But unknown unknowns do. The catch is that we don't, and can't, know what they are. We only know that there are such things because we have encountered some of them before. — Ludwig V

Yes, I understand that obstacle. I suppose my problem with thinking this has any effect, whatsoever, on these conceptual analyses is that it is wholly fact-specific and empirical. We may never, ever, in our entire existence come across some substance which exists 60,000 light years away and further. That is, on it's face, and unknowable unknown. If the idea is that for antirealism to hold, everything knowable must be in concept, in hand, then I see only two realistic responses:

1. That's nonsense, and obviously so; or
2. Is what's actually being said is something more like "you can't claim something is unknowable conceptually" which seems wrong in it's own way but I can see the argument.

My big problem with any issue with "unknowns" is that they are simply unknown. We can't comment on them, no matter what system we ascribe to. I'm happy to presume there are plenty of things humans will never (and, physically/practically/empirically) can never know. I'm not seeing hte issue. If i've missed it (i presume I have) please help lol.

This didn't help. LOL

This is because but-for causation casts a wide net. We would not want to conclude that knives are evil from the claim, "But for the knife, he would not have murdered." Nevertheless, what I think your argument does demonstrate is that thoughts constitute an important causal aspect of acts. — Leontiskos

The seem to constitute the origin of acts. As I laid out, plenty of horrid acts are not motivated by something bad. But some decent acts are. We can't quite make that work unless the thought it was made the act wrong by virtue of its intention. I don't know how strongly I want to argue this, but that seems the case to me.

1) why is it good when you convince someone to agree with you — Leontiskos

It makes me feel good (emotivism). Again, hard to explain that - but I think this answers the question you're asking. The 'why' is kind of a private, for-me thing to figure out and that's the semantic system I alluded to earlier.

2) why would you try to get other people to assent to your reasoning if moral issues are not susceptible to rational assent? — Leontiskos

To feel better.

If you don't think moral positions are susceptible to rational inquiry, then I don't understand why you would try to rationally persuade another person to adopt your own moral position. — Leontiskos

This is what I was getting at earlier - I don't. I try to get them to understand my reasoning. They might still morally disagree, but accept that, perhaps their act is likely to land them in prison, and so resile. That would be a result for me. Sometimes its fun to try to put the moral argument ot people, but its make me personally uncomfortable as I don't feel I have the right. These discussions are where I get most of my 'talk' out in the moral realm. It should also be clear that I only ever try to get people to either act or not act. I don't care much what their moral position is. I just either want A to happen, or A to not happen. I want them to do that. Not accept why I'm uncomfortable as their reason to do so (well, sometimes that's the case - my wife often does or doesn't do things for my comfort and vice verse but we share morality in that way so sort of moot).

That's a weird one - I don't see a tension between accepting that metaphysical discussion and lets call it 'moral' discussion can come to 'truths' and science giving us truth 'about' such and such.

I would simply say these non-empirical 'truths' are not concrete, empirical truths (as would be suggested by the two categories diverging at 'science'). Its not possibly to scientifically determine that I am thinking X. But you can be fairly certain of it in the right circumstances by conceptual analysis.

In the strictest sense of the term, "knowledge" is true, adequately justified belief ("adequate" = sufficient to not be merely accidentally true). — Relativist

This is very much problematic and has been up in the air for a while now. partially because there is no 'strictest sense' of the word knowledge which could be applied consistently.

I agree with essentially everything here, but I would put a wedge somewhere to put some distance between reliability and the scientific method - not because its rwong, but because its carried out, interpreted and put out by humans. Humans aren't very good at doing things properly.

Fair response all round, thank you.

I'm not sure what you meant by "output" systems. — Janus

How we convey scientific information. This could be how technical writing works, how semantics work in relation to experiments and their results, or it could mean how we teach different levels of student (tropey: in your last year of high school it is common to be told "we've taught you wrong for years for practical reasons. Now you're going to learn the real stuff". All have pitfalls, obstacles to accuracy etc.. etc.. etc..

I don't think the fallibility of science is as great as the fallibility (in the sense of being subject to illusion) of scriptural authority, mystical experience and the rest.. — Janus

I agree here, but I think plenty of philosophical thinking about non-scientific matters can produce robust beliefs. "X is good" can be extremely well justified philosophically. The break-down is going to be roughly in the same place as with science: human perception. On observational matters, I can't even get my abstract argument off the ground :sweat:

that science is not a better foundation from which to speculate metaphysically than imagination and the other things I mentioned — Janus

This is a bit of a goal-post move imo. I'm unsure that science is the best way to formulate beliefs about non-empirical matters. I'm unsure how it would have a leg up. It tends not to wade into those waters.

LOL.

From what I've seen the main argument in the last two pages has been that Banno thinks if there are things we don't currently know, then Antirealism can't hold.

Well... *sigh*. That is.. not reasonable.

There are plenty of things we may never come into contact with. That doesn't make them unknowable. Unknown and unknowable are simply not the same.

Now, I presume I've missed something major. But I don't see it anywhere. Someone want to help me out there?

What? I have literally no clue what you're talking about. I'll try to just clarify what I was saying in hopes that's made-sense-of.

What I am pointing out is that the bolded in that quote relies explicitly on the metaphysical/philosophical theories underlying the scientific method, reportage standards (like peer-review and all the problems that go with it including replication issues) and empirical observation-as-infallible thinking. Again, prima facie, its patently correct that measuring the rainfall and explaining clouds on that basis is a better-justified method for forming beliefs about the clouds than inferring that there's an angry man pissing from the sky.

