To run away. — Yohan

I thought resignation & acceptance meant one can't flee from truths.

Acceptance is dynamic and adaptable. Resignation is giving up due to inability to adapt to things not conforming to plans? — Yohan

The way it seems to me is both acceptance & resignation involve adapting oneself to facts, the former cheerily and the latter begrudgingly.

1. F = p is true & p is unknown (true/false?) = there are unknown truths

2. All truths are knowable

3. Possible to know F [from 2]

4. We know F = Known that (p is true & p is unknown (true/false?)) [assume for reductio ad absurdum]

5. Known that p is true & Known that p is unknown [knowing a conjunction is to know each conjunct]

6. Known that p is true [5 Sim] = p is known

7. Known that p is unknown [5 Simp]

8. p is unknown [7, knowing the earth is round implies the earth is round i.e. knowing q implies q]

9. p is known & p is unknown [6, 8 Conj]

10. We can't know F [4 - 9 reductio ad absurdum]

11. p is true & p is unknown [assume for reductio ad absurdum]

12. Knowable that p is true & p is unknown [from 2]

13. Knowable that F (from 1, 2)

14. We can know F (from 13)

15. We can know F & We can't know F [10, 14 Conj]

16. ~(p is true & p is unknown) [11 - 15 reductio ad absurdum]

17. ~p v p is known [16 DeM]

18. p implies p is known [17 Imp]

19. All truths are known! [from 18]

Understand: perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker). — Daemon

That's mapping words to referents.

If you want a dictionary definition, Google it. I'm using the word in the standard way. — Daemon

I kept my end of the bargain, you should keep yours.

But why not? As Wittgenstein famously observed "meaning is use". You can tell what I mean by "understanding" by the way I use it in my examples. I'm using it in the standard way. I could of course provide you with dictionary definitions of "understand", but it hardly seems necessary as you already know how the word is normally used. If you didn't already understand the word, you wouldn't understand the definition. — Daemon

Red Herring :yawn:

Methinks democracy, the one with fixed terms in power, is simply micro-tyranny, micro-tryanny being short-lived despotism (à la Trumpism). The constitution then is a document whose sole purpose is to reduce the length of time a dictator calls the shots, rules the roost.

It's kinda like firewalking. Minimize the duration of contact to a few brief seconds and you emerge safely on the other side (democracy) but stay in contact with the flames for more than that and you get 3rd degree burns (totalitarianism).

A written constitution vs an unwritten constitution. What's difference between a rule book that can be amended as when it's appropriate and no rule book at all. None!

I can't make my meaning any plainer or clearer. Read the Stoics. — 180 Proof

I think I get it now. Acceptance of facts/truths is to be content with how things are. Resignation is to be discontent with how things are, that because one is exposed to how things can be/could've been. The wisdom in the former is that one doesn't wish the impossible (that would be stupid) and the foolishness in the latter is one's asking for the impossible. Does it make sense to desire impossible things?

If you're alluding to apatheia, maybe the difference between active indifference and passive indifference — 180 Proof

Care to expand on that a bit? At the end of the day, apatheia is, as some like to put it, coming to terms with the brute facts of reality.

With understanding comes acceptance. Acceptance can never happen without understanding. Resignation is as what you mused above -- one has no choice or lacks energy to quarrel. — Caldwell

See my reply to 180 Proof. To resign oneself to one's fate is to accept what's happening and what one thinks will happen.

Platonism is too other-worldly – escapist (e.g. gnostic) – for cultivating ataraxia, aponia & apatheia here and now in this world ... — 180 Proof

:up: What's the difference between acceptance and resignation? Are we wise (accepting truths, not chasing after what are mere illusions) OR are we helpless (we have no choice but to put up with whatever life throws at us, that despite our ability to conceive of a better deal)?

Both these paintings are done by elephants: — T Clark

:rofl: A nose job!

But I’m not applying it like that. It has to apply to all members of the species. So, for example, if it is demonstrated that one cow actually possesses morality, then it wouldn’t be permissible to kill/eat any cows. I think that’s just erring on the side of caution. If one cow has morality, maybe others do as well, so we shouldn’t kill any of them just in case.

So with humans it’s the same thing. The only way it would be permissible to kill/eat them would be if no humans had morality, which includes human doing the killing in the hypothetical example. So if no humans possessed morality, then no humans would object to killing/eating other humans. — Pinprick

You claim that we can kill animals because we know for a fact that they don't have morals.

