1. Someone (call him Al) has parked his car on Avenue A (out of sight now) half an hour ago. Everything is normal, the car is still there, Al has a good memory. Does he know where his car is?

2. Every day, a certain percentage of cars gets stolen. Does Al know, right now, that his car has not been stolen and driven away since he parked it?

3. Meanwhile, in a parallel universe with a similar crime rate, Betty has parked her car on Avenue B half an hour ago. Betty is cognitively very similar to Al (just as good a memory, just as much confidence about the location of her car). Her car, unfortunately, was stolen and driven away. Does Betty, who believes that her car is on Avenue B where she parked it, know that her car is on Avenue B?

4. Having answered all three questions, would you like to revise your answer to any of them?

5. Why? — Ludwig V

Funny thing is, often reality is more accurate than fiction. In an ordinary conversation, we often pre-qualify our statements by saying -- "I left it there an hour ago, so I don't know if it's still there..." or "I saw your keys on the table at the conference hall when I left two hours ago, maybe someone took it to the front desk for lost item."

That (!) is a normal conversation.

But when we post a epistemelogic probing question, we want to highlight the idea that people are gullible about their own memory or knowledge of things so we post a leading question such as the above. My point is, this is not how we do things in actuality and we should give humans a lot of credit for their minds.

:up:

What I'm interested in is that the game shows that we intuitively reject the correct games-theoretical response, which is to accept any offer. — Banno

You are simplifying the game too much. There is a downside to being a push-over who will accept the tiniest offer -- future events would tend to perpetuate this inequity. You already accepted the theory's suggestion without your own input, thereby supporting the theory's suggestion to accept what was offered to you without question.

So why do smart people do things that interfere with getting the output they’re entitled to? — Ruminant

This settles it.

said in depth — jgill

No. I meant to say "with depth" -- meaning, with deeper understanding than the lack of careful thought on your part by saying over 2 millennia and no consensus. Not "in depth" where one demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of something, such as you and the two hundred theorems you proved.

I hope I've made this clear.

but from what you say a hindrance to philosophy. — jgill

Wrong again. I did not say this. Consensus is not a hindrance to philosophy, but if this is what you think is the pièce de résistance in philosophy; then you've missed the mark by a mile.

So, you are saying there has been consensus about the reality of numbers and whether math is created or discovered? — jgill

So, are you saying you did not get the gist of what I just said? Do you really need me to explain to you what I said in english? There are things you could say with depth about the subject besides "Over two millennia have passed with no consensus".

Will you be satisfied with a consensus, just to have an agreement? A population could have a consensus on something and they're still ignorant or wrong. I'd rather read philosophical writings having differing views, but well argued, than seeing a consensus for the sake of stopping all philosophical arguments.

The study of mathematics is not the same as the study of philosophy.

Over two millennia have passed with no consensus. — jgill

Jesus. No disrespect, but if this is all you could say about philosophy, then you don't fit in philosophy. People who summarize the thousands of philosophical posts in forums like this with a statement such as above, has not learned anything but cliché.

But divers and varied experiments have shown that, irrationally, this will result in your rejecting my offer, and us both receiving nothing. Offers of less than $2 (20%) are rejected. Most offers are around 40-50%.

Folk prefer to receive nothing rather than an amount considered too small.

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. — Banno

You're not seeing this right. I am with the person rejecting the offer. I would reject it, too.

"Self-interest" has a price tag, as in, people wouldn't do just about anything just to get "something". Because you're using me to gain an amount much higher than mine, then, I see that as unfair and I wouldn't agree to it, even if I'm "gaining" something out of it, too. The key is, how much am I helping you compared to what I'm getting.

You've forgotten capitalism already.

I had no idea that this was such a big confusion among some of you. I thought it was intuitive what an "object of perception" is. I took it for granted that this comes easy.

If I may try another attempt to dissuade you, let us use the example of a mound of millet. Assume you are a grain piled up with other thousand grains. You wouldn't be able to see the mound, but of course you can infer that a mound has been formed out of the thousands of you and other grains. You could, for example, use fractals to calculate that, one, a mound has formed, how big, and how high the mound is. Using logarithmic curve, maybe some volume, you could extrapolate that there is, indeed, a mound that exists out of the millions of grains.

