But why develop cognition sufficient enough to conceive of ideas of “free will”, “agency” and “purpose” — Benj96

I already explained it. It's just because.

But what is it for? — Benj96

The underlying, absolutely radical, meaning of "Origin of Species" is that life, evolution, and, by extension everything else, are not for anything. There is no meaning or purpose for anything. No "why." We tend to find living things particularly interesting, but that's just an artifact of the particular way the matter and energy that make us up interact.

So - just because.

Just because it is a term abused by some doesn't mean the concept is bullshit. — DingoJones

It is bullshit because 1) it is often, usually, used to add a patina of reason to a poorly-thought-through criticism. 2) Many people who use the term don't even know what it means. 3) The prime sign of jargon - the term's meaning can be easily and clearly, more clearly, expressed in everyday language.

So I find your criticism weak, and it has the wiff of prejudice, like its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms or something. — DingoJones

I think, perhaps, you overestimate your own ability to understand the motives for my opinion, which, by the way, are not relevant to my argument and shouldn't be part of your response. So, maybe, you also overestimate your ability to reason effectively.

But what if the supposed objective ‘fact’ of ability on which the effect is based is nothing but an abstracted average derived from the real individual variability in self-assessment? — Joshs

This is baloney. I was an engineer for 30 years. Before that, I was a cabinetmaker for 10. I knew who was good at what they did and who was not. It's not hard to tell. Competence is very important to me. My one goal in life has been to be competent at something that provides concrete value to people. When you work with someone who knows what they're talking about and what they're doing, it shines like a star. If you know what you're doing, you can see it in them, hear it, feel it, even if you're not familiar with the subject.

I'm not sure if this is directly relevant, but I love it, so here it is. Emerson, "Compensation."

Labor is watched over by the same pitiless laws. Cheapest, say the prudent, is the dearest labor. What we buy in a broom, a mat, a wagon, a knife, is some application of good sense to a common want. It is best to pay in your land a skilful gardener, or to buy good sense applied to gardening; in your sailor, good sense applied to navigation; in the house, good sense applied to cooking, sewing, serving; in your agent, good sense applied to accounts and affairs. So do you multiply your presence, or spread yourself throughout your estate.

But because of the dual constitution of things, in labor as in life there can be no cheating. The thief steals from himself. The swindler swindles himself. For the real price of labor is knowledge and virtue, whereof wealth and credit are signs. These signs, like paper money, may be counterfeited or stolen, but that which they represent, namely, knowledge and virtue, cannot be counterfeited or stolen. These ends of labor cannot be answered but by real exertions of the mind, and in obedience to pure motives. The cheat, the defaulter, the gambler, cannot extort the knowledge of material and moral nature which his honest care and pains yield to the operative. The law of nature is, Do the thing, and you shall have the power: but they who do not the thing have not the power.

I suspect everyone, or most, "suffer" from Dunning Kruger. — Yohan

"Dunning Kruger" is just another example of bullshit jargon replacing focused thought, just like the logical fallacy fallacies. It's just another way of saying "I think you're wrong," or "You don't know what you're talking about," while giving the appearance of insight. People here use it as a stick to beat people with instead of just saying what they mean. Often it is used as an ad hominem argument rather than something substantive.

There are endless debates on this forum about justified true belief, sometimes it's hard to judge what makes it such an elusive topic. — Wayfarer

I whine and complain about the needless tangle of words with which western philosophy ties up important philosophical issues. None is sillier or more misleading than justified true belief. I have been accused of being a pragmatist, someone who believes that philosophy has to reflect how people live their lives and make decisions. I also believe that epistemology has to be constrained by human nature. JTB ignores both of these principles completely.

Ok, ok. Sorry. I promised myself I wouldn't let my comments lead into a discussion of this issue, which isn't really relevant to the subject in the OP.

How can this be achieved? Am I even right that the couple is still happy? Is there a couple at all? — Prishon

To the extent that it exists, the source of the separation of church and state in the US is from the First Amendment to the Constitution, in particular "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Added to that are the interpretations and decisions the courts have made since the Constitution was approved.

How would that work with science? Answer - it wouldn't. "Science" is much harder to define than "religion." Does that mean that no agency with specific scientific goals would be allowed? No CDC. No NASA. No FDA. No NOA, NSCS, NGS, NSF....

