Comments

  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    My issue is that we do know many things, so eliminating the word 'know' would be impossible in any case, because thenwe could no longer speak accurately about our experiences. — Janus
    what is the issue THEN lets say, if I cant hear? We show, point, gesture...we emote, we react, we acknowledge, we affirm with gestures, faces, body lang. we move forward, we think, we believe...how do you "know" someone actually "knows" what they claim?....Do we question them, based on what? Your standards? What you accept, what you refuse to accept, what you tolerate, what you are determined--what you are WILLING to do to understand? What if no one questions YOUR certainty? How do you? Why bring up "knowing I have hands" ??? Why would you question your hands, why would anyone that SEES you question that? Why would anyone that can ONLY HEAR you claiming that you have hands, believe you? unless they can FEEL you, touch you...or do those that dont have hands, eyes, ears or those over distance communicating through a screen just have to BELIEVE in the fact they think they know you?

    EDIT 1114 pm - In addition to my questions above: I wonder if we just have good enough reason TO KNOW what we DO NOT believe...why/how can we though without knowing a belief? Perhaps in "thinking we know" So then, do you know you have them...do we know you have them? Yes? Who needs to know?
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    Now 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

    I like this     — Kizzy
    @Chet Hawkins

    EDIT 920 pm
    I am now aware, I should have just edited my last comment and included in it the quote above instead of making it a separate comment. I'll remember that next time!
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    There is no epistemological justification for the belief that you have hands. To know this is the case ask yourself if there is any good justification for doubting the belief that you have hands. If there are good reasons to doubt, then justification makes sense, but if there are no good reasons to doubt, then justification doesn't make sense. The connection between knowledge and doubting is an important epistemological connection — Sam26
    Hi Sam26, I am glad you bring this up. It is kind of confusing TO UNDERSTAND, and apparently not just for me to understand that statements like Janus' "So, when I look at my hands I cannot but be certain that I have hands — Janus," that are used NOT to defend "knowledge" but defend "certainty". I wonder the same thing,
    Are you saying that looking at your hands (sensory observation) provides a justification for the belief that you have hands? — Sam26
    because to me that seems like the efforts to defend "knowing" are largely misdirected when used in this sense. COMMON SENSE....where the absence of doubt is taken as sufficient grounds for certainty.

    Are you saying that looking at your hands (sensory observation) provides a justification for the belief that you have hands? — Sam26


    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.     — Janus
    So Janus is onto something and Sam26 was wise enough to point it out... The distinction between certainty and knowledge is crucial.

    G.E. Moore would argue that the knowledge of having a hand is as clear as day; it's a basic truth that doesn't need to be dragged through the mud of skepticism. It's like saying, "I'm certain I had coffee this morning,"—no one needs a signed affidavit from the barista to believe that.

    On the flip side, Wittgenstein suggests that our game of doubting everything, including the existence of our hands, is like sawing off the branch we're sitting on. It's all fun and games until someone questions the existence of the tree. Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' whispers to us that there's a difference between knowing something for sure, like the presence of our hands, and just being stubbornly skeptical.

    In epistemology, certainty is a state of no doubt, like knowing one has hands, and doesn’t need justification. Knowledge, however, is a justified true belief that requires evidence. Wittgenstein argued that basic certainties are needed to build knowledge. While certainty is immediate, knowledge seeks justification through evidence. Doubt is valuable as it leads to knowledge, but for certain truths, like the existence of our hands, seeking justification may be unnecessary. The relationship between certainty and knowledge involves understanding what we accept as true and what we justify, shaping our view of the world and our self-awareness.
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    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? — Kizzy

    Being in the universe you assert that your experience shows nothing of it? That is comically wrong.     — Chet Hawkins
    HUH? I meant like these predictions of outcomes are doable and can be replicated, for instance Fitness Functions*, what good is it? I am defending the uncertainty when I said that, I could be more clear next time...I am saying the awareness is gained, some are built for it others are not. Predictions are just the truth that was always to occur anyways....

    *A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarise, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims. Fitness functions are used in evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming and genetic algorithms to guide simulations towards optimal design solutions.[1] per wikipedia

    "Just by chance you will get some things right. Granted that is no credit to you. But over time, you intuit those bits and then in humility you step forward with awareness that was always there anyway. Just living, the rote force contained in the body, with its patterns of effort well known and unconscious to you, is still a very large portion of good baked in."
    CREDIT to me? For WHAT? Cmon, I am not lost on this comment but I dont know why you add the credit remark. The rest has been obvious stuff to me. Fine with it.

    "You can disrespect that effort of millions of years and people do it every second of their lives. Instead of investing by choice in what evolution and the call of perfection shows us, we work in the other direction with self-indulgence, cowardice, and laziness; in general. We do it intentionally and often. And still, the unconscious parts of us accept the limits of reality. They try to breath when we eat so much our own bodies are choking our lungs. The cells are still working, making their less scoped choices. If they had any sense at all they would let us die, right? But they 'know' (ha ha) that it takes time for the greater moral scope chooser to earn the wisdom not to make such stupid choices. Caring is an earned activity. Awareness is an earned activity. 'Knowing' is just lazy cowardice. If you knew that alcohol would dehydrate you, why the hell did you keep drinking it? Crossed virtues! Over-expression of some. Under-expression of others."