But you never, ever, have come to the point that you are outside the mound perceiving it. Never.

Check please! — schopenhauer1

Don't forget to tip in north america.

The "workplace" (a social construct just like any other, but one whereby the majority of people garner their subsistence to maintain their material comforts and very survival), is often a killing floor for connecting what one does to anything broader, "mysteries of the universe" or otherwise. — schopenhauer1

Most workplaces exist for business-for-profit activities. Some fields are more privileged than others -- the arts, for example, in which artists can demonstrate their interpretation of the world through their arts. If people are inclined to actually include contemplation of the world into their working hours, and find cosmos meaning in what they do, they'd be disappointed.

We say things like "work-life balance" for a reason. It means, you put in the recommended hours a week to your work, then use the remaining hours for your personal activities.

We infer things and build up models, much of it based on indirect contact with effects. Why is inside inherently worse than outside? Toplogically---- — Bylaw

Here in lies the problem with Metaphysician Undercover's understanding of what is the "object of perception".

Inferring is not the same knowing as seeing the "object of perception", as MU said earlier in his post. Knowing through the object of perception means you actually use your 5 senses to get to know an object. You see a walking, talking person, you are perceiving that person as other person.

Yes, we know something about the universe. i.e. the totality of everything, but this did not come about because we saw the "whole universe" in front of us, but we inferred thousands of things about it, using our own sun, moon, stars.

Edit:

woud this mean one can't study the atmosphere (unlike a car), unless one can go outside the atmosphere. — Bylaw

En fait, we can. No one here is saying this. If you're introducing a new twist in this discussion, write that bit in a way that you don't attribute it to me.

A dead person has no 'interests'. — Vera Mont

Technically incorrect. A decedent's estate is just that. Which begs the question, the dead body should belong to the decedent's estate automatically, along with their assets (property and financial accounts) and income.

Unfortunately, speculation about the nature of existence and metaphysics, is not popular and remains a niche pursuit. — schopenhauer1

Philosophy was never a "popular" pursuit at any given time in history. But it started before atoms were discovered. Speculation, in the classical sense, changed once we had achieved advancements in all aspects of human activities.

But it doesn't mean we stopped all philosophical inquiries as to the nature of self and existence. Meaning and being, for example, are now being probed through the methodologies of logic, analytics, and even phenomenology -- which, of course, had stripped our philosophy off of its depth and the beauty of critiques.

I don't see your point. To see something does not require seeing the totality of it. I look at my car, and I see it. Having a motor, transmission and drive shaft are essential parts of the car, but I do not see them. Likewise, "the totality of everything" is essential to the universe, but I can still see the universe without seeing the totality of everything. We could say "a multitude of H2O molecules" is essential to being a body of water. But I see a body of water without seeing any molecules of H2O. Your argument clearly fails. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're forgetting one thing -- you can't step outside the universe to observe it. You are always inside the solar system, inside the galaxy, among the billions of solar systems and galaxies in a collection called the universe. You would need to get outside our solar system, then outside our galaxy, then outside the billions other galaxies, then outside the universe to do what you say you could do similar with your car.

The universe is an object of the senses. I see it anytime my eyes are open. That I don't see all of it doesn't mean that I don't see it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't really mean to say this. The universe is not an object of the senses. You don't actually see the totality of everything. The universe is not a place.

I know my friend from a very long time and he is not a player. Not that I know of his bedtime stories but yet again in the past 15 years or so, he has been truthful about almost everything. Now we all do have secrets and we should but in general view I think this guy was in Love. Maybe that faded away as we all discussed above on the way of getting from being in love to a longer commitment in life. — RBS

It has nothing to do with being a player. It wasn't "love".

My impression is, the philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics are not well understood as a philosophy discipline and as a subject matter for philosophy forums. I mean, I think a lot of members don't quite know how to approach talking about science or mathematics philosophically, though they may have studied science and math as a practice and as academic courses, and are very good at them. But science and math have a different emphasis when it comes to philosophical discourse.