I'm taking that to its logical conclusion: If I know for a fact that a person X lacks morals then, by the reasoning above, I should be allowed to kill X. This person X is like an animal (has no morals). Like should be treated alike, no?

Let's check what this means for the name the trait argument. For you this trait = lacking morals

1. You can kill animals because they lack morals. Ok!

So,

2. Can we kill humans if they lack morals?

No, you can't (the death penalty is not all that popular these days).

What explains this inconsistency?

On the one hand you kill (animals) because they (animals) lack morals and on the other hand you don't kill (humans) even if they (humans) lack morals.

We have to generalize this point. Suppose T is the trait such that it's present/absent in animals which if also present/absent in a human justifies the killing of a human.

Trait T is,

1. T is present/absent in animals (defines animals)

2. T if present/absent in humans permits the killing of humans.

Condition 1 is fulfilled - there are many traits that define animals. Condition 2 can't be satisfied.

For brevity, all I'll do here is point out that the name the trait argument works if we take traits singly, one by one that is but fails if we take all traits together. In the former case, the difference in traits is diluted by the similarities (human still) but in the latter, no similarities remain to compensate for the differences (nothing human left, the human has transformed into an animal).

The Beast (X-men), still human.

The American Werewolf In London. Complete transformation. No longer human.

It's something like what happens to us when we grow up. We are, at one point, definitely children at another positively adults but there's an in-between phase when we're neither children nor adults - teenage years they call it. The name the trait argument operates in the grey zone between animals & humans (part-animal, part-human) while non-vegetarianism is based on a clear distinction between them (fully animal or wholly human).

Mapping is not understanding, as illustrated by my examples. — Daemon

Ok so, what's your definition of understanding?

Please don't repeat yourself by saying, "...as illustrated by my examples...".

The aim of the wise is not to secure pleasure, but to avoid pain."
-Aristotle — Vince

Aponia?

Absence of pain (aponia) is a cakewalk compared to the presence of pleasure (hedonia?).

I am not sure what you mean by that. — Athena

If everybody had to be attacked by a lion to know lions are dangerous, we would have a world full of amputees, horribly scarred people, not to mention very well-fed lions. With IQ, vicarious learning is possible, greatly increasing the odds of survival and, if you've mastered the art of learning from the bad experiences of others, a good life. With experience, you'll learn all right but, as people have told me n number of times, the hard way.

Well, when it comes to a high IQ I will never achieve that and I have known people with a lower IQ than mine who are pretty wise. — Athena

School of hard knocks, not everyone wants to go there.

Understanding is mapping — Hermeticus

Thank you!

They aren't doing things, we are using them to do things.

It's the same with an abacus. You can push two beads to one end of the wire, but the abacus isn't then proving that 1 + 1 = 2. — Daemon

So, if we ask a group of grade 1 students to carry out the math operation 1 + 1, they aren't doing things, we are using them to do things.

My examples were intended to illustrate what understanding is — Daemon

Automated Theorem Proving

Automated theorem proving (also known as ATP or automated deduction) is a subfield of automated reasoning and mathematical logic dealing with proving mathematical theorems by computer programs. — Wikipedia

I'm no mathematician but if math proofs are anything like proofs in philosophy, semantics is a cornerstone. One has to to understand the meaning of words, sentences/statements.

In automated theorem proving computers have been used to prove math theorems but we know that computers are semantics-blind and can only manage syntax. Yet, they're doing things (proving theorems) which, in our case, requires understanding. My question is, can semantics be reduced to syntax?

AI — praxis

art — Pop

Art is an expression of human consciousness — Pop

1. Is AI conscious & human?

OR

2. Is something wrong with your definition Pop?

The examples I gave were intended to illustrate that semantics isn't simply mapping!

Mapping is possible with computers, that's how my CAT tool works. But mapping isn't enough, it doesn't provide understanding. My examples were intended to illustrate what understanding is.

Children learn some things by ostensive definition, but that isn't enough to allow understanding. I have a two-year-old here. We've just asked him "do you want to play with your cars, or do some gluing?"

He can't understand what it is to "want" something through ostensive definition. He understands that through experiencing wanting, desire — Daemon

Thanks for trying to clarify the issue for me. Much obliged. Please tell me,

1. What understanding is, if not mapping?

2. Whatever thinking is, it seems to be some kind of pattern recognition process. That looks codable? Semantics are patterns e.g. dogs = domesticated (pattern) wolves (pattern).

In short, semantics seems to be within the reach of computers provided pattern recognition can be coded.

