Yes that's all very well and said. But my question wasn't to exact a perfect and irrefutable definition of a God beyond human comprehension regardless of whether that exists or doesnt.

It was an exercise to put forth your best "human based" description of a God to the best of your ability. The hypothetical was about creating a paradigm for such a being based on how any individual might qualify it in their own words.

If you don't want to, that's fine. But I don't see the point in posting a response which can be essentially reduced to "I can't". It offers nothing to debate based on the hypothetical.

I think intelligence is at its most basic a logical structure ingrained/fundamental within nature.

A form of consistency or coherence that binds all things together -meaning that nature is "accessible" in a rational capacity. That deductions and inferences as well as predictions can be consistently made by contemplating it.

So you'd be a personified God/in human form? Why did you choose to be human or "human-seeming" in this scenario?

Would you have no qualities beyond human ones? And if so, what in your understanding qualifies the title of a God? What would the distinction be from just a regular person? What sets you apart or would your "God" concept be literally "just a person" and thus apply to everyone equally.

Ownership is an artificial construct where you apply an arbitrary personal authority over a physical object or domain, or an intellectual one - be it an idea/concept or piece of art etc.

Even personhood is a construct based on ownership and the "inalienable rights/entitlements" that come with that. That is to say this conscious awareness owns/ is an authority over the body it resides in.

Even that can be superceded in the case of slavery, torture, rape, assault, psychological manipulation and murder etc -where one person believes or exerts unrestricted dominion over the body and mind of another. But this is generally considered at its core inhumane or immoral.

Basically ownership is about control. Any anything physical and mental can theoretically be controlled by a third party, despite whether it ought to be or not. That's a matter of ethics.

That is begging an objective ontology — noAxioms

How is it begging an objective ontology any more than it is begging a subjective one. I would have thought the assumption that the objective and subjective both exist is common intuitive knowledge.

Because if only the objective exists, one can deny any others autonomy, feelings, personal experience or human rights as subjectivity is null and void and has no merit or due consideration.

Similarly if only the subjective exists then scientific discovery and the tech based on those discoveries is null and void and only subjective imaginings of how things are is valid.

I would think that it's difficult to rationally refute either case. You would have to offer a concrete argument to either case before the assumption that both exist can be superceded.

So by all means explain why both don't exist?

Yes animals have rational thinking, due to the simple fact that survival instinct is a rational response in any living creature.

Therefore: I am hungry, I will forage/hunt for food" is a rational stepwise train of thought for any animal that supports their survival.

On more complex levels: "I am threatened by an adversary on my hunt for food. They are bigger and more aggressive than me. I will hunt elsewhere." Is a rational stepwise consideration to protect themselves. One which requires calculating risks based on both perception of their aggressor as well as self awareness of their own size, fighting ability etc.

Fight, flight, freeze or fawn is a dynamic of choices faced by many animals especially those that operate in hierarchal social groups. They can fight for dominance, run away and spare themselves, freeze to avoid detection or minimise their perceived threat to the aggressor or fawn - offer services such as flea picking, defence, some food or sex as a way to ingratiate themselves with the more dominant individual and thus gain secondary benefits.

These are all rational thoughts when survival and wellbeing is the soul agenda.

Humans of course have surpassed basic rational thought (survival rationale) to an elevated state where we can apply even more rationale to things that aren't directly life-threatening. However, gains and risks ( be them authority/status/political, financial, etc) still apply. We can't at the end if the day ignore our very real instinct to survive and prosper regardless of what the level of complexity of our reasoning. Which may lead to tactics like manipulation, pandering, overt conflict and further reasoning as mechanisms to gain the upper hand in anything from academia to business/marketing and social relationships.

We are still animals.

Language and the meaning it carries reflects the reality we live in.

Therefore "The next statement is true. The previous statement is false." violates temporal causality by forming a self-negating closed loop.

In the same way the grandfather paradox operates: I was born and went back in time to kill my grandfather. My grandfather was killed so I was never born.

These two examples are analogous.

The paradox can be resolved by adding uncertainty:
"The next statement may be true. The previous statement may be false."

