechanics tells us, holds foundational significance vis-à-vis existence. — ucarr

Every field in philosophy suffers from this. More precisely, any concept of the mind, anything that can not be touched physically - metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, logic, etc.

The reason is simply - you named it - the lack of objective existence. The only option for us is subjective existence. There may or may not be an objective reality - but we may never know the details because we're bound to subjectivity.

I see it as a common fallacy in philosophy that people merely investigate one of those possible perspectives when talking about a particular topic. Most philosophical problems seem to dissolve when considered in layers - that is, considering a particular subject from multiple angles and acknowledging that different statements (even contradicting ones) are true on different levels.

Was the Buddha sourgraping? — baker

"sour grapes"
"bad behavior that happens because someone else is more successful"
Cambridge Dict

I don't think so. Supposedly Siddhartha Gautama was a prince, with a lifestyle to show for it. Pretty clothes, good food, servants and guardians, all that jazz.

Of course it also depends what you understand as a "life usually lived"?

Either way, I don't see the Buddha being "sour" about anything.
He came from a privileged background which likely taught him that material value is not an immediate key to happiness. When he witnessed suffering, disease and death, he decided to go down a spiritual path, becoming an ascetic. He didn't find the right answers in ascetism either though. Eventually, he did find a formula that seems to work: The Middle Way.

Such a way certainly doesn't condemn trying hard, working for things, money, food and whatever else. There is always a certain amount of trying necessary to live at all. Rather, I'd like to propose, the Middle Way is about just that - finding the right balance between everything and nothing.

s eternity self-evident? By eternity, I don’t only mean the notion of time collapsing, I also mean infinite phenomena. Infinity and eternity are one in the same. I for some reason find this to be an axiomatic truth which requires no reasoning, logically structured argument, or faith. It is an inherent, self-proving truth. Please tell me your thoughts. — Mp202020

I do not think eternity is self-evident. Possible but not evident. It's the God question all over again.

Just like a God entity would be, eternity is a concept so far beyond us that we can neither experience it, prove it, nor disprove it.

But hey, at least, I think, it's just as impossible to imagine an Everything where there is a beginning and an end.

Common Sense

the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way

How does language work?
As children we attain a level of (practical) knowledge that we may partake in the communication method known as language. This is based on sounds and symbols that have been commonly agreed upon to have a certain meaning.

So yes, certainly we do need common sense to use and understand words.



A side note on "common sense":
I find it a bit silly that many people take "common sense" as obvious or as simple truth. Common sense indicates just that - a perception that is widely spread. It does not say anything about truth or validity of the matter at all.

The greatest pitfall of social media, especially for young individuals, seems to be how it conditions humans towards instant gratification. One click and I can receive support and confirmation almost immediately. Life is not like that. I have to put in the work to reap the rewards. When people are exposed to this addictive behaviour from a young age, their expectation of life becomes warped. Many of them become entitled through the "popularity" they achieve on the internet. Many of them are not capable of handling stressful situations because they are used to clicking one button to make everything okay.

You mention many of the other problems. Anxiety/Depression, lack of self-worth if the expectation of instant gratification is not met. There are problems not just for those that do suffer though - but also those that dish out the suffering. There is a wide lack of recognizing the gravity of our words. Insults and statements are thrown around carelessly on the web. There is no immediate emotional reaction when I type text on here, so I can just be as savage as I want, with no clue how miserable I might make the other party feel.

There is the problem of misinformation. Bubbles. Echo chambers. This is related to my first point - simply put, social media reinforces ANY behaviour through the way the algorithms work. This is neither good nor bad in itself. It could be great if you surround yourself with the right people, could be terrible if you surround yourself with the wrong ones. It really does reinforce ANY behaviour. Be it pure narcissism or the spreading of fake news - you'll get likes, you'll get comments, you'll get confirmation - making you post more of the same.

Are there more mental illness now vs. before Social media was discovered? — TheQuestion

In conclusion, yes. It's by far not the only reason though. I think many of our social dynamics play together here, from the internet, to work culture, expectations, etc.

Principally, the purpose of religion was to explain the world, just like science does today.

