:ok:

in this example — Janus

Any examples that cause problems for the JTB theory of knowledge?

:ok:

Violation of what I call the proportio divina rule: The conclusion is not proportionate to the premises.

Correct conclusion: That (the waving cloth) is the cow in my field (only one specific location possible)

Incorrect conclusion: There is a cow in my field (It could be anywhere in my field - multiple locations possible).

Vulnerable means, in my book, to be deprived of all means of escape/relief - there's nothing you can do (amor fati) and so :grin: and bear it!
— TheMadFool

That expression is at odds with Nietzsche saying life keeps happening despite the entropy. The cups keep getting filled over. We have no idea why.

And what do you make of all the language surrounding freedom from bad science and sick thoughts? He does not replace all that with sunshine. That absence is part of his proposition, if you could make it a sentence, the sentence would have been written. — Paine

For me, Nietzsche's amor fati is a call to reconfigure our attitude towards life/reality as there really is nothing we can do to alter our circumstances and religion makes an already bad situation even worse by portraying this life/reality as a base of sorts where you prepare for your real (after)life of eternal bliss (heaven), such an outlook having the overall effect of allaying/assuaging our suffering/misery which then delays amor fati and the benefits that come with it.

Change begs the question

A familiar example of "change": An (unripe) green banana becomes a (ripe) yellow banana.

Unripe/green banana has changed to a ripe/yellow banana.

Ripe/yellow (banana) is different from an unripe yellow (banana).

In other words, Difference$\leftrightarrow$ Change.

If I now say that change has occurred, I must demonstrate that there's a difference but a/any difference is change and ergo, my argument is:

1. Change [premise (difference)]
Ergo,
2. Change

Begging the question.

@Cheshire

I don't understand your point. The argument I provided was seductively valid — Bartricks

:lol:

P = Aliens exist.

There's a proposition but I don't know if P or ~P because I don't have proof (justification).

Leaving aside my reading of Pascal in the context of Christian expression, what text of Nietzsche exemplifies the grin and bear it quality you hear? — Paine

Nietzsche is asking for one to put oneself in a vulnerable position by choice. — Paine

Vulnerable means, in my book, to be deprived of all means of escape/relief - there's nothing you can do (amor fati) and so :grin: and bear it!

Space is also inherently continuous (inside), just as it captures all reality in its hands (outside). The community of all points forms finite spatial objects but space itself is only continuous by being differentiated by its points, which are nothing. Space and continuous mean the same thing to me. All space is infinitely dense, so maybe space naturally expands — Gregory

Perhaps...

In 1D, points are an issue since they're zero dimensional. How can any number of nothings (points) add up to something ( length)?

In 2D and higher dimensions, space is less problematic as the boundaries of any given area/volume are not points but either lines/faces.

OP, you're absolutely right.
— TheMadFool

Really? More like a middle-class muma's boy romanticising stuff with which he has little familiarity.

Read Tobias's reply. — Banno

I didn't want to rain on the OPs parade, plus there's a grain of truth in his post (foils/enhancers are a time-tested plot device).

I don't mean to give my stamp of approval to evil/violence/terrorism of course. As you so rightly pointed out, to do so is "...romanticizing stuff with which he has little familiarity..." Precious lives have been lost on that account.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you make of the theodicean stance that the evil is necessary in a yin-yang sense for good to exist? Come to think of it, Christianity seems to not only expect but also necessitate evil even if it takes the shape of Islamic terrorists (worshippers of the same God).

Martin Rees is wrong (or just joking). "We make good estimates ..." far more often parochiallly with ad hoc heuristics (i.e. trial and error correlations) than we do generally with algorithmic calculi (i.e. soundly inferred causal relationships), the latter of which "Newton's laws" – physical laws being nothing more than invariant properties of fallible (defeasible) theoretical models which explain physical regularities – consist. — 180 Proof

How does a robotic hand catch thrown objects? My hunch is it uses Newtonian mechanics, the formulae therein, to do a superfast calculation of an object's trajectory.

How does a human catch a ball or other object thrown at him/her?

This issue has deeper significance - the same function being accomplished using two different methods (the easy way - humans - and the hard way - robots).

