What I try to say is that we cannot replace the proteins of animals with chemistry or technological stuff. I am agree those tablets or pills are full of vitamins, proteins, energy, etc... but they are just a "substitute — javi2541997

Why can we not replace protein with source A with an identical protein from source B? I don't reallynget your argument. Substituting something with something identical is hardly a substitution of any less quality.

Animals are chemistry. They are made of molecules like anything else. For example animals make insulin, and so does genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. Does that mean that human insulin derived from bacteria is any less functional or healthy than human derived insulin in thr treatment of diabetes.

Its just a chemical. Identical in every way regardless of source. Many diabetics are alive today because of bacterial insulin production. And I don't see the difference here with eating artificial meat that has the same fat protein vitamin and mineral content as natural organic meat sources. The only difference is an animal didn't have to be slaughtered to obtain it.

Yes, the important thing is never what's good for the world or the people, but what's good for the morbidly obese bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy.
I despair. This is all coming far too late, in the looming shadow of a retrograde political swing and closing-panic. Half a century ago, we might have been able to avert destruction; even two or three decades' head-start might have mitigated the coming disa — Vera Mont

Well you might be right the system is stubborn to change and any change that is occuring certainly is tardy. But it's never too late to adapt to current conditions. If it was then we may as well be dead already. Which I disgree with. We must persevere even when the odds seem set against us. That is the survival instinct

What natural processes? — Vera Mont

I meant strictly in regard to trophic levels of nature. Not whether the animal is domesticated or not. Domesticated animals still do what is natural to them within the confines and conditions we set up for them. They still eat grass/ crops that photosynthesise (uses solar energy) to generate food. Again.. Whether we feed it to them that grains directly or they are free to eat grass from the ground themselves is irrelevant to the energy source.

Artificial/synthetic meat doesnt eat. It is grown on purified minerals and exercised mechanically by machines all of which take electricity to incubate/nurture

It is more complex than we are debating here and I think it is not possible at all to completely substitute the nutrients of animals with some chemical stuff. — javi2541997

Is that to say that animals are not made of chemical stuff? What is the difference between a carbon in my body and a carbon in the body of a cow?

And if a cow or plant for that matter, are not made of the same chemicals as I am what's the point in eating them? Why eat a collection of chemicals that are not the same as the chemicals in one's own body? Eating in this case would be useless/pointless as there's no useful way to use chemicals that are different in a cow to make parts of my own body.

All food is chemical. And all of my body parts are chemical. Regardless of whether those chemicals are artificial or natural, if they are the same then my body knows how to digest and metabolise them.

Is it so far fetched, though? After all, God is more than just an anthropomorphic image constructed out of the imaginations of a people. It has this solid basis in the world upon which fictional thinking rests. Keeping in mind that, speaking of the anthropomorphisms of religions, all we ever see is anthropomorphic, meaning what we call perceptually "out there" cannot be removed from "in here". To do so just yields an abstraction.
God is all about our ethics and the great question that haunts our world: why are we born to suffer and die? The what-to-do questions presuppose this ethical primordiality of our existence. Buddhism, in it analysis, I think addresses both — Constance

Very true Constance. I agree. "As above so below" (hermeticism). In other words what is out there reflects what is within. We perceive reality based on what we hold within. If we are pessimistic - full of doubt, negativity and a feeling of general pointlessness, we shall only see that negative side of the external world. If we are hopeful, optimistic and bright we will likely see that side to daily life beyond ourselves.

We don't need to anthropomorphise reality to bring it down to our level. In fact, we can alternatively see ourselves as but a fraction of the whole..

The great question: why are we born to suffer and die? Can be answered with "to suffer is to understand what is not right with the world, to be born is to participate in that great battle, to exert influence on the outcome. To live is to have the opportunity to circumvent suffering not just for yourself but for your loved ones. Your ability to tackle suffering with knowledge and empathy extends well beyond the self. That is the godly approach to ethics.

We have choices to make. Those choices impact ourselves and others. The pursuit of knowledge, of awareness - of self and other simultaneously, is to take full control of yourself and be responsible for your actions. Only when we know ourselves and control our actions can we truly influence others in a beneficial way - all things considered.

