You seem to be suggesting that the slowing of the circulation may trigger re-glaciation. but this looks to be backwards. Rather it is the melting sea ice that is reducing the salinity and thus the density of the water and so slowing the circulation. Re-glaciation would increase the salinity and thus strengthen the circulation. — unenlightened

I think the situation is a lot more complex than this. Evaporation also increases salinity, and this makes denser warm water, possibly increasing water temperatures at greater depths. Further, increased evaporation increases the flow of fresh water, and this makes greater surface circulation. But, as I explained earlier, surface flow is insufficient to replenish the volume of surface water flowing way from equatorial areas, so there will always be an upwelling of colder water in equatorial areas.

It's slowing down now. here — Tate

That's highly speculative. As I've explained, such currents change, but it's impossible that the THC, on a global scale, could stop. And these speculations you refer to are very unscientific. First, the article admits that the evidence is "proxy" evidence, and this is extremely susceptible to confirmation bias. Ocean currents, especially those at various levels of depth, have not been adequately measured. And, they admit that only nine out eleven of those "proxy" observations actually confirm this "slowing" thesis. Furthermore, the description of the THC in that article doesn't even include the freezing factor described by unenlightened. It seems to only described increased salination due to evapouration:

The AMOC is driven by two vital components of ocean water: temperature and salt. In the North Atlantic, warm, salty water flows northward off the U.S. coastline, carrying heat from the tropics. But as it reaches the middle latitudes, it cools, and around Greenland, the cooling and the saltiness create enough density that the water begins to sink deep beneath the surface.

Read this article, exploring the possibility that the THC (thermohaline circulation) is responsible for longer and shorter term changes in climate. It also talks about the debate about how the Younger Dryas actually started. — Tate

The problem with this sort of so-called "science" is that when dealing with long time scales without direct observations, it is impossible to distinguish cause from effect. So, we see a change in THC as coincident with a change in climate. Yes, of course, the two go hand in hand as two parts of the same phenomenon. But it is a mistake to conclude that one is the cause of the other.

All in all, the more I find out, the more the whole affair looks like humanity as a mad scientist in the process of blowing up his laboratory and speculating about whether he will be roasted or frozen or both. — unenlightened

The THC cannot shut itself off. The fundamental feature is that warmed surface water will move away from equatorial areas. This is 'forced' by the spinning of the planet and the consequent Coriolis effect. The replenishment of water, via surface mechanisms is not equally 'forced'. There is a force away from the equator at the surface, but not an equal push back toward it. This will always create an upwelling of colder water from the depths. The same process is observed on lakes with a prevailing wind, without any influence salination.

There's a lot more than one flawed intellectual mechanism out there. And what has happened is that these flawed intellectual mechanisms have led us to dead ends in the evolution of the world of science.
Dead ends are where our attempts to understand can go no further due to the faulty principles being applied, like the dead end which has been reached in quantum mechanics. Dead ends are an integral part of evolution because evolution is a process based in trial and error. The dinosaurs got bigger and bigger, but bigger wasn't necessarily better. In the case of the evolution of scientific understanding, we get the opportunity to look back and find those faulty intellectual mechanisms, and how they led us in the wrong direction.

There is no point at infinity in the complex plane. That point is by definition outside the plane. To allow it in is to break the rules of the structure. There is no north pole in the Reimann sphere. This is a simple result of the incommensurability between the curved line and the straight line. A tangential line can never actually touch the curved line at a point, because the curved line requires multiple points to express its curved nature, in relation to the straight line. So there cannot be a "point" on a curved line, in the same way there can be a "point" on a straight line. Likewise, there is no centre point of a classical two dimensional circle, as indicated by the irrationality of pi. The one dimensional and the two dimensional are fundamentally incompatible.

This is why zero, like infinity, has no place within ordinal numbers, and must be excluded. "Order" is something other than the numbers which represent it, and at those supposed points, zero and infinity, which mark the ends of the order, the represented order is excluded.

It is mind-blowing if you're into that stuff, but I'd say it's not at all surprising.

