what if the concept of a “red pen” exists within the realm of every subjective mind’s ideas? — Kizzy


Is a red pen not enough? — jkop

Hi jkop, It seemed to me at first that Banno's reply to mp202020 was worth a deeper dive. I am now finding myself struggling to explain where I was going with my shared contributions. When you put it so simply it's clear I was mistakenly considering how the red is noticed perceptually in the brain when its not actually being seen in person. The red pen must be enough in order to do that! Duh....a swing and a miss for me.

I recall you saying when the color is unseen, the question whether it exists isn't referring to the color perceptions but its considering the conditions in the environment it as a color can emerge from/in/with. Does that mean the brain cant allow colors to emerge from it because no light is there? What if the conditions of the mind could be trained to use ideas or visions from past memories or brain activity patterns? Maybe i'm missing a fundamental understanding and my loosely thrown ideas aren't even realistically possible. Thank you. I think... :smirk:

EDIT:

First, the experience cannot solely be an experience of redness unless it is the seeing of something red, say a patch of red paint. Or else it would be an hallucination. — jkop

I got ya now and see where I went off the rails.

EDIT 2: 119AM 7/30/24

What if we watch the brain activity looking at a painting of a red pen? The painting itself is not a real pen, but it still conveys the idea of “redness” and “pen” to anyone who views it.

Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020



If "red" is just in your mind, when you ask for a red pen, how is it that the person you are asking hands you what you want? — Banno

Exactly Banno! BUT what if the concept of a “red pen” exists within the realm of every subjective mind’s ideas?

I am considering this: perhaps these ideas are visions in the brain, independent of the individual’s subjective experience. The subjective mind possesses ideas, but not in the same way the brain perceived/s them. Ideas are interpreted differently by the brain in its visions, and these interpretations may or may not align with how a subjective being perceives these visions as ideas in their mind or in their interactions with the environment.

What if thinking thoughts* is just the brain existing/being, rather than the subjective body/mind’s doing?

Imagine if two sets of ideas are formed from two different visions - one grounded in reality and first-hand experience in daily life, and the other in the brain’s second-hand experience, experienced for the first time in this life. What if the brain had a first-hand experience before the subject had to live through it? Could it be that the brain was here first and is controlling our intentions?

*the act of thinking-that thinking might be an emergent property of the brain’s activity, rather than an action performed by the subjective mind

Yes! Agreed.

Great post, Count Timothy von Icarus.

This may be bias on my part, but I've had the chance to talk live with quite a few of these people, and every single one has come across as an idiot who just wanted to justify doing whatever they wanted to do. My apologies if I'm a bit harsh, but this idea has always just struck me as being terrible and attracts the worst thinkers to it like bear turds attract flies. — Philosophim

Consider the possibility that biases are not always detrimental to rational decision-making. An individual may be fully aware of their biases and still make sound choices. Learning and growth often stem from recognizing that there might always be a better decision available. Bias becomes significant when we wish to find common ground with others, to influence or be influenced, which ironically negates its purpose.

What if one's self-awareness of bias is coupled with the ability to deceive? If a person can convincingly mask their intentions, does that not call into question the alignment of bias and action? This raises a crucial point I think worthy of deeper discussions: the interactions between bias, intention, and morality.

The Essay's by Michel de Montaigne influenced me and this discussion prompted my thoughts here to ponder the ultimate goal of our pursuits:

Do we chase a universal truth, a single narrative to which all must conform? Or do we celebrate differences of human experience, accepting that our biases, when acknowledged and examined, can lead to a richer, more inclusive understanding of the world?

Montaigne echoes this sentiment through Anaximenes' rhetorical question to Pythagoras, highlighting the usefulness of seeking knowledge when greater threats loom over us. A reflection on the purpose and direction of our intellectual endeavors ought to be explored further...questioned even? Do we trust ourselves and our judgement?

Notes and relevant quotes I took while reading "The Essay's" by Michel de Montaigne:

"Si quid Socrates ant Aristippus contra morem et consuetudinem
fecerunt, idem sibi ne arbitretur licere: magnis enim illi et
divinis bonis hanc licentiam assequebantur."
["If Socrates and Aristippus have committed any act against manners and custom, let him not think that he is allowed to do the same; for it was by great and divine benefits that they obtained this privilege."—Cicero, De Offic., i. 41.]
Let him be instructed not to engage in discourse or dispute but with a champion worthy of him, and, even there, not to make use of all the little subtleties that may seem pat for his purpose, but only such arguments as may best serve him.
-https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/montaigne_essays.pdf 181-951 (chapter xxv-of the education of children)

Emulation and contempt ???

The pride and arrogance of so many foreign pomps, the inflated majesty of so many courts and grandeurs, accustom and fortify our sight without closing our eyes to behold the lustre of our own; so many trillions of men, buried before us, encourage us not to fear to go seek such good company in the other world: and so of the rest Pythagoras was want to say,—[Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., v. 3.]—that our life resembles the great and populous assembly of the Olympic games, wherein some exercise the body, that they may carry away the glory of the prize: others bring merchandise to sell for profit: there are also some (and those none of the worst sort) who pursue no other advantage than only to look on, and consider how and why everything is done, and to be spectators of the lives of other men, thereby the better to judge of and regulate their own.To examples may fitly be applied all the profitable discourses of philosophy, to which all human actions, as to their best rule, ought to be especially directed: a scholar shall be taught to know—
"Quid fas optare: quid asper
Utile nummus habet: patrix carisque propinquis
Quantum elargiri deceat: quern te Deus esse
Jussit, et humana qua parte locatus es in re;
Quid sumus, et quidnam victuri gignimur."
["Learn what it is right to wish; what is the true use of coined
money; how much it becomes us to give in liberality to our country
and our dear relations; whom and what the Deity commanded thee to
be; and in what part of the human system thou art placed; what we
are ant to what purpose engendered."—Persius, iii. 69]
what it is to know, and what to be ignorant; what ought to be the end and design of study; what
valour, temperance, and justice are; the difference betwixt ambition and avarice, servitude and
subjection, licence and liberty; by what token a man may know true and solid contentment; how far
death, affliction, and disgrace are to be apprehended; "Et quo quemque modo fugiatque feratque laborem." ["And how you may shun or sustain every hardship." —Virgil, AEneid, iii. 459.] by what secret springs we move, and the reason of our various agitations and irresolutions: for, methinks the first doctrine with which one should season his understanding, ought to be that which regulates his manners and his sense; that teaches him to know himself, and how both well to dig and well to live.
Amongst the liberal sciences, let us begin with that which makes us free; not that they do
not all serve in some measure to the instruction and use of life, as all other things in some sort also
do; but let us make choice of that which directly and professedly serves to that end. If we are once
able to restrain the offices of human life within their just and natural limits, we shall find that most of
the sciences in use are of no great use to us, and even in those that are, that there are many very
unnecessary cavities and dilatations which we had better let alone, and, following Socrates' direction,
limit the course of our studies to those things only where is a true and real utility:
"Sapere aude;
Incipe; Qui recte vivendi prorogat horam,
Rusticus exspectat, dum defluat amnis; at ille
Labitur, et labetur in omne volubilis oevum."
["Dare to be wise; begin! he who defers the hour of living well is
like the clown, waiting till the river shall have flowed out: but
the river still flows, and will run on, with constant course, to
ages without end."—Horace, Ep., i. 2.]

'Tis a great foolery to teach our children:
"Quid moveant Pisces, animosaque signa Leonis,
Lotus et Hesperia quid Capricornus aqua,"
["What influence Pisces have, or the sign of angry Leo, or Capricorn, washed by the Hesperian wave."—Propertius, iv. I, 89.] the knowledge of the stars and the motion of the eighth sphere before their own:
["What care I about the Pleiades or the stars of Taurus?"
—Anacreon, Ode, xvii. 10.]
Anaximenes writing to Pythagoras, "To what purpose," said he, "should I trouble myself in searching out the secrets of the stars, having death or slavery continually before my eyes?" for the kings of Persia were at that time preparing to invade his country. Every one ought to say thus, "Being assaulted, as I am by ambition, avarice, temerity, superstition, and having within so many other enemies of life, shall I go ponder over the world's changes?"

"Sic abiit a vita, ut causam moriendi nactum se esse gauderet."
["He quitted life rejoicing that a reason for dying had arisen."
—Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., i. 30.]

Is bias inherently detrimental, clouding our judgement and leading us astray from objectivity? Or is it a necessary filter, a lens through which we navigate all the accesses we have to endless information? Bias can indeed distort reality, leading to misconceptions and prejudice. Yet, it also allows us to embrace our individuality and cultural diversity, fostering a pluralistic society where multiple truths coexist.

The key lies in awareness and balance.

My issue with this is that there is absolutely no requirement to postulate objective goodness to explain these things, and to my mind the ontology of "objective goodness" doesnt even make sense. — Apustimelogist


An objective goodness is a definition of goodness that can be rationally used by everyone despite our own personal subjective viewpoints. Its the difference between, "Rain is heavy cloud precipitation that falls to the ground," versus, "Rain is a feeling of rainness." — Philosophim

:up:

I think the difference between morality and the scientific case is that presumably there is some kind of hidden cause out in the world separate from us which we are trying to make sense of and which bears out empirical data that we can use to evaluate our scientific models. But in the moral case the only data we have is our own opinions based on how people want the world to work. So there isn't really a sense in which there is some separate hidden object which we are right or wrong about. We are the analogous hidden object whose properties are contingent on what opinions we happen to have. Its then not clear to me that someone disagreeing objectively means one person is right and the other wrong. — Apustimelogist

Interaction is not a necessary condition for treating someone as an end. If I give a donation to a charity that works to help people in Gaza or Ukraine, I am treating those people as ends, but it can't be said that I interact with them: I don't even know who they are. — Herg

Nice....

Whatever Kant meant by what he wrote, the emboldened rendering above is what I was aiming for (except that I think all beings capable of pain and/or pleasure should be treated as ends, not just humans: "The question is not, Can they reason nor Can they talk, but, Can they suffer?" ). — Herg

I might still just watch the 20 get hit. Depends how they beg I guess....thats so disturbing that I went there but am I surprised? Cant say I am. Am I enjoying myself? Not pleased to admit my truth but willing to accept the reality of it. — Kizzy

thats what i was saying...kinda. Suffering part, particularly... (minus what was mentioned in your parenthesis-my opinion differs [good thing that is a non-factor) BUT nonetheless, progress is made.

I'm starting to see your point and/or others with similar stances and points (all whom agree, with their own takes though -- alike) from a different ground...or in a new light, whatever works for YOU...I am seeing now, as I wasnt before, why treating people like ends are understood or believed to be acceptable or moral in this case.... Its the interaction and relationship connections...they are clearly different as far as the connection between the two, or what comes from the connections, what emotions are expressed based on this connections...the strength of interactions is tested and more prominently measured, but those values are weighed differently because it is closed off to a stronger connection.

It is clear who is initiating and maintaining interactions more heavily than the other...so we have two different feelings about the interactions, but with no connection it can stay one-sided... While the strength of relationships are literally a balancing act between subjects not just as interactions or ends but as a person/people too. Bad relationships, bad judgements, bad rats of course make things interesting....but its measurable in behavior, observed and verified...love? I guess the stronger the connection the stronger a relationship stands, sustains, and if lucky thrives through any test of time... good stuff!!! The interaction is where the ground is laid, can we see each other or not? Doesnt matter, you will see some thing and some thing will see you.

Always good work from Bob, I have been able to grasp my own thoughts a bit better through your exchange with Herg in here. Thanks for all the work and intel you share consistently, it is appreciated. Many others to be thanked in this from me as well, good stuff all around. Cool.

Wow, what a post! When a magician is revealing the tricks, who is left to be entertained? Who is so easily amused and still coming to see the show?

If we say that everybody has his/her exclusive feeling of being “I”, what we are talking about this way is not anymore the true authentic experience of subjectivity, because, by adopting this way of describing it, what we are considering is what is common to everybody. What is common to everybody is something objective, even when we consider “what is exclusive of everybody”: this is an objectivistic language, that moves our attention away from the exclusivity of my or your personal feeling of now. This means that the only way I have to make an idea of the feeling “I” of other people is by objectifying it, that is entering in a context of ideas that completely betrays the fact that what we are talking about is subjectivity, not objectivity. As a consequence, the only correct, authentic way of thinking about subjectivity is when I try to pay attention to my feeling “I” the moment I am thinking about it. As I said, if I think of my feeling “I” that happened yesterday, that one is an objectified, petrified concept, it is not the real concept of subjectivity that should coincide with the experience felt now by me. The same applies if we say that we are talking about “the feeling “I” here and now”: this expression is just another objectification of the concept because, when we think of it, we think of an abstract idea, similar to the concept of “my feeling I of yesterday”: these expressions do not guarantee that we are paying attention to our present feeling “I” the moment we are thinking about them — Angelo Cannata

Yes!! Glad you continued on here with this important addition...consideration to these details ought to be had even further....I am walking on imaginary eggshells here.

