For me the important thing is to stay close to what you can perceive directly. Kant did not invent this theory out of thin air, he observed his mind while it was operating. — Carlo Roosen

I don't think this is true. The noumena/phenomena distinction is not based on empirical observation, it's metaphysics. It's not true, it's interesting and useful. Here's a link to an article you might be interested in - "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology" by Konrad Lorenz.

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

After reading it, I have rethought the way I look at this issue.

mercans — Banno

Muricans.

As for the business, I don't see the difference in what I say and what you say. With the cookies in a certain configuration, that "E" or "F" is a label we give to the form. Fundamental reality provides everything that is needed for these letters to appear, so in that sense they really do exist. But when we call it "E" or "F", we create something in our conceptual reality that is not there in fundamental reality. — Carlo Roosen

Again, I think you've missed the point. Here you are conceptualizing "fundamental reality," but you're not allowed to do that. You can't even really think about it, and yet here you are thinking about it. So what you're thinking about isn't fundamental reality. It's not cookies or patterns or anything. All you can talk about is how it is impossible to talk about it. There is nothing else to say.

Are you familiar with the "Tao Te Ching" written by Lao Tzu more than two thousand years ago. The first lines of the first verse is "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, the name that can be named is not the eternal name." The Tao represents the unformed, undifferentiated, unconceptualized, inchoate ground of being - what was there before there was anything to think about it. Lao Tzu calls the Tao "non-being," and the multiplicity of things we perceive here in the world as "being." The implication is that the Tao doesn't exist, which makes sense to me. The idea that there is no objective reality is not a radical one in philosophy.

Many philosophers have been struggling with this, but this is really all there is to it, I believe. — Carlo Roosen

Welcome to the forum. To start, a single cookie is not a cookie, it's a period.

Down to business. I think you've oversimplified what Kant had to say and have missed the important point. Kant is not the only one who recognizes that the world at its most basic level is unspeakable. It cannot be put into words. When you put things into words, conceptualize them, you create something different from the thing itself. "Moon" is not the moon. As I see it, this is the fundamental fact in understanding our relationship to reality.

Will take your advise re: "...you to look at them" — kazan

Here’s a link to Lorenz's "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology." It’s much shorter than the book I mentioned and covers the same general subject.

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

Interesting. As I mentioned to F Drake, I'm glad I retired before I had to figure out how to write competent and effective engineering reports using LLMs.

4 is a valid alternative, although it does mean that logic/science would not work to describe uncausal things. — Brendan Golledge

Logic and science do not require the concept of causation. Whether or not the idea of causation is needed is a very big subject. We've discussed it quite a few times here on the forum.

5 seems to me to be the same as 2. If the universe is infinitely old and one thing causes another, then that is an infinite regression of causes. — Brendan Golledge

They seem different to me. Or maybe 5 is a combination of 2 and 4.

I think inductive logic can argue for plausibility, but it can't prove unique truth. — Brendan Golledge

Ultimately, premises in deductive logic are generated either by assumption or by inductive logic.

I developed this philosophy to counter my natural sourness. — Brendan Golledge

I consider myself the Polyanna of the forum.

Any other examples or expansions on this or other rationales of how/why reality is perceived/perceiveable in a particular way, in Lorenz's book? — kazan

Sorry, I pushed “post comment” by mistake and posted it before I was ready. Lorenz’s book has lots of examples, but it would make more sense for you to look at them rather than me to try to lay them out.

keeping with the speculative part of this OP, is: Might living things have extra senses that are currently not recognized but influence the experience of everything? — kazan

There’s nothing in the book that relates to that.

Any other examples or expansions on this or other rationales of how/why reality is perceived/perceiveable in a particular way, in Lorenz's book? — kazan

First off, I only saw this post by accident. If you want me to respond to your post, you need to tag me.

That makes sense. I've thought about how I might have used it if it was around while I was still working. I'm glad I don't have to worry about it.

tl;dr, I fully agree with the proposed site rules amendment, which seems to me warranted regardless of the degree of accuracy or reliability of LLM outputs. — Pierre-Normand

You clearly have put a lot of thought and effort into how LLMs work and how to make them work better. That seems like a useful exercise. It also raises a question. Do you actually use LLMs to solve problems, answer questions, or discuss issues in the non LLM world or only those directly related to the LLMs themselves.

