I am not sure it can be made more accessible, though, without losing its inherent strength. At least that is something I am pondering whilst reading my earlier comment. It made an impact on me, but I imagine that was also due to it being outside my regular way of thinking, but also because of the specific instructions about how to go about reading it. Without both, it might just end up being mislabeled and added to other categories, without the growth in mindset it can have (More at the end). — Caerulea-Lawrence
Thank you for the valuable feedback. I have written and rewritten this over a long period of time. The first iteration was 200+ pages, more like a rough draft of ideas. Slowly I pared it down to what I felt was absolutely essential due to feedback from other people. It is nice to hear from someone else that it seems like there's not much else that could be cut without losing something.
To your point about the instructions, those came about because of responses in previous attempts to post this. You are correct. Without those, many people do not understand how to approach a discussion like this. To your point, tackling something outside of your normal line of thinking is difficult. It can be fun with the right mindset, but without that, its easy to let our emotions get the better of us and we look for surface level reasons to escape having to read it.
If there is a small nit-pick I can mention, I do not like the word Irrational... It has some bad connotations, and made it harder to focus on the content and remember it. — Caerulea-Lawrence
I appreciate this feedback as well. My intent was to use inductive terminology that was positive at best, neutral at worst. All four of the induction types have value in certain situations in life. Originally I used the word 'faith', but later stepped back from it because I was worried it would evoke an undue response from some people. I wanted people to focus on the logic first, so eventually I settled on a logic word. However, I agree with you that "irrational" still has more of a negative connotation. Any suggestions on what word you would rather it be named?
God-damn, I am so pleased about understanding the "secret" to the Evil Demon example. Well played by you, too, on that one. There were some hints there that made me question it a bit more, not sure how you did it. Like you subtly 'forced' the meaning or something, not sure. — Caerulea-Lawrence
It wasn't a secret or a trick, you simply used the internal logic of the argument and came to the correct conclusion! It makes me happy to hear that you concluded this yourself, as it lends credence to the internal consistency of the system.
The growth from reading this — Caerulea-Lawrence
That's the greatest compliment I could receive. Good philosophy should enable a person to enhance their life. If you feel you are better able to comprehend the world of ideas, then I am very glad. I use this theory myself in my daily life, so it is gratifying to see it help another.
And in that sense, maybe it is true to say that science is underestimating consciousness a bit too much, and talking about NDE's this way is a kind of backlash to a certain unwillingness, on the flip side, to bother with acknowledging Distinctive Knowledge at all. — Caerulea-Lawrence
Consciousness is sort of the hot topic of the boards recently. I highly encourage people to look to neuroscience over philosophy first, as I believe it is more up to date and necessary to know modern facts about the brain to have a discussion of any validity.
Thank you again for reading and contributing! — Philosophim
I see, hear, smell, taste and touch. And yet this is still not basic enough. I sense. But even if I did not sense, “I” would be different from “everything else”. In recognizing a self, I am able to create two “experiences”. That is the self-recognized thinker, and everything else.
Why should I have this capability? I cannot answer this. What I can realize is I may sense, but I find I can focus on different parts of that sensation. I can see a field of grass. Now I create the identity of a blade of grass. Now a piece of that blade of grass. I part and parcel my sensations as I wish. I do not know what “I am”, or “everything else” is, but I do know that reality cannot contradict my ability to focus, create identities where I wish, and essentially “discretely experience”. — Philosophim
The arena of psychology posits many ideas that are the imaginations of a group of a certain type of speculative theorist who don't engage in a scientific project, proper, but has the flaw of word and picture artistry more than scientific proof, which makes it pseudo science no matter how many books and people sign up to the idea, it only make it a form of literary art — Alexander Hine
He used testing like Myers-Briggs a lot. He and I sometimes argued about the way it organized and characterized people. So - pragmatism.
I think the main reason I dislike Myers-Briggs is that it is just a way of labelling people without ever having to see them. Lao Tzu is one of my favorite philosophers. As he wrote (Tao Te Ching, Verse 1, Stephen Mitchell translation): — T Clark
So that's not what I meant. To rephrase it, I would say: fighting emotional responses would mitigate cognitive biases, because it's fighting the cause. But fighting cognitive biases directly seems pointless as they're unconscious and are very difficult (impossible?) to perceive with certainty. So fighting cognitive biases directly doesn't help mitigate them!
