I already mentioned that one can create the hallucination of seeing red by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field. Therefore, any visual experience is created in the visual cortex. — MoK

Sure you did. However, it doesn't quite explain why you want to say the rose looks red, when it is red.

can create the hallucination of seeing red by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field. Therefore, any visual experience is created in the visual cortex. — MoK

This sounds like some scientific experiment report, but it sounds mysterious and has some problems to clarify.

Is the redness created by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field, the same redness of the rose? Are all redness are the same redness? If the experimental creation of redness was possible to "a person", could the result be replicated with all other folks on earth? Or could it have been just one off event by chance?

Infinity is all numbers together. The whole set, be it Aleph Null or higher.
Aleph Null is the natural numbers in an infinite set. Aleph One may be the set of real numbers, but see The Continuum Hypothesis. — EnPassant

Isn't Aleph Null inaccessible, which is an ambiguity? All numbers are concepts i.e. ideas in human mind. They don't exist in the reality. Well they could exist, but not in the same way as the chairs and tables exist.

All events in the whole universe happens in time i.e. in order. But number operations don't happen in time order. They happen in the conceptual world, which is devoid of time.
Hence 5+7 =12, 7+5=12, the order of the events don't matter coming to the answers or results.
Even in the formal logic a ^ b = b ^ a

But think of the real life events.
1) Socrates drank the poison, and Socrates died.
2) Socrates died, and Socrates drank the poison.

2) doesn't make sense, and is not equivalent to 1) in the meaning.

What does it tell you? Numbers are concepts, and math operations happen in the conceptual world, not in the real world. Infinity is a concept, which means it doesn't have end.

Here is a good place to start for philosophical discussions about the concept of the Ultimate. It's not perfect, but it's something:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/ — Arcane Sandwich

This seems to be a great article on the topic. The majority of the articles in the SEP seems to be high quality in its contents. I shall read it up, and get back to you if there are any points to clarify or discuss. Thank you for the link.

So in the end, we could say that the theory of Earth being ellipsoid is far more useful to us than the theory that the Earth is flat. And since we can even prove that the Earth isn't flat, but an ellipsoid, the theory of it being flat can be said to be simply false. — ssu

For vast majority of the ordinary folks wouldn't care, if the Earth was round or flat. They are busy keep leading their daily lives I would imagine. It would only matter to the rocket sciences folks or world travelers, and the pilots ... really really fraction of the folks would care about the roundness of flatness of the Earth. Hence your claim above seems coming from prejudice and
exaggeration.

Again, the OP is a simple question. How do we know it is round? You don't need much scientific theories to explain the answers as you would on the radio waves, relativity theories or some QM topics.

And most importantly, no one was claiming the Earth was flat in this thread I believe. I never claimed it is flat or round, hence it is odd to ciriticise or talk down on the folks who believe in the flat Earth.

Again your expression equivocates; — unenlightened

You must understand that the way we capture the meaning of the world is largely via semantic. If you didn't have semantic, then you will no longer understand the way world works and how it is structured. I was trying to clarify rather than equivocate, but obviously you seem to be unenlightened on the semantics.

This is already demonstrated to you. — MoK

Of course, but my question was why do you want to say the red rose looks red, instead of saying the rose is red? Isn't the reason that you say the rose looks red is because it is red?

The problem is that Material Logic is an inductive logic, where the conclusion may be likely but not certain

Premise 1: The sun has risen every day for the past thousand years.
Conclusion: The sun will rise tomorrow.

Formal vs. Material Logic: A Comparative Analysis


Even Material Logic cannot tell us the truth about the world. — RussellA

I am not sure if that web site's articles are all high quality in its contents.  I have very little faith on most of the internet sites (not all !!) information supplied via the links.  Because anyone can go and set up internet sites like that, and write up whatever they feel like claiming what they imagine is true.

For material logic, they are not all 100% inductive logic.  I will need to consult my logic book on the details, and will get back on that.

For telling about the world, inductive logic is good enough.  It is not about the absolute truth, but it is about the probability of the truth, and you can see what is high probabilities and what are low probabilities of the truth, and they are good guidance for our knowledge.