I am simply saying this is not without shaky foundations. We do not start with observation. We start with ourselves and can only carry out observations we're going to later take as gospel (excuse the religious language) on the basis that we believe our perceptual, recall and output systems are, at least practically speaking, not fallible in any major ways. These are things science cannot give us an answer to. Wayf seems to be much more intently, and explicitly exploring that problem.

This doesn't seem to even be outside the realm of scientific: our perceptual system is not direct observation, and neither are our experiments because we are not the data. We interpret it. Our science tells us this. Oh, but that's recursive... so... yeah. We're kind of stuck conceptually and "do our best". Hence, prima facie, correct.

An interesting thing to note is that when I argue for Indirect Realism, i am given arguments about how science can't prove our perception is indirect if we are IRists(this comes in response to the next claim i am about to make..).
But that is exactly what science tells us about our perceptual system - so either my above notions are correct and IR can hold despite this failure of science to answer a fundamental issue, or we can trust the science anyway and accept Indirect realism on that basis.
Not the only options, but in criticisms laid on me for the IR position, this comes up. Bit of a stalemate.

close, but what i'm trying to say is not quite as dogmatic. There very well may be evil -- there are certainly things that are horrible or very bad. It doesn't take much effort to find these things, especially in human activity and behavior. Ideas themselves hardly fit the bill for being the absolute worst, because clearly people say and think a lot of things just as an emotional reaction, and emotional reactions are too pure for such heavy-handed blame and moralization implied when calling something "evil" in my opinion. — ProtagoranSocratist

Right, okay, that makes more sense, thanks.

I personally find the "if but for" type of reasoning helpful here. "If but for the belief that negroes are inferior to whites, the defendant would not have carried out X, resulting in the wrongful death of a"

I think this applies to almost all actions that could be considered evil. The problem, as I see it, is that some wont fit

Action 1 = ostensibly evil (appearance of a hate crime, for instance)
Motivation 1 = ostensibly non-evil: true self defence, in an awkward circumstance
NOT EVIL
Action 2 = ostensibly evil (appearance of a hate crime, for instance)
Motivation 1 = ostensibly evil (actual hate crime, by admission)
EVIL
Action 3 = ostensibly evil (illegally refusing service to a Black person)
Motivation 3 = ostensibly non-evil (the Black person in question was ornery, unruly, couth and threatening but in some nuanced way not obvious on the face of it)
NOT EVIL
Action 4 = ostensibly non-evil (refusing service to an apparently obtuse/unruly/threatening Black person)
Motivation 4 = ostensibly evil (by admission: hates Blacks and so refused service at hte first possible chance of justifying it).
EVIL

The wrong-maker appears to be the thoughts. However:

I personally choose not to describe things as evil, because it's very emotive, and it's a common concept used by very dishonest (or maybe just stupid/delusional) people. — ProtagoranSocratist

Absolutely. I think its essentially empty, because it can only mean whatever the person using it describes when asked. We have difference descriptions, i'd say (all of us, not you and I). Not because I thikn people are dumb for using it. I do think dumb people use it wrongly, as you say, though.

i prefer "extremely dishonest" and "xenophobic" because these are more descriptive. Some people call Caligula (one of the early Roman emperors) and John Wane Gacy evil, but I prefer "sadistic" and "psychopathic" because those are also more descriptive of these individuals. — ProtagoranSocratist

Hmmm. I appreciate that this may be the best we can do as people - but those descriptions certainly wont hit home for many. I, for one, while agreeing with dishonest, can't see it in the "extreme" category. Neither do I see him as xenophobic - so, there's the descriptive thing I mentioned above.

Okay, and is there a particular ethical system you hold to in this? Am I correct in recalling that you are an Emotivist? — Leontiskos

More-or-less correct, yes. I imagine there's edges to it, as there are with almost all claims to a moral system, that don't quite fit into a description of same, but yeah overall. Hence this being a system of figuring out what I (or what to, depending on whether action is required) feel about X, Y or Z.

So you will try to enforce your moral positions, as long as you are not violating civil rights? Wouldn't enforcing your moral positions involve applying your moral positions to other people? — Leontiskos

No, not at all. If people resist my attempts to 'enforce' my moral take *on that specific thing that I have deemed action is required in response to* then that's fine, and I can't say they're 'wrong'. Just that they are counter to what I think is best. I don't think my wanting to take the action I feel is 'right' goes against accepting that it is subjective and i can't justify getting anyone else to agree with me (although, when they do, it's good. That might be harder to explain). My reasoning is what I am trying to get other people to assent to in those situations. If they do not, my moral position becomes irrelevant. UNless there's a "The Sky is yellow" type of thing going on, my reasoning is unlikely to move anyone expressing a moral belief. Which is fine. But I suggest those "sky is yellow" cases are covered by rights violations.

It's been awhile since I read it, but C. S. Lewis' argument against moral relativism in Mere Christianity is quite good. He points up the way that people who claim not to impose any morality on others are very often doing just that. — Leontiskos

I cannot imagine this mattering to our discussion. Imposition is quite, explicitly different to carrying on ones life as they see morally fit. Charlie Kirk would be an example of someone imposing their moral beliefs on others (and I still see no problem with that, personally.. Which is part and parcel of my not imposing my beliefs on others). That i personally would want to see X happen or not happen, and carry on my life under those beliefs doesn't seem to me to run into any obstacles insofar as claiming I don't impose on others.