Polytheistic world views are all very similar in their approach. The original creator was usually some watery primordial chaos soup - Atum (Egypt), Tiamat (Babylonian), Khaos (Greek). They beget children that get the world to move, most prominently, forces that represent the forces of nature.

Historically, monotheism emerged directly from polytheism. Being set in and around ancient Mesopotamia, the Israelites recognized multiple deities of the time. The belief however was that only YHWH should be worshipped. He was the patron deity of the Jews. Amongst the many gods, he specifically was believed to be the one looking after their folk.

I agree that polytheism offers more inspiration for people in terms of how they may want to shape their life. Yet, I'd say that the polytheistic beliefs have the same problem in being "beyond" human. The difference is just how this beyondness resolves in story. In polytheism, humanity gets caught up in the schemes of the gods, playball to the forces of nature, they have to bid as the gods please. In monotheism, instead of being phrased as two opposing forces, the calamity suddenly becomes a trial by god for the people to prove their devotion.

Last but not least, there's the third approach of simply combining monotheism and polytheism. This is prominent in Hinduism, where all is Brahman and where Brahman manifests as different aspects in all. Personally, I like this method of non-contradictions the most.

I think all of these approaches are rather sensible ways of describing the world. I'd say today science itself tends towards the monotheistic idea, attempting to find one unitary principal force that moves everything.

This statement (G) is unprovable. — TheMadFool

This defines the quality of G. "This statement" could be any statement - but if it isn't unprovable, it's not G because we defined it as being unprovable.

1. Either G is provable or G is unprovable. — TheMadFool

This is always true

2. If G is provable then G is true i.e. G is unprovable. — TheMadFool

This is never true. We defined G as unprovable. There may be a statement that looks exactly the same like G; but it's not G because G is per definition unprovable.

3. If G is unprovable then G is true i.e. G is unprovable. — TheMadFool

This is always true because G is defined as being unprovable.

5. G is unprovable (4 Taut) — TheMadFool

Yes, we said so in the beginning!


The fallacy here is that

2. If G is provable then G is true i.e. G is unprovable. — TheMadFool

this assumes something that is impossible. It's an invalid argument. An error in definition.

Likewise,
the liar paradox boils down to exactly this.
"I am lying" = "G is provable"

I know that you like yourself some paradoxes - but are paradoxes not just pure fiction? It seems like they exclusively stem either from a lack of knowledge or from assuming statements that are impossible to begin with.

That is the whole meaning of this story, painful and shameful apostasy from God because of disobedience, ex. who are you to tell me what to do? I'm know better than you, I don't need God. — SpaceDweller

I have a very different understanding of the story. The apple is not an apple at all. The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is just that - knowledge of "good" and "evil". Let's explore the key phrases relating to the matter and what "knowing" in this context may mean.

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Not literal death is meant but knowledge of death - the awareness about our own mortality - something that holds a formative influence over ever human and our culture. The fear of death is a curse that operates simply through knowing it.

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Important to note that the two had no concept of shame before attaining the knowledge.

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The snake speaks truth. They became like God, capable of judging creation. As God's creation was already deemed and labeled good by God himself though ("God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"), it becomes clear that the human understanding of "good" and "evil" is not the same understanding as God has.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

This is displayed right here. They become conscious of their bodies that have been created by god - in the image of god(!) - and deem it as "bad", worthy of shame.

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

They do not hide out of fear for punishment - but simply because they are ashamed. Because they became self-conscious, they do not want to be seen the way they see themselves.

Now, at many places, the Bible is proto-scientific, attempting to explain the world in the framework it establishes. This is what happens when God deals out his "punishments". The punishments are simple facts of life. What is offered is an explanation why these things are the way they are.

So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Last but not least, there is banishment.

So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Banishment from the paradise of Eden is ultimately caused through the act of attaining knowledge. What does this mean? Life, Creation is very good, as God would say - but through self-awareness, through their consciousness, the humans notice and realize shame, fear of death and the hardship that is necessary to sustain life. Ignorance is bliss.

Does IQ have any place in epistemology?