This way a closed loop self-negation isn't automatically formed due to the added uncertainty.

As for "this sentence is false" or 'this statement is false"... its essentially meaningless because it doesn't actually "state" anything ie stating something requires the subject of the statement to be separate from the statement itself - ie it must have a position (regarding external factors). For example "that statement is false" in a context where the other statement is known is perfectly logical.

For example "Teeth grow out of your eyes" followed but "that statement is false" provides essential context.

It can also be resolved another way by changing the statement itself from "this statement is false" to something like "this statements grammar false is" in this way it remains self referential but justifies falsity by adding a variable to contextualise its falsity - namely erroneous structure.

For me I start with the presupposition that both the object and the subject exist. And it is the interplay between these two phenomena that gives rise to objective truths and subjective truths.

For example imagine the number 6( or 9) written on the ground with no indication as to its intended orientation for appraisal.

One observer at one end sees a 9 and the other at the opposite sees a 6. These are subjective truths. From their individual or subjective perspective it is indeed a 6 for one and a 9 for the other and they can argue from their POVs eternally as to who is truly (objectively) correct.

The objective (more universal) truth is that which is perspectiveless or doesnt take a biased stance. It just is regardless of viewpoint. The objective truth in this case is that there is an unspecified symbol written on the ground and assuming there is no intention for how it is orientated, it is in a superposition of both a 6 and a 9 simultaneously (essentially meaningless until given one arbitrarily).

The dimensions (space and time) allow for multiple viewpoints/perspectives of the same thing. They limit the observer so that they are unipresent and uniscient and any given time. (Ie they can only witness a portion of the full picture from a specific position and hold only a portion of full information). Unlike if they were omnipresent and omniscient - at all places and receiving all information simultaneously.

It is these dimensions that allow for perspective, individualism and subjectivity.

In one direction we can study more objective truths by minimising variables (reducing the role of perspective/the subject) by standardising things or introducing constants, laws and principles by which we establish formulas for exacting precision/ prediction (science).

In the other direction we can maximise variables (increase the role of perspective/the subject) by casting out any rules, constants and limits and getting creative and reformulatory to make art, literature, poetry and abstractions that are highly interpretative.

Both exist. Both are true. But their truths are in different domains and thus function differently. Science and Tech = taking control of our environment and maximising our abilities based on refining objective truths.
Art, philosophy etc = not about taking control of the environment but rather about escaping it - proposing alternative "what ifs", exploring the metaphysical and maybe formulating ideals/ running commentary on reality by comparing it to imaginative constructs or parallel universes or our own making, which incidentally, may sometimes better our understanding of objective truths or the dynamic/tension between the objective and the subjective.

It exists in your mind, your imagination, but not in the physical world — T Clark

Does that mean the mind is also an abstraction? Something outside the physical world? If so how does one explain what happens to my mind when you crush my head between two boulders?

Pardon my skepticism. Reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity is one of the most difficult issues in physics right now. — T Clark

Why do you think I'm drawn to that particular blockade with fascination/enthusiasm?

. It seems unlikely that the approach you’ve described here will resolve that — T Clark

Perhaps it is unlikely. That's perfectly fine with me. I'm prepared to accept that by concensus.

But the glaringly obvious is that if one does not attempt to put forth a proposal when they have one, then we certainly are no closer to an answer or even new lines of thinking. There's no shame in trying. And try we ought.

This is how I understand it, subject to ammendment or discredit by others.

I see what you mean absolutely. Given the vast scope of human intellectual constructs and considerations/musings such as ethics, aesthetic or art/beauty etc as you pointed out, they seem a far cry from fundamental physics. Almost or seemingly entirely separate/ devoid of influence or relevance in fact.

However, that being said I use the term "observer" in the loosest and most core sense, rather than by the higher order cognitive levels that derive all the extraneous features of the particularly human psyche.

The point I was arguing for pertained more to "accountancy" in the sense of unifying physical concepts without ignoring the measurers role (as we are physical beings subject to the same principles as the rest of the system.)