:smile:

your analogy of "people moving houses" doesn't work, Fool, because minding is a property and not a separate entity like people who exist without, or separate from, houses (which implies 'minding separate from a brain' or 'walking without legs' ... :roll:). — 180 Proof

I'm with you on the mind being just what the brain does (physicalism), but, this is where we diverge, I'm persuaded to believe that the mind can be transferred from the brain to another substrate, preferrably something more durable with replaceable parts. :grin:

It is indeed a puzzle and I imagine that 180 Proof may have something to say if he is not sick and tired of this underlying question in philosophy. I wonder to what extent it can ever be explored sufficiently or whether many of us could spend our entire lives wondering about the nature of consciousness, especially how it is bound up with the nature of matter, as the underlying basis of it, as one of the central philosophy conundrums — Jack Cummins

There seems to be two ways of approaching the issue:

i) Armchair philosophy: A priori way. Just sit there in your favorite chair and see if the mind matters make sense. I suppose this can't be done with some empirical input; nevertheless, the idea is to look for inconsistencies in the Sherlockian sense (eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth).

ii) Neuroscience: A posteriori way. Do physical experiments and see how it pans out.

I see no reason why we can't do both. Get the best of both worlds, you know.


Speaking for myself, there's a very thought-provoking paradox lying at the heart of the issue: My mind knows, for sure, that this cup on my table is physical but it seems to be hopelessly incapable of ascertaining its own nature (physical/nonphysical). Contrary to the Delphic Oracle's nugget of advice - temet nosce (know thyself) - our minds are more confident about the not-mind than itself (the mind).

In a sense, then, we're not as self-aware as we think we are for there's a lacuna in our knowledge of ourselves, to be precise our minds, its true/real nature is unknown.


All that aside, I have a simple argument to make:

1. A mind $\rightarrow$ A brain [Premise, verifiable. Have you ever encountered a mind without a body?]

2. A brain $\rightarrow$ A mind [Premise, verifiable. A healthy brain is always conscious]

Ergo,

3. A brain $\leftrightarrow$ A mind [from 1, 2]

In short, as far as we can tell, mind = brain.

Well, she's the village pass-around for a reason. — john27

:gasp:

Hi RussellA. Sorry for being so bold as to intrude upon your careful thoughts on the matter.

If you ask me, humor consists of patterns and off the top of my head I can identify one - contradiction. As you can see this means there's no such thing as racist humor or black humor, it's not the racist or immoral aspects of a joke that give it funniness but the logical structure, one of which is contradiction (reductio ad absurdum).

Do you mind? Does it matter? I think mind = matter, at least in the two preceding questions. The puzzle can be solved by looking at the other words viz. "do you" and "does it"

@180 Proof, I'm only guessing, would've said, as walking is to legs so mind is to brain. Once we look at mind as a function, Putnam's notion of multiple realizability becomes powerful and minds can be transferred from one medium to another, like people moving homes. I guess the notion of a soul was millennia ahead of its time.

Premise indicator words: because, since, for the reason that, after all, etc.

Conclusion indicator words: Hence, ergo, therefore, thus, for that reason, it follows that, etc.

That's my two cents.

OP, you're absolutely right.

Vide List of best-selling books.

According to Guinness World Records as of 1995, the Bible is the best-selling book of all time with an estimated 5 billion copies sold and distributed. — Wikiepedia

. Satan/The Devil/Lucifer/The Deceiver as the arch-villain.

Having sold more than 500 million copies worldwide, Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling is the best-selling book series in history. — Wikpedia

Lord Voldemort/Tom Marvolo Riddle/He who must not be named/in my dictionary, asshole of the millennium (actually I like him, he's got style).

Yin-Yang.

Without Ravana, Rama would be just another face in the crowd, ordinary, booooring!

Relevant ideas:

1. Domino Effect

2. Chain Reaction

3. Slippery slope

4. Camel's nose

The I has to be unique.

In the real world, there are many Jack Cumminses but in TPF, there's only ONE :point: YOU!

An aside: Our world cannot be a simulation. Computers can't handle two/more people named Jack Cummins unless...the computers simulating the world are a notch above what we have today. This reminds me of Wittgenstein's language games and its relation, if such exists, to computer languages. The latter can't handle ambiguity i.e. if we name a variable (a word in language), that variable (word) can't be used for anything else. Buddhist Maya? :chin:

Causality is complex

1. Necessary cause
2. Sufficient cause
3. Proximate cause
4. Remote cause
5. Contributory cause

That's all I can recall off the top of my head. Don't forget free will.

Our senses evolved really for one purpose, survival, but survival and the true nature of reality are two different subjects. — Brian Greene (Theoretical physicist, mathematician, string theorist)

Compare the above quote which implies that reality and our picture of reality may not correspond in order that we may live long enough, in evolutionary terms, to mate and rear offspring to the widely-held belief that if one loses touch with reality, one is doomed.

On the one hand, we have Brian Greene and those who think like him who are of the opinion that reality is being, in a sense, photoshopped - made more attractive and less ugly for instance - for our benefit in terms I already talked about and, on the other hand, we have some people - especially those who write books on critical thinking - who believe that our senses, if they'd ever lie to us about reality, would mean an early, possibly gruesome, death.

