That Einstein was a nutter :eyes:

Compare modern medicine to "faith healing": the latter does not work anywhere nearly as well, or reliably, as the former. — 180 Proof

I think something more along the lines of modern healing arts vs traditional healing arts would be more fair a comparison.

By works I suppose you mean that predictions (made by scientific theories) come true which is to say we have some semblance of control over our environment; we would like nothing better than to be in the driver's seat which seems to be unoccupied as far as we can tell — Agent Smith

There is a tendency to when something works, we attribute it to the method rather than the individual, and when there is failure, to attribute it to the individual rather than than the method.

Science didn't produce general relativity theory. Einstein did.

Science didn't create the atom bomb. People did.

As you can see, if I can't tell the difference between x and y then, in my world, x = y. That's all there is to it! — Agent Smith

But then an idealist will say "If the world(x) is indistinguishable from a hallucination(y), then the world is a hallucination."


The brain doesn't need something outside of itself to run a simulation. We run simulations when we dream.

Because, as I said, there is no way of knowing if simulation theory is useful for understanding anything. How do you propose demonstrating that simulation theory (or idealism, which is what it amounts to) is a true account of reality? Answer: you can't. — Tom Storm

'Demonstrate' leans toward an empirical epistemology, which I don't think is the right kind of epistemology to use when exploring metaphysical claims.

It's more a question about how we map out reality.
A materialist map and an idealist map can both be the same in the broad strokes.
The difference is what the materialist and idealist consider the metaphysical status of the map itself.
Is a map a tool to understand matter, or is matter a tool to understand the map?
The idealist recognizes that 'matter' as a map-independent whatever, is a self-contradictory map.
While 'matter' as a map-dependent concept, is not a self-contradictory map.

And even if someone could somehow prove that idealism is true, it would not change how I behave (as far as I can tell). The world we appear to share may just be appearances, but really we have no choice but to accept it as provisionally real. — Tom Storm

Like some Zen guy said. Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water? Is that a reason to not seek enlightenment?

I hope this is all relevant enough to the OP....

Sure. Me too. But I'm not investing energy plunging down those capacious rabbit holes. — Tom Storm

The question is an aspect of the more general question: What is reality? Or, how do we know what's real?

Why wouldn't you want to use simulation theory as a tool to refine your understanding of reality and epistemology?

This is a meaty philosophy topic. One of greats.

You need to provide a compelling reason why you would take this seriously first. 'Perhaps' isn't enough. The world is full of 'perhaps' non of which we follow up. Have you ruled out Scientology or Catholicism? The simulation model to me seems just an updated tech-inspired form of idealism of which there are many models and possibilities. — Tom Storm

Its simple. I have yet to find any solid foundation on which life as we know it is grounded upon, therefor I remain open to the possibility that no such foundation exists.

Are we gonna spend our lives trying to get satisfaction and meaning out something that might not even be real?

Are we content to build our houses on sand?

↪Yohan The point being ...? — 180 Proof

For someone like Cypher, knowing we "live in a simulation" makes no (positive) difference.
If it looks like a duck, and quakes like a duck....if the Shoe Fits...

For someone like Neo, with a splinter in his mind and a boring corporate life...what has he got to lose from following the white rabbit and popping the red pill? Maybe the slop they serve in Zion is better when you aren't able to enjoy the simple pleasures of the simulation. At least there he gets to play the messianic leader of group of freedom fighters.

Is there a Neo and Cypher in all of us?

:smirk:

↪Benj96 What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof

Cypher : You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?

[Takes a bite of steak]

Cypher : Ignorance is bliss

The Matrix
:fire:

I was trying to come up with examples of how philosophy and science would approach different topics

Law:

Philosophy would aim to understand the spirit or context of the law.

Science would stop at a literal technical interpretation of the law.

Analysing a story:

Not something science can do. It can only examine the rules of grammar, sentence structure, word definitions and so on.
Edit: I guess it could analyse how technically realistic the parts of the story are which reference scientific matters.

.
— Yohan
Your point is well made and unarguable. — unenlightened

Wish I could take credit for it, but I'm not the first to come up with the point.

Speculative forecasting? or (not-so-hard) science fiction? — 180 Proof

Science fiction is fiction or non-fiction depending on when you read it. :nerd: :cool: (False probably, but a pleasant or unpleasant fantasy depending on the fiction.)

I don't think so. — Tate

So how to we determine which to use if they are all tricky? I guess that is another question without a clear answer.

