But my argument was precisely against your assertion that beliefs and propositions, "are not falsified the same way," so it doesn't help to point back to the assertion I was arguing against — Leontiskos

Clearly, but my responses remain the same. That you think the are the same thing as far as this goes, is bizarre and unsupportable to me prima facie. It is non-intelligible.

But the case from my argument cannot be "falsified" without knowledge of the state of affairs, namely without knowledge that the video is a deepfake. — Leontiskos

Knowledge held by a third party. So, the subject isn't involved in that knowledge-having. I, personally, could give you evidence that such and such a belief is false (i.e you do not have anything which supports it in hand) and not comment on the state of affairs.
I could also provide evidence of hte kind you note (source of hte deepfake, lets say) without getting anywhere near the grounds for your belief.I have not shied from this being quite weird, but I bite this bullet. Maybe you don't, and that's the issue. If something crucial has been missed by me, I would assume it was something around this. That the subject has had this evidence given to falsify the state of affairs. And that's fine, it's not likely they would continue to believe the falsified state of affairs. This does not entail that they had a false belief (to me). They had a true belief, in a false state of affairs (reiterating the bold above)

If the actuality is undetermined then the truth or falsity of the belief will also be undetermined — Janus

This feels as if it is the reverse of what's being asked. If you falsify the state of affairs, but hte person remains steadfast in a belief due to reasonable standards of evidence then the belief is 'true' and the state of affairs false. That said, this could be only possible in the other direction (i.e falsifying a belief does not entail that the content of the belief is false (this one is clearly true)).

Is that the confusion? If it isn't, I have to just walk away from a conversation which confuses a state of affairs with a belief in it (or, amalgamates them). It isn't something i buy at all. Nothing personal in that. It's just coming across completely stupid to me to claim that reasoning for falsifying a belief in a state of affairs is the same as reasoning falsifying the state itself.

If either of you believe you could run an argument that would bring those two together (rather than premising the argument with that assumption) then we can maybe get further.

Yes, that could also be true. There's some argument around fear of snakes, for instance, despite the risk of snake attacks being low. That may be something in-built, as it were and not at all telling us anything about hte world.

given that the real nature of things in the ultimate sense that the human mind seems so addicted to entertaining, is not at all decidable. — Janus

(I added a comma for ease of reading). I agree.

Non-sequitur. If it was initiated, then it wasn't the initial state of affairs. — Relativist

Err nope, but I also dealt with this as a language problem later in my post. Lets see what happens...

Either there was an initial state of affairs, or there's an infinite series of causes. — Relativist

Are causes not states of affairs? Or can causes be pried from 'states'? If there was an 'initial' state of affairs, than that already implies something before initiation. As above, this is simply not a credible thing to posit lol.

I've no idea what this means, or what "that" refers to. Besides, "implies" doesn't do the work of causes — 180 Proof

I am in no way surprised.

A state of affairs consisting of non-existence is a self-contradictory term. — Relativist

I didn't posit there was one. I posited that initiation implies something prior. That 'something' is obviously capable of be no-thing (again, language problem addressed later - we are literally unable to talk about 'no-thing' other than by inference).

existence = what IS — Relativist

Yep. And non-existence = nothing. Doesn't change the implication/inference of 'something' to 'nothing'.

I should be quite clear: I am not trying to posit that this is reasoning which would give us a good warrant to think that there ever wasn't anything. I am giving the reasoning which gives us pause to think that 'everything always was' which is just as absurd (in a general sense) as there being no-thing at no-time.

The inference is semantic, not ontological. We're discussing ontology- what exists, and what can be inferred to exist

Haha, no. We're discussing whether "nothing" could have ever obtained. And it could have. This, again, explains why neither you nor 180 are saying anything that seems to be relevant to me and my point here. If that's the discussion you've been having, then all is clarified lol.

I don't understand what you consider disconcerting. We can entertain possibilities. Either the past is finite, or it is infinite. There's no in-between. — Relativist

Oh, ok, so you share my position. Cool. What a mess... (not your fault or anything, just observing).

Yes, I am clearly being held to a standard posters such as Mikie are not.

I disagree. We're not at a point where you're understanding the words im using. Formal argument would not help here. That said, I have responded to your formal arguments. For some reason, my responses are just either ignored to said to be 'wrong' without anything further. Your syllogism above does not work for me, and I've said why.

Not quite. The jump from the third to fourth dynasties is utterly insane, and it immediately declines in the fifth. The previous (and following) mastabas are a world away from the Giza Pyramids (or the Saqqara/Dashur pyramids). It's really not very simple.