And my main point is that when you fight the emotional responses, it prevents cognitive biases so naming them and finding "tools" to detect it seems useless and extremely complex compared to just assessing emotions. — Skalidris
The first thing that comes to mind would be that we or other conscious beings, have the potential to become gods in this world. — Caerulea-Lawrence
What does this mean? How might we become gods? What is your definition of a god in such a case? — Tom Storm
When I didn't read the Bible every day, the intensity in my desire to find a quick solution dwindled. Instead, I could feel my sadness, pain, confusion and numbness. And since it was there, real, and actually spoke to me directly, I tried to listen more.
A few years later, as I was walking out from the Student library, I became aware of the wool that had been there, as I felt it evaporate. I could sense the cold, hostile space outside our atmosphere, and I felt alone and vulnerable. — Caerulea-Lawrence
Can you clarify this? The wool evaporated? Are you saying that the wool which had been pulled over your eyes by religion was removed and you saw clearly without religion?
Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true. — Tom Storm
I'll do both, as your OP is both theoretical and mentions your concrete fear as well. It therefore makes sense to me to acknowledge both. I hope this is in tune with your intentions for this thread. — Caerulea-Lawrence
What does this mean? How might we become gods? What is your definition of a god in such a case? — Tom Storm
Can you clarify this? The wool evaporated? Are you saying that the wool which had been pulled over your eyes by religion was removed and you saw clearly without religion?
Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true. — Tom Storm
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I think the claims 1-3 are a fair assessment of what Ive offered in the OP.
Claim 4 was actually an example for some of the claims 1-3 and shouldn't be taken as a claim unto itself. Im not sure it adds anything claims 1-3 do not cover.
Im not sure what context claims 5-7 are for. What are the gaps you mention? If I understand those then perhaps claims 5-7 will make more sense to me.
Also, I take it you disagree with one or more of my premisses? — DingoJones
Im interested in some thoughts concerning how moral/immoral actions balance out.
When we judge a person as moral or immoral, it seems to me that we are measuring his moral actions against his immoral ones. We consider the act, its consequences, collateral benefit or damage and how it all fits morally speaking. An ethical cost/benefit analysis if you will.
If a person commits theft but regrets in it for some reason and spends the rest of their life giving most of what they have to charity (not necessarily a formal one, could just be to people he meets who are in need or whatever) then he has worked off some kind of moral debt. We might even say the person has paid their moral debt and has a surplus, moral credit, if they ended up with a huge imbalance of moral acts over immoral ones. (For example, stole a pack of gum but saved millions of lives and donated billions of dollars to charity)
If we can measure the moral balance in this way, I dont see any reason why even heinous acts of immorality couldnt be balanced out in the same way as my stick of gum example above. This is where Id like to be challenged, as Im not very comfortable with that conclusion.
The most obvious objection to that line of reasoning is principal based, that breaking the rules is breaking the rules and no action can justifiably balance another. Thats a more fundamental issue, I dont really buy into principle based ethics. For every principal, its trivially easy to show an instance where adhering to that principal is the act of a moral monster. For example, its wrong to lie. Well, what if the lie saves a billion people? The person who refuses to lie in that instance, is a moral monster. The only way to get around that contradiction is to make yet another appeal to principal, or commit semantic fallacy where the acts are considered separately (the lie was still wrong, the saving was right).
Id most like to discuss the first bit, but I recognise that it relies on a non-principal based approach to ethics. Perhaps someone would be sporting enough to consider this thread in the context of a non-principal based approach, even if they do not normally do so.
Anyway, what Im not interested in discussing is the objectivity/subjectivity of morality. This discussion doesnt require it and if you think it does then Im sorry to say Im not talking to you. (By which I mean, ignore this thread as its not addressed to you.)
So, can we pay off moral debt? Are we moral simply by having our moral acts (and all the good they do) outweigh the immoral acts (and all the bad they do)?
(Also, I realise good acts can have bad results and vice versa, I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it, which we very well may not have to) — DingoJones
Assume there is no creator/purpose to the world:
Then why does this world even exist? You would assume that no God and no purpose implies no universe, nothing. No creator implies nothingness. Therefore, our world and our lives just sort of "dangle" without any rationale or justification. Life and the universe are then just some sort of anomaly. In other words, Occam's Razor dictates that without a God, nothing should exist, and yet here we are alive, in existence, discussing this very issue.. Something therefore seems wrong with this notion...