I agree there is problems with correspondance theory but also think it still needs to be used in dealing with pragmatic realty. I doubt its either or. Is there a truth theory that is less tricky?

according to plain logic laid out by Frege, truth can't be defined. — Tate

This is a problem with language in general, and why its important to understand the limits of language. The language of logic only works if we already have our definitions in place. We can't use logic to determine definitions. How are definitions established in the first place, prior to logic? and...is there any truth value to a definition? Or is a definition something made up, something without truth value, like art?

What exactly is a truth claim? Is it sounds and marks? Is it a sentence? Or is it something else? — Tate

I guess 'truth claim' is redundant. To claim means to state that something is the case. Dunno how to define 'state'. Maybe 'to express a belief'.
I don't think a 'belief' is sounds and marks. Sounds and marks are made so that ideas can be communicated or recorded down.
So then what exactly is an 'idea', 'thought' or 'belief'. Its something of the mind? What is mind? Something to do with subjectivity, with "my" being, or perspective, or perception. What is being. What am I? What is perception?
Can what these are, if they are more than imaginary constructs of the "mind", be put down in writing? How could they?
But this is a process of going deeper and deeper to the foundation. Maybe truth doesn't correspond to any idea or theory?

What two things correspond? — Tate

The truth claim and the truth criteria.

Let's take the claim that it's going to rain tomorrow.

Can you explain what two things we're supposed to see corresponding? — Tate

Good morning from my side.

As I see it you wait till tomorrow and see if it rains.
If it does, then the claim is in accord with reality.
Although this is not deductive knowledge, but inductive guess.

With deduction its about corresponding or according with laws of logic or root definitions.
With induction its about according or corresponding with the appearance of the world.

Consistent with, in accord, corresponding, cohering with, matching.

Yes. Logic is a seperate topic to metaphysics and epistemology. What is discussed there is in effect the grammar of the topic, the ways on which we can put sentences together coherently.

There are a number of different ways of treating truth, that have ben expounded in logical terms. These relate to, but differ from,how we know something is true, the topic of epistemology, and the the sort of things that are true, the topic of metaphysics — Banno

Thanks Bano.
I still question if the difference is practical.

Everything in philosophy should be about the process of unveiling the Truth or Being.
Every philosophy topic, in my mind, is a branch of epistemology.
Eg metaphysics is "How to know which sorts of things are true".
Ethics: How to know right from wrong.
Logic: The mechanics behind arriving at knowledge.
I can also view everything as branches of logic.
The logic of metaphysics. The logic of ethics, etc.

We are trying to organise things so that the truth is not obscured by messiness.

A truth skeptic would say correspondence theory lacks analytical clarity — Tate

That still seems like its about correspondance.
That, in order for a statement or theory to correspond with reality, it must be analytically clear. Since unclear statements can't be tested to see if they correspond.

Maybe I don't get it?
Can you give an example of a truth claim that is true despite not corresponding with reality?

But the point I was making previously was that your power to make existential claims based on true statements depends on whether your audience accepts correspondence theory. There's no reason they have to do that. — Tate

If they reject correspondance theory they would be doing that on the basis that they think correspondance theory doesn't correspond with the way truth works.

You have to accept correspondance theory in order to say correspondance theory doesn't correspond with reality.

Or else, what does it mean to say correspondance theory is untrue?

Science is a lot more like philosophy in that its focused on developing theories for theories sake, than on coming up with practical solutions. Its engineers that are the pragmatic problem solvers. Many engineers look down on scientists with the same kind of reasons many scientists look down on philosophy; impracticality.
(I'll leave this thread now, I feel I am getting off topic)

And in any case, the entire idea of “beliefs conforming to reality” is much more modern than you may realize. — Xtrix

Yeah, I'm sure the ancient Greeks lacked the entire idea of testing beliefs by comparing them with experience. I wonder how they engineered ships back then?
"The entire idea" ???

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"In the Vedas and later sutras, the meaning of the word satya (सत्य) evolves into an ethical concept about truthfulness and is considered an important virtue. It means being true and consistent with reality in one's thought, speech, and action."

(The Vedas date back to 6000 BC)

I would like to ask what category of question this is.
Is it a metaphysical question?

Is there any practical difference between understsnding the logic of truth, and how to know the truth?

How do we verify our truth theory, if its pure metaphysics?
Since a foundation of metaphysics is required before we can epistemologically test if a statement is true, then how do we test metaphysical foundations?

