I agree. I took that to be part of asking how a "sense" of stimuli could take place.

I don't read "arises" as a type of causation. We need a verb to describe what happens when two phenomena occur at the same time, and yet one appears to ground the other. That's what I think "arises" is supposed to mean here. Causation should be reserved for things that occur sequentially in time. Wolfgang's two levels of description are a good example. Does the presence of 22 people on a soccer field, following certain rules, "cause" a soccer game? This would be a very awkward and counter-intuitive way of putting it. Rather, we'd say that the soccer game simply is the 22 people following the rules, under a different description.

(Note, BTW, that speaking of "two phenomena" somewhat begs the question, but it's hard to find a non-question-begging way of putting it.) — J

In this sense, consciousness is the presence of colors, sounds, smells, and feelings and the thoughts that categorize these sensations into logical ideas the same way a soccer game is the presence of 22 people on a field following rules. How do we get from that to consciousness being the interaction of neurons? Is it two separate phenomenon, or the same phenomenon being described from two different perspectives?

Something is real in contrast to things that are not real - is it real money, or counterfeit? Is that really water, or a mirage? Is that a real argument, or just a vague rant? — Banno

None of this explains what it means to be real. What property of counterfeit money, mirages and arguments are we are comparing exactly if not the causes or circumstances that are necessary for them to exist?

I disagree. Counterfeit money is counterfeit from the get go, having not been manufactured in a way that grants it legitimacy. — Banno

Exactly. Counterfeit has a determinate existence prior to being measured and it is in measuring (comparing the appearance of real money to counterfeit money) that one knows it is really counterfeit money.

Counterfeit money is real/exists in that there are prior causes that are necessary for it's existence and causes different things to happen when someone knows it is counterfeit. There is real counterfeit money and real money. You can hold up a counterfeit bill and say, "This is a real counterfeit bill".

Counterfeit bills and money are made of electrons.

Frodo and Mordor have a determinate existence as ideas. So there is no problem in saying that "Frodo is real" because Frodo is real, as an idea. The issue isn't when someone says "Frodo is real". It is when someone says "Frodo is a person", just as if someone to hold up a counterfeit bill and say, "This is money". It seems to me we can dispense with term "real" altogether and just use "exist".

There's a reason why Chalmers says "arises from" rather than "is caused by." — J

What's the difference? If you are saying that something comes from the actions of something else, or from some other process that is in a different spatial-temporal location than what is arising, and is dependent upon the existence of that process, then you're talking about causality. "Arise" is a type of causal process.

But that's precisely the hard problem: Whence this "ability to sense stimuli"? Why couldn't the stimuli simply do their thing (including whatever self-correction you want to build into it) without being sensed? — J

Consciousness obviously provides survival benefits to the organisms that have it. It allows organisms to adapt to more dynamic environments rather than relying on instinctual behaviors to evolve which could take generations. The hard problem is more more about trying to explain how color "arises" from non-colored things, like neurons and wavelengths.

They [electrons] only have a tendency to exist. We know they don't have any determinate existence until they're measured. That is an implication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We also know that sub-atomic phenomena can behave as both waves and particles, and so are not really either one or the other, as those two forms of existence are incommensurable. — Wayfarer

I am not familiar enough with quantum physics to comment back: I don't understand how to reconcile qp with practical life---it seems incoherent. — Bob Ross

Exactly. What does that even mean to not have determinate existence until they are measured? It sounds like confusing the map with the territory. They are confusing the measurement with the electron. To say that something doesn't have a determinate existence is to say that it hasn't been measured yet. If what we are measuring does not have a determinate existence, then what is being measured and what property of the electron is the measurement pointing to? If it isn't pointing to anything then how can we say we actually measured an electron?

Something exists if it is in the domain of discourse. Frodo walked into Mordor, therefore there is something that walked into Mordor.

Something is real in contrast to things that are not real - is it real money, or counterfeit? Is that really water, or a mirage? Is that a real argument, or just a vague rant?

Other uses are parasitic. — Banno

All you are describing here is a category error, where some information is a product of our brain (Frodo and Mordor), and assumed to point to something outside of our brain as opposed to a product of some other process (how money is made). Counterfeit money is real money when you buy things with it. It is only when someone is able to make the distinction (measured) and no longer accepts it does it become counterfeit (if we are to apply the same line of thinking Wayfarer described about electrons).

They both have causal power. The idea of Frodo and Mordor can cause you to talk about them and draw pictures of them and movies being made about them. Counterfeit money can cause other things to happen in the world. They are both real and exist in that sense. To be real, or to exist, simply means that thing has causal power. It is both an effect of prior causes and a cause of subsequent effects.

Frodo and Mordor are real ideas. They exist as ideas. The category error comes about by asserting that Frodo and Mordor are not just ideas.

