:up: Thanks.

People seem not to like smart alecs and so an omniscient being is going to be a pain in the ass. On the flip side, people have a low threshold of tolerance for morons. The problem is we can't tell the difference between smart alecs and morons because Socrates, the wisest man to have ever walked the earth (excuse the hyperbole), is said to have admitted to his utter ignorance with the words, "I know that I know nothing."

Good try — Apollodorus

The numbers are simply meant as analogies to illustrate what I feel is the meaning of The Holy Trinity which is that The Father, The Son, and The Holy spirit are just different ways of expressing the same thing viz. God

Maths to the rescue of Trinitarianism:

1. 4 (God) = 0 + 4 (The father) = 1 + 3 (The son) = 2 + 2 (The holy spirit)

2. 12 (God) = 1 × 12 (The father) = 2 × 6 (The son) = 3 × 4 (The holy spirit)

3. Half (God) = 1/2 (The father) = 0.50 (The son) = 50% (The holy spirit)

4. 1 (God) = 0 + 1 (The father) = 2 - 1 (The son) = 3 ÷ 3 (The holy spirit)

5. 1/3 (God) = 2/6 (The father) = 3/9 (The son) = 4/12 (The holy spirit)

I have never understood the immediate assumption that the rich and powerful MUST be greedy. — Book273

There seems to be two definitions of greed that say the same thing but in different ways:

1. Inordinate level of want
2. Taking more than one's fair share (of the pie)

Definition 1 would fault the greedy for failing to adhere to the golden mean which is harmful not to others but to the greedy themselves for it's ultimately a character flaw.

Definition 2 shifts the focus away from the greedy to the harm that they do to others by concentrating resources in the hands of a select group of super-rich individuals which effectively removes said resources from circulation. No prizes for guessing what that leads to.

One way of measuring oppression would be statistical evaluation of representation - is a particular demographic (race, ethnicity, ideology, etc.) represented proportionately in all areas that pertain to freedom from oppression (politics, opportunities, justice, and so on).

I don't know, it's kinda hard for me to tell the difference between avarice and envy. Is someone rich and powerful greedy or are those not-so-rich, not-so-powerful jealous? These two alleged evils seem to be related at a deeper level - they seem almost identical from a certain angle.

high-tech Jainism — David Pearce

Magnifique! Superb! Excelente! Carry on. Just ignore me!

No paradox; if you would know what is, follow Doyle; if you would know what might be, follow Shaw.

Direction of fit depends on purpose. — Banno

Paradox needn't necessarily be an obvious contradiction. Even a subtle irony to a situation, which this is, qualifies it as one.

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one — Pinprick

Someone definitely skipped his logic classes.

Jokes aside, there's a sense in which the Holy Trinity can be made sense of mathematically. What if God = Infinity and supposing that Infinity is the set of all numbers, call it A, can be subdivided into 3 distinct sets: 1. Pure imaginary numbers (Z) , 2. Rational numbers (R) and 3. Irrational numbers (I). Each of these three sets are same in that they are infinity but they're separate in the sense mutually exclusive with respect to elements/members that constitute them.

Thus, we are justified in saying,

1. Z = R = I [they're all infinity] [The Father = The Son = The Holy Ghost]
2. Z =/=R [the elements are different] [The Father is not The Son]
3. Z =/= I [the elements are different] [The Father is not The Holy Ghost]
4. R =/= I [the elements are different] [The Son is not The Holy Ghost]

Someone definitely didn't miss his math classes.

I knew it, he was a Jedi. — praxis

:rofl:

" let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model". This is an old fallacious (therefore incorrect) reasoning usually used as a last resort. It lacks insight. Anyone that says "to end desire one must desire to end desire" hasn't understood the nature of desire — skyblack

Enlighten me! I'm all ears.

why that's a bad idea in the realm of the psyche, and what it does to the human mind. — skyblack

Why?

The question of choice arises only if one is unsure. It does not arise when there is a clear insight of the dangers involved. — skyblack

What are the "dangers" involved and how do you propose we tackle/avoid them?

I don't think anyone here is on team Spinoza. — praxis

Yes, I noticed that and thanks for heads up.

TMF!

Thank you for your contribution as always. Examples that would help to elucidate that subject matter? — 3017amen

Come to think of it, I take back what I said. In the beginning, I thought Einstein was guilty of loose terminology - misusing/abusing the word "god". However, this may not necessarily be the case as the apparent confusion with respect to Einstein's stand on god can be pinned down to misinterpretation of the word "god".

