As this thread is not about BIV in particular, but simulation, I will respond to the below briefly:

If I am a brain in a vat, my claim is true, even if I can't refer to brain and vat, so long as "brain" and "vat" refer to the appropriate objects in that context. Perhaps I cannot know that my claim is true, but that's different. Actually, I don't really see why a brain in a vat cannot refer to itself as a brain in a vat. — Ludwig V

You do not understand what "refer" means, in other words.

I don't follow that.If it says (without evidence) that it is a BiV, then the utterance is true if that is indeed the fact. — noAxioms

Then you misunderstand what "true" means in statements.

Well, to quote the BiV IEP page, very close to the top:

Or, to put it in terms of knowledge claims, we can construct the following skeptical argument. Let “P” stand for any belief or claim about the external world, say, that snow is white.

[1] If I know that P, then I know that I am not a brain in a vat
[2] I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat
[3] Thus, I do not know that P. — noAxioms

But you did not go further into the argument. That is the opening argument for the BIV. But Putnam continues on to counter-argue that premises or claims above are necessarily false. If you're a BIV then to say "I am a brain in a vat" is false because you wouldn't be referring to a brain and to a vat. There's no reference at all! There is no causal link to make the argument sound.

So going back to what you said in your previous post that ...

A brain in a vat need not be a brain at all, but some sort of mind black-box. Introspection is the only evidence. A non-human mind in a vat being fed false information that it is a human living on Earth has no clue that it isn't a pink squishy thing doing the experiencing, or exerting the will. — noAxioms

If it is indeed just a black-box or non-human mind being fed false information, anything that comes out of its mouth referring to anything about the physical world is false.
Because to refer to a tree, snow, or brain, is to go outside of the BIV world yet isn't it true that we just made the argument that we are just a BIV. So, are you or are you not a BIV? You can't be both.

The simulation hypothesis is a pitfall -- it looks attractive because it allows us to make arguments like "how do you prove we're not in a doll house?" but we fail to recognize the contradiction of the utterance.

If I could experience the real world, then be hooked up to a machine that simulates the same thing I have experienced, seamlessly, that I would not be able to tell the difference, then the theory has made its point. — L'éléphant

If that's the point, we don't need the theory. We all experience dreams from time to time. And we know how to tell the difference. But we can't tell the difference while we are dreaming. What's so exciting about the theory? — Ludwig V

Actually, I take back what I said in what you quoted from my previous post. Let's start again.

The theory posits that there are a scientist outside the BIV and a BIV. If I am a BIV, I cannot make claims like "I am a brain in a vat" because I am making no reference to the "brain" and "vat". So, if I say that sentence, it is false.

A brain in a vat need not be a brain at all, but some sort of mind black-box. Introspection is the only evidence. A non-human mind in a vat being fed false information that it is a human living on Earth has no clue that it isn't a pink squishy thing doing the experiencing, or exerting the will. — noAxioms

I disagree with this. In the BIV, the brain is a given. That is, human brain. Because the point of the theory is skepticism, not that we are indeed brains in a vat. If I could experience the real world, then be hooked up to a machine that simulates the same thing I have experienced, seamlessly, that I would not be able to tell the difference, then the theory has made its point.

Anyways, long story short, superstition is a core component of the human psyche is the claim. — schopenhauer1

Okay. It is a component of the human psyche. And if you read about the evolution of humans, the primal fear goes back to the prehistoric times when a lot of factors were not understood, but could wipe out their entire population.

We never really got rid of this primal fear in us -- similar to the appendix (why do we have it?). Despite the progress that humans made in all aspects of society, the primal instinct never went away.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

It's not always true that it's better to stay in a difficult situation than to venture out there in the unknown because it could be worse. If you have become comfortable in a situation where you have to deal with a toxic person, it is worth trying out something else because the flip side is, you could find something better.

The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. — Hanover

Okay, sorry to hear that these organizations have biases as well.

