We are God's cattle, and we should not take ourselves off without a summons from God. — Socrates

Hmmm... I bet The US pentagon knows how to create exceptional software (they need to because of all the cyber threats). What's stopping them from selling sofware to ordinary citizens and businesses? — Wheatley

Ok, here's a little something to ponder upon. I'd love it if 180 Proof weighs in.

1. Epistemic responsibility is, well, a really good idea. Beliefs have moral consequences - they can either be fabulously great for our collective welfare or they could cause a lot of hurt.

2. Epistemic responsibility seems married to rationality for good, there's little doubt that that isn't the case. Rationality is about obeying the rules of logic and, over and above that, having a good handle on how to make a case.

So far so good.

3. Now, just imagine, sends chills down my spine, that rationality proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that immoralities of all kinds are justified e.g. that slavery is justified, racism is justified, you get the idea. This isn't as crazy as it sounds - a lot of atrocities in the world have been, for the perps, completely logical.

Here we have a dilemma: Either be rational or be good. If you're rational, you end up as a bad person. If you're good, you're irrational.

As you can see this messes up the clear and distinct notion of epistemic responsibility as simulataneously endorsing rationality AND goodness.

Thoughts.. — TheMadFool

What kind of business do you think governments can undertake? — Wheatley

What do you think? Are there viable methods for governments to raise money that doesn't involve taxation? — Wheatley

Would life as an immortal real be with less meaning? — TiredThinker

In Greek mythology Sisyphus or Sisyphos (/ˈsɪsɪfəs/; Ancient Greek: Σίσυφος Sísyphos) was the founder and king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth). He was punished for cheating death twice by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down every time it neared the top, repeating this action for eternity. — Sisyphus

Would you mind clarifying what you mean? Some elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
— Average

I would prefer an objective approach but individual approaches could still be valuable.
— Average

I’m asking how we can know that our confidence in our own decisions is justified or not.
— Average

Would you mind identifying precisely where I was unclear And what kind of examples would be helpful?
— Average

How did you come to this conclusion?
— Average

How do you know that the questions I am asking have no answer?
— Average

I highly doubt that ignoring the problem is the solution
— Average

Who is Maria?
— Average

The problem is that very often what we think is best ends up producing catastrophic consequences
— Average

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



Repeating terms used in the previous text. Lack of general knowledge. Pat statements that could fit in anywhere. Inverting statements to construct replies. Looks like pattern recognition software. — Banno

I’m glad we agree on this — Average

I think the idea that when we decide we choose wisely is absurd. Every decision ever made could then be categorized as a wise decision but we know that this isn’t the case. I’m not sure what you’re trying to communicate but if I’m misinterpreting you conclusion please provide me with a little bit of elaboration and clarification. — Average

I couldn’t care less about the free will debate. Whether or not we have choice isn’t what I’m interested in. I’m interested in our behavior. — Average

I think what I mean by a choice is a decision. Like someone deciding to do something or to believe something. The concept of choice or the notion of a decision seems to revolve around some sort of action. So basically what it boils down to is what we end up doing. So what I’m asking is how do we know that what we do makes sense. — Average

You're welcome! What in particular were you not satisfied with? — Andrew M

Yes. That's how we've defined the word. — khaled

They can affect physical stuff. Also that knowledge of how they work falls under the field "physics". — khaled

They're not just that. Mental constructs can't push around charges. Electric fields can. — khaled

There are plenty of physical things that don't weigh anything. Like an electric field. — khaled

We say sounds are physical even though they're no more than patterns of air movement. — khaled

How is it even possible for mind to be "nonphysical" and yet causally interact with physical systems (i.e. brain-body-environment)? It's not, therefore what you call "nonphysicalism" is ruled out (vide Spinoza re: the 'dual-aspect monism / property dualism' dissolution of the MBP (i.e. substance dualism) ... for a start). — 180 Proof

Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

And there's the fly in the ointment: the knowledge of color was not complete without (before) seeing color. Jackson's thought-experiment fails because of this incoherent premise and therefore implies nothing about physicalism. — 180 Proof

You appear to be operating with two related agendas: 1) to find a solid bridge between language and reality, and I am pretty sure that, as language is ever descriptive, it can not ever be real, or, 2) to be satisfied that at some level of smallness, reality itself ceases to be real.

And this reflective of a dissatisfaction with your own understanding - some variety of which in some or another application we all feel. But what I think you have got, and all that you have got, is that language takes in the fringes of reality clumsily and with difficulty, and at the extremes not at all, until someone invents new language to cover it. That is, I am very sure that the reality you question has itself no problem with being real. — tim wood

It's kind of presumptuous to diagnose disagreements. You should just state your business, not theorize what you think is wrong with me such that I dare disagree with you. — InPitzotl

Mary actually experience seeing red, which is physical — InPitzotl

You're confused — InPitzotl

Assuming that Mary is an adult female and that she has got a functional uterus, at a minimum she sees the color red every 28 days. Some thought experiment... — Olivier5

Obscurantism and Obscurationism (/ɒbˈskjʊərənˌtɪzəm, əb-/ or /ˌɒbskjʊəˈræntɪzəm/) describe the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise, abstruse manner designed to limit further inquiry and understanding. There are two historical and intellectual denotations of Obscurantism: the deliberate restriction of knowledge—opposition to disseminating knowledge; and deliberate obscurity—a recondite literary or artistic style, characterized by deliberate vagueness. — Wikipedia

genuine human kindness — Wheatley

I think we ARE sure. It's just more convenient to ignore evil, less disturbing — Olivier5

One needs to be smart to be 'machaivellian'. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump is evil ,but he is also a cretin.

And he likes being a cretin, and he wallows in it. Hence I agree, in his and many other cases, that true, limitless stupidity is chosen, embraced. It is not a natural state of man to be that stupid. — Olivier5

Isn't that obvious? — Olivier5