I think each being would define consciousness - would define everything that it encounters, learns and experiences - according to its own understanding. These beings could never communicate with one another, never share descriptions or concepts, so they would content with their own species-centric explanation of the world in which they live, just as vines and whales do. — Vera Mont

Yes, astute!

Hi there, Royal Bank of Scotland. — unenlightened

:grin: haha.

Their romance started from friendship. Their friendship was much more playful and sincere, they would irritate each other for amusement and then laugh about it. Their friendship developed into a romantic relationship, making it even more enjoyable to watch them interact. — RBS

The observer was wrong. Romantic attraction is neither of these. You feel it right away -- you may not be aware of what's happening, but it's never "friendship" that you feel.
Yes, I know. This is an unpopular view.

I believed that perhaps this was the true method of getting to know someone. — RBS

Yes, getting to know about someone. But it doesn't mean this is a good way if the closeness is about attraction.

A while later, I noticed that they were drifting apart until they parted their ways. I've reached a dead end, what went wrong? Why did it not sustain? — RBS

Because it was never a strong attraction. It was never love. It was convenient, friends with benefits, they're available to each other. Ask each of them. They'll tell you the truth.

Do you know when I fell in love with someone? I was f*cked. I cried, a few times. I cried for the possibility of it not working out, I cried for not being able to hold that person close to me. I worried that someone else might be in my place. It was a combination of emotions. Happy and sad and worried and longing.

In essence, if you don't contest the spoiled, how are they to ever recognise their actions as spoiled?

Its a reciprocal" give and take" scenario that keeps everyone in check. — Benj96

Yes, use this principle for people you care about. Others, don't give them the time of day.

Before I go on, I want to go back and clarify what I've been trying to argue in response to your statement

I am wondering about the way in which human identity is established, with potential soliptist or narcissistic aspects. How much are we influenced by others' minds and intersubjective meaning.

Even when alone, to what extent does the sense of identity exist independently of others? — Jack Cummins

When I say 'identity', I mean to say the mind-self identity. So, I'll just use the mind from here on so as to avoid confusion and stay consistent with what I've said previously already.

As far as reactionary and the emotions, it may be about at what point does reflective consciousness come into the picture? — Jack Cummins

As I said earlier, the mind continues on as it deliberates on anything. The mind takes responsibility for the errors, the confusion, and truth of its perception about the world (which includes the social interactions). We'll get to this later.

As far as I see it, the critical factor may be language in how human beings construct social meanings and personal identity. — Jack Cummins

Language is just one of the many methods the mind asserts its responsibility. When we write or speak, this is just the overspill of what the mind already has formulated. You are seeing it backwards.

And yes, thanks to Hume, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, and our parents, among the many influencers in our existence, we are accustomed to thinking that singular objects must come first before we could form some universal concepts of the world. How about this -- our mind wants to confirm that what we think about concepts is consistent with the reality our mind sees; so we go around checking the chair in the room. If it isn't consistent, the mind admits error or confusion. This is how our self asserts its autonomy. Think of the times you blame your limitation, lack of education, or ignorance when physical reality does not match the mind's conjecture? This is your identity asserting its accountability.

As far as sexual identity, it may be not be about sexuality in relation to who one has sex with, but about the basic emotional aspects of sexual identity and gender identity. In this respect, beyond sexual relationships of who people sleep with there is the way people see their own and others' bodies. — Jack Cummins

I think it would help this discussion if we, first, accept the fact the emotions are reactionary, not deliberatively. While reactionary reflex is after-the-fact, deliberative reflex is one that classical philosophy has almost always attributed to human cognition.

So, let's reduce our thought process some more by treating emotions and sexual identity, similar to hunger, comfort, and security as something transient, in flux, or the changing variable. Then, we can start seeing what identity is.

If you're still stuck with the usual suspects called sociology and behavioral psychology theories, then we can't talk philosophically here.