An interesting, well written post. My thoughts.

About cosmology: If you define logic as, "Rules of correct inference from assumed premises", and you think about ultimate causes, then you run into the problem of needing new premises in order to prove existing premises. Therefore, there are only 3 choices:

1. There exists a cause without a cause
2. There is an infinite regression of causes with no beginning
3. Causality is circular (maybe like someone going back in a time machine to start the big bang) — Brendan Golledge

There are other possible choices.
4. Causation is not a valid, or at least not the only valid, way of thinking about how the universe works. This is mainstream philosophical position.
5. The universe is eternal. It's always been here and always will be. It never began and was never caused.

Whatever option you choose is outside the scope of ordinary logic. A thing without a premise cannot be acted upon by logic, you never get to the end of an infinite regression, and circular logic is ordinarily not considered valid. Therefore, SOMETHING definitely exists which is outside the scope of human reason. — Brendan Golledge

What you say may be true for deductive logic, but not for inductive. Inductive logics job, if you want to look at it that way, is to generate premises for deductive logic to work on.

Humans are hardwired to be social, so it's easy for us to attribute personhood to things that aren't really people. — Brendan Golledge

I think this is important. I have been thinking about a metaphysical argument for God that is similar to your understanding of deism. I just have not put my arguments together well enough to bring it out on the forum yet. Speaking personally, when I see, live in, the world, I often want to express my gratitude for something so wonderful. That is the heart of my understanding of God, although there's more to it than that. To be clear, when I say "metaphysical" I mean that it is not something that can be determined empirically. It is not true or false. That seems similar to how you are describing your attitude toward deism.

This philosophy is perhaps bleak because there is no covenant with the divine, and therefore there is no promise of personal fulfilment. But this religious belief also necessarily implies that there is a whole universe (or possibly multiverses) of beauty and goodness completely outside the scope of my own personal desires. — Brendan Golledge

I love the world. I can't believe how wonderful it is. Seems like you feel something similar. There are many people here on the forum and in the world who have a much sourer take. They are unlikely to find your approach useful.

Hey, @Plex, it’s expected you will participate in discussions you start.

A good response. Even-tempered and respectful.

I'll only add that if as a presumably thinking, presumably educated adult you have never been angered by something you heard in church, then either the drugs are working or you're not paying attention or not listening. — tim wood

I don’t go to church and I haven’t for many years, but I don’t remember ever being angered by something I heard there.

I do not believe in facts nor do I believe in good or bad. I do not believe that we truly know anything. Facts are only an ideal perfection, something we would like to achieve but cannot. — Plex

Here’s what Steven J Gould had to say about facts:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." — Stephen J Gould

That is a good description of what facts and knowledge are to me. They are information which is adequate to make decisions about potential actions. Of course the information might be wrong, but there comes a time when you have to act even though there are uncertainties.

You say you don’t believe in facts, but every day you act as if you do - you make decisions and act based on the information you have.

My question was sincere and specific. What offended you so much? — tim wood

I don’t doubt your sincerity. I wasn’t offended, I was angered by the mean spirited and ignorant characterization of the people he disagrees with.

Don't be so practical man! First things first. — Benkei

I was an engineer for a reason.

I think risk is secondary though. — Benkei

Morally perhaps, but not practically.

the perpetual gains of a shareholder is another process I'm not ethically comfortable with. — Benkei

I’m not sure I understand this concern. Of course that could be because my retirement account is funded by bonds and mutual funds, which depend on the investments you’re talking about. at the same time, anyone with a 401(k) or pension depends on them too. A 401(k) is the US governments, retirement savings program, separate from Social Security.

I haven't gotten as far to think about actual policy implementations. — Benkei

Did I mention I was an engineer?

Your response is certainly more reasonable than mine.

I did not detect anything false or untrue in the OP. What offended you so much? Or were you trying to make a joke? — tim wood

Not a joke, although it would take more than this obnoxious OP to make me vote for Mr. Trump. I’m pleased to see it’s been moved to the garbage dump in the lounge.

the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, — Art48

Smug, arrogant crap. Makes me want to vote for Trump just to piss you off.

Laws are not invented wholesale. Laws are based on an inheritance. Most of that inheritance comes from a time before the United States. — Moliere

I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it seems to me that the specific laws we are concerned with have been legislated and enforced wholesale since the Supreme Court kicked Roe vs. Wade out the door.

