Some Jews have kept their faith; others lost it. — Olivier5

Are you a monkey? Considering your short monkey-like comment, this seems to be the case. — LaRochelle

Like a cosmic zombie, "Mother Nature" is blind and indifferent to Her own regurgitative decomposition; thus, She cannot be either benevolent or malevolent – morals, Fool, are only for (some?) sentient maggots. — 180 Proof

subdue it; have dominion
— Genesis 1:28

See what I am saying? The Guy used to be pro-human. I wonder if He changed His mind now. — Olivier5

God moves in mysterious ways. — William Cowper (1773)

The Bitch inexorably breeds and always devours her young (re: Earth's fossil record, supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, black holes) – devouring maybe a catalyst for breeding – like Medea (aka "entropy"). Special of the Galactic Day: "The Anthropocene — 180 Proof

The more I look at the universe, just the less convinced I am that something benevolent is going on. — Neil deGrasse Tyson

You can probably get more of my view on this topic by looking at my first post on the first page. — I like sushi

Clearly she is a big fan of reproduction, but in all species, not just in one species at the expense of other ones... The key conceptual difference between God and Nature is that the latter is species-neutral while the former is believed to be anthropocentric. — Olivier5

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and [1]multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. — Genesis 1:28

Is God a mathematician? — Mario Livio

Malthus specifically stated that the human population increases geometrically, while [2]food production increases arithmetically. — Investopedia

That's right. Send a virus to clear out the invading virus (or parasite, both are equally applicable to people). — Book273

The way I see it, we're the problem. Nature will 'solve' us soon enough. — Olivier5

You don't destroy the village to save the village. — 180 Proof

cooked by a chef — Varde

For example, both Newton and Einstein were perplexed by the implicit "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. — Gnomon

Not for me. — I like sushi

We don't really want what we think we desire." — Slavoj Žižek

(I know that) I know nothing. — Socrates

Does the position I don't know incur epistemic responsibility? — TheMadFool

Maybe not nobody, but very few. Because. — I like sushi

I was insisting that JTB must leave out the specifics to work flawlessly (see below) because it is only fully effective in an abstract realm.

I did mean all of the above in terms of 'negotiations'. In the real world claim of what is believed to be 'the truth' or 'justified' is often why violence can ensue. This is because each party thinks they own 'knowledge' rather than viewing knowledge as a tool used to lever individual beliefs that suit them. We're not robots.

The more important (the greater the value attached to the disagreement) the 'negotiation' the more likely the belief will bypass reasonable argumentation by sheer will. — I like sushi

Because with set abstract rules and limits we can differentiate between 'true' and 'false'. Outside of such set rules and limits (ie. real world situations where 'rules' and 'limits' are unknown) we cannot differentiate between 'true' and 'false' as we're not able to know anything for certain unlike in abstracted realms. Nature has a habit of showing us that what we took as a 'truth' here and there and in another place makes another 'truth' a mistake - too many variables/perspectives.

More simply put applying mathematical formula to the stock market will not guarantee profits only act as a tool to aid profits - that is diminished value. How diminished? Another layer of the problem cake. — I like sushi

Nothing to flesh out. — I like sushi

Perhaps, those complexities (uncertainties) don't really divide Consciousness neatly into Awareness & Nescience, but are merely a foggy phase in a continuum of sensation from rock to rocket scientist. — Gnomon

Of course. It was just a concrete metaphor for something meta-physical. :wink: — Gnomon

I suppose IIT was a reductive attempt to quantify a mushy quality that is otherwise hard to pin down. To arbitrarily divide a Platonic continuum, that has no natural joints to carve. In my view, Generic Information is at one end of the evolutionary hierarchy, and evolved Consciousness is at the other. No gaps in the chain of emergence. :nerd:
8hReplyOptions — Gnomon