At the end of the day, there is no one in this world who can see the world 100%.  Most of them may see the world perhaps less than 1 or 2% in their life or even less than that.   Hence why worry about inductive logic cannot tell everything about the world?   

A belief is true if it corresponds with what exists in a mind-independent world.
The insurmountable problem is how can the mind know about a world that is independent of the mind.
Therefore, truth about a mind-independent world is unknowable
Therefore, knowledge about a mind-independent world is impossible.

However, this is why we have axioms in logic, science and mathematics and hypotheses in general life. — RussellA

Ok, all seems a lot better making sense now. But formal logic cannot tell you truth about the world. Formal logic can only tell you if the axiomatic formulas are valid or not.

For analysing truth of the world, you need to use material logic i.e. the logic which studies on the contents of the statement, propositions and terms rather than the movements of the inferences which formal logic is about.

Remember validity is not truth. Validity just means the connected formulas (statements) are derived from the premises. Many folks here seem to misunderstand validity as truth, and go on about the formal logic for finding truth of the reality. It is always failure and misunderstanding in the results. Some of them also seem to think formal logic is the only logic there is to use. No, there are 100s of different alternative logics in use.

Formal logic is made for mathematical problems, not the world problems.

Couldn't we agree that red rose is not red but it just looks red? — MoK

Yes, I am sure we can come to some agreement. But there are a few more points to clarify here. You say you want to say that the roses look red. But they are not red. I still don't agree.

Why do you say they look red? What is the rational ground for saying the roses look red? Isn't it because they are the red roses? Why are they red roses? Isn't it because they have a set of properties which make them look red? Isn't that what redness means?

No, I would say the whole world looks brown, not the whole world is brown. You are equivocating here how things look and how things are, which is exactly what the language is distinguishing. :yikes: — unenlightened

It was your argument claiming that because the covid patients smell something burning when there is nothing burning, the burning smell must be in our nose.

You seem to agree with the fact that there was nothing burning around the covid patients in reality. It was their damaged sensory organs causing the burning smell. The world is still intact with no changes in its smelling whether the covid folks can smell something burning or not.

Likewise, the world exists with no colour changes, whether you wore brown sunglasses or not.

The truth here is that the properties of the objects in the world remain the same, even if your sensory organs get damaged or malfunction. Would you not agree?

I think we are on the same page if you agree that a red rose is not red. By this, I mean that redness is not a property of a rose. — MoK

Our judgements and expressions are also based on the customs, traditions and linguistic phenomenon. We call red roses red, and it is the universally accepted truth, whether one agrees or not.

ultimate truth? — Corvus


Probably it is the Theory of Everything - The Basis of All. I'd say it is the quantum 'vacuum'. — PoeticUniverse

Why are they the ultimate truth?

Yes, a red rose has a set of properties that make it look red. — MoK

Well, that is my point. Without that set of properties in the roses, red roses will not look red at all. Therefore it is not our brains, which construct the redness, but it is the roses which excite our brains to see the redness.

Your vision can be deceiving. You aren't using the scientific method if you just assume what you see is true. This is the kind of thinking that actually empiricists like Bacon were against in the first place. Me with my bad eyesight cannot see all the stars in the sky, especially not any galaxies or black holes or what ever. It's not a scientific argument to say that what is in the night sky is only the things I myself can see. — ssu

Yes, there is possibility of deceiving in perception. You are right. However, on the issue of how the Earth looks, and how do you know it looks round, it is a straight process. The fact is that everyone is on the Earth somewhere, so it really depends how the folks see the Earth, and how it appears to them.

It would be nonsense to say the Earth is actually shape of a banana, because of blah blah blah 1000 pages of so called scientific theories, and would be absurd to brand everyone who don't believe in that theory as dumb and idiots.

When the question is how X looks, one can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do.

Another point here is that, the question is not whether the Earth is round or flat, but it is asking how do we know it is round. In this case, it makes sense to explain how folks have arrived at their knowledge on the shape of the Earth, rather than screaming and shouting the Earth is round, and everyone who says otherwise are all dumb and mad. This claim is missing the point of the OP, and being too emotional on the trivial points for no reason, it seems.

