Just want to know who decides? Who is nominated to decide what is a fact based upon their observations? And how is this communicated? Very fundamental. Very simple.

So it is your understanding that cats know about mats and can communicate their position on the mat telepathically with humans? At that point, I guess, the human needs to be able to convey this amazing fact without uttering? Are these the facts that we are discussing? I hope not.

I hope the cat is a good observer and shares his position accurately without uttering.

Whether is is a true or false belief, and a true or false statement depends, not on any decision of mine, but on the whereabouts of the cat. — unenlightened

Then who decides is the whereabouts of the cat? I cannot see how a fact can be divorced from the uttered fact.

If you can't utter it then it is some idea in someone's memory and therefore as yet had not become a fact but rather a potential fact - I guess. Of course, someone may be satisfied with potential facts forever in one's memory never to be uttered.

Once it is uttered, then it is a belief - one that may be shared by some or many others, subject to change. The primary difference between a fact and a brief is the weight that one wishes to imbue into the statement. But that is a matter of public discourse.

Any fact that I utter. I made the decision or others made the decision and I just agree. July 4th is Independence Day. Someone decided it. I was taught to believe it. I repeat it. I get this belief from my memory.

Then I'm really confused. Without divine intervention, how do facts come into being?

Then who decides what is a fact?

Agreed. So facts are just beliefs since there is no way to decide what is a fact without decisions.

Who decides? How do you get personal, subjective observation out of the mix? Impossible.

"Facts" or rather memory states are no different from any other object in that b they are all fundamentally energetic in nature. The difference is on substantiality.

The correct formulation of the problem is that you have a choice to choose heads, tails, or on end or any other outcome you might think of). What actually happens is all full of possibilities due to enumerable forces that surround us. Life is totally unpredictable though some outcomes are more probable than others.

I agree. It concentration of wealth coupled with unsustainable growth in debt that consistently leads to extreme social unrest. This has been the case throughout history. We are witnessing the beginning stages of this unrest everywhere around the globe and it is impossible to suggest where it may ask lead but historically speaking it is usually war.

It is impossible to separate an observation from the observation. It cannot be done. Without the observer there is no memory of the event from which the so-called fact emerges. It is only when many concur, often by repetitive education or indoctrination, does some observation begin to emerge as some general agreement that it is a fact. For example, people turn to a reference book for "facts". That is how facts emerge in a population.

Nothing wrong with general agreement within a population as long as everyone understands that these agreements tend to change over time and writhin different populations. Everyone is educated differently.

Facts are just statements that lots of people agree on - always subject to change. They may even believe that they are agreeing on the same facts but after a little discussion may learn that they don't agree. Like everything else in the universe, everything is always changing. The universe is very malleable.

There is not only room, it is inevitable. The bigger the "government industry" gets the seedier and more corrupt are the people it attracts, especially at higher levels. It is self-selecting.

Hopefully, what you would gain is some insight to creative thinking when contemplating the nature of people and the universe, which are some basic questions we have about our lives.

However, what you are more likely to receive from academic philosophy classes is some historical background about some pop philosophers of any given era. Can be interesting, but may be quite boring depending upon how stuffy or open-mind the professor may be. Professors tend to like repetition of the same old, same old.

Yes, everyone is different and thinks and senses differently. However, there are enough simalarities so that in many instances we can negotiate agreements. Sometimes, maybe often, external agreements only serve to hide internal disagreements. Relationships are tough.

One can analyze all one wishes but the difference between the two is a matter of taste. It is easier to root for a government of justice as opposed to one of vengefulness.

However, I do believe that the is a qualitative difference between fairness and justice, the former suggesting equality before the law.

First and foremost to provide for national defense and domestic security. After that, it becomes a trade-off between economy of scale, e.g. providing for an interstate transportation system, educational school system, etc. and the enormous wasteage, corruption and theft of a government bureaucracy. There is no such thing as a benevolent government working on behalf of the people.

As for security and national defense the is always the high probability of such an apparatus turning on the people and assume control for its own economic benefits.

I would say that the two are about the same but the words themselves are imbued with meaning in order to arouse different feelings. Was Edmund Dantes seeking vengeance or justice? It all depends upon one's point of view.