The way I see it JTB is more like a Stoic idea and is not the best approach to understand Socrates and Plato. — Apollodorus

Does anyone still think that JTB is a useful way of thinking about knowledge?

Thanks.

Sometimes, when you see a very good person with a great soul making laborious acts to help people, he or she ends up cheated or disappointed of how ungrateful the people can be. — javi2541997

True generosity is not performed with the expectation of gratitude. Which is not to say that showing gratitude is not important. It is.

Although there are no doubt some folk who give to demonstrate piety or get a tax advantage. — Tom Storm

There's no reason people can't have more than one reason for the things they do.

On what specifically? — 180 Proof

The difference between an exemplar and an avatar..

And knowing it’s right makes us feel good — Benj96

Not if it's truly from the heart. Lao Tzu:

Therefore the sage is devoted to non action, Moves without teaching,
Creates ten thousand things without instruction, Lives but does not own, Acts but does not presume,
Accomplishes without taking credit. When no credit is taken, Accomplishment endures.

Aldiss and Lombardo translation of Tao Te Ching.

an exemplar, but not an avatar — 180 Proof

Expand a little please.

Both parties gain a personal sense of satisfaction from their actions. — Benj96

That's not the point of generosity, or any action from the heart. The point is to help other people, whom we care for as members of our community, however we want to define that. People like each other. We care about each other. We don't do it because it makes us feel good. We do it because we know it's right.

As once I said, ideas enslave as much as they emancipate. — TheMadFool

In a sense, that is the message of Taoism.

Good point. This reminds one of the court jesters of European aristocrats and kings. — Apollodorus

Don't misinterpret the fool/ignorance theme. The fool really did see things others didn't because he wasn't tied to the accepted creed. Fools were often cripples who were looked down on and ridiculed. They were also the only ones who could dare to confront the King because no one respected them or their ideas and they were comedians. It is my understanding that being a fool was a dangerous profession.

The theme of ignorance in the Tao Te Ching sometimes described an active rejection or surrender of knowledge in order to see a deeper truth. I'm haven't read a lot of Greek philosophers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Socrates was talking about. After all, like some fools, he was put to death. Does that make sense in context:

Did Socrates really “know nothing”? — Apollodorus

The idea of a sage as ignorant or a fool is a common one. Lao Tzu includes several instances in the Tao Te Ching:

Verse 19

Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge,
People will be profited a hundredfold...
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood,
Reduce your sense of self (szu) and lessen your desires.

Verse 71

From knowing to not knowing
This is superior.
From not knowing to knowing,
This is sickness.

Verse 81

Truthful words (yen) are not beautiful,
Beautiful words are not truthful.
The good does not distinguish,
One who distinguishes is not good.
One who knows does not accumulate knowledge,
One who accumulates knowledge does not know.

Ellen Marie Chen translations.

"golden rule" for wisdom — Yohan

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

If you read the thread, you'll find that several people gave really thought provoking answers to the question. — frank

This is just a punt on your part. A baloney response because you have nothing relevant to say. I went back and reread the posts in this thread. There is nothing that deals with the state of health care in China and how it relates to health care in the US. Or did I miss it?

Can we say the brain is an analogue computer being able to simulate all physical processes in thd world, even a lightning flash? — Prishon

I certainly am not an expert on this, but it is my understanding that an analog computer works by modelling a specific process using an analogous process, e.g. the flow of water modelled using the flow of electricity. I don't think a single analog set-up is capable of doing multiple sets of calculations the way a digital computer can using software. Analog computers are much more limited than digital ones are.

Someone please correct the errors in my understanding.

Not true. They would be if they stayed home in the country. They have moved en masse to the cities and lost benefits in the process. — frank

I don't get it. What's your point?

China doesn't have universal healthcare. They're a hell of a lot bigger than we are. — frank

Perhaps China is not included among the "developed world." Anyway, the web says that 95% of Chinese are covered by subsidized healthcare.

There are and have been civilized states that didn't provide healthcare. — frank

According to the web, the United States is still the only country in the developed world without a system of universal healthcare.

Remember that healthcare as we know it emerged in the 20th Century, mostly after WW2. — frank

For what it's worth, it is my understanding that President Truman proposed universal health care in the US in the early 1950s. Richard Nixon also supported a system similar to Obamacare back in the early 1970s.

