I dont think it does break any rules because although Amorals are regarding "intent" I would more define it as a word that can describe those actions with no moral consequence or intention. ex. "When Rationalization doesnt respect THE REASON"You might argue that the new category of "amoral" act I am talking about above could still be good or bad based on whether it violates some arbitrary set of rules. I admit that it could be. What if it doesn't break any rules? — ToothyMaw
NO literally! edit: NO literally! I am glad you tied this example inLazy e.g.s: this topic deserves much more elegant, microscopic ones, but in 1100 CE they "knew" the earth was central etc. After Newton and before Einstein we "knew" what gravity was. — ENOAH
Kick rocks!!!My model helps me to understand. Fear, anger, and desire are all three consciousness. They are all three involved in choice. The choice to be, anger, is still a choice. The choice to comply with instantiated patterns, involuntary acts, as you just gave an example for, are indeed still choices.
The power of choice is effectively infinite. But a weak will (desire in general) is hard pressed to carry out 'deliberate' acts that violate the tendencies of the weak current state. We are slowly evolving into more capable moral agents. That is a law of the universe. It is happening everywhere and it is, from what we can determine so far, reasonably rare that what we call life happens. As mentioned, that is a misunderstanding. The call of desire, the existence of nothing but consciousness in the universe, empowers free will for every particle in existence. The STATE of that particle determines the difficulty of choice. So it is nigh unto impossible for a rock to play poker for example. But that is only nigh and not finally actually impossible. Understanding and accepting these extremely rare cases of truth delving is a better way than what most people have of being aware what is going on.
Most people will not be comfortable discussing rocks that choose. But any other assertion is more than just incoherent. Everything in this universe is choosing constantly. And moral scrutiny DOES apply to rocks as well as humans. I realize I am probably alone in this assertion. No worries. — Chet Hawkins
no, literally!Which is every single act in the universe that has happened, is happening, or will happen. No narrowing down of the scope occurred here. If you think it did, you are only deluding yourself and those that believe you. — Chet Hawkins
thats wise of you, chet!....What clearly stated to you determines a non-hypothetical state? I promise you there is not one. To any experience of any chooser, any act past or present is hypothetical only. — Chet Hawkins
I think even if its knowable (chet assumes BELIEVES its NOT (with good enough reason) the part or answer to the question, begs the questioning...if unknowable (due to capabilities) how does TIME influence or constrain something that can be known only by observation of existence in reality and from there judged rightfully and agreed upon from the place of judgement with good reasons that warrant detailed explanations in the decision its self? The jury should explain consensus and how they got there should be examined, for cases that are harder or easier than others to get to an answer, those decision making moments in group setting vs individual beliefs how they affect or alter that timeline, convincing, and doubting, and power....willing...justice serves itself in all natures, at certain/specific times for us. What do we do with that intel? Ignore it? Thats your call...or Bobs....we cant see what time tells us now, then! How could we?So to us moral agents that are not perfectevery act is hypothetical even after decisions are made and a new state is formed. We do not know the past. We do not know the present state. We do not know the future. All of it is hypothetical. — Chet Hawkins
YES! This implements a great point here (underlined) in your shared thinking...."And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions." On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion. The movement, is time which is constraining in certain moments, like when a decision is needed to move forward in a project. I think intentions change in decision making moments, and can be re-purposed. See my comment here, [url=http://]https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866500[/url].. im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. Morals are justification itself. I propose, "you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed? AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what happened in reality played out was very different"However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc. — ENOAH