I think it's a silly measure. IQ tests were originally invented to get a relative comparison of the mental development of children. I find that questionable. Even more so when adults use it and act like it's a reliable measure of "intelligence".

That’s what you seem to think yes. — khaled

Amen.

@Bartricks
It's clear to me that you derive your ideas from the abrahamic concept of god. That is:
1. There is one God.
2. God is all powerful.
3. God is an entity, a person that can be subject to something.
4. God makes decisions.

I strongly disagree with any of those ideas. That's your premise though, I'll accept it as a hypothetical.

What doesn't hold up to your model of God is the idea that it would have to be subject to time.
An omnipotent being, as far as omnipotency goes, could simply chose whether it would want to be a subject of time or not.

Your entire argument fails on the assumption you decided to pick as your premise.

For the most part, both free-will and determinism appear to me as little more than word games.

“the development of events beyond a person’s control” — Lindsay

Do I experience such things? Yes. Constantly.

“the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.” — Lindsay

Do I experience such things? Yes. Constantly.

At which point do these definitions contradict each other? I think they're very complementary.
Fate is what we encounter in life. Free-will is how we deal with these encounters. We're in constant interaction with our surroundings. We act on the world and are acted upon by the world. As you fittingly name Ying and Yang - fate and will are but an exchange between the perceived self and the rest of the world. Upon second glance we may even realize that fate is simply the amassed free-will of everything that isn't me.


Some may argue that our decisions are based on our experience and that our experience is decided by fate. This is true. But does it eliminate the possibility of free will? It doesn't. I am the living proof of it - although my experience through fate has taught me that buying lottery tickets is a pointless endeavor, I buy a lottery ticket every Christmas to defy fate and prove to the world my free-will.

I think fiction is basically "hard-capped" by the reality we know. This goes for Sci-Fi, fantasy, anything really.

Personally, I am a great fan of the cosmic horror genre and occasionally engage in small writing pieces of my own. As a defining trait for cosmic horror - inspired by prominent spooky authors of the past - is some grotesque creature or happening that is "not from this world."

Now, how do we imagine something that is not from this world? The simple fact is: We don't. Everything that is fictional is inspired by some real life template. To take famous H.P. Lovecraft as an example: it is quite obvious that he was heavily influenced by the already strange looking creatures of the sea. He added a few degrees of monstrosity and there we go, we have a being of cosmic horror, vaguely imaginable, yet too obscure to fully capture in words.

Likewise science fiction is heavily inspired by the possible implications that our science today may present in the future. There hasn't exactly been anything revolutionary in the genre for decades because science has been lacking major revolutions for just as long. As quantum physics grows more advanced, I expect that we'll find more and more future technology based on the very concept in fiction - but as for now, we're stuck with lightsabers, hyper shields and FTL travel.

May we one day catapult entire stars onto our enemies by means of quantum entanglement. Until then, spacefarer.

That's interesting, because from what I've gathered, there's a great deal of disagreement about what he means, among those who have really familiarised themselves with what he said. — Daemon

Which again showcases what Wittgenstein is trying to say about philosophical discussion. There is a great deal of disagreement about any topic concerning the non-physical. Regardless of how much anyone entertains themselves with such ideas.

I haven't really familiarized myself with Wittgenstein in detail but from what I've gathered, I basically agree with everything he says about language.

I think his main issue is that language was made for things we can grasp. As you say, language was a map of the territory. But what territory does it display?

Now, I always say context is important. Wittgenstein believed so too. Even a map is useless without context. What part of the territory is being displayed? What do the symbols display? Where am I on this map? How do I have to align the map so that it matches my direction?

Our human context is the experiences we gather through our senses. That is to say, the context of our language map is the physical world we live in. Everything we can touch, smell, feel, see and hear. Eventually we started incorperating elements into our language that can not be perceived though. It shifted from being representative to descriptive - and in the process a whole lot of "things" have been made up.

The word "metaphysical", meta standing for beyond or rather above physical, says it all. If language is a map of our world, how can it describe something that is beyond our world? How can we talk about something that we can neither touch, nor smell, hear, feel or see?

We do manage somehow. Partly. But there's definitely a point to be raised how philosophical discussion in large parts consists of people debating words, arguing about their definition for things that have no real world counterpart.