What say you?

Maybe I am assuming too much about how people are reading what I've said (not the first time!). The thing is they are the best of buddies as far as I can tell. Or rather 'choice' above 'freedom' (the later being something people pine for in an absolute sense even though they REALLY don't want it). It is perhaps the desire for 'freedom' that is more bound up in corruption than power itself. Power, as I'm looking at it, is more about choice (hence the OP title). — I like sushi

Indeed, good people are those who follow rules/laws i.e. they willingly, with little resistance, give up (some of) their freedom for the greater good. Remember though that people only sacrifice their liberty to the extent it's fair and reasonable. Once one's autonomy is at risk, one will naturally begin to resist the oppressive force at play viz. power.

It appears that, like on many occasions, the conclusion is to avoid extremes - strike a balance between complete freedom & total power (the golden mean, the middle path). By the way, doesn't it look as thought complete freedom is total power?

I know it's trite, but imagine a maleable plastic doughnut being continuously deformed into a coffee cup. The notion of continuous transformations from one object to another is the fundamental topological characteristic. The more technical aspects involve open sets. If X is a non-empty set, a class T of subsets of X is called a topology on X provided (1) unions of sets in T are sets in T, and (2) intersections of finite collections of sets in T are sets in T.

The study of topology begins with point-set topologies - and I have fond memories of being introduced to these in 1962 and teaching them during the last quarter of the past century - and proceeds to esoteric terrains I dare not tread.

As G. F Simmons said, "A topological space can be thought of as a set from which has been swept away all structure irrelevant to the continuity of functions defined on it". — jgill

So, the idea behind topology is to discover whether one object with given geometric properties can be transformed into another object i.e. it's kinda like the ancient magical art of shapeshifting (werewolves):

Why do so many people believe in miracles and the supernatural?

The bottom line is that these - miracles, the supernatural - are inconsistencies or contradictions that involve what is known (empirical/rational) and what is observed (empirical/rational). In other words, those who have a tendency to believe miraculous stories (theists being an index case) are, at the end of the day, paradox hunters. This, if one gives it some thought, is an eagerness, a burning desire to be proven wrong - to be told, in the most shocking way possible that one's got it all wrong, that one's not even not understood. Reminds me of physicist Wolfgang Pauli's scathing remark, "you're not even wrong!"

Last I checked, scientists seem to make a big deal about how their days in the lab are spent trying to disprove theories and that they take pride in having demolished the cherished theories of their colleagues and predecessors.

In summary, religious people and scientists both are on a quest for miracles. They should be friends but they're
actually foes. This is itself a paradox. Go figure!

I was arguing that to define 'power' based mostly (if not purely in some cases) on 'evil' or whatever is a little myopic and prevents us from understanding what power is beyond a mere item for declaring something as possessing differing levels of corruption — I like sushi

I like the sound of that. Power gets a bad rap not because it's in and of itself bad but because it attracts the wrong kinda crowd. One could say that the fault lies in us, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say human nature is to blame. I suppose our immediate reaction - fear, dislike - to it has a lot to do with the rather painful history we've had with tyrants, totalitarianism, and so on. Once bitten, twice shy.

I was trying to relate power to choice and freedom — I like sushi

Then you're not doing it right. If choice and freedom are your primary concern, you should've steered clear of power. It complicates the issue because power and freedom haven't always been the best of buddies if you know what I mean.

I think you lost consistency of definition of 'nature' at this last point.
Per your definition of nature, the the supernatural would mean breaking the laws of normality. I don't think normality has laws — Yohan

The laws of nature, all together, their constancy and how they orchestrate all phenomena constitutes normality. Ergo, an abnormality would/should refer to:

1. The unnatural (outliers), stuff that you rarely see but do see. Nothing wrong here, variations, extreme cases imcluded, are part of the game. (Rarely see)

2. The supernatural (impossible things), stuff that you never see but, once in a blue moon, do see. Something's wrong - quite literally an an impossible event has occurred - and we need to go back to the drawing board and do an overhaul of what we know, more accurately, what we think we know. (Never see)

Natural simply means routine, the usual, normal - the emphasis is on consistency in how the world behaves. For instance, gravity has always been around and constantly been an attractive force. Gravity then is natural.

Unnatural is when there's a deviation from the baseline state, from the normal, it's unusual, that is to say there's an inconsistency. This doesn't necessarily mean some law of nature has been violated, outliers are a common feature in data or so I reckon. Necrophilia is unnatural.