In truth, it is not a causal relationship, but a correlation between two different levels of description of the same phenomenon. By falsely establishing a causal relationship, we artificially create the seemingly insoluble question of how neuronal activity can give rise to conscious experience. — Wolfgang

I don't think the issue is causation. The issue is in thinking in dualistic ways, as in material vs immaterial, physical vs non-physical and objective vs subjective. When you think of the world as composed of two opposing things then you have a problem of explaining how those two things can interact causally.

Consciousness is information. Information is a relationship between effects and their causes. We don't seem to have a problem with causation in describing all the other processes of the world. It's only when we get to consciousness that we seem to have the problem. But this is an issue that stems from thinking of the world in dualistic terms, not an issue of causation.

Consciousness and the rest of the world is not subjective or objective. It is something that is both an effect and a cause of change in the world. Consciousness is no different than a map of the world. Maps are information about the environment relative to a certain location (a bird's eye view). Consciousness is the same thing from a different location of your senses. So what makes a map objective and consciousness subjective when they are both an arrangement of information about the environment, but just from different locations? The way the information is structured, whether it be a map or consciousness, depends upon the relative location within the environment one is describing. When you are flying in a plane and look down, does your perspective suddenly become objective because the structure of the information is similar to a map?

We infer that they see things differently on the basis of observation and analysis of their different sensory setups. We can infer that they see different ranges of colour, or even only in black and white for example.

It's true that we can get the same or similar information from different sensory modalities, but the sensations themselves are different. All of that information falls inot the category of 'how things appear or present themselves to us'. — Janus

Then what is missing exactly if we know the way they see the world?

It seems natural to think that there must be more to things than just how they appear or seem to be. Of course we can never know more than that, but the fact that we are compelled to think of the 'in itself' has many ramifications for human life. Not in terms of something we know, but in terms of what we can never know. The knowledge here is just self-knowledge. — Janus

But I asked what a "thing in itself" even means. It sounds like a misuse of language. Does it mean to BE the thing in itself? If so, is there a BEING to a chair, table, house, car, or rock? If not then there is nothing missing.

As to our experience of mind I think this is a real minefield. If mind consists only in our experience and judgements would it follow that we know all there is to know about it? Psychedelics and altered states in general show that we have the potential for very different experiences, so it would seem presumptuous to imagine that we have explored all there is to know about what it is possible to experience. — Janus

So the thing in itself includes all states of the thing in the past, present or future? We don't see an apple on the table in the future. We see it in the present. We are talking about the thing in itself at this moment. I'm talking about the right here and now. Do you have direct access to your mind in it's current state? Are you experiencing your mind as "the thing in itself" at this moment?

Even with that said, we can make predictions and get at past causes by our present observations. If we get at the past causes and make accurate predictions, again - what is missing?

As much as the marketing department where I work might wish that were so, that isn't how things work as far as I can tell. There seem to be hard limits to what can be done in a great many ways regardless of goals. — wonderer1

I don't understand the point you're making here. Providing real-world examples would be helpful here. The hard limits would be the limited relevant information to achieving some goal. Most information is irrelevant to achieving some goal. You don't need to know how fast your lawn grows to get a spacecraft to Mars. We don't need an infinite number of significant figures after a decimal point to successfully land a spacecraft on Mars.

There are all sorts of metrological limits, in addition to the ones which affect measurement of voltage.

Modern logic ICs are running up against quantum limits which pose problems for shrinking transistor size.

Then to look at things from a different angle, you can buy a quantum random number generator to plug into your computer. — wonderer1

Events appear random when we don't have a proper explanation of the event. Once we do, the event is no longer random but predictable. What roles does the observer effect play here, ie consciousness? Our senses are macro sized objects trying to get at quantum sized objects. There's bound to be some kind of preliminary misinterpretation of the behavior of quantum sized objects. There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics to say one way or the other.

Regarding Edgar shooting up the Pizzaria: you agreed the disinformation he received was a necessary condition to his action, but then you (bizarrely) claimed the disinformation did no "contribute" to his bad act. I asked, and you did not answer: "So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?" — Relativist

This has been addressed already. Do you believe that playing violent video games leads one to shoot up schools? Should we ban violent video games, or sue the developers? Not everyone that plays violent video games goes and shoots up a school. Why?

Regarding my proposal to require watermarks on deepfaked videos, I asked (and you did not answer): who's harmed by such a requirement?
In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?" — Relativist

I've personally been discussing DISinformation: lies. Disinformation that is repeated becomes misinformation - a tougher problem to deal with. But knowingly spouting falsehoods isn't so fuzzy. Fox knew they were telling falsehoods, and were appropriately held to account.

The person who creates a deepfake video knows he's faking it - lying. That's not a matter of alternative opinions, it's an unequivical fact. That's worth addressing, and entails no ambiguity. — Relativist

So are you saying that we should depend on the person who knows he is faking it to add watermarks to their own video? If not, who decides what is a deep face video and what isn't if not logic and reason? Doesn't the deep fake video need to be released so that it is exposed to public criticism - to logic and reason. If it isn't released and circulates among a private group, how are we suppose to stop that? Your proposals to solve the problem do not seem to fit with the way these things work.