    ME? Hmm, thats it! You got me...... :eyes:

    "We are instead REQUIRED to judge everything. All intents and actions/choices of ourselves and others and in that judgment (belief) we form new intents that are hopefully better than those we have made up until now. THAT is growth."

    Yeah you are right but isnt that almost obvious? I pretty much served that up in my word salad...if not,it was served in my latest response. This explaining is not so much word salad, its more dense...a word sundae is what is could be! Messy, but you should get through it before it melts!! Or get the napkins ready! Anyways, it should speak for ME a bit better. You spoke loud and clear, chet!

    Chet--You said also, "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."
    I am wondering, like narrows towards? like "focuses in" on perfection...or like simplifies to perfection. Narrows towards could meaning the process is guided by what aids and bouncing off how many things? Dont have to get into evolution to clear up my questions here...
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    "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. — Kizzy"

    ↪Chet Hawkins
    The following quotes are Chets replies to my comment above and the italics are my latest responses for clarity.

    "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."

    When I talk about "relevant realms of reality," I am referring to the different environments a person regularly encounters, such as where they were born or where they live now. The range of these influences can vary greatly from person to person, and they carry these influences with them every day. These places shape our daily lives and experiences, influencing our views, actions, and the decisions we make. I was thinking of reality and how it hosts a collection of experiences that are lived through and from and by the pov of the person in a specific location, environment, time, circumstance. I think where a person spends their day to day life, geographically matters and a boundary exists for each person to be considered "their relevant realm" meaning the diameter, the range of comfortable living where you travel to how far do you spend away from "home" each person has a different radius, a reach. A reach meaning like its not possible to affect a person outside of my realm because our existences never cross paths.

    Chet you say, "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."
    to which I want to make clear, Yeah I am with you, I just tossed the salad a little hard and over dressed it. WILTED. Here is fresh: I am seeing a problem though when "beliefs" are the excuse to justify acts or behaviors that are noticed when certain outcomes take place.The intention is what I was saying does not need a purpose, the individual has purpose and should be judged morally in how the use intentions. Intentions change to fit into the individuals perception of reality and the reasoning to justify the acts that support beliefs can be judged right and wrong. I think a ground exists to be able to judge right from, and the behavior from those consequences can determine and create beliefs that change projections potentially. What happens when people have false beliefs and they are purposely placing them to avoid even having to justify themselves in their beliefs...like i said in the link, morality is justification itself. They appear to be a moral agent of good faith, hope, and religious beliefs but by putting that "belief" or "fake belief" or "reason to make belief" in order to AVOID justification so they can hide their actual intentions.

    Then you went here and I want to defend myself a bit, "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."
    I spoke no deadly lie and I dont speak for consequentialism. That is judging right or wrong from the outcomes. I am saying that judging from just outcomes is NOT going to work. I never said that actually...What I meant when I said, (causality, the nature of cause and effect) is NOT grounding enough to be the base alone to judge outcomes without more details surrounding the purposes of the person in their relevant realms in reality. In their reasons, truth, their experience, it should be noticed in the way they lead their life. The outcomes are foreseen not to be judged morally from there, you are misunderstanding my goal. The outcomes are how the person handles the consequences after being judged, a foreseeable reaction. Behavior displays emotions in action! But yeah my statements were not explaining consequentialism thats the problem, when the place people judge from is wrong, and what they judge is also wrong. How can you say "your statements here are part of consequentialism, deadly lies" but admit that my comment is just becoming "word salad" to you? At that point, it would be better if you just swallowed the bad lettuce for what it is or perhaps just decline tasting it. Instead you spat out my word salad right back out. YES CHEF!

    "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."

    Well I lean towards thinking that perhaps while beliefs are influential and "the cause" they do not set the parameters for objective morality. Instead, they serve as a reference point, helping assess whether our intentions and actions are in harmony. Our daily existence, too, is framed by the geographical context of our lives—the places we visit, where we were born, and where we reside. Each individual operates within a "relevant realm," a comfortable living range where their influence is most potent, and beyond which it wanes. I never said consequential outcomes, I am saying foreseeable outcomes of the future because humans are predicable. How they handle consequences is only a part of the outcome to be predicted, and the predictions are far from vague, undemanding but can turn out wrong. But they also sometimes turn out right, in the same way. I am not worried about what happens when the unlikely becoming likely, I am talking when the unlikely become real. Or when what is "likely" does not become real. Something is becoming real and is it coming from the belief as the cause? Do you mean the cause as in the drive the motive? Does the cause see an end in the acts to come from the specific belief?

    "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."
    I am not approaching belief at all, I am approaching morality by imagining if there is a common place where judgements are verifiable and in a proper place to be made from and held accountable from/viceversa. Morality can be verified in the justification of a belief that is true and shown in the intentions, behaviors, act and choices that are available.

    ↪Chet Hawkins


    EDIT: addition to this comment posted 11:10pm, as I am reminded that you have mentioned before in your thread "Happiness and Unhappiness" an assertion that is relevant here, I believe.