"A common symptom of covid is the experience of a smell of burning." This does not mean that spontaneous combustion tends to occur around covid sufferers. — unenlightened

Some cases of sensory disorder of few folks shouldn't change how the the external world objects look and smell in general. Should they? Of course, if you wear brown sunglasses, and look into the world, it will look brown. But you wouldn't say, now the whole world is brown, would you?

No, the color you experience depends on your sensory system, your eyes in this case, and how neurons are connected in your visual cortex. — MoK

There must be something which makes red roses look red in the roses. Would you not agree?

No, I have never meant that. — MoK

Well, your post "redness is constructed by our brain" sounded like, brains actually build the redness out of nothing, which gave impression that, brains can change and create the colours as they like.
Is your first language not English?

Do note the implementation of the scientific method. It is far more than just "a perspective" you have. — ssu

The question is not asking how do you know X sounds, smells or feels such and such.
When the question is how do you know X looks such and such, the most important factor for the answer is how X appears to your eyes and visions.

The aromatic hydrocarbons belong to the rose, but the smell belongs to the nose. The reflective and absorbent signature belongs to the petals, but the redness is in the eye of the beholder. — unenlightened

We don't say my experience looks red, or my nose smells nice. We say the roses are red, and the rose smells nice. It is the roses (objects) which provoke our sensation. Our sensations don't make roses look red or smell nice.

When Kant wrote the external objects excite our sensations via experience in CPR, he must have meant the above point.

Beauty and ugliness are reflective aesthetic properties we feel or judge on the objects after the perceptual experience. They are not intrinsic features of experience.

Or are they different "I think"? — Corvus

They are different. The additional word "therefore" changes the meaning of the full sentence exactly as you just described. — EricH

Ok, sounds reasonable. Does it mean "therefore" has some logical significance in the statement and all statements?

When you say, "I think therefore the Moon exists. ", doesn't sound quite logical or convincingly meaningful or true, than "I think therefore I am.". What do you make of this?

I could prove "the moon exists", as the moon exists external to me, but I couldn't prove that "I know I think the moon exists", as my knowing that I think exists internal to me. — RussellA

Fair point. When you say, "I know I think the Moon exists." sounds like just a monologue to yourself, which cannot make objective proof or verification. Or it could be a psychological statement telling yourself, that you believe that the Moon exists.

So it seems clear that "I think p" can be proved as true or false statement. But you could just have said "p", instead of "I think p". Because "p" sounds clear enough with no strings attached to its implications.
Whereas "I think p" sounds less clearer than "p", and has some points to clarify.

When you say "I think I think p", it sounds something is wrong and deeply wrong in the grammar and its meaning, and will be rejected for its dubious clarity.

When you say, "I know p", you will be expected to prove that you know p.
"I know I think p" is a psychological statement with no objective meaning to deliver apart from to yourself.

How? Seems you value them to be similar, that one isn't better than the other, at least theoretically to make a theoretical argument. And not knowing "their claims" doesn't free you of answering which one you believe to be true, actually, if the you think the World is flat or round. — ssu

To me, the both claims don't make sense. As I made clear that the shape of the Earth changes depending on where you are looking at it from.

That's not at all empiricism or being an empiricist. It's not just our sensory experience makes it true, it's also the empirical evidence that something is so. — ssu

How is it not? It is purely empirical for the fact that the knowledge is based on my observations on different locations on the Earth. How more could you get empirical, scientific and logical?

The earth is shaped roundly flat and flatly round is far more scientific in the sense that your claim, which comes from the popular media stories and your imagination disguised as reasoning, whereas my claim comes from the direct observations and apprehensions on the object.

No, the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain. The flower does not have any particular color at all so it is just the feature of your experience. — MoK

If the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain, can your brain construct the redness into pinkness or greenness?

Does it mean your brain can construct the colour of roses into any colour you want to construct? :chin:

You have the experience of a red rose when you are looking at one. The experience is gone if redness and other features of your Qualia are gone. — MoK

When I am looking at a red rose, I am looking at a red rose. I am not experiencing a red rose at that particular moment. After looking at a red rose, when I reflect on the red rose, I could describe the red rose as my perceptual experience.