What will prevail is that the supply will meet the demand, meaning that if there is no demand for unbiased or balanced reporting, it won't be in the market, at least not terribly long. — Hanover

But there will be, and there is a demand for unbiased or all sides of politics.

Or do you mean there will be no "mainstream" demand?

To that I say, do not underestimate the power of the intelligentsia. They were or are in the minority, working and writing stealthily, but they get the most bang for their ideas -- they are the secret sources of the academia and scholarly studies.

I think you should stop reading pop news articles and celebrity magazines. It sounds like you have been frequenting the unsavory crowds.

That's a good looking plate of pasta. Looks yummy. I am on the hunt for fatter fusillis.

We don't need to prove anything to anyone and we are always good enough. I also think that being happy or finding joy is perfectly compatible with meaninglessness. Joy isn't dependent upon inherent significance, it can come to anyone for any reason. I think our experience of this has less to do with what we believe about life and more about our disposition, personality and brain chemistry. — Tom Storm

:100:

There are people who can work into their 80s. I mean -- as an employee. To them, I say, wow! They don't need to worry about retirement savings because they work full time until they keel over. They do not stress out over their job.

Lakatos? — Lionino

No. They're not that fancy. They're practicing math scholars and philosophers.

This article argues that the ethical role of the media is in determining which side of a debate is most ethically correct and then promoting it: — Hanover

The news organization does not have to listen to that article if the news organization is truly independent.

Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course. — Hanover

Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that.

This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal. — Hanover

If the news organization believes in professionalism, they know what to do. Their judgment should prevail.

I'm ashamed. I'm not near that talent.

Spiral pasta is fusili, right? My favourite kind of pasta, superior to penne let's agree. I had pasta with pesto alla genovese homemade in Italy once, absolutely loved it. — Lionino

Fusili and their ilks. Yeah, I've given up on penne. Not my kind of pasta.

It can only be saved by deep frying in the shape of dinosaurs for dino-bites and then doused with ketchup. — Hanover

:grin: don't mind the children, @Lionino.

Spiral pasta with pesto sauce -- just grind the fresh basil leaves, lots of olive oil, salt and pepper, and parmesan to the consistency you like. Serve with whatever pasta of your choosing. Top with sun-dried tomatoes in olive oil.

But I chuckle at where it may have taken off: this idea that Math pre-exists our constructions. — ENOAH

I wish I still had the philosophy of math anthology book that featured the math philosophers who argued for the construction of mathematics as an empirical endeavor.

But, in most cases, the events didn't turn out as badly as I expected at the beginning. I thought I was very negative regarding facing confrontation, but after reading your post I am not feeling alone any more. — javi2541997

Yes, it is surprising what works out and what doesn't. It was a crapshoot. I went with my deepest feeling instead of always having to guard what I say to the detriment of my own principles.

We still have choice if we stay at a job or leave based on numerous factors thankfully. — Born2Insights

Three months ago I yelled at the president of the firm because we couldn't agree with the procedures of a project. I thought it was unethical. I didn't walk out of the office, but I cried. He walked away. I prepared myself for the worse -- fired. (at that point, I didn't care about the job anymore) Three months later, I got my review: not only I got a nice raise, but I got the best office in the suite.

I noted in a You Tube "documentary" recently that there is a tribe in the Amazon that counts by 2s. Was that embedded? I think math, like Language, and everything else accessible to human mind/experience is a posteriori constructed by Mind and accepted if functional, rejected if not. — ENOAH

Sure thing.

For example, every number is predefined, so when we build an equation or a formula, each one of the terms have already been defined -- and no wonder the equation works! :scream:

One of the things that we like to use as math object is the circle or a sphere because of the circumference, diameter, and arc angles. So, from this, we claim that math is out there waiting to be discovered and the proof of this is that circle and sphere exist in nature. We are obsessed -- no we lose our mind to it. In our mind the circle signifies antiquity and wisdom. It signifies disciplined and scholarly thoughts. Hey, the solar system is full of round things!