As we are talking about "aloneness and significance of other minds" here, I'm going out on a limb and say this:

including the nature of sexual identity. — Jack Cummins

It may be a complex process. — Jack Cummins

emotional memories. — Jack Cummins

Human development is not as complex as it is "exclusive and privileged". Let's go ahead and criticize for example the believers in AI will be "humans" someday. They are talking in terms of complexity and the amount of data of what goes into AI manufacturing. Is it really what makes something human?

No! We'd like to think so. Because AI is created by humans after all -- humans who went through the womb and fetal development. But AI can't inherit the creators' identity. Because AI can't have that "beginning" as support. AI can't build upon the sense of perception. Everything is fed into the AI by humans as complete algorithm.

Next, sexual identity -- really? In fact, the acuteness of perception has nothing to do with sexual identity. Hunger, sexual needs, comfort could be satisfied and be silenced for the meantime. But not identity -- identity goes on. This is what I'm talking about going back to perception -- the basics. How acute could you observe. Heck, I am heterosexual to the bone and my identity has not been affected by those things.

Even when alone, to what extent does the sense of identity exist independently of others? — Jack Cummins

Identity is pretty much tied to the development of an individual's cognition (perception and senses) beginning in the womb. Some humans would develop acute senses of concepts and their connections, some would develop high degree of accuracy in vision, hearing, and smell.

As we develop (as in growth), our sense of perception would greatly influence how much or how little we take in from our environment. The behavioral psychologist's theory on external influences -- good or bad -- have a root cause in the baby's development. So, strong conceptual intelligence would have strong influence on decisions. However, it is also true that an individual growing up surrounded closely by intelligent people would also have increased intelligence, and individuals with nothing but an acute sense of their surrounding could overcome the lack of intelligent support.

My point is, when you start with a good development of your perception, you have in you a strong support already, able to overcome the deficiency in social support (bad parents, bad friends). You could even continue in life, though maybe modestly, a very healthy lifestyle, continuing on to old age still sharp, strong, and healthy.

What I just said comes from study in psychology and from reading voraciously what makes people what they are. I observe people I interact with from different economic background and my conjecture almost always match what I observe.

Note: when I said beginning in the womb, obviously we cannot observe yet outwardly how an individual is until they show interaction and decision-making.

But I don’t regard what it turned out as particularly brilliant, merely competent. — Wayfarer

Competence is a measure over a range of tasks and over time. You've tested the AI within a very limited topic and tasks. We can't start assessing its competence yet.

It doesn't feel right to inflict that on someone, to drag them down to your level of anguish, but it also doesn't feel right ignoring your own needs, invalidating your own feelings as secondary to theirs. — Benj96

Right subject matter, wrong analysis. When you make known that you're hurt by their actions, you're not bringing them down to whatever sewage you find yourself in. Someone has to call them out for their bad behavior. It's how you do it, not if you do it, that matters. Do it with class and finesse so you don't feel like your hurting them. Say it directly if you're gonna do it to them what they did to you.

This is depressing.

After reading hundreds of posts on this site, I now vote that humans remain the dominant entity in charge of philosophy.

“Measurable harms”? Like what? — NOS4A2

Copyright, patents, identity protection. Violations of any of these result in financial loss, security of personal information, and violation of personal rights.

Okay, I'm no longer a Descarte follower, if that's the case. I can't take the philosophy of someone who couldn't feel cruelty or compassion.

I know they say absolute power corrupts absolutely, but isn't insecurity the reason for that? — TiredThinker

No. It's opportunity. Even the most insecure leader would not turn to corruption if there's some measure placed against it.

Get this. White collar crimes are often not about money -- these criminals aren't destitute for money or in dire need. It's because opportunity presents itself.

In the abstract, it seems to me that a "good action" prevents or reduces net harm and reinforces itself as a habit in the actor as well as providing an example to others of "doing good". — 180 Proof

Lets say there was a hod that created us all and only created us to causes us to suffer and die? If this god defines what good and best is than clearly our definition would conflict with that god's ends. — TiredThinker

@TiredThinker, if this god defines everything as suffering and death, then our conception of the "good" would be different. 180 Proof alluded to the "actor" which, to us, means a moral actor equipped with the capacity to tell the difference between the good and the bad, despite the belief in god. This is the "humans" that we are right now.