That is - when faced with the three physical domains of the specified scientific endeavour: 1). The Newtonian 2) the Relative 3). and The Quantum ... How does one measuredly refer all of these facets to the observer (the cognisant) whom studies them without factoring the measurer in?

It stands to reason that a theory that ties physics together cannot ignore the knot binder themselves-that is to say - the observer/measurer as well as the fundamental limitations - the boundaries, between them (consciousness) and the perceived external world - the subject of measurement.

We still do not know the fundamentals of consciousness/awareness nor how to conceptualise or understand them. Yet we can understand the products of such - art, literature, philosophy, ethics, etc. That made lead to an inherent sense of irrelevancy.

But at its base, the "physical" observer MUST interact with the "physical" environment at some boundary by some set rules and principles. Those are what i focus on - generalised as they may be.

So in a theory of everything/unifying theory -we must consider the external, yes - physics as it accords to the observer, as well as the observer in relationship to that physics. And I believe that is a matter of "perspective" - a phenomenon based on assumptions- the domain of the observer. Change those assumptions and you may get "the observer from the perspective of external physics" - a neccessary and complimentary opposite.

I don't believe the main physical domains can be reconciled without consideration for the role of the observer - we are not separate/isolated from the system we wish to understand. One slice of the cake cannot understand the whole without fitting their own piece into it.

Perhaps free will and determinism both exist as a mutual duality/ neccessary dichotomy. Seems contradictory but:
The past is fully determined and unchangeable, the future is fully undetermined, uncertain.

The present moment (where we actually exist and do all our thinking and perception) is the point at which there is transfiguration of the "undetermined" (future) into the "determined" (past). A boundary between the two.

In that way - one can rationalise the past as having determined the present. But we can also assert the existence of the uncertain future as the factor that fuels possibility/potential, imagination, desires, aspirations and dreams, choices and intent going forward (An act of free will because the basis -ie what the future might hold - is entirely uncertain, unlike the past. It is aspirational despite what may happen, ie hopeful/expectant but not based on something concrete and certain/established -like the past).

In this way perhaps the mind has both deterministic and free-will methodologies to perceive and understand reality. Neither one nor the other, but a dynamic, an interplay between the two influences.

This mirrors the liar paradox:
"The following sentence is true" (the oracle predicting the impending outcome). "The previous sentence is false" (the thwarter doing the opposite to what was predicted to thwart the oracle's veracity/render it false.

It is a dichotomy/pair of mutually cancelling phenomena. The result: lack of utility of either. They're entangled and self defeating.

The lesbians on Grey's Anatomy were certainly quite frisky. — BC

I'm glad to see you're using reliable sources :P

Did legalized marriage change behavior? Perhaps. The broader culture changed as well. — BC

I tend to believe there is some paradoxic behaviour at play in regards to legalisation and rights. Sometimes, the drive to gain the same rights doesn't actually reflect the same values. As in gay people may want access to marriage as straight people already enjoy, but once they have it the numbers who actually avail of it might drop off in comparison to how many people wanted the option if that makes sense?

It's like when the legal age of drinking is lowered, often the rate of drinking in youths goes down -opposite to that you would expect.

I am of the opinion that female emotional intelligence, hormones or whatever it is etc confers some complex stability and form to monogamous commitment. Lesbians have higher marriage rates and lower divorce rates than both straight people and gay men. Gay men have the lowest.

There must be some innate aspect of men -hormonal or otherwise, that means gay guys are less likely to have a strict monogamous lifelong relationship. Ofc none of that speaks at all to whether they're happy or not with that -another topic entirely.

Pervert! I hope the fence consented at least! :scream: — unenlightened

Haha that gave me a good chuckle.

Ah, yes, I understand. But do you understand the consequences of your conclusion? If I decide to bathe in the blood of babies, I am no more morally right or wrong then stating my favorite color is blue — Philosophim

I don't see how that is the implications of my conclusion. The implications would be that if you decide to bathe in the blood of babies, other subjects will exert their subjective morality upon you and take you to the criminal courts.

There's a difference between subjective concensus and objectivity. Objectivity stands true to all components of the universe - for example electromagnetism or gravity or photoelectric effect or the ability of hydrogen and oxygen to combine to form water.