.

Already on the wrong track. Philosophy’s “original” meaning is hardly the search for truth — and certainly not the kind of truth we talk about these days. This seems to me to be imposing a scientific/Cartesian worldview on the Greeks. One that emphasizes epistemology. So the rest of the post is founded upon what I see is a false premise. — Xtrix

Something to what you say from an etymology and historical perspective, but lets not consider etymology and tradition to be the final authority on what a term means.

Philosophy means love for 'sophia', which we translate as 'wisdom'. But wisdom has a seperate etymology than sophia. No two words in different languages have precisely the exact same meaning and usage.
At any rate, I should think a chief characteristic of the love of wisdom is the search for truth. So I wouldn't say the OP is necessarily "wrong", in spirit, even if wrong somewhat according to the letter.
'Natural' is the can of worms I have some issue with.
Edit: However the OP was specifically talking about the original meaning of the word, so you're right.

The truth theory you're using, which is along the lines of correspondence theory, is what the average intelligent person acts on. — Tate

"Correspondence theory of truth" is the positive version of the same law, the law of non-contradiction.
I fail to see how its a theory.
Can you give an example of where "You are right/wrong" means something other than correspondence/non-correspondence?
I can accept that correspondence isn't sufficient for truth, but not that it isn't necessary.

A trap in philosophy and is getting so tangled up in theory and language that all we have is an infinite regress of maps referring to other maps, and reality attaining the status of myth and legend.

It sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse.
That the territory depends on the map.
That if my map says that a map maker is required, then it is required
And if my map doesn't say that a map maker is required, my map can exist without a maker.

We theorise to try and understand. So "my theory of truth" is basically my current understanding of truth. Understanding doesn't determine what is the truth.

On the other hand, we do need to be clear what we are talking about by truth. Do we mean the map or the territory?
And map vs territory confusion can be the most problematic thing. Every philosophic and religious conflict may be said to be conflicts over differing maps. Putting the map over the territory is Idolatry and superstition.
What is the territory? What exists beyond our maps?

Considering the way humans generally behave towards different cultures and beliefsystems I'm having serious doubts about our level of maturity and I actually wonder if we ever get to a (collective) maturity level fitting for such a contact. — Seeker

I think tribal aboriginal people can handle making contact with ETs just fine. And there are already myths in many tribes of encountering ETs.

I think most people could handle it, actually.

The problem is the Power Obsessed wouldn't want to lose their status, so there is a chance they would spread mass hysteria about the ETs.
Think about how governments banned psychedelics.
Why should they be made illegal rather than regulated? Who benefits?

The majority will believe whatever their leaders tell them about the coming ETs, and the ETs would probably contact the leaders first before revealing themselves to the masses. This has likely already occurred and it was agreed to not happen.

Also, Descartes doesn't prove he exists by attempting global skepticism since the attempt itself presuppose he (the attempter) exists on pain of performative self-contradiction (e.g. "I do not exist"). If "the cogito" demonstrates anything it's this: "doubting happens" (not that "the doubter exists"). — 180 Proof

What gives mental phenomena a special ability to exist without an object, but not physical phenomenon?

Lets compare defartes to descartes
"A fart, therefore farting happens"
"A doubt, therefore doubting happens."
Both are tautologies? Same logical structures?

And

"A fart, therefore an ass"
"A doubt, therefore a mind"
These are deductions based on definitions?
Because a fart is by definition gas that comes from an ass, a fart by definition requires an ass.

How is the relationship between a fart and an ass different than the relationship between a doubt and a mind?
Why can doubting happen without a mind, while farting can't happen without an ass?

Is it not special pleading?

Mods are not saints, but ordinary people who do a thankless task for no money by way of supporting a site they love. — unenlightened

Your love for the mods is heart warming. :heart:

Can you 180 Proof or anyone explain to me the belief in the 'Karmic banking system'?
@ArguingWAristotleTiff spoke of it recently in the Shoutbox.
It's the first I've heard of it.

Apparently, it is when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed.

How does that work? — Amity

The less pleasure you indulge in (consume), the more sensitive you become to pleasure, and less is needed to feel pleased, then less resources must be used up for it.

The more pleasure you indulge in (consume beyond need), the more insensitive you become to it, needing more resources to feel pleased, making for a higher cost. Creating a downward spiral of less and less ability to feel pleasure at greater and greater cost.

