But Wittgenstein denies that Moore does know — Fooloso4

Read aaaaaalllllll the way to the end of my huge post.

It's not insanity. According to the Palestinian cultural narrative, the Jews stole their land in '48 and they simply want it all back. Make it all Muslim land again. It's not that radical. It was Muslim land for centuries. Polls of Palestinians repeatedly reflect this attitude. The "occupation" is Israel (i.e. Jewish self-rule) itself. — BitconnectCarlos

Did you not know that Palestinians are a mix of religions? They're Greek Orthodox Christian and some were Jews, but they've been absorbed into the Jewish communities of Israel.

The UK is a neoliberal power player due to having the largest financial markets in the world. They eclipse NY. Yes, they do offer bread and circuses. That's great, but let's not confuse that with socialism.

If Moore knows, that would mean there's a sense of "know" that amounts to being unable to doubt. And per Hume, you can't prove what you can't doubt. So Moore would have some kind of unprovable knowledge, which doesn't sound right.

Interesting perspective. :up:

Well, it shows the lie of the reduction to relativism and subjectivity – a theme in this thread as well as many others. Folk see space as not absolute, and conclude that therefore it is only subjective... — Banno

If you say so.

You love that story, huh? Whoever initiated it did you a favor.

Extra dimensions are not needed. A right-handed glove can be put on a left hand if it is turned inside out. — Banno

Right. Forget about hands, you can fold a line over on itself and through that journey left has become right.

And that relation is just orientation. It is not consciousness. — Banno

If you prefer. Imagine a stone and a boulder on a far away planet. Is the stone to the left or to the right of the boulder?

That would work

For Leibniz, innateness includes abilities that are only in potential at birth, but developed through engagement with the world. Like birds can't fly at birth, but flight is still innate?

Woe, I just discovered that I can write piñon with the squiggly. Awesome.

I don't understand how this relates to left/right-handedness. I think it's only habituation, and nothing else -- nothing about space at all. — Moliere

Ok. Drop the issue of space. I only mentioned Kant and Leibniz because otherwise someone would have moved the thread to the lounge, failing to notice that this is a time honored philosophical question.

How does habituation work if a person doesn't have any innate sense of leftness vs rightness? I'm asking.

chirality gives a straightforward example from math which explains how we're able to differentiate left from right — Moliere

Could you lay that out in broad strokes? I don't think a description of chirality will distinguish right from left for you. For that, you need a reference. All reference points are chosen by us for our purposes.

I mean this pragmatic theory of directionality, and want more arguments for why it should be thought of disappearing when we all die. — Moliere

I think you'll find that once you explore the math you mentioned a little further.

I'm looking at the TLP and don't see that sentence — Moliere

"6.36111 The Kantian problem of the right and left hand which cannot be made to cover one another already exists in the plane, and even in one-dimensional space; where the two congruent figures a and b cannot be made to cover one another without moving them out of this space. The right and left hand are in fact completely congruent. And the fact that they cannot be made to cover one another has nothing to do with it.

"A right-hand glove could be put on a left hand if it could be turned round in four-dimensional space.". TLP

but chirality is the feature of the world that I wanted to point out as both a mathematical and empirical phenomenon which can account for the original question — Moliere

The question was not whether or not there is chirality. It was: how do you tell your left from your right? I don't believe that answer is found in any math, but if you think it is, could you explain how?

If directions come from the self, or cogito — Moliere

I don't think directionality comes from the cogito. I don't think anyone has ever believed that.

I gravitate towards it and would prefer the point which seems harder to prove be shown -- the idea that directionality is somehow inhering in us alone, and when we die it all goes away. — Moliere

You said this earlier, did you change your mind?

"Left" and "Right" seem very obviously conventional, just like "up" and "down" -- anything relative to a speaker. — Moliere

on the other side of the spectrum there are corporate giants like DuPont and Boeing over the pond. — Punshhh

True

What made you believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because you're the one that's in it? — Moliere

I don't think I uniquely endow space with directionality. I think directions come from the fact that each person has a POV from a body that's easily divided into quadrants. My own journey to realizing this comes from time spent trying to explain to myself what "up" means. But I wouldn't recommend my own trail. If you have a trail, I hope you'll share it. Otherwise you can enjoy what Kant, Leibniz and Witt said. Witt's thoughts are in TLP 6.3111.

So is the question more about "How do I make an inference from possibilities to actualities"? — Moliere

There are a few kinds of possibility

1. Logical possibility, which is closely kin to metaphysical possibility. You're informed about this by your innate ability to recognize contradictions.