The only curiosity here is, why can't 'mercans see this? What went astray in 'mercan culture? — Banno

Free health care and the metric system - it's cominism I tell you! Cominism!

I cant make the vaccinated ill... — Prishon

Apparently the vaccinated can be infected in some cases, but that's not the main problem. Yes, you can infect the unvaccinated. You can also infect those for whom the vaccine hasn't worked, like my brother who had a kidney transplant and is immunosuppressed.

If say 40% of all people (I would be one of them) would refuse to take the Covid19 vaccine, how would society or politics react. — Prishon

All 50 states require that children take the measles vaccine before they fan go to school. Why should this be any different? Employers, especially in health care and other critical jobs, should require employees to be vaccinated before they come to work. If they don't, they should be liable for damages for employees and others who are infected.

If you don't want to be inoculated, I'm ok with that. Just stay in your room with the door closed.

For what it's worth, at least 40% of all people in all but seven states have been fully vaccinated.

What are the objections against the view that a lot of different realities can co-exist? Especially in the science driven global culture of today there seems to be a lot of resistence. That is at least what I experience. — Prishon

Generally, it is the responsibility of the person who starts a discussion to provide their own thoughts in the opening post. It's just common courtesy.

My thoughts - If you read many of my posts, this is a refrain you will hear over and over. There is only one world. Just look around. These "different realities" you refer to are just different ways of looking at that world. They are metaphysical systems. Metaphysical systems are not right or wrong, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. I have my own particular ways of looking at things. They are like tools. When I have to deal with something, I can rummage around in my tool box and pull out the one that will work best.

Welcome to the forum.

It looks like various societies through history have left some members without basic needs per principle. Why would this be wrong? — frank

It doesn't matter what other people have done. We should do what we think is right, based on our values. There are people in our society who don't agree with me. What we actually get will have to be a compromise between their goals and ours. That's the best we'll be able to do. As Aristotle, or was it Pauly Shore, wrote - Good enough is good enough.

How about small numbers without basic needs? — frank

Providing for everyone is the goal, but it'll never get met. People always fall through the cracks. So, keep trying.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

A society can't be considered a good one if large numbers of its members are without basic needs, including healthcare. It doesn't really matter to me how those needs are supplied. One thing we know - globalization and corporatism won't do it. So - it doesn't have to be government, but if no other institution provides it, the government should.

Also - thanks for keeping the thread alive. It's my favorite.

They way this artist represents urbanism is so accurate. — javi2541997

I like it too. When you said it was beautiful, I wasn't sure I agreed. I wouldn't call it a beautiful view, but it does give you a visceral feel for how cities become cities.

When I fly over cities like this, I think to myself - "How many people down there are eating oysters. How can there possibly be enough oysters? How can they possibly get all the oysters to everyone who wants them." It gives a feel for the weight, the density, that civilization brings to the world.

I find it hard to believe the web has even close to all the answers. — Benj96

I didn't say it has all the answers. I said it has answers to almost all the questions I have.

Click on my icon. — jgill

I see you are an expert in complex dynamical systems. The sense in which I was using "complex systems" was more mundane than that. Even without taking chaos into consideration, when you get beyond a very simple system, assigning cause may be impossible.

Are you happy about his New Deal and Infrastructure bill? — Shawn

Has it passed the House yet? I'll believe it when I see it signed. Yes, it's a good thing, but it won't solve the problem.

Apply the mediocrity principle to 'human history': our era is no more or less mediocre than other era. — 180 Proof

Are you saying that even our mediocrity is mediocre?

I explicitly or implicitly wanted someone from an older generation to expound on that. — Shawn

I was born in 1951. I think the most important differences between my life and those of younger people is that working people are more vulnerable than they once were. Globalization, corporatization, stagnation of standard of living, weakness of labor unions, failure of the Democratic party to protect its constituents.

I am led to believe that millennials and even baby boomers are living a mediocre life. — Shawn

Where did I criticize? I made no value judgements on my thoughts about, (if you reeallly think about it you can even say I'm speaking about myself) other people. — Shawn

"Mediocre" means "not very good."

If any of this holds true, thus, is modern life becoming more mediocre? — Shawn

Criticizing other people's lives is, and has always been, a popular pastime.