↪Yohan Order doesn't "come from chaos". Order is a contingent, repeating pattern within chaos (e.g. whirlpool in a tempest ... 'law of large numbers' effect, etc) — 180 Proof

Chaos is lack of order. It isn't a thing in itself. So I don't know what you mean. A tempest doesn't lack order. Can you give an example of an occurrence which lacks order?

But a group isn't literally united. Its a sort of poetic expression. Unless you believe in some metaphysical connection that actually somehow forms a single unit out of many. That could be possible, as weird as it sounds, since we are made up of distinct parts that together form a unity.

"Chaos" is the materialist's Woo of the gaps. — YohanA clever bit of woo that makes no sense. Materialist, of course, or otherwise. — 180 Proof

I believe at root, consciously or unconsciously, the naturalists believe order comes from chaos. Maybe that is wrong. I know that is what I think when I try to think from a naturalist point of view. Opposite for divine origin theory. Reason creates the appearance of chaos for the sake of amusing itself, being bored of a perfectly reasonable (thus predictable) reality.

With what I've seen, it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. And I don't understand what the "theory" is supposed to be.

Would like to know. And suspect you are right. — Manuel

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Which theory and what doesn't seem to lead anywhere? Synchronicity?

Nature doesn't follow the law. Nature is the law.
I don't follow the laws of my nature. I am the root principle which the various sub-principles of my nature are rooted.

Nature is not subject to its laws. An example?
Your true nature stands above the laws... An example? — TheMadFool

The container cannot be contained by its content.
Nature is the super-container of everything except itself. So how can anything in nature limit it?
I am also a container.

Nature is not subject to its laws. It is their container. It "stands aloof".
Likewise, My True Nature stands above the laws which make it up.

Just as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, (Arthur C Clark)
Sufficiently advanced order/patten/law is indistinguishable from disorder (chaos, randomness, anarchy, wildness)

"Chaos" is the materialist's Woo of the gaps.

Of course a naive example. But what could philosophy do with real life urgent questions? — Ansiktsburk

It could help clarify questions and avoid errors in judgment. But I believe that involves variety of experience. I don't believe one can achieve good judgment by academics alone. Perhaps the academies in ancient times actually involved wise sages than helped create other sages. Now a days I think its more dogma passed down from one generation to the other, with the title 'expert' granted even to call someone a philosophical expert who is not a sage is a misnomer, unless by 'expert' we just mean someone highly knowledgeable.

Not much different from how religious authorities pass on their authority.

Though I may being exaggerating and overly critical

It's reality. — Thunderballs

So humans are as complex as the whole of nature.
Is that true of every creature?
Sounds intriguing.

I don't quite buy that argument. Goldilocks zone? Consciousness might be a property of medium complexity and may not exist in either the less/more complex kinda like a downward-facing parabola (with consciousness on the y-axis and complexity on the x-axis). — TheMadFool

No idea what you said.
Thanks though, It's too out of my element for now for me to try to understand goldilocks zone, parabola with the axes
Edit: Except I get that you consciousness might be a property of medium complexity. I would agree with that if we are talking about where humanity en masse is at evolutionarily, as having a distinct ego identity

Nature is not far more complex than we are. Bigger yes, that She is. — Thunderballs

Is this a confident intuition?

Speaking from personal experience, when I have a general anaesthetic or hit myself on the forehead with a pick axe, I lose consciousness. Before and after the anaesthetic or pick axe incident I see things, feel things, immediately after the anaesthetic or the pick axe hit I don't feel or see anything. I'm very confident that if I had had more anaesthetic or hit myself harder with the pick axe, I wouldn't have recovered consciousness. This is in fact why people don't want to be dead. — Daemon

People with Multiple Personality Disorder, when they switch to another personality, they forget the memories of the other personalities. Most of us don't remember being babies or in the womb. We have to develop alternate personalities in order to adapt with the biological changes. We revert to our baby and pre-birth states or "personalities" when we go to sleep. The sleep state is similar to the in the womb state.
One of the reasons we get so tired when we are awake is it takes a lot of energy to repress our old traumatic memories from baby-hood.
Some meditators have developed the ability to maintain a sort of detached awareness even while their body and brain enter the sleep state.

I think "I" thought of simple acid test:
Are you more drawn to their eyes or to their lower body?
Which would you rather stare into / at?

Me too
Edit: I mean I am infatuated with the idea of romantic love.