Subjective morality can still have concensus (agreement on general right and wrong) without being objective like gravity is.

Subjective morality is chosen because its easy on the surface, but taken to its logical conclusion, means there is no morality period — Philosophim

But subjective morality does not preclude subjective existence. Just because its subjective in nature a). Doesn't mean it doesn't exist and b) doesn't mean it cannot be exercised by subjects onto other subjects. This is the internal sphere where such phenomena occur. We exert subjective justice on other subjects. We don't imprison the boulder that fell on a person during an earthquake because we don't see boulders nor earthquakes as subjects, only objects without agenda and therefore impossibly malevolent.

Subjective morality can exist, because subjects exist, and have actionable existent consequences, limited to existent subjects. Objectivity need not be relevant for this dynamic to occur.

The conclusion I made is not an opinion. According to the conclusion, no. — Philosophim

Well if the conclusion is not opinion but rather...fact, then bravo. Its a great discovery in this case. However such a discovery needs to withstand criticism and mutliple attempts at rejection to ultimately come out trumps and change our paradigm of reality - for example Einsteins theory of general relativity.

So if you really believe you're onto something important go with it! It could be something. Time shall tell when it's peer reviewed by the most intellectual of us.

↪Philosophim Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence? — DifferentiatingEgg

I can. I call the point in time when there is too much existence "being overwhelmed" or "over-stimulated". Ofc this is a subjective experience of too much going on, too much happening, too much information to absorb or an inability to manage with the reality you're currently facing - but to me, "too much existence" describes this feeling well. When ones awareness outweighs ones ability to cope or perceive such.

Autistic people experience this "too much existence" feeling frequently. Because what exists for any individual is contingent on their ability to ignore the background noise, to be selective in valuation of incoming perceptions

Perfect! Yes, I have no way of proving that there is an objective reality. Only that if there is, this is a logical result — Philosophim

Wait, I don't understand how an objective reality leads to objective morality.

I believe an objective reality exists outside of our subjective perceptions of it. But what I was saying is that morality applies to us - "subjects".

So even with an objective reality, for me this doesn't necessitate an objective morality, just a morality restricted to subjective experience - a subjective morality.

Can you explain how an objective reality leads to objective morality?

I absolutely agree. I think the truly objective doesn't care for individual discrepancies and opinion. For example gravity gravitates despite whether we believe in it or not.

So you're right, any philosophical stance is just that- "a stance" - a bias, a tendency or leaning toward one or another idea, based on selective choice and omittance, and not perhaps held by other subjects. Thus it is subjective.

The question here is are some philosophies "more true" (objective) than others? I think it is certainly possible. I just don't know what the limitations are. Are all philosophies inviolably subjective or can they indeed be objective as scientific hypotheses often are proven such.

This is all a fine opinion, but did you read and understand the OP? Because I show through the argument that if there is an objective morality, existence must be good by non-contradiction. — Philosophim

I did, I found it a bit convoluted tbh but probably because I'm not sufficiently intellectually adept to understand it all. So I went back to the very basics of the title and what I could grasp.

I think that yes if there is an objective morality existence must be good by non contradiction. However, I don't believe there is an objective morality. Because I believe morality can only be applied to subjects, and not inanimate objects -rocks and dust.

And therefore - with morality not applicable to everything in existence, only things that can experience (the quality of being good, bad, in suffering or contentment), morality cannot be objective.

If either a). Everything exists for us alone (creationism) or b) everything is some degree sentient or conscious (panpsychism) then I could believe in an objective morality of the simplest form, sure.

I do apologise if I've completely missed your point. But I am a subscriber to the belief that the finest ideas can be explained briefly and simply, as though explaining to a child, esotericism aside. And I am a bit of a child when it comes to it. My simpleton brain only captures the basics.

Is existence good? Now that's one of the oldest if not 'the' oldest question of philosophy, along with what is existence and what is the meaning of existence (and/or life). The Trifecta.

If you ask a happy person, existence is good. If you ask a depressed, endlessly tortured, actively suicidal or nihilistic person, existence is not very much not good.