Well, whether the product "works" can be a matter of degree as well. Suppose the gadget is a voltmeter. Whether it works to measure voltage with the accuracy and precision desired can be an important question, and at some level the accuracy can only be a guess because for practical reasons what a volt is, is going to be defined by some metrological body (in the US NIST) which will only provide a limited level of uncertainty. Furthermore, the uncertainty provided by leading national metrology institutes is very much a function of the NMI's ability to account for quantum factors. — wonderer1

Again, the goal will determine the level of accuracy (information) that is needed to accomplish the goal. All other information is irrelevant, not missing or not known. If it weren't known we wouldn't even be able to talk about it and use it as an example of missing something in the thing in itself.

You might be surprised at the extent to which practical matters bump into quantum limitations in today's world. — wonderer1

Examples?

It seems to me that any merging between the macro and quantum worlds is going to happen with a good explanation of consciousness.

I don't know if this was meant to be addressed to me since I didn't say we have incomplete knowledge of things in themselves. That said I agree with the idea. Just as an example we have good reason to think other animals see things differently than we do. We can't see things as they do so there way of seeing things is a different kind of knowledge of things than ours. There for we can say that our knowledge of things is incomplete. We also seem to necessarily think that things must have an inherent existence that is not (fully, at least) apprehended in their appearances to us, or even the totality of all their appearances to all the creatures they appear to. — Janus

To say that animals see things differently than we do implies that we know something about how they see things. We sense things differently using different senses. Seeing a surface and feeling a surface provides us the same information in different forms. If we can be informed of the same thing via different methods then it seems to me that there isn't much more, if any, to the thing in itself. If there is then we'd never know it and wouldn't even be able to use it as evidence that we don't experience things as they are.

Do we experience our mind as the thing in itself? Is that what one means by the thing in itself is that you have to BE the thing?

The Axios article linked to a Pew survey that showed Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mistrust scientists. — Relativist

This is probably true because the Republicans are more religious and have a history of rejecting evolution. Scientists (and doctors) don't do themselves any favors when they become political as some have. And we should not forget that a defining aspect of science is that current theories are meant to be questioned and challenged. It's how progress is made (think of Galileo and Darwin) in challenging the status quo. You can only get there with free speech and exposing your theories to falsification. Some scientists seem to forget this.

I've never seen anyone denying the biological facts regarding sex. Are you perhaps referring to the trend to treat gender as a social role that can sometimes be inconsistent with biological sex? — Relativist

Everyone that I've asked to define gender just ends up giving me traits of biological sex (why change your biology if gender is a social role?) or sexist tropes (being a woman is wearing high heels and make-up).

Yes, that's unfortunate and it's exacerbated by the political parties. GOP leaders have to cater to their base by appealing to their anti-science trends and the embrace of conspiracy theories. In the process, they draw in more of the lunatic fringe - to which they will them endeavor to continue to court. The only remotely similar thing I see the Dems doing is to tiptoe around policies and attitudes toward transgenders. — Relativist

and systemic racism, identity politics, victimization (Republicans play the victimization game to), etc. I am Independent because I see extremists on both sides taking over the parties. It doesn't matter who wins because each one has authoritarian tendencies and we keep losing our freedoms slowly over time. I think Joe Dementia Biden has shown that it really doesn't matter who is president as they are not in control. Joe the Plumber could be the president and it wouldn't make a difference. But think about what would happen if you ran for office and made statements that you wanted to end corruption, and actually follow through with that threat. You would make enemies on both sides. They don't like outsiders coming in and upsetting their gravy train.

Everyone gets one term? I'd support that, but it won't happen - it would take a constitutional amendment. I'd like to see critical thinking skills taught in schools- but I anticipate Christian groups would oppose it. — Relativist

Not necessarily. If people wised up and voted for alternate candidates instead of Democrats or Republicans we could impose term limits ourselves. Critical thinking - That is why I am for school choice so that I have the option to send my kids to STEM schools (which I have).

Free speech has never meant the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want. Are laws against fraud and libel to be dispensed with because they infringe free speech?

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate? — Relativist

But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about misinformation. Who gets to define what misinformation is, if not logic and reason?

People here don't seem to realize that censorship and free speech are a double-edge sword. Start censoring one political side that you are not on sounds like a great idea but then what happens when the other side starts censoring your side? In a free-speech society, everyone has the same right. One's right to speak freely does not cancel another's right to speak freely. The solution comes about by debating the issues in an environment where everyone can speak their mind and logic and reason are the only determining factors in which idea wins out. Censorship just limits competitive ideas from being spoken. Power corrupts one into thinking that anyone that disagrees with them should be censored for the "greater good". All that does is stifle progress. So it is strange to see the ones that call themselves progressives are the ones advocating for censorship.

