Damn, ↪T Clark is on to me, despite my cunningly hiding my passive aggressive snot in an account of justified true belief. — Banno

As I wrote previously, I think JTB is silly, but I do believe my judgement of your post is true and that I'm justified in believing it.

I was simply seeking a more forthcoming response to my post. Oh, well. — Banno

Your post was your usual passive-aggressive snot, as is this one.

I think it's coherent that we experience thoughts exactly how we experience trees, rocks, and people. In both cases, we experience pre-existent entities. Of course, this doesn't prove the mindscape is true. But it seems coherent. — Art48

I certainly am not an qualified to have a definitive opinion, but it is my understanding that this is not consistent with current results from cognitive scientists and cognitive and language psychologists.

But there could exist a universal mind that contains all possible thoughts but is not all-good, all-powerful, etc., as so is not God as usually conceived. — Art48

I agree. It is my understanding that it's not consistent with the beliefs of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic doctrine, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'll change the relevant text in my post.

It has always seemed to me that this "universal mind" is just another name for God a god. — T Clark

So ↪T Clark's amusement is to some extent misplaced. — Banno

As is your wontmodus operandi, when I contradicted your statement and provided evidence, you changed the subject.

[Edit] Note change in text.

So ↪T Clark's amusement is to some extent misplaced. — Banno

I didn't say it is amusing, I said it is silly. Not the same thing at all.

Good stuff. — Banno

Although I disagree with some of what you've written, I agree with Banno that you have provided a good view of how thought works—clear and consistent.

The concept of mindscape suggests universal mind, an idealist concept. — Art48

It has always seemed to me that this "universal mind" is just another name for God.

We first learn of ideas and how to think not by introspection, but by our fellow human beings, learning a rich intellectual tradition handed down from generation to generation. This picture of "Mindscape" would make you think we could isolate ourselves from others, and tap into the "Mindscape" to learn our ideas, and that there is no need to interact with another human being. It starts first by learning of ideas from other humans, not by private introspection into alternate realities. Do we introspect? Of course, with ideas that are learned in a public world taught by our fellow humans. — Richard B

Learning through interaction with others is certainly an important source of "how we think" although I wouldn't put it in those terms. There is also an important source from a generalized cognitive function; direct observation, and inborn capacity and instinct. I recognize that the contribution of inborn factors is somewhat controversial, but it is not my intention to argue that here.

As to what this "how we think" is, I experience it as a mostly non-verbal conceptual model of the world whose basis is primarily based on empirical factors, both social and non-social, and probably temperament. My brother and I have very different understandings of how the world works, although we were raised in the same manner by the same people. I call this intuition, but others here on the forum disagree with that and think intuition is something else.

Can metaphysical questions, in particular, the mindscape hypothesis, give us useful guidance into how to study and make sense of the world? — Art48

My answer to that is "yes." For me, the value in metaphysics is that it provides a framework, a foundation, on which to build our factual structures. As an example, a materialist, physicalist metaphysics could provide a good basis for science. Another - an idealist metaphysics may be a good approach for mathematics. The mindscape is an idealist approach. I've heard of sculptors who think what they carve from a block of stone is already in there, they just have to find it. It's a poetic way of seeing things. A recognition that many of our ideas seem to come from nowhere.

I have a couple of questions about the mindscape hypothesis.

First, is there any way to test this empirically? Another way to say that is to ask if there are any consequences if the hypothesis is correct? If the answer is "no," as I suspect, then this is a metaphysical question and not a matter of fact.

Second, if this is a metaphysical question, does it give us useful guidance into how to study and make sense of the world. Again, I think the answer is probably "no."

[Edit] In a later post I changed my mind on this last sentence. I think there the mindscape metaphysical position my be useful in some situations.

When someone asked about creationism, he started yelling at them (as if they were perverse). — Antony Nickles

I am a big fan of Gould's, but I understand he was something of a jerk sometimes. Being something of a jerk myself, I don't hold that against him.

The point about science is that it does not need assent. — Antony Nickles

That's the thing about knowledge—if you can't use it, it ain't really knowledge. In order to use it, you have to assent with it, accept it.

So, again, to say my belief (opinion, theory, etc.) is justified (say by the facts of science) does not make it a higher order of belief, now deemed "knowledge". It's just a statement of fact; the only relationship to belief which it has is the kind of belief that is a guess, to which the fact is an answer with certainty--"I believe it's raining out" "Well, let's go and look and we will know". — Antony Nickles

I'm taking a pragmatic approach to this, while you seem to be taking formalistic, linguistic approach. Information has to be known, factual, justified, understood, believed, assented to before it can be used. The only interesting thing about knowledge is that we can use it to make decisions.

