And I do not think that the general population defines "I" like you do, thus leaving room for misunderstanding. — mentos987

I don't think the general population even thinks at all, especially in the English speaking world. — Lionino

Well, if you ever want to communicate with the general population it would be easier to use words as they define them rather than having to preface your statements with your own definition of words.

In math we do have different degrees to the vastness of infinities. Some infinities are bigger than others and they can be used to cancel each other out.

Fair, but that still seems to me like you bend the word "I" to fit. The source of our thinking could be wildly different from what most of us think is ourselves ("I"). The thought could be as fabricated as anything else about our reality could. We only know that thought must originate from something. Claiming that this "something" is "I" seems like a stretch, and maybe wishful thinking.

I do not think that the "I" is proven to exist; only that existence itself is proven true.

And I do not think that the general population defines "I" like you do, thus leaving room for misunderstanding.

I agree with the logic, but I think the communication is poor. When you share a thought, you want to form words in such a manner as to elicit the same thought in someone else’s mind. I do not think this is happening correctly with "I think, therefore I am".

However, normally when a person would use the word "I" it entails a lot more than just "something that is subjectively experiencing thought". — mentos987

Does it though? I would say that that is pretty much the definition of "I". — Lionino

I'd say a more common definition of "I" refers to the body, mind and potentially the soul of someone, not to the source of their thinking.

Let me see what else I can conjure up.

Scenario 2: You and I are conversing. I say that I think and therefore am. The problem is that I am a figment of your imagination. I am only a small part of you. Would it not, in that case, work just as well to say, "I am, therefore you are". Since I am just a small part of you. If "you" and "I" can be mixed into the same being, does that not dilute the meaning of "I"?

Would such a scenario really mean that I exist, if I am just a lesser part of your mind? Would it not be better to say that, “my thinking must have a source”?
Something thinks, therefore thought must exist, therefore existence is proven?

The "I" is used exactly to name the thing that has a subject experience. — Lionino

With this in mind, it adds up. However, normally when a person would use the word "I" it entails a lot more than just "something that is subjectively experiencing thought".

Replacing "I" with "the thing" would work.

Socrates teaches "Know Thyself" since the self – desires, biases, taken-for-granteds, assumptions, limitations – are habitually "unknown" (i.e. unexamined). — 180 Proof

I think that anyone now living that comes up with similar wisdom would encounter hard resistance, since these thoughts would be viewed as presumptuous. We tend to grab hold of such thoughts only when the author is safely dead and buried.

Also, " "Know Thyself" since the self – desires, biases, taken-for-granteds, assumptions, limitations" sounds like it fits in the scientific field of psychology. Maybe similar work is already being done there, I do not know.

"the search for the unknown", as you said, is not "new" — 180 Proof

The search isn’t, but the results of the search are.

"Philosophy (love of wisdom in ancient Greek) is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language."

Seems to me that new development in these areas mostly happens in fields of sience.

If you find new things about something that was until recently unknown then isn’t that new?

The search for the unknown.

Perhaps you need to define your philosophy that is not being done.

You're only talking about philosophy without doing it – at most, IMO, that's gossip, not thinking. — 180 Proof

The new thinking was taken over by science, only gossip remains. With the assumption that you are searching for truth. If you want to create beauty then philosophy is still strong.

Sorry, I am not about to try to dissect that. Too much effort when the text is so convoluted.

This is too heavy for me to bother with. It could be right but it could also be just fluff.

This presumes all sorts of things, Mentos, not the least of which is that happiness is the point of philosophy — Ennui Elucidator

I don't know that philosophy has a point at all. And, there are results other than happiness that you can look for. I just used it as an example.

You asked "how do we evaluate" and looking at results is the easy way to go about doing that. I am not saying it is the only answer, but it certainly is one.

Fair, but the whole concept would be less messy if you also assumed determinism.

If you add enough randomness, the causes will get blurry.