The deeper question that I think we should be talking about is what lies behind the ancient philosophical tradition of denying common sense reality. — Ludwig V

I've said why. Often, 'common sense' is absolute horseshit. That's why we have things like 'folk psychology' to dismiss. Obviously, that's not the end of the story is there is something weighty to what Banno is saying, but it doesn't butter bread for the fact that quite often (and far more often, with lay people (what that says, I don't care in the present moment)) the world turns out to not be as it is. Given that this is the case, 'common sense' isn't quite 'common' as it seems. I think all 'common sense' says is that there are ways of thinking that tend toward problem solving in real time. Lots of people are not able to do this.

That works for me!

You replied after the above, to be clear.

It's pretty hard to walk something through something which is inferential.

Something infers nothing. Yes? Yes.
Being infers non-being. Yes? There are things which aren't, outside of the list of things which are. So, Yes.
Now, can we access them? NO! lol. That is probably why people want to make statements such as yours and Banno's. There is nothing to say, other than to observe the inference. The idea that there has "always been" is just as disconcerting (and unsupported, in the sense outlined above) as that "something always was". Even the use of temporal terms infers something other than the claim.

If there was an initial state of affairs, there must have been 'something' from which it was initiated.

None of the takes trying to avoid the inference of non-existence actually work.

who never listens — Metaphysician Undercover

I've recently realized this is a cherry-picking thing. And more power to him. When he wants, it's a good exchange. Can't force it. Apparently, his better work is via PM. All good imo. Even my frustration with him (which is palpable at times) is no reason to think he needs to be treated less reasonably.

Yes, it certainly seems you picked up the wrong tool. I was offering one more to the tune of things like causation is weird, plenty of phenomena are explained in counter-intuitive ways (lightning from the ground as a trivial example). The world doesn't "be like it is" in a lot of respects.

The lack of qualification is a problem. The world is decidedly not as it appears to the senses, often. Our disagreements about perception notwithstanding, those counter-intuitive facts seem to support my initial point. Most people are not thinking of things the way you are, regardless. Barely anyone looks a cup and just thinks "that's a cup, no more to it".

It certainly seems better (overall) than only posting in the forums. That said, I think the forums are great starting points for forming thoughts or finding areas to explore. A good move, particularly for an old head like yourself, i'd think.

I think if I trusted more members to have reasonable discussions, i'd be more likely to PM. But I get a lot of in-person (or private P2P) philosophical discussoin through work and school anyway.

For me, there's a very simple way to ddealing with this.

Be happy with making mistakes, based on moving forward with the best of your current knowledge.

With this in mind, I cannot fault myself for simply 'being wrong'. That's something everyone deals with and is amoral. Every time I do something that requires a choice above the trivial, I asses what information I have to hand, go and get information I know I can get, and make a decision based on this. Action ensues. The outcome will only be relevant to later decisions.

In this way, i've been both better at making choices/pulling triggers, and also better are adjusting my positions or actions based on prior results.

This means I am never "second guessing" myself because everything is done to a framework, applicable at all times.

If not sarcasm, you're very welcome :)

Ahh I see. Ok, that's quite clear for me now. I don't quite think i'd agree, but yeah very clear. Thanks

Edit:

perception as a private experience drops out of the language game — Banno

Even clearer .

Appearing conscious is only a matter of appearance, right? I don't think we could answer this.

My take, though, is similar to J. I don't thikn non-bio entities can be conscious. Intuition, sure, but a good one.

Thanks. So, I see two points here:

1. Manipulating the world is playing the game; and
2. Naming objects one manipulates is part of the game (this can be read in two directions. I've arbitrary chosen one as a possible reading).

The former point, yes 100% get you there. More or less agree too.
The second point I can't quite grok. Is this to say that the operation of non-language to language (i.e pointing and slapping the X, to "Slab!") is also part of the game?

I don't think I get that from Witt or other concepts of language use/games.

(please don't see this as smar-arse):

The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance. This has been true for hte entirety of human history.

As I noted. Are you arguing against this premise? — AmadeusD

I assume the answer is here?

I agree with you that sometimes we are surprised or mistaken. — Banno

If so, good. That's a great place to start. I would proceed by trying to understand how, against this background, you can make the claim that "the world is as it appears" without qualification. I don't, really. I understand the impetus, though I would say this might be giving you some issues:

Folk want the world to be unpredictable in order to suit their heroic philosophical narrative — Banno

As I see it, no. Folk are noticing discrepancies between their expectations and understandings, and what ends up being (at least presented as) verified. There's a second issue there, though which is that a failure to consistently behave as expected is enough for what I'm saying. Does that maybe temper the point you're reading, and allow you to come closer to the mark?

If not, it's just that I don't understand what you're getting at in pointing out some regularity in cause/effect and the wider comment which has been made?