    "It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true."
    I thought your model was great and spot on. I followed what you presented in the thread and am relating it to this thread like this:

    Acts/choices > both have consequences > pushes the HAPPY button (more or less- the basis) >Happiness scale (decisions, personality based? behaviors, moods, states? Who is dealing with happiness and how? subjective well being? how individual handles emotions) >more or less HAPPY because of who we are and virtues(balance the scale)> Happiness (more or less)

    Say three different fear based people (random, no correlation) and they all three make decisions/act/choices regarding a similar task...then of course from the choice, all three differently justified their morality in how their virtues play out together by having more or less happiness as the consequences?? The consequence is not about the outcome, here is that where I was scrambling the salad?
  • Our Idols Have Feet of Clay
    ↪isomorph
    Lmao got ya!
  • Our Idols Have Feet of Clay
    edit: HI isomorph, I am kizzy. I like your post, I was thinking "what a cool delivery!" I am excited to learn more detail from your posts! I originally said: "lounge no? I cant tell what category this is in" but that was in no direction towards your post. I want to genuinely know before I respond to it, if I do. A pleasure, nonetheless!
  • The Breadth of the Moral Sphere
    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
    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"

    edit: I now understand why you liked the OP...you can contribute with HIGH quality. Good stuff
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    :point:
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    ↪ENOAH
    You'd think the act would get better though, a pleasure nonetheless! BRAVO!!!! :flower: :party: :chin:
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    Lazy 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
    NO literally! edit: NO literally! I am glad you tied this example in
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    "Unfortunately, this thread has degenerated into a wankfest. It was to be expected, though."

    ↪Janus
    Oh so the "unfortunately" was sarcasm? Unfortunate but AND expected? Yeah actually that does add up! You were the OP right? Were the expectations based on reality? Sometimes when things turn out as expected, the one with those expectations are let down (sarcastic or not) BECAUSE it turned/s out as expected.....wank on!

    Edit: i define or MEAN when I said "expected" as expecting an outcome to happen that turns out different (negatively or positively) then what actually did...an expectation shouldnt but does happen after an act AND before..the before is preventative (fine) the after is realization and acclimating/accepting in order to proceed HAPPILY
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    ↪Janus
    So were the expectations flawed or just overly optimistic?
  • Who is morally culpable?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    wahhh wah :cry: its fine, ill be back to try again if the will for it exists then for now its gone with the wind, good as gone. carry on, pardon me please.
  • Who is morally culpable?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    can it do that WITHOUT said sentient beings awareness of such observations occurring meaning avoiding any conscious awareness such attempts to remove determinants and constraints are taking place...observations when sentient beings are aware of them happening, risk unnatural behavior taking place misplaced real data when its bias was just aware and leaning in its favor. The sentient beings level of conscious awareness holds power over attempts, even if they know it or not. Its intuit.
  • The Breadth of the Moral Sphere
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    "why are you being like that?" "like what" "rude" "i didnt realize i was being rude, i thought i was being clear..." "do you know what im supposed to be being like" "why are you acting like that or why are you doing these things" being (blank) acting and living life at the same time.......2 things at once.




    ↪ToothyMaw
    hi im kizzy im wondering, "how so?" i am genuinely curious

    ↪Leontiskos
    hi leontiskos, im kizzy...feel free to ignore this comment but its relevance to the op comes full circle...spheres are 3d, are you ready for those levels at this 2d point? how do you know if you are?

    INTRODUCTIONS COULD use work? INTRODUCTIONS to persuade might need work ,but chet doesnt need to do that here...you should consider all interactions to your OP, and be thankful that anyone acknowledges it at all.

    do you know the functions that exist in order to determine something "needs work" implies knowing how to improve....not only can you not know, even with chet explaining himself clear enough, but also it(your defensive comment in weakness) implies that an end is knowable and known by you, and thats why you THINK you can justify "ignoring" but can you justify in your own words with good reason?....you ought to want to for your own sake. When did you start to "ignore" chets posts? Now?? Thats fair...but when You ignore views by seemingly how bothered you become by them, an opposition you never foresaw to begin with. Consider that a blessing... how many others do you ignore? seems like you only tolerate what you can handle...bob ross? HE has the patience of a SAINT for entertaining! Or he believes in you...fair as well.


    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
    Kick rocks!!!
    evidence as base, grounded in self, motivated by [blank](insert drive-example=passions), intentions verifiable and valued, ready to judge BY ONLY EQUAL STANDING GROUNDED POSITION TO JUDGE PROPERLY, RIGHTFUL IN/OF/FOR THE GOOD of the possible outcomes. The good will come out of immoral choice and choosing agents regardless, but in another form no matter what choices were made but until digested for worth, its not in a place or position to judge from/of YET

    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
    no, literally!

    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
    thats wise of you, chet!....

    ....proof is in the pudding. Watch what you eat....what happens when you bypass your intentions?

    Intentions show that the individual has thought

    Intention shows when the individual has thought not fully through an idea but enough to justify actions in planning to act...plans to act, thoughts become intelligent in designing ideas that are justified in and of them selves? when... the justifications show distinction and/of or distance of the real reality of self and real reality from self...whether it was goal focused or desire oriented......how far you came? how much you grew?

    the space for thought is and is found when and in using the brain silently within the minds limits, which the self can control as boundaries constraints etc for what it really is thats happening..e.g. ////I dont actually like the people I work with but I will go to the bar with them when we get off at 5 because its an excuse to go to the bar and get loose and see where the night takes me.. It makes "us" ME feel better justifying why,how,when,with "you" i was "were" there in the first place.
    "you" into "us"......
    *reason=goal or desire?
    goal=body action towards is needed eventually (motion) not always present in decision making actions, or acting in general, aware of goal? -VS- desire=body action not needed..(no motion required)

    Certain outcomes always will/are/is out of our human acting control....some stronger than others, since BIRTH! Innate abilities and capabilities are limiting to equality, meaning subject in the whole is required to see worth of entirety in any morality debate
    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
    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?
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    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
    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"


    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
    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....