I read Martin Buber's "I and Thou" and shared that intel in the "currently reading" discussion nearly 10 months ago. I find it may suit the liking of maybe perhaps at least one whom is also interested in this discussions contents. In the book, Buber uses the two words, I-it and I-thou, I-It treats the other as an object to be used for one's own purposes. It lacks empathy and reduces the other to a mere thing or instrument. I-Thou is characterized by mutual respect, empathy, and dialogue. It recognizes the unique worth and dignity of the other, fostering genuine connection and shared humanity. Buber writes in Part One, "As experience, the world belongs to the primary word I-it. The primary word I-thou establishes the world of relation." [M.Buber 1923, I and Thou, translated by R.G.S, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 38 George St, 1937] Link to download ebook here: https://www.maximusveritas.com/?page_id=781

People mistake interactions and relationships for one in the same type of connection or connection piece....

In this situation, wanting to objectify subjectivity, to be able to study it, is like wanting to put a kiss or a hug in a slide to be able to observe it with a microscope — Angelo Cannata

I find this intriguing. I once envisioned a similar scenario: a new couple, where one partner prematurely declares their love. This declaration alters the dynamics of the foundational base that was building the relationship between the two individuals. The more time left for contemplation, I believe, may start to shift the perceptions of the other partner.

Once the foundation has shifted and time has passed, the mind may race, with or without our control, potentially testing the relationship. The test comes when the conversation occurs, where each individual is given the opportunity to express their feelings and reactions to the statement that caused this shift in perspective. The way we express these feelings also contributes to these foundational conditions, either reinforcing or challenging our pre-existing notions.

These feelings update the subject with existing ideas, opinions, and experiences (biases) that brought them to this moment. When we listen to understand the thoughts or opinions of the other, we uncover new reactions and observed qualities. Each individual discovers something in the other that changes how they view each other, for better or worse.

Values, worth, and weight are assigned without specific energy inputs/outputs known. These are massless but carry weight and value on a scale embedded within the individual before conscious awareness. The scale is not measuring weight; it's showing how its weight moves the body. The mass of the body doesn't reveal anything; gravity is a non-factor. The mass of the body and the weight or value we place on objects, things, or words are maintained in the mind. Understanding ourselves aids in understanding all.

Weight and pressure are felt and placed upon us, but they have no mass. Friction, heat, work, energy in mind? Do ideas here in mind hold heat, power, energy, motion, time, or space? I am not sure. My immediate thought is: No, we, the people with the ideas, do!

We assign and misplace values that are subjectively distinct for a reason: to learn our lesson. This subjective nature has nothing to do with the objectivity of the external world or reality as it exists without mind. Uniqueness, randomness, and chaos together happening and creating ideas along the track we know as time. The worth and values, knowingly and unknowingly placed and misplaced, may guide us to a better place to learn from, yet we still know nothing about the "nature" of the Universe from this. How natural is the Universe, really? Earth is home to freaks of nature, but how natural is that, truly?

MUST BE THE MAGIC!! :halo:

Quotes from Buber's "I and Thou":

"Feelings are "entertained" : but love comes to pass. Feelings dwell in man; but man dwells in his love. That is no metaphor, but the actual truth. Love does not cling to the I in such a way as to have the Thou only for its "content," its object; but love is between I and Thou"

"Take knowledge: being is disclosed to the man who is engaged in knowing, as he looks at what is over against him. He will, indeed, have to grasp as an object that which he has seen with the force of presence, he will have to compare it with objects, establish it in its order among classes of objects, describe, and analyse it objectively. Only as IT can it enter the structure of knowledge. But when he saw it, it was not thing among things, no event among events, but exclusively present. Being did not share itself with him in terms of the law that was afterwards elicited from the appearance, but in terms of its very self."

"The primary word I-thou can be spoken only with the whole thing. Concentration and fusion into the whole being can never take the place through my agency, nor can it even take place without me. I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou. All real living is meeting"

"I can neither experience nor describe the form which meets me, but only body it forth. And yet I behold it, splendid in the radiance of what confronts me, clearer than all the clearness of the world which is experienced. I do not behold it as a thing among the "inner" things nor as an image of my "fancy," but as that which exists in the present. If test is made of its objectivity the form is certainly not "there." Yet what is actually so much present as it is? And the relation in which I stand to it is real, for it affects me, as I affect it."

"Creation reveals, in meeting, its essential nature as form. It does not spill itself into expectant senses, but rises up to meet the grasping senses. That which will eventually play as an accustomed object around the man who is fully developed, must be wooed and won by the developing man in strenuous action. For no thing is a ready-made part of an experience; only in the strength, acting and being acted upon, of what is over against men, is anything made accessible. Like primitive man the child lives between sleep and sleep (a great part of his waking hour is also sleep) in the flash and counter-flash of meeting"

"And just as prayer is not in time but time in prayer, sacrifice not in space but space in sacrifice, and to reverse the relation is to abolish the reality, so with the man to whom I say Thou. I do not meet with him at some time and place or other. I can set him in a particular time and place; I must continually do it: but I set only a he or she, that is an it, no longer my thou.
So long as the heaven of Thou is spread out over me the winds of causality cower at my heels, and the whirlpool of fate stays its course.
I do not experience the man to whom I say Thou. But I take my stand in relation to him, in the sanctity of the primary word. Only when i step out of it do i experience him once more. In the act of experience Thou is far away.
Even if the man to whom I say Thou is not aware of it in the midst of his experience, yet relation may exist. For Thou is more than It realizes. No deception penetrates here; here is the cradle of the Real Life."

As such, I recognise what you are saying as genuine reflections of what you think and believe.

However, I'm not going to do statistical analyses on your stream of consciousness. Partly because no-one has time to do that but mainly because the process of creating structure on the page out of structure in the mind is an essential component of dialogue.

The effort to represent our internal shapes in an external format is part of learning and growing.

Even if no-one reads what we write, we learn from the process of structuring our writing. By examining and considering our thoughts as we express them we can change our ideas even before we engage with other people.

Stream of consciousness can be a useful insight into our own thoughts but as a form of communication with other people it lacks an essential element of self-reflection. — Treatid

Treatid, I wouldnt task my worst enemy with such a job of analyzing my BS...maybe because its a bit revealing but it is indeed a hot flaming mess burrowed yet not letting the void keep anyone stuck. I am fired up in this void, even alone...I light up with any glimpse of acknowledgment, so thanks for that at least.

I dont have to thank you, I know and its not that you have done anything at this point that wasnt anticipated-- its common decency, to me. [who is it I could be thanking and who is it that takes this for only that?]

The progression is slowly but surely still unfolding for me in real time. I simply felt moved by the thread and wanted to share something I thought (in that moment) was connected to previous thoughts I have had years prior when I was first introduced to the video. It is clear that I didnt add anything specific regarding my goals, intentions, or motive regarding your post. I hope sharing my self help streams in this manner isnt too distracting and I applaud the way you were able to expand on more points using the interpretation you got from me...that tells me you are particular maybe detail oriented, patient, and busy... It also tells me you are passionate about your work here and time is critical to get certain things accomplished. Only we can know how to spread ourselves and what that means for positive forward motion certain alignments are required in the body, mind, and the will; that is attached itself somehow now to the goal...if there is a will, there is a way! Basic and ringing true to me still.

ANYWAYS, what YOU happen to see is actually a true (and awfully accurate) understanding and by that ability you harness valuable conversation or exchange. Reciprocity. Thank you for sharing, thinking, communicating, learning, and teaching...The clarity is so important, especially for a delinquent fire rat like myself rattling around the pipes after deep burrowing phase. I appreciate the time you have put in and spent here...and not to mention what it took to get to this point, that work deserves a round as well. Bravo!

P.s. I am not forcing anything by sharing my notes or personal reflections, I do not expect nor intend to add to the work load of others in my attempts at sharing such common yet complex words of expression...I expect people to just get or assume they already know what I do and thats just incredible silly and wrong of me. "not everyone thinks the way you do, kizzy" "you have an answer for everything, kizzy" said in sarcasm to me from my own father. Yet here I go doing that again. I will work on it, I am reminded about the lack luster in such attempts from the readers perspective. I am learning, and will make up time with quality and passionate interest in learning how people learn.

I am happy that you acknowledge (very least besides straight ignoring) what I have been true in, in my efforts to understand myself, others, and even some times ability to notice/recognize patterns that I feel intuitively might be a piece to a puzzle of nothing I know of in the moment...I dont know what I am trying to say yet, but this process I am in obviously needs organized and focused clarity to communicate these ideas into a coherent "thing". But thats the thing....i have no goal on the forum, agenda, I dont know what thing I am even getting at but i just feel like I eventually may. I also am passionate on this path and am driven through a spark of interest....I like like-mindedness and crave deeper understanding in knowledge--human nature at large is under the scope.

This is just one part, of a connected whole. This part can be designed though to not be "the part serving a function or purpose by just playing a role" what if the part is designed to be a whole in itself and what if that part is designed to not just work in a position of a whole, but designed to work in many different wholes as a part. Im thinking like interchanging parts of wholes... Similar yet so familiar that its doable, its good enough, it functions. The consumption, the hand is just that and it needs > wants more guidance and direction, i feel.

I am aware of the loss that comes from my style when it comes to reaching people and communicating properly. But this is a forum and even though proper communication should be had face to face, via zoom call or phone call is even quicker than back and forth commenting here. A lot of over explaining and talking over/straight disregard. Thats not a conversation I would be participating in real life, I would walk away from such a heartless fool. I do not need anything from this place that I cant get in real life...I just sought those who have similar interests as I...philosophical discussion. I am self taught and dont know a lot of the terms in this ever growing tree of branches and branches...the fruits of the labor are becoming evasive to the trees nature...the growth stops and loops back into the same ideas. Forward thinking and limitless design is what I am interested by.

The conversations here seem to pick up and take off with no immediate back and forth at times, I am fine with that...actually kind of prefer it. But a real person to person communication in daily life is no easier and confusion still occurs. I dont get that....unless confusion occurs simple from not caring in the moment whats about to come and expecting different outcomes...self-awareness degree is/are/shall be revealed at.

It seems like just communicating in general is what people want to do, those who just talk to talk, they like the sound of their own voice. Some just need someone to talk to, thats lame but fine...Perhaps, it is true that I just dont care to do that right now...I have people who are more than willing to analyze my BS... I am surrounded by that I can practice with. But I dont need to practice communicating, I need to decide what the hell I want to do. I am burrowed and expressing outwardly here from there for a reason... its clearly possible from your last reply to me alone that people pick and chose what to read and what to ignore. Fair, I do too. That is telling though in itself. What and where we find ourselves over and over again. Back for a reason...back to the drawing board it is! (exciting, but where is square one from here?)

Time is not consuming just constraining and while I agree with that when you said it--but whatever that excuse may be, even though its valid to use time as an excuse, [as it constrains our and limits what is possible to get done in a 24 hr day]...there is always tomorrow, I keep telling myself the professional procrastinator!

Over all, I still think what I was doing can be seen even if not fully reading into every word (ugh the agony that must be for other readers here, wah wahhhh :cry: well, boo hoo! cry all you want, baby...victim mindsets are triggering for me, i digress [barely])

TO BE ABLE TO call out what I am doing, as you have made it apparent that it is doable...is not hard but I think whats more interesting then the fact I got a response, is the fact you have no opinion on my answer to the question (didnt read it, fine but why comment if you read into it enough to come up with a reply telling me what i am and what is going on. I appreciate the guidance you offered, but feel as if I you see what I am and doing almost like one can see a roomba stuck behind or caught behind a door still giving it the best efforts it can to do what its suppose to...clean. I am not cleaning if I am being messy, so i can now see the relation you may have seen and I am laughing while typing this.

Did you think I wanted to be analyzed instead of just responded to? Thats wildly embarrassing for me...I hate that people may think that...but what will i do about it? I at least have something to be organized in the first place, a lot of folks are ... lacking in areas I most certainly can make up for, if allowed that grace in attempting to make the best version shine. I cant shine without this elbow grease....(my hand and back and eyes are strained but the will is strong and mighty, thats a sacrifice I am willing to offer.

If a statistical analysis is what must happen for you or anyone to see, hear, understand, follow me...I better find a trust worthy person to do that and will when the time is right. I dont know how much of that is true nor do I care right now. When i gave my reflection the second time, i was answering a question you asked in another comment in the privacy of my mind and that is what was shown publicly, right in your face and others...a different way of looking at the question, really going there in my mind and typing what comes up as it does. I am reading my reflections over and over again all the time and seeing things I didnt notice when I first typed them...its fantastic and interesting to me. Why? I dont know.