:100: :up:

In its critique of liberalism and its pessimism vis-à-vis incremental approaches to racial reform, CRT draws broadly from older currents of thought borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as newer ways of thinking linked to the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. — Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (2008), p. 344

Is this one of those No true Scotsman fallacy for damage control? "Woke leftism does not come from Neo-Marxism!". Let me know if otherwise. — Lionino

So how is the above supporting your claim?

Did they or did they not use the Critical Theory of the postmodern to write their own worldview? Derrida's post-structuralism certainly has nothing to do with critical race theory. So, how in the world did they spin it off to something else?

It's Critical Theory... not 'Critical Race Theory'. You should read it. — creativesoul


Both exist and one is derived from the other. — Lionino

I will consider this a joke until further notice.

Making no judgment whatsoever is silly. — Mikie

It's also dangerous.

and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself). — Bob Ross

Aristotle's eudaimonia -- the purpose of humans is eudaimonia.

It is not that mathematics differ in every culture -- there is a standardization of mathematics across societies. Just like there is a standardization of engineering across cultures.

But the postmodernists would argue that it is empirically derived. This is how you can argue in favor of a postmodern view. Mathematics has an empirical origin -- not from a universal truth. They are not there to question the veracity of the math methods -- they are there to argue against the objective truth -- (referring to a priori or universal truth).

It can be shown that we are living in a block universe once we accept the special relativity. You might be interested to read this. — MoK

That'll be for another day. Not sure if I accept the block universe. Thanks for the link. Good read.

I see, so you are claiming space and time are substances—contrary to your original claim. Unless you are just noting that they are not separate substances when you said they are not substances. — Bob Ross

I can't call spacetime a substance because a substance is a separate property from all the other things in the universe. I just explained in my previous post that you cannot separate spacetime from existence.

Aha, my plan worked after all. :grin: — praxis

All for the best. :razz:

Let's chill!

Apparently I’m not as funny as I think I am. :sad: — praxis

Whatever posts you've written in the forum which I had read, I liked your posts. You seem to be level-headed to me.
I didn't say this earlier because I didn't want you to think I was pandering.

Now, does that bolster your self-esteem?

I have very low self-esteem and tend to think the worst. — praxis

Jesus! That would cripple me to the point of not being able to participate in a forum like this. The fact that you're here and having that condition is a puzzle to me. I wish you the best.

Which sounded to me like you were arguing that we cannot determine what is exactly a posteriori and what is a priori, and that space/time are so entrenched in our thinking (being the forms of our experience) that we cannot make sense of a world without it.

This sounds like space and time for you are just the forms of our experience, and we cannot say anything about reality as it is in itself because we cannot think away these forms.

Was I misunderstanding? — Bob Ross

Yes, you were misunderstanding. Your conception of spacetime is metaphysical, but what I was trying to explain is it is more than metaphysical -- in fact, we should start with Einstein's spacetime continuum, which consists of the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension which is time. He posits that spacetime can shift shape.

So with that under consideration, space and time are, in fact, a physical reality. My starting point that human cognition is temporal (as well as spatial) is well within the dimensions of spacetime.

Are citizens responsible for the crimes of their leaders?

This is a poorly written question and certainly written to arouse the reactionary responses, not the intelligent responses.

There is accountability. In a representative form of government, the reason why we elect the leaders is to represent the people and to make the decision on behalf of the people, decisions that are beneficial to the people.
Crimes are not beneficial to the people. If the actions are criminal, then the leaders must be held accountable for those crimes. The people can vote the leaders out of office.

Honestly, the thing that stands out in my perception is your name— which I like— and the fact that you usually write well and are fairly unassuming. I don’t know much else about you though… — Mikie

Thank you. No, that should stay that way. It's good to know less -- it's the thought that counts.

And of you, as well -- good to know you are one of the mods. That's all I need to say about you.

It sounds like you are saying they don’t exist in reality at all, and then noting that we cannot think them away. — Bob Ross

How is a whole paragraph of my answer not show at all that spacetime don't exist?