In a society "governed by the people" and a Constitution designed to be amended, it is just a case of the will of the people to make such a change. The question is are we already to late? Is society still a society governed by the people, or by elitists that hold on to their power using any tactics necessary (spreading misinformation)? So your answer is just give the elitists more power to control the people? It should be the other way around - give the people more power to control their representatives. My answer is to use our free speech to debate the issues with others that think it is a good idea to keep going the way we are going or to just give up which is what you seem to be saying.

Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation.
— Relativist — Paine

Censoring politicians, not everyone else. Politicians should just run on their records.

Yet the gadget works 99% of the time, and when it doesn't we find out the problem and issue a recall or release an updated product. The macro world and quantum world have not been sufficiently merged into a consistent whole. This indicates that there is a problem with one or the other (or maybe both), but then we can only use our senses to get at and solve the problem.

Axios is a left-leaning source of information. It seems to me that both sides engage in misinformation equally and reject science when it is politically expedient. Many Democrats have rejected biological facts regarding sex.

What really sucks is the level of politicization that has infiltrated society today. It's as if most people view every aspect of life through a political lens. I haven't seen any politician from either side as something to get excited for, or to revolve my life around. It's as if the powers that be are instigating a civil war by shoving politics down our throats every chance they get.

Here's an idea: how about we take campaigning for a position of power out of the equation? Impose term limits on Congress. Since politicians and liars are synonymous then why even put a microphone in front of a politician's face? Politicians should just run on their records not their words.

Human language is countably infinite because:

its alphabet is finite
every string in human language is of finite length — Tarskian

You seem to be forgetting that languages can evolve and it's use can be arbitrary. We can always add more letters to the alphabet and we only communicate what is relevant. Why would we need a word for every natural number if we never end up finding a use for those numbers? If the universe is finite then there is no problem here. If it isn't then the universe at least appears to be consistent in that the physical laws are the same no matter where you go in the universe. Novelty would be the only aspects of the universe needing new terms to describe them.

You speak as if you are getting at things as they truly are, or are you saying your statement is only true to a degree? If the latter, then how do you know the degree of truth in your statement if you didn't know what was missing from your statement to say that it is only true to a degree?

I don't think it's a black and white matter either. It is dependent upon our current goal and what information is irrelevant, not missing, to our goal.

and recognize that we can have some degree of incomplete knowledge of things-in-themselves? — wonderer1

I don't see any puzzle. It comes down to what is meant by saying we don't know things in themselves. Insofar as they are thought as what gives rise to our experience of a world of things, then of course we can say we do know them. But it can also obviously be said that we only know them as they appear to us. — Janus

How do we know that we have incomplete knowledge if we didn't already know what was missing? If we come to the conclusion that something is missing then how did we do that, and does that really mean that we have incomplete knowledge if we know what is missing?

Kant begins with the presupposition that our experience is representational and proceeds to correctly conclude that knowledge of the things-in-themselves is thusly impossible. — Bob Ross

Yet we use words to represent things that are not words and don't have much trouble understanding each other. I don't see how representations prevent us from getting at things in themselves in a deterministic universe where causes leave effects and we can communicate and solve crimes by using the effects to get at the causes.

I haven't suggested any actions (yet). I was just pointing out that more free speech doesn't address the problem...and also that the problem is very real. — Relativist

The right to question authority is a type of free speech.

So, in the case of fascists posing a real threat to the government, we should allow news outlets and public figures to propagate dangerous, subversive lies - and they would be dangerous - because you think people ought to question everything they hear? Do you think you imploring us on a philosophy forum to not take things at face value could actually have an effect on the people predisposed via conditioning to acting violently on the lies they hear? Do you think they would apply even the miniscule amount of rigor you mustered up to formulate your vapid responses to engaging with the truth of why they should do what they are told to do by their dear leader?

Do you think many Nazis asked for citations when Hitler claimed Jews were parasites on the German people in the 1939 Reichstag Speech? Did they critically examine the reasoning for his prediction that another world war would see the elimination of the Jewish race in Europe? — ToothyMaw

It seems to me that the ability to question authority would limit news organizations from propagating lies because they would be shown time and again to be reporting falsehoods and they would eventually go out of business.

It is when we lose the right to question authority that authoritarians take over.

Are there people that are unable to think critically? Sure. Just look at this forum. If we were to make critical thinking a bigger part of society's education then that could help in limiting how many are enthralled by propaganda.

It also seems to me that abolishing political parties would eliminate the group-think that individuals are exposed to. When people find it hard to think for themselves they look to the group to think for them and then regurgitate what the group authority espouses. Take that away and people will be forced to think more for themselves, and the news organizations wouldn't have a team to play on.

