But, then, am I to conclude that the mentally spatialized universe is somehow located in my mind? — charles ferraro

I have not read a lot of Kant, but I was struck by his views on space and time. These Kant quotes are from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article "Kant's Views on Space and Time."

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally...

Now what are space and time? Are they actual entities [wirkliche Wesen]? Are they only determinations or also relations of things, but still such as would belong to them even if they were not intuited? Or are they such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, without which these predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all? — Kant - From the SEP article on Kant's views on space and time

Does the way Kant describes time and space mean that a "mentally spatialized universe is somehow located in my mind?" I'm not sure.

Interesting. I see you and ↪T Clark as both talking about intuition as it has developed for each of you. Could you elaborate on what key differences might be? — wonderer1

As I noted in my response to @Tom Storm, I don't think the differences are all that significant. I had struggled while I was trying to come up with examples of how intuition works in my own life. I felt like the ones I came up with were missing something. His examples really helped me get my hands around what I was trying to say.

Someone who understands the way development of reliable intuitions works, can then make relatively accurate judgements about the reliability of his own intuitions in relation to whatever the present situation happens to be. — wonderer1

Yes, this is important. One of the most important things to know, to be aware of, is how well you know the things you know, how uncertain you are.

But building the foundation of justification on intuition, which as discussed by Darkneos,Philosophim and other users is derived from knowledge, seems question-begging. — Charlie Lin

Intuition does not provide justification, it identifies knowledge that needs to be justified, brings it to our attention. If it's something not important, not much justification is needed. As I've noted in previous posts, reason does not generate ideas, it tests them.

Field theory might be relevant here somehow. We are influenced by the waves all around us (water, sound, electromagnetic… ) — 0 thru 9

I don't think there's any need to postulate processes other than mental ones, e.g. the Force or fields, in order to understand intuition.

Luck? Chance? Unconscious? Animal instinct? Energy? Intuition? Or… ? — 0 thru 9

Yes, it was the "or..." part that always bothered me. Intuition, or whatever you call it, is not something occult or supernatural.

I suspect we are thinking of intuition differently. — Tom Storm

I don't think we are.

For me, in the work I do (moderately reliable) intuition means being able to grasp almost immediately if someone has a hidden weapon on them or not and if they might be violent or not. Or if they are experiencing delusional thinking or psychoses. Or knowing if someone can do a very challenging job or not within seconds of meeting them in a job interview. I can generally tell when someone is suicidal whether they will act on it or not, based on intuition. I've gotten to the point when I meet a new worker I can often tell within a minute or two how long they will last in the field and what path brought them here - a relative, lived experience, etc. — Tom Storm

These are good examples. I've had similar experiences. When I would start a new project as an engineer, I would quickly scan all the information available, e.g. previous reports and regulatory documents. At that point, I could generally tell the future course of remediation - the environmental issues, other technical issues, legal issues and regulatory requirements. I wasn't always right, but I didn't need to be. What I needed at that point was a framework I could use to start organizing the information.

As for judging people - you can generally tell if someone is going to be a good engineer very quickly. One person we hired turned out to be dishonest and did some illegal things, but he was the best engineer we ever had. I was sorry to see him go.

I think there are probably key indicators we can read but you need to be 'open' to them in some way and have relevant experience. — Tom Storm

Yes. I think most of intuition is just paying attention.

Is the space Kant discusses in the Aesthetic the same space I experience and move through on a daily basis and is the time he discusses in the Aesthetic the same time I experience passing by on a daily basis? — charles ferraro

If I remember correctly, Kant understood space and time to be things not manifested by the exterior world, but imposed on the world by our minds a priori. That makes sense to me, by which I mean it is consistent with the way I see the world, although I'm not sure it's true.

If Kant is correct, then the answer to your question would be "yes," Kant's space is your space. His time is your time.

I have fond memories of Gould's various takes on sociobiology - albeit with some disagreements in some of the details. — javra

Gould is one of my favorite writers. I learned a lot about science and writing from him. I still pull down his books of essays and read them and I've given them to all my children. It's hard to believe he's been gone for more than 20 years.

