For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

It wasn't philosophers that contributed to our knowledge. It was scientists and inventors of technology. It is through science that we have been able to feed more people and increase their lifespans. Are there people still starving and still dying at young ages? Yes, but it seems we are heading in the right direction unless one makes the argument that more humans is the problem. We don't have enough resources to go around equally so is philosophy/science telling us that a Logan's Run society where everyone dies at 30 to maintain a steady population so scarce resources can be equally distributed is the way to go?

Science doesn't tell you what you should do. It merely tells you what is. What you do with that information is up to you - keeping in mind that you are an individual member of a social species that may need to compromise with other individuals to acquire the benefits of a group while trying to minimize the restraints the group has on your individual freedom and expression (what good are you to the group if you haven't attended to your own well-being?) Evolutionary psychology informs you that this is the set of circumstances we find ourselves cognitively in but it is ultimately up to you to decide how much energy you devote to the group as opposed to yourself.

Right, the examples are just there to show the difference between the linear (horizontal) series and hierarchical (vertical series), and the difference between metaphysical and temporal priority/posteriority, not to claim the dominoes falling have "one cause." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm trying to understand your notion of hierarchical (vertical series). I only see causation as temporal. Upper vs lower levels of reality do not play a causal role on each other. They are simply different views of the same thing - in that the different levels are a projection, not how the world really is. The world is seamless and it is our goals that break up reality into regional spaces (views). It's not that the top has influence on the bottom. It is that the bottom and the top are merely different views of the same thing (zoomed in vs zoomed out).

I don't know. Which framework is being used by a toddler when they reach the cognitive milestone of object permanence? Can it even be described as a "framework"?

So would you agree with me that there is no need for the members of the rational community to understand or subscribe to rational norms? — goremand

Which framework are you using to reach such a conclusion?

Does an toddler "subscribe" to the idea of object permanence (realism), or is it simply naturally occurring cognitive development? Would the child ever be able to survive on it's own if it did not reach this cognitive milestone?

Right. The idea that we only have indirect access to the world through internal representations is a cartesian, reductionist view of emotion, and stands in direct opposition to the enactivist claim that we don’t represent the world via internal schemes but are in direct contact with it by way of our patterns of activity and interaction. — Joshs

Seems like the same thing to me. Direct and indirect realism are false dichotomies. One must be in direct contact with some part of the world and indirectly connected to the rest of it, or else you are the world (solipsism), or you don't exist. Not to mention what and where the "I" is that is connected to the rest of the world. Are you your consciousness, your brain, your body, or what? Most philosophical problems are the result of a misuse, or an overuse, of language.

I'm saying that no one is both a Christian and an atheist, straddling that line neutrally. A Christian can become an atheist, but if they do so then they are no longer a Christian. No one truly says, "I am both Christian and atheist in a neutral sense."

We could perhaps imagine someone who is neither and views both objectively and neutrally. I'd be fine with that, especially for the sake of argument. — Leontiskos

But that is nonsensical. It would be like asserting that one is both a bachelor and a married man, so of course no one is both a Christian and an atheist. Not being either would qualify one as agnostic - which I think is a cop-out.

Maybe there are better examples? Can one be a realist and a solipsist? No - same issue. Can one be both a rationalist and an empiricist? Maybe. For me, it is a false dichotomy. I see that we are both using both rationality and observations to support our conclusions.

(But note that Srap Tasmaner was not "neither" when he appealed to the very same framework petitio principii that @J was appealing to less eloquently. In fact Srap is very deeply committed to that framework sort of relativism. Nevertheless, the difference is that Srap is much more capable of questioning his own presuppositions by engaging in dialogue and answering questions.) — Leontiskos

Are you saying that Srap is ignoring the law of identity and excluded middle?

All this talk is useless until we start applying what is being said to real-world situations.

I’ve read the Greeks and I’m fascinated how we got where we are today. How we think and what knowledge we have amassed, especially in science. It is mind blowing. But I don’t see any significant contribution to how we live and order society from modern philosophy. It may be my ignorance but I’m aware of quantum mechanics and relativity. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, we seem to be struggling with the same moral dilemmas we've been struggling with for 1000s of years. Religion and politics stem from ethics and ethics are subjective, which is why my default attitude is "live and let live".