This is by no means a new problem though. Prominently, Plato comes to mind - where in Euthyphro, Socrates diligently and patiently tries to learn the meaning of "being pious" from Euthyphro only to go around in circles and ultimately not finding an answer to what the word "piety" and all it entails represents.

The simple physicalist answer is: Electricity pulsing through our brain, caused by chemical reactions, causing further chemical reactions.

My conclusion is that Philosophy of Programming' ought to be a field of philosophy, there's so much to discuss and debate and all of it would benefit the art of professional programming.

Are we agreed? — Varde

I agree that there's a lot to be talked about in the field of programming. I think though, due to how distinctive a field of knowledge programming is, philosophy of programming ought to be a subfield of programming rather than philosophy. And if you do look on boards that are specialized on technical topics - primarily the stack exchange network comes to mind - you'll find some people in the community engaging exactly in that kind of philosophy.

One thing I do consider easily accessible for any philosopher are the concepts of programming though. Programming paradigms like procedural, OOP and so on can quite readily be associated with different philosophical views and ideas. Programming language are very practical languages and they offer a fantastic framework for describing both any object or entity, as well as any process. I do in fact imagine that over the years, a lot of the terms from programming will find their way to popular philosophy.

Why do people get into psychology in the first place? Because of money? I have a hard time imagining that. Where I'm from, psychology doesn't exactly pay much. At least unless you're a renown private psychotherapist. Still it's one of the most popular academic fields here, with up to 2000 applicants to university every semester. In fact, due to mental health being underfunded in the health care program, there are more psychologists than there are psychologist jobs. I imagine this is not too different in other countries.

I see two obvious reasons why people get into psychology. One, because they have a deep interest in psychology. Two, because they believe they can help people through psychology.

Everyone has to make a living. Isn't making a living while at the same time helping others amongst the most sensible ways we can live our lives?

Why mild confidence? Why not complete confidence or no confidence? — Average

Complete confidence blinds you. No confidence cripples you.

How do we make decisions? We evaluate our situation and mentally run through our options based on the experiences and the knowledge we accumulated in our life. I like to imagine this as running a sort of mental equation through my head. Theoretically, if I know all parameters and operate them accordingly, I will always have the same result. I shall take this as my understanding of a "right decision" as well - that is my decision is right in matching my expectation.

I used to be the kind of person who always had a step by step plan and a clear vision of what I want in life. I've changed my ways though. Now I have a rough idea where I want to go in life and I have a rough idea how to get there - but I take the opportunities as they come. The reason for this is simple: I came to notice that if I follow my plans step by step, the results of my steps often weren't what I expected at all.

When we make miniscule decisions, like the ordinary choices we make every day, the mental equation is simple. There are few factors to consider and so these simple decisions basically become automated by our brain. Everyday we're met with a near endless amount of decisions, most so small that we don't even notice making a decision.

But then what about significant decisions? What about decisions that alter large parts of our life? The more potential change a decision holds, the more complicated the mental equation gets. We quickly reach a level of complexity where it becomes impossible to consider all influencing factors and possible outcomes. This is especially true if the decision involves the actions of other people, which in a sense pose an equation of their own.

Confidence then ultimately represents how sure we are about our equation. We're right to be confident in our everyday decisions. But to have "complete confidence" is to claim that our decisions are absolutely infallible. This is akin to claiming we know everything about any given situation. Considering the complexity that any given situation can take, I think it rightful to call this foolish just like a person who claims to know everything would rightfully be called foolish.

No confidence at all on the other hand leaves us forever guessing at our equation. If we have not the slightest idea about the outcome of our decision, there is no point in making a decision at all. Rather, we'll try having others make our decision as much as possible.

I think both actually work to some degree. You can run around in the world acting like you're the smartest and claiming you make all the best decisions for a while. You can surrender all responsibility and let someone else make all your decisions for you for a while. But I reckon both ways open up the door to serious crisis. One where we make a fatal mistake because we were completely oblivious to the possibility of making a mistake at all. The other being forced to make a decision when we lack the confidence to do so, leaving us to guesswork even during crucial decisions in our life.