Biologically speaking, sex is good. It feels good (generally speaking ofc - rape and dyspareunia aside).

If it wasn't fundamentally good, pleasurable/ rewarding then we wouldn't be long for extinction or a state of non-passionate monotonous "duty" for the sake of continuity of the human species.

I take sex as evidence that biology "wants" us to believe existence is good, from genetics upwards - because of the power of a). Libido b). Maternal(/paternal) instinct and c) survival instinct.

I would say there's no morality for non-life. As morality requires a means to an end and for the non-existent there are no means, no beginnings nor ends. Absolutely devoid of purpose or the quality of being good or bad.

Morality is for the existent because suffering, pain and conversely joy, peace, love and happiness are for the living.

No. Because you cannot have any meaningful suffering without its opposites -joy, pleasure, peace, contentment etc.

If suffering was all we knew, there would be no desire for pleasure or joy as these concepts would not exist and there would be absolutely no evidence subjective or otherwise of such a possibility.

Suffering is that which we actively avoid, desire to ignore, minimise etc on the basis that we have previously experienced the opposite.

They can't create them for real — Ludwig V

But we are talking about simulations. It doesn't have to be real.

Car crashes are a great example of this, a far more cost effective method of testing automobile designs than crashing actual cars. — noAxioms

I'm not sure I fully understand. Forgive me, but are these simulations not the ones where they put crash test dummies in a model of car and ram it into a brick wall? How is that not crashing actual cars?

Or do you mean studying thr aftermath of incidental crashes on the road? Not sure how often this actually happens as there would be a lot of legal red tape with ongoing investigations into real victims.

Perhaps I am wrong about determinism tho. I always figured if variables were fully predetermined then the outcome would be invariably predetermined and fully predictable.

Like 1 + 1 = 2.

I figured that nothing is fully predetermined in real life experiment because there is almost certainly extraneous variables interacting to make the outcome for example 1+1 + X variable + Y variable + Nth variable = 2?

Minds/consciousness can't come from matter, therefore simulation theory is false. — RogueAI

How do you prove that? It seems at the very least, matter is the carrier medium of consciousness. A necessity. If not the source.

But being that the simulation is a program, it should be deterministic, and therefore consistent; — Lionino

Who says? If a simulation is wholly deterministic, there is no added value to run it in the first place. For all variables throughout the simulations play are already known by the creators.

Perhaps an ultra advanced simulator can harness randomness and chaos to generate a simulation that is generated "live" in time based on randomness and subsequent unpredictable evolution.

If you think about it, not only is such a simulation far more insightful for the creators, but it requires less control and therefore less programming. All that need be made is the initial function and then the system evolves in it's own way thereafter.

Like a mandelbrot set. The initial function can continue infinitely creating various fractals whose emerging chaos and variables would be much harder to simulate entirely as one determined instantaneous entity.

Another argument against the simulation hypothesis might be this:

A simulation is a representation, and a representation is selective and asymmetric relative to what it is a representation of. — jkop

How does this prove we aren't a simulation though? All it asserts is that should our existence indeed be simulated, it is imperfect when compared to the "original" or "real world/source of simulation".

That doesn't prove we are not in a simulation. At most it suggests that there is a fundamental unknowability of the authentic world that we as simulations could never grasp fully.

Therefore, everything cannot be a simulation. — jkop

True. But 99.99999999% of things can be simulated with one singularity type entity running the show. If we take "everything" as the set for which one phenomenon is "real" (ie the simulator) then the odds are very much against most things we know being actually "real".

Perhaps there is some universally conscious god like entity and we are all merely a fever dream in its mind or "programme". There's really no way of knowing. Everything "objective", all scientific "proofs" would be merely be one minds "subjective" decisions in this case.

Finally, in an even more wild hypothesis, perhaps such a highly advanced simulator would be non local. Simulating different parts of itself from different temporospatial points. In this sense nothing is "not simulated" it would just mean the simulation is relative at any given point to some other simulating component elsewhere. Mind fuck I know.

