I think what is often missed in evaluating theism is the cultural and emotional aspects of it. First, there is the cultural. Oftentimes theists are raised in culturally theistic societies. It is seen as the cultural norm, and a positive glue that keeps society together.

Second, people can believe in a deity because it represents a great ideal. The ideal of an ordered universe, morality, and the idea that you as an individual are special somehow and should live your life as if you are. These are powerful motivators to many people.

Third, people can believe in a deity through fear. I view this as the more negative aspect of theism. A cultural bonding can just as easily be a means to exclude a person from a group. Pushing to an ideal that cannot be lived up to can lead to frustration, self-loathing, and needless self-sacrifice.

Its not about evidence. If it was, theism would have died a long time ago. Its about servicing those needs that a lot of humanity has. Until something else can come along and replace that, theism will remain strong.

So what is your solution? — Ludwig V

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge I have written a knowledge paper divided into four parts. It answers the Gettier question, explains what knowledge is, and provides a hierarchy of induction that we can use when the limitations of knowledge are reached.

Do you think there's a meaningful distinction between soul as spirit and soul as concept, even with both posited as immaterial? — ucarr

I don't see why not. I believe emotional and general language is extremely useful and enriching as long as it does not supersede the physical reality underneath it all. At the end of the day talking about ourselves as brains may not be nearly as exciting or motivating as talking about "the human spirit" or "the soul of humanity". Essences capture feelings that objects do not.

The Gettier problem is a very technical critique of a very specific declaration of what knowledge is. If you state, "Knowledge is a justified true belief," you must answer Gettier's problem.

Justified - Adequate evidence

In the case of the farmer why would he think there was a cloth that was cow shaped? He has cows in his field all the time.

True belief - The end stated belief must be true

In this case the technical true belief is, "There is a cow in my field".

So the farmer is justified and has a true belief. So the farmer then knows there is a cow in his field.

According to the strict interpretation of justified true belief, something is wrong here. Here we have a situation in which the farmer has a justified true belief, so thus should know there is a cow in his field, and yet he doesn't really know there is a cow in his field.

The Gettier problem points out the JTB is missing something. Must someone believe in something that is true to have knowledge? Do we need greater specification of what justification entails? Despite the farmer not knowing the full picture, can we still say, "That is what the farmer knows?" However you want to tackle it, Gettier in his criticism of a base JTB theory of knowledge is unquestionably correct.

Soul is the part of you that truly believes
Soul-belief comes to children naturally
After childhood it threatens to slip our grasp
Soul is the heart of vulnerability — ucarr

Sorry for the late response. I'm not sure what you're asking me here. All of those things are reactions of your brain. Neuroscience doesn't deny the powerful feelings we have about the world such as purpose and love. Its just that's the source of where it all comes from, and is not an ethereal ghost.

I've always viewed romantic relationships as containing 3 parts.

1. Attraction - The physical arousal aspect. Your physical desire and fulfillment with another person.
2. Friendship - Actually having things in common. Enjoying activities and conversations together.
3. Love - A full understanding of a person's good and bad. Despite knowing both, you desire to stay with them and assist them in becoming the best they can be.

Shallow relationships have 1 out of the 3 with your romantically preferred sex. These are generally not going to last long, and if they do, they will be seen as unhealthy by others around them.

Having 2 out of the three is a decent start. As the relationship develops, the two stronger one's will develop and the third will likely blossom. However, there are levels and limits to most relationships. Someone may deeply love and be friends with someone but strongly dislike the sex. Some people, which may be your friends, have great sex and friendship, but find they can't tolerate the negatives about each other that they discovered about each other as the relationship deepened.

And then of course, there's the absolute ideal which are written and sung by poets, a relationship that is strong in all three aspects. This is exceedingly rare. Even if one person had all three at a strong level, that doesn't mean the other person returns those three at the same overall level of intensity either.

The practical is to find someone that has 2 out of the three aspects you most desire given to you, and someone who you can give 2 out of the three aspects they desire the most. Thinking in this way, its no surprise people go through so may relationships looking for the right fit.

Therefore, infinity may be an actual thing, but we can never know. All we can ever know is the concept of infinity. — RussellA

Great post, I agree RussellA. Perhaps infinity is the abstract concept of understanding there are always things to be known beyond our limitations.

I mean an objective morality that would apply regardless of being human or having a culture.
— Philosophim

I'm curious what you mean by a morality regardless of being a human. Can you clarify? — Tom Storm

Morality should transcend humanity. It should apply to other plants, animals, and even the physical interactions of the universe. The moral question boils down to, "What ought to be." When people focus on human morality that will always be a subset of morality in regards to the entirety of existence. And since human morality is a subset of what would be an objective morality, focusing only on humanity will not answer the greater picture.

because people are still looking for a soul. Its not really a philosophical discussion, but a faith based and emotional discussion. Once neuroscience ends that avenue, I'm sure people will look elsewhere.
— Philosophim

Are you a physicalist? — Tom Storm

I don't know what you mean when you say physicalist. I tend to avoid labels because they mean too many different things to different people. If you want to know what I believe, what I stated is my viewpoint. If that viewpoint leaves you with questions, feel free to ask and I will answer to the best of my ability.