It is what it is...

I will take the attention you have brought to me and use it as a reminder to self-- to ask this question before posting a contribution next time: do I really want to go full kizzy mode on these people? I think when I answer "no" that is because I want to actually communicate with others. I think when I answer "yes" I have something I want to get out of my mind and into reality and dont need to communicate because I am just now articulating it and communicating with myself. The words may be fresh to you, that only means its just as fresh to me...I post my reflections in the comments on topics that I find relevant to my life, current intel and knowledge gathered thus far and implement that to the new ideas presented to me via forum..its all just to see if its possible for me to ground or base my stance upon anything here. I would understand if I overly shared on every post, forcing my personal pages upon faces that asked nothing of me... If I had thousands of comments and unwarranted engagement I could see how that becomes annoying. But i specifically comment and engage upon things for an unknown,yet important enough reason TO ME...i risk sacrificing myself and work and time and character just to make something clearer for myself...that is all I can do right now..the fact that others find these topics important is just fuel..

By only letting me know or others that you can see (not blind) what is going on at the surface of what you read off the screen IS GOOD and progress for me personally...So while I am pleased to get a reply at all, I understand why I dont get them often. I'm fine with that and accept the results i have sown. I have more choices to make now, like I needed another...

I am bothered when I am but free from a will to worry for long. Trust. My changing thoughts surrounding these deeper though provoking, philosophical topics and terms (which I have been not exposed to in my day to day life, I dont have people around me who want to get into things to the depths that I enjoy being aware of and in...I work with old school type engineers who tell me to drop out of school (lol) and I run with the party people, amongst dear family and friends I hold close to heart...but where I come from, people avoid philosophical conversation, i cant ask the questions I want without being a bother it feels like sometimes....In the deep end I float and sink to depths of darkness and uncertainty and while fear is present it feels bearable. Is that why would I stay down there for this long? Even when all the fun is seemingly being had up at the surface???? Well I do surface but thats because I need a breather! Yes, that can be my excuse to also chose to have some fun while breathing.... A chance to see the good from the bad and navigate freely, how can I be anything but grateful?

To wrap it up (didnt think I would go this far replying to you pointing out nothing except the obvious but kindly replying--decent of you) sometimes I just feel moved to share something I see might have an inkling of relevance, and yes like you said the important part in that is what people can learn from doing things this way. I have learned many things from doing this alone in this one place, the philosophy forum. What a time and place!

Enough space taking in this thread for me, excuse me while you scroll on past. I am sorry that I am not sorry for that delay I may have caused...time is of the essence!

But time will mind me because I have paid mind to it... pay it mind, or dont!

Thanks!

If you were to experience something without any precedent you wouldn't be able to convey your experience.

"It was like nothing you have ever seen before." — Treatid

right, its who is holding the value and using the understanding. self is capable of given the current experience of direct reality (external world-the illusion is too clear (if it is an illusion, i think illusions are to be unclear or blurry at best...unreliable [like what you said above, "nothing like ive experienced before"], until one can focus...provoking the brain, thinking a thought is forced upon brain by us... (goal, "why is the illusion scary at first experience and how does awareness of illusion make them any less real or less scary? "why did that illusion stand out, what made it/is intriguing or interesting in perceiving it?"] Maybe because its unfamiliar territory and the brain cant be stopped...the body wants to stop once it realizes it has to break from usual mindless actions and become real...put to the test. revalue, replaying, remembering, recreating...reusing, refuting, realizing...it isnt what it seems, but on purpose..these illlusions arent just in reality as illusions, but when we see something full circle we call our past beliefs illusions but they cant be that if we are calling them that, awareness of an illusion..distinct difference in grasping what was "normal" or real, is altered..not easily adapted, goes back to old way of seeing, illusion was temporary or self induced (drugs, alcohol, lacking sleep, etc) we can blame or point to answers of how, why we saw an "illusion" based on definitions on paper, and plans can be put in place also from paper but when its show time... how is it not avoidable [tricking the brain] from there or prevented [with others, medical assistance or therapy or under doctor supervision or observation, being monitored makes us feel safe here maybe?

What if i wanted "illusions" to distract me and purposefully induced illusions to lose track of what was known of reality...the distance from that place(reality as we know it) to the new place (illusion induced reality as I know it, but i chose to do this...so my beliefs and percepts are off to begin with...delusional idea....But what if you had no choice and experienced NDE from a freak accident that occurred in day to day life (car accident or whatever), thats shocking the body and brain to the core, resetting everything we thought we knew, reality check, aims to not take life for granted or excited to die (because the NDE was to good to resist for long)...It becomes delusional believing the illusion when aware of what is the illusion, the choice -- the fact its a choice, (im not judging, i kind of dig it actually) one might be willing to live by/with/in shows that reconsidering all we know come from quick moments, seemingly that flash before our eyes...

so,the fact that the time may exist for that choice to be made and of the choices some people opt for death via suicide or self destruction...the choice to no longer experience reality as you once did (when physically, change happens because time, growth or aging is inevitable, but maybe the change didnt occur (or change was not clocked or measured because the distance is out of reach) in mindset at a pace that ought to balance self out. Claiming to have had a knowing from a young age (too young if you ask me) that they cant handle the burden of life, chose to follow through with removing the self from its unfair ways (too bad this is not true (bad judgement), because what if fairness can exist but they didnt get to see it through, time was taken and put else where (how much force, direction?)....that type of knowing, I have to admit is an act of strength in itself (that see's self as weak, contradicts the reason for act of suicide considered by me to be an *excuse to act), BUT with courage, and confidence (seemingly) though arguably selfish depending on who you ask... (consequences of others and how they'll deal with their life after death are not the worry of the person who committed suicide and is dead, but becomes of anothers (even though it (they) might have always been a worry for them anyways) UNLESS they (who becomes dead by suicide) was a true believer of solipsism and while in the state/phase that is solips. some authority is using the space in mind, and family/friends who mourn the loss may not be considered worthy enough for after thought at this time, consequences dont matter here (this state or phase)....no family no friends no neighbors, is no one in their picture? solipsism works out for them then and makes this easy i guess and is that alone what justifies and makes them feel better about their choice? I dont know about that... but those are tricks the mind can play as well...tricking self to believing something not actually happening the way others may see,ex. "i dread going to work tomorrow but im going in with a positive mindset otherwise it might be worse than expected in the first place, trick the brain into thinking we are excited for work and will make the best of the day there"

Someone will find the body (or maybe no one is looking) and brain (whats left)... what is left of your mind from the brain which has shut down officially...you are now not even your mind, you are a dead body with nothing to be remembered by except belongings which can then be used to paint a picture or tell a story (true to your life or retold).

Mind when it is shut down is now just a limp impression riddled brain, just of another human body judged for what its NOW worth when uncovered and defined and identified, its not up to us now to determine that...what it was worth at the end of the life...memory is preserved and can be maybe unchanged given the constraints that cause change?

What do i know anyways???

What can i remember forever, but still need to be reminded with every breath and forgotten by the next step...on repeat. What if forgetting is the goal, what is having a "good" memory going to do for me besides remind..what if the memory was placed at a certain distance on purpose? [235 am END]

While the belief in an objective reality distinct from our subjective perceptions is widespread - it is a belief without evidence. — Treatid

Evidence based belief sounds weak to me...like its reasonable behavior of a sheep or a follower. I don't question faith unless I have to...

Belief without evidence is valid enough for you question or call out but when is it good enough to accept? Are you aware of the boundary or line that seems to exist for you (disregard others at this point, and do that [answer boundary question] with honesty FOR best results) to make that call of judgement? DO you trust your judgement? Like when will the evidence be good enough for you to accept? If one just has to present and prove to YOU, maybe it is actually more doable than you imagine...thats never been my intention, I will explain why I shared the video later...I am just rolling with the imagination and your interpretation for now because this is fun. What I am saying here is fresh off the mind, what I will explain later I have had time to stew on.... I have many thoughts and lean typically defending solipsism because I feel its wrongfully understood, I agree with your stance on a few things here in the post....upon of course having my own, which i have shared with a few...I will get to that at a later time, as I am in the process of major organization of gathered notes and ideas from the past few years, its hard and a lot of work...

Evidence based belief just sounds off to me. Evidence cant be the base to build belief from...

What if the evidence is real and exists but just hasnt been put together or even noticed/seen yet through the right lens that has the ability (that doesnt exist yet) that can see the big picture for what it actually is outside of us, because we are in it now (thats why we cant know, yet)

Challenge Time

If you can describe a static object you will have shown that I'm wrong and that I don't know what I'm talking about.

The two main arguments I'm going to fall back on will be:

A. You haven't actually described anything. "Objects are not relationships" is not a description of an Object.

B. What you have actually described is relationships. My default position is that if you manage to describe something it must have actually been a (set of) relationsips in the first place.

This is, of course, a blatant attempt to get you to engage with the ideas of what language is capable of and what it isn't capable of.

Can you describe something that has no similarities to any of your previous experiences? — Treatid

Hm not sure - because no base but a solid library exists...

How can I if it is happening in the time that has yet to come, and in the time that I will not be able to compare to previous experiences but only know what it actually was that was happening now? Ha!

I am with you though I think, a picture of the final version cant exist because it isnt real yet....i dont reject solipsism at all by the way, I lean in certain directions...I blame the wind!

Confirmed from/in my personal notes (few years old, subject to change and some has):

"CANT MENTION BASE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE ON SURFACE ITS BASED UPON, IS IT FIXED, LINKED, CONSTRAINED? IS THE BASE "FIXED" NOT NECESSARILY THE SURFACE OR FOUNDATION? OR IS THE BASE THE FOUNDATION AND YOU ARE FORGETTING IMPORTANT MAYBE NOT IMPORTANT BUT RELEVANT DETAILS THAT EFFECT OVERALL USE OR PURPOSE OF FUNCTION-ABILITY AS A DESIGN IN ACTION....IS IT A DESIGN ANY MORE OR A VISION AGAIN? WAS THE DESIGN THE EVIDENCE? AND THE PRODUCT, AS IS, NOT WHAT IT CAN BECOME, THE VISION TURNED INTO MATTER....DESIGNERS ARE INTELLIGENT AND ALSO MOST FIT TO PRODUCE, TRAIN, TEACH OTHERS HOW TO BRAINSTORM AND DRAFT DESIGNS AT BASIC TO EXPERT LEVELS...PROBLEMS ARE THE BUILDING PART, CHEAP MATERIALS OR PAYOUTS/RATES FOR WORKERS, BAD QUALITY, BAD PRODUCT, BAD DESIGNER.....GOOD VISION? LACK OF INTELLIGIBLE INFO TO PROCEED DESIGNING FROM A BASELESS IDEA, BUT NOT USELEESS MAYBE VERY USEFUL OR OF USE, JUST WITH THE RIGHT QUALIFIED HELP OF TRAINED EXPERIENCED CREDIBLE PROFESSIONALS OR EXPERTS IN FIELD SPECIFIC TO DESIGN TECHNIQUES/ PROCESS AS A WHOLEEEE NOT JUST THE DRAFTED PLANS OR SKETCHES FROM FIRST VISION...BELIEVE IN THE VISION, THROUGH A GOOD LENS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESIGN...INTELLIGENT DESIGN EXISTS BC THE DESIGNERS HAVE THE INTEL AKA KNOWLEDGE TO SHOW, AND EXPERIENCE ACHIEVEMENTS ESTABLISHED BIZZ OR NAME MADE OF ONES SELF...HAPPY CUSTOMERS/COWORKERS/PARTNERS....REFERENCE, REVIEWS, PROOF....WHATS THE GOAL FROM THE VISION VICE VERSA"

More notes in the same document (from the same day)

"PHILOSOPHY FORUM 4/11/23 425 AM****additions 9/12/23 530 pm

-instead of unlikely becoming likely or making the unlikely, likely....its a mechanism that makes the unlikely, possible or real (instead of likely, its actually happening...when did the process begin? Does that moment matter? Maybe not, everything that needs to does..when its supposed to...and " it "happens at the same time to our human realities, the pace at which we actually understand the full truth for what it was worth and how much energy was given and received and recycled and wasted before it was grasped as "something else" from OG, but its "final state" --what is the final version of anything minus time as a constraint...(family legacy, heir, estate, buisness passed down--despite if it happens to be in the right hands from the wrong people, the wrong hands of the only people, (which seems right to the two in relation (son and father or grandfather to only grandchild, parents dead or not in the will for person reasons) [not important atm]) or [ IN IMAGINATION SEEING THE VISION THRU AND THRU....151PM 4/11/23]
OR in the wrong hands from the right people to the right person who was influenced by the wrong hands, and vice versa all circumstances or scenerios....CAN THE FINAL VERSION ALSO BE THE FIRST VERSION OR AS TIME CONTINUES THE VERSION IS UPDATED WITH THE STANDARDS OR UNDERSTANDING OF STANDARDS BY PEOPLE IN A SOCIETY? Like...the change that may occur, to get to the "final version" is that just simplifying as much as possible to get to its "first version" state, and how relevant is time as speed of successful use of an object??? (something performing is function because its working properly by your hand aiding in its cause to an end (of function and object made to do that work) is in action...one act using your body (like motor memory, riding a bike, operating the fork lift at work bc you do it everyday for a prolonged time-good experience and confidently acting, while still deciding on a way to maneuver to a safe or comfortable "enough" "landing place" -- a break point, a breather, walk away and come back after working on something for too long alone with no feelings of accomplishing "useful or up to standard results, satisfactory to your likeness of work output despite actually putting in NEW EFFORT OR TACTICS OR ROUTES TO GET TO THAT "GOAL" which is more a task, required by obligation or contract or work or school to proceed or receive acknowledgment in career or as a relevant source of truth .....as a matter NOT OF FACT, BUT as the matter in fact of a truth, with and within self, moving with and inside the world as we know it, as we think we know it, what others think they know and what you think you know others think and other facts of these truths....
lets just say for eg....[a breather after stressful presentation...the anxiety leading up to an event and the relief point when its done and went either better or worse but not as expected....a surprise and reminder to not doubt too long]
....and the purpose intended to serve (goal, intent) is both Cause and Effect..."