I agree 100%. The changes are brought about by changes in science and innovation. There are seismic shifts in social settings too. I don't see much of current philosophy being relevant to what is happening.
It is fascinating though. — Malcolm Parry

I agree as well. I've pointed out before that many people on this forum like to discuss what dead philosophers have said, but what they said is a product of their time and is only useful to seeing where we've come from, not where we are at.

The changes that are brought about by science and technology, take AI for instance, provides a new way at looking at existing problems - like the mind-body problem - not to mention the various interpretations of QM.

I don't have a background in philosophy. I have a background in science and in IT and software development so I'm bringing that to the table when trying to solve existing philosophical problems, not what some dead philosopher said.

Pretty much. The usual suspects are here, together with the personal attacks. — Banno

Haven't you said something like "it's not a personal attack if it's true"? Would it be a personal attack or an observation to say that you are a contradicting hypocrite?

As an ideal, I try to consider ourselves not just as learners, but as teachers, which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. This is to say I'd prefer an open chess tournament, with grandmasters and novices alike. — Hanover

Me too but Banno ends up taking the whole chess board, pieces and all, to play with someone else after we've only made two moves each.

which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point.
— Hanover
Patience is not infinite. — Banno

No one was asking for infinite patience. Not responding to posts after we've only exchanged two means you have already reached your limit of patience? :roll:

We're just asking you questions to clarify what you said, or why what you said does not integrate well with the rest of what we know.

There are a few who have shown bad faith, and so with whom I usually do not engage - indeed, I don't often read their posts. They are aware of this, but curiously they insist on participating mainly in my threads. — Banno

I'm sure the people you are referencing have come to the same conclusions and no longer participate in your thread in an effort to change your mind, but to inform other, more open-minded individuals the deficiencies of your ideas. I've had some others respond to my response to your post or thread trying to make your argument for you.

I'll thow out here the difference between linear (temporal) causal series, which are accidental, and hierarchical causal series. The first is the classic example of one domino knocking over another, or a ball breaking a window. The second is the example of a book resting on a table, or a chandelier hanging from a ceiling. For the book to be on the table, the table had to be there. This has to be true at every moment or interval; there is a vertical—as opposed to horizontal—element to efficient causation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not just a table, but a person that put the book on the table. A cause is not necessarily just two interacting things, it could be a multitude of things interacting. Can you explain how the book came to be on the table by just explaining the table? Can you explain how a murder occurred if you only explain the interaction between a victim and the weapon? How would you know if the person was murdered or committed suicide?

Likewise, the chandelier hangs due to its linkage with the ceiling at each moment. Neither the ceiling nor the table are dependent upon the book or chandelier sitting/hanging on them, but there is dependence (priority) in the other direction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It also hangs due to gravity. If there was no gravity the chandelier would float and not hang. I think the issue here is you're simply leaving out ALL the necessary causes that preceded an effect (like our observation).

Why would this not be comptiablism — Count Timothy von Icarus

It may, but I'm not concerned with labels - only what makes sense which might not always fit neatly in one philosophical "framework" that we've given a name as many philosophical frameworks have holes in them that an opposing view might fill but has holes itself.

I tend to want to frame liberty in terms of (relative) self-determination and self-governance (as opposed to being undetermined) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which you can only have by having access to information.

I think what is happening is that you have two incommensurable ways of viewing something, and it is likely impossible to try to strike some neutral ground. This is almost certainly why Srap Tasmaner's "St. Louis to Kansas City" idea failed.