    Do all good things must come to an END, or do good things just tend to LEAD to the end? Good things eventually can leak into THEE END. That LEADS to a discovery, which doesnt always translate perfectly into knowledge...but how can we speak on anything we claim to be "perfect" what do humans know about perfection?

    What ended that is bad? What was bad that shouldnt of ended? When should endings see the bad through to its possible goodness or is it not bad until the worse arrives...what if that chance was never an idea in mind? IS it bad or could it just be better? Tailoring "an end" instead of "the end" to your liking means you may have a new unique vision, but how certain are you that your"ending" is less problematic then the one that was created, and not that easily, cheap, or without some sacrifice from the creator, the builder, the manufactor, the assembler, the consumer, and the consumer feedback considerations and accountability and acknowledging consumer, creator, and device relations....?




    Well, probability is an issue. — 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
    ↪ENOAH
    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....

    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
    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?
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    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

    Yeah I think I got scrambled. It isnt only that, but only that as a stand alone attribute is not effortless in itself. So ONLY that does imply that work is within that. What is required of selfless self awareness? Its takes more or less, depends.
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    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

    it did grow on me, see my previous comment if you dare. My comment was a response to the quote I lead with and didnt read from that point until after posting. I see you predicted this might happen! Upon further reading, I am pleased with the synchronicity. Can it convince wonderer1? Is that all we must do? Ha!
    ↪wonderer1
    ↪wonderer1


    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
    I got ya good looking out!!!
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    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
    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.

    Except, in my case I made the claim earlier that I had no doubt the slack would get picked up...but I dont need to know anything else from that, i believe I meant it when i said it but do i give a shit if its true? No. I would be surprised if I was. But doubting for me brings up more doubting thoughts/thinking. I almost avoid doubtful thinking, but not out of righteousness. my humility is strong enough, I have the shielded shell of a hermit. I do, succumb to doubt without even having to claim anything, in the privacy of my mind. Its true you may be right, if I embraced the doubt my attitude would be enhancing for the best! Towards happiness again. Its a weird battle i guess for me...Especially in the moments of conquering it, the doubt, I use time and acts of proactive procrastination to hide my doubting dual. Try again tomorrow, you can be better then I say at 11:59 pm. Here we go again, lets do it! My hope is in that chance, time is wasting because I could of been believing instead. Doubting is strange now that I am thinking about it. Sometimes I know when to doubt automatically but nothing comes from it...dealing with doubt is intuitive and internally practiced for me.

    I do doubt, a healthy portion i believe. How do you know I have not doubted in my mind, and decided to not agree with the doubt. I am glad you have your doubts, but I think you ought to! And you can choose when to doubt with more force some times over another. Or whenever you feel it inside!

    Yeah what if i already doubted before I said what I said and its faced with another doubt? But with no intention behind "i have my doubts" clearly expressed. We have them, we dont use them as efficiently as others do. Its learning...we ought to. I believe the doubt lingers but not im my sight at times. Blinding, masking, and perhaps for good reason. NICE! (yikes) Blinded by the light!!! Springsteen style!

    I think people are right for doubting, especially judgements. Im aware and was not lost at the idea of that what i assumed by me to be common sense. That place to judge from is real interesting..."who do you think you are?" WHO can speak on other peoples delusions without understanding? "You know what I meant" its not delusional until we take it to that level. Its more then statements, but yes to YOUR point that is why its important to have better ones. Statements. Fighting against them is still a dual, but I think some people in here want to fight. Like you said in the first response to Janus, about picking a bar fight and then getting beer after! Lets go! Were all just humans anyways...we dont know our full potential until we know our purpose. Some die before knowing but the purpose remains. Who wants to know lifes purpose? How can you? What is yours? Figure it out, if thats what we want to do that it is....anyways, we can decide.


    I think if the NEED to know your own correctness of statements like mine,
    Will it take some time and WORK, absolutely. Will others pick up that slack regardless? I have no doubt. — Kizzy
    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.

    Im glad I commented, this is fun. Relishing.


    You should know, I like your doubts. People should be questioned yes. They are also predictable. Maybe thats why my doubts seem not present but what if I doubted from the start? I disguise the doubt in the questioning, but is it a good thing? I dont know. But does it not show the interest is there and also that it can be followed to the intentions behind the questioning for both parties... You doubt, but come to what answer from doubt or because of doubt teamed with, balanced with what? A measured belief and/or knowing perhaps. Does that doubt just drift around your mind until you believe something has been doubted enough? Doubting isnt taking place in the backround of my mind, it jumps out at me! I am delusional but I am not seeing hallucinations....yet. Just actively engaging in some unhealthy but still GOOD screen time!

    But I cant help think about now that doubting leads to questions from doubt and those answers can/may be tailored to any liking. Why you believe, trust, act like you agree, say you understand a certain persons words IS telling. What they share, and why and how is also. Behavior observable and verifiable. I consider or believe what is noted from behavior is information, not knowledge. I believe what I see, tell me what I am supposed to be seeing? We ought to know. I dont know what is going on sometimes, because my receptions was off not because I mean to. Thats fine, until I do?