Whether you believe in God or karma (Buddhism) - No one can deny you have authority over yourself. And that authority can both ruin others lives or fulfill them through action. The choice is always yours. For better or for worse

That's right. It's not a complete solution; it's a step in the right direction. Can you calculate the production of feed and the butchering, processing, packaging, transportation and refrigeration of the meat already use a considerable amount of coal- and nuclear- generated energy, plus the land use (cutting down carbon-capturing trees to make room for cattle) plus the waste methane of cattle and waste products of the associated industries? And weigh that total against the energy needed for vat propagation of meat? — Vera Mont

Currently I cannot. If I'm truly honest Vera. I'm not sure whether artifical meat manufacturing will outcompete natural processes that have evolved for millenia in the use of energy. But id love to know. Its a great point you've made and one due serious consideration.

An Oxford study in 2011 estimated lab-grown meat production could involve up to 96 per cent fewer global greenhouse gas emissions, 98 per cent less land use and up to half as much energy.

If this is the case it's truly remarkable. It would have great power to resolve many of the current issues facing humanity. I hope then that this is the case. Fingers crossed.

The net gain is even bigger, since the meat factories can be located in the cities where the meat is consumed: Tiny footprint on the land; inside a contained and controlled environment, in which the CO2 can be easily captured and recycled. Further advantages: no disease, no hormones, no antibiotics: 100% pure meat, made to taste specifications.
Set 'em up next to the greenhouse and use the byproducts for heat and fertilizer; open a food outlet on the same premises, so people can get their fresh meat and veg withing walking distance of their home.
All of these 'problems' are solvable with existing technology.
Only two obstacles: vested financial interest and popular prejudice. (You can bet the former is promoting the latter with every resource they have.) — Vera Mont

Quite right Vera. A spot on analysis. Broad consideration, logical and succinct. Brava. I think such a case is the way forward.

Now all that stands in the way is issues of doubt as to the lucrative nature of such an undertaking (the securing of investment) and prejudice (beliefs that it is unnatural and harmful or whatever the case may be). Education and inspiration are most needed here indeed.

The difference between our views is that you are optimistic – panglossian and utopian – about the future of human life and I'm optimistic – singularitarian and post-terrestrial – about the future of human intelligence.
18h — 180 Proof

I see what you mean 180 proof. You're optimistic that our human intelligence will be our legacy in whatever we create to expand towards the vast distances beyond earth - perhaps an artifical human intelligence - a computer or humanoid robot that can easily have its parts manufactured and replaced and thus permit it to be an intelligence that can travel beyond what our organic human bodies can endure considering we have a finite lifespan. That is optimistic indeed.

Humans are perhaps, just lucky or are just able to survive more that 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet. I think we will continue to survive and the future for the humans alive today will not be any more dystopian that it has been in the past. The human experience will continue to improve. — universeness

Similarly I appreciate universeness's optimism regarding humans. If we can stabilise the earths climate and ecosystem there's no reason to believe our organic humanness will not thrive and continue to evolve toward a better more advanced future not just for us but for the whole of mother earth- regardless of whatever we birth through technology going forth to spread human intelligence beyond the earth through their artifical/metallic inorganic endurance.

I don't think you are actually at odds with one another. You both see a future beyond what we have now. 180 proof simply says human intelligence can go intergalactic and universeness's says that human intelligence will continue to drive the future of earth.

Neither to me are incompatible.

. "Veganism", to me, is a luddite stop-gap whose time has come and gone. We don't need to eat like cows or eat cows themselves or wind up with "soylent green in people" ... :smirk: — 180 Proof

Be that as it may I do admire vegans for the basic principles of their beliefs - that we ought respect animals more than we do. They have highlighted a conundrum that we face in daily life by acting as an extreme. Considering extremes are often the best way to establish the full extent of a problem and find a "middle ground".

Should we see eye to eye with animals, to really be friend not foe or do we objectify them and enslave them to our whims? As you pointed out there is always a third option which satisfies our desire to eat meat while not subjugating other animals.

It seems that all we need to do to approach an appropriate solution is to keep an open mind and tread lightly with the options presented. I for one am eager to see where synthetic meat tech goes. In the meantime we can only make decisions based off the current model/tech that we have available to us, but hope for a better one to come along.

And I do think renewable energy is entirely within our grasp. Considering how capitalism and the open market works if we increase the supply of renewables and make it competitive (in other words trust in them as the future) then they will naturally fall in price through investment and innovation. And eventually overtake fossil fuels both in desirability and cost efficiency.

We must never underestimate our intelligence in the face of fear and uncertainty. We can make things certain through cooperation and trust.