So surely ampliation is required to understand the opposing view, and a rather abrupt and extreme form of it. This issue is explored a lot in the field of interreligious studies, where there can be significant limitations on one's ability to understand another view (and the same thing could be said to hold between secular and religious thinking). Religion and culture are the two biggies, where a form of conversion and life is required in order to truly understand. — Leontiskos

I don't know. Would this mean that it would be impossible for a person to convert from one position to another? When I was a Christian I had one framework but began to notice things like how what you believed often depended on where you were born and raised, which made me start questioning my beliefs. I eventually became an atheist. I had overcome my upbringing. What you seem to be saying that what happened to me is impossible. Or are you saying I'm not really an atheist because my original framework prevented me from understanding what it actually means to be an atheist?

For the realist realism is not merely a framework; and for the solipsist solipsism is not merely a framework. To say "both" would require the adherent to claim that their own framework (e.g. realism or solipsism) is superior to other frameworks. — Leontiskos

Right. To say "both" is saying that the framework more accurately reflects the state-of-affairs than other frameworks do and is what makes you a solipsist or a realist.

So is the question, "How can we know when a framework more accurately represents the state-of-affairs?" or "How can we distinguish between the framework and the state-of-affairs?", or something else?

By calling it a "framework" I think we are already presupposing that it is contextualized, aren't we? I think realism presupposes that not every knowledge-claim is reducible to a framework, or is even able to be captured by framework-talk. — Leontiskos

I don't know. Is solipsism a framework, or the state of reality, or both?

I find that the PMs enable deeper focus on a particular issue or argument, to deeply dive into a topic with one or two folk who know what they are talking about. — Banno

It seems that much of what people talk about on this forum is what other philosophers have said, and what some philosophers said is always dependent upon what they knew about the world at their time, and their language reflects that. To someone that hasn't studied what some philosopher has said it may appear that some don't know what they are talking about.

I don't have much experience in what other philosophers have said. I have a lot of experience in what scientists have said and it is our current scientific knowledge that shapes what present-day philosophers say. Dead philosophers probably wouldn't say what they said if they lived today.

I form my philosophy about the nature of the world by integrating what all scientists have said, not what some few dead philosopher have said, about the world. So from a scientific perspective it can appear that you don't know what you're talking about when what you're talking about doesn't take into account the current scientific understanding of how we develop and learn in the world.

:up:
Posting on the forums creates more opportunity to receive input from varying points of view and potential valid criticisms.

Is having to wade through all the drivel to get the few good responses that allow one's ideas to evolve worth it? For me it is.

In what ways has Banno evolved other than him steering more towards using PMs to preach to his choir?

And when the definition of a more authoritative dictionary is provided (the one Google uses and provides as the top result) ... you just dismiss it entirely and you know better than the English professors at Oxford. — boethius

I wasn't arguing about which dictionary we use, only that we use a dictionary to guide our use of terms.

You provided two definitions:

1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Similar:

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. — Google citing Oxford Languages

I was referring to the first one. If you want to refer to the second one, that is fine. Neither definition mentions socialism or libertarianism. So it would now be necessary to define socialism and libertarianism to see where those definitions overlap with anarchy and where they don't.

My point was that many people conflate the first definition with libertarianism but isn't libertarianism, and the second definition is more like libertarianism than socialism.

I am pretty sure I had almost this same conversation re reasons versus causes with ↪J, using the stop sign example. Maybe it was a stop light :rofl: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Great minds think alike :cool:

I would just suggest that a difficulty here is that "causes" is often used very narrowly, as always referring to a linear temporal sequence (either as extrinsic ordering, or a sort of intrinsic computation-like process), but also very broadly as encompassing the former, but also all "reasons." Or, causes might also be used narrowly in a counterfactual sense. "Reasons" often tend to include a notion of final and formal causality that is excluded from more narrow formulations of "cause." — Count Timothy von Icarus

It depends on how we want to look at causes. Causes are an interaction of two or more things (like a broken tree limb and a window, or like a stop sign, a car and a driver) to create a new set of circumstances - an effect (the broken window, or stopping at a stop sign). Physicists often describe it as a transfer of energy. We should also consider that every effect is also a cause of subsequent effects, and that our current goal is what makes us focus on specific parts of the ongoing causal chain of events - that the boundaries between a cause and its effects are arbitrarily dependent upon the current goal in the mind.