Although 'way of knowing' might be too strong for me. I'd probably frame it more in terms of an approach to sense making. — Tom Storm

To the extent I understand the distinction you are making, I don't agree. As I've said before on the forum, I spent my work life knowing things and knowing how I know them. I paid a lot of attention to this issue. Observations and reason don't can't make knowledge by themselves. Measurements and observations don't come with ideas attached. Reason can test them, but it can't generate them. Ideas come from somewhere else. You get ideas by opening up your mind and seeing what comes out. If you do it with other people, it's called brainstorming.

I've noticed that intuition seems to work better when you are feeling well and happy. There's something about the mindset required that for me makes it less accurate or harder to pull off when you are feeling down or troubled. — Tom Storm

I haven't noticed that personally. For me, intuition is a very satisfying, sometimes exhilarating, experience. As I said, I see it as opening myself up to ideas that come from a part of my mind I'm not aware of. I don't know if you experience it like that at all. But it would make sense that that kind of openness would work better if you are feeling good.

This leads me to doubt the nature and reliability of "intuition" since this word has been and is being used by philosophers in nearly every discussion. Is intuition constructed by our experience, language or knowledge? Or a particular neuron circuit creates the illusion of intuition, the feeling of "that must be true"? — Charlie Lin

In my experience, intuition is much more than a recognition of a priori or logical truths, it's a fundamental way of knowing. An example - when he was running for president, people claimed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the US. Although I had no direct knowledge of the situation, I didn't believe those claims. Looking back, I can give reasons 1) in order to get has far as he had in the world, Obama must have had a birth certificate, i.e. proof of his citizenship 2) I judged that Obama is an intelligent and honest person who wouldn't lie. 3) I judged his opponents would lie or distort the truth for political advantage.

Another example - I've been paying attention to the war in Ukraine. Related to that is unrest in Moldova with the possibility of Russian invasion. That didn't make sense to me because I know the Danube River flows through Moldova and the Danube doesn't come anywhere near Russia, so the two countries shouldn't border each other. Turns out I was right about the border - Moldova and Russia don't border each other. But there is a large Russian population in Moldova which has broken away in a separate republic on the eastern side of the country. Russian troops have been stationed there as "peacekeepers." So, my intuition was wrong in this case, which I realized when I checked. I don't know why I knew the Danube flows through Moldova or that the Danube doesn't go anywhere near Russia. It's just part of the body of knowledge I've built up over the years.

That's the essence of intuition for me - based on 71 years of experience, I have a feel for how the world works, how people work. I have a body of knowledge that I've picked up mostly without formally learning it - just from observation and experience. I make judgements based on intuition - a non-specific understanding without specific justification. If it's important I'll go back and check to verify my judgment.

I differentiated morality from other forms of social control because morality involves interpretation and characterisation, while other forms of social control tend to focus on only one's actions. — Judaka

I guess I don't see that difference, or at least it's not one I pay attention to. For me, social morality is a method of social control, although it's source, e.g. religion, and impact, e.g. emotional response, might be different than others.

I think we agree here, — Judaka

Yes, I think you're right.

My intention was for "personal morality" to be characterised by possessing no attempts to influence others. I believe our understandings on this topic are similar, if not the same. — Judaka

Yes, I think you're right. Seems like we are just looking from different perspectives.

OK to this. As a reminder, I'm a diehard fallibilist. But it equivocates between empirical observations (which, yes, could in principle could include hallucinations - hence being technically fallible) and inferences, with these being optimal conclusions drawn from that which is observed (and since no one is omniscient, everyone's inferences could be potentially mistaken at times - hence being technically fallible). — javra

Stephen J Gould wrote, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" Does that agree with your position or disagree with it?

Going back to my previous comment including the example, even many (most?) of our empirical observations are inferences and not direct observations. That may have been less true in Pierce's time.

pragmatically, something that we all immediately know as a brute fact that we cannot rationally - nor experientially - doubt: we are as that which apprehends observables (including our thoughts, with some of these being our conscious inferences). — javra

Again, how much of what we know is a brute fact?