The thermohaline circulation does. It was in the link. — Tate

The thermohaline circulation is not an ocean current, nor is it a group of currents. As I said already, it's a vague and extremely general abstraction, which is not at all useful for prediction purposes.

And, it is very common for THC to lead to faulty predictions.

Only in the sense that they have so many exact, formal systems that successfully employ zero that you'd want to know which successful specification of the concept was context relevant. — Pie

If your goal is deception, ambiguity is a very useful tool. Therefore successful employment of the term does not indicate that the term is not ambiguous.

Let's just say you're beyond hope, Isaac.

The circulation requires a heat differential between surface and bottom water in the north Atlantic. As that area cools due to polar ice sheet melting, the differential is minimized. Scientists are presently keeping a close eye on it because the ocean currents are slowing. — Tate

Actually, I don't think the circulation requires a heat differential at all. As I explained, it is the product of the spinning planet. The heat differential is created by the uneven heating of the planet, by the sun, but this is not required for the circulation, which is caused by the spinning of the planet, not the heating of it.

And, it is really not accurate to say "ocean currents are slowing", because the currents are not at all stable, they are always in flux, constantly changing. While one current slows down a bit, another speeds up. So long as the earth is spinning, the water is flowing, and the moving water will transport heat when the surface is unevenly heated.

Most mathematicians seem to just take zero for granted, with zero understanding of what "zero" means. But of course, as I explained, the meaning of "0", as it is commonly used by mathematicians, is ambiguous.

Exactly. I can't even remember why I came into the kitchen, and you're trying to sell it as a route of access to the truths of the universe? — Isaac

No, I took those questions as personal problems which could potentially be resolved through introspection, not as having anything to do with "the truths of the universe". You asked me some questions about the relationship between specific beliefs you hold, and the way you behave. But I didn't know that your memory was so poor that introspection could not help you with those issues. A psychologist, or perhaps even a physician, might be the better route for you.

(I can't wait to see all the action when you guys move on to FRACTIONS :scream: ) — jgill

Fractions are pure nonsense, from the get go, so we'll probably never get there.

And yet, when introducing children to the concept of negatives, we use a line to wit the number line. — Agent Smith

This is the very problem I referred to. The numberline shows us an order, and this order gives zero a place. But zero has no place within an order, because it would mean that there is a position of no order within that order, which is contradictory. Set theory suffers this problem which I discussed extensively with fishfry, who insisted that a set with no order is a coherent concept.

In common usage though, negative numbers are used to represent quantitative values, and here zero has a justified meaning. So it is the equivocation in usage, between "negative numbers" representing quantitative values, and "negative numbers" representing positions in an order, which causes a problem.

"Have I habitually told people the space above their heads is empty?"
If you answer this question for yourself, would you invent the answer, or would you utilize your memory to produce an answer? I would use my memory. We could class reference to memory as an act of using one's creative power, but then how would we distinguish between fact and fiction?

How do we identify the old beliefs from the new beliefs? Do they have some kind of labelling system? — Isaac

I would say that we distinguish old beliefs from new, by means of the justification. One would not drop an old belief in favour of a new belief, unless this was justified. And, in my explanation, the whole reason for adopting new beliefs is an increase in one's capacity to reason, as the person grows up. So in introspection, we might find numerous beliefs which we hold, that have never been justified, and some that we do not even know how we got them, as they just popped into the mind, came at a young age, or are possibly even innate. These are older beliefs, which are often the foundation for habits. If a belief is the basis for a habit, it is necessarily old, because habits take time to develop. Why do I put my shoes on before I get in the car to drive? At some point I developed the belief that it's not good to drive in bare feet. It's a habit I have, derived from an old belief.

But at some point, we might reassess such old beliefs, and even justify a conflicting new principle, which becomes the new belief, thus apprehending the need to break the old habit, as a bad habit. If the person cannot break the bad habit, yet believes it ought to be broken, then the person succumbs to hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is very common and we ought not be ashamed of it, though it has received bad connotations. We all wish our children will do better than ourselves, and recognize where they ought not follow ourselves as an example. This is because it's easier to change one's beliefs than it is to change one's habits, and if I cannot break a bad habit, I might at least instill something better in my children.