You can raise your hand, or I can do it for you. Both of our wills are the causes of your hand being raised. You might resist me in which case it would be both a battle of wills and of strength, but our comparative strengths only come into play if our wills are still battling - I intend on raising your arm, while you intend on resisting. How can a will cause anything? If a will can be a cause why can't a reason?

So, it's tricky. Lift is a "cause of flight," but you won't find the "principle of lift" as an observable particular in any instance of flight. Likewise, moral principles are causes of people's actions, but you won't find them wandering about the world. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure if I'd agree that lift is a cause of flight. It seems to me to be part of what flight is. If you are flying you have lift. A cause would be what preceded the act of flying, just as what preceded the act of stopping at a stop sign. The cause of flight is the interaction of wings and air before one declares flight has been achieved. At what point in the process of running, flapping ones wings and jumping in the air does one achieve the effect of flight? It seems to me that lift is something you have already achieved to say that you are flying - not something that preceded the act of flying.

Just because we don't see moral principles "wandering about the world" (and I assume you mean wandering around independently of minds) does not mean that moral principles do not exist in the world.
They do - as mental constructs, or reasons, for determining one's actions. Morals exist only as characteristics of minds, just as ripeness only exists as a characteristic of of fruit. We don't see ripeness wandering about the world either. If that were the case the world would be a fruit, or the world a mind in the case of morals. They are properties of specific things in the world, like minds and fruit, not properties of the world itself.

Understandably, if there is no choice or decision -- if one adopts a hardcore physicalism or determinism -- then the distinction rather collapses. — J

Not necessarily. I am a determinist and a free-will Libertarian. How do I reconcile the two? I see freedom as having access to as much information as possible. By having access to as much information as possible, you are able to make more informed decisions. By having access to more information, you might choose differently, or you at least have the power to choose differently than you would have if you didn't have the information.

Many people make this assertion that determinism implies that you have the feeling of being forced into something you didn't want to. I say that determinism implies that you have a feeling of naturally choosing what decision is best. Your decisions and actions would feel natural, not forced, if determinism is the case. You always make the best decision with the information you have at that moment. It is only your fear of the consequences that you cannot foresee that make it feel forced. Thinking that you should have chosen differently only comes after the consequences have been realized (after you have more information).

That's a bit dire. I didn't say there was no such thing as a shared world, or that we can never decide how to talk about it meaningfully. I just meant that, taken out of any context, the term "the world" is going to refer to different things for different people. If you and I, or anyone else, want to introduce the term into a conversation, it would be a good idea to first agree on some rough reference. We could locate our usage on a map of well-known usages, such as physicalism, idealism, intersubjectivity, Platonism, et al.

I would say there's no wrong way to do this -- it's only a term -- we just need to stipulate how we'll use it. Then we can indeed talk about our shared world, and if it turns out that our way of using the term isn't as perspicuous as we wanted it to be, we can revise. — J

When someone says that "world" is going to mean different things for different people then you're saying that all qualifiers for "world" are up for debate, including "shared". You could be a solipsist for all I know.

Terms are not really the issue. It is what we are referring to with those words that is the issue. We might use different terms to refer to the same thing, or maybe the boundaries of our terms might overlap in some way. So what if I were to define the world as everything that was, is and will be?

I'm not sure if this line of questioning is going to be useful. Suffice to say, I am a monist and a determinist, so am going to view the world as seamless where there are no "physical" boundaries with the mental. Causes and reasons are the same thing from different views. One monist might say everything is physical. Another might say that everything is mental, or ideas. I like to try to merge the best of the two together and say that everything is information. The world consists of deterministic causal relations - information.

It's not just a matter of having access to information. It's also a matter of who to trust. I chose to trust a qualified and experienced psychiatrist over my parents because I thought that was the right thing to do. I can't even come off the 600 mg of Quetiapine XL I take per night because my brain has become dependent on this medication, and I can't function without it. I am depressed even though I take such a high dose. — Truth Seeker

Getting a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc opinion would also qualify as getting more information before making a decision. I always try to find natural remedies first and will seek alternate opinions if the first doctors are recommending pharmaceuticals or surgery first. They should always be a last resort. And another suggestion, children should listen to their parents more. Parents are not the ignorant, out of touch people that the media portrays to teens. Parents' motives are not typically related to money where a doctor's can be.