That there are things which "be". That implies non-being and so the question (i.e the question why there is something) is entirely apt. Further, once we see that question is apt (even if unanswerable) we have to do one of two things:
1. Bite the bullet that there has never been 'nothing' (ignoring the blatant contradiction in terms there lol. I didn't invent them!); or
2. Bite the bullet that if there is "something" and "nothing" is implied, we should expect it to obtain (or, the opposite of obtain lol).

This is fully intelligible, and gives us pause as to why there's something. If there is something, when was there nothing? Previously in time is hte only available inference it seems.

I too, find the questions boring, though.

It's possible someone else asked, and some answer was given, but i'm personally interested in how you get from "stuff" to "blocks" without already playing the game? I say that because this seems to divorce objects from the language about them while using language about them.
That doesn't seem quite available here?

I don't think its a creativity issue. I think its an aesthetic issue. Most academic philosophy these days is technical, dry and concerned with minutiae because most big concepts have been "done to death" as they say.

There's plenty of creativity going, I think. Bunch of work on AI and that type of consciousness/learning stuff. Less, but still some stuff about causation, process v semantics etc.. Some of it is quite cool, and interesting to someone like me. But I imagine its totally uninteresting to a lot of even professional philosophers and so is considered uncreative.

No, I think you've done what often happens: read a paragraph into a sentence, not clarify anything, and then go on as if everything is clear. No guff there, it happens. I'm sure I do it - but its unhelpful.

It seems you don't even know what I'm saying, here. I'm not sure why you're responding the way you are, in that sense. Why not ask something? Harry (and MU) has a good point, but that wasn't the one I was aiming for. Do we want to discuss these things, or make drive-by shots on each other? I, for one, would rather an opportunity to elucidate, if you're not getting me. It seems you're not. I'm then going to assume you want to know, so:

You make an (in my view) unsupportable claim. I objected. Your response was again, brute claim. Your response to me (admittedly glib, but I was under the impression "in good fun") was to say this:

So the topic is "On Matter, Meaning, and the Elusiveness of the Real", yet you claim that pointing out that what is real is right there before you is irrelevant. — Banno

This isn't a response to what I said. It's a description, impugning what I said. That's bad faith. The bold is your position. You hold it. That's fine. It doesn't do anything for anyone who doesn't hold it. It also isn't particularly on point for what I actually said. So, lets begin something less glib..My position:

The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance. This has been true for hte entirety of human history.

As I noted. Are you arguing against this premise?

This is false. Those two phrases are, plainly, self-explanatory. This is not meant to be rude, but do you need them explained? If so, I cannot see this going anywhere. Are you confusing "belief" with "state of affairs" in this context? If so, I cannot see tihs going anywhere. I do not know what you need clarifying, here.

If not, I cannot see how you are running this line, in good faith. I've presented arguments, and reasoning for all of what I've said (and have reviewed two of substantive exchanges to confirm). That you either don't engage, or don't understand doesn't seem to me something I have to answer to. I've even reiterated an re-posted plainly relevant passages for ease. These appear to be ignored also. It is twilight zone stuff to be charged with something like this:

You very seldom give reasons or arguments for your positions. — Leontiskos

This is, to put it mildly, bullshit.

If you want to PM about what is (in my view) a clear troll on your part, I'm open. Otherwise, it's best we avoid each other to avoid the requirement of impugning each other in a way that violates forum etiquette (though, apparently this does not apply to many other posters).

LOL yeah, seems so.

I don't think its worth it. The boil-down is this:

Words literally cause mindstates, when heard in certain contexts. Those mindstates are considered irresistible in some circumstances. Those mindstates are either supervenient or overwhelmingly causative of the actions in question. This is a causal chain which is morally brought back to the inciter.

He doesn't get this. It's hard to see where 'reason' would come in if so.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/a-medical-student-s-anger-toward-america-s-health-care-system-with-similarities-to-luigi-mangione-s-case-led-him-to-shoot-a-doctor-police-say/ar-AA1HglDd?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=7cbbca9f02b74a10a2a3935c652422ab&ei=6

Why oh why does the left do this to itself. Dysregulated children should not be fronting any type of social movement.

This seems far, far, far more to do with cultural novelty than any indication of some natural proclivity.

That's right Mikie. We're all racist. All actions are racist. Anyone who doesn't look like us is an enemy. It's definitely nothing but racism. Mhmm.

Supposedly Life On Mars and Your Song (Bowie, John respectively) also. I don't quite buy it myself, but that would be something awesome to know.

Really? "Because it isn't," is probably not going to be satisfactory to anyone, anywhere. What everyone, everywhere, will want is a reason why. — Leontiskos

"Why isn't this tshirt Green?"

Right-o.