    Even saying "I have almost no doubt" seems like soothing or convincing an audience, to me. But your doubts would pick up on that wouldnt they??? AHHH I see what you mean NOW! They would! Dang those doubts are good! "Give me some," says the poorest beggar...as if you didnt work hard to have them. Pft! You have your doubts and you are valid in them. Valued.

    I literally do not doubt or question certain statements in the act of making them. Maybe because my "knowing" that statements can be revised, rewritten and deleted and I could deny it ever occurred. BAD KIZZY! Easy way out, get back in there! That perhaps, is a personal delusion but if aware of delusions is it just a display of the will one has or hasnt. It can display the will and its alignments to beliefs through intentions. So people are delusional? Get them a shrink and some medicine then, doc! Whose paying for it though? Ha!!

    Just to be better, please. you are saying to me in the crowd and I cant say more to that because we ought to be doing that anyways! Bravo :party: :flower:

    BUT I wanna say more, for fun! :naughty:

    I dont need to be right, I said this early...we know this, we dont believe it, we dont have to. Dont believe, fine with me. Believe! Not fine until verified. I dont know if I am delusional, I dont believe it. I feel it but I am sometimes at fault for being influenced by how I am perceived some times. Thats my flaw. I can jokingly agree that I appear to be delusional and some people here wouldnt BAT an EYE at that BUT that ground is only stable from the stance taken upon it. Surfaces and bases. Evidence is not the base, what is it upon makes the point. I believe I agree with my bias sometimes, its not limiting enough to prevent the ability to attempt to objectively moralize.

    I think that morality is objective. Doubting does nothing for truth but everything if its linked to belief--doubting can lead people in a direction to or from the truth despite beliefs though. Dual it out, the strongest prevails. Or quits willingly. Or dies with honor. Witness the truth and do nothing about it. Shame!

    Doubting is not required in my delusions, but i can understand what you mean by believing its "healthy" Its fine, its natural, its normal. Perhaps, doubt exists for me always a little under belief, it pushes it up when im leaning too far in my own right...its a balance. I guess it is healthy afterall, would you look at that. I take back my haste in correcting you use of "healthy" in place for normal. That is not better, you had it right and wise.

    Healthy is better...I cant deny that. Good stuff, chet!
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    My 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
    its normal, but not necessary

    edit:(above is original sent comment- this edit* is to explain my quick reaction vaguely claimed by ME. I will add the deets to this later, i must, but this immediate response is just that, nothing serious- im just reading and responding)

    edit2: it was serious in fact...
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    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 wonder how much in that attempt could be reduced from all statements? All statements broken down to some broken down to a few broken down to one? What if statements arent good for measuring truth values, what gestures still hold truth might suffice in its place? You have to assume statements might hold truth, but I think holding truth is not in only statements about the future. It travels with them, perhaps capturing sentiments could change the order of operations to get those answers... I think verification processes might be able to gather all statements without taking up the space, energy and time of inputting all statements about the future and still determine truth values. Why do you think (if you do) these truth values in statements about the future have anything to do with what is required for accounting of the world? Is the goal accounting of the world or finding the truth values in all statements of the future? and say that is doable, then to "have" them (the truth values) how do you input that to accounting. To do that, it requires something that knows how to explain truth from the statements and if one can know how to do that, how can it be understood for what its actually worth? Who do these answers help? I dont even think the proof that comes from this matters in account of the world. It matters for understanding humans of it. And its not so natural, im beginning to believe...good stuff!
  • Is Knowledge Merely Belief?
    Now 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
    I like this
    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
    :up:
    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
    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.

    Anyways, it's now obvious to me reading your last reply in full that it's understandable to be to the point of brute honesty. You're feelings and beliefs about these fools are valid, I get that. I am looking past the personal zest in your tone, and the MEAT of your assertions will help correct this behavior. Will it take some time and WORK, absolutely. Will others pick up that slack regardless? I have no doubt. It is the right thing to do, and KNOWING how to become aware of our place in the world only requires selfless self awareness. Just by, like you go on to say, it can start with doing the work to write better. I definitely need to get moving in this department, but sometimes I slack off. But being better at communication using the right language and proper format DOES give my words better reach. When I post a discussion one of these days, it will be nothing shy of my best! I will do that for me, and more importantly it benefits all. I dont do it for others, that would be a white lie but not incorrect. I do things for ME and when I am better, I do things for others. Things I may never know, the impact the impression the inspiration (the frustration, even too lol). We all do that for each other. I like to call those moments out! I consider the last few points knowledge, self-knowledge is a knowing but its changing. I definitely believe in my self, but I have no system of belief that filters or limits my knowledge when it comes to admitting I am wrong, or taking corrections with stride and implementing the new information only helps my awareness. My belief is not linked to my doubts, and boy do I have them. I question myself when I am doubting, and waste time which is unfortunate. Beliefs can become your enemy if they are not growing and uplifting you, i feel. The balance is always earned and never given. The choices are given, and we figure it out from there. Navigate. I believe in my capabilities and self enough to be more than willing to be better, for my own sake at least. BUT on my time, of course :wink:

    I know people and I believe in building awareness with NO LIMITS. Limitless knowledge, we can't literally know EVERYTHING. Can our brains handle it one day? Maybe. I would 100% donate my body to science to experience futuristic body mods. Thats just me though. But you'd think we could know now more then ever ALL types of things. But do we know the relationship we have with knowledge and how we obtain, use, share, interoperate etc it? How can we be better there? How good is knowledge really if lets say a person has bad memory? How does knowledge differ from thing to thing, person to person? How do we see knowledge. Our beliefs shine no matter what. Truth revealed.