So giving people the power to think critically, to question authority and speak freely would defeat any effort to propagandize individuals.

Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so? I mean to say, why does language behave this way or what makes this true that language going on holiday is all that some philosophy amounts to? — Shawn

It's when we forget that language is used to communicate something factual about reality to others that we become bewitched. Just because some sentence follows some rules of some language does not make the sentence true or false. It is true or false when it refers to some aspect of reality or it doesn't. Not only do sentences need to be logically consistent, they have to be consistent with observations as well.

It's a combination of free speech and questioning authority. It seems to me that a man that shoots his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement didn't question the source of the information he received.

Whatever the man read probably just reinforced some idea he already had and a reason to engage in the violent tendencies he already had brewing within him.

Before I would take such drastic action, I would want to verify the source and legitimacy of the claims being made. How about you?

It seems that the obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it.

Ideas should be exposed to criticism by default, not taken at face value by default. Question everything. It is those that don't question what they read and hear that end up causing more harm than those that do.

One thing with many aspects, or many things that combine and "fight" to result in one outcome at a particular time seem philosophically the same to me. I'm not sure how one would differentiate between to two empirically?

So it seems like maybe this is just quibling over how we would want to name and frame the same underlying thing.

And ultimately I think my kind of framing is closer to how I experience it. I really do sometimes seem to be torn between two minds. One simple example is, I want to stay fit as a longer term goal, but then I also like eating food that isn't the best for reaching that longer term goal. Is that one will with two aspects, or two wills that battle with eachother? Does it really matter how we frame it ultimately? — ChatteringMonkey

This works if you equate one mind to one goal. It seems to me that I have one mind with many goals and many options to achieve each. If you did have two minds then how do you distinguish yourself from someone with split personality disorder?

In your example, you have two goals, not two minds. One is to experience the feeling of eating sugary/salty food and the other is to be healthy. From this point you weigh your options mostly based on one thing - what will make you the happiest? You eliminate one or the other based on this ultimate goal. For some, continuing to eat sugary/salty food is what makes them happy. Maybe they decided that they are going to eventually die one day healthy or not, so why not enjoy the ride before you drop dead? For others being healthy is what makes them happy. I can certainly vouch for seeing your weight drop each day and sleeping better, etc. can be more immediate results that can keep you on the track of eating healthy. Seeing your weight drop makes you happy and keeps you going.

So the question is are you trying to keep multiple selves happy, or just one? I seems to me that the person that wanted to eat a lot of chocolate is the same person that wants to be healthy. I can change my mind and changing my mind does not change who I am. I am a decision-making entity who simply wants to be happy and I have many ways of achieving this.

In Steven Pinker's book, "How the Mind Works", he defines intelligence as
"...the ability to attain goals in the face of obstacles by means of decisions based on rational (truth-obeying) rules."

I don't see how language-use is necessary to be rational. I have yet to receive an answer to the question of how one learns a language without being a rational thinker prior. Being a rational thinker allows one to learn a language, not the other way around.

Acting on one's instincts is still a rational process. There is a reason why instinctive behaviors allow some animal to survive - because those behaviors have worked in the organism's ancestral past. Because they work means that there is some element of truth in the way the animal perceives their environment and reacts to it. Think of instincts as "memories" stored in the organism's DNA to use in similar circumstances in the future.

Learned behaviors evolved as a way to respond to more rapid changes in the environment - changes that instincts are too slow to evolve a solution for. Think of learned behaviors as memories stored in one's brain to use in similar circumstances in the future.

All organisms engage in goal-directed behavior whether it is based on instincts or learned in the face of obstacles either by evolving truth-obeying instincts or by learning with a sensory feedback loop (responding to a stimulus and then observing the effects and then try again, observing those effects, try again, etc.) (truth-obeying rules).

You are resolving tensions in what you want, not in what you can or could do. So you still have the choices, you just don't want it anymore... so I would say no it doesn't limit your choices, it just give you a more clear idea of what you really want so you don't get pulled in all direction getting nowhere ultimately. — ChatteringMonkey

It seems to me that part of resolving tensions in what you want is resolving what you can or could do.

With the idea of a strong will to eat chocolate there may be conflict between the conscious and subconscious aspects of will. A person may enjoy chocolate but realise a need to not do so, especially for health reasons. This may create a complex dynamic and subconscious aspects, such as comfort, may be a stumbling block.

The other part of this may be where an intention or aspects of will fit in within the larger system of one's motivation and gratification. If one is trying to make change in one area of life a certain amount of stability in various other aspects may be important. That is because to deal with too much conflict and change at once may be too difficult. — Jack Cummins

You speak as if everyone has split personality disorder where multiple personalities, or wills (subconscious and conscious) battle to control the decision-making process. There is one will that has many options at any given moment. I enjoy chocolate but I also like to be healthy. I have a decision to make. It doesn't necessarily have to be a black and white issue. I can eat chocolate in moderation thereby achieving both eating chocolate and being healthy. Notice how I was able to explain it using just one will - I.