Maybe there just needs to be a concession/caveat that carrying on ones life will implicitly, "accidentally" impose ones morals on those around them. I can accept that. But i active attempt not to do this, where ever there is no clear legal rights violation. Even some situations where there is, I don't feel that simply believing A or B is a better response gives me any truck in trying to get other people to do so.

huh, that's really quite interesting and i bookmarked the website...who knew that "bad" was derived exclusively from a work used to insult homosexuals and less-masculine men?! It's not surprising, but to me the word is more abstract and less loaded than that... — ProtagoranSocratist

There are several possibly origins of the term. Thiis is one of three that seem to ahve serious thought behind them. The other two make far, far more sense:

Old English baedan = "to defile" roughly
Proto-Germanic bada = "difficulty, trouble/damage" roughly.

The first seems to be the original of the suggestion Leon's given. I would probably hold off on concluding one or the other.

I'm discussing the justified beliefs we can derive about the actual world. Beliefs derived from science have a good justification, whereas beliefs derived from metaphysical speculation seem (to me) unjustified, or only weakly justified. We see lots of philosophical theories tossed around, but I'm not seeing much of a defense of them- other than it being possibly true. — Relativist

The bolded appears to rely on the italicised. That appears quite problematic to me, and likely what Wayfarer is getting at, i think. But you are patently correct, prima facie.

because the alternative (philosophical speculation untethered to empirical data) cannot produce justified beliefs. — Relativist

Is this also true of mathematics?

You generalize and find fault with groups of people but defend the actions of the German Gestapo and that is worrisome. — Athena

I don't think this is anything but disingenuous and inflammatory.

I note you do not engage any criticism of your position, consistently.

I genuinely cannot quite understand what you're trying to say here. I don't mean that to be disparaging - it's probably me.

It seems you're saying there is nothing that can be called evil. Given that actions are guided by motivations, it seems wrong in law and in concept to call an act evil which does not carry a malicious intention. I can't really see how we could reject that the ideas/thoughts/motivations are evil but maintain that the acts are. Partially because of some of hte other stuff i said, that it looks like I'll be going on for Leon just now..

So would you say that some things are not merely misguided but truly evil — Leontiskos

For me, personally, I find "evil" pretty empty. In terms of how personally arrange my moral judgments, yes. But I don't think this means much at all. It's just hte convenient semantic way I work out how I feel about things (or more properly, whether I should feel that/some way or not). An action which is aesthetically/prima facie disgustingly malicious and inhumane, let's say, whicih accurate reflects the actor's intention and ..i don't know.. world view? Could be considered evil to me. That's a practical notion, though, so I think I may not be saying what you're asking for unfortunately lol.

On that view true philosophical arguments for moral positions are impossible, and when the philosophical intelligentsia hold to such a view unthinking prejudice and taboo is inevitable, especially among the common people. — Leontiskos

To some degree, i think this. I don't see any possible coherent basis for moral thinking which isn't entirely relative. The best call I've heard from anyone is mass agreement. But we know that mass agreement is essentially culture-bound. Carlo Alvaro wrote an absolutely horrible paper outlining the basic premises of current moral realism and its.... as if a first year student was tasked with defending an illogical position. But that's just my take. I think the Law does well-enough when it comes to moral regulation. Its often wrong, and it can't please everyone, but its better than everyone doing what they think is right, imo.

many people nevertheless wish for their moral position to "win out," and this leads to all sorts of behavior that is different from rational argument. It leads to the question, "How do I get what I want without relying upon rational argumentation?" — Leontiskos

Yes, definitely. I think this is one of the unsolvable problems of modern, pluralistic society. I, at least, remain humble in my moral positions and don't pretend that they need apply to anyone else. I will try to enforce mine where i am not obviously violating rights (which are a legal institution) but otherwise I don't feel 'right' trying to convince people to my point of view (although, there is the obvious caveat that if it has to do with others violating rights, I'm likely to say something. Boot licking? Not imo).

You may be right about the disconnect between those arguments.

It was just a comment on Agency - you can expect the world to conform to your reasonable, justifiable qualms (such as "I'm black, that shouldn't be a barrier to anything whatsoever"). This is contentious; so you're right. I'm just saying that if true, then actually they can expect others to do the work.

Super-late to hte Party, but Isbell is amazing.

Its not an opinion. Which is why 180 gets no response. Its utter rejection of reality, and not something a self-respecting thinker should be engaging with. He's free to think that, though. It's not even worth the time to enumerate the disparity.

When the tribe is millions of people, everyone becomes anonymous, and the well-being of a group this large does not impress our consciousness with the same personalness as a small tribe. — Athena

I think there's a mix of this (patently true) and that once you're in a group that large, morals diverge in quite wild ways (this is one fairly clear example of morality being subjective).
The current difficulty integrating religious points of view in a pluralistic society (the West) seems to speak to this. Even when the morals are fairly well-known, they can simply but heads.