One of these crucial, pivotal inferences is that others are like us in being endowed with this "first-person point of view". Our observations (not inferences) of what they do sure as hell evidence and validate that they are thus endowed. Nevertheless, we do not observe them as first-person points of view. — javra

Again - many of what you call "brute-facts," we do not observe from a first-person point of view.

We, hence, cannot observe other's consciousness and its factual activities - such as, for one example, what the consciousness remembers via the workings of its total mind. — javra

In my view, we can study other people's and our own minds using the same methods we use for many of the things we know in our daily lives.

As I noted in my last post to @Wayfarer, it is unlikely you and I will get any further with this discussion. I've participated in similar ones many times, I'm sure you have too, and it never goes any further than this. This is probably a good place to stop.

We infer things all the time without seeing them directly
— T Clark

Of course. I acknowledged that we can infer that there are minds, but that the mind is not an object for us. — Wayfarer

This exchange started with me saying that we can observe more than seven billion minds from the outside. Those minds are objects to us, or at least we can study them as outside observers.

there is controversy about what these particles are, whether they're really particles or actually waves, — Wayfarer

There is no controversy - they are both particles and waves.

But all of that is irrelevant to the question at hand. — Wayfarer

And I say no, and that's as far as this argument ever goes.

I'll again propose and argue that his attribution is due to inference - much of it unconscious and hence automatic - and not do to (first-person) observation (which can only be direct - rather than, for example, hearsay). — javra

As I just wrote in my previous post to @Wayfarer, most of what we know is not based on our own direct observations. People tell us things. We read about things or see them on TV or the internet. When the Large Hadron Collider sends a bunch of particles into another bunch of particles, no one sees the actual collisions, they see readouts on a recording device. From those readouts they infer the behavior of the particles.

What if I answer "nothing" or "a pink dolphin" or something else and it happens to be a proposition that I'm fully aware doesn't not conform to the reality of what my current recollections are. These examples are obvious, but then I could answer with a proposition that, thought false, would be easily believable by you - and one which you'd have no possible way of verifying: e.g., "I'm now remembering your last post before this one". — javra

It is a commonplace of all philosophy, at least since Descartes, that all our observations are imperfect and might be anywhere from 99% right to 100% wrong. At the same time, if you and I are both people of good will and both interested in learning about how people think, you're reports of your experience of your mind are likely to be valid, if imperfect.

You never see anyone's mind. You can see their behaviour or hear what they say, but you never see the mind except for in a metaphorical sense. — Wayfarer

We infer things all the time without seeing them directly. We know that two black holes collided eight million light years away because of some squiggles on a meter at the Ligo facilities. We believe dark matter, which we can't currently observe directly, exists because of the behavior of normal matter we can observe. I know my children love me and they know I love them, but they can't experience the love I feel directly. Almost everything we know we know indirectly and not as a result of our own direct observation.

So mind is a thing, not a process? Or both? — RogueAI

Not to be a smart ass, but a process, or a group of processes, is a thing. I don't think the mind is a physical thing, if that's what you're asking.

So you're claiming that you (or anyone else) can observe what I'm remembering right now? — javra

Of course I can. Here I go. Watch me. Hey, Javra, what are you remembering right now?

So, right, I'm being funny. But I'm also being serious. And you're describing the experience of memory, which isn't exactly the same as memory itself. I can test your memory in many ways. What's the Capital of France? What is 5 x 7? If you're from the US I could ask you to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

I attribute memory; or thinking, or feeling, or seeing, or knowing; to people all the time just based on their self-reporting and other behavior I can observe. That's how we know the world. Mental processes are not special.

Maybe, but this would be contingent on how one defines and thereby interprets "mind". — javra

I would define "mind" as the sum total of an entities mental processes which include thinking, feeling, perceiving, knowing, remembering, being aware, being self-aware, proprioception, and lots of stuff I'm leaving out. I think all of those things are observable from the outside (third person observation) and many are observable from the inside (introspection).