2. Physical possibility, which we learn about in physics class.

We learn about space by hypothesizing in both domains, but thought experiments are in the first category.

We're talking about a possible world here, not a world. We're imagining possibilities with some pretty abstract concepts.

How could I differentiate an actual world? — Moliere

A possible world is an abstract object. It's stipulated.

What would make me believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because I'm the one that's in the world? — Moliere

I don't know. :grin:

You want to claim that the relation must be to an observer. — Banno

No, the relation is to a chosen reference. That requires an entity capable of choosing. Otherwise you just have points everywhere, some giving rise to a right handed glove, some to a left handed glove.

When I imagine a possible world without people with directions then there are directions in that imagined possible world, and when I imagine a possible world without people without directions then there are not directions in that imagined possible world. — Moliere

:grin: If there are no people in a world, and it has directionality, that directionality is come from you.

It's not so much individual-body, but the social-body — Moliere

Or maybe it's empathy. You put yourself in other people's shoes, but the basis is innate.

And doesn't chirality -- left and right handed objects -- still exist in their world without being able to utter it?) — Moliere

Imagine a possible world in which there are no people. Are there directions there? Only from the point of view of someone outside that world who can establish a reference.

And so you've joined the ranks of those to whom it's obvious that space doesn't have a left and right. We give it directionality.

Left" and "Right" seem vary obviously conventional, just like "up" and "down" -- anything relative to a speaker. It's more like a name for a direction from yourself -- like an angle, but less precise -- than an ontological category. — Moliere

Yes. It has to do with the fact that you're peering out of a body with ears that produce a sense of up and down. Left and right follow from that. Space doesn't come with a left and right.

The coordinate system gives an orientation. Neither of these require an "observer". — Banno

I don't think Liebniz or Kant meant there has to be someone standing there gawking in order for directions to exist. It's just that directionality does not exist in the wild.

I'd say it's convention. I was taught which was what.

I'm not sure that has ontological import though. — Moliere

What does have ontological import?

How do you tell your left from your right?

It's something we pick.

A coordinate system is not an observer. — Banno

Are you saying space has a built in coordinate system?

Anywhere off the plane. — Banno

Some points will make the glove right-handed. Some will make it left-handed? Correct?

Now you have chirality. — Banno

I don't see what you're talking about. Where's the point?

Any point. — Banno

So you have a point. Now what?

We have a point. — Banno

Which point?

Your observer is reduced to a point. That is all that is needed. — Banno

So you have an observer.

Syphilis. — 180 Proof

I actually did lol at this.

It's not necessary to "insert an observer" to settle the issue; simply choosing a point on this or that side of the glove will suffice. — Banno

How can you have choosing going on with nobody to choose?

Quadruped? That's my problem then. Not enough feet. — Banno

Tetrapod.

You're kind of like Sisyphus.

This is interesting from stack exchange.

But only a conscious being can construct a point of origin or use. — Philosophim

:up: It's a kind of relativity.

Yes, I see where you’re coming from now. However if you take a look at France, one of the most socialist Western countries. There are maverick’s studying and developing their own unique ideas everywhere. One only needs to look at their culinary diversity. Chefs strive to come up with new novel recipes, breaking the mould, pushing boundaries to win their Michelin star. Also in the arts, artists are given a stipend by the government allowing them to experiment and diversify to their hearts content. I travel around France a lot (I’m going there on Saturday, can’t wait), there are institutions, societies, venues, creative people everywhere. Often supported in their endeavours by the state. — Punshhh

I agree. You definitely don't need capitalism for innovation. I just think it helps. But there's an example from France about how authoritarianism can work out: an invasive plant was released into the Mediterranean from an aquarium in France. One guy noticed that it was an ecosystem destroyer and notified the brass at the aquarium. He was told that it's natural and don't worry about it. It turns out he was right. The plant crowds out other plants and it doesn't provide food for sea animals, and it's naturalized all over the Mediterranean now. In other places in the world where it appeared, it was eradicated before it could do any damage. That's just the kind of thing I've come to expect from authoritarian situations. Inevitably the decision maker has to be an idiot. Where there's more of an open forum for ideas, there's a greater chance that the puny, but correct opinion can make a difference.

The supposition is that somehow therefore consciousness is essential to telling left from right, but the case for this cannot, I think, be made. All that is needed is an arbitrary point from which to assess the chirality of the glove. — Banno

Being in a quadruped body is the basis for the distinction. Directionality is something we give to space. It doesn't have that on its own. Some responders to this thread have said that this is blatantly obvious, others like me, arrived at it intellectually, but it still seems weird, then there are people who reject it?