I meant whether my nonexistence would have been better for me, compared to the life I have lived so far, which has been mostly suffering. Also, my nonexistence would have prevented all of my negative and positive impacts on others and the world e.g. ecological footprint. I am a Vegan, Egalitarian, Sentientist. — Truth Seeker

That is an unanswerable question, and best not to waste time contemplating it as it would just make your depression worse. There is always someone or some animal that is suffering more. It would be more productive to focus on ways to improve your life than to focus on things you have no control over or can never hope to answer.

Not all of philosophy is contained in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. — boethius

All of philosophy is contained in language which Merriam-Webster provides guidance for using.

Furthermore, a dictionary's goal is to list the most common uses of a word, and not many, if any, meanings specific to a tradecraft or discipline. — boethius

Sure, you can use symbols arbitrarily for your own private use, but if you intend on sharing your ideas, then you might consider using words in ways that others are using them (the common use vs your own private use). It would be like you trying to talk to someone else in a different language.

Not only that, but your definitions need to integrate well with the other words we use that are defined in the dictionary, or you do you never use any words as they are defined in a dictionary?

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. — Google citing Oxford Languages

Sounds more like Libertarianism, not socialism. Libertarianism is for limited government that does not intrude on personal choices to voluntarily cooperate with other individuals while socialism/communism is for a more robust government that insists on imposing itself within and dictate every personal cooperative agreement. This is what I mean in that if you want to use a word differently it needs to integrate well with the way we use other related words, or else you'll find yourself redefining all words and creating your own language.

Also an important caveat, property in this context is the means of production — boethius

And where does production occur if not within a territory you have to own to then say that you own the means of production within that territory? Why isn't the means of production shared with other societies? Because the means of production occurred within a certain territory and not another.

Not everyone can have the latest iPhone. In a socialist society, who gets the latest iPhone?

Do you think it's the case that, in our everyday talk, no one would find a meaningful difference between what caused the broken window, and the reason why the window broke? — J

I'm not sure. This is the first time I'm asking this question of anyone, including myself. It does appear to be the case given how they are using the terms. I would have to ask that if they do mean something different, what exactly is it that is different.

What I have in mind is that reasons generally are broader, and to ask an interesting
question about reasons is often to require an answer that talks about more than some efficient cause like a tree limb. — J

I don't know. It seems to depend on what we are talking about. It seems to me that we can give specific reasons or broader reasons as to why some state-of-affairs is the case, and those reasons correspond to the causes as to why some state-of-affairs is the case. We could talk about more broader causes of the tree limb breaking in the tree had to grow to a certain height to have one of its branches break the window, another tree had to begat the tree near the window, all the way down to the Big Bang, or we could talk about the more immediate (specific) cause/reason as to why the window is broken - a tree limb broke and hit the window.

(And my personal view is that any talk of "the world" is going to be a matter of stipulation, as there is no agreement on how to use such a term.) — J

If you don't agree that the world is something we share, then I don't know how to talk to you about anything and we would just talk past each other all the time. Do you think that we are always talking past each other when talking about the shared world?

Well, mostly anarchists and communists are both communists — boethius

Then why do so many people on this forum conflate anarchy with libertarianism - as in do whatever you want?

Anarchy:
absence of government
b
: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
the city's descent into anarchy
c
: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without [any] government [including socialist governments]
2
a
: absence or denial of any authority or established order
anarchy prevailed in the war zone
b
: absence of order — Merriam Webster

It must be that the are using anarchy as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, not as defined in your "Marxist Dictionary".

the end goal is the same of living in equal and vibrant communities without private property. — boethius

You're leaving out the part where the socialist goal is for the state to be the only owner of property - privately owned and not shared with the rest of the world. Government property isn't much different than private property in that the government still has to defend it by force.

