I actually do not understand this question. Can you whittle it down some? — tim wood

It's more of a context for discussion. I'm trying to create a more of a space than a target. I think some people had/have doubts. Telling a person what they can not doubt is wrong in a way. So long as everything is prefaced with...this is about doubting certainty not informing public policy; then maybe people can raise their concerns without anyone being threatened by ideas.

I could let the fear mongers spin me up, or get schooled. I pick the third: which is neither. — James Riley

I've met more than a few people that take it for granted that population reduction is something that the super wealthy desire. It has a pleasant intuitive fit like too many people in the boat. Less people, better boat viability. But, to me the amount of disruption caused would be more of a threat than the population itself. They already have access to resources as if people weren't around through their wealth. Their wealth is only significant if it's in demand, so getting rid of people would devalue their assets. Essentially, changing the rules to a game you are already winning.

Again, if I were to take a deep dive on my questions, I could do so. I have several thoughts about what could go wrong, or what the motivation was behind pushing the vax, but I'm not going to give a loaded gun to a toddler. — James Riley

The thread merely assumes any question is about the belief of certainty and no actionable concern. If testing the matter lets you think about something else afterwards. Then, by all means. Which is a more compelling case the threat of harm or the questionable motivations?

Your other post was pretty powerful. I was considering sharing it on facebook. And I rarely drop anything too loud on there. I made this thread to divert the mess into a controlled burn. But, I agree. We have over corrected on purpose.

I made a thread 7 hours ago for the purpose of discussing the topic which is supposedly being repressed. Informing others of your freelance medical knowledge during a pandemic and other great ideas.

Wait a minute so you being a thing inside of itself thinks that it can comprehend a thing outside of itself by using the thing inside itself to create something inside itself which is an idea and a concept of something that could be outside of itself. Do you see the contradiction here? — MAYAEL

So far I've only claimed that I could give a name to thing outside of itself and others could then reason about it as a result. Confirming that we know ourselves as seen by the thing outside of itself point of view is problematic; now that some one has decided it is problematic. Up until this point it's been confirmed twice as viable; one poster even referencing quite a bit of work done on the topic. 1 dismissed the idea and another has offered some insightful speculations and a cartoon.

I understand it is supposed to be a metaphor. Seeing the forest for the trees or the end of the wall when all I see is wall. But, it ignores so much back ground information. If I truly don't know what something is you can press it to my face or parade it around the room and I still won't know what it is I'm looking at. It's a valid metaphor for a questionable idea.

Could it be the other way round too - because we're watching, the world pretends to be something it's not? :chin: Hmmmm. — TheMadFool

I mean I'm at least two assertions deep in some speculation about material. My basis is that Wittgenstein was right, but there's easier ways to demonstrate ideas. Maybe, professional philosophers are so given to the assumption of the validity of it in itself statements they need a long leash to drag them through it at the time.

To your question; I think I subscribe to a type of participatory realism. The world's real and reality results from our interactions with it. If I were you then perhaps I might participate differently, but the parts that don't change are common for a reason. If the world chooses it's participation as well, then there could be more going on than we know. Which we already knew.

It's all the same perspective at the end of the day. We pretend what we must look like to the mirror as the mirror. But, there's no real other view to be described regardless of how many qualifications you stack on it.

Exactly.

perhaps my knowledge/perception is the thing in myself, and and the object thereof is the thing outside myself. As if I contain a map, but the territory contains me. How's that for a radical philosophy? :cool: — unenlightened

It seems consistent with my experience of the world. I can imagine the things I can see and places I can be. I can also differentiate between the memory and experience.

In the moment one looks the other direction and simply doesn't feel anything. Needle tech has come a long way in 20yrs. There isn't even a pinching sensation anymore; one would have to be trying to feel it.

What can I do for you?

I see no reason to believe that for an instant. I know what a goldfish is when I see one. A goldfish has no idea of what I am. — Wayfarer

You'd have to base that belief on knowing what it is to see a goldfish when you see one as you imagine what it sees.

This may appear to be the case, but our knowing in itself may be quite different from our knowing as it appears to us.. — unenlightened

Yes, that's better than I imagined. I was thinking their was merit to challenging itself validity, but I wasn't sure how to demonstrate it properly. Well done.

I successfully identified several objects correctly.

Try it.

If you want to see an object, you can’t see it if your face is pressed against it. — Wayfarer

How could you miss it? Yes, stepping back a bit helps. But, it isn't exclusive.

I'm not sure that specifing mathematical proofs as the subject captures the intention of the discussion. Maybe, The way you see a being see you the way it sees you see it.

Things don’t have views. Beings have views. — Wayfarer

Technically, it's an observation that the thing doesn't see us.

The point of Kant’s idea of the thing in itself is simply that perspective is inextricable from the knowledge of appearances, that we can only know things as they appear to us. I’m generally bemused by the amount of controversy this seems to cause as it seems mere common sense as far as I’m concerned. — Wayfarer

I can agree that it seems common sense. I think that is because we know what it's like to imagine a different point of view. But, in this case we are imagining a point of view that doesn't exist by definition. When is the case we'll be seeing something without a perspective and how will it compare to when we do have one?