Putting aside the quality of why one might prefer the Buddhist answer to the Western one, how do we evaluate, philosophically, the limits of our own intellectual garden and evaluate whether we wouldn't be better off being replanted somewhere else? — Ennui Elucidator

One could look at results. How much has Buddhism achieved? How happy are their followers? If you are unhappy and not achieving anything of use to anyone, why would you even want your own intellectual garden?

Finland is statistically measured the happiest country on earth for now. One could look at what they do, how they think.

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim

If true randomness exist and we are subjected to it constantly, would there not be new "first causes" being created all the time?

If we can trace back different happenings back to a true randomness, and there are an infinite amount of true randomness. Would that not mean that there is an infinite amount of "first causes"?

True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause. — Philosophim

This was random enough to make me smile.

appealing — EricH

I think this is the real reason. We want there to be free will. Any other notion is very unappealing, so we resist.

A similar problem that a Christian faces when considering being an atheist: I want there to be a heaven.

I don't say it in those terms, but you could put it that way. — Lionino

Ye, I twisted it in order to explain my problems with it. Sorry

Do you agree that you and I could both share the source of thought? A dreaming super consciousness?

I want to clarify my problem a bit: The meaning of the word "I" is broadened too much.

Scenario: Everything and everyone are all dreamt up by one dreamer. The dreamer is, in this case, "I". The dreamer is also the entirety of "existence". In this scenario you have broadened "I" so much that it equates the entirety of existence (I = existence). At that stage, there would be no point in the term "I" at all, as it is normally used to separate yourself from someone else.

Even though the logic is sound, the meaning of the word "I" is stretched too far in such a scenario.

Bell's theorem assumes that free will already exist, it used that to prove that true randomness exist. I'm with Einstein on this one.

Lack of free will would be depressing so we choose to have faith that it exist.

I have no proof either way, it is all speculations.

You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism.

Interesting read and I do not disagree, but I do have a nitpick. If I converse with you, I will differentiate between us by thinking in terms of "I" and "you". In your reasoning, I belive you describe an alternative where both "you" and "I" have the same source, same thinker (like a dreaming god with a split mind). If one would assume this, one would also have to move away from the definition of "you" and "I" that I used earlier.

The "I" has lost some meaning. That is why I still think that the "I" does not belong in "I think, therefore I am" even though I agree with your reasoning.

The word "I" has been bent to fit.

Or like this: When everything is I, nothing is.

but each event is completely random and uncaused. — EricH

It behaves randomly in relation to us* Same with a coin toss or a dice roll.

If we know enough about the coin/die and all the surrounding, then we can calculate the outcome, the reason we can't do the same with decay is likely that we lack the data/knowledge to do so.

True randomness is not proven to exist. It is not proven one way or the other. The more we learn, the less random the universe appears.

“God does not play dice with the universe” --Albert Einstein

Seems I misunderstood your "Alpha" alternative. I agree with it. Within our universe, there must be a "first".

However, causality need not cover the entirety of existence. I'd argue that it probably does not.

Once we introduce a fourth universe, there's still the question of, "What caused that fourth universe?" — Philosophim

Causation need not be a rule for the universe that is on a layer on top of ours. Time, gravity, individuals, energy and causation could all be concepts exclusive to our universe.

so I’m planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit — Elysium House

Feels to me like you broadened the problem. This is too big for me to even attempt.

Public work is often driven by immense scrutiny and rigorous KPI's that make the private sector look tame. Private work is often about friendships and alliances that support sloth and complacency. — Tom Storm

These both sounds like bad workplaces, I don’t have experience of such. For me, both private and public has been fine, but public is more relaxed and private has higher tempo and efficiency.

Overall I think both sectors will suck unless they are overseen by leadership dedicated to transparency and continual improvement. — Tom Storm

This may be the truth to my experience too, hard to tell.

I can sum it up like this.

Private work is driven by profit.

Public work lack drive.

If that's your conviction, I won't attempt to change it. — Vera Mont

I have worked in both sectors.

Did an edit in the last post btw.

Does to the government officials taking the kickbacks and campaign contributions. — Vera Mont

Well, this isn't about the size of the government.