The redness of the rose belongs to the rose, not to me or my experience. The redness of the rose is a conceptual image in my memory which was posited by the red rose. The redness is not the intrinsic feature of my memory or my experience.

Then for this topic, the important question here is: Just why some people, if they indeed are have thought about the issue, come to the conclusion that Earth is flat?

Why is there https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php ? Why do they have the mission of: — ssu

I am not familiar with either Flat Earthers or Round Earthers claims. But my point is rather, it is interesting to infer how they arrived their knowledge, as I have made out in the post above.

From my own point of view, I am not a Flat Earther, and I am not a Round Earther either. I am an empiricist. Whether the Earth is flat or round depends on what location you are seeing the Earth from.

If you are in the spacecraft outside of the Earth in the space, it will appear round. If you stand on the football stadium in London, the Earth will appear flat. How it appears to your vision, that's what matters.

So, the Earth is flatly round, and at the same time roundly flat would be the answer.

And I've been in Australia and New Zealand and noticed the a totally different star constellations that I've never seen in Finland. So you tell me how all that is possible with in the flat Earth world? — ssu

My point was that methodologies of arriving at the knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself. Never said, the Earth is flat, round, flatly round or roundly flat.

I know my hand hurts regardless of whether I can prove or verify it to someone else. — RussellA

That would be a self knowledge with no possibilities of proof. Would it be correct?

I know that I think the moon exists regardless of whether I can prove or verify that I know that I think the moon exists. — RussellA

That would be a simple task in proof. You go out to the garden at night when the Moon is shining, you point to the Moon and say, I know the Moon exists. There is the Moon.

Problem is, your proof is true when the Moon shines, but it is false, when the Moon is not visible.

When you say, "I know", it raises a case for verification and proof, which judges your claim "I know" as sound and true, or unfounded and false.

Trying to troll me exactly the way I said that Flat Earthers troll us? Or are you really serious? :smirk: — ssu

It is meaningless to continue any kind of conversation with someone who are obsessed with trolling, and brand anyone asking questions or suggesting other ideas.

I hope that you are not the type of folks. :D What would anyone get from trolling the people with the obsession? That would be a total waste of one's life and time.

Well, if you read my post carefully, you would notice that I have not said whether the Earth is flat or round. I have just pointed out the ways they have acquired their knowledge.

Perhaps you were lucky enough to be able to travel all those different countries, and be able to reason and experiment from different part of the world. But there are the majority of the Earth population who have not gone out the place they were born, and seen the Earth only from where they stand. To these folks their own observations and apprehension is the only criteria they could draw their knowledge on the shape of the Earth.

If you accept the fact that philosophy is more than just believing everything you read and see on youtube, internet, and what is told in the classroom, then you would open your mind and listen to the other folks different ideas and methodologies in arriving their own beliefs and claims.

If you don't agree with the other folks ideas, then just use your reasoning and arguments to make your point, and prove your point is right, if you think it is enough worthwhile doing so.
Claiming someone is trolling out of the blue without concrete evidence is not a philosophical statement. Good luck.

Experience and Qualia are inseparable. It is not correct to say that the experience comes first and the Qualia comes after. — MoK

Could you demonstrate the point with some real life examples? Thanks.

Just no. Could you have any experience without Qualia? — MoK

No I can't. I do need experience first, before having qualia. Qualia comes after the end of experience. Qualia is also contingent. It is not necessary. It can come, it can never come.

Flat Eartherism is perhaps something similar: if we believe that people are so ignorant and dumb to believe that the Earth is flat, what does that tell of our attitude toward others? — ssu

Whether the Earth is flat or round is not really a good question. You will see the Earth round, if you see it from the space. But if you see the Earth from the ground standing in the street of NY or Tokyo, it will appear flat. Hence it depends on where you are seeing the Earth from.

The real point of the question is, how the knowledge of the flat Earth and round Earth came from.
The Flat Earther's knowledge must have come from their own senses i.e. living and working on the Earth, looking at it directly with their own eyes, apprehending and observing it. It appears undoubtedly and conclusively flat.