The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market. — ChatteringMonkey

Agreed in the sense that the largest powers should be the ones to set an example. Disagree that they are the only nations that can. Of course they're not.

With current competition and the heftier cost of renewables the ideal way to change is unanimously and simultaneously with one another as a collective of nations so that no individual nation suffers market disadvantage.

But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way.

Granted some have had a natural geographical advantage (Iceland for example). So the switch to renewables is really more crucial an argument between countries which produce the most fossil fuels and not those that have readily available renewable alternatives.

It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil).

My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really. — ChatteringMonkey

Nations- being the sum of individuals, have nothing to do with morals? So a nation can act however it pleases against another nation with no consideration for ethics? Please.
Russian is at war with Ukraine at this very moment.
As a nation it is not moral to go to war with another and cause thousands of deaths, pain and suffering.

That isn't to say that every Russian is at fault. Many Russians disagree with the war and want nothing to do with it. It is the government (democratic or tyrannical) which is responsible for the morality of international relations with another country.

In a dictatorship the action of a nation towards another is the whim of one person. In a healthy democracy the action of a nation towards another reflects the conscience and values of each individual - as their vote did contribute to what pathways are allowed or disallowed by leaders.

National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality. But sadly in some governments it only reflects the morality of a few - in the interests of individual good rather than the greater good.

"The farmer has some evidence that the familiar silhouette is a cow, but the evidence is unreliable. The evidence does not justify his conclusion and further evidence is required. As it happens, further evidence will reveal that his belief is false. — Ludwig V

I don't think the evidence is so much "unreliable" but rather incomplete. As partial evidence it could be reliable if the remaining evidence confirms the suspicion of the farmer. The partial evidence is only determined as unreliable if it lead to a false conclusion.

"Partial information" about something which can be "known" simply means nothing is yet absolutely certain. It is only suggestive. As this partial information is one part of the set of all information one requires to confirm the known as indeed known. Partial information can lead to a logical suspicion but not to a complete justification - a blind belief, a gamble on the fact that P Is actually P

You want us as observers to have a say in whether S suspects or believes that p. But deciding to suspect something is deciding to believe that p may be true or may be false and is up to S. — Ludwig V

Yes. S observes P incompletely (it's silhouette in twilight) it only sees the outline not the full object in full light. You can believe P is one thing based on partial knowledge - the silhouette/vague outline (in others words jump to a conclusion with incomplete knowledge?) or you can investigate further, shine a torch, watch how it behaves, what it does, and then with a more full set of knowledge as to what it is you can believe its P (a cow for example).

But with no clear vision, no movement, no sounds, you are deprived of several modes of sensory information. How then can you believe it is definitely P without referencing it to your knowledge of what characteristics P has.
In that case it's better to "suspect" its P because the partial knowledge that you have doesn't exclude the possibility that thus potential P is indeed an actual P.

If anything is an appearance it is known conditionally;
We know we act direct and unconditionally;
Therefore, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21

Precisely. What something "does" (action) isn't strictly what something "is"(appearance), it is conditional (based on the perspective of the observer).

For example: Just as a mother scorning her child doesn't mean "she is scornful" (permanent definition). It just means in that single moment she scorned" (action). The appearance (being scornful) is conditional on a). The mothers justification, b) The interpretation of the child being scorned, or other observers for that matter and C) the passage of time;
As surely there were cases in the past and will be cases in the future where the mother is not scornful but approving or unsure. She has changed from moment to moment based on her interaction with her children.

Truly defined things, things that don't change themselves (there appearance is not conditional but absolute) are long lasting throughout time. Theyre stable and constant. For example "change" is a truly defined constant in that change exists and always has and always will (1st law of thermodynamics).

But its "action" what change does to the system around it (in other words how we perceive change as observers within the system) - that isn't so easily defined because those things (ourselves and other physical things) are only temporary states - constantly in a phase change, shifting one form to another, living, dying, etc. They are conditional in appearance (who they are and for what moment in time) and conditional in their actions (what they believe/their perceptions).

In essence we change, our perceptions change and our actions change. "Change"s existence itself doesn't change, and it's ability to act on the system it governs doesn't change (in potency). It stays constant so that we don't have to.

Veganism is a speciesist half-measure. A far more effective solution is – the one which I'm enthused about – vat-grown / 3-d printed meat (i.e. animal protein) that tastes like natural beef, pork, poultry, eegs, etc. — 180 Proof

True it seems an ever more possible option with the advancement in technology and bioengineering. My only question here is that this process of synthesising meat surely demands a lot of electricity in these factories. And that electricity has to come from somewhere - currently not renewable energy so this solution to eating meat must come simultaneously with a change over to renewables otherwise it won't solve the fossil fuel - climate change dilemma.