Why don't the new beliefs form habits (if the old ones did), and if they do how do we identify new-belief habits from old-belief habits?

Whence my belief that the space above Glen's head is empty? Have I habitually told people the space above their heads is empty?

How do we identify which belief (of the hundreds required to carry out even the smallest task) is the one which is causing the defunct habit? — Isaac

These questions are answered through introspection.

It looks like this: — Tate

That map is extremely vague, just showing some generalities. It's not at all useful for any attempt to determine anomalies. The whole concept of "oceanic heat conveyor", is equally vague, and overly generalized. The oceans are always going to convey heat, so long as the earth is spinning, and the sun is heating, that's what the oceans do. What is at issue, if you are talking about a potential trigger point, is minute peculiarities, and changes to how the oceans convey heat. Since the vast majority of oceanic flow is well below the surface, the information is not available to produce an adequate model. That's why El Nino cannot be accurately predicted, it is a feature of the upwelling of cold water, resulting in a change in surface temperature.

We're in that low threshold period now, and the ocean currents are slowing down due to global warming. — Tate

I really see no reason why warming would cause ocean currents to slow down, because the earth would continue spinning. It could cause changes to them, perhaps even speed some up.

I think that is not the case. I suggest that you do believe in other minds, except for the purposes of the peculiar game of writing posts on the philosophy forum. As evidence for that, I cite your continued participation in this thread. Not just that you continue to interact with us, but that you demonstrate a reasonable level of interaction - you are able to access and use a device of some sort in order to be here, you have a reasonable grasp of English, you recognise humour and have a grasp of the nature of argument and some familiarity with the philosophical context in which we are talking. If you did not believe in other minds, these interactions would be difficult to explain. — Banno

Very often, people act in ways contrary to their beliefs. Therefore you cannot make accurate conclusions about one's beliefs, from ones actions. Furthermore, people act in contrary ways, saying things ( a type of acting) which are incompatible with other things they are doing. This is known as hypocrisy.

This is the important demonstration which Wittgenstein makes through his use of hypocrisy in the Philosophical investigations, which you continually ignore and deny. You seem to think that what Wittgenstein says, is an expression of what is doing, or demonstrating in that text, so you refer to what he says as what he has demonstrated. I've repeatedly explain to you, over and over again, that what Wittgenstein has demonstrated is that what he has said, is false. That is the Socratic method, to demonstrate the falsity of a statement. But you refuse to apprehend and understand what Wittgenstein is doing with his words, in those demonstrations, opting to simply believe he is demonstrating the truth of what he states.

Ok re-reading your post I see what you're saying. We are born with beliefs, and need proof to change them, if I can summarize.

This seems obvious though, and not sure what it has to do with the topic. I may have been born believing there are other minds, or born believing the opposite. Does that have anything to do with whether there ARE other minds? — GLEN willows

What happens, described in a general way, is that we form habits which are based on beliefs held at a particular time (when we're very young, we don't even acknowledge those habit forming beliefs, they are the beliefs, our trainers, or even innate). As we develop a stronger and stronger rational capacity (the power to reason), we may produce beliefs which are inconsistent with our habitual actions which were formed by the prior beliefs. Then, the conscientious human being will see the need to break the habits, and this is not easy, as the reality of our habit of burning fossil fuels and polluting the earth with CO2 demonstrates.

Relative to the topic of the thread, solipsism, and Banno's explanation, one might act as if there is other minds, when these habits are viewed from the premise that training is the influence of other minds, but a person might understand principles which deny the reality of other minds, and deny that these habits are formed by the influence of other minds. This is why "grounds" becomes very important, because the two possible grounding points, how the person acts, and what the person believes, can very well be opposed to each other.

The general principles involved in ocean currents can be described. First, the prevailing wind at the equator is from the east, due to the spin of the earth, the air doesn't spin along with the earth fast enough to keep up with the earth, so there is a constant wind from the east. This pushes the warm water at the equator, which is the most heated from the sun, toward the west. It naturally curves away from the equator, to the right in the north, and the left in the south, as the Coriolis effect. So in the northern hemisphere, surface water moves northward along the east coast of the large continents, and southward along the west coast This brings heat toward the poles in a way which is sort of like convection, but the principal source of the wind is the mechanical spinning of the earth, rather than a convective wind. This is important, the principal "weather maker" is the mechanics of a spinning body with oceans and an atmosphere, solar heating and convection are secondary.