Our public broadcasting channel is doing shows about native Americans and their understanding of spiritual reality and our relationship with it and the earth. It gives me happiness to think of the Native American point of view and attempt to be spiritually woke. — Athena

Do you think this perhaps say a bit about how you approach your social views? The reason I ask is not to impugn this tactic (taking on other cultures spiritual thinking) - its just to see whether this is a 'feel good' thing only, or if there's something behind it. I can't quite imagine the benefits beyond self-satisfaction (coming from a fairly spiritual person in the general sense(me, that is), tbf). And for full disclosure, likening ICE to Gestapo seems to perhaps reveal something similar about hte lack of rigour in your thinking - I guess i'm trying to satisfy myself that these modes of thinking aren't overlapping and feeding into one another. That would be intellectually a real shame.

That's fair - but i also think it misses that, assuming 'trans' is a "true identity" in the way claimed by the more committed TRAs, then it is imperative that we accept that reality and adjust our priors so as to make room for its truth. This is what I take seriously first, before coming to any other conclusions about the subject.

Theoretically speaking, if they were right, and we were all wrong, they would be preventing us from eternal damnation (or whatever) and therefore, despite acts of violence that would normally be considered evil, are actually the greatest good one could ever perform. Theoretically speaking, of course. — Outlander

This is, imo, such an important point that almost all comers to moral discussions (in modernity, and outside of 'centrist' thinkers) miss entirely, which prevents civil discussion: If you are Catholic, your desire to put your child through conversion therapy is patently loving.
The result being (almost invariably, and almost always intense) harm is a side-effect of you being a bozo, not you being evil (assuming you're wrong, obviously). No one wants to give people their flowers in this sense, because no one wants to see their own beliefs as contingent.
That's one of the reasons my moral position on ever applies to me (other than discussions about my opinions on other things). Other people's motivations are, for hte overwhelmingly large part, good but misguided.

So by this set of assumptions I'm laying out, you can be a Nazi or Jihadist, but both are just ideas until groups of people start putting plans together to achieve the ends of Nazism or Jihadism — ProtagoranSocratist

I'm unsure this quite captures the relevant issue, although I already buy into the premise so this is a little "for fun": If you're a Nazi or committed Jihadist, your thoughts are Evil. Its almost a side-effect whether something harmful plays out in the 'real world' but that's where everyone else finds out, and has something to discuss. But that intention (say, to ethnically cleanse Germany of Jews and Romanis) can, itself, be considered Evil under some framework. I do agree its 'just an idea'. But ideas are where actions come from, so it's not like they vary independently in this context.

(1) clearly affects (2), and perhaps vice versa, but it is a little harder to pull these two things apart and see the exact relationship than to just consider (2) to be a function of (1), which is how I'm going to treat it. — ToothyMaw

I think its more interesting (and important, in my view) to ascertain where 1. fails but 2. obtains. That seems more regular, and more pernicious.

BLM could be used as an example, but I can't bring myself to wade into that as a discussion topic - but it should be clear where I'm going simply mentioning it. Repatriation is often a similar thing, or the reformation of religions.

Well done. It's very tough to slog through this sort of discussion.

I'm definitely on the Left (i've confirmed this is several fora, several 'survey' type quizzes etc... and I've never been even 'on the line' as it were). But i recognize almost nothing of what 180/Cic are talking about here in my conservative friends etc..

I think there's some truck to one point on each side though:
1. 180 etc.. are right, generally, the self-avowed and proud "MAGA" types are running a bit of a scam (not themselves, they are pawns). It's almost a simply marketing ploy with big, crayon words to bandy about. Those people do certainly, unintentionally, seem to be anti-intellectualism, anti-science etc..
2. You are right: The left active thwarts and shuns any intellectual, scientific or sociological reality tat doesn't support the underlying emotional milieu they've worked themselves into. This has proved to be the more dangerous of the two, by a wide margin. There has been eight years of 'MAGA' America, and we see, loud and clear, where the hate, violence and vitriol is coming from. Not. MAGA.

People resist clear definitions like the plague, in talks such as this. I think, partially, that's just a childish reaction to the world not being as imagined, but it some sense its legit too. If the words are ambiguous, there's no arbiter for any 'true meaning'.

That sound absolutely fantastic, across pretty much all changes noted. AWesome.

I don’t want your already hot blood to boil over. I know that you, being a trial lawyer, have much work to do, and
thus you don’t need aggravating distractions — ucarr

ucarr, buddy, this is utterly bizarre.

I have no hot blood.

I am not a trial lawyer.

If you see yourself as aggravating, that should say all that needs to be said.

You are difficult to talk to, because you often make little sense. It ends there.

Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, — Joshs

Then the problems of modernity are aptly dealt with by 200-year-old philosophy. IF they're created by people who's worldview is 200-years old then those people are 'not modern' so neither would their problems.

Me thinks this is simply an incorrect analysis of most people's thinking.

Your parents carried your dna long before you were born. — ucarr

No. They carried their DNA. This is bizarre. Almost every reply is a non sequitur that butters no bread at all. I'm having fun though.

So, did you start to be before you were born? — ucarr

I've directly, unambiguously answered this. If you don't grok it, please do not put that on me.

We've been talking about things beginning. No universe, no you. If so, then maybe you know something about the universe's beginning. If you don't know about it, maybe it's because there was no beginning; maybe the universe has always been incomplete. — ucarr

Babble. And that is not to dismiss it - it's an interesting through, but it is babbling. "If so" what? Totally nonsensical in situ.

p⟹q What about parents imply Quincy, their son? — ucarr

...w.....what? You are, sorry to say, going to need to make sense for me to be able to reply.

Okay. So metaphysical to you means abstraction. — ucarr

No. It means what metaphysics actually is. This is getting tiresome.