I think when claiming "mind can not be understood" you should clarify what would be deemed as a "necessary diagnostic of mind to dismiss your query". Just claiming that the mind is something that can't be understood without postulating any details as to what can't be understood and why it can't be understood seems rather vague.

I can see the idea of equating language with perception, language being the method of human communication, perception being the method of bodily communication. I do believe that perception is of a higher order than language though. That is to say, I think they are comparable but not equivalent.

In fact, if we consider the content of information that we may relay through communication as a representation of physical and mental phenomena - then perception is a necessity for something like language to develop at all. Perception is a biological fact. Language is culturally developed.

I would consider perception as our personal representation of the world and language as our personal representation of perception. They both take the same form in the sense of being a representation - but they're both a class to their own.

Likely for Mary, it's one thing to have experienced red in language and it's another to experience red through perception.

If you are alone and unhappy about it: problem. If you are alone and happy: no problem. There is no 'meant to be' state. Some people, draw strength from social contact. Some people, draw strength from aloneness. — Tom Storm

I think this basically explains it. Both social interaction as well as living in isolation are things that are learned and mastered with experience. The way we grow up, social interaction likely is more natural to us. But with the way learning works, if an individual makes bad experiences with social interaction early on, they may tend towards isolation.

For me, I notice that social interaction and isolation respectively do some very distinct things for me.
Socialization is a time for letting go for me. I spend very little time thinking and a lot of time doing. As if swept away by a current, I just become a part of the entire dynamic.

Isolation offers me a different experience. My awareness sharpens, my perception becomes more detailed. Everything I do is done very consciously. Extended periods of isolation are usually periods of growth for me.

Personally, I think a frequency between the two is healthy. I find that one intensifies and makes you appreciate the other more.

The consonants had a prefix/suffix that was constant. So, for instance k could only be ka and never ke or ku or ki or ko — TheMadFool

No.

1) That means a very small word bank for ancient languages. — TheMadFool

Yes.

2) It still seems very intriguing to consider my theory that a single book in an ancient language, containing only consonants, could be many books all at once, each book emerging from the same text by using the correct vowel permutation. Perhaps there's a key in these texts themselves. — TheMadFool

Certain original meanings of certain words, sentences and phrases likely are misunderstood for this reason. I don't see the content of a book completely changing though. Ancient vocabulary wasn't extensive enough to pull a feat like that.

The natural question then is why adopt a more complicated writing system when all that guessing & extra layer of context hunting could be done away with a single stroke - writing down the vowels? — TheMadFool

This is not adopting a more complicated writing system. I think it's actually more simplistic than our way of writing. What it's lacking is detail, which is why it evolved over time.

I think you're looking at this from a far too modern perspective. We're literally talking about some of the first writting systems in the world here. They weren't thought through THAT well.

Here's a historical angle that might get the whole principle of abjads across:
The very first writting systems were all pictographical. Think of hieroglyphs. They were an immediate visual abstraction of a thing. Over time, these abstractions got more abstract.

Let's have a look at the evolution of cuneiform for instance.

Note how in the later cuneiform, the SHAPE of the pictogram is actually retained.

Language back then was simplistic. Anything that could be associated with the symbol of the head was "SAG". Context is absolutely 100% essential here. "SAG" could be anything from "head" to "mouth" to "speak" to "person" to directions like "top" or "front". This is exactly the same as how the semitic roots - i.e. words with the same consonants in Hebrew all go in the same direction. Rather than "not being hard to guess", seldomly there was any guessing at all. The question only was in which context a specific symbol had to be understood.

What I'm ultimately trying to say, instead of looking at a word, consider it as looking at a pictogram.
To use the K-T-B root example again:

כ-ת-ב
Indicates ANYTHING that has to do with writting. The actual meaning being derived by the content of the sentence.

"I am כ-ת-ב"
"You are כ-ת-ב"
"The Tanakh has been כ-ת-ב around 1.200 BCE"
"He works as a כ-ת-ב for the press."
"The newspaper consists of כ-ת-ב"
"Have you read Platos last כ-ת-ב?"