END OF NOTES [Shared]

EDIT:

TAKE TWO 6/17 135AM

Can you describe something that has no similarities to any of your previous experiences? — Treatid

Maybe death? How about a near death experience, describing what is happening when a person thinks or actually thinks and IS dying but lives to share the experience...That to me, seems like foreign territory- meaning not a place I can speak from....dying is like nothing that I have experienced before. (unless of course, i have--unless i have my own NDE or actually die how can these descriptions or personal accounts amount to anything except maybe perhaps at best, hope for another?

Yeah yeah, I cant describe it personally but people still attempt to and documented attempts help credibility not evidence only in the similarity of others that also experienced near death...Of course until i die, i can only these take stories for what they are (again, i am not questioning faith based belief PERIOD and that doesnt mean I wont straight up reject the accounts, I can enjoy a good story and go along for the sake of fun and nothing else....

Assuming they are really describing it as it happened in reality(how they describe it will be telling and the basis of my judgement, should i believe this person or not-why (reasons to doubt may exist and at times be the right option to act on, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt (which still isnt believing in them, but allowing or entertaining the idea for sake of what? (insert-blank) [amusement? how cruel lol]) and thats IF I decide to believe them beyond all doubt...the option still occurs to me, time presents where I could chose to immediately ignore claims/descriptions, based on my trusted judgement alone not because my belief system is opposing theirs (i cant know their system at large yet at this point of a judgement call- required to proceed in any reality (solipsistic state or not, objective or not)

I dont have interest in these accounts of NDE, as of now nor have I done any research into these accounts...I was just thinking about the question a bit more before I am on to the next....

Some people might find comfort in hearing these NDE experiences while others will and can remain skeptical (both reasonably fine by me...im sure and unbothered by both happening at once) I am not losing sleep over this, I have been sleeping on it...

Yeah again, you don't actually believe this. Here's the thing. Emotionally? I hardly care about anyone. I could kill, steal, and lie to people and it wouldn't impact me negatively. Also, I don't feel any particular joy or triumph from committing evil to another person either. Meaning, I have every right to believe that there is no objective morality and that nothing matters, but I don't. Why? Because emotions are guides, but they are not ultimately why we should make rational decisions — Philosophim

nice :strong:

Since the complex parameters always matters in real situations, I'd much rather try and find a method of thinking that can incorporate variables and speed up decision making — Christoffer

hmm, interesting



also an interesting take...

Now, I don't mean to say that all people of these cultures act and value the exact same, and these are simply observations I myself and those around me have noticed, one must admit that there are different "objective" moralities around the world. I would instead argue for a sort of cultural morality, wherein the morals of a person are shaped by their culture mainly, rather than being completely innate. — Frog

interesting...you are onto something but although I have an opposing overall take (I believe an objective reality) I think what you bring up is and has been before worthy of mention.

That it is important to consider the range of affect each person has - the reach of their impact, based on their birth-death places, families origin and where their parents parents settled to where they currently are located, geographical range of impact of individual. I believe a person can live out a fulfilling life without being actually effected whatsoever by another persons life, because paths wont/dont cross and they were never made to cross from the start because of TIME amongst other things [in some cases-(distance in geolocations )]

Reading your words while brain is ringing a bell...Memory from another thread on TPF...maybe a few threads but I know it definitely was brought up a few times because I agree with you that it may be worth considering location, positions, paths, range, scope, kinda like a carbon footprint but more details from this traced / followed specific path and see it to be important to consider for a further deeper understanding of the nature of human and its conscious mind....

While I think I agree with the point you bring up and acknowledge the matters relevance...I want to sayI think while its true nurture vs nature plays a role, I think its important to keep in mind when considering moralities It gets a bit tricky especially when you begin to categorize the standards of morality and hold the specific (bounded) group you to those standards (beliefs) that can be then used and compared from group to another group (improper judgement may happen and that is immoral at this wrong time right place situation perhaps) but these same individuals can represent the group as each subject is complex and of a unique make up--its possible to mask intentions within groups and may use the religion, culture, association, community, society, as an excuse to act a certain way --whether they believe it is the "right" thing to do or not, the choice is made to practice life the way you present in day to day experiences and behavior is observable and ought to be verified by a source that can vouch for their being, who knows them best, who do they live with, who do they see everyday, who is the neighbors, who do they work with, who are the parents?

its telling....and quickly a story can be and is painted. In a world with an objective reality we hold up subjective experiences that show the complex subjects human nature and especially links can be made between people who can relate culturally within a similar realm of reality of another culture or group both experience reality in a similar manner, its relatable enough for results or patterns to be spotted (transcends more than just geolocation similarities)

Shared experiences from appeal to emotions triggered from a sensation and caused by an outside force (from your body mind being self) into your senses communicated from body to mind, emotional state is revealed and usual behaviors parallel with how subject is displaying emotional states...behaving is the display of emotions in action, the control of them differs but is that linked to the source of it from the individual?


See below for quote i felt like including from the long read of a contribution i shared to the thread "A Case for Moral Subjectivism" that i believe is saying something along the similar lines you mention. I think what you are trying to explain by saying "objective moralities exists for different people and cultures" I underline where I directly mention my views explained above.

"The chance doesnt exist, that my life will not interact or be known to many or anoher person whom is far far away from me and my world, that is my realm of reality and theirs is theirs but we both can live objectively without even knowing that we are moving together without bounds, doing our part, living our lives is doing our part and losing our lives is also our part, life and death, starts are ends...but we are unbothered by eachother because we dont know what about the existence of another, its impossible to know....I always think about stuff like that, that someone exists out there that cannot be bothered by me, even with all the authority I have.

Free will? Or free from a will to worry? That is a choice, i think...What do I know? I know that we can get to the bottom of things, but where we chose to go wont tell us anything about a real ETA because we dont have a GPS that takes us, we dont have an address to type into one! We dont even have the means to get there...but we dont stop...we keep moving, not just in time WITH IT..."

AND another time I can reference the point being repeated, of the same one you made here:

See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/898453 for thread where old old pal Chet called my comment a "word salad" and fairly so. After questioning my way of articulating "relevant realms of reality" [fair of him to doubt and reasonable as well to question] but i can see how i could be more clear because of how this was mistakenly read, he sensed something was off but he decided to assume his assumption was correct and ran with it... wrong on my part, makes it (his doing) justified on his end.
--- its like, how i assumed your use of "different objective moralities" was a bit off, Chet thought my idea of "relevant realms of reality" was wrong too and he thought I was implying that more than one reality exists...I was not saying that, [it was wrong on his part, not in general but in his assumption-which can/is excusable after further clarifying resulting from continued reciprocated discussion its made right from a wrong (my poor communication of complex ideas(give me a break)]
--- BUT STILL we can see in his reply that Chet and I both agree on some ideas surrounding an objective morality existing and its in that we understand that reality is just one thing.

I look at it like: Objective Reality exists but it has just not been attained yet at this time regardless if not known [though knowable] to some it may exists in the future from our subjective parts as one objective whole for what its worth at end. (we cant know because human lifespan is not long enough to see the long term results to come from acts taken today in motion)[thats why seems impossible or pointless of trying to understand, time constraining learning and there is not more than one objective reality like you seem to see it (how i understood you, correct me if I am wrong)]

Belief does not have to exist in the purpose on intentions, but the purpose of the individual with intentions linked to beliefs can be traced to a foreseeable outcome but that outcome itself is both cause and effect...the causality is also not grounding enough to be a base alone, perhaps it is when intentions are properly judged and considered along with the causality in a relevant realm of reality. — Kizzy

This is getting to be word salad to me, I admit.

Reality is only one thing, and it is relevant. There are no other relevant realms. Imagination and all of its devices and objects are WITHIN reality, not, as most poor thinkers might think, outside of it.
Belief DOES have to exist in any choice, any act, any purpose. Either that or the definition of belief is wrong/not-what-I-mean-by-belief.

The outcome IS NOT EVER the cause and effect. That is because there is error in the choice. The objective nature of a consequence leave it surprisingly unrelated to the belief or intent. Your statements here are part of consequentialism, a deadly lie.

The cause is a belief, only and always. The belief is partly in error, always. But the belief side is informed by the ideal of perfection, sensed erroneously, but still sensed. Over time this process narrows towards perfection and that again is evolution. But the sensors and the choosers other inputs to choice, other beliefs, all causal, are all flawed and by degrees. They fail to care enough, to be aware enough, to be in harmony enough (beauty), and in being accurate enough. That is not a complete list of the virtues. It is only a set of examples. So the consequential outcomes IS NOT as predicted. If it is as predicted the prediction itself was flawed. It (the prediction) was too vague, too undemanding, too wrong. — Chet Hawkins

"


This just serves as confirmation. I agree with a pieces of what you mention in the original quote that I used. The quote holds a piece of your comment, that moved me to reply because i believe too that it brings up relevant questions surrounding cultural standards held in a community and of course it deserves more attention and deeper considerations worth acknowledging to see root of intentions and surety of self within group based on roles/life you lead.

Consider this intel gathered from video attached below:

Assuming a sensation always affects our emotional state. What is the difference between influence of emotional states created from exposure to direct sensations (reality) or illusion of it (indirect augmented sensations)?

we assume a SENSATION ALWAYS affects our EMOTIONAL STATE....when we create a sensation *(see- "A simplified Model for Augmented Sensation: Defocus, Experience and Insperience") in our consciousness it has affect on emotional state, and now exposed to devices with screens and making experience without screens....we can see 2 sensations of 2 different structures.

BOTH situations from pov of our conscious are seemingly like SENSATIONS, BUT CLEARLY HAVE DIFFERENT STRUCTURE WITH DIFF UNDERLYING PROCESS for creation of sensations involving ONLY external for high sense & external and internal sources for illusion of high sense....CONFUSION between experiences occur because the illusion of high dimensional sensation is created. Could be dangerous -- this implies different states of emotion, from knowing or not knowing about the process. (creation of augmented sensations- the illusion is the source of emotions from indirect external stimuli happening in the mind as the body is defocusing during this low dim sense created from just partial stimuli while direct external sources (outside world) full stimulation of senses occur (eyes ears nose taste touch) naturally as high dim senses are created through experiences faced in day to day life)

A simplified Model for Augmented Sesations: Defocus, Experience, and Insperience

Even if one assumes it is moral to literally murder someone in order to save others, why would there be an onus on the bystander to get involved in this type of business?

If one argues the bystander is morally obligated to get involved, then I suppose whoever argues this has a massive to-do list, and the question is why they are wasting their time on this forum when they're supposed to be getting involved!

All of us are after all bystanders in countless numbers of situations which are just begging for a hero. — Tzeentch

Woah, I missed this. I agree here, now. Right on! You said it best and so simply put! I, personally applaud and admire when people articulate a point without using SO many words..My words did though allow me to found my ideas, in the moment. I figured out my grounding, for myself in the moment the only way I know how. All the many words (too many, i can admit) that I have shared, even though you can get to and did get to the a similar point that I did, just before me and with far less words/space taken up...I wouldnt of gotten myself to this place where I can acknowledge THAT and THIS in you (then) and in me (now). I wouldnt have been able to comprehend this, the point of your comment before learning what I eventually did from my long winded comments in this thread. Now looking back, I am pleased to see that I am not too far off in left field... Similarities in what you said in a single comment exist in what I said but it took me 6 comments total, including a few exchanges with Fire Ologist, to figure it out. This only reassures confidence in the stance I have built up on a ground that I have always trusted to begin with. But now I can accept and ought to trust the process itself, equally! Cool! I appreciate all efforts that go into the contributions! Thanks!