OTOH, assume life does have meaning:
Then what do our experiences mean? We all have one fleeting moment after another and then we simply die. Each moment exists for only a fraction of a second. Even a long 'chain' of moments disappears into nothingness. Therefore, under these circumstances, how do our lives have meaning, as whatever we find meaningful is fleeting and only exists for a fraction of a second? Even for yourself, look down the road at what the future holds; at some point, every single one of those moments will be gone and you will be gone as well. This is of course true for all of us. This implies that life is meaningless and seems like a scary proposition to me... — jasonm
There’s abundant food for the ego in places like this. Meaning, on the other hand, is found in purpose and losing oneself in places and peoples larger than oneself. But don’t take my word for it, you’ll see for yourself soon enough. — praxis
Welcome!
Hope you have fun here, it's a great place to deepen one's knowledge on many topics in the field.
Don't be afraid to express your opinions, because, ultimately all of us may be wrong. :cool: — Manuel
Alas, I am 50 years out from my early 20s. — T Clark
I am not going to lie: Kappa is a word that excites me. It is a troll from Japanese mythology, yes. But this is also used by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa in the title of one of his books. The story is about a mentally ill person who joins the world of Kappa and lives together. Akutagawa is considered one of the most relevant Japanese writers, and his second name is the label of a literature prize in Japan. Kenzaburo Oe won one of the contests.
Kappa means "child of river" because it is made of the kanjis: kawa (川), river; and tarō (太郎), child. Kappa is like the diminutive of the word. — javi2541997
Cognitive bias: tool for critical thinking or ego trap?
Skalidris
78
What I would like to know is how and why people think it can help with critical thinking.
I'll explain why I think it's an ego trap with an example of the survivorship bias:
If we ask a lottery winner to talk to a group of people about how amazing his life has become, that group will be more likely to buy lottery tickets then a second group of people who would have listened to the story of a homeless man who lost all his money on lottery tickets. My guess is, if we tell people who bought tickets from the first group that they were biased, they might just say “oh but even if the chance is low, it’s still there, maybe it’s my lucky day”. So in the end, even given that info, I still think the first group would have more buyers than the second one. It could even be worse, they could fool themselves into thinking they’re critical: “I’m aware there is the survivorship bias, I’m aware the chance of winning is low but I’m rationally deciding to buy a ticket because I’m willing to risk losing small amounts of money to win big”. Is it really rational though? They’re mostly driven by the emotions that were triggered by the story of the winner…
How can we ever be sure that the decision we’re making isn’t biased? Biases are unconscious…
I see a lot of people using cognitive bias as some kind of superiority: “I know about cognitive bias and I try to avoid it, and you don’t, so I’m closer to the truth than you are”… And this is exactly the kind of behaviour that kills critical thinking… Or people who use it to take down someone’s defense: “you’re saying that because you’re biased, therefore it doesn’t have any value”… — Skalidris
The application suggests that the forum should not be let loose on someone so hungry for meaning, actually. You will not find it here. — praxis
Welcome aboard ↪Caerulea-Lawrence
It would be interesting if members would speak more about their life experiences as they argue philosophical points. Sometimes they do. — jgill
↪Caerulea-Lawrence
thanks for the very thoughtful introduction! I hope the community lives up to the rather exalted standards you have laid out, and welcome. — Wayfarer
↪Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello! Welcome to the forum. :up: — javi2541997
The only way we might be able to tell you aren't a native English speaker is that your vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and clarity are all better than 90% of the members. — T Clark
Yes, Wayfarer is great, keeping in mind he is one of only seven pleasant people here on the forum. No, I am not one of those seven. This is what we in English call a "joke." Which isn't the same as saying it isn't true. — T Clark
I see philosophy not as a subject, but as a practice, much like meditation. For me, the goal of that practice is to become more self-aware of how my intellect works. I'm especially interested in ontology and epistemology and I will try to force you to talk about them. The philosophers who mean the most to me are Lao Tzu, Emerson, and Collingwood.
I look forward to talking with you. — T Clark
Hello, and welcome to our little community. Thank you for your fulsome introduction. I feel we might be friends, but I am old and bound for recycling in the near future, so my contribution to anyone's creation can only be very small. Never mind, you are young and can do more. Dive in, say some stuff, and see what happens! — unenlightened
Forming applicable knowledge takes time and careful reason, something the world does not always afford an individual before a decision must be made. With the understanding of distinctive and applicable knowledge, just like I can shape our discrete experiences into better expressions and tools for greater success, I can manage and shape my inductions as well. — Philosophim