This happens because I am haunted by previous errors. If I had known how things would turn out, I would have chosen differently. — Truth Seeker

Exactly. If you had access to more information you would have chosen differently. So the question is, could it have been at all possible for you to have that information when making your decision? If not, then you can't blame yourself. You made the best possible decision given the information you had at that moment. Now, we could talk about who might be to blame, if anyone, for your limited access to information (and it could be you that is to blame if you chose to live in a bubble) that would have allowed you to make a more informed decision, but that is a different topic.

Wouldn't it have been better if I had never existed at all? — Truth Seeker

Only if you were Caligula, Hitler or Stalin. But even then, every human is an example of the variety humans come in and permits us to bear witness the scope of human experience and existence that exists.

That's why I mentioned what happens at a stop sign. What caused us to stop? Is what caused us to stop the same as the reason why we stopped?

A broken tree limb caused the broken window. The broken tree limb was the reason the window is broken. What's the difference?

I think the stop sign example is better because the process crosses those "physical" boundaries into the mental. The tree limb breaking the window does not include a mind in the process like the stopping at a stop sign does.

Is our reasoning merely representing the causal process? If we assert there are causal process in the world, why would that not be applied to our minds being that our minds are part of the world? If we were omniscient, we could predict every effect of every cause, and that would include the causes of others' behaviors - the reasons they use to act certain ways.

The plan was to approach the problem of relativism in a particular way, by acknowledging that you are already relying on some particular worldview (etc) when you face the question of whether some other worldview is "acceptable" or in some other way good. It's not like going shopping for something you don't have yet. (Hence the usefulness of the metaphor of where you live, since you must already live somewhere — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know. We are all born solipsists. When we reach 8-12 months of age we convert to realism by acquiring object permanence. Was realism and the idea of other minds a position the toddler already had, or did it just make more sense to the toddler that their mother (other minds) still exists when they are not seen or heard after interacting with the world over the past 8-12 months?

The sorts of issues I wanted to raise seem obvious to me: you've got a worldview, and presumably it provides the framework within which you will evaluate alternative worldviews ― smart money is on finding that you've already got the best one and the others are crap. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know. If you start evaluating other worldviews are you not expressing some dissatisfaction with the one you currently have? Once you start evaluating other worldviews, can you say you are in a state of actually having one?

It's extraordinary to have someone use the internet to deny that the world is coherent and predictable. — Banno

It's extraordinary to claim that the world is coherent and predictable yet we all fail to come to a common understanding of what the world is, how it came to be, what our purpose is (or even if there there is one), what is moral, what is real, what is truth, what language is, etc.

Maybe the world is coherent and predictable to me and those that disagree with the way I interpret simply don't have the intellect to grasp the way I interpret it.

If the world is so coherent and predictable then why do you assert that so many people on this forum are wrong in the way they are interpreting their experiences of the world? Why don't you agree with me 100% of the time?

But reasoning is not a logical rule. — Quk

Reasoning is using reasons to support a conclusion - logic.

Is this a partial answer to the above questions? Do reasons determine a conclusion in the same way that a physical cause determines an effect? Not trying to back you into that position, just intrigued whether you do see them as the same. — J

What does "physical" mean? Your question seems to stem from a dualist perspective in that somehow mental processes not part of the "physical" world, or are somehow distinct from "physical" processes. Its all process. I don't see "physical" as a useful distinction when a process can encompass both physical and mental - like participating in a philosophical discussion on an internet forum. Reading involves the process of looking at the scribbles on your computer screen (what you might call a physical object) and processing the input to produce a valid response by typing on your keyboard and clicking the submit button.

What caused you to look at your computer screen? What caused you to interpret the scribbles on the screen the way you did? What caused your response to appear on others' computer screens? It seems to me that there was a whole lot of causation crossing "physical" boundaries here, appearing to be without any regard to "physical" things. Is the term even necessary?

Don't we point to "physical" states of affairs as reasons to act certain ways? For instance, when you see a Stop sign, is that not the reason you stop? A stop sign is a "physical" object that somehow becomes a mental construct - a reason - to perform an action - to stop. Why did you stop? Because there was a stop sign. You might also run into the stop sign and stop by the stop sign impeding your movement forward. Was the stop sign the reason you stopped in both cases?