Stick to the old ways then. It is an abstract theory set in an abstract realm that has some parallels to human life. the problem is if you apply it to language as if it is a mathematical model you're working within an unlimited world where the rules are unknown. So it doesn't hold up in real life as anything other than a simple belief like any other belief. It cannot justify itself in a true or believed way in the real world because we're oblivious to the limits and rules of the world. — I like sushi

Yes. If they interfere with mine/others though we may have to negotiate. That is basically how the world works so no biggie. — I like sushi

If people hold rigidly to an abstract rule as a way of living in the world and it works for them so be it. Generally I'm more inclined to disbelief when it comes to bringing the abstract into the realm of lived lives. — I like sushi

JTB isn't a JTB if the limits and rules are unknown. Within known bounds (necessarily abstract) I'm ok with the theory of JTB. — I like sushi

TO repeat. 'Truth' is an attitude more than anything else ... that is my belief. — I like sushi

Doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a 'belief' will overrule anything claimed by others to be 'known'. Nature will do as nature does regardless of what we call knowledge or belief. On top of that we're always going to lean towards justifying what we belief the most regardless of knowledge or we'd stagnate. — I like sushi

The above has nothing to do with JTB Mathematics is an abstraction and within an abstracted set limit knowledge is discernible. — I like sushi

In justified true belief the 'truth' is just an attitude/emotion and this is clear in the need to justify it. It is just a belief and the more 'truth' people have towards it the more they'll justify it even if it costs them to do so. — I like sushi

Justified is just to say not by luck. — I like sushi

The obvious argument — I like sushi

I don't much care for the JTB view. — I like sushi

I'd rather not pretend my beliefs are anything but beliefs. Knowledge is for set discernable limits only (ie. abstract). — I like sushi

Beliefs don't require justifications because we've no idea what justification for any given myriad of beliefs there is. — I like sushi

Justification is really just a psychological analysis of what has happened and the degree to which one wishes to claim authorship over the actions that led to the result. — I like sushi

If a belief is fully justified in our minds then is it really a 'belief'? If it is then how does it differ from beliefs that possess little to no rational foundation? — I like sushi

If you indeed don’t know, then it’s responsible to be honest about it yes. — Xtrix

Well, there's no empirical test for consciousness, although IIT was intended to be a step in that direction. So, we draw the line via philosophical inference. We try to establish a baseline from observation of a hierarchy of intelligent behaviors. For example, scientists searching for signs of life or extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI) make lists of criteria, based on our understanding of terran biology & psychology. — Gnomon

As I noted in the previous post, I look for indicators of feedback loops between inputs and outputs of energy. Life itself is one kind of loop, which makes use of the incoming energy, before it eventually returns the waste, in the form of entropy. And since Entropy has been equated by Shannon with Information, it's also a sign of minimal intelligence. Since we can't draw a hard line between Chimps & Dophins & Robots and Humans, we may have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And to assume that their behavior is consciously directed, with some minimal degree of Self-Consciousness. But the final arbiter may be feelings instead of reasons. :nerd: — Gnomon

Yes, the ability to learn, and to adapt behavior is a sign of Information loops, that use some of the incoming Information (EnFormAction) for the selfish*1 benefit of the organism. Atoms exchange energy and change electron orbits temporarily, but they show no signs of long-term learning. And yes, learning makes those entities somewhat unpredictable. Which is why psychology is not an exact science. :wink: — Gnomon

do sometimes use the metaphor of a Computer Simulation to describe how the origin and evolution of our world works, But, I don't take it literally. Gaia, as a self-regulating & self-improving system, works like a goal-driven program in some ways, but the processing is not limited to silicon logic gates. The Operating System was preset by initial conditions, while the Logic was encoded in natural laws, and Natural Selection serves as a high-level logic gate. :cool:

Programmer God :
A competent computer programmer doesn’t have to make frequent corrections to the operation of the program. Likewise, an omniscient Creator shouldn’t have to make special interventions in order to keep the world running properly. A world-wide flood would be a sign of gross incompetence.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html — Gnomon