The Round Earther's knowledge must have come from the Science class, books and media i.e. it is based on the authority of the institution. It is doubtful many of the Round Earthers have gone to the space in person, and peeked into the Earth and making the comments that the Earth is round. There must be only a handful of the rich or astronautical folks who actually have gone to the space and seen the Earth. Why should one trust those handful of folks claims?

Hence the Flat Earthers' knowledge is based on their own experience and observation rather than relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda.

Therefore the Flat Earther's beliefs are more scientific than the Round Earthers?

What is the difference between truth and the ultimate truth? What does it mean by the ultimate truth?

Of course, any experience has a set of properties, so-called Qualia. — MoK

Nope. Qualia comes after experience as perceived qualities of the objects. Qualia is not part of experience.

Therefore, in every act of thinking there are two aspects, I think p and I know I think p. — RussellA

If you know p, then you must be able to prove or verify you know p. How do you prove and verify that you know you think p?

Yes, and no. Although beauty and ugliness are features of objects, things like ideas, arts (music for example that is not an object), etc. could also be beautiful or ugly. That is why I used experience instead of object since a beautiful object seems beautiful but beauty is not the feature of the objects only. — MoK

Ideas are subjective thoughts. You say ideas are good or bad. You don't say ideas are beautiful or ugly. All arts are objects. Music is the songs and musical instruments performing coming to your ears in the form of the physical wave vibrations.

Of course, experience has lots of features. How could recognize something is beautiful if your experience has no feature? — MoK

Again it is a bit odd to hear someone saying beautiful experience or ugly experience unless it is said in some metaphorical way. You always experience something, and the content of your experience could be beautiful or ugly. Experience itself has no properties.

If beauty and ugliness are not intrinsic features of our experience, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. — MoK

Beauty and ugliness are features of the objects in the universe. We perceive and judge them. They are not intrinsic features of our experience. Experience captures what is given to us by the universe. Experience is a blank sheet with no features.

Let say p stands for "I am", then I think p becomes "I think I am".
The familiar Cartesian statement is "I think therefore I am."

"I think I am" sounds like I am guessing I exist. "I think therefore I am." indicates "I think" is the precondition or necessary foundation for "I exist".

So how can the same "I think" imply guessing, and also the solid reasoned precondition for the existence? Or are they different "I think"?

If your brain moves from the living room to the kitchen, does your mind remain in the living room? — RussellA

My brain never moves alone from the livingroom to the kitchen. The brain moves with the body located in the head physically altogether. So your premise "If your brain moves" is not accepted, hence your argument is invalid.

A tree has the form of a tree. What is the content of a tree? It can only be the tree itself. — RussellA

Tree has water and wood fibre in the content. Tree itself dies without water and the nutrients fed from the root.

As with the tree example, the brain as form and mind as content cannot be separated. — RussellA

Mind as content sounds vacuous. Mind is a function of the brain and body. It feels, senses, perceives, believes, reasons, remembers and thinks. Mind itself is not content. Mind has contents.

No. As I think of "I" as my thoughts, I think of my mind as my brain. — RussellA

It sounds like unnecessary over reduction of "I" into a physical organ.

The mind is somehow part of the physical brain. — RussellA

The mind is part of the physical brain? Exactly which part in the brain?

One aspect is what the mind is, such as the self, consciousness, the "I". Another aspect is what the mind does, such as has thoughts, ideas, feelings and emotions. — RussellA

So when you say that you are the thought of p, you seem to be reducing yourself to only one aspect of the mind leaving out the rest of the mind and physical body.

How are these two aspects connected? — RussellA

I understand mind as a function of the brain and sensory organs of the body. You sound like a dualist i.e. mind and body as separate entities - mind residing in the brain somewhere. Would it be the case?

Agreed. That was what I intended with my statement a), which I said was unproblematic. If I'm just mentioning a thought as something "I had" -- an event -- then its content doesn't affect the logical status of the report. — J

:ok: But how do you verify the "I think: P" for truth or falsity in formal logic?

My personal belief is that rather than it being the case that "I have the thought p", it is more the case that "I am the thought p". — RussellA

But surely you are more than "the thought p", aren't you? I am guessing that you have a physical body, feelings, emotions, consciousness as well as the thoughts too with very high probability. Would you agree?