Sounds like chat GTP, welcome to the forum.

None of what you said made any sense to me, but I am fine with that.

How about feeling pain due to random circumstance. A person that endures a lot of pain will generally be less happy compared to one who does. Is it then somehow immoral to get a disease that brings about a lot of pain?

Welcome

What do you think about brain chemistry regarding happiness then. Why are my dogs happier than my cats?

@Hallucinogen
Is believing a ridged state for you? Are you equally sure about all your beliefs?

don't experience the roundness of the Earth, so it's not an appropriate example to prove your point. — Hallucinogen

But I can experience that it is flat. I think it is a great case for experience not being knowledge.

It still refers to knowledge. — Hallucinogen

Maybe to your definition of knowledge. If everything was based on what I call knowledge, there would be less mistakes all around.

This just doesn't make sense. They're separate but they overlap? — Hallucinogen

“Uncertain” and “certain” does not overlap. “Uncertainty” and “certainty” are scales, they can overlap, they have no thresholds. A degree of uncertainty will always contain the inversed degree of certainty.

some other fact that you know. — Hallucinogen

Nah, I can believe something based on other beliefs.

I believe it will snow because I believe someone said so to me earlier. Knowing is not a requirement for believing.

And the experience is what you know. — Hallucinogen

Experience is not the same as knowing. In my experience, the earth is flat.

What you're now doing is acknowledging that belief coincides with knowledge, — Hallucinogen

No, in this case, the beliefs derived from knowledge does not refer to the same thing. I know it snows now so I believe it will snow tomorrow.

uncertainty together with certainty, which is a contradiction that I earlier pointed out. — Hallucinogen

Uncertainty and certainty are the scales themselves. Being certain and being uncertain, those are the actual levels of certainty, and they are separate. However, being certain can still contain a degree of uncertainty (0-5%).

When civilized behavior fails us, we go back to being animals.

But this isn't a case of you not believing that oxygen is needed to survive. You believe it because of what you know. — Hallucinogen

I do not believe it because I know it. I am above the threshold of certainty that is indicated by the word "believing". If you suggest that I merely believe something when I think I know it, I may take that as an insult.

And you believe it because you know something. — Hallucinogen

Not necessarily, I can be unsure about it. However I probably have some experience that suggests that it will snow. But yes, I can know some things and use that to form beliefs about something else. The belief is weaker than the knowledge though.

Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — Hallucinogen

My bad, it is supposed to read "Being uncertain indicates that you are not certain".

This entails that saying you know something means you don't believe it, which is absurd. — Hallucinogen

"absurd" why? Knowing is simply a degree higher on the scale of certainty . If my certainty drops from having known something then I may start believing it instead.

If someone asks me "Do you believe you need oxygen to survive?" then I answer, "No, I know I need oxygen to survive".

If they ask me, "Do you know what the weather will be like tomorrow? I answer, "I believe it will snow".

You said the opposite of this in your previous comment. — Hallucinogen

Uncertainty and certainty are both scales 0-100%, inversions of each other.
Being certain is a step on the certainty scale: 95-100%
Being uncertain is a step on the certainty scale: 5-95%

You can't be certain and uncertain about the same thing. But being certain does include a small degree of uncertainty (0-5%).

Certainty in X cannot coincide with uncertainty in X, so suggesting that they're not disjoint is a fallacy. — Hallucinogen

When I say I "know" something I mean that I am highly confident, not 100% certain. So yes, my "knowing" does contain a degree of uncertainty.

Belief and knowledge don't coincide to you? One cannot believe in something and have knowledge of it? — Hallucinogen

No, to me you either believe it or you know it. Knowing is stronger than believing.

If you only have uncertainty in something, then you don't have belief to any degree in it, only lack of belief. — Hallucinogen

Not to me, being uncertain only means that you are not certain. You can still believe something and be uncertain of it. uncertain 5-95%, believing 50-95%

Already debunked all of this. — Hallucinogen

In that case, I did not follow.

It seems to me that your definition of "believing" is a lot stronger than mine.

There's a binary distinction between certainty and uncertainty — Hallucinogen

Not to me. The term “uncertain” would indicate 5-95% certainty. "Certain" would be 95-100%.

But not between belief and knowledge (they can coincide, — Hallucinogen

Not to me, knowing is a step above believing.

where certainty and uncertainty are paradoxically included — Hallucinogen

I think that knowledge can contain a small degree of uncertainty.

Likewise, if we only have uncertainty at our disposal, then we don't have belief in it. We would just have lack of belief. — Hallucinogen

I don't follow.

The same fallacy arises on the other side of the spectrum. Lack of belief can't mean less than 50% certainty, because lack of belief only (rationally) comes from lack of certainty/knowledge. — Hallucinogen

I do not follow. Lack of belief can come from contradictions, no?
5-50% certainty would indicate disbelief.
0-5% certainty would indicate knowing that something is not true.

You and I do not share definitions. If you see any logical fallacies in the way I use my definitions, feel free to point them out.

Here are my definitions. The exact % is arbitrary.

Knowing something indicates a certainty of 95-100%

Believing something indicates a certainty of 50-95%

Having faith in something is when you simply choose to add a percentage of certainty. E.g. 55% belief + 41% faith = knowing that God exist.

How do you feel about this?

Being the happiest and most well-educated country on earth are big claims. If any other country thought that could lay claim to the same, they would do so.

I just think they are misleading — Lionino

They could be. I trust them because I see little reason to present false data in this case and I do not think that researchers are dumb. Also, if it was blatantly incorrect then some other source would likely have provided some counter evidence.