The surface currents of the oceans would be a simple process, except the surface water is forced away from the equator by the winds of the spinning body, and there is no such force to bring replacement surface water, from the north and south. That's why it's different from convection which is solely temperature driven. So much of the replacement water, at the equator, has to come from the depths. This creates flows in the depths, and these flows are not well understood. El Nino is known as a slowing of this flow of cold replacement water along the west coast of South America.

You can see that the real cycle is not a flow of surface water, but the cycling of water from the surface to the bottom, and back to the surface. It is very complicated because there are many layers and the layers are not necessarily vertical, as it is a three dimensional activity. We can imagine principles similar to air movement, but on a slower scale, horizontal winds, vertical convections, and the movement of distinct "air masses" (water masses in this case). None of these activities are well understood.

Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist, science educator, author) said something to the effect that the universe isn't in any way obligated to make sense to humans - it (the universe) can, it looks as though, do whatever the hell it wants; humans and their silly standards, bah! :snicker: — Agent Smith

This is why, we, as human beings are required to to shape or formulate our principles in such a way so as to make sense of the universe. The onus is on us to make sense of the universe, not on the universe to make sense to us. And that is also why our principles (mathematical axioms etc.) cannot be eternal unchanging objects, as in Platonism, because we shape them, as required, to make sense of the universe.

However, there is a definite problem which arises. The world is observed by us. to be bound by some principles of order. So the problem is in how can we understand the real existence of these principles (natural laws as some would say), which we infer from our observations of the world, to have real governance over the world. In other words, "the universe isn't in any way obligated to make sense to humans", as you say, but for some reason, in many ways it does make sense to us.

Of course we formulate our artificial laws of "order" in the universe to match the existing natural order within the universe, and that is why the universe makes sense to us, but what type of existence does this natural order actually have? If all things in the universe follow some sort of natural order, then the order must be prior to the things, as logic dictates that the follower is posterior to what is followed. That is what distinguishes the natural laws from the artificial laws, the former are prior to the things while the latter are posterior to the things.

You've confused yourself again. Go try and score points elsewhere, MU. — 180 Proof

Ad hominem instead of making an attempt at a coherent reply, 180 Proof's MO.

If you're into counting points, mark one for me, zero for you. Care to try for a reply to redeem yourself?

We can draw an example from weather forecasting. The accuracy of the long term forecast is highly dependent on the accuracy of the short term forecast. Consider a seven day forecast. If the first 24-48 hrs. is incorrect, by even a small factor which is somehow missed, this will likely make the later portion completely irrelevant so that it's not even close. But if the first 48 hrs. hold true to the forecast, the later period will likely just need small changes. What this indicates is that a very slight, unforeseen change, in the very near future will render any long term model which does not account for it, completely useless. The closer in time to the beginning point of the forecast period, the unforeseen factor is, the smaller it needs to be, to have a large affect on the accuracy of the long term. This could be like the "trigger point" you referred to earlier.

What is "ridiculous" is assuming a perspective for which there are not any grounds to assume and then use such an groundless assumption as a conditional or premise.

↪GLEN willows Epistemic warrant (of assent) does not require that claims (re: e.g. other minds) "be certainly established". Reasonably, there are not any grounds to doubt that there are other minds. — 180 Proof

That a specific claim has no grounds is something which needs to be proven. The person making the questionable claim may be asked to justify it, and failure to do this still does not prove that the claim is "groundless".

The issue though, which Wittgenstein demonstrated in "On Certainty", is that groundlessness is something which cannot be proven, because that would require grounds. So we just assign "irrational", or as you say, "ridiculous", to specific claims, but this is not the same as "groundless". The problem though, is that we have no real standards by which we make such a judgement, because the judgement it is not something which is proven. So the judgement is really just a personal opinion.