Proper use assumes there is one....are we users, consumers, creators? I believe we are both the creation and creators, the design and the consumers....You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. The only proper use of anything is morally, so for example, a Pragmatic win by any means is not really a win in truth. It's evil. Of course nothing is entirely evil. The win itself is indicative of achievement and that is some good. — Chet Hawkins
Its more of a non-issue, for me. I believe I am free from a will to worry about such issues you see that I dont yet. Maybe my view is obstructed on purpose. I'd like to believe. I'd also like to not worry. But trusting the fear is instinctive, letting the worry come and go is me being safe. being, feeling, in that i acknowledge, determine, doubt, value, verify, judge, confirm, care, consist, compare, believe, hope and love...resist, repeat! Yeah for me it is because its telling what we ought to not have to question...its confirmation, its useful, its helpful. Its power is weak though, i believe in the larger scheme of "things" Its issue for me is wondering how important it is to learn as a concept to think its serving its functional purposes to any end that I can do anything about, let alone begin to attempt to care. I can try if its necessary. I doubt it really is for me. I should care, I do when it matters. But overall its value, its own weight holds up but thats just what it is/was/could be. Its a piece, it matters but compared to what? Curious to see how you respond to the last question I proposed above given your similar curious nature to mine surrounding topics of function serving, "purposes". For my view to be obstructed "on purpose" that would mean the functions of probability ought to be known BY ME,for me, to have reason to believe that....and I think I do enough to show its functions are at least as DELUDED as my own beliefs backed by real accounts of my experience in a comparable reality....Well, probability is an issue. — Chet Hawkins
sniffing this out, ill be back...release the hound dogs! 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. But is this telling of ANY nature of the Universe? I dont think so.....you cant force the awareness you are not bound to obtain, thats your BLOOD...blame your ancestors for that lack or accept self in its own nature. Where do we belong to judge from rightfully?Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link. — Chet Hawkins
It is the right thing to do, and KNOWING how to become aware of our place in the world only requires selfless self awareness. — Kizzy
ONLY that? Well then why are we all not in the Federation already? Free medical and career path investment for all! Where's my replicator? — Chet Hawkins
Finally, although I agree that what DOES grow us objectively is GOOD, what we believe grows us is subjective and always partially wrong and therefore not 'known'. We are left only with belief (and of course doubt). That is healthy. So, many people will judge that this or that belief will grow them and that this or that belief is too much an impediment to growth and these same people are very often wrong on BOTH counts. — Chet Hawkins
I got ya good looking out!!!Well truth shown about a thing is not truth. That is a status, a state. So we get confused all the time into calling personal states or states of anything truth. If it can change it is a state. Truth does not change.
I agree that awareness has no seeming limit. It extends out into infinity and that is my point that kind of started this thread to some extent. The limit as x approaches infinity in math is a way to describe this relationship. We get the impression that arrival at knowledge is impossible, but that we can indeed always do better, as in earn more awareness.
It's just that you use the same word and words 'know', 'knowledge', and 'knowing' where I would ask for aware of, awareness, and being aware of; instead. I can do that
You can even say something more indirect and be right for me as in. 'try to know' or 'almost know'. But to just say 'know' partakes of the error.
Okay but not to soothe only because I respected and agree with the insight.
I to want to contribute to our awareness. Part of that is the discipline to make words and their colloquial use less ambiguous — Chet Hawkins
Delusion feels harsh, what about confusion? who am i trying to soothe? *cough* myself *cough* Confused on their place and misplaced confidence? My doubting causes me delayed action, thats what I meant by waste of time. I didnt intend to say that doubting is USELESS.Doubt and questioning are not wastes of time. They are healthy. They are more a part of truth and wisdom than 'knowing' is at any stage. The delusion of 'knowing' without doubt is precisely the point I am speaking against. — Chet Hawkins
and turning it into a right vs wrong match on the spot, those who need to act like that, "I am right and YOU are wrong" and not only act, NEED that act its not about truth its about the answers chosen to accept while willing to lose chances to grow in return for the validation of self ONLY.Will it take some time and WORK, absolutely. Will others pick up that slack regardless? I have no doubt. — Kizzy