Why do you think the above definition has no analogy with the purpose in a courtroom? — ucarr

I gave you specific, direct reasoning for this. YOu need to read an entire post before replying my friend. Tiresome.

Why do you think the above definition — ucarr

You gave no definition of anything. Non sequitur.

That's an investigation into reality — ucarr

No. It's not even an investigation. It's an interrogation of an investigation (usually). The investigation was already done. And it was not, in any way that can be made sensible, relevant to what we're talking about.

Socrates was put on trial in a state courtroom in Athens. He was charged with disrespecting the gods approved by the state. He was sentenced to death and executed. Why do you think the courtroom takes no interest in reasoned arguments about the truth? — ucarr

He was mostly charged with corrupting the Youth. Impiety was not a driver of his charge, as I understand.
The bold: you continually put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them. I have politely asked you to stop doing this. You have not stopped.
One more warning: Do not put words in my mouth. I will stop responding if I see this again. You need to carefully read, and review your responses to ensure you are not A. making things up, and B. writing irrelevant replies: If you want a fruitful exchange.

If you have no identity, you don't exist, right? — ucarr

No. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Identity. It tells me you have never looked into the philosophical issue of identity. It is not at all required that identity holds for one to exist.

Your are like a mirror? You only reflect back some other being's face? When there's no being before you, you have no face of your own? — ucarr

Absolutely nonsense that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I am whatever I am. There is no identity to it - its a flux of various parameters. My reflection in the mirror has almost nothing at all to do with the concept of identity (unless you mean social identity, which would explain a lot your going-wrongs here).

Sorry, please repeat your claim about the universe. — ucarr

It could not be open ended as, at some stage, it began (again, I posited that future points could be infinite, but I also don't think that - it just seems logically more reliable than the reverse).

Okay. You refer to the no possible worlds definition of nothingness. — ucarr

That is what you are requiring of your exchange. It is now quite clear that you are using both concepts interchangeably to disagree with both in different exchanges. That's fine, as it seems you're comfortable with both concepts, in different exchanges. But if they are separate concepts, please do not run them together. It may simply be that this is a clarifying exchange for both of us - that's a good thing.

This describes my infinite universe with no opening. — ucarr

It does not, as "in time" still imports a start-date as it were. Your infinite universe can only have one open end (on my view, I'm not making a logical argument at this stage because there's no incoherence in your concept - as noted). If you truly think something can exist with no start point, I'll leave you to it. This isn't the discussion for me.

You think logic and metaphysics distinct. Do you think them disjoint? — ucarr

No, i don't. You need to stop telling people what they think, Its so intensely bad for a good faith exchange that I am surprised people entertain you when you do this.

Since civil engineers use calculus to design bridges, why do you think calculations employing infinite values have no practical applications? — ucarr

Give me a calculation that applied to the construction of a bridge which required an infinite set. This is another non sequitur. Unless you think all maths is ipso facto dealing with infinites? In which case again, this is not the discussion for me.

In some of these theories, allowance is made for time without a beginning. — ucarr

If sure it is, because its theoretical. But in real life, we have no reason whatsoever to posit "time without a beginning". Because time is duration. Duration requires a start and finish to be termed as such. Otherwise, we're not talking about time - which I suspect is what's happened there, and you've missed it.

Very much appreciate your time and effort, despite the difficulties.

Hey mate - appreciate your determination to push through this discussion. I am sorry that its such a slog.

Do you think you began with your parent's dna combined at fertilization? If not, where and when did you begin? If p⟹q, does q begin at p? If not, where and when does q begin? — ucarr

Yes. The moment of 'Zygotization' is when "I" began. Exactly what I was to be wasn't yet determined. I'm not sure how you want to relate this to 'the universe' though?

If p⟹q, does q begin at p? — ucarr

w....what?? P implying Q doesn't give us anything about existence, beginnings or anything else. That's a relation. Semantic entailment doesn't even really deal with our reality. Just linguistic 'must's. It seems like you want arguments, but present only irrelevant semi-philosophical-sounding points?

In your use of "metaphysical" are you referring to abstract rules attempting to describe how the universe is structured and governed formally, or, are you, on the other hand, referring to a postulated non-material realm of cosmic mind that structures and governs formally? — ucarr

I use it to refer to metaphysics. I did not come up with the concept, nor do I posit some novel definition of such. "What is possible" is what metaphysics deals with outside the constraints of empirical observation. I don't mean this to be rude, but it is a highly perplexing exchange in this way. Your two suggested possible meanings neither are reasonable, relevant or , in my view able to be inferred from my use of metaphysical.

Here's an example of you making a declaration with no supporting argument. — ucarr

Hmm. While your general point is totally valid, its entirely inapt here: If you told me that the act of selling a couple of oranges must have some analogy to a Dolphin headbutting an Orca, i'd say the same thing. There is no analogy. You made that claim - you need to support it. Not me. The onus is on you to support your purported analogy. I note you try to do this in your reply - so lets deal with it..

I encourage you to present independently verifiable facts that refute my claim. — ucarr

You are not talking about anything for which we have verifiable facts. This probably explains why no one can quite understand what you're saying, when your responses are in a different lane to your questions. And why that happens a lot. In a court case we are not dealing with hypotheticals, metaphysics and speculation on the nature of reality. There is no analogy between the two. There is no outcome to be gleaned from this discussion and no judge to adjudicate. The only thing we roughly have in common with a court room is that we're trying to get across disparate points of view. That's it. There is no analogy in terms of evidential standards or logical requirements or anything else (if you see it differently, that's fine, but I reject it so we can't keep arguing about it).