That model could make for a pretty good hedonic philosophy: The art of deriving maximum pleasure with minimum consequence.

But were you looking for every day example, or were you asking about withdrawing from past lives and depositing for future lives?

Edit (I left out the deposit side... I guess the less one has to use up one's time and resources to satisfy one's carnal needs/desires, the more time/energy can be deposited toward creative things.
So maximum creativity and minimum consumption.)

Its weird from my perspective that one person can be highly aggressive, I'm thinking Xtrix, and become a moderator. And then another is banned for aggression and bad attitude.

probably a returning banned member — Jamal

:up:

for being aggressive and refusing moderation. — Jamal

What does aggression mean in terms of forum policy?
Aggression seems pretty standard in debates.
I feel shy questioning you Dear Leader, but I really want to understand :lol:

Modern science is a tool. Though not without its limitations, it is still the most efficacious and prolific tool-developing tool ever developed for self-correctively adapting to nature — 180 Proof

Naturalistic science is the best tool with which to do naturalistic science. Go figure. :100:

I tend to think that ALL belief is unjustified. Until I actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN, how can my belief be justified? I even go so far as to say belief is the enemy of knowledge. — Yohan

Yohan So what justifies the epistemic standard of justification?(re: verificationism — 180 Proof

Natural science relies on verificationism?: "only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies)."
At the same time, scientific theories attempt to explain empirical observations. You can't empirically observe/verify the theory/explanation itself. Explanations aren't empirical. Go figure? Its almost like theories involve metaphysical aspects?

Yet, theories, being non-empurical, aren't reducible to mere tautologies are they?

If science relied strictly on what is empirically verifiable or observable there wouldn't be scientific theories. Ought there not to be theories in science? Do scientific theories muddle empirical science with philosophy/metaphysics?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how can one know that they know?

Yes, Aristotle believed in a "prime mover" but I guess your God doesn't fit in this: — javi2541997

We won't know now since he was banned.

"Perhaps Faith is extreme or perfected Trust"
That's a great quote. No perhaps about it!
That's how I see my faith. — Adamski

And assuming you are like me, the INTUITION comes first, of something higher than the mundane world, senses and logic. And as this INTUITION is followed more and more, against the naysaying of our own doubts(which could be triggered by others) our Faith increases, until one day we live entirely by a higher sense of order without reliance on logic or the senses (or at least intuition becomes the dominant compass). And the INTUITION guides us eventually to its source, leading to "gnosis" (don't know the Sufi term) The pure intuitive realization of the root principle or pattern that guides all things?

What is intuition though, I don't know. Maybe gnosis is required to know! "root principle" sounds a bit dry too, probably not the best term. I sound like a wannabe know it all.

↪Yohan So what justifies the epistemic standard of justification? (re: verificationism) — 180 Proof

I'm tired to look up these terms.
I'll take a crack at it tomorrow, I think.

Faith means Trust.
Just like some people trust science and the media and Bill clinton... — Adamski

Perhaps Faith is extreme or perfected Trust

Karma is the belief that good and bad is always rewarded and punished.
This is basically what theism is from another angle.
You can't seperate morality from God or karma in theist circles. — Adamski

Maybe karma can exist without a God, and God can exist without being personally involved with matters of justice?

The thing is nobody in here as given a bare minimum definition of what a God must be. I think for me I just think of some ultimate being. I don't know what all that entails.

↪Yohan Insofar as "faith" is, in practice, suspension of disbelief, objects of "faith" are merely fictions. (Re: scriptural contents of religions) — 180 Proof

Suspension of disbelief does not entail that what is accepted during that suspension is merely fictitious. Rather, what has been accepted simply has not been critically examined to determine its truth value, leaving the possibilities open.

Edit: However, I tend to think that ALL belief is unjustified. Until I actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN, how can my belief be justified? I even go so far as to say belief is the enemy of knowledge.

Some theists hold that theism is a common sense default state ... — Yohan"Some theists" also hold it is "common sense" that the Earth is" flat, only 6,000 years old & the center of crearion". :mask: — 180 Proof

Sure, it doesn't matter what they hold to be common sense. But some claim their belief in God is not based fundamentally on faith. I don't know how to test that claim.

Whatever is real does not require "faith". — 180 Proof

Maybe gnosis or belief of/in God doesn't quire faith? I do not know. But nothing about the theory or intuition of God sounds to me like it would by definition require or be at its root dependent upon faith. It doesn't really matter if most believers say their belief is based in faith.