Precision is the difference between a philosopher and a scientist. It's all the difference in the world. What satisfies a scientist bothers a philosopher to no end.

Science relies on predictably for practical purposes, e.g. Weather forecasting, projectile behavior, etc. It is constrained by working theories and usable measurement theories and mathematical theories. But at no level are scientific predictions absolutely precise. The reason being is that every event has a certain degree of unpredictability.

In a way, I've already answered your criticism. It is all imagining three nature of intelligence in a different way. The original argument, I would say, uses intelligence in an archaic manner. In a manner of speaking, intelligence created the broken glass, but intelligence could not foresee the event itself. Just a more modern view of the nature of intelligence and its limitations.

I would say there seems to be causes, even intelligent causes, but nothing is predictable so things just happen. Intelligence does not imply omniscience or omnipotence. Intelligent creation does not rule out unpredictable events. Everything is an experiment.

Yes, there is something very special about the arts and while philosophy can be an art, for the most part philosophy is repetitive just as music can be. It is when you feel the music you are creating is coming from a different place, outside of yourself, that it takes on a totally different feeling and meaning. It happens in all forms of the arts. It comes naturally and spontaneously with relaxed practice. For some it comes quicker than others, but that is of no mind. We practice to discover ourselves in our journey. There is no end.

Wishing you a very happy journey. It is wonderful to experience.

What she is arguing is that she had the omniscience to differentiate an accident form a planned event. If she had such god-like powers, she would be evidence against her own argument. They is simply no way of knowing at this time of human evolution.

My guess is that the event was just that. Nothing more or less.

Trade unions are losing power because of free trade (free slave) treaties that allow corporations to build factories wherever slave labor is available and the central banks are giving corporations all of the free money they need to build these slave factories.

Of course they are trying to make $trillions in bucks - only they are doing it by stealing it with their money printing presses which makes them somewhat of thieves.; It's natural for bankers to act like this which is why they should be locked up just like they did in Iceland. That would also be quite natural.

The robotics part is just plain misdirection by sone hired academia a la Krugman. No different than previous eras of technology change.

The question is why are there two states of being?

There is nothing natural for private central banks to print $trillions at 0% for a handful of wealthiest people in the world unless one considers thieving bankers a natural phenomenon - which certainly can be argued.

The problem is concentration of wealth, engineered by the central banks, not technology. Similar scenarios have existed before such as in the 1920s. The super-rich love to deflect with technology excuses and they make academia of full of their supporters to push such ideas.

Morphic resonance is one version of explaining memory and habits in the Universe. If I'm not mistaken, Sheldrake does credit Bergson with inspiring his ideas concerning morphic resonance. There are others who are exploring these possibilities but let's face it, the money is in materialistic research and humans tend to follow en masse the Pied Piper of money. For those who are not so inclined, there is a very rich, rewarding and healthy life in the exploration of memory, intuition, and creativity.

Excellent statement about the perplexities of nature. I often wondered myself about the embedded intelligence of nature.

I think it is fair to say that most materialist atheists believe that all memory of living is lost upon death. I would say that such a view of memory/life is unnecessarily restrictive (it really adds nothing to one's life) and constricts growth into potentially interesting and healthier views about life.

A holographic universe would be one where memory is impressed in the fabric of the Universe itself as a hologram as opposed to being localized in only one area (e.g. the brain).

It is possible that we are all evolving, very subtlety, via this form of memory. Of course, as with any memory (and any hologram), it takes lots of reinforcement. The memory is not equally strong in all areas.

I think it is a quote, but incomplete. It doesn't address the question of why there is the question . Still it is up to each individual to give meaning to life.

I would say that it is possible to investigate holographic theories where everything is essentially memory stored in the Universal background, Bohm's Implicate Order. Do we have any evidence that there may be transcendental memory. Yes, I believe there is and it manifests as inherited or ingrain skills.

It's not false - nor is it true. It just unnecessarily eliminates possibilities. But is it correct to say that all atheists have the same view of the life/death cycle? Maybe there are differences?

Yes, if one simply applies their life to reasoning things out, they would be missing out on a lot of variety. I just try a little bit of everything and try to grow in all directions.