It is still a result that can be known.

I don't see why there would be some agenda to falsify this particular information. Guess we could visit Finland ourselves to verify, but I do not care enough about the topic to do so.

in my opinion, further from the truth; they do not see themselves or others as-they-are-in-reality; that is, with understanding/patience/and in a word, love. — NotAristotle

Being likable does not make one right.

Look no further than science and the people that perform it. They are the ones who find out what is "illusion" and what is true. There is little correlation, for scientists, between being happy and being good at the job.

Although I agree that there is such a thing as "wallowing in misery" and that this is a delusion of sorts.

Thinking more on it, I believe I was semi wrong. Both free will and responsibility are tied to the level you operate on. And if you are talking about the same level of reality, then responsibility does require free will.

Guess you can say it like this: The characters in a good book I am reading have no responsibilities to me, but they do to each other. They also have free will relative to each other, even though it is my imagination that drives it all.

However, when we talk about free will we often refere to our free will relative to something higher than us (god) and not relative to other humans.

I don't think people are "problems to be dealt with — NotAristotle

In the case of us having no free will: Responsibility would be a tool to help tie a person to an outcome. Good or bad.

but no person is "a problem" or "the problem." — NotAristotle

A homicidal murderer running lose is little else but "a problem". There may be more to that person sure, but their defining characteristic in the eyes of society will be: "a problem" to be dealt with.

Its relative. We may be machines, but we then live in a world of machines. Responsibility is just another tool that lets us function in larger groups, and if anyone refuses utilize this tool, they become a problem for the rest to deal with.

However, no free will would mean that we are never "ultimately responsible".

free will and that we are responsible for what we do and what we say — NotAristotle

No free will does not mean no responsibility. It only means that you have no responsibility towards the creator.

"I think, therefore I am" is, to me, the best foundation of logic that has ever been written. I am glad he did translate it. I just do not think it is perfectly worded.

close to an orangutang — Lionino

We are animals. As long as people what to be good, I see reason to hope. And besides, not everyone has use for this kind of knowledge.

Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

I do not know if this is true or not but it is relevant to what we discussed. Superdeterminism and free will.

If our our creator intended for us to have free will and make our own purpose then us making our own purpose is also us fulfilling the creators purpose.

You can be fulfilling a primary purpose by only following your own self-made purpose, as long as they align.

And your free will was not given to you? Do you know that your will is not governed by something greater?

If free will is the one thing that is your own, does that not reinforce the argument that your own reasons are the purpose of your life?

In that case, "one's own reasons" would not actually be one's own reasons, but simply the reasons of the puppet master, as in my explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover

If everything one is, is given to one from someone else, does that not also give one the right to claim any of that as oneself?

Genetically you are half of your father and half of your mother (plus a little mutation), yet you are yourself.

We could all be puppets playing out a role given to us. But while we live in a world of puppets, we all remain real to each other, and so do our motivations, our "reason".

Not sure it that is less confusing, or more.

Subjectively they would be your own. From the viewpoint of fellow humans, they would be your own.

How could it be "soundly reasonable" that the reason for your existence is your reasons? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know about "soundly" but, if we have an external "reason" then it may have been "programed" into us and take the form of our own "reasons".

And here I thought you where trying to be nice :rofl:

"knowledge" and "belief" and "certainty" — Ludwig V

And "faith"

Do we include atheism and agnosticism as kinds of religious belief? — Ludwig V

I'd say so. Although to me they are more of a way to declare yourself unconvinced.

A lot of questions asked and assumptions made here. Is "What do We Mean By “The Meaning of Life”?" what you want us to focus on or was that just a preface?

who might want to insist that agnosticism is a variety of atheism — Ludwig V

And they may call themselves an agnostic at the same time because while they do not believe in god, they believe that something should exist, but they don't know what. — mentos987

While I do not insist upon anything, is this what you asked about?

Seems it is called Law of large numbers

"the average of the results obtained from a large number of independent and identical random samples converges to the true value, if it exists."

Thank you jgill

Maybe you can shed some light as to why massed randomness seems so ordered.

Edit: I flagged your comment above, I don't know what that does or how to undo it. Sorry

A coin flip is random, yet its uniform distribution is 50% heads and 50% tails.

If you flip it once the results will be extreme, it will be either 100% tails or 100% heads.

If you flip it ten times the results will move towards 50/50 but it is unlikely to reach that, a 60/40 distribution is about as likely.

If you flip them 10000 times you will find that you are almost always within 1% of 50/50.

The more coin tosses you perform the closer you will get to the uniform distribution.

Randomness itself seems to vanish the more of it you have. A disappearing act of statistics.

A bell curve is one type of uniform distribution, yes.

The interesting thing is that the distribution gets more uniform the more random events you add to it. Randomness is going towards order. This seemed very unintuitive to me when I was in school.

I remember having a hard time getting over this fact when I learnt about probability: The larger the pool of random choices, the more uniform the results will become.

It seemed to utterly contradict what I defined as randomness. Add chaos to chaos and it starts getting more and more ordered? It felt like randomness was this feral beast that could suddenly be tamed by statistics. A paradigm shift.

I still do not know if uniform distrubutions are real randomness or if real randomness (as I thought of it) even exist.

Perhaps there was similar thinking behind the 50/50 guy, 6 years too late to ask though.

IP060903? or jgill?

IP060903 is the one I referred to.

Or necrophiliac, he just got banned so maybe the moderators caught him in the act.

6 year old thread, how come you opened it? Are you a bot?

Edit, oh comment was removed. Feel free to remove this comment too.