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? If you do, explain how this is possible. — ucarr

I do not know why you keep making total non sequiturs and pretending they make sense.

The fact that A=A says literally nothing about existence or beginnings. Because it doesn't. It tells us a relation between two objects (or, two concepts which are one object). This is patent, as A=A literally does not tell us anything about those things. The bold is particularly bad thinking, wording and general discussion. I don't even take myself to have an identity. Even if I did, this question has nothing to do with my claim about the Universe.

You're incorrectly combining the scientific quantum vacuum, which is subject to physical laws with the philosophical nothingness, which is subject to nothing. — ucarr

I am neither incorrectly, or correctly doing that. I am telling you, on your own terms, what my view of the position that the Universe has no beginning could mean and whether I think it's plausible.
That said, "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense in both senses. Physical 'nothing' is literally not nothing. No-thing. Nothing. They are the same. If there's some special physics use of 'nothingness' I'm not using it. You'd do well not to import your own conceptual uses of things into other's speech.

You seem to think there are true things not logical. — ucarr

No. I didn't claim 'true' for anything. Logic can only work on the information you currently have (or, conceptually i guess but that's total abstractness and not helpful here). Something like "if/then" only works if you know what sits between those words. We have no clue, at all, what's 'beyond our Universe' if anything. We cannot use logic to speak about anything outside the Universe.
What we can say: anything which exists, began to exist. Therefore, there is no move open to get to an open-ended Universe (at the back end, anyway. Perhaps an infinite-in-time Universe can be posited).

If further information gives us reason to think there actually is something out there, that would support this. If we came to information which actually indicated the Universe were infinite (i.e we'd have to just brute accept no start point then) then your argument works. We don't have that information, and so based on the above we can't posit that. We do not have logical infinites in reality, only in concept. This is why I brought in metaphysics: It is a metaphysical claim, not a logical one, that there could be no infinite past. I even accept that logically, in the abstract, we could posit an infinite universe without contradiction. But, you see to want to talk about the actual Universe.

Maths deals with infinites, but requires things like "numbers are infinite" to support the type of logic you're wanting in here. There's nothing ipso facto wrong with this, because as noted, infinites can be dealt with - but they cannot (it seems) give us reasons in the real world.

Why do you think a universe with no opening also has no boundaries? — ucarr

I don't, and didn't say this. Please try to read more carefully.

Don't distinct planetary systems have boundaries? Why do you think a universe with no opening has no discrete geometry? — ucarr

This is a non sequitur - we are not talking about planetary systems. I wont address it.
A Universe with no opening has no temporal boundary. That is what I indicated, and i did not at any stage say anything that can be reasonable inferred to mean I think an infinite universe has no discreet geometry. Please, PLEASE read more carefully. It is going to be extremely difficult if most responses are my correctly bad reading and assumptions you're making.

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? — ucarr

I did. This is a circle you tend to go in throughout all exchanges I've seen you have.

The argument is that something with no beginning never began, and so does not exist. That is an argument. It is a sound one. We can imagine this well enough, but it fails quite quickly because a metaphysical eternity is conceptually empty. So, I would prefer if you did not make claims that attempt to paint your interlocutors as failing, where hte failure is your ability to understand what is being said clearly enough to apply it to your concepts. You can disagree all you want (and I welcome it!). But this sort of "You're not playing the game" when I've clearly done what you're saying I haven't will go nowhere.

Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. — ucarr

No, it does not. There is no analogy between the two that can hold.

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin? — ucarr

So, I did make an argument. Great. Please stop pretending I haven't.

A=A is an identity concept. It has nothing to do with existence and says absolutely nothing about eternity.

As I read you, you agree that something cannot come from nothing. — ucarr

Then you are not reading me very clearly at all. You are not adequately distinguishing between descriptions and reasonings. We have a Universe. We cannot assume it was "beginning-less" because there is no logical way for that to be the case. That does not mean it isn't true. It means you cannot support it with reason. You need to be far more careful about how you treat concepts, less you continue to run into total non sequiturs like A=A having something to do with the Universe having a beginning.

In conclusion, I think you believe the universe real, and you don't think it came from nothing. So, you know the universe is fundamentally something. You also know it didn't start itself in nothing because to begin presumes an existing something — ucarr

I have no choice but to accept the Universe is real. Its not my belief, its an overwhelming reality. I suppose you can call this a belief, but it is a recognition. Beliefs behave differently.
The Universe is obviously something, fundamentally or otherwise. I don't 'know' anything beyond that hte Universe exists. I'm am illustrating that reason cannot get us to an infinite Universe, and the concept of a Universe with no boundaries along any axes (i.e space, time, expansive capacity etc..) is essentially a meaningless failure to adequate understand the nature of "something".

The more interesting, and in my view, only, question we can ask here is "What is outside the Universe?". No idea. But if it's expanding, we have extremely good reason to think it's expanding into something (else). This makes it pretty clear an "open-ended" Universe cannot be - otherwise expansion would be nonsense.

That;'s definitely hte approach taken by philosophers who have taken psychedelics. That says whatever it says for different people, but for my part, it shows that there are ineffable experiences. These cannot be 'scienced'. Consciousness, being hte basis of all experience, is a prime candidate for never getting past the shrug response.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion? It seems to there's to much uncertainty of what all the consequence could to be to make such definite statements with any confidence. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this. But the failure of climate models to-date (and Antarctic ice recession) gives me hope.