I understood your points and don't really disagree with them; but I am unsure as to whether you believe space and time are substances or not. What do you think? — Bob Ross

They are not substances. If you recall Aristotle, and others, have written about things like substance, form, essence, etc., all within the template of space-time, and never outside of it. We cannot separate space-time from the universe, therefore we cannot separate space-time from existence. It is a zone -- a multi-dimensional zone in which things exist. To speak of space-time as thing in itself is nonsensical. A thing in itself is anything that has its own properties and dimension existing within space-time. Tangible objects are things. Humans are things. But a universe is not a thing.

One thing that I find so peculiar (and for which I have gotten a lot of flak) is the almost complete lack of introspection, lack of self-reflection, and lack of applying the theme that is being discussed to oneself, on the spot. Esp. in Western philosophical discourse, any request for such is instantly dismissed as a fallacious ad hominem. I just don't understand this. — baker

I know. Caring is hard. Like loving is hard. :wink:

You need to outsmart them, Baker. Write it differently instead of using words that betray your undertone. If I come along and post in a thread in favor of paternalism, for example, and just blaarrgghh the basics, sans nuance and metaphor, like I have-no-reservation-so-take-it-or-leave-it, then guess what I'm gonna get in response?

It seems that way to me, also. But I suspect AI is crawling along the alleyway waiting to slip through a cracked door. This could be a plus . . . or not? :chin: — jgill

You'll know them by the essays they write. haha! :lol:
They write for themselves, and it's not a two-way communication -- they'll respond to you but not to you.

There’s a dozen or so people who are certainly above average. But there’s a lot of morons too. — Mikie

Well, in that case, I only read the dozen or so people.

What he is likely misremembering is the few times I stated that there are crazy people in this site. And we all know that there is. — Lionino

lol. :sweat:
I don't read most posts in this site. So, I must have missed the crazy ones.

I hope those few crazies did not leave a lasting impression here such that they now define this site.

And you like to throw around these blanket insults too: sometimes it's that most people on TPF are idiots, .... — Jamal

You simply misinterpret what I say — a joke — — Lionino

This here is something you don't get to say and be awarded the interpretation that it is joke. I avoid using this word when I'm joking. I only ever say this word if I mean it because it would always be received as meant, not banter.

That said, I actually find this place to be populated by above average intelligence. I do not always 'speak' softly and sweetly here, but imagine being out there in the general population and trying to talk about philosophy and other things not pop culture. This is a refuge, to me.

It seems like denying spatiotemporal relations sideswipes all of knowable reality and replaces it is with a giant question mark, and makes reality (which we can speak of) phantasms. — Bob Ross

Space-time is always a part of existence. I don't know if "property" is the correct word. We can't perceive anything unless it's space-time because our constitution and the mechanism of perception is designed to function in space-time, nowhere else.

I think, though, you might be thinking of the "temporal" definition such that something is perceived in a particular unit of time or sequentially. I always have a hard time trying to explain this, so I hope I am making sense. Human cognition is temporal, that is: sequentially; but a computer memory is not.

Here is an explanation:

An example is the human feeling of impatience or tiredness -- something took too long to finish or to arrive. A computer will not have an accompanying subjective feeling of tiredness for waiting, or boredom from waiting, or simply, giving up because something is taking too long to complete. Or a computer will not have the feeling of unfairness because a first-come-first-serve rule is violated.

Another attempt at explanation: If I am walking in a street and see a tall electric tower, I expect that tower to be there on my way back using the same route. I can even gauge at what time I'm going to see it again given the length and distance I've traveled so far.

PS: I am better at 'getting it', rather than explaining it.

I'm simply a tag away — Noble Dust

Someone with conviction!

I think the question should be -- how do you perceive a forum member. So, if I'm answering it this way, I'd say @Noble Dust will explain anything if you tag him and @Benkei can be a gasshole. lol.

@baker -- well, Baker can a benevolent prick.