What’s the difference between simply being infatuated with someone and loving them? — Benj96

Infatuation is an intense reaction that can quickly turn to hate at any mild displeasure
Love is the opposite I suppose.

delete

I consider there to be three emotions
fear, hatred, and peace
Love is the feeling of fear being soothed, either in a childish way because the parent figure(whoever the child is attached to, which could be a lover as well) is given what it wants,
Or the parental love, in which one is the parent and one views the other as their child, in which case on fears for them instead of for oneself, and feels soothed when the other is behaving as one wishes, which means in a way that they will be safe long term.

The childish form of "love" is turned to hatred when the child is not being given what it wants. Hatred is a way to fight the fear, whereas before the fear was dealt with by being placated.

Peace is when the emptiness within is not ran away from in fear, or fought and resisted with hatred.

That's my half baked stream of consciousness inspired by some of the psychology stuff I've read. Sorry if im spreading disinformation as I think it needs tinkering.

Confidence is only bad if it exceeds one's ability.
Unconfidence can be bad too, if it exaggerates one's inability.

Unless the confident person is right about things and the less confident wrong. — Thunderballs

It depends if the confidence of the confident person is based their actually being right or if it is based on a desire to be right?

Less confident people may take more time to think through a problem leading to higher chances of accuracy than a confident person might.

At any rate... so...
When we say that something causes something else, in the concrete world.... say... wind causes grass to sway. If causality is a concept rather than something concrete, then how did the wind cause the grass to sway? Is it just that we only conceive of the wind as causing the grass to sway? It didn't literally cause the grass to sway? I don't know if the question makes sense, but it's what I am wondering. Thanks

Good night

Concept: an abstract idea
Abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Physical: relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Senses: a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus.
Stimulus: a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue.
Thing: an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
Object: a material thing that can be seen and touched.
Material: the matter from which a thing is or can be made.
Matter: physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit
Substance: the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.
----Got interesting here. Matter is solid? Firm and stable? So water and gass aren't made of "real physical matter"?
Continuing on:
Solid: "firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid."
Stable: (of an object or structure) not likely to give way or overturn; firmly fixed
Firm: having a solid, almost unyielding surface or structure.
At this point, to me, the definitions are getting petty circular.
Is Matter firmly fixed? Are atoms firm? Are electrons and protons firm? Are electrons and protons made of solid hard stuff?

I'm not sure my point. I'm not convinced there is solid, tangible, 'stuff'. Closer examination of 'Hard tangible stuff' reveals moving particles and such, and whatever the smallest sort of particle or whatever has so far been found, no definite, tangible, hard, concrete "substance" that makes it up has been found, as far as I know.

When you say causality makes a happening happen.
To me each of those words are similar.
I could say ... Making-ness makes making be made.

Without cause happenings happen but don't change. — Thunderballs

I can't conceive of happening without change. Unless there is a single unchanging moment happening continually.
Dang.
Edit: Actually, even in that case, time is progressing. So I would still be recognizing time changing. So it wouldn't really be one moment continuing. But I don't know, this all sounds so confusing, I don't even know what I'm saying.

Causality doesn't happen. It makes happenings happen. It changes happenings. Without cause happenings happen but don't change. — Thunderballs

So can I ask, is there really something which makes things happen? Or something that makes things be what they are?

My revised question still does the same thing I guess. Are you saying we can't question the existence of concepts, because they are more like principles or models to explain things?

Causality doesn't happen. It makes happenings happen. It changes happenings. Without cause happenings happen but don't change. — Thunderballs

Causality causes causality...

It doesn't make sense (even though its common) to use the word 'used' without connecting it to a user.
Eg "It reflects a misunderstanding of how the word is used by the majority of modern English speakers"
Without connecting 'used' to a 'user' it gives the impression that conceptual laws exist independent of conceivers.

But anyway, you're right that the question sounds quirky. I can ask, does causality actually happen? .

The flaw is so hard to spot that there's only a 1% chance of spotting it — Isaac

Except maybe add the word professional..."1% change of a professional spotting it". In theory, a professional should have a higher chance of spotting a flaw than a laymen, such that a laymen would have even less than a 1% chance of spotting the flaw.

Thanks Isaac. That makes sense.
One way I've thought of it is, out of all professionals, the majority will be most likely be of fairly average general competence when compared to all other professionals in that field, while there would be at least two groups of small minorities, the far below average and the far above average professionals. So that when there is any professional who comes to a different conclusion than the majority, there is roughly a 50% chance that the person will be in the far below or far above average group.