I'm above average at chess, and I don't think we're saying anything too silly. — Judaka

Sure. Different people experience their mental processes differently. I can only speak for myself.

sometimes I have to change some beliefs — ToothyMaw

On a regular basis, it's not so much that I change my beliefs as that I refine them and become more aware of them. But then there are a few issues where I have come to question my basic understanding in a more fundamental way. That feels unsettling, but that's how it's supposed to work. That's what philosophy is for.

It seems like your view explained here might fall under the "God of the gaps" fallacy. If you don't mind sharing, I'm curious how someone could hold that stance. — Thund3r

Long story - short version. Many philosophers, including Kant and Lao Tzu, have recognized that the reality we live in is a function, not only of some so-called "objective reality," but also of aspects that are uniquely human, e.g. Kant wrote that concepts of time and space are not inherent in reality, but are an overlay created by the human mind. I think religions recognize that fundamental humanity of reality in a way that rationality and science don't and can't.

To be clear, this is a metaphysical position, not a factual one, but I think it is more useful, less misleading, than rationalists standard metaphysical views.

I admit I'm not qualified to make serious claims about how people actually think, but I think I can make claims about how the relationship between the evaluation of the worth of goals and their relationship to logic works, which is hypothetical and not grounded in any real understanding of the human mind. — ToothyMaw

I wasn't questioning your qualifications on this subject. I consider introspection a valid source of psychological knowledge.

In chess, a strategy can be logical, but that doesn't mean it will produce good results. To do that, one must carefully select the factors they are to emphasise. If one has a strategy that involves a heavy focus on aggressive attacking, reasoning that it will pressure the opponent to make mistakes, that makes sense, it's a valid line of thought, but that doesn't mean it will succeed. — Judaka

Do you really think this is how people who play chess think and behave? I haven't played chess since I was a kid and I was never very good at it, but the process you guys are describing seems artificial. There are billions of possible moves and chains of moves. It makes sense to me that reason would come into play to help evaluate a move once one has been identified, but I don't see how it could possibly be useful in identifying moves in the first place.

goals must possess some logic to be of value in a world that largely acts sensibly on a human scale. — ToothyMaw

I think this is really wrong in that it doesn't reflect how real people determine value in the real world. It seems like you are trying to stuff how people really behave into your mold of logic and reason where it doesn't fit.

Calling all knowledge belief justified to be true is an imposed (made up) criteria, desiring certainty before looking at how various kinds of knowledge actually work. Science is not justifying beliefs; it is a method. — Antony Nickles

This made me think of one of my favorite quotes from Stephen Jay Gould, a great science writer—In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'

@Jamal—I am so f...ing tired of this em dash, but I don't seem to be able to stop using it.

The value of Truth is not absolute because new facts can and have changed the truth value of previous claims. So a true belief can be prove not true...while an instrumentally valuable statement can always be used as knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar

A good post. Like you, I take a pragmatic view of knowledge.

That my five senses are all I directly experience of the world is a fact, not a metaphysical statement. If you disagree, if you believe we have some other way of perceiving the world, then what is that way? — Art48

I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that what we perceive with our senses is not the real world. That reality is inaccessible to us. I agree, our senses plus any technological extensions to our senses we devise are how we sense the world.

So, in exactly what sense is my statement untrue? What we directly experience is our senses. — Art48

As I noted, this is a metaphysical question, not a factual one. The proper way of evaluating metaphysical issues is in terms of their usefulness. I think saying that what we experience isn't real is denying the meaning of the reality of our daily lives—pork pies, pomegranates, pandas, Priuses. And what do we get in return? That doesn't mean your way of seeing things is wrong, only that it is not right either. It's just a matter of perspective.

For instance, we may sense water but if it's a mirage, there is no water, merely the sensations that normally indicate water. — Art48

Of course, our senses are fallible. We make mistakes. In my way of looking at it, that means we don't see reality clearly, perfectly, not that what we see isn't reality.