On many occasions, Einstejn seems to have made it clear that he was only interested in the Spinozist god (pantheism). It appears that theists who believe in the "other" god, the god who's all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing and who takes keen interest in the affairs of humans, intervening on occasion, have misconstrued this fact. Case closed!

Which brings us to the fact of how we insist on living life through "models", methods, and molds — skyblack

Do we have a choice at all? We must, perforce, live life using a model best-suited for the time, place, and people. Plus, let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model. There's no escaping modelization. It's like the Buddhist desire conundrum: to end desire, one must desire (to end desire).

The objection is devastating in the realm of the psyche, for reasons mentioned in OP. — skyblack

Sorry, I went through your OP at least thrice but I don't see anything the likes of an objection that's and I quote, "...devastating in the realm of the psyche..."

That kind of living is restricted to the limitations of the model. It's not meeting life/environment with fresh and clear eyes. — skyblack

I'm in full agreement but, as I asked vide supra, do we have a choice?

Einstein in a religious context reminds me of the time when some friends and I wanted to play volleyball; we had to divide ourselves into two teams. There was this guy who was an exceptionally good player [read Einstein] and both teams [read atheists & theists]wanted him on their side. Nothing more need be said.

To make sense of experience, every people in the past, in effect, had to devise a model of the real world. They would then use that model as a basis for their whole way of life, all of its practices, its norms, and its values. And if that way of life proved to be successful in practice, sustainable then the truth of the model would be confirmed by everyday experience. It works! — TED Talks

Old ideas have withstood the test of time i.e. they're models of reality that got us this far, in one piece. A new idea (model of reality) has to run through the gauntlet of past ideas that've, beyond doubt, proven their worth. I think the rule of thumb here is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Alas, adding to our woes, Einstein didn't exercise the same logical rigor he did in physics and math when it came to religion. The world, especially his fellow scientists, would've never forgiven loose terminology in science but insofar as god is concerned, we let a lot of imprecise language slide.

The problem is that the image was clearly not the right one. — David S

I think there's nothing with the concept odf god we have - god can be taken as the living embodiment of all that's good in humans and dialling them up to infinity I suppose.

I won't go too far back in time, prehistory is just too much conjecture than anything truthful. So, let's begin around the first century BC/AD when, it's said, the world's largest religion - Christianity - was born with the arrival of the messiah Jesus Christ into the house of a humble carpenter, Joseph [ I hope I got that right].

Some well-known atheists like Lawrence Krauss and the late Christopher Hitchens have made remarks to the effect that it's the heights of implausibility that God, the personification of wisdom, would reveal faer teachings to a group of bronze-age, illiterate, farmers, goat-herders. They would scarcely be able to understand the words let alone the divine message.

What Krauss and Hitchens said made a whole lot of sense until about 5 minutes ago. Ask yourself this question, "if you were god where would you send a message of love? I'm fairly confident that you would dispatch your messenger/prophet to a place where people had little to no idea of what love means, places where all kinds of immorality was not just condoned but even promoted as either acceptable or even compulsory. This is exactly what god did - his prophet/messenger was sent to the right place viz. the middle east which was at that time in a near moral vacuum. God had, in a sense, performed triage on humanity and dispatched an EMT to the middle-east.

The origins of Christianity lies in the ethical privation of the times. My hunch is other religions too had similar beginnings.

qualia — Jack Cummins

First off, the definition of real that I posited in my first post is a cul de sac, a blind alley, a dead end ( :grin: ). It leads to nowhere and yet it feels so right, it captures the essence of the real as that which lies outside of our minds and as those things the mind becomes aware of. This is a tragedy which words can't describe for it implies we can never know the real.

What's our next move?

We simply stick to a part of the definition I offered, summed up in the quote,

Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived — George Berkelr

As you might've already inferred, even when the condition was that to exist, ergo to be real, no one should perceive that which is claimed to exist, someone had to do the perceiving. Why not make perception then an/the essential feature of existence/real?


Truth be told, perception is the "gold standard" for reality/existence. For example, physicalism is all about perception through the senses or their extensions.

Now consider physicalism against the belief that all perception could be an illusion à la Descartes's deus deceptor.