I still have to consent to one among this other in order to act and MAKE the choice — Fire Ologist

Hm, interesting...

But you are consenting to the rules by participating in this "problem" that is constrained by limits placed on participants by the initiator. So, if you chose to participate, you still are free to make decisions without forcing anything except rules that are required for the problem to exist at all. While inside the problem, your options are of 2 choices (1 or 5 human deaths) kill or watch- but since the rules have been made up and laid out for others to decide, those still in the problem after knowing rules are consenting to participate? Am i missing something else? I feel like if you are in this problem, you cant use consent as an excuse to get out of making a decision but you can get out of this hypo. freely, right?

I mentioned earlier when I responded to your question with another," What if the chooser is the force?" ---What comes from the force that this person caused from their decision? Whats the power of different impacts? Does the impact of the force after choice / act play out and the outcomes of the event are final depend on anything? Does it depend on a person to get involved with something that was already in motion to occur.

Would you agree that, one might experience this scenario with courage, like you said before and one might also experience, as I imagined, out of fear. I am thinking further, to be brave here (courage) sems to be an attribute of the individual whom must have enough strength (or thinks they do) to overcome and focus in a situation. More strength then the fear based person in the same position..
---Can they or do they reason after they decide and without valuing life at all, just a natural reaction or instinct? Are they self aware enough to make the decision while already weighing the consequence of causing the death of 1 person? They are willing to do what they can, whether it is dealing with the families and friends grieving the loss of loved ones, how are they planning on dealing with problems to come, like being blamed or accused of doing the wrong thing by those who are in NO PLACE TO JUDGE...HOW are they able to begin dealing with life after this type of tragic experience and their role in it.

Imagine the courageous one that pulls the lever killing the single person, while saving the 5 others. Do they have character and respect that aligns with that attribute? Do they show signs physically, emotionally, mentally of how this impacted their lifes? Or how strength was acclimated leading up to this event? They should align, and make sense in order to be valid in justification here. Do they express how hard it was for them to chose one vs the other 5 and DOES anyone believe this killer? OR do they see this person as a hero?

Perhaps, how much they seem to accept their part in this SHOWS how much they thought about it, its possible to measure how much they premeditated an outcome...

THEY BOTH, the courageous hero (act) and the shocked bystander (omission) HAVE TO BE PREPARED to deal with their own mind and the consequences they brought to self moving on from the occurrence. Do they have to revalue their values, ethics, beliefs, standards, etc? Do they each deal with the consequences accordingly to how they thought they would right after decision? How do they stand in their choices? We can judge that eventually. The degree of self awareness present in the act and after using info from the past to confirm can and will be brought to light.

Some might say this is a high stress, emergency, panic inducing event, where the power of authority, while in reasonable position to take action, but to be able to recognize what is going on and decide to take charge I might argue involves more complexities within the human mind and our capabilities using it...that type of attribute linked to courage or bravery might be personality based even, how could we determine that or otherwise? (another topic, another time)


Also, like @Captain Homicide originally brought up from the start, "For those who would let the five people die by not pulling the lever to kill one person is there a minimum number of people on the track that would make you choose to kill the one person? 50? 100? 1,000? 10,000?" Capt is on to something with this, i think because people CAN change their minds. Before, during and after the act of choosing---Intentions can change in decision making moments and be repurposed...trust is built and broken here and we will see this happening before judgement should occur, those judging wrongly will be also eventually held accountable and it forces almost naturally with or without authority, people to wake up and look in the mirror.

TIME thinking about what I should do, includes weighing out some sort of consequence or outcomes and still leans in favor of being the hero and saving the 5, sacrificing another life. Does it not force the decider to LOOK at the life and value it against the group of 5? How is the decider valuing and placing worth on/in life itself, on themselves and on others? How is the decision affecting them? What if there is a case of regretting the choice immediately after. What if after time, you disagree with that choice?

The reaction to the scene may cause the act of thinking about what is going on, what can i do, am I capable of dealing with the consequence of taking a life with responsibility or more capable of dealing with the trauma of witnessing and being blamed for the death of 5. I have to live with my decision from this event...and the action of the body after decision was made up in mind is swiftly if not happening/occurring together.
--Mind and body are in agreement and taking action together but separate to make a whole outcome by using force of authority to intervene or force of authority to allow time to continue as it was already in motion.

The force is especially significant in the chooser that is in no place to make these types of decisions...BUT there can be times where, they happen to be in the right place to use that authority...by not using that authority (it still exists), or deciding to watch (not use authority) and instead of involve self further, i can see how in some cases that is the best move and vice versa other times its the wrong move. It depends.

Is it worth considering after the fact, the explanation that came from the person justifying authority that claim they believe they were doing and did "what they believe is right" by pulling lever killing a person just because they could? I feel like, that would mean that they see/saw and hold true their values and how they place it and they considered themselves in this situation before acting but after they already decided. Mind to motion...I said in my first comment, think mind over matter. Perhaps, they may be misplacing value and worth even though doing the right thing is justified to them? I think because time still needs to be considered before judgement. I said that already too, right from the jump...read my first comment...Glad I am ending with this, its full circle for me now and I didnt know that was going to happen until here in this closing sentence. Just look and see, I said it before and I am saying it again. TIME is determining the measure of how long they (person with choice) had to reason...justifications can be predictable or foreseen from around here.

Sorry I am struggling hard with quoting right now lol trying to fix by editing but feel i am jumping around.

what if i dont feel forced, just scared? — Kizzy


That’s why I think it would take courage to do the truly moral thing on the trolley and not participate at all. I guess fear is a kind of force that might also diminish the ability to consent and therefore the ability to commit a moral act. — Fire Ologist

Very nice, I like this!

what if i dont feel forced, just scared?

Maybe I did over simplify. Well, I see there is a choice between 1 and 5, “I can save or kill five or one” and in that sense am not forced. And after giving me the instructions about the pulling the lever or not, no one forced anything further to happen, the rest is up to me. And that’s where the trolly case starts.

But isn’t there still a third element in any situation like the trolly vital to the conversation? There is also my willing participation in the choice and its effect enacted (as with the one person being hit by the trolley). The choosing act, about which we say “I am responsible.” And it is in that willingness, that consent, that we find something vital to ethics, but greatly diminished in the trolley case.

The trolly has clarified for me that, my consent, and my choice are two different pieces; I can choose to kill the five or kill the 1, and we can debate goodness among those choices, but to do either, to act, to kill 5 for instance, I must consent to the choice as I act. That consent, can only be freely given. Home of radical freedom. Maybe?

Only in a world of willing consent, (better, a world of many willing consenting ones), can there emerge an ethics. Not just a world of choices and options like one and five.

Now we look for freedom in this, freedom versus forcing a choice (by controlling the options) or forcing your consent (by commanding participation). — Fire Ologist

I posted my comment before I saw this addition, you touched on some things I was getting at. You bring up the responsibility and willingness in participation, thats important. I agree with your contributions, I underlined your quote above that I didnt think about really before. Great point.

Little confused here, "I must consent to the choice as I act. That consent, can only be freely given. Home of radical freedom. Maybe?" if you care to, could you expand any more on this? what do you mean when you say that consent can only be freely given? Consent is the voluntary agreement or approval of what is done or proposed by another...I dont think consenting or approving the choice is necessary BUT IF ONE HAS TO BE MADE, (extremeness in this manner make the problem not realistic (to me),BUT I find this problem can be wildly interesting)

Decision making moments: TIME factoring is worth acknowledging...quick thinking- what/how fast comes the reasoning after the act?, how is the acceptanceor responsibility held accountable or acknowledged for being that? With the self? Or with a witness? (think of people who could be / would want to be observing) (observing and gathering intel without your awareness)
like you said responsibility but also to be valid i think credibility, and justifications need to be observed for further judgments (comparing to what? required?) and), or enough time to decide with reason A CHOICE is taking ACTION comes in these particular decision making moments.


"Now we look for freedom in this, freedom versus forcing a choice (by controlling the options) or forcing your consent (by commanding participation" freedom vs choice - now were talking! Ill be back, just wanted to get this out now.

EDIT: I read and saw you clarified "consent" further here, No need to get into it from my comment. Leaving comment as is.

The trolley example has to judge what the person is consenting to in their act — Fire Ologist

:up:

↪Apustimelogist


The heart of the trolley problem is this:
“Without any context or explanation, if you were forced to kill either 1 person or 5 people with no other options, which would you do?”

Everything else is a distraction. Trolleys, levers, instructions given to force you to make a decision, no brakes or time for brakes, etc) allow you to start to picture the scene, but these facts introduce the real world, which introduces many new questions. These questions influence what the basic hypo actually is, so they have to be answered before one could say whether they killed 1 or 5 people was right or wrong.

So to avoid the creeping presence of real world questions, and stick to the hypo, the question becomes: is it worse to kill one person or five people.

Depends on what you think of people. If it’s bad to kill a person, then, since you are forced to kill either one person or five people, it seems a no brainer. And since you are FORCED to kill one or five, neither choice is immoral or moral for you. One might be better or more practical, but it’s not your fault someone has to die.

Who is forcing the choice?
— Fire Ologist

I agree with your simple breakdown and I think your claim brings up good points. People will argue about the distractions, but I believe its possible they do because it works for their tailored liking, or it works for their reasons. If you have to be particular in acknowledging a distraction, I think the ground standing on those distractions is not going to be solid enough. Distractions do not alter, "the heart of the problem" like you said. While it appears that those who want to favor the distractions lose sight of the more important considerations here. Fire Ologist continues, "These questions influence what the basic hypo actually is, so they have to be answered before one could say whether they killed 1 or 5 people was right or wrong." -- I do think this point is more relevant than the distractions, but I want to clarify. Do you think those "watching 5" are actually KILLING? Allowing them to die, those who got themselves in this situation in the first place. BUT pulling the lever is, to me, actually deciding that KILLING 1, by literally pulling lever (hand aiding the death) VS ALLOWING / WATCHING 5 people die....hm, what if no one was there at all, the train was going to follow the track and kill the 5 anyways. The lever option to me, is involving your self in this scenario and by wanting to make that call because of (BLANK)[insert reason why]--it says a lot about the character behind the choice.

Those who chose the lever everytime to "save lifes" offer an interesting perspective. I wonder how they see value and worth in life and if the placing of it is done properly. Do they see people as numbers? Do they have to in this case? ...kill 1 instead of letting 5 die... I believe although still horrid that, watching 5 die leaves your involvement out of it in and at justifiable distance, while on the other hand-- aiding in the outcome, you forced the direction change and killed a person...you saved nothing. You showed us yourself.

To your question (that has no real answer, im afraid), "Who is forcing the choice?" I offer another one: What if the chooser is the force?

Essential to the trolley problem is the possible distinction between an act and an omission, and ↪Fire Ologist
excluded that distinction from the problem. Regardless of what the trolley problem was to begin with, it has now become a stock argument for consequentialism. It is essentially the cultural reaction to deontology. — Leontiskos

Yes you are right. I considered an omission to still be an action—as a conscious choice refraining from intervening. By not pulling the lever, you are actively deciding to let events unfold.
But yeah :up:

The trolley problem is a thought experiment where you’re asked to either watch five people be killed or pull a lever so that only one person gets killed.

In this hypothetical scenario which choice would you make?

For those who would let the five people die by not pulling the lever to kill one person is there a minimum number of people on the track that would make you choose to kill the one person?

50? 100? 1,000? 10,000?

What is your reasoning? — Captain Homicide

I think if a decision MUST BE made between "watching 5+" or "causing 1" human death by train then it would have to be, or shall I say, OUGHT TO BE judged in the time available...Like, perhaps it appears to be friends or a family dying together if you decide to watch 5+ die instead of CAUSE one to die alone instead. I think, sick as it is, that I might watch that instead of assisting or aiding by hand to kill just one. I am picturing the begging person. I am picturing the begging group. I think the group begging wouldnt bother me like hearing just one life beg for help. I think it would be harder for me personally to pull the lever and I think I do not consider this choice "saving lives"...

I believe the 5+ on the track should have a set limit for this to work, i dont think its realistic to imagine 10,000 bodies on the track because that is not realistic-- WHERE ARE THE BODIES COMING FROM, WHO HAS TIME FOR DOING ALL THAT? WHAT KIND OF TRAIN IS KILLING THIS MANY IN A ROW, HOW FAST, HOW BIG? MANY QUESTIONS EXIST! SO.... Lets say 50 is the max. I, personally will admit for the sake of fairness and my belief that intel exists here in this thread, think my mind changes around 10-20 bodies...