Nah, you can get at it with audio. That's why you can drive and listen to music or have a conversation. It's two different processing centers.

Does the implication of infinite regression hold?

Interesting test; propose a nonsense term and find a catalog of reference material is already available.

:up:

What about a thing outside the inside of itself. The way it sees me trying to see it as if it were me.

Need to start a thread called : Vaccines, the moral compulsory certainty for which consensus remains absolute?

No. My 'position' has nothing to do with the term 'anti-vaccine', it just happens to have arisen in a thread of that title (threads are like that sometimes) and then you asked me about the term. Gods! Who's arguing for arguing's sake now? — Isaac

Oh, I thought this discussion was taking place in a context. Yes, there's lots of things spooky about vaccines. Immune responses can swell your brain and kill you. So, doing what's it's designed to do is still a threat. And your right, corporations are in business to make money. Setting objective welfare in opposition to profit brought us the Pinto. An exploding American vehicle. All that's well and good. And none of it is reason to oppose vaccinations; merely question them. You are not anti-vaccine. Glad we agree.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/pandemic-has-never-been-worse-in-mississippi-top-doctor-says-as-20000-students-are-quarantined/

As I said. It's a term I've heard applied in those cases, yes. — Isaac

So, in order to maintain your position you have to argue the prefix -anti (in this novel case) does not imply opposition, but merely the capability for balanced inquiry. I don't think that's representative of the case.

Language users I suppose. I've heard some of the academics I've cited called anti-vaxxers. If you want to talk only about some particular homogeneous group then the conversation might be different, but that's not the terms in which I first engaged. — Isaac

I can doubt a vaccine, am I an antivaxxer?

I don't think anti-vaccination as a sentiment is that homogeneous. — Isaac

What defines the set? If not a person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.

I think the evidence is quite compelling that vaccination lowers transmission on average and so is a good public policy, but we're questioning moral duty here, not public policy. The two are different and operate under different assumptions. — Isaac

Antivaccination as it's understood would not consider vaccination a good public policy.

Based on this analysis what should everyone do? Antivaccination is a stance that suggest people should not get vaccinated. Are the resources available to make a risk/benefit analysis on an individual basis prior to being over taken by the pandemic- read defeating our own purpose in creating a vaccine?

Increasingly cryptic, I like it. The 'matter at hand' being? The thread? My argument? Your response? My job? Your most recent aphorism?... — Isaac

The thread. What's the take away?

Probably because I don't know your position on the matter at hand.

I'm a consultant in psychology, I advise (among other clients) long-term risk analysts. They usually have a team of academics from all sorts of fields so there's considerable debate. None of it goes like this! — Isaac

Interesting. Totally off topic, but I keep running into seemingly undiagnosed cases of DID on Facebook. When I ask if they told a professional the answer is always that the executive control prevents verbalizing the condition. Anyway, I'm sure you are good at it.

I would say "people already decide what is good on their own and pretend that is God's will" — dimosthenis9

I'm going a step further and suggesting it is a wide spread phenomena. I haven't found a theist that is in disagreement with God. The day God wants you to do something, you don't want to do is a new experience.

Guessing at the professional most suited to produce your argumentation.

Insurance adjuster?

More dubious than rejecting it without citing any evidence from anywhere? — Isaac

Nope, that's what in principle means. So, I guess, yes?

How? This argument seems to be lacking any structure. How does the fact that it's transmissible alter the proportion by which it is responsible for occupying healthcare resources? — Isaac

You know exactly what I'm saying.

No. I don't think that would be morally responsible. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion. — Isaac

Read back slowly the title of the thread.

↪Cheshire Socrates had a rough life because his wife bossed him around all the time, so I guess we should have empathy? — frank

Yeah, I recall the auto-oppositional dynamic. It would be easier if he was just a loon. But, being able to produce complex arguments for bad ideas is dangerous. Too many people looking for confirmation bias for their fears and this seems like the El Dorado of misplaced intellectual weight.

I think you do engage in a little bad faith argumentation becuse you just like arguing. Others on the forum do it. It's subtle Putinesque agression that rubs me the wrong way because of Trumpism. I realize I may be misunderstanding, tho. — frank

It's like, if Socrates hates you and has a database of unrelated facts.

But first I doubt that vast majority of people will ever come to that level and second even if they do, thinking Logically maybe isn't enough at the end at all for convincing someone to be "good". So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow?? — dimosthenis9

You'll notice no people are in constant conflict with their religion's ethical beliefs unless said religion is imposed on them by an authority. People already decide what is good and pretend God agrees with them. It works in reverse as well. If some one dislikes what others are doing, then their God dislikes it as well. It's a trick of the minds executive function to believe we are regularly communicating with anyone outside of our own mind; regarding a super being with a culturally specific ethical agenda.

All conflicts that fall along religious lines would require new basis. People can always find ways to draw lines around their tribe, but the lack of long standing perceived differences would make it that much harder to see others as less or different than oneself. Which is the truth I think the world is missing. 5 minutes before we all fall asleep, we all want the same things.