On the contrary. A gap in memories (i.e. forgetting) in an object like a donut hole, thus conceivable and, as a conception, memorable. — 180 Proof

This is interesting. I will try to find some relevant reading material for the point, and will get back to you when / if I can find some idea of significance on it.

But he refers to himself many times, while denying its existence.

At the same time, one's conception is distorted when one applies knowledge to non-existence, which has no knowledge. — Manuel

Hume's comment on the idea of self was while he was living and conscious. He clearly denies its existence. But even without the knowledge, what he seems saying is, one can feel its own existence without its ideas. But if you asked Hume, if one can conceive one's non-existence, I am sure he would have said "No".

At the same time, one's conception is distorted when one applies knowledge to non-existence, which has no knowledge. But we an idea of it in dreamless sleep, or thinking about non-existence before birth. It's vague, but we have it. — Manuel

Would it be an imagination of non-existence before one's birth? It is not the same concept or mental activity as conceiving. Having an idea of it during dreamless sleep? Not sure on that, as I have never experienced it by myself. When I am asleep, I cannot even conceive my own existence. I might see myself in the dreams, but then I appear as some 3rd party other person many times. Even when I am myself in the dreams, I just see other objects or people, but never my own self. But non-existence in dreamless sleep? I cannot even imagine what it is.

Yes. Lapses or gaps in my memory inform my conceptions of my own nonexistence. — 180 Proof

Memory is always memory about objects or situations or others which are different from the owner of the memories. Forgetting and having gaps in between memories cannot glimpse one's own non-existence.

Not when one is nonexistent. One exists and glimpses nonexistence – we sleep one-third of our lives, we forget much (even forget that we've forgotten), we experience everything changing as things known and unknown cease to exist, and, also, encointer histories of times before one was born, even before h. sapiens or life itself existed. Conceivable signs or indicators, though not themselves experiences, of nonexistence. — 180 Proof

Hume even said "One cannot find one's own ideas of self', because what one ever perceives is just a bundle of perceptions of the external objects.

Another problem is that, non existence is vague.  How can one conceive non-existence when nothing is present?

Sure, but I didn't say that. — 180 Proof

In that case, did you mean that you conceive non existence via unconsciousness and forgetting?
I am not sure if non existence is ever conceivable. Moreover I wonder if unconsciousness and forgetting state of minds are able to conceive anything.

The quote is from another thread but is relevant to the discussion.

The mind (imagination) is capable of only grasping at the shadow of death/nonexistence, a few of them appear in 180 Proof's post and one in the OP. — TheMadFool

Sure. I feel that it is impossible to conceive realistically one's own death before one's death. Because even one can imagine one's own death, the imagination is happening in one's mind which is live and active. One can think about one's death, but it is then totally different mental activity. An interesting topic.

See my reply to 180 Proof above. However, as I recall now, forgetting = not recording. I hope you catch my drift. — TheMadFool

Imagining own death seem just imagining only which has no real significance again in one's real life apart from having some nightmares? :) Suppose one can imagine anything. I feel death is something one cannot experience directly until it comes to oneself. But when it does, one is no longer around in the world, so cannot know about it. But sure, one can imagine it in the boundary of one's imagination only.

He explains: there are people in Paris, his choice of city, who don't know you exist; in other words, you don't exist as far as Parisians are concerned. That, according to Sam Harrris, is to give you a glimpse of what nonexistence is! — TheMadFool

I feel that death is only significant to the one who is facing one, or had lived and died. It is a personal historical event only meaningful the dead himself. Parisians not knowing the dying, or anyone living and existing has no philosophical significance whatsoever in one's death or existence or non existence.

Unconsciousness.
Forgetting. — 180 Proof

Is it not self contradiction to say one can be conscious on one's unconsciousness?

One can also try conceive the times and world before one's birth. That would be one's non existence conception too, if it were possible. Would it be the same non existence as after one's death?

So the question becomes, what is the boundary of a subject ( self )? — Pop

I think it is the consciousness and thought which is able to tell the subject and object, the internal and external, known, unknown, the objects and limitation of reason, and the objects of intuition and faith.

I wonder if Nietzsche didn't approve of the herd instinct in the traditional morality, which is linked to the established authorities such as churches and the states. Traditional morality also crushes individual's autonomy by forcing the moral axioms which could be actually immoral.

What he approved was perhaps, morality based on autonomy of each person? Because he believed that people are born good, and have the ability to do good without the forced morality on them?

The virtues from compassion, kindness and pity are the typical morality stemmed from the traditional morality.

In Kant, Thing-in-itself is to denote all the objects out of the boundaries of reason .i.e. the objects of intuition and faith.

I think mathematical and logical processes, theories and computations only exist inside the human mind. They are at conceptual level. There is no direct link between them and the real world. In the outside of the human mind, the real world waits cold and in silence, people to come and sort them out, building things and manifesting the mathematically and logically planned designs with the hands and machines physically.