So you start by saying that a specific perspective is groundless, and ridiculous, and you end by saying that a different perspective is groundless, but reasonable, without any principles to support such judgements.

I never understood duality. Sorry Heraclitus. — Agent Smith

Do you understand the difference between an instance of something being good, and the ideal good, the best thing?

If all there is, is self, then there is no other, and hence no self. — Banno

This is not true, and it is a very common mistake. A thing, be it a self or any other thing, is described by referring to its properties, not by referring to "the other". So a thing (such as a self), may be in complete isolation, with all of its properties, with no other.

The idea that a thing requires an other seems to have been derived from a Hegelian idealism. Ideals, such as "the best", "the biggest", "positive", "hottest", etc., are defined in relation to their opposite term, because there is no empirical quality which represents them, being simply ideals. They are ideals which form the basis for a quantitative scale. But it is a mistake (category) to confuse ideals with things such as selves, saying that a self requires an other.

I don't know, I'm not a mathematician, and I wouldn't want to try. Here's a couple things to keep in mind though. The symbols "-" and "+" mean something different when they are used to indicate negative and positive numbers, from what they mean when they indicate operations, addition and subtraction. Also, the numerals mean something different when they are used to represent an order (ordinals), from what they mean when they represent a quantity (cardinals).

When we use numerals to represent quantity, zero allows for the potential for a quantity of the specified type of thing, as none of that thing. This allows that a negative quantity of the thing has valid meaning, as the potential to negate a specified positive quantity. But when we use numerals to represent an order, zero doesn't receive any coherent meaning. In general, "1" would represent the first of an order, and it doesn't make sense to place zero as prior to the first because this would negate the order altogether, as no order. Nor would it make sense to place zero as prior to the order, as the potential for that order, because then it cannot represent a part of that order.

The logical thing would be to use zero as the dividing point between the order, and the reversal of the order. So zero would, in a sense, represent the potential for the order, and also the potential for the inverse of the order. But it cannot appear within the order as part of the order, neither forward nor backward. Now the negative numbers would represent an inverse order which is exactly opposite to the positive order. It would be impossible for operations on the positive side to cross over to the negative side, or vise versa, without correcting for the reversal of the order. The means for correction being specific to the type of order being represented.

So for example, take "order" in the most general sense. Two minus three seems to imply a crossing of the order's boundary. But we cannot allow that, without setting up the conditions for the order's reversal. What is three places prior to the second place? This is one step before the first (the first being the beginning). Notice the order now, 2, 1, -1. The -1 signifies one place in the inverse direction, one step before the beginning. Zero cannot occupy a place here because that would annihilate the order altogether. What happens with "2-2"? That means two places before the second place. And this negates the order altogether, giving zero a place, but only when the order is completely annihilated altogether.

I think the common convention is to just give zero a place in the order, no different from ten or any other number. But this denies any real separation between negative and positive numbers, making them all just a part of an endless order, upward and downward. No beginning to the order. Then, when operations are carried out, the numerals tend to represent quantities, and the real meaning of zero relative to quantity (as described above) is lost, because of zero's faulty positioning as part of an order. So there is a conflation of numbers representing order (in which zero makes no sense as part of), and numbers representing quantity, where zero of a specified quantity makes sense. That's a type of equivocation.

You know there is a problem with multiplying and dividing negative numbers, which results in imaginary numbers, adding another whole level of complexity to numbers. What does it really mean to take a number a negative number of times, 2 x -1 for example. That's a negation of an operation. So two times negative one ought to equal zero, because we've taken two and negated it once, to make zero. If we negate two twice, 2 X -2, we ought to have negative two. What if we take negative two twice though, "-2 x 2" ? That looks like -4. So does "2 x -2" mean something different from "-2 x 2"? Multiplication isn't necessarily reversible.

Anyway, this kind of scientific program does look like an attempt to take the basic empiricist dogma,

Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses
— Thomas Aquinas, De veritate, q. 2 a. 3 arg. 19.

literally. But for the sake of theoretical psychology, rather than metaphysical deductions.

Was my point. — bongo fury

That "basic empirical dogma" is the reason for the separation between divine ideas or divine intelligible objects, as independent, or separate Forms, and human ideas, or intelligible objects, which are dependent on the material body of the human being.