Can we change our own thoughts and behavior? — Jack Cummins

It seems quite obvious that we can. You just need to look at the many people that have been able to break their dependence on drugs, change their lifestyle to be healthier, manage their anger, etc. You can change your behavior. You just need to want it more than eating chocolate or taking drugs. You have one will that is faced with multiple options, not multiple wills fighting over one option.

I find it shocking that in discussions of free will no one is willing to actually describe the decision-making process - what it is like for them to make a decision from the moment they are faced with some set of circumstances, how they become aware of the options available to them and how they filter out all options to arrive at one choice.

I like the 2nd amendment too. I think it's not useful though if people don't have discernment about when to use it. IMO, the first red line that was crossed that was worth rebelling over was the creation of the federal reserve in 1913, and there have been many more red lines crossed since then. So, I tend to think of the US Republic as being in the past tense. — Brendan Golledge

Well, my point was that a lone wolf or farmer is less of a threat to a lone sheep with fangs and claws. It is only when the wolves or farmers organize into groups that the lone sheep with its fangs and claws would be in trouble. This is why it would be better for the lone sheep to join a group of like-minded sheep for protection. The 2nd amendment is only valid when you are in a group that respects your right to arm yourself for self-defense (like-minded). I thought I lived in such a group in the U.S. but it appears that wolves and farmers have taken over leadership positions in our group and are in the process are disarming us and limiting our freedom to speak out by using the "threat of misinformation" as a reason to silence opposing viewpoints.

It seems to me that if extremist Democrats had their way the U.S. would be a communist country. If the extreme Republicans had their way the U.S. would be a Fascist Christian theocracy. Both extremes are authoritarian. Moderate Democrats and Republicans have some authoritarian positions and some liberal positions. In the center of the line between the two extremes you have Libertarians who have no authoritarian positions and all liberal positions. Libertarians are the true liberals not these self-proclaimed "liberals" that are really authoritarian socialists when you look at their positions.

For a Libertarian, everyone should be able to live their lives without imposing their will on others. Once you feel the need to tell others how to live their lives or limit their choices you have crossed over into authoritarianism. Libertarians only need to group together when they are threatened by a group of authoritarians. If there were no groups of authoritarians, Libertarians would be happy to live their own lives and have the freedom to choose when to participate in a collective for the purpose of trading and accomplishing tasks that one individual could not accomplish and is beneficial to the individual and the group.

Personally, I think we should abolish political parties. That should blur the lines of division a bit where individuals are no longer looking for their partisan marching orders from their political party but would need to educate themselves on the positions of candidates running for office. Moderate candidates would be able to stick to their principles instead of being threatened by the extremists in on of the political parties to go along with their extremist agenda to receive support from the party in their next elections cycle. There would be less bias in the media as there wouldn't be a team to be the mouth-piece for.

What does one mean by "free will"?

As I think truely 'free will' is a logical impossibility as it leads to a kind of infinite regress (previous posts), what we really are pointing to is a will that isn't overly constrained by outside social forces, and/or a will that resolved some of its own inner tensions (strong will) and a will that is more influenced by outside social forces, and/or weakened or consumed by its own contradictions (weak will). — ChatteringMonkey

Does not "resolving its own inner tensions" involve limiting the amount of choices one has going forward vs being "consumed by contradictions" which would be having more choices, some of which are contradictory but are still options one could choose? Most people are equating freedom with choices. So the more choices, contradictory or not, is really just more freeom you can jave. Should I buy a new computer or not buy a new computer? I can't do both but both are options I can choose. By limiting contradictory options are you not limiting your options, and therefore your freedom?

There is probably a continuum of strong and weak wills. This is likely based on the degree of strength which a person has learned. Also, it is possible to be weak in some areas but strong in other aspects. For example, a person may be strong in resisting violent impulses, but be weak in bingeing on chocolate. — Jack Cummins

One might say that the person has a strong will to eat chocolate.

The solution is realizing that we are not sheep, or at least not just sheep. We are sheep with sharp teeth and claws (2nd amendment), or maybe just cats. The ultimate solution would be lab-grown meat for the wolf and farmer. :nerd:

As this thread has shown, it's complicated. A great deal depends on whether the statement "There are a hundred thalers on the table" occurs in a context where it's reasonable to assume it's also being asserted. — J

...like in everyday language-use because we typically use language to inform others of some state of affairs in the world whether it be what is on the table or what is on this page.

Lying is not the only thing that could call this into question. I might be genuinely mistaken about the thalers, though of course I'd still be asserting it. — J

...which you would be lying to yourself.