As you might have already figured out, we seem to be hopping around from one idea to another - first, perception ain't it (the definition of real I gave) , second perception is it (physicalism), third perception isn't really it (Descartes). :chin: Perhaps it's just me. :sad:

The Stoics were by no means advocating passivity in terms of action, as some modern usages of the term indicate. — baker

Oh! If stoicism recommends acceptance of one's cricumstances, how would we explain such an attitude? It could be, other reasons being possible, that there's nothing we can do to change our condition. What are these "...other reasons possible..."?

Don't think that's true for good psychology. Eliminating emotions or reigning them in isn't the idea - it is developing an awareness of why overwhelming emotional reactions are happening and being better able to understand yourself and those reactions. — Tom Storm

Opinion seems divided: Appeal To Emotion but, in my defense, being perfectly rational (that's our aim, right?) requires controlling our emotions. Perhaps it's a myth that emotions hamper rationality but I'd like to see someone figure out, and I quote, "...why overwhelming reactions are happening..." and also be "...better able to understand yourself and those reactions..." while in a highly emotional state (angry, in love, etc.).

Nevertheless, I still feel there's something to learn if we let loose our feelings.

Did you notice? Every study on emotions - philosophy, psychology, you name it - is either entirely about eliminating them or reigning them in. Isn't it time someone tried something different?

We can nonetheless know that 'stuff' existed — counterpunch

Not by the definition that X is real IFF X exists when no one perceives it. You do realize that anything one perceives is rendered useless as evidence as per that definition, right? The CMBR (evidence for the Big Bang) would only exist when someone tunes in faer detector, fossils (evidence for evolution) would cease to exist the moment no one's looking, and so on.

The original one had methapyhsical underpinnings — baker

And they are...?

Stoicism strikes me as resignation to one's circumstances as encapsulated in its spirit of acceptance - to not grieve over one's misfortunes and not rejoice over one's fortunes. The idea behind stoicism seems to be to keep things the way they are and simply adapt yourself to them.

Christianity, on the other hand, despite its alleged links to stoicism, is about bringing about change - getting one's hands on a ticket to heaven seems to be what all Christians aim for. In other words, Christianity, though it seems to be fully aware of the "human condition, doesn't accept the status quo and wants change, change for the better, heaven being the goal.

real(ity) [is] ineluctable resistance — 180 Proof

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away — Philip K. Dick

@Jack Cummins

X is real IFF X exists independent of our perceptions. What does that mean? It means that X exists even when no one perceives X. For instance, if the moon exists only when at least one person perceives it, the moon isn't real.

However, there's a catch. To know if a certain X is real by the above definition of real, we need to fulfill the condition that

1. X must exist when no one is perceiving X

The condition 1 is impossible to meet because to know that "1. X must exist when no one is perceiving X", there must be at least one person (say A) who perceives X as existing when no one is perceiving X but then this person (A) is perceiving X and that means it's false that no one is perceiving X.

Do you see the problem?

1. What must be known for X to be real: X exists even when no one is perceiving X.
2. How 1(above) can be known: Someone must perceive X exists even when no one is perceiving X.

2 (above) is impossible as if someone is perceiving X is true, no one is perceiving X is false.

I agree with this standard definition. To repeat what added in the closed thread ... my point was that the ‘item’ of discrimination by which someone feels ‘superior’ or deems a group of others as ‘inferior’ is prejudice - be this based on ‘items’ including class, nationality, perceived ethnicity, actual ethnicity, sex, political inclination and intelligence. — I like sushi

Well, prejudice seems to be not only about hostility towards other races (racism) but also includes a judgement viz. such antagonism is unwarranted. Racism is one race treating other races as inferior and must be, if it's to gain currency as it did back when slavery was the norm, a reasoned position i.e. racists justify their racism on a number of grounds. Racial prejudice, on the other hand, strikes at the heart of racism because it not only attacks racist attitudes but also the reasons thereof.

It would be nonsensical if someone was to suggest that one could be ‘prejudice’ of a certain ‘race’ of people and not be ‘racist — I like sushi

You're right on the money. Racial prejudice has two components:

1. Racism [you believe some races are inferior to others]
2. Racism is unjustified [you can't find a good reason to be racist]

I don't think you guys are still talking about how we perceive time. — god must be atheist

Looks like a work in progress. I hope we get done with the preliminaries ASAP so that we can finally get down to the brass tacks of time perception.