The intelligible objects which are apparent to the human mind are dependent on sensation, which is a function of the material body, as described by Aristotle. The intelligible objects which exist as separate, and independent Forms, are prior to, and necessary for, the existence of material objects, as the cause of them, and therefore cannot be dependent on material bodies.

This is an important point because it elucidates the separation between human ideas and divine ideas, and accounts for the fallibility of the human intellect. The human intellect is fallible in its apprehension of immaterial forms (intelligible objects) because of its dependence on the material body.

So -4 × 2 = -8 is easily grasped as adding -4 twice (-4 + -4 = -8), negative numbers simply being a different kind of number). — Agent Smith

If -4 x 2 equals -8, then -4 + -4 ought to equal zero. "-4 x 2" means negative four taken twice, and that is negative eight. But "-4 + -4" means negative four added to negative four, and to add necessarily takes you in the positive direction, while subtraction necessarily takes you in the negative direction. Therefore adding negative four to negative four ought to bring you to zero.

However, from the books I read -4 × -2 = 8 is rather difficult to comprehend intuitively. What does adding -4 negative two times mean? It's just a pattern that's all and nothing in our everyday experiences can be used to convey the meaning of this particular calculation to children and adults alike. — Agent Smith

What you say here is somewhat incoherent. When you multiply negative four by two, you simply take negative four twice, you do not add negative four two times. Multiplication does not involve addition, whatsoever, it is a distinct operation. It may be that you were told that multiplying is a matter of adding the number a specified number of times, but it is really not a case of adding. To take something twice, or three times, or four times, is not the same thing as adding. That multiplication is not a simple operation of addition becomes more evident when you do powers, or exponents.

Doesn't Schopenhauer qualify as a #1 without a divine foundation? His notion of a blind, striving, instinctive Will, which is not metacognitive, isn't really a god analogue, is it? — Tom Storm

I must admit that I haven't read Schopenhauer, only secondary sources, so I'm sorry but I'm really not in a position to comment on this.

Philosophy is not exegesis. — Banno

I don't see how that's true. If you studied philosophy in school, I think you would have found that exegesis is a very significant part of what philosophy is. I don't think I had any philosophy courses which did not consist of some exegesis.

But true or false, I don't see how it's relevant. You really need to at least attempt to explain yourself Banno, or else you're nothing but a lost soul making sounds. Exegesis of philosophical texts is good advice to a lost soul.

Metaphysician Undercover missed the next section of that quote which explained that 1 is ontological idealism and 2 is epistemological idealism. An epistemological idealist can be an ontological dualist/pluralist (e.g. Kant). — Michael

Number 1 idealists are dualist as well. Notice they say that the mental is the ultimate foundation of reality, like Plato, Neo-Platonists, Aristotle, and Christian theologians. This is reflected in Cartesian dualism. Only an extreme case of #1 says "all is mental", like Berkeley argues. But Berkeley still falls into the category of dualist, by maintaining a separation between the divine and the human. What Berkeley denies, is that the separation between the two is properly described by "matter".

There is a problem with this type of discussion, displayed at the beginning of the thread, and this is that people will not take " the divine", or "God" seriously, and so the discussion cannot go there. Without taking the divine seriously, we cannot understand the #1 idealism, as the mental constituting the foundation of reality. Then "the mental" becomes human thought, and idealism appears to be monist.

Interesting. Which of the famous idealists are dualists? Isn't the notion that 'all which exists is mentation' eg, Schopenhauer, a monist claim? Number 2 is Kantian, right? I heard Kastrup say he doesn't consider this to be idealism as such. What's the distribution of 1's and 2's? — Tom Storm

As far as I know, most of the famous Idealists are dualist, Plato, Hegel, Kant, even Berkeley. Notice in the the quote I produced from Stanford, that the #1 type of Idealist says the mental is ultimate foundation of reality. Only an extreme case of #1 Idealist would say |all is mental). And even those who argue "all is mental" impose a separation between human and divine, hence dualism.