I would just say that there is more scientific evidence pointing to the fact that abortion isn’t “killing a child”. — Samlw

What constitutes killing a child is not something that can be resolved by science. It's a matter of social convention, consensus. Obviously, consensus is lacking here in the US. It's not unfair that not everyone shares your values.

Further, most of the laws have been written by men -- I don't see our representative democracy as a palliative for the history of patriarchy that has dominated women's bodies so that men knew that their fucking made a kid. — Moliere

Women have a right to vote. Approximately 30% of state legislators are women, although that varies a lot depending on the state. Many of the most prominent opponents of abortion are women. To claim that women are not responsible for the laws passed in the same manner that men are is patronizing and disrespectful.

I have never heard a compelling argument for pro-life. All of them have been based on religion or personal feelings in which my answer is always to simply not have an abortion. The fact that abortions are legal doesn't force you to do anything, you can choose to have the child. My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want. — Samlw

This is a weak argument. As for justifications for pro-life beliefs being based on religion or personal feelings 1) I don't see how pro-choice beliefs are any different and 2) Those seem like pretty good reasons to me. As others have noted, people who are against abortion generally consider it killing a child. Let's take the paragraph I quoted above and change "abortion" to "kill a child." I think that puts a different light on it.

As for my personal feelings on abortion - I am strongly pro-choice. At the same time, I recognize that abortion is a bad thing and shouldn't be used as a normal method of birth control. It has consequences for both potential parents and I think it has a negative impact on society as a whole. We should do what we can to reduce the number of abortions as much as we can with non-coercive means.

An ugly name for a powerful thing.

To steal a line from comedian Larry Miller, it's like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it. It's not a decision. — Patterner

Before my first child was born, I knew that I would love her, but I didn't come close to anticipating how intense the emotional reaction would be when I first saw her. — wonderer1

Before my first child was born, I wasn't sure how the whole love thing worked. I've never grown emotionally attached to pets, so I wasn't sure how I would feel about my children. Then, like I said, it was like a switch. Makes me think maybe Darwin was right.

So you're saying it's not the form Bob paid for, but labor costs? — frank

That's not what I wrote.

What is love — Athena

The closest feeling I have to love unalloyed with other factors such as desire, expectation, and obligation is my love for my three children. It came to me as a force of nature - immediate and uncaused - automatic, like a switch being switched. It's a feeling of affection, respect, interest, protectiveness, and commitment. Most importantly, it's unconditional - it doesn't expect or require any response or acknowledgement.

how do we know when we are loved? — Athena

There are a few people in my life who have shown me they feel for me something similar to what I feel for my children. I don't feel like they owe it to me, but it feels wonderful. A gift.

What is this thing that Bob paid for? We could call it form. In the world of art, form goes hand in hand with its brother: content. Form is actual shapes molded into the clay. It's the technique that shows up, the style, whether medieval or modern. The content is something beyond the form: it's the meaning of the statue, which doesn't have to be something that can be put into words, although it could be. In the case of a statue, the content could be the way it makes us feel. — frank

Bob received an Ikea statue - assembly required - but he ordered a fully assembled statue.

What is this thing that Bob paid for? — frank

Bob received a blob of clay. What he ordered but didn't receive was the work required to turn that clay into a statue as well as the artists skill and vision.

What a great post. Here are some thoughts - rather piecemeal and off the cuff rather than comprehensive.

How much of the answer to this question depends on the existence of income as money rather than what is produced - material or agricultural? Money separates and abstracts the labor from the product. Of course, a sharecropper or slave gives some or all of what is produced to the landowner and even farmers who are landowners themselves pay taxes.

For example, a hedge fund manager might earn significantly more than a nurse, not because they are more deserving in a moral sense, but because of the structure of the market. — Benkei

Although there is need to address the fact that CEOs often have an income that is hundreds of times what their workers make, there is also the issue of risk. The willingness to take on risk has value that has to be compensated. Beyond willingness, there also has to be ability, which often depends more on wealth than income.

Even where we're not considering different types of labour but within the same type of labour, I might not be the best person to do the work and therefore less deserving. Or perhaps not deserving of the amount paid if the quality of my production lacks compared to others, even if the market accepts the price I set. By being paid income I divert income from people who might be more deserving of it than I am. — Benkei

I see this as a fraught issue. It makes sense that more trained, experienced, and competent people should be paid more than people who are less so, but so called "meritocracy" without more or less rigid job definition will generally lead to socially disadvantaged people, e.g. racial minorities and women, being paid less. Beyond that, it leads directly to those from historically privileged groups becoming even more privileged, but I guess that is outside the scope of this discussion.