The pros and the cons, the yin and the yang, of my thoughts about prayer. — Art48

I think the people who sincerely say "I'll pray for you" believe that God hears their prayers and might intercede. I'm not a theist, so I wouldn't say that, but I could say something like "My thoughts will be with you." Both phrases, beyond any possible religious meanings, also convey compassion and fellow-feeling. I don't see any particular reason to question or analyze that. People who say things like that might also mow your lawn, feed your cats, and bring in your mail while you're in the hospital.

As for asking God for $100 to put on a horse in the fifth race at Pimlico... there's a whole branch of Christianity that works at that - prosperity gospel. Kind of creepy. If I were God I'd send them all to purgatory for a few weeks. But as far as I can tell, I'm not.

I bet a lot of believers also pray for the strength and courage to do what's necessary and difficult. That seems like a pretty reasonable thing to ask God for help with.

mind is never an object to us — Wayfarer

This is certainly not true. There are more than seven billion human minds that are objects to us and only one you might argue isn't.

Hmm, you've interpreted these terms "personal morality" and "social morality" in a different way that I had meant to have laid out. I took them as mutually exclusive ways of viewing morality. Personal morality as a code limited to oneself, and social morality where views are applied in social contexts, to influence others and the rules of the group. — Judaka

This happened last time we talked too - I misunderstood what you were trying to say in the OP. If I remember correctly, I classed social morality in as just another part of social control but you didn't see it that way. I see from comments in this thread that is still a disagreement between us.

If you want to piece-by-piece categorise your moral views, as either personal or social, or alternatively using a less binary view, that's a different approach. — Judaka

Are you saying my approach is less binary. I would have thought you saw it as moreso.

However, even here, it's hard to imagine that the personal remains personal within the context of morality. So long as your feelings are genuine, then your empathy and compassion will inenvitably manifests in attempts to influence or coerce others. After all, you wouldn't sit back and watch someone else be treated cruelly and unfairly, as though it had nothing to do with you, right? You would want to intervene, and tell the belligerent to cut it out. — Judaka

First off, I strongly disagree that "feelings of empathy and compassion will inevitably manifest in attempts to influence or coerce others." As I noted in my first post, If someone is being bad and hurting someone else, my motives would be to help the victim, not to punish the evildoer. That might involve attempts to influence or coerce, but there are many instances where it wouldn't, e.g. stopping at a car accident and giving aid to the injured.

You can argue that harm is always wrong, and then list exceptions. Or you can say harm is not inherently immoral, and then argue for the cases where it would be. I'm not sure there's much of a difference. Moral systems always involve these games... You won't condemn harm when it's done under conditions that you consider fair & reasonable, so, yes, it's necessary to judge the acts as unfair, wrong, unreasonable and so on. — Judaka

You've missed my point. I'm not taking about killing in self-defense or something like that. I'm saying it is not necessary to judge or be angry at someone who is doing something bad. All you need to do is protect the victims and potential victims. Protection of real and potential victims might also include physically stopping the wrongdoer and putting them in jail.

I'd like to hear how you've been defining personal/social morality, and whether you really need to debate with me, that your moral views do not contain attempts to influence anything beyond yourself. I'm sure you can see it false. — Judaka

Here's how I defined personal/social morality earlier in this discussion.

Personal morality is the path I follow when acting from my heart - empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship. I act in accordance with social morality out of fear or duty. — T Clark

Would it help if I clarified that I don't think my personal morality isn't influenced by social factors? Everything I do is influenced by my interactions with others and what I learn from them. I didn't think that's what you were talking about. It's not what I was.

Do I ever try to influence others. Sure. I don't see that as a reflection of my personal morality. It's more of a way of trying to live my life in social situations. How I go about doing that is a matter of personal and social morality, especially if it comes to coercion.

What I was attempting to say was that a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others is not, in my view, really a morality - it's aesthetic preference. My understanding is that it's the intention to influence others which distinguishes moral values and aesthetic preferences — ChrisH

Well I'm glad we clarified my misunderstanding. Now I can feel more comfortable disagreeing strongly with you.

Isn't a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others no different to personal aesthetic preference? — ChrisH

I think they are the same in that they are expressions of personal values and feelings as opposed to reason. Is that what you mean?