Good question.

What could humanists consider so valuable that, if really forced to, they would become radicalized? See? People need to be pushed into a corner for them to resort to extremism. Desperate times call for desperate measures. How could we do that to humanists? Beats me! Humanism seems inherently pacifist, willing to wait it out - let people come to their senses seems to be their principle - rather than aggressively pursue their agenda.

Is Putin a politician or a gangster. Or both? Kim? I — Tom Storm

:chin:

It has come to this. Some countries are in such bad shape that they need to be led by gangsters. Who knows whether that's not true of "genuine" democracies as well? Trump sure did prove a point: just as Gödel discovered back in the 1900s, the American constitution has loopholes that allow a dictator to come to power. What those loopholes are only Gödel and the friends to whom he had confided this info to, Einstein among them, knows. They're all, unfortunately, dead and gone! Beware Americans. Trump was just a proof of concept.

I cited an example :point: José Mujica, a counterexample to my claim that politics is dirty. However, I wasn't committing a sweeping generalization fallacy, such claims are inherently statistical. You know that.

Space is an aspect of the real world that's closest to nothing. Some people describe a sense of liberation when they're in the wide plains of the steppes or savannahs, flatland stretching from horizon to horizon - they feel like, inter alia, mounting a horse and riding, just riding it...forever.

While space as in outer space does evoke in us a sense of exploration, it comes not with the feeling of being set free but with that of being lost and alone in the cold and dark vastness of the void.

Infinity, I sense, is somewhere in there - as you get on the horse and look out and realize that the land stretches out as far as the eye can see and beyond...

My space is my freedom, My limitation is my $\infty$.

I think you're taking it just a tad bit too far. Good post nonetheless.

When you put it that way, the 'now' sounds like a description of a Bed and Breakfast one reports visiting without enthusiasm. It was okay for the night but not anything to celebrate. — Paine

Why? I think your impression of what I said reflects the peculiarities of your own worldview.

Nietzsche is asking for one to put oneself in a vulnerable position by choice. The bird he held in his hand is free to fly away. He seeks a verification that may not happen. That is why he keeps talking about being courageous.

On Pascal's side, the risk being taken on by his interlocutors has already been accepted. These people have deferred the sufferings for their sins upon some kind of existence they have already abandoned. They are numb and suspicious. Pascal proposes a period of accommodation rather than call for people to fall on their knees in fright. Those cards have already been played — Paine

So the choices are grin and bear it or gamble your life away. Tough call.

Goldilocks is the name of the game, my friend. — john27

:grin: It's an open secret, huh?

Nonsense. In any enterprise corruption equates to its degradation.

Gangsters are gangsters. Politicians are politicians. Feel free to make a joke about that, but in all seriousness there is a danger in equating them as identical in every respect. You can have noble and principled gangsters just as you can have noble and principled politicians - the ‘bad’ lives in every nook and cranny of humanity. — I like sushi

José Mujica. Do you know any other people you who are like him?

Update

You're a farmer.

Scenario 1: You see what looks like a cow (it's a cloth waving in the breeze). You say to yourself "there's a cow in my field."

Scenario 2: You see an actual cow and you conclude "there's a cow in my field."

Gettier fails to account for the difference between "what looks like a cow" and "an actual cow".

The 2nd law of thermodyanmics admits of/allows for entropy to reduce. There's a non-zero chance, even if vanishingly small, that all the matter in the universe will gather together and reform a Big Bang singularity given enough time (googolplex years?) and we have all the time in the world ($\infty$).

Intellectual Property Rights? :chin:

After 30 or so years, the stipulated shelf life of an idea, when it's been milked dry, every penny squeezed out of it, it enters the public domain.

You should read Philosophical Investigations. — Michael

I hope to but not anytime soon.

By the way, IF the JTB definition is going to be tinkered around with in the way you describe, sure you're on target.

The standard, common sense understanding. — Michael

I don't think philosophy is done that way. We can't/shouldn't employ substandard definitions. We need clear-cut concepts.

Hi Jack.

Some say the I is imaginary like $i = \sqrt{-1}$ but then something extraordinary happens: the imaginary I has to realize that it's imaginary (not real). Isn't that like a hologram of a person finding out it's a hologram? An illusion coming to know it's an illusion. Basically a nonexistent thing discovering it doesn't exist. How does that work? Something smells fishy...Buddhism?

According to what you mean by "justified". But that's not the meaning of "justified" as used by those who argue(d) that knowledge is justified true belief, and so not the meaning of "justified" as used by Gettier. — Michael

What is Gettier's definition of "justification"? I'm curious.

Please read above.