If this is going somewhere, please dispense with Socratic questions and get to the point. On the other hand, if you have no clue, as you seem to imply, then go and have a good think, and get back to us when you have something to even start a conversation. I am not interested in watching you stumble in the dark. — SophistiCat

"Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that the former is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems."
-Wikipedia.

Your somewhat literal interpretation might miss the point that what a city is like is dependent on what one chooses to do in that city. — Banno

Is there a difference between what something is like and what something is?

Why do you think that? The problem is that the "contextualists" presumably do not see their position as precluding realism. — Leontiskos

Is the framework that supports the realism of other minds and their contents context-de/independent?

So now we are asking, "Are there [paradigm/framework/worldview/evidence regime/language game/scheme]-independent standards?" — Leontiskos

Talk about "language on holiday".

It seems to me that you're simply asking if realism is the case. Is it?

It seems to me, although I am not certain, that logic requires higher mind functions and perhaps self-awareness. I'd say rather that animals think and behave effectively. — T Clark

Sure. I can agree with that. It depends on how we're defining "logic". If I were defining "logic" in more broad terms, I would say that it is a means of processing inputs to produce accurate/useful outputs, and all brains (and computers) do that.

Many animals have much more complex and intelligent behaviors than that. I think, although again I don't have specific knowledge, moths aren't attracted to the moon but to a bright light against a dark background. This is, I assume, a genetically encoded instinct and is not learned. That's not logic or even logical. — T Clark

As I said, the moth's behavior only appears illogical because we can distinguish the difference between the porch light and the Moon. So of course many animals are capable of more complex behaviors because they can make finer distinctions thanks to their larger, more complex brain.

Moths use the Moon to navigate. They use the distant light source to keep an angle that allows them to fly straight. If you were to take the position of the Moth, having evolved in an environment where there were no porch lights, this method works, and would continue to work until the Moon ceases to exist as a light source. If we were living in a time before there were porch lights and observed the moth's behavior, it would appear completely and utterly logical. The environment changed and now the method is not as useful as it once was. We can tell the difference, but the moth cannot. It was designed to handle a different problem, or handle different input.

humans are exponentially more complex in the way they perceive and behave in the world than the other animals.
— Harry Hindu

This is just not true. — T Clark

Please, explain why it isn't. What other animals are aware of their own extinction and have the power to do something about it?

It's clear, at least to me, that organisms without brains have had a much greater impact on the environment than those with them. This is from Wikipedia: — T Clark

Environmental scientists are saying that we're doing the same thing - modifying the atmosphere on a global scale. We even have theories of how to do it on Mars.

Is this right? Or is it sufficient that we be able to treat things as distinct entities?

Couldn't this be mistaking method for ontology? Mistaking what we do for how things are?

So again, I'm far form convinced that you are not presuming your conclusion. — Banno

It depends on the goal. Sometimes it is useful to treat things as distinct entities. Sometimes it isn't.

If treating entities one way or the other produces useful results in that you are able to realize your goal, then there must be some semblance of truth to the way we are treating it. Can there be distinct entities that form relations between other distinct entities? Yes. You just have to ensure you're not conflating the relation with the distinct entity when you're trying to solve a problem or achieve some goal.

Having goals is the reason we categorize and organize reality into labeled boxes, and we can store boxes within larger boxes. Each box is a tool for solving a problem.

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case?
— Harry Hindu

There are many things without which you cannot perform logic - breathable atmosphere, for example. What's the point of this and the rest of your questions?

Again, there doesn't seem to be a clear direction of inquiry here - just random things being thrown out. — SophistiCat

You're trying to finish the race before starting it. Most people on this forum, once they realize the direction of inquiry, start to dance around the issue. Does a newborn baby have a direction of inquiry when trying to understand and make sense of what its senses are telling it? Don't worry about the direction of inquiry right now and just answer the questions as posed. If there is a problem with the question or you need some definitions for the words in the question, just say so.