Current natural sources of meat are based on renewable energy - photosynthesis of sunlight by plants which are then eaten by animals. This is nature's way and doesn't disturb the balanced ecosystem: the atmosphere, carbon cycle etc.
and keeps our climate in equilibrium.

Synthesising meat seems a perfectly acceptable solution to eating animals as long as it mimics nature in full - powered by renewable healthy clean energy.

But the Gettier problems are based on the fact (at least I think it is a fact) that truth and falsity do not wait for our actual and empirical process of learning what they are. — Ludwig V

Of course they do. If the truth of nature isn't waiting for us to understand it then how could we ever approach it by as you said "discovering" truths, accepting them as our beliefs and then using them as assumptions for further investigations, in the taxing task of removing fiction from fact.

One problem is that if no belief can be justified unless it is true, all claims to knowledge must be based on an infinite regress and it is hard to see how new knowledge could ever be acquired by anyone and your use of the words would be very different from ordinary use. — Ludwig V

Not an infinite regress. Just a regression to the truth. Where one's belief/ collection of beliefs about what is true matches what is actually the case. That is knowledge.

In essence using logic to remove the nonsense and get to the bottom of things - the actual knowledge that always exists. After all something definitively true doesn't change does it, otherwise it isn't true? Physics laws and principles are based on their constancy - their permanent unchanging nature. That's why they are considered true and useful in the pursuit of understanding how they determine the interactions between things.

Accurate assumptions (true beliefs) lead to accurate outcomes (predictions or results) when applied. False assumptions have no such power to predict or elucidate correct answers.

You are right that what is at stake is the meanings of "belief", "justification" and "knowledge". But that just means that you need to engage with Gettier's definition of justification which specifies that a justification may be a justification even when the belief is false — Ludwig V

I did engage with it. Considering his defintion I disagree. Is that not engaging and then choosing whether it makes reasonable sense to you or not. It is possible to disagree with a historical philosophers views. If it wasn't then how would we make any philosophical progress?

I am convinced by persuasive people. Until someone more persuasive convinces me otherwise by outlining the flaw with the previous persons basis for persuasion. That's just sensible.

which specifies that a justification may be a justification even when the belief is false — Ludwig V

Justification (that shadow over there looks like a cow) is justified even when the belief (that it therefore a cow) is false. Obviously not. The only justification is that (it may be a cow but I'm not sure it is yet). Because it allows for the possibility that the shadow is not that of a cow.

Another example: justification (to imprison someone) is still justification even when the belief (that they committed a crime) is false. Yikes. I think not.

Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true? — ChatteringMonkey

No not myself some advantage. Surprisingly, not everything someone does is in self interest. Sometimes we see an issue that isn't our problem and doesn't affect us but we go out and try to solve it for others to make their lives better. We do it because we can. And because its what we think is right.

Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation.

Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying.

Also suppose you hold a gun to someone's head and try to make them do what you want. And they refuse. Your only choice is what... Have your bluffed called and you drop the weapon or you pull the trigger. Would you really make a murderer out of yourself just because someone resoundingly disagreed with what you wanted?

This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons — ChatteringMonkey

On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.

It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference.

You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide.

The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves?

Is it already too late?

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?

Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus? — Mikie

I think we will reach certain tipping points at this stage simply from inactivity and favouring observing the effects of climate as proof that it exists, rather than to acting against them without evidence. But the evidence in daily life is growing and those that said it was deniable are finding it harder and harder to justify their denial these days.

Having said that we are extremely resourceful and clever when we need to be. And we are able to adapt very well. So now that climate change is really making itself known through observation I think more and more people are getting on board with the idea that it is a true and inevitable problem.

Now that we are becoming ever more united against climate change we can adapt to those tipping points that have already past and make plans to circumvent those that have not already occurred.

. But the cases are only a few and even there are some dog breeds who are violent by nature like pitbull or American standford — javi2541997

Perhaps you're right. In our quest to breed the most loyal and docile breeds (labradors, retrievers etc) we inadvertently and accidentally made the opposite simultaneously - aggressive and hostile breeds that don't really serve our purposes. Such is the case when one takes over control of natural selection and polarises it.