This raises a critical question for the argument that we are entitled to our income: if we acknowledge the importance of need in labor contracts, then it follows that income should not be viewed as an absolute right. If individuals are hired based on their needs, the resultant income is not merely a reward for their labor but also a response to their vulnerability. — Benkei

This makes sense from an ethical perspective. As I see it, a good society should ensure a decent life to all it's members willing to participate. I think that would be hard to implement. I guess minimum wages are an attempt to get at the issue. Beyond that, the only practical solution I can think of is a universal basic income, which can separate work from income completely. I guess that's also outside the scope of this discussion.

Is the production process fair and just? Are workers adequately compensated? Are the environmental and social impacts of the work accounted for?

For example, a company that profits from exploitative labor practices or environmental degradation may pay its executives enormous salaries. Can those individuals claim a moral right to their income, when the production process itself is unjust? — Benkei

Solution - costs of production and prices should include social and environmental costs as well as those for labor, materials, and processing and transportation. Again, easier said than done.

When we center the discussion on worth, need and just production it becomes clear that individuals do not have an unqualified moral right to all of their income. — Benkei

As I noted previously, risk should also be considered.

In light of these factors, a moral right to income cannot be reasonably held. Instead, it is merely a legal right. — Benkei

The problem is enforcement. There have to be legal rights to enforce moral ones.

I think he signifies the importance of one's own authenticity in thinking and at least for me this is a huge part of why I enjoy philosophy and like learning about it. — Jafar

I agree. For me, philosophy is there to help us listen to and recognize the voice inside.

The Emerson doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. Too cryptic. Many of the people I have known who championed introspection have been breathtakingly arrogant and appear to lack self-knowledge. (I don’t think you’re one of those.)

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. — Tom Storm

Not to be flip, but that's what philosophy is for. For me, philosophy is about self-awareness - paying attention to how we think. If we are not capable of examining our beliefs, biases, and mental processes, then philosophy is useless, pointless.

@Jafar

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts?
— Jafar

Good question. Can it even be done? Or do we just move from one set of emotionally based presuppositions to another? — Tom Storm

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring out one of my favorite quotes. I try to use it at least once every couple of weeks here on the forum. It's from "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Wald Emerson.

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

When Emerson says "genius" he doesn't mean like Einstein. It's more like our true nature, what Taoists call "Te" - our intrinsic virtuosity. It takes self-awareness and discipline to follow Emerson's path. You need to pay attention.

Ones hand is forced — Benj96

No, I can choose to do nothing.

They then offer you a trinary quarternary choice — Benj96

4) Deny the word.

Ignore the word — Benj96

Ignoring words is one of the fundamental human mental tasks. We can't pay attention to everything, we have to choose. The trick is knowing which ones to ignore.

I think the only way to get to "nothing nothing" might be using zero. — javi2541997

We are not talking about mathematical nothing, at least I'm not. We're talking about actual nothing - no matter, no energy, no fields, no quantum vacuum, no space, no time. Nothing.

When you say the universe is inevitable, how do you mean? Do you mean it is non-contingent or metaphysically necessary? — Bodhy

How could there possibly be nothing? Not nothing like the inside of an empty box with all the air removed and shielded against radiation, but nothing nothing. Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? How can you have nothing without something to compare it with? Is that metaphysics? I'm not sure.

Propositions that can be expressed by language are indeed linguistic entities. The ones that cannot be expressed by language, however, are not. — Tarskian

There are no propositions that can't be expressed in language.

Subset X of the natural numbers is a subset of the natural numbers — Tarskian

This is just a restatement of the tautological proposition "All subsets of the natural numbers are subsets of the natural numbers."

I can see you and I are not going to agree on this. I'll give you the final word.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language — Tarskian

This is not right. Perhaps "the vast, vast majority of subsets of natural numbers cannot be expressed by language," but judgments of true or false only apply to propositions. Propositions are linguistic entities - they can all be expressed in language. If it can't be expressed in language, it isn't a proposition and if it isn't a proposition, it can't be true or false.