Thought about it yet again. I think faith is the religious belief that does not require empirical evidence, knowledge or justification. When one says "I believe in God, because I just know he exists, or I just feel that he cares for me." These are statements based on faith. No one can challenge or deny the statements, when they are based on one's intuition, feelings and experience.

All other non religious beliefs generally require empirical evidence, knowledge and justification for someone to believe in something.

The critical point is that even if religious faith does not require empirical evidence or knowledge, if there were such evidence or knowledge, which was experienced by chance by private experience, then that cannot destroy faith. Especially if the evidence or knowledge or experience supports the faith, then it would even strengthen one's faith. But even if it were negative evidence, knowledge or experience, one would not throw away one's faith, because it is faith, not belief.

In the case of belief, the believer will change his beliefs on something based on empirical fact, evidence, knowledge and experience.

I am sure that there are plenty of buddhists who believe in their religion with faith level i.e. they are so committed to their beliefs, they won't discard the belief no matter what new experience or knowledge is acquired, which should be classed as faith.

As always, I stand to be corrected.

It's generally rebirth not reincarnation in Buddhism. — Bylaw

Rebirth is for being born again as the exact same person. Even in buddhism, I don't think they will believe that - which means, Socrates has died, but he will be born again as Socrates?

Reincarnation is for being born in some other life forms or other human, I think. So Socrates will be born again as a bear, tiger or lion, or a rock star guitarist etc. I think this makes more sense logically :D

Yeah, after mulling it over, I think you are right. I am not sure actually. My problem is that I do not know much about any of these religions in detail.

Well, I do know specific examples of these religions, and they are not faith based. — Bylaw

I used to know some Buddhist people, and some of them go to the universities and study the theories and principles of buddhism. They are a very few minority of people who then seek to become lecturers or teachers in the schools and universities. These are a tiny number of minority people among the vast number of buddhists.

Most buddhists are just general followers, who do not know anything about the principles, codes or the philosophy. They go to the temples, pray for their good luck, health and prosperity. They believe in eternal reincarnation after death, because that is just what buddhism is famous for. They would also donate a lot of money to the monks and temples, because they believe blindly that would bring them good luck for their business and family. These are the beliefs based on no theories, empirical facts or principles, but their own intuitions, emotions, customs and traditions.

I don't know anything about Hindu in that regard. But I guess they believe in some kind of afterlife. Because that is what every religion is about at the end of the day.

Whether truth can be known isn't the same question as to whether it can exist. — Hanover

What are the truths that exist? Do you have the real world examples of truths that exist?

I feel that knowledge is justified true belief. But justifying for true is human act that is not guarantee for absolute truths.

Hence the guy who is given a placebo by his doctor with the fake explanations on what it is for will have what he thinks as a justified true belief is as sound knowledge as what the doctor knows about the placebo, if the placebo had worked for him. There is no absolute proof that what the doctor knew about the placebo was the absolute truth about the placebo. What if the doctor's knowledge about the placebo was totally wrong? Or the doctor had given him the wrong placebo by mistake?

And there is also the problem of finding out for sure, what actually cured the placebo taker's symptoms i.e. was it the placebo itself (by chance), some psychological effect, or some good sleep he had after taking the placebo .... etc etc.

I am not familiar with either Buddhism or Hinduism, but I am sure that they also believe in their religious concepts, systems, scriptures and codes such as eternal reincarnations (into some other life forms such as animals or again into humans depending on each individual's karma) in Buddhism.

In Hindu, they believe in millions of different gods, and the main ones are
Brahma, who creates the universe, Vishnu, who preserves the universe, and Shiva, who destroys the universe.

I feel that all religions require the followers' belief for the minimum requirement, and when they are genuine followers of a certain religion, their beliefs transform into faith. But that is just my own view.

It seemed you were disagreeing with me at first, but you seem agreeing with me now. :)

My points are that (1) There are different types of causes for beliefs.
(2) Religious beliefs are special type of belief, which should be classed as faith. (I personally think faith should be only used to denote firm religious beliefs. Using faith in association with any other than religious beliefs, I feel, is not correct.)

I came to the conclusion.
(3) Knowledge and belief are similar concept. The only difference is that the former is justified true belief.
(4) The concept of True seems vague and needing further clear definition due to the nature of any act of justification having possibility of errors and mistakes.

Even in the case of Gravity, it is not something that exists as a concrete object in space and time. It is a postulated concept. Because every material object falls to the ground, it is believed that the force pulling the objects must exist in the core of the earth, and they called it "gravity". It is a belief.

I am concerned with the difference between knowledge and belief. I read in some epistemology books that knowledge is justified true belief. In that case, how do you make sure the justifications are justified for absolute correct and true? So truths are dependent on justification. Justification is human action, which is subject to mistakes and faults.

Another point is that, in this case, the line between knowledge and belief seems fuzzy.