The common assumption we see a lot when people interpret professional opinion statistics, is that its more likely that the very small disagreeing minority is of the below or far below average competence group, or just made uncommon mistakes as nobody is perfect, or has succumbed to some agenda. It is assumed that those at the minority far above average group would be in agreement with the average majority, that its not likely that the vast majority would make a mistake.
This may be because the majority of people who interpret professional opinion statistics are themselves in the majority average layperson opinion group (or have been influenced by them due to Group Think)

That is my incomplete theory

Two heads are better than one.
That's a truism. When in doubt, get a second opinion. Yep, could be helpful.
Does it mean a group of people is more likely to be right than one single individual? No, that is not a truism, that is bias. Most people are Christian, so what? Most people used to believe in flat earth (I assume including most geologists).
If you can't grasp the different between conventional wisdom, and conventional bias, that is your thing to deal with. I'll leave you alone. Take care.

Last Scenario then I give up:
There is a fight between Person 1 and Person 2.
Person 3 is going to bet on who will be more likely to win based on randomly receiving 1 of the following pieces of information:
Person 1 has some advantage over Person 2 in some area
Or
Person 2 has some advantage over Person 1 in some area

Person 3 has told us before he is given one of the pieces of information, that he believes that, absent of all other information, if he knows one Person has any advantage at all over the other Person, it would be a safer bet to go with the Person with the known advantage. He admits he wouldn't necessarily know the exact degree of the advantage, but that he would be justified in claiming there would be some over-all total advantage.

Therefor, we know ahead of time what Person 3 will bet on if he receives either piece of information.
Because we know this, we know that the odds of him betting on either of the persons would be 50%.

Will Person 3's guess have a higher chance of being right in either case of him receiving the First or Second piece of information? There doesn't seem to be. As far as we know, whichever piece of information Person 3 receives, will have no bearing on who will be more likely to win. The, as far as know, 50% odds, would not be influenced in the slightest.

If this is wrong, then please show me how. Anyone.

Why would you ask a low level expert? — Janus

An expert is someone who has a good grasp on something, enough to which they can consistently perform well at that thing, as compared to non-experts who don't have a good grasp, and who's performance is hit or miss in quality.
Expertise does not mean pinnacle of potential, but consistent proficiency.
"Leading expert" denotes one considered to be at or near the top of the living expertise hierarchy. A 'Master" is even higher than an expert, having not only reached the pinnacle, but is able to use the skill effortless grace (something like that).

"Low level expert" is either a non sequitur or an irony; does that answer your question? — Janus

It does answer one of my questions, in that you are implying, I believe, that you think I am stupid, at least some times.
Edit: I still wonder if its possible for me to be consciously stupid. I am open to any others opinion on this matter. Because according to my definition of stupid, I am stupid. The again, who cares really.

↪Yohan Fairy nuff! — Janus

Hehe, should I take that as a nickname?
From the way you talk, I get the impression you are a low level expert at problem solving.
Can you solve this? Isn't part of being stupid lacking self-awareness? Don't the stupidest people not know they are stupid?
What I'm wondering is, is it possible I am stupid but don't know I am? Am I accepting the label of being stupid without knowing what it means?
Can you infer from what you have seen from my posts if:
1. I am in fact stupid
2. I am aware that I am stupid (not just convinced the label fits me based on what other's have said.)
For the record, for me 'stupid' means, off the top of my head, doing something without good reason. I don't know why I do the things I do. I just follow impulse. I have thoughts which tell me 'this is the reasonable thing to do'. Which I follow, but I never know if my thoughts are telling me the truth, or if my thoughts are just justifying a preferred course of action. I think the latter is more likely.
Edit: I want to add one final clue. I am proud of my stupidity. I don't really know why, other than I feel like "reason" is against me getting what I want. I feel like I am going against Big Brother Reason in his attempt to stomp down on everyone's Natural Birth Right Of Pure Instinct.
Thanks for playing, if you do!

You cannot both be an expert on stupidity and stupid. — Janus

OK, then I'm an expert at being stupid.

Perhaps I didn't pick the best time to suspect Group Think. But I do hope you are honest enough to accept that it is a legitimate concern. Science is not immune to it.
Consider how many scientists were resistant to change their mind about Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
I'm not convinced the Majority is right the majority of the time. At least not on contentious or subtle issues.