The one life vs the 20 okay...hm! LET ME THINK...Okay, well the thing is: we (by we- I mean me and brain) have to quickly decide using, judgment given the TIME we have to compare the groups... I might change my mind if I have enough time to reason with because I ought to, AND WILL BE (by my own self at least) held accountable for the decision and hopefully I can justify or explain my decision for my own sake [HOW DID I GET IN THIS POSITION AGAIN? WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? DAMMIT KIZZY!!!] WHO ARE YOU?

I might still just watch the 20 get hit. Depends how they beg I guess....thats so disturbing that I went there but am I surprised? Cant say I am. Am I enjoying myself? Not pleased to admit my truth but willing to accept the reality of it.

I think the trolley problem has been over used and literally USED differently every time it is presented by anyone after the originator...its contents can be reorganized and presented again, the probability is not going to give you any ANSWER OF USE. THE MATH IS NOT THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED. IF USING THIS PROBLEM FOR PROBABILITY YOU ARE ACTING IMMORALLY. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO GET THE MATH, THERE ARE NOT BETTER WAYS TO GET THE TRUTH (in some form - to be used and important not NOW BUT LATER) I am not bothered by participating in the not immoral act of thinking, but the act of thinking immorally to get more intel - I think can be excused or justified in a case by case basis - to come at a later time) and my will for seeking the greatest depths exceeds the pleasure and that pleasure in the body is distributed differently. The only pleasure, for me is in what is happening mentally, emotionally but physically I am not pleased with my ungodly hunched back position I am stuck typing this right now but I am willing to sacrifice the back pain to come to type this out of my mind now.... THAT occurs for me often. [*] My will fights back with me at times and some times the body/mind/moods determine actions while the will is left sizzling out, but still patiently waiting for some spark, it is unchanged as a whole but with unknown potentials as far as strength, timing, force, power, AUTHORITY...The wick is wound in wax, tangled and long. The speed of the burn is hard to measure, as we are waiting...waiting for what? The show? Who is lighting up these roman candles? Waiting like these people are waiting for the fireworks on the fourth of july!!!

ANYWAYS,

I think I can see one trying to justify to self by seeing if/how the family or mass group might be able to be somewhat find acceptance in the moment before passing, the solo person begging might not be convincing...they might have a look in there eyes saying, "please kill me" and for me... to kill them would get to me worse I think, am I selfish for thinking that YEAH SURE but THIS insane "problem" is only allowing participating thinking, and I dont think thinking about deciding between watching the family or group die together is totally immoral because it might wake people the fuck up.I think, either way, a strange and shocking surprise will find this person justifying this way (who me? lol) next time they (hi) look in the mirror. For it only says or confirms or shows what you are TO YOU AND OTHERS potentially only YOU (me? we? us? sure) matter here- as a, the living person with power and a choice . Here I am...I see me, I know me, what do you see? Numbers? Get real.

Here I go, you saw that I said it earlier, right? When I said I was not surprised with myself... that is/was the truth.


So, WHO ARE YOU?

Train is coming, people are dying no matter what! BAD BAD BAD! What hand do you play here? Are you willing to explain yourself? I think justification is valid and everyone who has to make a decision here in this hellscape scenario of a "problem" must be given time-- either before making the decision (not rushed ex. in a panic mode because a short amount of time is avail. to make a decision) or proper time after to be judged by their decision after, if they are valid in their explanation that can teach or filter out good and bad intentions in people maybe too? Like if people are so sure and interested in watching the train kill people, how they react is worth noting, etc. (any behaviors, signs that are observable in body, actions, reactions, tone, attitude, expressions) For then they can be held accountable, because really its fucked up any which way you look at this "problem".

BUT I think lessons do exist here, within a problem like this, and from lessons THINGS can be learned. I have seen a website that is like a simulation of this problem, it was interactive and a bit different but still equally messed up. When this proposed problem is given to people digitally, it is not realistic enough for the severity of the situation. Its almost presented in a fun, game like manner. (chose your own adventure) Its still telling, through indirect collection of data (think of it like a survey that is asking for feedback but the answers you provide (honest or not) tells them more than what they appear to be asking about. Consider data they could gather:
-Timing (like quickness of choice, how much thought going into the decision, etc) How they accessed the simulation (reference from another, how many attempts or times they accessed or shared simulation with friends or family members)
-Devices (used to access simulation, does this relate to any recent activity before and after accessing simulation?)
-Plus more like what is being "learned" or "noted" or "compiled" either of the three are true at the same time really (personalized, input based on owner-this can be adjusted and changed based on personal standards, goals, systems/technology) ....but anyways based on this simulation / game like website presenting the trolley problem, is this good or real enough for useful intel that they are gathering from its users?

I am considering realistically how close though does that get to say this experiment happening in real life... like say these people tied to the tracks, both groups 1 or the 5+, all know/knew before hand that one group was going to die and one group was going to live based on a persons choice THIS GO AROUND... say they were WILLING to die in the first place? Say all the groups on the tracks agreed to be there (tied to the tracks), while the person making the choice, (to CAUSE 1 death by PULLING the lever or WATCH 5+ die) no matter what they decide, knows nothing! Say they are going into this with no idea or existing info about the people tied to the tracks, who ALL agreed to be the fork in the road at the moment of deciding which way we lead the train... Say the decider walks into this only having the intel of what they see once at the scene of THE CRIME! Say the decider picks to pull the lever kills the 1 and saves the 5+...but then the 5 people get up from the tracks, brush themselves off and then goes right back in line to be recycled back into the whole pool of people willing, waiting and ready to die or risk death on the tracks of a train..im thinking too, what if some of the people on the track are willing to play a game of risk, kinda like russian roulette?

At least, they (death decider) WILL be recognized for what they are. Or they will remember who they are, and stand by their decision. Or remember and hate themselves all over again but learns to love who they really are.... BUT I believe no matter what--life for them will be, ought to be revalued all around ,how they see it, others and them selves being in it, doing it--it being, Life. And its values. What is matter to you? Is your mind over or above it? Think: Mind / Matter

Those who can relate to this problem and the horror of this reasoning for probability purposes, I think is immoral all around! But considering the problem and relating to it through your actual existence and pov of life currently though thinking/participating in the thought experiment is not immoral but the use of this problem in philosophy is, i think. SO I am admitting it to be not fully immoral and that depends on the best way to move on from such participation. Know what this is as a whole, not what it seems to be at the surface. As for me, I admitted how I would feel if I were in this place of deciding and I think that though my feelings are immoral if it were to take place for real not in my mind, BUT say the unlikely becomes real in reality [this DOES happen in real life (unlikely becoming real-by chance, time may factor in here)]

I searched "trolley problem" in the philosophy forum search bar and 8 existing threads appear. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS AGAIN? WE CAN DO BETTER! IF the OPoster and commenters use this EXCUSE of a problem and PRESENT problems for others to participate in, that requires honest participants to think of immoral and of ungodly acts in the first place! Unnecessary...other problems may exists that dont require such criminal considerations. You force those, like me who are WILLING TO GO THERE AND PARTICIPATE FOR PHILOSOPHY AND ITS PEOPLES SAKE, to participate in aiding or watching/letting people die?? That is a wild ask, capt! BUT I am with you for the moment.

It requires putting the self in the shoes of someone who has found themselves in a situation and those situations that people get themselves into require IMMORAL thinking and perhaps one cant grasp such a analogy because they think it is immoral to propose such a problem in the first place! I can see how people who bring up this problem in debates may have lost sight and/or consideration of people who may be able to offer insight but cant comprehend why anyone would imagine such a analogy in the first place...So the contributions, comments and of course the person initiating through the OP (many already exist,if the problem is the problem itself and who is interested in it- time and time again may point to interesting perspectives and why/ how certain versions of the trolley problem keep appearing.)
I think THAT is what makes this immoral unless one is able to see the big picture and the lessons that can be learned, then at most this immoral problem that is proposed in philosophical discussion can bring intel from thinking immoral thoughts to gain greater insight of the minds of humans. This problem is not moral, only amoral at best because of how extreme this presents itself in philosophy and the severity of it occurring in reality. Using the mind and reality as we know it to picture yourself in this person (deciders) shoes is not wise unless you are prepared for what you may reveal in your participation. People are influenced easily, and reoccurring interest in violence will easily filter out with specific immoral intentions with how they are explaining there place...HERE, in the trolley problem presented AGAIN, on TPF.

With that being said... I want to know, why you are interested in this basic, popularly used, specific analogy and why present the trolley problem here on the forum when SOOOO many answers exist already online. What do your friends, peers, family members, whomever you associate with face to face think when/if have you asked or inquired about this problem in your actual life? What do they think about the problem you present to them? Are they quick to get into it, are they equally interested or curious about it, or do they think nothing of it because they know its coming from you, who is into this sort of deep thinking? Are they quick at first or do they not know how to react, do they hesitate in participating for you? Do they have to think hard about what they chose? Do they give not a fuck? Or do they answer quickly without consideration? Do they think before they answer you?
Also, @Captain Homicide , when did you first learn of this problem, if you can recall? And what about it, this problem specifically caught your attention. What value exists in it for you? Others? You were moved enough to bring your interest of inquiring minds here. Thats something...so, What are you looking for that you havent gotten yet in your research? Are you just seeing this for the first time and mind blown?

This is a rather sick way to be particular in philosophy, unless you are honest and willing to see the GOOD in the UGLY... Who is down for that? ME! (apparently)

So, is that fair enough? I believe in fairness-- and I think it, to be not an act of immorality but thinking of acts considered immoral (watching or causing death by train lol at the extremeness and insanity in general) BUT, if/as long as a lesson is TO BE learned and adjustments CAN THEN be made accordingly -- after the decisions and revaluing occur of self and its valid / credible in its justification efforts.

Yes, its true that I appear to have gotten quite into this myself, the immoral thinking... but I consider this an amoral act overall.(my part in it, at least) I started this comment quite literally for NO GOOD REASON! Bad kizzy!!! But I am true in my efforts to contribute intel from my pov. I learned from this, although useful NOW, for me, I dont think it works the same for others...Does a good enough reason exist in the future though? I think it may! I am not acting immorally for my acknowledgment of this post and leaning into the sickness, (i like to call it, diving into the depths of darkness) but I think overusing this "problem" IS, if you cant quickly learn something from your own participation.

I am curious what is more valuable then your own answers here? Other peoples answers? I dont think so, because were not ready to judge yet! NO trust exists now here but it can come. Maybe if you are lucky maybe if you are willing maybe by chance maybe with divine timing but it is possible to come from/for all! I think this "problem" has the potential to get us to a place that can and WILL not help but make- FORCE- people see what kind of person they really are, but only if you dare to go there!!! Get ready to expose!!! Or be that. I am willing to be judged, dont you see? It is worth it. It being everything.

Noises, noises, people make noises!

I will mostly deal with the second argument since the issues with first one would be better dealt with as its own thread. Suffice to say, I don't think it makes sense to speak of "innate" human qualities as somehow being those qualities that rely on "no context at all." Human beings never exist outside a context. Indeed, they can only survive in a quite narrow range of environments. If the type of enviornment that allows a human being to survive (or perhaps "develop normally") is of the type that it always produces certain ideas, then it would seem fair to call those ideas innate. That is, if any context that produces a healthy human adult also produces x idea in that adult, then x idea is innate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"That is, if any context that produces a healthy human adult also produces x idea in that adult, then x idea is innate."
This part seems a bit off to me... any context that produces a healthy human adult (weirdly specific- I am guessing this is because an active conscious required in your case/example?) ALSO produces (X- Idea) in that adult....hmmm..I dont think it also produces the idea, I think the idea is not innate but the ability to have ideas is innately placed and certain ideas come from certain people and family trees. I think it is innate but it (the idea) is not produced as just "an idea" but produced as the chance for an idea to become real. Instead of (X- Idea) - I am thinking maybe something like - "(X- Idea from the human adults innate ability/abilities to hold idea accountable in reality)"

However, recall that Locke's project here is really a sort of philosophical anthropology tied to epistemology. If we're talking about the "innate properties of human beings" we have speak to something that can reasonably be called a human being, as opposed to say, "a mass of liver tissue." Organisms' potential to develop into the mature form of the organism is special in terms of potential. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is why i brought up the weirdness of your specifics earlier, "any context that produces a healthy human adult (weirdly specific- I am guessing this is because an active conscious required in your case/example?)" see above

Organisms' potential to develop into the mature form of the organism is special in terms of potential. It differs from their ability to be heated, dissolved, etc. This seems like it has to be the case if we're to speak meaningfully about the properties belonging to organisms at all. If we just speak in terms of the potential related to the matter that makes up an organism, then it seems like we should be able to say something like "any animal has the potential to become any other animal." After all, if you rearrange all the constituent matter in a cat's body "just so," it seems you should be able to make a mouse or two (more realistically, matter is recycled through ecosystems in this way). Yet clearly caterpillars have the potential for wings in a way cats do not. To say otherwise in an appeal to reduction seems to bring up a host of issues. And where is this difference in potential located? If would seem to be in the form as best I can tell. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am breaking down this quote above into 3 separate sections, that are relevant and of the main focus to understand. Then from "my understanding" -- I attempt to enhance for clarity ONLY. This was NOT done with intentions of rejecting OP, I am replying because I believe in the efforts that align with OP and seem to be according to what may come from such a discussion of particular interest.