its normal, but not necessaryMy belief is NOTHING BUT linked to my doubts. In other words there is no belief I have that is not doubted somewhat. I think that is healthy and that the alternative is not. — Chet Hawkins
I also don't think you need bivalence for realism. It's more of a metaphysical question as to whether all statements about the future have truth values, or if potentially/actuality and potency/act are required for an accounting of the world — Count Timothy von Icarus
I like thisNow we move on to a separate matter:
Second assertion: We cannot be certain of any justification applied to a belief that 'makes' it or transforms it into knowledge. — Chet Hawkins
:up:It is the 'fact' or 'knowledge' or better as I mentioned, let's say it is the awareness of something that approaches objective knowing, BUT NEVER GETS THERE, that is the point. And it cannot get there. That is critical to understand. One is tempted to say or add, '... in finite time' — Chet Hawkins
great point and i feel drawn to point out how that initiative "to soothe" when it comes to the means of that situation. Its not just about the soothing others, the fools that are actually being soothed are themselves. I can admit I am a self soother and I like to believe I can justify my reasons to no end. It may be true, but it is not what is RIGHT. I take warnings seriously and I think some folk might miss the heart of the AND IN the message because they take your style as they can. "Thanks for the warning, big guy...i think ill be alright" but its not about that (even though that impression I assume is just that, an assumption but i believe it is not 100% incorrect, NOW WHAT?) Its just true, some times....in some cases dealing with some specific individual experience and all that comes with.The warning I am putting forth is to call into question the Pragmatic nonsense of soothing fools with lies about certainty. We all need to become more amenable to the idea of not knowing. Clearly the Yogi mentioned agrees with my general aim. It's a matter of respectful wise humility. — Chet Hawkins
Since you asked nicely! Ha...its interesting how some people only respond to those requests when they are asked politely. The "good manners" and respect THEY DESERVE seems to hit them in that way without thinking deeper, the good manners WORKS in persuasion. A lot of things are verifible, like you mention with the grain of sand paradox, its the refusal and the tolerance I am also beyond frustrated seeing being repeated and regurgitated in the WRONG ways. The way that is right and true is knowable, I believe. Not for all though, thats up to the TIME!I love it that people TRY to be objective. I love it that people try to justify their beliefs. But that is NOT the issue here. The issue is when any of us say we 'know' or that we are 'being objective' they are actually just simply wrong. We cannot know and we cannot be objective. We can believe and we can try to be objective and let's speak and write about that correctly, please. — Chet Hawkins
i disagree with the stance taken in the op, i think it is possible. Time can tell, but not you or anyone living today perhaps.There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. — MoK
:up: or instead of time is change, time allows change to happen in many places, small and large degrees. It can be/is measurable assuming time is a dim of movement (or change) in spaceAnd although it may be tempting to say that time is required for change, it is perhaps more accurate to say that time is change, assuming that time is in fact a dimension of spacetime. — Michael
:up: loop de loop, round and round.Circularity is not infinite regress, we are not always going back to new reasons, but looping. — Count Timothy von Icarus
:up: this is where i am at...The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from it. The obvious question is well where did this something come from and again we’re faced with the brute fact that it’s always been — kindred
valid? who cares if its valid...its not telling if time prevents any man from knowing...time helps the right man know.so mathematical theorems are valid even if there is no man who could deduce or know them — MoK
I was thinking something similar, I believe.
My thought process was:
When we refer to "reality" or "the universe", we are referring to: the entire collection of objects (ultimately made up of quarks, leptons, etc.), space, and time.
However, what if these "things" had precursor, "things" that aren't like any of the "things" that we are familiar with as constituents of reality.
These original things can therefore be eternal - (like you say, perhaps fields) - and have existed always.
The only one of the original familiar elements that I take as having to also be an infinite precursor as well, would have to be time.