Indeed, the greatest problem with discussions about idealism is to induce idealists to express their view clearly. — Banno

The real problem is in in this type of categorizing, imposing these names of "ism". Understanding a great philosopher\s philosophy, requires an enormous effort, a great amount of study, and not only study of that philosopher, but of who has influenced that philosopher as well, to understand one's use of words. The trend of the 'lazy man', arm chair philosopher, is to accept such a categorization, and say "that philosopher is idealist, therefore like such and such', without taking the time to understand the idiosyncrasies of the individual, which would constitute a true understanding of the person

That's a limited view of idealism. — Tate

I've noticed that as a serious flaw in this thread. Idealism is represented as "mind alone exists". In reality, idealists are mostly dualists. In general, most monists are materialists.

This is from Stanford:

Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism:

1.something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
2.although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.

That didn't answer my question. Evasion, Banno's MO.

Get back to work then! It's not the weekend yet.

Am I the only privileged one around here, or are there other lucky members?

Let's not do that, ok? — Tate

I don't know, this thread has not gone anywhere in millions of years of discussion. Maybe a good conspiracy theory could liven it up a bit.

If it stands in a relation to a mind other than one's own, then that is profoundly problematic for idealism. — Banno

I don't understand why you would say this. Care to explain?

Relativity united time and space in a way that made more general sense. — apokrisis

It really does not make "general sense". It's a counterintuitive principle which facilitates calculations when using electromagnetism as a measuring tool.

Relativity is extremely counterintuitive because it describes time as passing at different 'rates', or 'speed', depending on one's physical circumstances. The intuitive way is to conceive of us human beings as being completely incapable of altering the passage of time. We experience time as passing in a way which is completely determined, or fixed by the physical universe, so that we are utterly helpless to slow down the arrival of the future, or alter the past. Relativity, if it is true, gives us the capacity to alter the flow of time through accelerations, and this is very counterintuitive.

The same way two different people may share the same name. — creativesoul

Actually, what I described is how "cell" refers to two distinct concepts, in one case a whole living organism, and in the other case a part of a living organism.

They are both called by the same name. They are not said to be the same thing. You've already said as much directly above. One is an entire living organism, and the other is but a part thereof. Sometimes "cell" is used to pick out an entire organism, sometimes it is used to pick out parts of an organism. — creativesoul

The point was that if a word refers to an external thing ("picks out a thing" as you said), then "cell" would pick out "a thing", not a multitude of different things. Then the whole living organism, and the part of a living organism, which "cell" refers to, would be the same thing.

Sometimes "cell" is used to pick out an entire organism, sometimes it is used to pick out parts of an organism. — creativesoul

OK, this is a better way for you to say it. The word doesn't pick out a thing, the person uses the word to pick out a thing. But what you don't seem to understand, is that the thing which the person uses the word to pick out, is a concept. In one case the person uses the word to signify the concept of a whole living organism, and the person may produce supposed external objects to exemplify this use, and in the other case, the person uses the word to signify the concept of a specific part of an organism, and may produce supposed external objects to exemplify that use.

Exactly. — creativesoul

Why are you abruptly changing your claim? You said a word picks out things. I said a word picks out types. Now you agree with me. Do you not see the difference between a supposed external thing, as a particular or individual, and a supposed internal type of thing, as a universal or generalization? Failing to see that difference is what caused Janus' equivocation, in our discussion concerning the proposition "thought does not need words".

Folks, that is what philosophy amounts to - finding a good way to say tricky things. — Banno

Perhaps, but when philosophy is reduced to simply being concerned with 'the way things are said', then "good" is removed from your proposition, and it is simply "finding a way to say tricky things". That is sophistry. So we must maintain "good" here, and determine exactly what qualifies as a good way. Of course a bad way of saying tricky things is deception. The problem is that there is a multitude of bad ways, and the "good way" gets narrowed down toward the ideal, the best way, which is the goal of perfection in understanding.

The following is a good example of a bad way:

When a community uses words in certain ways..., — creativesoul

This is an example of a bad, or deceptive way of using words, because individual people use words in particular instances of usage. So there is no such thing as a "certain way" that a community uses any particular word, because a community is a collective, consisting of a multitude of persons, each using any specific word in very distinct ways in the various different circumstances that the person might find oneself in. These differences are referred to as accidentals.