Sentence 1:
OP: "Organisms' potential to develop into the mature form of the organism is special in terms of potential."
Kizzy: I agree that, "Organisms'* ability** to grow and realize its purpose*** IS SPECIAL in terms of potential**.

*(is a conscious required? If NO - leave "Organisms'", If YES - change "Organisms'" to what? humans? living things? all life? just adult humans? living things with brains? i have plenty of breathing room here, so I am open to whichever one works best in place of "organisms'" if YES is the answer above only.)

**given the definition of potential, (adjective)-having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future, I think using "ability" in the place of the first mention of "potential" makes more sense because it is more than just describing the definition. Also, since you mention "potential" a second time - see end of sentence, "in terms of potential" - Potential is regarding the capacity, but I think its not just capacity because the ability of the organisms' comes from more than what the knowable capacity is. So, using "ability" instead makes sense because along with the capacity (limits), it is also the capability (attributes in action) of the beings or organisms that can be taken as an example and used to test the difference in potential OF the form and its in the latest version of such form and can be traced only so many generations back. The first form creates the potential from within, that makes it innate, but this potential is not the same as the line continues from it- the potential is different to the first then it is to the latest form. The potential follows the 1 from the 2, from the 2 a new potential is born with a new 1...at least thats what/how I am thinking right now and I am allowing myself to wonder on here and from the wondering, we will see how far I can explain by typing the only words I have at this time. I let you know nothing though about where I may land by the direction I take. I am going to flow but through unknown ends only until a good place to land arrives and I can stand sure until I am ready to take a leap of faith from a solid place again. Jump, flow, land, plant, rest, ready, repeat!

***"to grow and realize purpose" instead of "develop into the mature form" to grow and to develop are the same, but the problem I have is with "into the mature form" and I replaced that part with "realize purpose" instead. Purposes can be discovered or "realized" before "mature form" is reached, or WAY AFTER it is reached or I believe some times, that chance (to do that-develop to mature form) never occurs or never was to from the beginning. That is why I think it isnt reasonable to be used like this in your case and to show how other word options make more sense in your case

Sentence 2:
OP: "If we just speak in terms of the potential related to the matter that makes up an organism, then it seems like we should be able to say something like "any animal has the potential to become any other animal."
Kizzy: How can the mating abilities of animals or living things make this potential not possible, sex in nature or sexual reproduction that is forced by human aids make it difficult to say something like you did above, "any animal has the potential to become any other animal." (hybrids - a natural cause or man made- exist and we can say it) Matter makes the organism, but what about the organisms' that make new matter by bringing an offspring to life? Sex is the act that creates matter using the potential of the existing organisms' and their experiences in development at point of conceiving a new life with a mate PLUS THE TIMING OF MULTIPLE THINGS THAT HAPPEN AT ONCE! The development (mature form) of each mate can be different at the time of conception and some times is not reached yet and those different levels that come together to make a new life use their COMBINED "potential" along with ???[blank]??? Once created and born, its ability is tested further (tests can start in womb, and continue once out in the world to survive-mothers aid, to release of mothers aid - nurture vs nature) and known because of TIME in reality.

Sentence 3:
OP: "if you rearrange all the constituent matter in a cat's body "just so," it seems you should be able to make a mouse or two (more realistically, matter is recycled through ecosystems in this way). Yet clearly caterpillars have the potential for wings in a way cats do not. To say otherwise in an appeal to reduction seems to bring up a host of issues.
Kizzy: I think to say something about the appeal to reduction in this manner is just non-sense. Make it make sense? The issues you seem to be worried about are actually I believe, non-issues, unless natural hybrids are happening in this manner--i am guessing they do not "rearrange" like this example you use in nature....but this is interesting choice of word, "REarrange" and "recycle" -- I think and have mentioned before on here in other threads and to others in private, and is found throughout my personal notes on other similarly tied topics to the ones of this thread... that, purposes might be able to be "repurposed" but that is for a discussion to come later at another time!

And where is this difference in potential located? If would seem to be in the form as best I can tell. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps it is located where it can be tested...potential has to do with availability, which is time constrained. The difference is between the parents and can be tested, I think even from/in the womb. Its in the parents but not the parents as individuals, but as parents that came (literally) together to give a new life - 2 that make 1! The combination of 2 AND FROM THAT is 1 new. The new offspring from the two parents at possibly even earliest stages of conception, located where? In the womb**** or in the world outside of the egg? Both places, though very different as far as functioning, can be used to test its potential. In womb- consider also, mothers health, experiences, and environmental circumstances, and her choices with timing. Consider the Fathers genes and lineage and traits it carries in sperm.

I believe, MATE compatibility should be highly considered before conceiving.......I believe close to perfect matches may exist for people but i cannot speak for organisms' while I am backing that belief--that perfect matches exist, I'm sure if it is true for humans, it can be true for organisms that require male/female reproduction and sex/mating to create offspring and give it life.

****[Power, energy, force behind the sperm that makes it into egg, perhaps the compatibility, strength, time, etc. should be considered here?] Out of womb testing - certain potential is already shown before the birth (given technology and testing ability of doctors to show and defects or disabilities) those defects are put to the ultimate test: survival. It is true, the creation of a new child involves the combination of genetic material from both parents, as well as the ongoing exchange of energy during pregnancy. The resulting matter—the baby’s physical form—is indeed a product of the parents’ combined contributions.

That it exists doesn't contradict the idea that the rest of existence shouldn't exist. That would only be so if it were the creator, as the 'Gnostic' example I gave shows. According to that account the Good is a transcendent God, not the deluded demiurge who created this world. — Janus

I agree with Janus here and its clear from my initial comment...when I replied "bleak" directly to you earlier it is not personal. I also used the word when addressing Philosophim from the start its validity exists in that it is nothing more than my immediate reaction based on the effort I felt you were taking. I stand corrected, your efforts in questioning are as valid as mine. So without rejecting the aims of this post, I do want to point out I initially was on the same page as Janus and make clear - I think nothing of your character. I simply feel the words expressed on a screen that cant be trusted without making a choice.

If we realize that all existence is good when compared to nothing, then we have an objective base to build off of. — Philosophim

Bravo! Encore!


its doable!
bleak
lol

right on
ill re-read these posts, thanks for redirecting
I dont either... agree with you here

An objective morality cannot be based on emotions, nor can it only appeal to normal or good people. — Philosophim

see sticky note moved from here 5/15/24 1154pm
" NO precondition for questioning should be enforced by anyone except the self to, for, with the self...like dont you think the precondition is the ability we have to "think before we speak" ? Isnt "thinking before speaking" a precondition to questioning? Common sense to me. Makes sense, to me! "

That's not coherent to my claim. I already mentioned if both could co-exist then both should as that's more existence. The only case in which we decide one over the other is if both cannot co-exist, or we only have the capacity to choose one over the other.


You sidestepped what I said: mentioning that both co-existing would be better doesn’t address the hypothetical I gave you. ‘What should be’ is a final consideration: it leaves out any discussion of a hierarchy of good things that never make the cut for being things which should exist. — Bob Ross

This is good to point out, bob (underlined)

There is no question that we all suffer. You view morality as a methodology of easing human suffering and providing benefits to humanity. But that's not objective. — Philosophim

good point here

But if you cannot raise it to the level of possibility or impossibility, then cogently, we can dismiss the argument as a thought that cannot be elevated enough to be a serious consideration in the argument — Philosophim

we can...

Ha ha! No worry. It needs to be challenged in every way. A claim to objectivity requires it. — Philosophim

That is excatly right, Philosophim! ONWARD!

The morality I'm looking at is the deeper morality that would give us an objective justification for concluding that humanity should flourish. The morality I'm asking would exist even if humans didn't. Its a morality that can be applied to animals, and even the non-conscious universe itself. It does not care about our personal benefit, or our cultural subjective viewpoints. — Philosophim

The confusion within some people may not understanding this part...see bold and underlined text from quote below to back this one above???

You might be missing context as the important factor. Within the context in which both can co-exist,it is good for both to co-exist. In the context in which only one can exist, it will be a greater good for one of them to exist over the other. But this second context does not universalize that the one which will not exist wouldn't be good if they could both exist.

Lets use people. An 80 year old man is out with their 5 year old grandson. As they pass by a building, an explosion happens. The still spry grandfather can leap out of the way, but his grandson will die. If he stays, he will die, but his grandson will live.

Ideally both should be able to live. But given the situation, only one can. In the situation between the grandfather and grandchild its not that the grandfather shouldn't exist, its that the best outcome within this specific situation is that the grandfather dies protecting the grandson. A moral outcome based on a limitation does not mean that we will have the same moral outcome with that limitation removed. — Philosophim

I think you are onto something here..

Now, it is the case that if nothing exists, then no standard of goodness can exist. If that's what you're getting at, that seems fine. But here, the term "exists" seems like it could also be equivocal. Do facts like 1+1=2 exist outside of created existence? Do they exist necessarily?

Well, if they do exist in a way different from how chairs and tables exist, and the standard of good exists in the way necessary facts exist, then it seems possible for it to exist while also stating that created existence "ought not exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is it necessary to go this direction? ITS A DEAD END the road we take because we are blinded by confusion and thinking any relevance comes around the questioning if nothing exists path....


We can proceed here,

My question to you now is if the initial logic I've noted above seems sound. If I can get a general consensus that this seems like a logical start, I can build from here. Yes, your initial impression might be an emotional rejection or not understanding what the point is. But ignoring that, does the logic hold? — Philosophim

, and we shall BECAUSE WE CAN AND BECAUSE WE WANT TO! I did not present a rejection, I rightfully questioned the intention and ability of the person (you) who seeks to proceed with building a new process (the objection that can come from ideas presented in OP). I think you are reading into the emotions before acknowledging the character for what it is? Shame on you! You know better than that!! AND ALSO I can give a general consensus, (who else is going to? Who COULD?) because my intentions to enhance the efforts you seek to start doing, the building, are true in that I believe you are taking THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN YOUR EFFORTS presented in the OP. Are you seriously asking MEEEEEE if the logic in the OP proper??? WHO AM I TO SAY? LOOK AT THE WAY I EXPRESS MYSELF? DO YOU SEE ME USING LOGIC IN MY STYLE and EFFORTS? I dont know much or care to learn proper logic, and have said it before.. it is not required. It is not useless, it is very valuable for some people to understand "things" but that is out of my place to speak on...I will argue NOTHING "needs" to be logically correct, it needs to be real and if it is real it OUGHT to be able to be logically put from there....does that make sense or am I slow? ACTUALLY don't answer that last question.... :roll: It might contradict things if you do that, correctly...ha!


My more than general consensus exists here now and even did then (my original comment). This is my immediate responses and reactions, as they came to me in the moment while reading the thread to its end. This single comment displays in it the way I have navigated the thread and comprehended it for its worth (to me)...I am not prepared in the time I have now, as I am nearing the max limit that this single comment ought to hold. If I share my consensus (it exists already) further than this here comment, consider this the warning that it will still surface...this comment AT LEAST serves to prep the others! The sail has been set and the wind is steady coming! When the time is right, we will move on together! Until then, "yo ho yo ho, a pirates life for me!"

No objective conclusion that I know of leads to a contradiction of itself, therefore anything which is a contradiction cannot be objective. Ergo, "Existence ought to be" is the only conclusion which an objective morality could conclude. — Philosophim

Yep, seems obvious to me. What does that say about YOU? (literally anyone- lets compare)

b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No". — Philosophim


Why would moral theories be required to answer this question? I think most moral theories simply do not answer the question at all. — Leontiskos

thats right, it is not a real question...if it is, i would like to observe that convo in real time being had between an asker (out of curiosity, lack of better words/understanding/clarification for self -NOT- if asker is only asking, not because they care about the actual answer from the giver (true or not), but for their own reasons/needs. If the ask is done indirectly for other intel (without knowledge of observations being had, of course) then I believe within that ask, is an observer seeking something other than "the answer" but "thee answer" that works and can be accepted to proceed with discussing for them....if this is an actual question, no judgement, I genuinely want to know WHO is ASKING WHO or WHAT and WHAT they get from the answer and how to carry on from there...do they want to just "ask" to bring up discussion that can incorporate their ideas further surrounding the topic? Probably, most likely...AND thats fine with me, people have to bounce ideas around for feedback, I totally get that but when/if it is other than that, its pretty bleak. I am not sure if the will exists in me to even want to try and wrap my head around what is or might be going on wherever that question takes/lands us...if its an actual real question, that is! I find it SUS!