The point is that this forum is not the place for school-yard (Or X) type nonsense like that. Total ad hominems are the refuge of those who cannot control their emotions. Those who cannot control their emotions are generally refused entry (to anything except therapy).

The activist class tend to be unable, so what should be a serious and fulfilling thread tends to, as noted, descend into insults. Even when one is not disagreeing with the activist.

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that.
In what that hypothetical event is embedded is another question entirely. One which I doubt humans can ever get any kind of a handle on.

If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr

Not really, no. If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there).

Regarding your use of "metaphysical" in context here, "Do you mean foundational abstract premises and principles nevertheless a part of the natural world? Or do you mean a non-physical realm? — ucarr

I don't think this makes sense. You are positing a metaphysical eternity in which a 'never began' universe must sit. That is a nonsense (that doesn't make it wrong - just nonsensical. It is likely many of these concepts elude sense-making for humans entirely).
I don't mean either of the things you posited, and they do not seem relevant questions.

I think an eternal universe has no opening. What do you think? — ucarr

That you're asking me this proves it wrong. A Universe with no 'opening' never opened, so does not exist, logically.

If you're trying to posit a metaphysical eternity, I'm with 180. This is nonsense.

By definition, we can't. But as T Clark says, that makes the query meaningless and unanswerable.

My understanding of this issue (and this is contentious, so don't take this as my view, its just how I understand the conversation to stand at large) is that puberty blockers are not reversible, so there are plenty of individuals for whom the premise was probably right, but in practice cannot be carried out. So, they reach say 17, realise maybe it wasn't for them, but now they are irreversibly affected by having not gone through puberty, so transition is actually the more "normalising" pathway at that time.

Again, this isn't my view. I have not known any children who have transitioned (or teens, for that matter) whcih I take to be a good thing (largely because this indicates the prevalence of gender dysphoria among children is perhaps lower than posited by activists).

But of course, your unexamined opinions must prevail here too.

Be reassured, you seem marvellous at the hand-waving. A duck to water. :up: — apokrisis

I'm am completely unsure why you're being antagonistic. The idea that my opinions are "unexamined" after this exchange is risible.

Why not just actually have a decent exchange, rather than descending into ad hominem? I gave you your flowers. I don't take kindly to impolite, antagonistic interlocutors either.

Ah - very fair. Thank you.

That works for me, in an extremely cursory way. I'm not doing technical reading right now lol. Seems reasonable to integration is what's interesting to explain, but emergence is going to be the actual breakthrough.

That said, serious people (as apokrosis notes) do consider that consciousness is not its 'own thing' to be explained. I guess that makes no sense to me and smacks of how I described it above. I just could be dead wrong.

Both of the above: :up:

Transitioning children seems... dubious at best. Abusive at worst.

It we understand the semiotic modelling relation that gives us life and mind, we can then start to analyse “consciousness” as the stack of modelling relations that an embodied and socially cocooned organism can weave around its being — apokrisis

This may come across antagonistic - but it is unintended: I think you're looking at leaves and missing the trees they sprout from.

I respect that you take there be a, more or less, full answer to the problem of consciousness but to me, none of what you've put forward (which I highly appreciate) even attempts to answer it. I actually thikn what you're talking about is highly important, and you're dealing with it well. It just seems utterly wrong to think it answers something like the Hard Problem. I don't take hand-waving very well..

This sounds like a straw man. It is a view, but not one that anyone I can think of holds. — bert1

It is an incredibly strawman, but its one people like Dennett tended to embrace, conceptually. I think its just a stand-in for "I dunno *shrug* lets look at something else".

Consciousness is a discreet sensation. We need it explained (well, no. We want it explained). We currently have no explanation for its emergence, or origin. All we have are postulates - none of which have held thus far.

Are you trans? If not, then are you saying that you know better than the trans person in this instance? And is it that they are just "wrong", or are they "delusional"? What if they aren't identifying as a gender, but as a sex? How would you know? How would they know? — Harry Hindu

I think probably most telling is the bold. Prefacing by saying it was "on my view". I know plenty of trans people, a couple quite intimately.
Yes, my position is they are wrong. You cannot change sex. They want to exemplify typical phenotypic traits of the opposite sex and there's nothing wrong with doing that, imo, for an adult (we both discuss this elsewhere, and itll come up further down here). But it is factually incorrect that they can change sex, as far as I know and think.

And why would it be hard to understand to ask this question when hormone replacement therapy is called "gender-affirming care"? :roll: — Harry Hindu

That's why its hard to understand. It affirms gender, not sex. Running sex and gender together as one thing doesn't seem a move open to any type of thinker on this topic. If they were the same, we would be saying humans can change sex. Is that what you're saying?

No. I'm saying that is what trans-people appear to be saying. I'm asking what it means for a man to claim to be a woman — Harry Hindu

Ah, well fair enough. I don't think many of them are claiming that, but yes, some do. That's definitely true. There is speak of womb transplants. (I have deliberately put this response here, after my question, because I think they run together - if you don't think trans people are 'born in the wrong body' I suggest you can't claim humans can change sex).