We might generalize, and say that a particular person uses a certain word in a specific type of way, removing the accidentals. But then we'd have a type of way, and this does not provide us the certainty of knowing the particular way, which would be the way of a particular instance, complete with accidentals.

But to jump from that type of generalization made about an individual person, to a generalization about "the community", requires a different sort of generalization, which would render a multitude of distinct individuals as one "community". This sort of generalization is logically invalid. It is invalid because individual people are the ones who use words, and as explained above, an individual's particular way of using words is an accidental property of the individual, and therefore cannot be transposed so as to be a property of the generalized whole community, unless it is done through valid inductive logic.

Being accidental properties, rather than essential, such inductive logic could not proceed unless every person in a specific community used words in the very same way. For example, it's like saying "the community has red hair". This would only be true if every person in the community has red hair. If its only ninety nine per cent, who have red hair, we can't truthfully say that, because it's a statement supported by faulty inductive logic.

This thread is full of such faulty inductive logic. which is a bad or deceptive way of using words. I've been working to point out some of these occurrences, but the guilty parties tend to use tactics like accusing me of sophistry, when in reality I am just exposing their sophistry.

Spoiler: Hilbert’s side won. “Time was expulsed from mathematics” and as a byproduct, from physics, too, writes Gisin (Gisin, 2020a). But, he wondered, what would happen if physics were re-written in the language of intuitionistic mathematics? Would time become “real” again?

The physics and the mathematics go hand in hand, the problems of one are not the cause of the problems of the other, but they do amplify each other. Einsteinian relativity is what expulses time from physics. And since physicists choose to employ this principle, they also choose the mathematical axioms which facilitate the application of it. So as soon as the principle which expulsed time from physics was established, then the axioms which expulsed time from mathematics were applicable, and acceptable

I think what you've written is sophistic nonsense. Saying "thought requires words" means that thinking is impossible without words. — Janus

You don't seem to have had any introductory level instruction on logic. Saying "thought does not need words" (which is the proposition being discussed) means that the type of thing which "thought" refers to, is not a type of think which requires words for its existence. In no way does this exclude the possibility that some forms of thought do require words.

Saying some thought requires words means that there are some thoughts which are impossible without using words. My claim was the latter, where "complex" substitutes for and specifies the "some". — Janus

This is what has been contested, as explicitly wrong. We cannot substitute "complex" for "some" here, because there are instances of complex thought which do not require words.

So we're right back to the same place. "Complex thought does not need words" is true, because there is complex thought which operates without words. However, "some complex thought needs words" is also true because there are some instances which require words.

I am very surprised that these simple inductive principles are so very difficult for you to understand, so much so that you are inclined to call it "sophistic nonsense". It's just basic induction.

As others have noted, one of the most readable paths into Hegel is his writing on history. — Pie

Thanks for the interesting passage, to refresh my memory. Hegel places "the Idea" as the fundamental principle, the basis or foundation of human existence in the social setting. In its actualization, as knowing itself, the Idea produces a state, which provides for it, giving it freedom which is what it desires, the actualization is described as knowing itself. So what the Idea desires is freedom, and it produces this by universalizing good will, through what he calls universal Reason. This is all very idealistic

As describes, Hegel later explains this entire process as a process of negations. If we provide a definition of "freedom" for example, it will inevitably be negated, and we will move on to the new definition. This is the process whereby the Idea comes to know itself, it is a form of becoming, an evolution, which gives the Idea the freedom it desires.

Notice that Karl Marx went on to practise this form of dialectic, by negating Hegel's fundamental principle. Marx negated Hegel's proposal of "the Idea" as the basis of human existence in the social setting, and replaced it with "matter" as the kernel, or foundation of human existence in the social setting. From this perspective, the purpose of the state is to provide for the material needs of the individuals, rather than the Hegelian perspective, which places the purpose of the state as to provide for the Idea to know itself. From Marx's perspective, the Hegelian proposal for freedom, the Idea knowing itself, is just an illusion, or delusion.