When we take the kindest and softest natured dogs and breed them we get pups that carry those good genetics traits.
But if we dont kill off the lesser preferred dogs they breed with one another by exclusion and instinct and simultaneously create pups that are more unfavourable.

By extension of the process we get the cutest, most affable and tame creatures and simultaneously their opposite: seething and aggressive unsafe canines

I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving. — javi2541997

Well interestingly enough there is a case of an animal that has the ability to kill us as we did it - the wolf. But it seems instead something our ancestors saw in this predator was relatable and so we offered sharing of resources, of food, in pursuit of companionship. And thus we got "man's best friend" in return - the humble and loyal dog. The animal we hunted with, part of our united interspecial "pack".

I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes.
5m — schopenhauer1

Because they are in order of what is most different (spider) to what is most similar (ape) - close to self? If self preservation is your motto is it not the same instinct as all of these animals: spiders, rats, cows and apes?

And if so, if they all have the same will to survive and reproduce who are we to determine which do and which don't? Is it balanced to only consider what is in it for us (humans)? Is all of nature (us included) not mutually dependent on one another for the skills, the niches, we offer in service to a greater good - an ecosystem?

Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality. — schopenhauer1

Well killing spiders may seem trivial. But we must always consider the purpose of spiders. They produce silk - one of the strongest natural substances known and a possible source of ropes stronger than steel. They also predate pests that eat our crops and also feed on us - mosquitoes etc. Every animal and insect has a niche and a purpose in the balance of nature. The minute we assume they don't we are precariously close to disregarding their importance and causing problems for ourselves in the future.

Sure being told not to kill a spider in your house because it'll cause all sorts of problems seems extreme. But widespread use of insecticides on farmland... Now that is a problem for spider populations.

We must pursue an understanding of mother nature and live by her rules. Empathise with her because we are natural. We are born from her ecosystem. To commit mutiny against it is to commit mutiny against ourselves and opens up a world of pain. Pain that can be avoided.

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to — Tzeentch

Quite right Tzeentch. I think veganism has some unfortunate plot holes. I do admire the intent of vegans to speak on behalf of the other animals on earth but let's indulge a situation for a moment where everyone is suddenly vegan.

In the vegan world a few things could happen.
Option 1: Domestic animals normally used for meat will live by instinct and breed excessively and unabated. We would soon be overrun by chickens, and pigs and cattle etc. Because no one is killing them. They would soon run out of resources in competition with one another and would thus starve and succumb to all sorts of nasty illnesses - viruses, bacteria etc which may be transmitted to humans (like coromavirus likely was). Think of India with its cow problem because cows are considered sacred there and its shunned upon to kill them.

Option 2: we neuter all domestic animals so they don't overpopulate and in doing so they go extinct in one generation. We lose biodiversity needlessly, also quite tragic I suspect.

Option 3: we return them to the wild but being domestic animals they will surely be easy picking for wild predators - us having tamed them beyond their innate threat perception skills. Perhaps some would learn quickly and be able to carve out a living but most would likely die.

So it seems that veganism has its own set of issues.

Vegetarianism or limited meat consumption seems like the most balanced way humans could prevent interfering with nature's balance. In a vegetarian world animals would live and die in balance while always producing useful products - dairy eggs etc - good sources of protein. And only killed for essential reasons - things that can only be practically made from leather instead of plastic, for social festivities, and perhaps transplantations in medicine. Not only would we minimise the carbon emissions from the meat industry but we would stave off the illnesses that come with high intensity farming and the lack of hygiene and easy transmissibility of disease that comes with it.

We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it — schopenhauer1

According to who? Oh right, ourselves. Isn't that sort of self referential bias? Haha what has you believe that "instinct" isn't "knowing what you're doing".

When a newborn mammal looks to feed from their mothers milk is that not a priori knowledge ? Ingrained in their dna the knowledge of what to do when born in order to survive.

I think most animals know exactly what they're doing. It may look simple to us with our complex philosophical dicourses but simplicity doesn't mean ignorance or lack of awareness of what one is doing or why. It just means that they rely on instincts they evolved for millions of years while we have the ability to reason about hypothetical situations, many of which may still refer to instinct for example hypothetical moral dilemmas - "what would you do?" or "what woukd be your instinct in such a case"?

I think a species destroying the planet that keeps them alive by tipping the balances and measures all off in skewed ways from equilibrium doesn't sound like one that knows what it's doing.

You are of course free to disagree and explain your point of view more.