    It's interesting what sticks and what doesnt and WHY certain knowings come easy, NATURAL to certain people. The how isnt important, its a question of WHY are certain people picking up some things better than others (like concepts, sports, puzzles, music, charisma, math, logic, reading etc whatever) Everyone ought to question themselves into knowing, BELIEVING they have a place and do the best they can to position themselves to set the self up for success. I think foreseeable outcomes for individuals can be predicted easily if you observe with detail. Sometimes it doesnt take too long and sometimes YOU are right. Give credit where it's due, to self, to others.

    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
    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!
  • Creation from nothing is not possible
    There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. — MoK
    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.
    no thing is still bound to time just not time alone...are you saying "nothing" is impossible to connect to any time? or a time? The clock is ticking, do you have a watch? can you count down from 100?....maybe The time can come , the time exists and is knowable in a moments time and it vanishes just as quick as it comes, or slow...time drags, flies, and moves. noticing that time is hard... I think time is WITH NOT IN nothing as long as things move in space. No thing vs some thing, no vs some....things. Within a creation (do you know this scope? i think its knowable only because of time) of no thing is not time, time made it possible or fit or suited to see or notice no thing because the motion or movement is/ can be a/the "thing" in itself. Time and motion are linked together. What do you know of stillness? Dark matter?

    And 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: 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 spacetime.

    Hot and cold...marco and polo

    Circularity is not infinite regress, we are not always going back to new reasons, but looping. — Count Timothy von Icarus
    :up: loop de loop, round and round.

    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
    :up: this is where i am at...

    Always existed vs made existing by and from creation of something from nothing
    innate vs taught
    natural vs the nature
    nothing is that thing so some thing can be created within and with time and motion is some thing knowable from nothing
    materials vs backround or invisible plane
    nothing is something with no time or space relevance? how is that possible?
    nothing is no thing, until it is...tangibility from the transferring energy is possible i think?

    so mathematical theorems are valid even if there is no man who could deduce or know them — MoK
    valid? who cares if its valid...its not telling if time prevents any man from knowing...time helps the right man know.

    A gifted gift giver gives gifts to the gifted, for both the gifted and non. A win-win.

    This time there was no thing....next time could happen in no time, who is counting? who can? who can be in no time? where is no time?


    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

    yes im with this, always was since i started typing here at least...
    -I go full circle, as i typed in my first paragraph to MoK before I read the rest of the comments. I then see the last comment of the thread, where Arne mentions rest with delight....thats why I asked in the first paragraph of my reply to
    ↪MoK
    WHAT is known of stillness?
  • Temporal delusion paradox
    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

    ↪Chet Hawkins
    Chet, When I said I am no teacher it was sarcastic and almost like I was saying "im no teacher to YOU (whoever reads this) because I dont want to be" not because i couldnt and or dismiss that role in general. Its more than important, its how people learn! Everyone involved, yes! Learning styles and teaching styles vary for each and every one of us, and I think some can be most/more compatible with one and the other. A good match exists in this the teacher and student roles. I meant to highlight that importance by making it a starting "question" I was asking the audience, the readers, the peeps of TFP.

    Teachers do it though all the time, influence students. The problem is, when they dont know how much or how in what ways.

    I just think learning from another should be easily done by all. Accommodations can be made and should be if "learning" is the goal and if also "teaching" is the goal. I dont think its a problem, but problems can come when learning and teaching happen without the teacher and student knowing whats being taken, given, and used...its not always a problem, and if one at all nothing that communication cant clear up in minutes time...but When both happen sometimes without any goals to learn or teach ever even made or intended can cause problematic stances to be built from. Nothing majorly important or an issue im thinking of lately, education is a whole other topic for another thread...
    but I agree with your statement that i quoted and the rest of your comment pretty much (i will add quotes if i find anything worth further discussion HERE)...

    In my original comment in here, My tone was to be read with a bit of angst, and I remember being irritated while interested enough contribute the day I commented. You are right I should not judge the lady in the op but sometimes thats what happens when I put myself in position to understand her.

    I was moved to respond, but its almost as if I just gave shady ass reaction rather than a response now that I re-read the post and my comment...ha! It was thoughtful but without much thought, I just remember replying to this upon first read. I have funny notes from that day actually, I was moved by this thread!

    see below for my random notes from that day after reading and engaging in this post when it was originally shared...