Maybe quantum phenomena simulate us and we similarly simulate them in some strange mutually recursive iteration, and to avoid a cancellation or violating opposition of entangled simulators, when we observe quantum events they automatically collapse into a singularity thing to maintain our ability to "observe them" (simulate their existence).

Ofc I'm on some fantasy rant here. But I enjoy dabbling in wild metaphysical speculation

If this world is simulated, the "real" world must be very like this one - as in the "Matrix". — Ludwig V

Why so? Surely the programmers can create whatever physics, chemistry and phenomena they like.
Perhaps the passage of time is exclusive to this simulation and that the higher dimensional beings that created it exist at all times simultaneously.

Perhaps our simulated physics is created for the very reason that they may wish to study how a universe would unfold under different properties and circumstances to their own.

What reason would an advanced simulating civilisation have for recreating an exact carbon copy of their own universe? Very few reasons other than maybe prediction? Which is unlikely if they're already far more advanced and evolved than us.

Maybe it is to witness first hand how their own universe played out. To gain an insight into history -the programme we are running right now. Maybe AIs great great great grand reiteration wishes to witness the birth of itself.

However, given these two reasons to simulate an identical universe, there are infinitely more reasons to simulate a non identical one.

why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? Guidance through such a virtual world might be helpful, and yet there is no trace of anyone 'programming' or 'guiding' us anywhere. — jasonm

Perhaps it's a game. Maybe the hints are all around us; in philosophy, perhaps in various scriptures spanning many cultures and times, Easter eggs hidden all over the 'map'. We at least know whatever type of "nature" we live in it seems to enjoy competition.

Similarly, why don't we sometimes notice violations of the laws of physics? — jasonm

We see inconsistencies at the frontier of science and discovery all the time. "Paradox" exists as a concept with dozens if not hundreds of examples spanning linguistics, physical principles such as time . The Hubble constant appears to be constantly contested due to vast discrepancies in several independent attempted measurements. Gravity has not been resolves with the standard model. Glitches? Perhaps?

Third: what type of computing power would be required to 'house' this virtual universe? Are we talking about computers that are bigger than the universe itself? Is this possible even in principle? — jasonm

All that is required is to generate one's immediate surroundings. The entire universe does not have to be simulated to the same degree of resolution. Also resolution is relative, perhaps for a highly advanced super computer, what we experience requires very low CPU - a highly pixelated version of what could be generated. How would we know any better? How could we ever imagine a world woth higher definition than that humans are currently capable of perceiving.

Perhaps many players are philosophical zombies - only simulations of people. NPCs.
Maybe you Jason, are the only real players in the simulation. Then again, perhaps you are designed only to believe you are.

Fir the record I don't actually believe we live in a simulation. I just enjoy playing the devil's (simulations) advocate. It's not as easy to discredit as one might think.

My daughter's generation (she is 27) were very much given a discussion/debate/discourse model of education. But as I hinted above, different countries do different things.

What we probably need to do is cite specific educational approaches as implemented and then subject them to some evidence based scrutiny rather than just present untheorized opinions on 'education'. — Tom Storm

Well I'm also 27 and from the proverbial "west". And my education in school was heavily based on fact and rote learning. With the exception of English - in which we had to develop opinions and comprehensive analysis of a literary work by our own accord.

The opinion may indeed be "untheorized" on a global scale. I can concede to that of course. But in my nation as with my neighbouring one, the concensus is that rote learning is alive and well in many "big players" of the west. And this I based on personal experience having undergone that education system along with many friends from other not too dissimilar western countries.

I am however delighted to hear your daughter benefited from a more nuanced and discursive method of education. I would have loved this format had I had the opportunity myself.

Rather than making me MORE susceptible to Nazi, racist, imperialist, settler colonial thinking, reading about the appalling behavior has strengthened bias (antibodies) against these ideas. — BC

Well you answered your own qualm. My OP on the virality of thoughts is not explicitly about being indoctrinated by them. As you said we have a "mental immune response" so to speak and can actively reject the idea we come across. Or accept them.

I was focusing more on the point that any idea we come across must invariably be processed and dealt with in the sense that "one cannot unsee what they have just seen".