Profit for outsourced services comes out of the budget which comes out of the tax revenue. Profit, therefore, can only be had at the expense of service. — Vera Mont

I believe this is often the case but efficiency matter too, more than you would think. Public sector work is not as efficient (in general).

At a rough estimate, I'd say that the private sector is about 15% more efficient in all they do, without any reduction in quality of the work. Sadly, they like to be even more efficient, and achieve this through reducing quality.

Competition for profit, yes. The profit is what drives it. You would not care that your rival was doing great if they did not also cut into your profits.

retracted

not the case when an administration lives and plans from election to election, — Vera Mont

This is one of the bad things that needs counteracting, but that is a separate question.

Like nursing homes? and youth rehabilitation? — Vera Mont

No..
Youth rehabilitation + full ramifications shown within a decade => does not add up.
For nursing homes, the results are faster though.
Both of these also goes into the:

work that is morally difficult to handle — mentos987

since both of these handle people that are vulnerable.

Nursing homes need governmental oversight and youth rehabilitation need it even more.

How would you determine the right size? By population? By complexity? By economy? — Vera Mont

Difficult question, but I have a thought that could narrow it down. It requires a bit of background.

First off, one thing that no one wrote out but that I assume many of you know is this: Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. Governmental positions are "comfy". This is because that their efficiency isn't directly tied to their continued "survival" as it is in a more profit driven workplace.

However, many of the decisions that governmental employees handle have ramifications that show results far in the future, while normal companies will expect their profit to come within a decade. Therefore, you can't force governmental positions to follow concrete financial results like you do in the private sector.

Here is how I would "determine the right size": Any work that will have its full ramifications shown within a decade can be entirely profit driven. Work that has longer spanning ramifications should have more and more governmental oversight. If you are planning for future generations you may as well let governments handle the entire thing.

Sidenote. I do think there are more sectors where governments should step in. Work that requires a lot of cooperation on a large scale and work that is morally difficult to handle. There are probably more examples.

What you call knowledge, I call belief. What you call belief, I call faith.

Knowledge is contextual of course. Again, its the most rational conclusion based on evidence. — Philosophim

Here we have it, this is where we differ. You define knowing as "most rational conclusion" and your "knowing" can be utterly changed if new evidence is introduced.

I have a much higher threshold of required certainty in my definition of knowing.

Truth exists despite our knowledge of it. They are not the same thing. I can know physics today, but there may be aspects of it that aren't true which we discover 100 years from now. — Philosophim

So you can "know" that Einstein was wrong (because he had only theories, no proof) until someone else provides the proof? You and I do not share the same definition of "know".

If someone provides concrete proof that god exist I will be proven wrong in my belief that god does not exist.

The way I see it, if you knew something and are later proven wrong, it means that you never knew it to begin with. Since there are no solid proofs for gods (non)existence, what we think about it is all beliefs.

Again, it is just a small matter of semantics. It all depends on how high a degree of certainty you assign to the word "know". And this differs all the time, even in my own thinking.

To claim things don't exist requires no burden. Someone has the burden of proof to claim God exists — Philosophim

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me.

Consider this; scientists have spent the last 50 years trying to prove Einsteins theories. They are slowly finding that most of them are true. Does this mean that the theories were not true until we proved them true? Did we know them to be false until we proved them to be true?

Now you're just switching up what I stated. If you claim to know something, you would do what I noted to proove that you know it. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it. — Philosophim

When I hear people say they "know" something about religion I will automatically translate that to "believe", because religion is such an unknowable field. I do not think that atheists truly know that god does not exist, since it is too hard to prove.

Again, this is all just a matter of the degree of certainty that you assign to the word "know".

So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point. — Philosophim

No, I would not claim I know there are no green men on the moon. But I would argue against it.

This is just a small matter of semantics, I do not know much to 100%. So, when I say, “I know” something I often mean that I am "extremely confident" of something.

I do not think you need to be even "extremely confident" about god not existing to be an atheist. I'd say that "fairly confident" will suffice.

Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon. — Philosophim

I know that there are tons of things that I have never heard of nor experienced any evidence for, yet I do not claim they do not exist.