The way I look at it, not only do we have Gettier problems, we cannot even be certain that we really have Gettier problems! — sime

:rofl:

That's one of the fundamental problems with probability. How to assign values to probabilities. It's easy for simple stuff like coin tosses and dice throws, but the real world is a different story altogether.

Welcome to the real world, Neo. — Morpheus

Gnomon's theory is pantheistic - if he uses the word "god" (Enformer) he does so in a way different from what a Christian or Moslem would. It's very much like the Star Wars notion of The Force which the Jedi and the Sith draw their powers from :grin: You like Star Wars, I know you do. The Enformer is an organizing energy/principle (opposed to entropy according to Gnomon) that's behind the order we see in the universe. This is likely not scientifically valid, but quite clever, wouldn't you agree?

Also, Enformationism, especially its BothAnd concept, a derivative of Chinese Taoist yin-yang does a good job of explaining reality - pairs in opposition are the foundation of most processes we know (social, political, interpersonal, physical, chemical, etc. transformations are driven by a difference in magnitude and sign; think of an ordinary pencil battery mon ami + and - (1.5 Volts). We have to then, Gnomon goes on to say, think holistically which to my reckoning means, at least till we can settle the matter, hear, your honor :smile: , both sides of the story.

What sayest thou?

I keep an open mind - Enformationism isn't such a bad theory. I've seen worse (word salads of PoMo) and surely 180 Proof agrees.
— Agent Smith
I don't agree. "Enformationism" is pseudo-science like "Intelligent Design" which, in my book, is worse than merely bad philosophy (i.e. sophistry) like p0m0. — 180 Proof

This flaw you refer to is part and parcel of attempts to reconcile traditional enemies like science & religion, you know that. Gnomon's position, to refresh both your memories, is that of Euler's who penned a mathematical treatise on music - he was a mathematician to musicans and a musician to mathematicians, promptly falling between the two stools. I view @Gnomon as some sort of negotiator/arbiter, trying to find the middle ground between science and faith and, to my reckoning, he's made considerable progress - more needs to be done, but he regularly tests his ideas, against seasoned philosophers like yourself for example.

Of course this doesn't mean Gnomon is correct, but he makes sense to me at some level. You seem to have found flaws, small & big, in Enformationism and hence your hostile pronouncements; alas, I'm not privy to them.

There seems to be some ambiguity with regard to meaning vis-à-vis sign and referent. The mercurial nature of meaning isn't always a function of time and even if it is, it's a vacuous truth.

I keep an open mind - Enformationism isn't such a bad theory. I've seen worse (word salads of PoMo) and surely @180 Proof agrees. The quality of your work shines through the citations, quotations, references, and overall coherency of your posts expressing a novel & interesting take on the nature of reality.

You know it could be said that of the omni-attributes of god, Enformationism is an exposition/elaboration on omniscience. This is the information age as I once told you - the time's perfect for a Lord of Information.

Whenever I hear someone equate "astral projection" or "afterlife" with "higher dimensions" what I hear them really saying is "otherworldly" (i.e. woo woo-of-the-gaps). Folks just make shit up, especially when they don't know that they don't know what they're talking about. — 180 Proof

... says the guy whose astral projection is off the charts! :grin:

would like to see more high quality stuff
— Jamal

"Do you feel like you're wasting your time being here?"

What is "wasted time"?

No, we don't want to see more high quality stuff. Quality is too demanding, too burdensome, hard to produce, often tedious to read. We don't have to go for absolute slop, but let's be sensible: sitting down at the mighty Mac and turning out refined, insightful, elegant, and witty text is a major drain on one's ever-diminishing intellectual resources. I could be brilliant, but then I would be too exhausted to appreciate the adulation which fallow philosophers would shower on me.

Enough about the flight to quality! — Bitter Crank

You got what you were craving for @Jamal! :grin:

Well, if I were Ronald Fisher, I would say "now you see the light!" :grin:

You have a point though, but if you look at how mathematicians have (attempted to) solve(d) the particularly vexing problem you perhaps allude to, you would be going "damn, that's creative!!"

On gender I have no further comment! Au revoir mon ami!

I recommend

• The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy, Bryan Magee

• The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods (3rd Ed), Peter S. Fosl and Julian Baggini

to get you startered. The bibliographies of both books are very much worth checking out too. — 180 Proof

:100:

I have the second one! I read it, flew over me noggin I must say. Will read it again. Seems like a list of concepts, distinctions, perspectives, common, noob and even fatal mistakes, etc. that could help a beginner make sense of the bewildering jungle of ideas philosophy is; I don't know what the draw is for seasoned philosophers like yourself! :grin:

Why would you think it "not worthwhile" to analyze data on creativity. There's a point to statistical, sensu amplissimo, averages - they're a kind of knowledge and isn't knowledge useful? They say it is. How many times in a day do you do statistics even when you don't know what z-score means? Quite a lot in me humble opinion. Enough about statistics.

Gender?

Good answers! :up:

The T-sentence, the IFF in it feels wrong.

On point, but what's wrong with mathematically sound generalizations (statistics)? The procedure seems simple enough.

Answer this question: Are men more creative than women or is it the other way round?

Well, it's true, if anything is... — Banno

That's just avoiding the question.

Just wanna run something by you.

What exacty do you mean by "the coffe cup has a handle" is true IFF the coffee cup has a handle?

It's quite simple actually. I like, most people like, chocolate, but try as hard as I can, I don't recall ever having chosen to like chocolate. The same goes for stuff that I don't like. Re Schopenhauer. Just waiting and praying at the same time now. Whistle with me ...