The concern here is between passive attention and active conscious decision making. I am suggesting that if we are unaware that viral ideas may affect us, if we do not maintain alertness to them, it is possible we will unintentionally assimilate the idea and allow it to warp our views. Thus there is am importance to maintaining a certain level of active critical approach.

Is anyone on earth an expert on global education? Who would even know 1% of what takes place in the realm of education on the planet? — Tom Storm

I think the point here was not having a global education oneself. One does not need to know the intricate details of every item on every syllabus across the globe to establish a general comparative study of international education systems. This is somewhat a strawman commentary on a point I never actually made.

Your argument is analagous to saying a "linguist" ought to be fluent in every human language. When in fact they usually study the different frameworks for language and their grammar, and how they compare to one another.

Lots of propaganda masquerades as "critical thinking" where the sole purpose of the "thinking" is to cast suspicion or doubt on the facts, e.g. to undermine the possibility to criticize false or nonsensical claims etc. — jkop

I agree. For if we can assume nothing (ie have no trusted facts) and apply "critical thinking" to every shred of knowledge we are offered, we must go back to first principles again and again in an exhaustive and inefficient cycle.

In an ideal world, facts stand as the ever continuing basis for fresh education upon which we can grow, develop or build a greater level of knowledge.

Unfortunately not all facts remain accepted as such. And some facts are likely erroneous to begin with. Science is in a forever fluctuating paradigm shift.

So without the 100% certainty of fact, one must at least lend some credence to the ability to think rationally. To apply logic. Which is another set of skills beyond mere fact absorption and assimilation.

One would imagine a refined reasoning ought to lead to the same "facts" if such facts are indeed true.

I agree. I think context is almost everything in education. For a true knowledge of any subject the who, what, why, when, where and how's of said subject must be addressed to fully contextualise the education.

Sadly I think arbitrary fact recycling and disconnected informational points are the method of choice for too many educators. That's why I suggested philosophy as a doorway to allowing students to develop their own frameworks, apply them, familiarise themselves with criticism and rebuttal, allow them to defend ideas or acceot new ones and overall to develop a sense of discursive enlightenment, not mere fact learning.

Context is the existence we live in. Association is the way we position individual facts within that context and form practical or insightful relationships between information.

So perhaps philosophy is a prophylaxis against propaganda; it's just that we will never be able to agree on what "philosophy" should mean. — Leontiskos

Perhaps that us the crux if the issue itself.

Am I right in thinking of you, Ben, as an Englishman? — Banno

You would be incorrect.

Here's some data that might be reassuring. More folk are better educated than ever before.

Critical thinking is more of a middle-class concern, perhaps, on the global scale. — Banno

Surely critical thinking is best exemplified by those at the elite end of the system for one reason or another. Otherwise how do they trump the rest of us in the power-finance struggle?

Moreover, you say more folk are better educated than ever before. Where does the dunning-kreuger effect play into this? Absorbing misinformation and calling it education does not an educated person make. Flat earthers were a non-issue in the previous century. So it's clear something within the endeavour to become better thinkers has gone awry. And that invariably comes down to the quality of education and the reliability of sources.

. People are not stupid, but depth takes sustained effort, which is difficult for many people. Killing saber toothed tigers, domesticating wolves, figuring out how to get agriculture started, milking cows, mining coal, greeting every "guest" who walks into a Walmart... it all keeps us busy. No time for Plato and Aristotle. — BC

Well... "distraction" has maintained a stable status as an effective way to disarm people. Especially if you have an underlying dogma or agenda you wish to incept slowly and gradually into the target audience.

What I'm saying is that the spread of thoughts can be viral in that they need not gain acceptance, merely seed the kernel of doubt. After that the skepticism can build and warp or mould minds who are especially vulnerable....ie the "impressionable"..

I would argue that few people on this forum are impressionable or easily persuaded. But this is not a fair cross section of society as a whole. Not everyone seeks out philosophical discussion nor hones their critical thinking abilities.

That in itself lends importance to fostering philosophy as a basic educational tenet. I for one cannot understand how so many education systems overlook this subject. As education is not just facts, it is also a form of resilience to malicious yet effective propaganda