I'd at least add the present craze for giving inadequate, even inept, answers to philosophical questions using bad physics. — Banno

Ha, ha, ha, ha....Hey‽

...for example? — Banno

As I've noted before, many, perhaps most, disagreements here on the forum come from 1) failure to adequately define the terms of the discussion; 2) mistaking metaphysical issues for matters of fact rather than convention; or 3) focusing on trivial or pointless formalities at the expense of insight, e.g. squawking about logical fallacies. Add to that inapt, unrealistic thought experiments; quoting famous philosophers as a substitute for thinking things through; irrelevant comments and non-sequiturs; personal attacks and uncivility...

I can't claim never to have participated in some of these practices, but I try hard every day not to do so again.

does it actually matter if the tree is a theoretical construct or a physical construct? — invicta

I assume you're answer is "no." If so, I agree with you.

The idea of matter being a theoretical construct is independent of solipsism. We do not directly experience matter, let's say, a tree. Why? Because we can only experience the physical sensations of touch, taste, sound, light, and odor. We have no special tree-sensing sense. — Art48

People are always saying this, but it's really untrue in an important sense. The only worthwhile thing "direct experience of the external world" can mean is what we can experience with our senses along with any technological extensions we can devise. There's a song I've been singing for a long time here on the forum—it's metaphysics. Now, I love metaphysics as long as it's useful, but I think this particular one is not.

Of course, no metaphysical position is more useless than solipsism itself. It ranks up there with the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, Descartes' malevolent demon, simulation theories of reality, dreaming butterfly, and any other position that can't be verified and isn't useful. I didn't include @Wayfarer's Hindu mythology in my list because I think it is specifically aimed at and useful for undermining our human need for stories and explanations; although Hindus, and Wayfarer, probably wouldn't describe it that way.

Grasping at straws. Comforting just-so stories. But not clear, critical philosophy. — Banno

Much of what you call "critical philosophy" is grasping at straws and just-so stories. The parts that aren't mostly consist of pointing out that much of what is called "critical philosophy" is grasping at straws and just-so stories.

That is an unorthodox way of defining intuition, but I'll work with it. — Judaka

Yes, and that bothers me. I don't think it's really a different phenomenon, just a different understanding of where it comes from. I'm not sure about that.

I wouldn't say it's just about pre-existing models though. It's about the habits one has in terms of favouring factors for interpretation, relevance, narrative, characterisation etc. It happens in an instant. Take a simple comparison between a stereotypical introvert and an extrovert. Their preferences, how things make them feel, what their interests are, they're going to manifest in what things they choose to focus on, and how to characterise those things, or feel about them, interpret them and so on. — Judaka

That's one of the things I meant when I wrote "a combination of experience and inherent capabilities." That probably should have read "experience and inherent capabilities and tendencies."

I am not criticising intuition as you describe it, I am saying that one's intuition should be evaluated by what it produces. And that what it produces is of the utmost importance, and one should aim to determine their desired outcomes and influence their intuition in the ways one believes are likely to produce them. Do you agree with that? — Judaka

Yes, I agree.

A couple of quotes from some of @Wayfarer's past posts.

The God-realised being - Ramana Maharishi, another Indian sage, died 1960, was the archetype - realises that only God is real, and says that the apparent world of multiplicity and strife is actually māyā, an illusion, with which the mind has become entanged through avidya, ignorance. (Although, this is a rather different 'God' [if there can be different Gods] to the stern patriarchal figure of the Old Testament - the Hindu name is Brahman.) — Wayfarer

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. Which actually dovetails nicely with some elements of Platonism, i.e. the 'unforgetting' (anamnesis) of the state of omniscience that obtained prior to 'falling' in to carnal existence. Note well however the mention of 'taboo' in the title. — Wayfarer

I steal these whenever this type of subject comes up. Thanks again Wayfarer.

Forfar or Killie? — universeness

Mull.

This is a pragmatic approach to knowledge. — Cidat

Agreed. Knowledge is all about useful information. What other possible meaning can it have? Can't get more pragmatic than that.

The most common definition is "Justified True Belief", but there are examples called Gettier cases that show that one can have a justified true belief that is not knowledge because the justification for the belief is false. — Cidat

I, and many other people, think justified true belief (JTB) does not reflect how people know things or use the knowledge they have. As someone who had to deal with data, information, and knowledge for 30 years as an engineer, I think JTB is just silly. The one question that's important when dealing with information is—Can I use this information to decide on what to do next? You can't wait around to be sure something is true, you only have control over the level of justification you can provide.

I've run out of steam on this topic. — Jamal

I've found that about 150 posts is an ideal length for most discussions. After that, everyone, including me, starts repeating themselves. I'm not surprised you've had enough.