    "If a christian believes the bible commits them to believe god created the world [??? quote from philforum]


    THE MAGICIAN DEC21

    A magician shall never reveal his tricks. Yet, they eventually do. But whats so wrong with that? Is it actually a good thing not for any good reason a magician should disown the one sharing the tricks. If you teach someone to also perfect and perform a magic trick for an amused enough audience then awareness was gained in the new magician because he was too once an idiot in the crowd clapping, smiling, engaged and impressed at the skills this man has to deceive and now he holds the power to deceive and teach another the same tricks But we all know deep down that he, who cant really be magic for real thats crazy thats delusional. But If we are all magicians no one comes to the Magic Show. Is there no more delusion? Do you have tricks up your sleeve or rabbits in your hat? I dont like the word clairvoyant. That word to me is in a realm of those not having these feelings or shall i say reactions to feelings occur naturally because it isnt natural....but they maybe manifested or conjured the possibility of powers to take action through their body. For example the woman of the OP not being able to physically, psychically handle her "clairvoyant powers" makes sense because it cant be a normal occurrence that she experiences often, if she is so unfamiliar to her bodys reaction to these unexplainable feelings. If She wouldnt be anxious or scared of her natural clairvoyant powers if it were real. She isnt anxious because she cant understand whats happening to make her feel this? Thats like taking a pot brownie for the first or 15th time and end up calling an ambulance to take you to the er because you think you are passing away when its a panic attack. Or shall I say, a buzz kill. Ha ha..
    Also, its not that she is necessarily dangerous but was she acting out of control in public? Otherwise why was she detained again? Fighting at that point is useless once in the hands of those legally in authority to do so. If running from people doing their job is reasonable, keep going. Who knows? I cant explain if shes dangerous if you cant either? I can make up a scenerio and let my mind take off with it, I dont need an answer really. There is a greater risk she could cause harm by not having control of what I think should be considered as instinctive actions. Why couldnt meds and therapy guide her to becoming familiar and not to be scared. Why is she running? Was she asking for something she could never receive and being taught a lesson? I dont think real clairvoyance is real here.. when the body the truth comes from is not in sync or aware of what is happening. You dont get taken over, you need to recieve not run. She wouldnt run from giver of such magic....Who is chasing her again? A clown?"
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    All in all, I think it makes for a waste of time to utter words without actually communicating. — baker
    I see you now, and can admit that I still go back and forth with you on this one, baker.
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    on another note, worth grand discussion elsewhere but noting quick now, notice the female and male likeness in that choice of... art work / meme you chose to use here...
    ↪baker
    :fire: :roll: :heart: what if she is burning the place down on purpose because bored or because mansplaining ? just a thought regarding intentions, who could be so bothered of them? (me... :snicker: ) i dont get how intentions and scientists agendas are clashing for you and yours and whats is displayed in this meme helps your take none. Try again, id like you to find a better picture.
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    Can one's own subjective experience have anything to do with the objective knowledge? — Corvus
    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?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Good luck — baker
    thanks :roll:
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. — baker

    the thing is... people arent asked a follow up or for a confirmation if they are 100% certain before people run off with what they accept to be wrong, rather than ignored or refused to be accepted as right (or wrong) Ignoring provides a way around, through without being seen yet, truth reveals though....No one cares to ask oprah if shes certain about those claims. AND those people that happen to care and exist, well, I can fully avoid and refuse their beliefs of certain claims, usually easily. I can see it coming, and confirm by simply asking a few questions. Because if I was bothered, i would have to admit a few different outcomes could happen, I like being bothered or if/when I want to become unbothered...That doesnt mean I am repelled from people who like or quote Oprah TO MAKE ANY POINT...Those Oprah-type people? Or just Oprah?

    The thing is....these "people" and whatever insane claims they are making and "are sure completely sure of" are/is accepted, just as wrong or something "we (who is we?) mostly have to deal with")instead of just refusing to accept it (as right[orwrong?]) As anything! and its (its i mean they-those people you mean) [of bad opinions, disguised as bias-both non negotiable in general, how could they be certain of anything? you might know...
    ↪baker
    ] you seem to be saying these certain people are simply tolerated by you MUCH to your own dismay AND loss? Can you prove, rather than letting the surety of acceptance you express in the comment you shared that you, if not you, people that were/are actually really bothered by Oprah-like people of certainty, and confirm that acknowledging it is your loss that you havent found a way in philosophy for dealing....you think one exists for you! that is to your loss and dismay. That seems to me like choosing to deal, not even accepting to DEAL with shit claims instead of attempting to understand or accepting the truth in those shit claims and why you dont want to understand shit claims...all that should be considered before making that judgement again, you dont have to deal with any insane claim of certainty...especially Oprah fans that do that.

    Do you deal with things better from anything but when dealing from personal experience? (or close relation and clear understanding to/of that experience?)


    "My kid is the cutest kid on the entire planet! You cant tell me otherwise"
    Obvious this is dumb to say, bias or not. You'd have to get every kid lined up, in person, and confirm to be actually true. Their certainty should be taken with tone, and of course in context to what is exists to be so sure about anyways... what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with?

    So far, I have not found — baker

    So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about,
    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
    , what does this even mean?

    chet vs oprah = you vs me
  • Why Do We Dream? What is the Significance of Dreams for Understanding 'Mind' and Consciousness?
    Hopefully all that was not too dreamworld in styling. I tried to write a page in your book, instead of mine. — Chet Hawkins
    Ouch!
    ↪Chet Hawkins
    Yeah, i see it now... Not quite there yet, ha ha! :smile: Enjoyable read nonetheless.
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    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

    ↪Mark S
    Sure would, Mark! Where are we starting from? I can lead if you want. Unless you have somewhere specific you want to get right into? I struggle seeing the bounds of this thread though in your synthesis I dont know if they are really set and how far we should push them. I can take direction and I have many thoughts tied into moral senses/cultural norms and the state of science around it. So, I'm excited!
  • Discussion on interpreting Aquinas' Third Way
    (I'm bracketing this response as I don't want to derail the conversation about the OP. — Wayfarer

    avoiding derailing again??? NOW i see.