Maybe, like a chemical reaction, these original, always existing fields, could go for a long time before reacting. eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set — 013zen
eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set. — 013zen
— Arne
Good stuff. Infinite amount of forces X, Y and whatever in an infinitely small space and all at rest. The only finite element of the scenario is the at rest. — Arne
Everyone is both a teacher and a student. To deny the role of the teacher is avoiding responsibility. To deny the role of the student is arrogance and short-sightedness, both — Chet Hawkins
I see you now, and can admit that I still go back and forth with you on this one, baker.All in all, I think it makes for a waste of time to utter words without actually communicating. — baker
well, how can a subjective experience be compared to another without being in accordance to a standard of some kind? I think every subjective experience has something to do with objective knowledge...does the knowledge itself become or is/can be subjective when used from/obtained from a single subjective experiences alone?Can one's own subjective experience have anything to do with the objective knowledge? — Corvus
The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. — baker
So far, I have not found — baker
, what does this even mean?So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss. — baker
Ouch! Yeah, i see it now... Not quite there yet, ha ha! :smile: Enjoyable read nonetheless.Hopefully all that was not too dreamworld in styling. I tried to write a page in your book, instead of mine. — Chet Hawkins
Kizzy
I am glad you find them interesting. The references include several different perspectives on the science. What I have presented in this forum is my synthesis of those perspectives.
Would you be interested in a thread here about the state of science about our moral sense and cultural moral norms? — Mark S
(I'm bracketing this response as I don't want to derail the conversation about the OP. — Wayfarer
Ah,well then that is good news! some people DO STILL exist... with senses that are keen to them, specifically within, embedded and tended to and released when surety is sure enough to continue on...unbothered without getting to see that demonstration. Carry on, sounds like you are really getting somewhere with your demonstrations to THOSE other people...fun its fun right?Extremely certain. I'm even very confident I can demonstrate it to most people — Bylaw
but with something we would call ethics nowadays. — Pez
yes! right on. good!This error relies on the so-called 'view from nowhere', the conceit that one can rise above all particular acts of knowing to see material things as they are in themselves. It is a foundational error within empiricism, because particulars are not anything 'in themselves' in the sense that modern objectivism posits — Wayfarer
hm... :brow: yeah sure he does, whatever you say. YAY plato lets party :cheer: :razz:Plato lives! :party: — Wayfarer
-well I Wonder why? Seems obvious to me, now but NEED MORE to act and you need to say more here! Interested yes its true...you already have the answers, i think...thats why i ask, just keep doing what you are doing, include everything you can and go for it!! Waiting and excited to learn and know something for sure, but again I am wondering... how bothered can I really be? A challenge? A competition perhaps? No, that is no fair. But is life anyways? I'm suspicious still...... because particulars are not anything 'in themselves'in the sense that modern objectivism posits.They (what are they now? have no inherent reality, their reality is imputed tothem(WHO) by the observer...
(This also shows up, needless to say, in quantum physics.) — Wayfarer
we cannot prove the exact instance happened. — Bylaw
but we cannot prove the exact instance happened. But given that beliefs can form rationally from individual experiences, not all rational beliefs are going to be demonstrable to others. — Bylaw
we could consider a scientific position or train of thought — AmadeusD
We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222
But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. — Echogem222
Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. — Echogem222
So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility — Echogem222
Make this conclusion stronger its important You have good stuff here it ought to go somewhere make the reach set that scope with purpose in mind perhaps even though your passion is evident to meIn conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things. — Echogem222
↪Echogem222
Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. — Philosophim
Its right where it needs to be, at least you acknowledge a path at all.↪Echogem222
Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. — Philosophim
But many and most are too focused on survival. — Chet Hawkins
the "they" you are referring to is only the strong ones, you happen to see and believe exist and you are right they do..... but what about the others?But they are out there in the world contributing to their passion when someone will DEIGN to let them in — Chet Hawkins
It has to appeal to its own internal and rarified structures to maintain credibility — Chet Hawkins
You are right, I wish I saw this sooner. Learning from it is good for me, though.Rather than 'boring', I would opt for well-integrated and well-adjusted. — Vera Mont
trust me i know it, im with you here.. REALLY! — Chet Hawkins
Boring haha Im kidding. I got ya, I see ya, I feel ya! A little dream is all ya need. Good night :yawn:I mean of course, in general, after. They became lauded as inventors and then admitted humbly perhaps that the inspiration came to them in a dream. — Chet Hawkins