Or I could be merely mentioning the statement, or pointing out something about it, or asking for a discussion of its semantic content. — J

...which you would be referring to the scribbles on the page or the sounds coming from your mouth and not actually thalers on the table and would be just as redundant to say that "It is true that I am mentioning the statement" or pointing our something about it (like the statement exists on this page). In other words, it is redundant to make statements about things that we can already see for ourselves.

In such a case, the information/predicate that the statement is also true can be provided outside the context of an assertion, so that it isn't redundant. This all goes back to the basic Fregean question of whether we can "say" a proposition, or at least understand it, without asserting it, that is, separate semantics and truth-value from assertoric force. So I think my statement from the OP that you quote was too hasty. I should have written, "I can say 'It is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table' but this adds nothing to the semantic content of the proposition ‛There are a hundred thalers on the table’.

As to how we ascertain the truth of a statement, that's another story, and usually involves some combination of observation, as you say, and correct use of a language. The exact combination has been disputable and I'm sure will continue to be. — J

In other words, the semantic content involves what you are actually talking about that others can observe for themselves to verify the truth, whether it be thalers on the table or scribbles on the screen. I would say that the difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge is supported by both logic and observation while beliefs are only supported by one or the other.

That is, neither existence nor truth add anything, conceptually, to what they appear to be predicating ‛existence’ and ‛truth’ of. I can say “A hundred thalers exist” but this adds nothing to the concept ‛a hundred thalers’; I can say “It is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table” but this adds nothing to the proposition ‛There are a hundred thalers on the table’. — J

It seems to me that it adds nothing because it would be redundant. In making statements about things, you are implying that the things you talk about exist and that your statement is true. If not, then you are lying. When lying you don't say, "It is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table." as it is already implied that what you are saying is true and that thalers and the table exists. This is why people are fooled by false statements because they assume that the statement is true without the liar having to actually declare it is true as part of the statement. To show whether or not your statement is true, we need to make an observation.

If we can explain the workings of the universe if a logical way and logic permits us to acquire some truth about the universe, does that mean that all the processes in the universe are logical or rational? Let me just say that I am not implying some type of intelligence or goal-directed behavior (ie god) is at work here. In a deterministic universe would it be safe to say that all processes are rational, and as such we are able to determine causes from observed effects and predict effects from observed causes?

But we still don't know how animals make choices. And, it's doubtful that selections made by other animals can even qualify as decisions. To choose, and to decide, have very different meanings. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a weird assertion considering that the definition of "choose" is to decide, according to Merriam-Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/choose
So the ball is in your court again to explain YOUR distinction between what it means to choose as opposed to decide because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I answered this. It's the capacity to make choices. Some say it's free will, others do not. That there is not agreement on this indicates that we do not understand it. — Metaphysician Undercover

MOST people do not say that is free will. Most people define free will as "The capacity to make choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will." So "free will" isn't just making choices as there are choices that are forced and those that are not. You seem to be saying that "free will" entails both forced and unforced choices.

Computers do not make decisions. To decide is to come to a resolution as the result of consideration. Computers are incapable of consideration. Computers do not even choose, they simply follow algorithms. To choose is to select from a multitude of options. There are no options for a computer, it must follow its rules. Even a so-called random number generator is a case of following a set of rules, and not a true choice

It appears like you just like to throw words around willy nilly, pretending that you can argue logically by giving the same word different meanings. That's known as equivocation. You can say that a computer "decides" if you want, and we say that a human being "decides", but obviously what is referred to by that word in each of these two cases, is completely different. So to say that the computer's activity is relevant to what we are discussing, would be equivocation. — Metaphysician Undercover

You also said,

We do not understand the capacity to choose. Therefore we do not understand the human condition. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if we do not understand the capacity to choose how can you say whether or not a computer makes choices or not? I asked you to define what you mean by "choose". If I can learn to predict what you will choose does that no imply that you are following some predictable pattern (algorithm) in making your decisions? Give me an example of one instance where you made a decision and tell me what it was like for you. Explain the process that you used in making your decision.

You seem to be willfully ignoring what I am saying. We do not understand the capacity to choose. Therefore we do not understand the human condition. In order to understand the human condition we need to first understand the capacity to choose. — Metaphysician Undercover

...which is what I was doing in suggesting that we look at how other animals make decisions. If how animals make decisions is similar to how humans make decisions then that can shed some light on the human condition. This is why we use animals as test subjects to get at some aspect of the human condition without harming humans.

You seem to be willfully ignoring what I am saying. We do not understand the capacity to choose. Therefore we do not understand the human condition. In order to understand the human condition we need to first understand the capacity to choose. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not willfully ignoring anything. It is you that is ignoring my request for you to explain what you mean by free will. If free will simply entails making decisions and I have shown that computers can make decisions does that mean computers have free will? You either agree that it does and we can then settle the case as one of where you use different words than I do to explain the same process, or disagree and you would have to come up with a better explanation as to what free will is. The ball is in your court.