Are all Gettier problems fallacious: do the conclusions go beyond what the evidence actually supports? — TheMadFool

So you see a cow shaped object and believe its a cow but it's actually a cloth.

If you "suspect" the familiar silhouette is a cow then your "suspicion" is justified for further investigation.

If you "believe" it's a cow you jump to the conclusion (all cow shaped silhouettes are actual cows - which is unjustified)

This unjustified belief is proven unjustified when investigated and seen to be a cloth not a cow.

Your belief there is a cow in your field currently pertains to an object (the cloth) that isn't a cow. This belief is false and unjustified.

But if you believe there is a cow in your field "somewhere" but not necessarily the object you're looking at (the cloth) - for example because you hear a distant "moo" (additional information) then your belief is correct and justified when, and only when, you find both the cloth and the actual cow.

I don't see any contradiction in the situation other then the meaning of the term "belief" "justification" and "true knowledge" as with respect to the observer (subjects) observations and consequent conclusions (beliefs)

The devil is in the detail. In exactly how we use each word in the object-observer relationship during time (the time it takes to go around the field and establish the truth of the situation).

If you don't factor in time and space. How can you establish whether the silhouette of a cow is the cloth or the cow, or where the other cow is? In a single moment in time the true identity of the silhouette and the location of the cow cannot be known simultaneously.

The belief that they can is where the fallacy comes from.

but different people have different ideas — T Clark

As is entirely their right to do so. I for one am always interested in what others make of it all. I'm always encountering new perspectives and takes on the subject to indulge in.

I'm surprised by how many of them feel as I do. I don't think any of us are particularly afraid of dying. — T Clark

I'm happy to hear it. It's a very positive and peaceful position to hold. Dying is as effortless, as passive and natural as birth was. One did not suffer before they were born and I suspect the same is the case in death. I don't think it needs to be feared more than it need be simply accepted as part of the privilege that is life itself.

Yes, and it has often struck me that theists are not conceptualizing the same thing when they allegedly share this belief. The notion of god seems incoherent or 'diverse' enough to embrace everything from the 'ground of being' to a throne dwelling elder, with a flowing grey beard. — Tom Storm

It seems as though the mere consideration of "what god is/could be" is, in itself, the most omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient thought possible - it contains all imagination, logic/reason and ethics to be so, standing the test of time, ever present in human consideration, impossible to prove (reduce to a singular thing) yet impossible to disprove by proxy. Argued infinitely. Something that could be anything... Perhaps then is everything.

The idea of “real” or “reality” comes up frequently on the forum, often in relation to quantum mechanics. It has struck me the concept is not usually defined explicitly or carefully. To me the way it is used often seems wrong-headed. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the concepts of “being” and “existence.” I think “reality” is related to those ideas, but not the same thing. Here are some definitions of "real" from sources on the web. — T Clark

"Real" to me is the sum of everything. Nothing that isn't real can or will ever occur, be imagined, considered, thought, felt, observed or be physical as an object in the universe. Time is real. All the products of time are real.

All subjects are real and their individual feelings, secrets, thoughts, passions and emotions are real whether expressed or kept to themselves. Everything private is real. Everything shared and communicated between us is also real - every sound, every smile, every interaction between subjects that has or ever will take place. Everything yet unknown to us or already lost to us that is or was real is real regardless of whether we are currently aware of it or can observe it in this moment.

Everything the future holds is real as is that of the past and present. All information to ever occur is real. All manners in which energy and matter can or will be arranged for all of time is real. Possibility and probability are real.

In what way, what form, all of these things are real - well that varies. Some are real for a brief instantaneous moment while others are real for the entire span of space-time, and everything in-between. None less real than the rest. As is the potential variability of all existing things. Change itself is real.

All that is real is not available to us in this moment, nor in a lifetime nor a hundred lifetimes. Everything that is real will never be comprehended fully by me or you or anyone else, only ever approximated as a broad and vague general appreciation from the smallest consideration to one's of the most epic magnitude.

Have I forgotten something in the set of what is real? Almost certainly.

There's a lot of talk these days about the end of death through medical technology or artificial intelligence. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark

Interesting indeed. I think the main motivation for ending death through technology and medicine stems from fear of death, fear of the uknown and powerless state of non-being, fear of being forgotten and thus retrospective meaningless to your life after no one alive ever knew you even existed in the first place. In otherwords having no legacy.