Supernatural is an instance of breaking the laws of nature and the immediate reaction is to ascribe the supernatural event to some kind of being (god/demons/angels/spirits/etc.) Rising from the dead is supernatural.

1. Natural: We get it. :meh:

2. Unnatural: We don't quite get it. :confused:

3. Supernatural: We don't get it at all! :scream:

It's about statistics:

1. All objects fall (natural)

2. Most people aren't necrophiliacs, a few are (unnatural)

3. No one ressurects, Jesus did (supernatural)

1. The difference between animals and humans (interspecies). [The Name A Trait Argument]
— TheMadFool

This is what my post was addressing. Humans possess morality, whereas animals do not. — Pinprick

:ok:

The difference between one person and another (intraspecies).
— TheMadFool

I’m not sure what this matters. Are you looking for justification for why we don’t endorse cannibalism? This justification, whatever it may be, doesn’t have to be related to the justification for eating non-human animals. I think we’re just biased towards our own species. We naturally react negatively to harming others (with some exceptions). — Pinprick

It matters for the simple reason that the difference between animals and humans (moral sense is your example) can be found as a difference betweeen one human and another (saints & sinners). Ergo, if you kill animals because they lack moral sense, you can kill sinners as well. We do kill sinners (death penalty), at least we aren't hypocrites but...capital punishment is losing support all over the world or so I hear. Ergo, we shouldn't kill animals based on the absence of a moral sense. Isn't it intriguing how human issues spill over into our relationship with other forms of life?

Returning to the name the trait argument, what we have to find is a trait, X, such that it's present/absent in animals and if X is present/absent in a human, we can kill that human.

In other words, X justifies the killing of animals and so X in humans too should, to avoid a contradiction, be reason enough to put those humans to death.

Definition of trait X:

1. A trait present/absent in animals that gives us a reason to kill them.

2. The trait above when applied to humans gives cause to kill humans.

This is good and evil:
Good, someone who I can trust — Hermeticus

Yes, loyalty to our group is good. — Athena

I am quite sure I did not say "all that matters to goodness is loyalty" — Athena

:chin:

No progress can be made without thinking and experience is essential to get from knowledge to wisdom.
A high IQ and book learning doesn't equal wisdom. We need the experience to understand the meaning of all that knowledge.

Zeus was afraid once man had the technology of fire he would discover all other technologies and then forget the gods. I think that is technology without wisdom. — Athena

If you ask me, a high IQ eliminates the need for experience and vice versa. Of course, we would be better off having the best of both worlds but if given a choice, I'd opt for IQ instead of experience: as @Yohan put it in a thread on life advice which has been deleted, "learn from other's mistakes".

I have been a professional translator for 20 years. My job is all about understanding. I use a Computer Assisted Translation or CAT tool.

The CAT tool suggests translations based on what I have already translated. Each time I pair a word or phrase with its translation, I put that into the "translation memory". The CAT tool sometimes surprises me with its translations, it can feel quite spooky, it feels like the computer understands. But it doesn't, and it can't.

I do a wide range of translation work. I do technical translations, operating and maintenance instructions for machines for example. To understand a text like that, you need to have had experience of work like that. Experience is the crucial element the computer lacks. Experience of all facets of our world. For example, to understand fundamental concepts like "up" and "down", "heavy" and "light", you need to have experienced gravity.

I translate marketing texts. Very often my clients want me to make their products sound good, and they want their own customers to feel good about their products and their company. To understand "good" you need to have experienced feelings like pleasure and pain, sadness and joy, frustration and satisfaction.

I translate legal texts, contracts, court documents.

A. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they advocated violence.

B. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they feared violence.

A computer can't understand that "they" applies to the protestors in A. but the councillors in B, because it's not immersed in our complex world of experience — Daemon

Thanks for your comment. I just watched a video on minds & machines - The Turing Test & Searle's Chinese Room Argument. As per the video a computer that passes the Turing Test does so soley based on the syntactic properties of, and not the semantic properties of, symbols. So, at best, an AI (passed the Turing Test) is simply a clever simulation of a human being, no more no less.

My own views on the matter is semantics is simply what's called mapping - a word X is matched to a corresponding referent, say, Jesus. I'm sure this is possible with computers. It's how children learn to speak, using ostensive definitions. We could start small and build up from there as it were.

Qualitative does not imply nonmathematical. For example, it used to be said that topology is math without numbers, although that's not entirely true. — jgill

Yes, that's the other issue I wanted to discuss. For example the type specimen of quality has been, if I'm not mistaken, color i.e. people are under the impression that color is a quality but as pointed out in the OP, redness is the quantity 650 nm. So, the question, are qualities, therefore, actually quantities?