Your answer to my quoted question seems to imply that a breathable atmosphere is required to to perform logic. While that wasn't my question it does show that determinism and causation are required - that there are certain circumstances that have to exist prior to other circumstances existing.

My question was more about the logical process itself, not what preceded its existence.

Reasoning takes time. It is a process. As such it is causal.

You provide a reason for your conclusions. Your reasons determine your conclusion. Your premises determine the validity of the conclusion. As such it is deterministic.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

Has any of these humans made it into the sky using their own wings?

Your anthropocentrism is using the method of cherry picking. And your conclusions are naturalistic fallacies. — Quk

Your response does not address what I said. Read what I said and respond appropriately.

Humans have made their own wings. Has any other animals designed complex machinery that adds functionality to the human body? Have other organisms designed other body parts to replace failing ones using their brains? Sure lizards can regrow tails, but that is a biological function, not a logical one. I did say that the brain is the logical organ. Your legs, hands and mouth are not logical organs. They are driven by your logical organ.

I'm not saying that humans are special. I'm saying that they are different in respect to their brains and how they use them. This is not an anthropocentric stance. It is merely an observation.

Humans are the only ones at this moment that stand a chance of saving themselves from extinction from dangers that the other animals aren't even aware of - asteroid impacts, black holes, the sun expanding and consuming the Earth, human activity destroying the environment, etc.

I guess I confused things when I wrote "just as much." I didn't mean sentient animal's minds and behaviors are as complex as human's. I meant their minds, their intelligence, are just as big a part of their nature. Animals are capable of using their minds to make images, remember, communicate, create abstractions, and solve problems, obviously, some more than others. — T Clark

Then we agree that animals think and behave logically given the way they are designed and the sensory information they receive as inputs, just as I explained with my example with the moth.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

You, or rather Jacob Brownoski, wrote "he is not a figure in the landscape—he is a shaper of the landscape." I responded that animals shape the landscape too, some with their brains some not. What does that have to do with going to the moon? — T Clark

Again we are talking about degrees of complexity where humans are exponentially more complex in the way they perceive and behave in the world than the other animals. They all use their brains to shape the landscape. Name an animal that can shape the landscape without a brain, or that when shaping the landscape they are not using their senses and brain. For what reason are they shaping the landscape? How do they know when to stop shaping the landscape?

Causation was not thought to be a law of logic, even in Hume's time. Aristotle, whose doctrines on both these subjects were predominant in Western philosophy, certainly didn't present it in that way. While Hume's analysis sharpened and clarified the distinction, he wasn't breaking any new ground with this observation. It was rather his austere empiricist take on causality that distinguished his view, but that is about more than simply noting that there is no logical contradiction in denying any particular instance of causation. — SophistiCat

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case? What is logic? What does it mean for a conclusion to "logically follow" from the premises? Is reasoning a causal process?

Sure, but the fact that some particular process led to man's desire for truth as such doesn't preclude the fact that man can now desire truth for its own sake. That is, man can seek truth for the sake of truth and not for the sake of evolutionary advantage. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I doubt we seek truth for the sake of seeking truth. We seek truth to acquire some kind of advantage (knowledge) about how to improve our lives to some degree. But that doesn't mean we don't acquire knowledge that does not have a direct effect on our survival. We do.

Like I said, survival is the best incentive to get your perceptions about the world right, and that may require that we pick up things that don't have a direct impact on our survival. Understanding that there are other planets that we can colonize to improve the chances of humanity avoiding extinction is one thing, but understanding how to do it another thing. You'll need to know about all the physics that goes into designing a rocket ship to accomplish it, which is in itself not knowledge that has a direct impact on our survival.

Yes. His defense of free speech argues that soundwaves do not cause the hairs in the inner ear to convert mechanical energy into electrical signals. I have only been trying to explain that this interpretation of causation is false, and so his defense of free speech fails. — Michael

Personally, I don't care.

I'll interpret the lack of any rebuttal on your part to everything else I said regarding free speech as an agreement with what I said about free speech.