This is a subject I've been thinking about since your last similar discussion. I appreciate the chance to clarify for myself how I think and feel about it.

Some claim to approach morality, not with the goal of social control, or even any interest in telling anyone else what to do. That one follows their own moral code or principles and will remain steadfast in that their aims are only personal. One only has these rules for just themselves, with the only purpose being to live a good or honourable life, with no interest in being told or telling others what to do. — Judaka

You and I had an exchange about this in a previous thread. What you've written here is a good summary of how I see things.

To me, this is a distortion of the truth of both what morality is, and what is being done by this individual. Personal morality is not separate or distinct from social morality but rather a part of it. — Judaka

I see them as different, although certainly related, things. Personal morality is the path I follow when acting from my heart - empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship. I act in accordance with social morality out of fear or duty. Clearly they overlap a lot.

One has moral views such as that a man beating his wife is "cowardly", that "incest is disgusting", or that "a man should provide for his family" or whatever else. Then frames them as a personal code or conceptual idea, representing only one's opinions and guiding how this individual should live.

The intention & motivation are distorted but are the same in every way it matters. Moral views can't involve cold practicality & indifference, they have an emotional weight behind them that characterises moral thinking. It is not an emotional feeling triggered only when involving oneself but in general. — Judaka

You don't have to judge people or their behavior, call them cowardly or disgusting, in order to hold those people responsible for their actions. The important thing about beating people or incest is the harm they cause to the victims, not the acts themselves. In those cases, social and personal morality overlap. On the other hand, consensual sexual behavior or drug use alone generally don't harm anyone but the person acting. In those cases my personal morality does not match social morality.

One will still feel anger towards and lose respect for those who act immorally and they will still argue against rules or conventions that go against their principles. The role their moral beliefs still plays is identical to normal. Encouraging moral behaviour and discouraging immoral behaviour in others, and applying one's moral beliefs in every context as one would normally. — Judaka

I don't necessarily feel angry at people who behave in a manner inconsistent with my personal morality or social morality, although I might. My feelings are not what's important, it is the safety and integrity of those who are harmed that matters.

The separation seems most useful to someone who resents the attempts of others to influence their behaviour, despite approving of the practice overall. "I follow my own moral code" as in, "don't preach to me", but nonetheless in following that moral code, one will still do the same to others. I believe this is the attraction of the distinction, but it could also be inspired by a resentment of social control in general, and a wide range of possibilities are valid. — Judaka

This is an uncharitable, and mistaken, interpretation, at least for me. I recognize the value of society's rules and it is part of my personal morality to follow them unless there is a good reason not to. I can't say I never feel resentment towards people trying to get me to do what they want, but as an adult I've learned, reasonably well, how to handle conflicts between my personal desires and what other people want from me.

Personal moral beliefs, though seemingly individualistic, ultimately align with the core features of morality, including social control, emotional responses, and the application of moral principles to oneself and others. I would argue there are very few, if any, notable differences between either approach. — Judaka

No, at least not necessarily and not for me.

A non-personalised approach to morality, which may explicitly demand the compliance of others, isn't distinct in how an individual experiences it from a personal one. — Judaka

Yes it is, at least generally and for me.

One of my all time favourite sci-fi stories. — Wayfarer

I read dozens, hundreds of science fiction books and stories when I was a kid. Most of them have just mixed into the general science fiction memory sludge. "Foundation" and "Rendezvous with Rama", are two that really stand out even now.

Don’t know what others think but it seems to me Loeb has become somewhat obsessive in his quest, to the detriment of his overall reputation. Of course, if the titanium-alloy spherules turn out to be the real enchilada, then I’ll happily eat my words. — Wayfarer

This is another of those situations you've discussed before - a qualified and respected scientist makes what appears to be an extraordinary claim in an area where he has specific expertise and experience. And like in the case of the psychologist who wrote about possible instances of past lives, we are left struggling to figure out what to say. Obviously, first comes strong skepticism. Then comes the obligatory genuflection to the need for openmindedness. Then comes a resigned shrug. What do we do now?

Something similar is going on with the current rush of news about the US military's knowledge about UFOs. In a bold step, the government has changed their name from unidentified flying objects to unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP).