    ↪Wayfarer
    Sorry...I see that it is actually my bad when I replied to you abruptly here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887904. I apologize for my comment to you earlier, in "on the matter of epistemology and ontology" thread...i didnt realize you are just being courteous. I will slow my roll now. I'm sorry for the blind sided comments, I am learning!

    Enough for now. Thanks, kizzy
  • on the matter of epistemology and ontology
    yup thats it, QM! :rofl: you mentioned QP doe :roll: and now apologizing kinda? Whyyyyy? At what cost? Like another thread cant be rebuilt after a derailing..THEE attempt...they are still being repeated over and over and again and again and again..i start to wonder, at what point is this an attempt anymore?! Attempts are attempts but until when? They fail for good? AT what cost??? Is their money in this thread? Clearly not, but this would actually cause more attention though and chaos...

    *Chaos enters chat*
    "my bad for mentioning chaos...lets just keep it, lame."
    *Chaos leaves unbothered*

    But go on, blame yourself
    ↪Wayfarer
    for the mention of qm (is that right though??hmm i dont know if it was now) and if done so wrongly, saying because you did mention it, qm, for now it possibly can derailing this precious thread....why now? Not worth it, I feel.

    ↪Wayfarer
    Are your hopes high that this thread wont derail regardless? regardless OF ANYTHING ELSE?

    thats fine, I see u!

    We will see, cause WE can.

    "Prove it"
    ...at what cost though?
    "It is a bother but Cmon!"
    fine, but only one more time

    Of course, you are excused Wayfarer. That is lame though, i feel...carry on :zip:
  • On ghosts and spirits
    ↪Bylaw
    " So, yes, I am presuming in that scenario, which I think is common, that something happens to us and yet we can't prove to others it did. I am very sure. As sure as I get. That happens. And if you live alone, it happens every day many times a day.
    -- Whos fault is that? I cant ask the people in that scenario can I? Get the prove then...how about find a scene where they do have the proof, who could be bothered to care?

    "Look at all this proof!!!!"
    "No"
    WHY?
    [insert your reason, who cares? not me after this]

    My questions and answers are answered [thank you, appreciate your time and respectfully and commenting to just make sure... i will not question your faith much further until i do but its not the faith I question just you....and if I do (highly unlikely almost positive) it will be you only to blame by then. It all boils down, only if it all could...maybe boiling isnt the only option here. One outcome still can exist.

    Anyways, I am leaning towards a certain surety in what I said above, "i will not question you" and I trust that feeling for many reasons. Thats all from lil ole me, carry on then... :zip:

    Extremely certain. I'm even very confident I can demonstrate it to most people — Bylaw
    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?

    please, carry on :cheer:
  • Kant and the unattainable goal of empirical investigation
    but with something we would call ethics nowadays. — Pez

    interesting....but i dont know why now
  • on the matter of epistemology and ontology
    ↪Wayfarer
    Hi, I like ur view I have come to notice. This didnt happen today, its been 2 years about...not important or relevant (a nonfactor even)

    I want to question something here in a curious minded manner, no problems had as of now:
    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
    yes! right on. good!

    Plato lives! :party: — Wayfarer
    hm... :brow: yeah sure he does, whatever you say. YAY plato lets party :cheer: :razz:

    ... 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 to them (WHO) by the observer...

    (This also shows up, needless to say, in quantum physics.)     — 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...
  • Why we don't have free will using logic
    . I struggle with unclear English. — Tom Storm
    wahhhhhhh :cry:

    I'm unclear — Tom Storm
    wahhhhhhh :worry:
  • On ghosts and spirits
    ↪Bylaw


    we cannot prove the exact instance happened. — Bylaw

    Yeahhh that may be correct right now but TIME and position and grounds and forces may have tolerances of worthy strength to consider further...

    I guess thats right and fine with me but thats if you are choosing to only look backwards...you said "happened" meaning you think it has? How sure are you here?

    if you can only do that for this better look backwards closer and forwards wider and inwards...wiser. Its limiting this view or take you share that still seems to me right now to be short of something. We have a bit more room, space is available still. Go on! Take up the space. No rush. No harm, just a thought i had and felt moved enough to share. Thanks to you! I am with you though, no problems here. The direction is good and set in stone. Paint, clay, ink its dries quick...Cant we burn the evidence? Cant we hide things?

    So what of it, no cost exists good enough to me to do that though...Why?!?! I ask then, is all i can do...


    how certain are you here?
    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
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪AmadeusD
    Hi

    we could consider a scientific position or train of thought — AmadeusD

    WE? until when? say it becomes a scenticfic pos, can you still not chose to deny it? How can you or anyone at that be bothered then? How bad would that LOOK, if you were that? Bother...to pretend, perhaps!

    Bother, i typed it in bing search bar, all lower case and found it defined right at the top of the page! per oxford lang. data, the recommended first glance definition at the top--i liked the examples they used, and know what it means but i just am including here now the example sentences that was chosen to be consumed. Seems,i mean, FEELS relevant and is amusing to me at least. Amusing. Amuse. Its A-muse to me, even-- maybe, but so it seems...

    bother: "take the trouble to do something - "scientists rarely bother with such niceties""the driver didn't bother to ask why""nobody bothered locking the doors"

    Maybe no one cared anyways... Damned if we do, not if we DONT. Who knows?? Who can?
Home » Kizzy