True is considered an objective fact, not the subjective feeling of the believer. — Hanover

I thought this over, and couldn't square up what the criteria of being True as an objective fact means.
Is there such a thing which stands as absolute truth beyond doubt?

a) God is proven by radio-astronomy combined with radiological signal interpretation which output produced on pc-tablets is the closest thing of "God talking to you" as you look at it (white with gold and silver streaks), you'll ever come (except when you land in Heaven in the After-Life, second half of Life as such. — DrOlsnesLea

Did you carry out the proof by yourself? How could be sure the radiological signal was from God? What type of frequency did you use for the proof? From which direction did the signal being transmitted from?

b) 100% Psychiatrically healthy people believe in God. — DrOlsnesLea

What is your definition of 100% Psychiatrically healthy people? How are they different from not 100%
Psychiatrically healthy people?

"Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science." By Alfred North Whitehead. — prothero

Should it regain its old power? Is it good thing to happen to the world we live in?
Is it possible to achieve?

I do not think traditional religious dogma is compatible with modern science. I think if religion wishes to survive it must change its conception of “God” and the relationship of “God” to the world (universe). — prothero

How should the conception of God changed? Can the old traditional religions do that? or do you want to see totally new religions born and manifested with the new concept of God?

yes, I think so. I stand to be corrected.

I think everyone has different goals in life. It is a value of one's psychology. Some will never think about goals in life. Just living healthy and happy everyday, and doing whatever they want to do, might be sufficient for good life. Living itself is the goal of life.

Most people don’t have to believe flying is reasonably safe, unless the rate of accidents go up. Or they have some personal reason to go the point of having to believe. May be when flying first became something that was possible, most people didn’t believe it could be possible. But after so many years, we know it is possible, so no need to believe.

With regard to the covid vaccines, it is not the vaccines that are the problem. It is the governments, scientists, pharmaceuticals, and main stream media that people believe, or not.
I would say that belief or lack of belief only applies to other person. — Jan Ardena

I think beliefs are not necessary conditions for someone making decisions or taking actions as you said. But my point was, there are different types of beliefs - beliefs based on rational facts, and beliefs based on personality intuitions and tendencies. Religious beliefs are the latter kind, and it is a special type of beliefs, which must be defined as faiths (IMHO).

The Strokes - You Only Live Once (Official Music Video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT68FS3YbQ4

Yeah, it's 'fear of death' (i.e. self-consciousness), not death itself, that's "evil" because it's unwarranted (gratuitous). — 180 Proof

:fire: :up:

This is where two sides of points are needed.

Subjectively, I am the centre of the universe.  All the objects in the external world, people and the earth and the whole universe is just the contents of my consciousness. When I fall asleep, the world and universe disappears. If I don't exist, the universe and the world may still keep existing, but it is just out of my imagination. There is no way that I could be sure of that.

From an objective point of view, I am just a part of the universe. I exist as a being just like all other beings do, and will have to follow what the beings have to go through in their existence according to the law of nature.

I still do find that Freud's idea of life and death, as Eros and Thanatos useful in understanding of opposition or inherent conflict. — Jack Cummins

From Life and Death point of view, if Death is viewed as Evil, then it is negativity in extreme. But then one's own death does not exist while living. It is just a concept.

Possible worlds is a quite different area. It explicitly assumes consistency. This does not. Of course, if this could be made coherent, then it might be applied to possible world semantics. — Banno

Would it be able to cover the area of the Traditional and Modal Logic, where they cannot cope with some of the real world cases in the arguments?

Nor does it have anything to do with existentialism. But it might be a sort of deconstruction, in which consistency is seen as a special case... — Banno

Existentialism as opposed to Rationalism, and denoting absurdity, irrationality and unpredictability?
Even if it is Inconsistent Math, if it is a Math, it would have some consistency, one would imagine.

Now, who'd a thunk non-euclidean space could be useful... — Banno

Math had started out of practical uses in ancient Egypt for building the pyramids etc.

Yes, but it’s an echo chamber and only really worth it for those who are interested in breaking news and current affairs.
I quite like it for cartoons and satire. — Punshhh

When I was on twitter, I didn't like the way some of the people in twitter were behaving like the Wildebeesty mob on some of the topics.

Why don't you see for yourself? It's really easy to sign up. — Wheatley

I was on Twitter before, but closed it. At the time, there were a few traits that I was not too happy with it. But after a while, I am wondering how other people feel about it, and thinking of returning to it.

Haven't got a scooby clue who that bloke is.

Do you think it boils down to ethics again? How so? — Shawn

I feel it more boils down to one's own value in life, rather than ethics. Depending on the value of one's life, the idea, nature and act of examining will be formed more clearly.

" If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or if you do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both. " - Soren Kierkegaard

"Marriage brings one into fatal connection with custom and tradition, and traditions and customs are like the wind and weather, altogether incalculable." - Soren Kierkegaard

Deep Purple - Soldier of Fortune Lyrics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9hmm6MZ3GY