I could not disagree more, — universeness

Now you're just looking to start an argument. Let's share a meat pie instead.

Perhaps you have low standards of evidence or aren't very skeptical. Personal experience on its own isn't good enough to believe something is true. — GTTRPNK

You ignored my comment and just repeated what you wrote in your previous one. You're also commenting on a post I made a month ago. Let's just leave it at that.

Yes, I've written it in an unclear way, but we could replace "we" with "our brains" in many places in my OP. I'm unsure to what extent evolution is responsible for this phenomenon, as the alternative of not simplifying should be unworkable. Nonetheless, I agree evolution has played a significant role here. Much of what I'm describing occurs so quickly that we experience stimulus emotionally before even having a chance to utter a single word. Conscious thought takes a lot longer because it's much slower. — Judaka

I'm ok with this as long as you're not equating what I'm calling "intuition" with what you call experiencing stimulus emotionally.

Our brains are highly adaptable though, you've mentioned that you've worked as an engineer, and I'm sure that gives you a unique perspective where it's relevant. One that I wouldn't have, and your brain would use this to instantly pick things up, in this non-conscious way. That's a very highly specific knowledge that has worked its way into your thinking that wasn't there naturally. That's not intuition, it's the result of your education and experiences, it's different, right? — Judaka

As I noted in my previous response, I have run into disagreements about whether what I call "intuition" is really intuition or something else. In my understanding, intuition is a reflection of a model of the world I carry around in my head created by a combination of experience and built-in mental structures. It's something I am aware of in myself in a very substantial way. When I come across something new, I can compare it with my existing understanding of how the world works to see how it fits. All this usually happens before or at the same time the process enters my conscious awareness. I know from past conversations that many people don't experience it that way.

How we interpret, characterise, and emphasise, the narratives we create and the way in which we perceive things, even when done automatically, is influenced by our thinking. Consider how a sophisticated ideologue sees the world, through the narrow lens of his doctrine, that's not intuition, that's the result of their commitment to that ideology. — Judaka

Hmm.. that's a good question—are ideological beliefs part of intuition. I'll have to think about that more.

The simplification is mandatory, yet we do have some control over how it happens. Some ways in which we simplify are strongly determined by biology, but not everything. — Judaka

Sure, and what you said about my engineering background is relevant. In a sense what engineering has to do to actually decide how to proceed is to snip off a lot of specific information, e.g. use averages rather than individual data points. In engineering, when we say "rational" we generally mean calculable using accepted engineering and mathematical methods; what we would call "standard practices."

I consider truth to be most important in terms of realism, if one's plan relies on a thing being true and it isn't, then that plan is certain to fail. Outside of realism, one shouldn't use the truth to justify themselves, as this world contains many truths and what matters is which ones you're using and how, and that's not justified by something being true. How similar is that to what you meant? — Judaka

I agree with this, although I tend to describe it differently. I need valid information, i.e. knowledge, in order to make decisions. Knowledge has to be justified. Most importantly, that justification must take into account the uncertainty of the information and the consequences of being wrong. What you call "realism" is not a yes/no approach.

Sure, Anecdotal is a type of evidence but it is weak evidence when trying to convince someone else. I can just say "Cool story, bro" and not think twice about it. — GTTRPNK

I agree that it would be weak evidence in court, but at some level I find it convincing. Whether or not I take it as evidence for God, I do recognize it as something important that rationalism, or materialism, or whatever you call it misses.

Thanks, I guess there is some value in asking the question at the same time. — Sumyung Gui

A little history for you—The moderators here on the forum decided to lump all anti-natalism discussions into this one thread because they annoy some people. I mean the threads annoy some people, not the moderators. Well, the moderators annoy people too. So, anyway, you might find yourself responding to posts that are really old. Also—if you start a new anti-natalism thread, the moderators will likely move it here without telling you.

For your information—@schopenhauer1 is our resident anti-natalism expert.

Hi. Welcome to the forum. Agent Smith is no longer on the forum, so you won't get a response from him.

Can I go now? — Jamal

You provided a quote. I provided a relevant response. I didn't see it as a disagreement, just a different perspective. That's as far as I intended it to go here in the "Currently Reading" thread.

T Clark gave a very good rebuke of it which I agreed with. — invicta

My comment to @Jamal0544 was not a rebuke at all. It was a substantive response to a substantive post.