Also note, when Max Tegmark's Mathematical Theory Of The Universe and Eugene Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness Of Math In The Natural Sciences refer to the quantitative nature of reality.

Last but not the least, kindly, if you don't mind that is, summarize topology in around 2 - 3 paragraphs for me. I'd like to know how math is, in addition to being quantitative, also qualitative. Much obliged. Thanks.

Almost Half Of The Pregnancies In The US Are UNPLANNED (The Washington Post)

Currently, an astonishing 45 percent of the 6 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended. — The Washington Post

I guess those who really cares about the future of their children are in the minority; if people were serious about the future prospects of their children, wouldn't pregnancies be a meticulously well-planned affair? Too. we're talking about what the conditions for children are in the apotheosis of modern civilization (the USA) - not as good as I'd thought/hoped. Just imagine what the situation must be like in the developing world?

The population explosion only means one thing - the slice of the resource pie each child can lay claim to gets smaller and smaller, a breaking point is then reached and civilization will collapse.

I haven't a clue why you would.
— darthbarracuda

Embrace the suck! — James Riley

Going God mode, eh?

That's what God must've thought when he sent his son, Jesus, to earth. Astonishingly, Jesus' life was, I suppose, what they call a divine plan and surely must've covered every eventuality (the crown of thorns and the crucifxion too) from womb to tomb.

“Tut, tut, child!” said the Duchess. “Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it.” And she squeezed herself up closer to Alice’s side as she spoke. — Lewis Carroll (Alice In Wonderland)

Okay. Do you mean that you view power as a something more related to problems than 'good'/'bad'? — I like sushi

My point is rather simple: The Problem With Power is that it can link up with evil. You know what happens then, right?

Not stealing because it could lead to going to jail, is not a very high standard of morality. There are many legal ways to take advantage of people. And calling a band of thieves genocidal maniacs is a bit hyperbolic don't you think? — Athena

You're evading the question. You said, all that matters to goodness is loyalty and hence my question about a band of genocidal maniacs people who are loyal, let's even say deeply loyal to each other and whether they qualify to be counted among the ranks of, say, the Buddha or Jesus?

What? You pretty much said it yourself right? Power is power, it isn't necessarily 'good' or 'bad'. If you think otherwise I didn't see that at all, sorry. — I like sushi

I did but I also mentioned how goodness/benevolence seems to be a must to prevent problems.

Chaotic data?
Refine data so that makes sense? = information
Organize information into a comprehensive map of reality= knowledge
When enough diverse knowledge is obtained, the opposites of perspectives cancel out resulting in emptiness of opposition, and one obtains poised equilibrium resulting in behavior that is in Buddhism called the 'middle way' and in Christianity 'straight and narrow' = wisdom? — Yohan

Nice! I have no theory of my own regarding Neil deGrasse Tyson's views on the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_pyramid

"Typically information is defined in terms of data, knowledge in terms of information, and wisdom in terms of knowledge". — Hermeticus

:up: Thanks a million. I've saved the page for later.

I agree good/bad is irrelevant). — I like sushi

I would still point out that generally 'power' is something that has more modern negative connotations — I like sushi

:chin: Please explain how what seems to be a deeply entrenched fear of power (negative connotation) vis-à-vis good/bad is irrelevant.

Power is, as I see it, simply a measure of the scope and the intensity of the effect something/someone can have. So, for instance, the president of the USA is supposedly the most powerful man in the world for the simple reason that fae's causal range (the area fae can influence) and causal intensity (the magnitude of faer influence) is global and astronmical respectively. Compare that to the president of East Timor and you'll get the idea.


The Problem With Power

It seems that power and goodness aren't linked in any necessary sense i.e. power doesn't imply goodness and nor does goodness imply power. In other words, the following combinations become possible:

1. Powerful & Good
2. Powerful & Bad
3. Powerless & Good
4. Powerless & Bad

As you can see, 3 necessitates that we seek power i.e. 1 (think God) but the problem is we have to steer clear of 2 (evil dictator) and ensure that 4. It's complicated!

Wouldn’t make any difference, I fear. — Wayfarer

:ok:

My English must be dreadful. — Wayfarer

Perhaps you're unable to put into words your intuitions on the matter. Happens all the time to even the best among us. Do try to come up with a coherent statement. Until then...sayonara.