Is there an objective morality? If there is, it hasn't been found yet. But maybe we don't need to have found it to determine fundamental claims it would necessarily make. — Philosophim

Finding an objective morality? We dont start with an objective morality because we must determine them/an. How about we first moralize objectively....? That is almost surely possible, to what degree? It depends.

It is about finding the fundamentals of morality, then working up to examples of generally understood morality. — Philosophim

Finding the fundamentals of morality to build a general understanding of morality. Are those examples then compared to the basis built from the fundamental findings or other understandings and examples? The how and TO WHAT we compare a general understanding of morality to is important for objective moralizing, I believe.

If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.

f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist. — Philosophim

NOT ACCORDING TO ITSELF, IT SHOULDNT EXIST. OBJECTIVITY ISNT EXISTING, WE ARE AND WHAT WE DECIDE IS OBJECTIVE, IS. WE WILL NEVER KNOW IF IT IS FOR OURSELVES, AS OF /IN PRESENT TIME. BECAUSE IT CAN HAPPEN DOESNT MEAN IT EXISTS CURRENTLY...IT CAN EXIST, DOES (I believe), YET, WE ARE STILL HERE! *tick-tock* THIS ARGUMENT SEEMS INVALID, NOTHING TO ARGUE.

I DO like the direction this discussion is taking, though! I should note, that I type in CAPS for no good reason...however, I think there is good reason for the making of this post. I applaud your work, Philosophim and also Bob's, in the specific area of "morality" you both frequently discuss on the forum . You two are dedicated, thorough, and well spoken! Taking notes! I am pleased to find myself commenting on another thread and I appreciate all the effort that goes in to your posts!

BUT anyways, where was I......

LITERALLY NO ONE: "SHOULD THERE BE EXISTENCE"
My inner voice: "nO"
EXISTENCE: "TOO BAD."

Maybe if I truly believed it, when I allowed my mind and inner voice to go there (answering "nO" to question B of the argument) I would have more justification or explanation and I WOULD BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN IT, except...I cant, because I think and believe there SHOULD be existence. If I thought otherwise, well, tough shiz! Explain WHY it shouldnt and feel LOVE at the same time. Can you? That alone is good enough for why it should...LOVE! And any/the explanation that one could come up with, for why it SHOULD NOT, will be lost by those of it! At the most, a nod, smile, and wave good bye! Agree to disagree...because that question should not be asked, period. If the answer actually is objectively no, to the question "should there be existence" then its over my dead body and guess what...I'm fine to go down for that!

I dont know, I feel these questions in the argument is opinion based questions, and no argument is to be HAD. We cant argue opinions. Well, I usually wont unless I am bothered by the opposing stances and cant move on without carrying frustrations, issues...Or we can if we are really bored and/or of hidden agendas/intentions from the act. For ex. when one indirectly posits stances and takes on the likeness of what they think the one of/with/ that has those beliefs and takes those stances and portrays outward that air in communication, to sway, to seem agreeable, to seem sure, to distract and soothe the self?...boo!

b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No". — Philosophim

Should there be? THERE IS!

i can get on board with what you are saying here, though. Existence "was" an action...it can be, again! Until we cant. Maybe, It's being an action.


Existence is not good or bad inherently to itself, we are inherently existing with both the good and the bad, all together- we all get the same time in one day...it just hits us differently. The good and the bad are how we can be moral agents, i think. It is not on the scale or the basis to be either/or...we need both. Morality is undefined objectively, because people are still confused. I am guilty of it myself, at times. But not about this...morality is and ALSO is when it can be objective.

Billy Paul, When Love Is New (1975)

Instrumentals:
Prod. J.Dilla (2005)
Prod. 9th Wonder (2008)*

Hey Christoffer, thank you for the helpful advice. You are exactly right here,

While AI functions well att writing, the problem is that you lose or never challenge your own process of thought as writing isn't just outward communication, it's part of your internal processing of ideas. — Christoffer

And I often do write with pen and paper but its funny I type the same way I write a lot of the time, which is the same way I speak or think. I tend to communicate my ideas stream of consciousness style, so while I used to believe that the contents of the thought are more important than the delivery style, grammar, and proper language usage; I am quickly learning that side is equally important to be fully heard and understood. I would rush to put out my thoughts before the structural work because at the "brainstorming" stage it doesnt have to fully be presentable (to others) and thats the stage a lot of my philosophical thought is at...so sharing here TO OTHERS, I am taking away from my thoughts that maybe would be considered more if they were understood by more than just ME.

But yeah, I am still learning how to use A.I. properly too so that didnt help me as much as I thought it would.

Appreciate your insight.

I am not playing dumb, I couldnt tell if you were calling me out or the OP. I think you meant my comment was written with A.I. and it was in fact. Good looking out, Lionino. I am messing with newly updated Bing Copilot. My post was translated here by me from the help of a.i., but I did not directly copy and paste it from chat. I save the outputs then copy into my notes app to break it up to make sense for me. I am not using it to for any other reason then to help me learn philosophical terms and usages by focusing on proper formatting and communication skills. I am usually a bit unpolished in my comments and am figuring better good structure with the tools available. I have all my inputs saved to authenticate my credibility. I am not claiming to know anything that I didnt already. I have to input into chat in order to get the results I did... But yeah I am not hiding the fact I have started using A.I. aid to see how I can construct better sentences through philosophical inquires. But you are right, it is obvious. But now what? This is the second time I have used Bings help, the first was yesterday replying to Sam26 in the thread Is knowledge merely belief. It is also obvious. What is also obvious is I am trying..
But you have made a good impression on me, and I am willing to not implement so obviously or take advantage the aids A.I. offers. I care too much about my character, originality, and credibility to risk ruining it over something I can learn on my own. Thanks for the reminder and calling me out!

Wait are you serious?

The paradox arises when the straw man fallacy is adopted by the opponent as their genuine argument. By doing so, they unintentionally invalidate the fallacious intent behind the straw man and transform it into a legitimate stance.

This serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role that clear and precise communication plays in our understanding of complex issues. It highlights the fact that without clarity, messages can be easily distorted, leading to a cascade of muddled misunderstandings. It reminds us that words have power and that how we choose to express ourselves can have far-reaching implications for our relationships and society at large.

This is particularly relevant in the fast-paced world of today and tomorrow, where information is rapidly exchanged and the potential for misinterpretation is high. The paradox also encourages people to be mindful of the language they use and to strive for transparency in our interactions. By doing so, we can foster more productive and meaningful conversations that are grounded in reality rather than in exaggerated or misconstrued versions of our statements. It prompts us to consider the perspectives of others before jumping to conclusions, promoting a more empathetic and nuanced approach to dialogue.

I love to see it, Echogem222!

Edit This above comment was constructed with aid of Bing Copilot. But the heart, interest, and validity I have for the context and message of the OP is shown in my efforts to remain transparent and credible. I will refrain from the obvious aid moving forward. It is not authentic but the inputs and interests I took to learn more are genuine. My intent was not to pretend to know something I do not...just to be a bit more well written. I will take this as a lesson learned. Thanks!

I basically agree with your "move forward peacefully" but I also don't mind a bit of conflict and confrontation and challenge in the process of examining one another's ideas. — Janus

Cool, that is great news.

I don't know, perhaps I didn't read you closely enough, but to the extent that it seemed to me that you were indulging what I see as Chet's self-indulgent grandiosity it seemed to me a "wankfest" I don't know if you agreed with him or if you were just being polite to him, but if I misunderstood you, then I in turn apologize. — Janus

Apology accepted.

When I spoke of it being boring, tedious, vacuous I was referring specifically to Chet's unargued pontifications, not the whole thread — Janus

I know that but you also seemed to say that my contributions to chets boring model and your issues within this self-induced boredom you are experiencing does not help in that same sentence! Fine. Fair enough, I just wanted to know why for my own sake. I have apologized for making you think something I did not mean, not what I actually meant. Of course there is NO NEED for me to apologize...there is no need to do anything, but we all ought to do the right thing. Apologizing to move forward peacefully is the right thing, it is considerate but I prefer to stand corrected especially when it comes to my usage of words to be heard, felt, understood. Acknowledgment is only but a start.

Yeah, you're right the ending was a bit much. I do apologize for that last little bit, the part you quoted. I was meaning like "all this engagement and Janus is not getting anything out of it, nothing?!?" I see how it does presume I am speaking for you, but we both know (ha ha) that I am in no place to do that...

things get a bit muddled. — Sam26

Yes, I'd say. Thanks for the further intel. I am still green with such specific philosophical terms and the proper usages. I am trying, nonetheless!

Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, — Echogem222

Cant you see, life can and does makes sense to JANUS--which appears things "obvious" to them...when they aren't obvious then they are "issues" when the issues change without sharing where we can find, how we can find a common ground to proceed from the blockade that is placed FOR A REASON... then is it POINTLESS because it always was to begin with? I believe that is the case. Unless the point was to show that chet is wrong YOU have yet to say an original thing besides complaining about your issues. You'd think if the issues were major, you would seek answers but the answer you want does not exist because you ask NO QUESTIONS that can help others HELP YOU solve? Why did you go on to create a discussion based on what he said in the Existentialist thread? Did you think you were going to uncover something he has never said before? Do you think he WANTS to explain to you? Maybe he does, I think he tried. You do not try to understand. You try and tell what he is supposed to be doing, how he should be doing it, explaining things to YOU....but refusing to swallow the words because it's lost on you not because his confidence is problematic. I mean, it could be but that is also a non-issue here. No one has to tailor their word to a particular liking, you do not have to believe. You said you dont anyways, so its easy for you to do that...LIFE is HARD!

↪Echogem222I don't need to believe anything when I can simply see what the case is. I don't say all knowledge is not reliant on belief. So-called propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and I have no problem with that because I think, under a certain interpretation, that we can be said to know things we are not certain about. — Janus

↪Kizzy
This continues to be a pointless exchange. — Janus

Because a back and forth is required and you do nothing to help yourself understand, besides what you always have done. You are claiming no arguments have been made, but what if we are getting there??? You are limiting the possibilities and ultimately only robbing yourself...Its the same old DOG SHIT, a shame.

Great questions. Lets see if they are coherent, mine apparently were not for Janus. Maybe I will take a page from your book, if your communication efforts work better for his understanding. If anything, I will know (ha ha) and NO THANKS to him, what about my questions were not good enough to be acknowledged...based on the evidence that Janus provides in how he proceeds with answering your response. My THANKS to you! Do I believe MY and HIS exchange is pointless, not on my end. BUT they are when such refusal is happening, its fine. I am not here for JANUS' amusement, "

It's tedious and boring stuff, totally vacuous, and you haven't helped make it any more interesting...to me at least. — Janus

" I am here because I CARE. Pointless exchanges are only that, for Janus, but not for the right reasons...He calls this an exchange. Do I believe this exchange is pointless? No I do not. For the reasons that ought to be clear, people are continuing to engage...18 pages later. And JANUS gets nothing...

You present a whole paragraph of seemingly irrelevant or incoherent questions, and then when I ask what you think the relevance to the issue is in what you wrote, you respond by saying there is no issue, and then asking how that seems like trolling? — Janus

you dont have to ask, READ...its not "seemingly" irrelevant IS IT? OR IS IT NOT?

The issue from the start is that Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot. — Janus

Also, not really an issue but a personal one. One you have with a dying interest in understanding anyways... He claims not that, just that there is NO knowledge. Has nothing to do what he thinks he claims we dont know or how he says it...would that change things FOR YOU if how he said his arguments were tailored to your liking how does that affect your issues? Do the issues transform? Do they stem from an underlying issue, or just not HELP YOU UNDERSTAND your issues through?

There is no fair exchange happening, but I do not disagree Janus

you respond by saying there is no issue, and then asking how that seems like trolling? — Janus

I asked that because you questioned if I was. You initiated that term! EVEN WITH THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF YOU.

No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. Doubt about it is impossible unless I buy into some silly artificial possibility like "brain in a vat" or " evil demon.

.↪Bylaw
I agree with you that eliminating the word 'know' from the lexicon would make no difference. That said, I do think that people often take themselves to know things which they really don't.

My issue is that we do know many things, so eliminating the word 'know' would be impossible in any case, because then we could no longer speak accurately about our experiences. — Janus

I kindly ask if you REREAD my paragraph, that was replying to the bold response you made to Bylaw. I dont understand how you find it to be irrelevant to YOUR issue?

HOW do my efforts to engage in this conversation come off as trolling? You stated your issue, I wonder if it actually is one and if so HOW BIG of an issue is it to the RELEVANCE of this THREAD?

there is no issue