@Mark Nyquist framed his question in a past-present-future context and I did the best I could manage. It wasn't enough to get the topic off the ground...too bad.

Really? "Not much" in the way of studies on REM sleep, visualization (readiness activation), post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal / sexual / religious ideating, schizophrenic / psychoactive hallucinating, vision processing, affective expectation / prediction, etc? :chin: — 180 Proof

You know more than me so, I plead no contest. For what it's worth though the Wikipedia page doesn't seem to contain any mentions of serious research into imagination. I must've missed them as I only gave the page a cursory reading.

Exactly. That's why even though it takes n steps to prove there are no black dogs, if you find one on step 2 you can stop. — InPitzotl

But then you haven't proven "there are no black dogs". You've proven "some dogs are black." :chin:

Can I point out there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to. — Mark Nyquist

You have a suspicion that "...there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to" but what are your reasons for it?

he real answer is that I can only prove at most one of those two things — InPitzotl

Indeed but proving one disproves the other (contradictory).

And does beauty require a certain amount of detail, but a limit? — TiredThinker

Go to timestamp 10:59 in the video below,

Painting by Bernado Bellotto

Two kinds of beauty:

1. Real beauty: Details, details, details. Fractals & Symmetry. Beauty, as symmetry, is preserved at all levels of reality, from the atomic to the cosmic. No one except maybe, just maybe Benoit Mandelbrot has created it (Mandelbrot Set) and oh! God (assuming God exists)

2. Illusory beauty: Lack of detail. Like the Bernado Bellotto painting mentioned above, closer inspection reveals "only blobs or broad brush strokes of paint." Many artists have created it.

But you can only prove N if N, and you can only prove E if E. Since N and E cannot both be true as states of affairs, the comparison between the proof of N and the proof of E is illegitimate. — InPitzotl

You're correct that "some dogs are black" and "no dogs are black" are contradictory (both can't be true and both can't be false or, in other words, one has to be true and the other false). The whole point of this thread is to compare such pairs of statements (a positive statement and its negation, the corresponding negative statement) in re which is easier to demonstrate as a truth.

I don't know what the OP is on about but if I may offer my two cents, it's this:

The brain/mind can be subdivided into 3 parts:

1. Memory [the past]
2. Executive functions [the present]
3. Imagination [the future]

Sadly, there's not much neuroscience done on imagination but, if it's any consolation, it seems to overlap with executive functions, specifically planning [for the future I suppose].

Sure, but it's just as easy to disconfirm N as it is to prove E. — InPitzotl

Yes but I'm not talking about disproving N which is equivalent to proving E. I'm interested in knowing whether it's easier to prove N or easier to prove E.

You failed to prove your claim — InPitzotl

:chin:

We have two claims to consider: E = some dogs are black and N = no dogs are black. What I'm saying is it's easier to prove E than N for the simple reason that N requires a complete search of ALL dogs while E doesn't necessarily require that.

You want to prove S. So you're going to "set about trying to prove it" by commencing a task P. Essentially, P is a search algorithm — InPitzotl

Excelente! :up:

Here's my own version of difficulty in re proof for the two statements, "some dogs are black" and "no dogs are black" [the former is a positive existential claim and the latter is the corresponding negative claim]

Difficulty: how many dogs we have to check. If a proof requires that we check all dogs, it's more difficult than a proof that doesn't require us to check only a few dogs

A. Proof of "some dogs are black": We begin searching for black dogs. There are three possibilities:
1. A black dog is found in the middle of the search. We didn't have to search all the dogs
2. There's only one black dog and that dog is the last dog we check. We searched all the dogs
3. There are no black dogs. We searched all the dogs

B. Proof of "no dogs are black":
1. We have to search all dogs (to make sure there are no black dogs)

Clearly, proving "no dogs are black" is more difficult, as defined above, than proving some dogs are black. See A1 and B1 vide supra.

@I like sushi

When it comes to racism I go by: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
"theories of racism" — BitconnectCarlos

I concur. Racism boils down to one race considering and treating other races as inferior.

On the other hand we have prejudice. A Google search of the word's definition yields:

1. To form a judgement before one has all the facts.
2. Hostility towards certain groups, including but not limited to race.

When one hears the word "racism" one isn't sure whether it's justified or not. However if one encounters the word "prejudice" it's very clear that whatever the belief, attitude, or philosophy is, it's a product of poor judgement or that it's unjustified.