Can you delineate what you mean by "the state of affairs," and what you mean by, "the belief"? — Leontiskos

They are, quite clearly, self explanatory, so I don't want to come across an ass and just state them again. They are self-explanatory, and cannot be confused on their own terms. If you are confusing a state of affairs with a belief in the state of affairs, I do not know where to go... That is bizarre and unfortunate, if so.

The fellow believes Trump dyed his hair. Is his belief false? — Leontiskos

Yes. I have explained this explicitly above, to the degree that this feels like outright trolling:

The state of affairs, and the belief in it, are not the same thing and are not falsified the same way. Any belief can be falsified without looking at the state of affairs, as I see it. I will simply repeat what you've quoted to round out:

The error being that a failure to support one's belief doesn't entail the state of affairs being false. It does, however, directly entail that your belief in the state of affairs is false.
— AmadeusD — AmadeusD

You're not saying anything relevant.

It seems some are just unable to see the forest. Trees be damned.

The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems. — Banno

The absolute lack of anything meaningful here, says no (and that's on your terms lmao).

In truth the security apparatus hasn't been biased as the partisan commentators always persist. — ssu

A certainly agree.

No, and no. That's evidenced perfectly by the entire history of humanity not knowing what the fuck is going on, because it isn't as it seems.

Just on the final bit here, which is crucial: Intolerance is as it sounds: a lack of tolerance.
Preference, in contrast, is just a preference. 'I prefer chocolate to vanilla" =/= "I cannot stand vanilla; it makes me sick and my psychology is sent awry by it"

Because "as it seems to be" is rarely the case, from a human perspective. Far more instances of that assumption failing that otherwise, as I see it.

We are already morally bankrupt — unenlightened

I would recommend speaking for yourself :P

R.I.P Vera.

I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? — Ourora Aureis

Do you mean "your" definition? For the vast, vast majority of people violence is harmful force. That seems the definition too. For that reason, its possible similar things are being said in different terms. I would never call the enforcement, through proper channels, of a law, "violence" without some discussion about (for instance) resisting arrest leading to violent police behaviour. So seem to agree, but then claim:

It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws. — Ourora Aureis

Like... what the fuck lol. They are not, in any way, equivalent.

I personally dont have a reason for disliking certain genres, I just dont resonate with them. — Ourora Aureis

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. Which is totally fine.

Arbitrary Intolerances don't seem to be that inappropriate at all, because they're simply expressions of ones emotions rather than beliefs. — Ourora Aureis

I don't thikn you're adequately hearing the word 'intolerance' which is a visceral, "absolutley not" type of feeling. Not just a preference.

Clearly we believe expressions of sexual preference to be okay, so I fail to see why this should be different on non-sexual grounds. — Ourora Aureis

Well, it is fine. Discriminating, even in bad-taste ways (eg preferring one's own ethnic group) is fine and generally allowed in law and socially. It eventually gets to a point of being arbitrary (like requiring a Dcotor to be of a certain ethnicity for instance) and that's where people don't get on with it, and the law tends to step in. This has changed slightly recently, in a way I disagree with. Some claims of this kind are now allowed in law, but only for certain groups and often to the detriment of others.

wrong to dismiss certain intolerant expressions outright as it presumes they have no requisite reasons. — Ourora Aureis

I agree. Discussion is required. That's how you figure out if something is arbitrary. I am not an absolutist, but I am far more toward absolutism than some of the censorious forms advocated in this thread.

The important factor there being that empirical arguments can be argued for and against with evidence, rather than being entirely normative claims like DasGegenmittel suggested. — Ourora Aureis

This is definitely true, and perhaps people like that simply don't want to have that conversation. Too fucking bad imo. You live in the world. Have the conversation. Grow up.

Why isn't this just the fallacy of denying the antecedent? — Leontiskos

Because it isn't. Not sure what else you could want in response to that. It's my pointing out there you're confusing two separate conclusions which rely on separate reasoning within the example.

Perfect. In your example the state of affairs isn't false (jury is out, as it were, as described) but the belief is clearly false.

The state of affairs, and the belief in it, are not the same thing and are not falsified the same way. Any belief can be falsified without looking at the state of affairs, as I see it. I will simply repeat what you've quoted to round out:

The error being that a failure to support one's belief doesn't entail the state of affairs being false. It does, however, directly entail that your belief in the state of affairs is false. — AmadeusD

I do not understand how, after the above, the argument you're making can be made. You could tell me this conception is wrong and we can talk about that, but your reasoning simply isn't apt anymore. Perhaps the above makes this more explicit..

Ahh I see what you're saying. Well, I think that's hyperbolic to a comic degree, but your core point elucidated here is apt. Thank you.