Let me just add that if you want to say that a computer doesn't actually have choices or make decisions then I would expect you to then define what you mean by "choices".

Question: Is an animal's response the result of rationally thinking through a communication or something else? — Athena

To think rationally is to use (valid) reasons for your actions. If an animal can learn new information that it was not born with (instincts) and use that information in a way that provides some advantage to its survival then we could say that it is capable of rationally thinking. For instance, my cat has learned some English words like, "treat" and "outside", and has even learned to communicate to me her needs to receive treats and to go outside even though she does not have the ability to say those words. Rational thinking provides the ability for the animal to make predictions using the patterns it has experienced in its environment.

It's a long road between that non-explicit competences type of intelligence and human intelligence. Difficult to know when/where rational thinking begins. — Patterner

Is natural selection a rational process?

What you believe about "free will" is irrelevant. We do have the capacity to choose, and we all know and accept this. Some call this 'free will", if you want to just call it "the capacity to choose", that's fine. Whatever, way that you describe it, or try to understand it, it's part of the human condition which we need to understand in order to adequately understand the human condition. The fact that some people say we have free will, and others do not, is very strong evidence that the human condition is not understood, and we need to know the truth about this matter before it will be understood.

The fact that something is commonly said does not necessarily imply that what is said is a fact.
— Harry Hindu

That is exactly the point I am making. We need to know the truth about these things before we can claim to have an understanding of the human condition. If we knew the truth about free will, then we'd have a much better basis for a claim about understanding the human condition. Since we do not know the truth about this, we cannot claim to have an understanding of the human condition. — Metaphysician Undercover

The capacity to choose isn't just a human condition. Other animals make choices too. Computers make choices by running software with IF-THEN-ELSE statements which are options given some set of circumstances. When you make choices, you do the same thing. You measure your options against the current circumstances and ultimately choose the one that best fits the circumstances. Logically, you will always make the same choice given the same set of circumstances and the same set of options, just like a computer. And just like a computer, you choices can become predictable.

So the question isn't, "do we have the capacity to choose". It's "do we have the capacity to choose freely", whatever that means. Hopefully you can enlighten me.

No, that doesn't make any sense. Obviously, having a true understanding of the human condition requires knowing about free will, as a part of the human condition. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're assuming that free will is part of the human condition. I'm saying that it likely isn't.

What is meant by it, is irrelevant to this point. Since it is commonly said that human beings have free will, then we need to know what is being referred to in order to understand the human condition, of which free will is said to be a part of. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is commonly said that God exists too, but I'm sure you are aware that there some contention on this issue. It was once commonly said the Earth was flat. The fact that something is commonly said does not necessarily imply that what is said is a fact. This is an argumentum ad populum.

That’s been one theory favoured by cognitivists. As a biosemiotician, I would instead stress the simpler story that language proper arose when Homo sapiens evolved the modern articulate vocal tract.

Drawing scribbles and making sounds with your mouth are just more complex forms of communicating your intentions and reading into others intentions.
— Harry Hindu

A capacity to generate syntactical speech is a difference in kind and not just degree. All apes are social and so have an ability to anticipate and coordinate actions in their social setting. But no ape can learn fluent grammar. — apokrisis

This seems too anthropomorphic to me. The difference you are talking about is one between the rules of representation humans have selected in the scribbles they use for efficient communication vs. the rules natural selection has selected for efficient communicating. One could argue that natural selection had a role in the former as well.

Then there's this:
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-uncovering-secret-communication-marmoset-monkeys.html

There's still a lot we do not know about animal communication. It appears to me that what you have shown is that the level of complexity in communication is based on the degree the brain has evolved to distinguish between certain symbols. It's like comparing how hominids started cooking food by throwing it on a fire and the diversity of recipes we have in the modern era. It's still cooking food.

An advanced alien species that communicates telepathically might consider our mode of communication not a language. There are many different ways to communicate, most of which we probably don't even know about.

The moral principles and facts being stipulated are that:

1. It is morally impermissible to perform an action that is in-itself bad;
2. It is morally impermissible to directly intend something bad—even for the sake of something good;
3. Harming someone is, in-itself, bad. — Bob Ross

Seems to me that 2. is a contradiction. If your act is for the sake of the good how can it be something bad?

If not, then intending something bad for the sake of the good cancels each other out and the act is neither bad nor good.

It seems to me, under these stipulations, that one could never justify self-defense—e.g., harming someone that is about to kill you—because it will always be the case in such examples that one directly intends to harm that person for the sake of saving themselves. — Bob Ross

I don't know about that. If someone is trying to kill you, then does that not qualify as them doing something bad? In defending yourself are you not trying to prevent something bad from happening, or something worse as they may continue killing if they are not stopped?

What use is discussing what is good or bad and what is permissible if you're not willing to do something about it, ie stopping bad acts? Saying some act is bad doesn't stop people from engaging in bad acts.