It's been a good while since I've been engrossed in a book like that. Heck, I don't want to rush into my next book just to savor and think about what I just read. — Manuel

Sounds interesting. I'll take a look.

urchin — Italy

Just about everyone in anime is an urchin. It represents the urchinization of humanity.

Transcendental Idealism generally, particularly, with respect to the OP, the first Book in CPR, entitled Transcendental Aesthetic.

Don’t hate the messenger. — Mww

Kant to me was always the epitome of the philosopher who makes everything more complicated than it has to be and expresses that complicated understanding in obscure language. More recently I've come to find some of his thinking interesting and helpful. So... I won't blame you. I'll take a look.

It is not just about "human motivation", it is about characterising human motivation, and that makes it philosophical. How could science provide a definitive answer to whether our motivations were "self-centred" or not? What makes something "self-centred" is subjective, the logic used is subjective, and the verdict reached in each and every case involves making choices about how to interpret, what to interpret, how to characterise and the construction of a highly subjective narrative. There's nothing testable about it, how do you propose any scientific approach could definitively answer such a question? — Judaka

The question of why people do the things they do is a matter of fact, psychology, even if we don't know the answer. You can talk about it philosophically, but if you get the psychology wrong the philosophy will be misleading. Science can provide an answer to whether our motivations are "self-centred" or not, whether or not that answer is definitive.

@Italy started out describing some philosophical assertions. I responded that those assertions are not necessarily consistent with my understanding of human behavior and human nature. My response was based on psychology - some intellectual understanding but mostly introspection.

There is an entire Enlightenment philosophy predicated on a similar conclusion. — Mww

Is there a name for it I can look up?

I am a firm believer that human psychology is strongly bonded with philosophy itself — Italy

For me, philosophy is how I become aware of how my mind works. I guess that makes it a psychological tool. As I told @Judaka:

The important part for me is that, in this case, unless you get the science right, the philosophy is meaningless. The discussion is not about what is right and what is wrong, it's about human motivation. That's a question that can't be answered with philosophy alone. — T Clark

cognitive able crow — Italy

I am working on a clever name for you, but nothing I've come up with works. All I've got so far is "anime urchin," which doesn't work for me, in spite of the semi-alliteration.

Poke salad is correct. Polk is wrong.

It's a characterisation based on interpretation, and so, it is definitely a philosophical statement. — Judaka

The important part for me is that, in this case, unless you get the science right, the philosophy is meaningless. The discussion is not about what is right and what is wrong, it's about human motivation. That's a question that can't be answered with philosophy alone.

You have to boil it twice. It tastes like spinach. — frank

Thanks. I still don't think I'll try it.

polk salad annie — universeness

Poke Salad Annie because:



Pokeweed is toxic, but if prepared correctly can be eaten, which makes you wonder why anyone would. I remember it as a kid. It grows just about anywhere.

A southern US delicacy. @Hanover eats it with fried livermush and Krispee Kreeme doughnuts.

lampshade — fdrake

A new word, for me a least. Actually, a new use for an old word. "To intentionally call attention to the improbable, incongruent, or clichéd nature of an element or situation featured in a work of fiction within the work itself."

Also, as you suggested, you may be over-analyzing the scene and giving the movie more significance than it deserves or needs.

Speaking of which, Alan Arkin died yesterday. — T Clark

And speaking of Alan Arkin. Another cultural reference for another dollar - "Cub is young bear."

Twenty bucks if you can get them both.

everything we do is at its core self centered — Italy

A couple of thoughts. First, a quibble, this is really psychology, not philosophy. It deals with matters of testable fact.

Second, the idea that humans are selfish or self-centered is flawed. Humans are social animals. We like each other. We have empathy and compassion. We can help others without needing there to be any reward - it's just what people do for each other in a community. I think most kindness is done without a second thought. At some abstract level, I guess you could say that, since it's a factor that provides evolutionary benefit that makes it selfish. That doesn't make any sense. It would be as though I said "Boy, you have a fast car," and you responded "No, it's not fast, they just built it with a big engine so it could win races."