This goes to my point that censors will use the promise of future damage to justify present censorship. — NOS4A2

One could never know the beauty or ugliness of what once stood there, could have stood there, or what might occur should we chance to look on it again. — NOS4A2

And you're not using the promise of beauty had censors stopped what they're doing? Look at the above statements coming from you -- you against the censors or those who would want to limit free speech.

Let's be honest and say, the view of absolute free speech (which includes publication) is not sustainable because there are measurable harms that we could use in the study of what-if anyone can publish any information they want to publish without consent from anyone.

But if you're only talking about literature and art, then say so. Do not use "free speech absolutism" because that's gonna be challenged to the fullest.

But how can we know if goodness is a real thing? — TiredThinker

The demon represents the bad, so of course it's going to exploit the weakness in humans. We know goodness is a real thing if we could tell the difference in our actions that one choice causes harm and another causes good. It means, we know there's a difference in those actions, unlike the demon who could only see the bad in people -- everybody is corruptible.

But then again maybe there is some sort of biological mechanism in some people that allows speech to push them around in some way, like sorcery. Who knows? — NOS4A2

Criminals rely on information, printed or spoken. There are information you don't want publicized. Identity protection is a form of censorship on what information can be published without consent of the individuals.

But at no point in American history have these rights not been violated. There are laws against slander, perjury, fraud, and so on. — NOS4A2

Thank god! Can you imagine if you're a parent in the middle of a nasty divorce and lies are posted against you in order to damage your reputation? That would be horrible!

The point I am making is that I can imagine a culture that disagrees and chooses differently. — Tom Storm

That they chose differently is not an indication that their moral choice is reasonable or ethical . Remember, we win by rationality, not necessarily by changing the actual behavior of a society. In other words, we can't force them to be wise in mind and in action.

There are small examples all over the world, in history and now, from child soldiers to child labor. We can argue against such things and hope to end them, but what we are doing is advocating for our values as superior, based on a set of principles or rules. I believe I can defend my values against others, but I would, wouldn't I? Wouldn't you? — Tom Storm

God no! This is atrocious, Tom. Sorry, but putting it the way you wrote it sets us back 200 years. There is nothing in moral discourse that draws the boundary on where we can and cannot judge moral actions. Just because a society in this or that peninsula practices and legalizes human sacrifice does not mean we can't judge such behavior in our own turf. Yes, we might not be able to stop that society from committing human sacrifice except through invasion/war, but it doesn't mean our own discourse must preclude it from our judgment.

I don't think we all realize the fundamental assumptions guiding our moral beliefs:

1. we are humans.
2. as such, we have emotions, beliefs, desires, fears, etc.
3. from this, we know we have a common ground upon which a moral discourse can succeed.

That a society is stupid, ignorant, low IQ, backward mentally, uneducated, brainwashed, and just plain sociopath is not an excuse to promote relativism as an acceptable moral principle. Relativism is a dangerous moral view.

In my OP I do at least recognize that some moral axioms could be true, and that some (many?) attempts to refute them don't make sense. — ToothyMaw

Yes, you did. And I don't disagree with you.

I'm not saying true and not-true can logically exist, but rather that an injunction against something like murder could be true and represent a statement claiming something is immoral. — ToothyMaw

This is where one might be mistaking an axiom with reasonableness. An injunction against murder is reasonable and ethical, though we might find that there is not an axiom that specifically calls out that murder is false.

Think: "murder is wrong". — ToothyMaw

This is not an axiom. This is an example of harm principle. Oh yeah, Mill's harm principle is not an axiom -- it is a moral assumption with strong, reasonable backing such as the golden rule.

But that doesn't give us logically true moral claims that express whether or not something is objectively right or wrong. — ToothyMaw

Again, I said there have been moral axioms written that if denied the truth, we would implode internally. True and not-true cannot logically exist.

I guess some people oppose anti-natalism because the followers of anti-natalism explain their reason as if it's universal or true of all people. The choice to not reproduce is still only accepted so long as the reason is personal, rather than universal moral claim. Some people shouldn't have children simply because they're too young, too poor, or too irresponsible, or addicted to drugs and alcohol.