Creativity is problem-solving.
— praxis
:100: — 180 Proof

:100:

If memory serves, creative people aren't the happiest people. Some are diagnosed with serious psychopathology. The late Robbin Williams (miss him), Disney Aladdin's genie, was on a different level of spontaneous creative talent and he ended up killing himself. They said it was due to *koff* *koff* depression.

Certainly. Pardon me, I misunderstood you the first time around — Paine

:up:

There are many things to consider in re life expectancy. The OP's main point I've come across before, many, many, suns ago. It's odd that believing the opposite (I'll live long) doesn't have quite as much the same effect although it should in me humble opinion.

Some fallacies that you might wanna consider

1. Ignorantia elenchi (missing the point)
2. Non sequitur (it doesn't follow)
3. Fallacies (dive in).

To be too creative, or not creative enough may be the question.. How may this fine tightrope walk be trodden cautiously, bravely and safely? — Jack Cummins

One hasta be creative 24/7 or else ... the world isn't all that friendly from what I could gather. Balancing is key, but there's one common enemy we all must face, either together or alone, E-N-T-R-O-P-Y, right @180 Proof?

I am curious why you frame the idea as a possibility rather than as something you know about directly. — Paine

Well, I haven't actually died yet despite having felt that way and having conducted myself to match. Don't the lives of friends count as direct experience?

Then the error falls into the category of fallacies of irrelevance (e.g. argumentum ad misericordiam - how sad your life will be if you get an F^- has nothing to do with how your teacher should grade you). It doesn't matter whether Ng or ~Ng (where Nx = x is natural and g = God), your argument sticks.

Free will.

Worth a read, the Wikipedia entry. Sam Harris subscribes to a particular subtype of (incompatibilistic) determinism viz. causal determinism.

Great post!

Thanks for the reply. Creativity is in high demand from what I can gather, the need being felt not only in the art world. I have this line from a movie that's rather funny once you think about it - "don't get too creative!"

This is spot on! I wonder if there are folks who survive this phase in life. How about also considering the history of such self-destructive ideas? I have a feeling some of me friends didn't make it past their early 40s (the rate at which they were drinkin', smokin', eatin', partyin', druggin', etc. was beyond extreme). :death: :flower: Requiescat in pace mes amies.

Well, OP, explain why the distinction natural and supernatural doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

By the way, I believe I follow your argument (it really doesn't matter whether God is natural or supernatural); God exists if only we accept the premises that a) the universe is a book written in the language of mathematics and b) language implies the existence of (a) mind(s).

Are yin-yang "opposites"? "a duality"? Heraclitean "flux"? I don't think so. Conflating complementarity (e.g. dialectics) and, say, coincidentia oppositorum (e.g. Jungian / gnostic 'syzygy'), it seems to me, loses the plot. — 180 Proof

As I've often said, with a heavy heart I might add, I really don't comprehend duality (yin-yang and all). Heraclitean duality (enantiodromia @Jack Cummins) is basically Taoist yin-yang dichotomy (splitting the world into opposites and observing their interaction). Like in Aristotelian philosophy we have the aurea mediocritas, the point is to reach some kind of equilibrium between, sensu latissimo, light & dark. The Heraclitean (panta) rhei (flux) probably describes the transformation of light into dark and vice versa (cyclical change?). It appears to me as a pendulum - the interchange between kinetic energy (actual) & potential energy (potential).



Nice!

What do you make of the Hindu Trinity?

1. Brahma (creator)
2. Vishnu (preserver)
3. Shiva (destroyer)

From a yin-yang perspective, Vishnu (2) doesn't exist - the period of "preservation" is but the (Heraclitean) rhei (flux) we know as yang of growth ($\uparrow$) and the yin of decay ($\downarrow$)

That's an easy one: IFF it is topologically equivalent to a doughnut. — jgill

That's amazing! :up:

My journey to this forum: atheism $\to$ logic $\to$ philosophy $\to$ TPF.

Gracias for lettin' me know - didn't know that yin-yang has Greek roots too. Enantiodromia, nice!

:chin: Good day Jack! You've been most kind & equally if not more helpful.

Creativity, how does yin-yang help you in grasping the idea?

That would be correct - contrast is essential to, for example, the distinction between good and evil - sans evil, no good and sans good, no evil. I find the alternative to yin-yang aka advaita or, in Buddhist circles, advaya also appealing despite serious misgivings on what it entails.

It's interesting that you're also a subscriber to the yin-yang channel. It does fit with what we observe doesn't it? I, for some odd reason, remain in the dark as to the nub of the idea - there's a missing piece of the puzzle which I'm unable to locate. Too bad, :sad:

The cup has one handle" is true IFF the cup has one handle. — Banno

Ok. So the next question is

The cup has one handle IFF _____?

Well, if beauty is objective and sometimes it appears to be so, although intersubjectivity can't be ruled out, it hasta be mathematical in me humble opinion. Consider the most common class of ugly - disfigurement - an absence of (mathematical) symmetry. Yin-yang?

I wish I could understand what you're trying ta get at, but I wouldn't know how - I lack the knowledge & experience to do so. Anyway, I just worked with what I had - that many people associate creativity with art and art falls under the rubric of aesthetics, a subdiscipline of philosophy. Also Duchamp's Fountain piece is allegedly the philosophification of art i.e. it represents the birth of a new movement in which aesthetics is deprioritized. I read all that a long time, so I can't guarantee how accurate the info is.

Your aethetic sense is more evolved + refined than mine mon ami! That's all I can say.

:rofl:

Creativity - you should watch TikTok or the shorts section on youtube. Need I mention memes? Bullseye after bullseye after bullseye - it should be made into an Olympic sport (mind games?), medals, endorsements and all.