As creatures that fear having no control, and fear our own mortality, the inherent stress of watching a clock tick and knowing with every motion of that hand, we approach our funeral makes death the "ultimate enemy number one".

But I think this is a negative view of death. As death has a lot of pros. It is the mercy at the end of suffering - of a painful decline in health and ability. If one were to ask a terminally ill patient if they are depressed about their imminent death, I'd imagine often you'd be surprised to hear they patiently await and welcome it because they will be free of their incurable illness. They also may feel especially grateful for their ordinary daily moments and derive great meaning from what we may see as trivial/ mundane.

Also death allows us to have children. For without it we would soon overwhelm the planet and its resources and be very hungry and cramped immortals indeed. We would be forced to be celestial nomads - bad news for alien life if such exist as we would have to take their resources and space for our immortality driven colonialism.

Without death our financial system, inheritance, economics would all be impaired as if no one died then none of their relatives could ever claim their assets as normally occurs when they pass away and exchange of wealth would have to be through spontaneous random gifting.

Banking credit would be based on an infinite length of time working/having an income which would make the mortgage you take out based on earning potentials and risk reach the trillions.

1. The color of the car is blue and only blue
2. The color of the car is not blue

They both can't be true at the same time based on the way we currently view the world. — PhilosophyRunner

I think they can. The colour of the car is blue and only blue (in a world where no one is colour blind, or in a world where only what you see is true) is correct.
The colour of the car is not blue (when we consider others see blue differently than ourselves) is again correct.

In that way two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. The difference is relativism/perspective from different observers. We must add some knowledge to the set of contradictions to dissolve the contradiction.

I don't see two humans having two different beliefs as contradictory. They are two different people, and thus there is no contradiction if they have two different beliefs any more than two different cars being two different colors. — PhilosophyRunner

I meant their beliefs in reference to reality. If person one - a scientist, believes what is true about reality is only what can be measured repeatedly and consistently by anyone anywhere using the same objective method of measure (such as the laws of thermodynamics, physics etc) but another person believes not everything in reality is observable using only objective measure.

Their two beliefs are in contradiction. One believes only things that can be observed can be believed. The other says things that cannot be observed can be believed.

Another example. Person one believes time travel into the past could be possible but would lead to the grandfather paradox. Another person believe time travel into the past is not possible and so there is no such paradox. Again we see that their beliefs about what is true of reality are in conflict.

Lastly, if two different people having two different beliefs is not contradictory then how could they ever argue with one another about them by picking out logical flaws in one anothers beliefs. Person one who believes for example that tomatoes are a fruit based on their taxonomic classification and morphology may say this to another person that never puts tomatoes in a fruit salad and therefore doesn't think they are a fruit but instead a vegetable.

Who is correct? And who's logic is more sensible? I'm not saying contradictions between people are not tolerable of course they must be allowed to exist. "agree to disagree" in such a sense. But what I'm saying is they do exist.

24
My logic is very rusty, I have given it a shot below, but not sure if it is correct. feedback appreciated!

"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance — KantDane21

As far as I know cognition of how something appears is as much to do with the perceiver as it is to do with the object being observed.

Consider an extreme case: whereby a colour blind person percieves green and red to appear both as similar greyness.
Cognition of appearance is grey for such people but does that mean the object is really grey? Others (non colour blind) would argue for varying shades of red and green.

So therein you have cognitive dissonance pertaining to the same object of observation. So it's clear that perception and cognition alone is not necessarily absolute.

Noumena on the other hand is the innate character of an object regardless of observer. In this sense scientific approach is useful as it can address what is objectively the case. It can measure the wavelength of light reflected by the object which could be predominantly 700nm (typically observed as red) and 520 nm (typically registered as green).

So here we have a dilemma. We have two people - one of which is colour blind, looking at the same object and interpreting it's characteristics differently. Who then is correct?.

Well they are both correct in reference to their individual capability to perceive the object. However the noumena of the object is neither case. It is just reflecting wavelengths of light. Wavelengths of light don't in themselves impart colour. Colour as a quality is subjective in such a case.

Just as we can't look at a lemon and identify that it releases predominantly 575nm wavelengths of light. Which it does based on objective measurement but not based on perception. A severely depressed person with no sense of the vibrancy of life may perceive a desaturated cold grey lemon devoid of any joyous/ jubilant yellow, while another could see more tones of yellow than anyone else.

We therefore can trust science to give an exacting standard while contrarily we cannot assume our own interpretation matches such an exacting standard. Otherwise we could look at any colour and describe its discrete wavelength simply by individual observation.