Which just means that our behaviors are rooted in biology. — Harry Hindu

To some degree, yeah definitely. I have no issue with that - i was speaking about this at some length recently. Females and males have average behavioural profiles, and the introduction of cross-sex hormones is to (ostensibly - it doesn't seem to work) engender a change of behaviour in the individual to be closer to the sex they want to be. They cannot be that sex, so the care affirms a "gender", rather than a sex. Does this make sense?

Then sex and gender are intertwined. — Harry Hindu

Conceptually, yes (as described above). But one can, apparently, claim a gender without any notable or visible change in phenotype, behaviour or anything else. I presume based on your responses you do not think that person can be considered trans? I'm unsure, and not trying to corner you - I just see some trip-ups in these sets of claims. For me, too. I don't see that sex and gender need be practically intertwined. But that said, I think "gender" can only go three ways. They are all quite well-defined and I presume you're about to respond to them :P

...or that you have misinterpreted trans-gendered people, or that trans-people and their supporters have no idea what they are talking about and aren't really disagreeing with the idea that sex and gender are the same. — Harry Hindu

yes, that could be true, but I 100% reject that sex and gender are the same, and I stand behind this claim entirely based on my pretty thorough understanding of the concepts and discussions thereof. There is nothing to suggest that a person can change sex, but there is plenty to suggest one can change gender. They are patently, observably, not the same. The majority of trans people acknowledge this (as best I can tell.. don't shoot me for going on that haha). Perhaps five or six years ago there was more of that, but not only is identification as trans nosediving, the overblown claims about it are also dropping away - we have plenty of visible, public trans people agreeing with me (no, that doesn't make me right, but as I see it, the logic does).

Is gender a social construct or a self-identification that runs counter to the social expectation? It can't be both because one is the anti-thesis of the other. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's what I'm trying to illustrate. It could only be one of the three possibilities:

1. Sex
2. Social construct
3. Personal choice (maybe that's a disrespectful work, but it seems true if we're taking self-ID seriously as a concept.

If gender were a social construct then why is most of society surprised to see a man in a dress? — Harry Hindu

This is exactly what one would expect from a social construct. Society expects X due to its construction, but sees Y and is perturbed (or whatever word.. for me, its more amused or excited (in the general "Hey, that's interesting" sense)).

But there is and it is because the man is not following the rules - that women wear dresses, not that wearing a dress makes you woman. — Harry Hindu

This is getting dangerously close to the point: Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. I mean, my position is that a woman is an adult human female and gender is a different use of the word woman, which is never adequately parsed, so perhaps we're both barking at the wrong tree here? But, Ill address for the sake of clarity: If Gender is a social construct, then society tells you your gender. If most people treat you as 'a woman', that's what you are. Doesn't matter what you think or feel. Same for being 'a man'. This accords with (2.) above. For my part, I find this one a good argument to get beyond claims that gender is fully variant and choosable. If its a social construct, you, personally, don't get a say. This means that if you're a man, and society treats you as a man, and you turn up in a dress, you'll turn heads. That fits perfectly with gender-as-social-construct.

If gender is merely a social construct then wouldn't that mean that transgenderism is a social construct? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that would be the case. I think it's the case even with (3.). With that, you are making a personal choice derived from social expectation still. That seems to me a social construct, the same way something like lawyering is considered a 'male' job. There's nothing particularly male about it (as opposed to oil drilling, let's say). The difference between (2.) and (3.) is that you tell society your gender in (3.) but the opposite in (2.).

The only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture. — Harry Hindu

It should be clear that to me, this is (3.) and not a social construct, per se.

If gender is a social construct, then it describes the expectations and stereotypes historically linked to biological sex — expectations that feminism worked hard to overcome. — Harry Hindu

For both (2.) and (3.) this is one of the realizations that prevented me from continuing down the gender theory pathway. It is senseless and counter to progress. It is misogynistic and sexist in ways that somewhat explain why it seems more prevalent among males and children (its something like four times more likely in someone under 18 - but data between sexes it not available, I am speculating with decent data sets).

To say one can “identify” as another gender is to say that those outdated expectations still define what it means to be male or female. In other words, self-identifying as another gender merely re-affirms the very stereotypes that we're supposed to have been rendered obsolete. — Harry Hindu

Hmm, I don't think so - but that's because for me sex and gender come entirely apart at this stage of discussion. I thnk I've adequately defended that position, though. So seems reasonable to say on this that I entirely agree, but those stereotypes are (while derived from biological expectations) no longer reasonable, and so bled into 'gender' expectation like being quieter as a woman, or less defensive.

I've both studied the relevant science (to the degree a non-scientist) and (more importantly, for this discussion) the metaphysical philosophy. There is no mechanism identified for the emergence of consciousness by either crew (well, i say identified - I should be saying pinned-down. Several have been posited). To the degree this is an opinion, sure. But it is derived from quite a bit of uncomfortable reading. My position has had to change, for instance, upon that reading. I was initially an 'it must be entirely physical and contained within the structures of hte brain, even if hidden' person.

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, I'm sure it would be quite easy to explain (and honestly, I'd love to know. It's quite annoying feeling logically obligated to entertain divine command lmao). Please do (there is absolutely no sarcasm here, whatsoever. I am under the impression I'm under, and if it's wrong please set me right).

I am really not trying to be antagonistic. I felt you were being that way..

One is too many, when it could be prevented. So, that isn't all that needs to be said.

There also vanishingly small numbers of people kidnapping Nepalese babies for racial reasons, for torture and murder. But we wouldn't say this about that issue.