It seems that the crow is using cognition. If the crow has no language, then it is using cognition outside of language.
6d — RussellA

Out of interest who says crows don't have language? Firstly they're very vocal birds and we don't understand what the purpose of such crowing and cawking means as we don't speak "crow." secondly there's non-verbal communication which interspecially is even harder to discern.

But we know ourselves that we have non verbal communication in abundance as humans:. Smiling, crying, dancing, thumbs up, high fives and the middle finger. We use our body to communicate as we do our voice.

Simply walking with an upright straight posture and chin up suggested confidence and authority while being stooped over, small with shoulders shrugged in and chin down suggests submission and lack of confidence.

I think it's prudent to assume other animals communicate in similar formats

Googling warfare of science with theology, one gets 4,380,000 results! I have a whole folder in my PC about this subject from a time in the past that I was interested in the subject. Most probably, this subject --although of a huge importance-- has never come to your attention. Strangely enough. — Alkis Piskas

I agree Alkis. I think the basis of war is irreconcilable and aggravating contradictions in values, beliefs or "personal truths" as to how true reality ought to be, to the point of brute force and personal attack/violence.

Such is that between those that need something to be observed to believe it exists (scientists) that are blind to the existence of abstractions like ethics, empathy and other peoples minds - all of which can't be proven with objective measurement, and those that claim intuition, common sense and moral imperative is the way to go (spiritual/religious folk) which are blind to what is right in front of them - those things that are clearly testable and consistent through objective experiment alone.

The irony of it is that they are both of observing the same reality as eachother just through different lenses. They both cherry pick what they think is correct and use this to invalidate the opponents views.

Could it not be the case that the actual Truth of things is approachable from any perspective, and by that I mean it should be approached from all perspectives available? Afterall if it is indeed thr ultimate truth it wouldnt likely change depending on the observers bias. They woukd just be seeing it in partiality not totality.

But this confusion comes from assigning a characteristic to God that I don't think you fully understand the consequences. What are the consequences of a being who can make contradiction true? I don't think you even understand such a scenario, nor do I, nor do I think anyone does. I'm not sure you, or I, are fully capable of understanding a world in which a contradiction are true. — PhilosophyRunner

Are contradictions not the basis for self reference and agency. For example two humans must be in contradiction with one another's beliefs otherwise they would operate as a unanimous hive mind. Thinking and acting as one. No individualism.
In this way do leaders like queen bees or queen ants or human Kings and Queens not behold a sort of hive mind. As they are in a position if authority and power over what choices are permitted by their subjects (laws and regulation).

One can argue monarchy is unjust as it erodes absolute free will but similarly monarchies are hierarchal and orderly systems of conduct and civility - just as the judicial system and government of these days are. Absolute free will could potentially lead to chaos and disorder.

People have "conflicts of interest" or contradictions/paradox all the time and so argue or fight with one another over who's is more correct either through logic/reason or through ethics.

To use an extreme to illustrate this imagine both the most outstanding citizen and the worst criminal. Are they not in direct contradiction with one another's beliefs? The citizen wants order and peace and cooperation and servitude to the greater good, the criminal on the other hand wants chaos, self interest and my an "every man for themselves" ethos, for those to serve them and then alone.

I think the contradiction between being "selfless" and "selfish" is really the key in understanding the root of all evil and the root of all good. Logical paradoxes in philosophy, science, religion and society at large depend on who's asking.

Change ones perceptions, ones own beliefs, and paradoxes are dismantled or built in accordance with their assumptions.

Do you think we have a duty to create more beings that need to fulfill some role like working in society? Mind you, not figure out what to do with those who are born and can’t work but add a new person. — schopenhauer1

Well I wouldnt consider it so much a duty but a natural instinct and a natural imperative. People reproduce not because of what their future children may or may not contribute to society but because they want to be parents. They was to raise and teach their childrenbtheir values and see if they can be good parents and raise a good child. For some parents their sole purpose is their children. It is their "job" and they stay at home to fulfill that role. Which is entirely their choice.

Besides the act of procreating is fun is it not? Otherwise it's unlikely that couples would become pregnant by accident.

I think it's a false dilemma that we ought to only fix the situation for those that exist already or be parents to new beings as they have the potential to help aid the problems in society rather than contribute to them. It is up to parents how to raise them with that in mind. Some parents raise outstanding citizens whilst others not so much. For whatever reasons they may be.