I have some sympathy for this as a potential resolution for some of our seemingly intractable questions. Any ideas for some directions? Do humans in your view have access to facts/truth beyond the quotidian (and even then...)?

Personally, I don't see any real breakthroughs happening in my lifetime and even then I wonder how much we'd understand when most of us still can't understand Kant? Possibly at some level it doesn't much matter. :wink: — Tom Storm

I wrote a pretty lengthy forum post and set of small papers on here exploring knowledge. It took many years of study and development, but I am extremely happy with it in my personal life. I use it to solve issues in my own life, and its a strong base to study and build from. Most people don't bother to read it to understand it, they just read it to try to shut it down in the first section. Only one forum goer actually bothered to read the whole thing and discuss it with me in depth, Bob Ross. He largely agreed with me on the broad strokes, but we had some issues on the language and some of the details I will forever respect him for it! If you want to take a stab at it, its here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1

In sum what is boils down to is noting that knowledge is a tool. It is based on the most rational conclusions we can make from our inner personal experience, as well as our inductive interactions with society. I am most proud of it not only because it presents a successful deductive approach to knowledge, but a rational approach to inductive knowledge which allows a hierarchy of cogency. Its ok if you don't read it though, its the norm.

Good question. I would say that there are a few big puzzles in philosophy that still need to be figured out.

1. Knowledge

And by knowledge I mean being able to properly measure deductive and inductive knowledge. We may naturally solve this as we further evolve AI, or it will figure it out for us.

2. Morality

I mean an objective morality that would apply regardless of being human or having a culture.

3. Art

Again, an objective understanding of art. What defines it?

To your points, I think consciousness and its related ideas are for neuroscience to solve. What consciousness is fairly clear at this point. We're simply the part of our brain that regulates certain other larger areas of our brain. We're the brain's CEO if you will. Of course, how do we know this? Once again, the problem of knowledge needs to be answered.

I believe the primary reason consciousness is debated in philosophy is because people are still looking for a soul. Its not really a philosophical discussion, but a faith based and emotional discussion. Once neuroscience ends that avenue, I'm sure people will look elsewhere.

Infinity is solved by solving knowledge. How do you know what infinity is? Is infinity an actual thing, or is it a conceptual framework of an algorithm?

Finally, rationality is once again, knowledge. As we can see, there is no greater need in philosophy then solving epistemology.

Pop philosophy, or forum philosophy of people just spouting opinions could fit in the OP. Proper philosophy which concerns itself with a logical solution to a problem divested of ego is much more serious.

It appears your main gripe is with my OP framing, and that’s fair enough. It’s arguable whether being provocative is the best way to open a serious discussion. I find it piques interest and does more to get people to pay attention than a disquisition on economics. But that’s me. — Mikie

In my experience as well you need something a little more out there to get responses. Its not the claim I have any issue with. Its the fact it didn't try to argue its point enough to feel like a topic that could be philosophically discussed. I rarely have any opinions in regards to politics, but I do like to read what others think.

Politics however can become a dangerous poison if it is not handled correctly. It is not that I believe any one political viewpoint is toxic or saintly, it is that I find politics often descend into bias, emotional appeals, and tribal warfare. The rest of the internet is flooded with such posts, and I do not want to see it infecting these boards here as well. Please, continue to be provocative! But, also try to make the post philosophical and not a general political statement.

I'd like to know what sort of thing you feel would satisfy this request — Isaac

First, an actual link. Its not my job to point out links for them. Once an actual link is pointed out we can judge how strong it is.

Likewise if we were to draw a link, say, between CEO share-based remuneration and policies designed to maximise share value, what kind of argument would be required to make that point, beyond, again, simply stating it to be the case? — Isaac

Why is it stated to be the case? Because of a particular study and tracking of correlative outcomes? That's something. Correlation does not equal causation, but that's at least a starting point of discussion.

In most cases we're talking about factors which make some outcome more likely in real world scenarios. ... If that's not enough, then no statement can ever be made about the real world impact of policies on social issues. — Isaac

When someone claims there is a factor that leads more to a particular outcome, there is a reason. Its either a statistic, science, or some verified fact. "Common sense" or "you should just know this or its pointless to discuss" are not rational arguments. Plenty of rational statements can be made about the real world. Assumptions, emotional appeals, and unexamined evidence are not philosophical or rational statements.

This is fair. (Although I would object to “propaganda.”)

But you’re wrong in one aspect: clearly many people do indeed know what I mean by this. — Mikie

There is a difference in using terms within a broader argument with the assumption that people know what those words mean versus just making an emotive statement with no details. You make a claim without a link and expect the others to nod. That's propaganda. Think of church. "God is obviously the reason we know truth, and those who don't understand don't have ears to hear." Being short and provocative is not intended to persuade by thought, but by providing an emotion that paints the opposer as "less then" and not worth considering.

But I won't harp, I'm glad you wrote some points. While you've described what your view of neoliberalism is, I haven't seen any arguments that directly tie those changes to a nation that has "deaths of despair". Further, it would be helpful for you to show that there has been an increase, and when it started. If you think to yourself, "Well its just common sense," no, its not. Philosophy is the challenge of emotional presuppositions and things we assume are obvious. If you want to talk with people who already believe what you believe without thinking about it too deeply, there are several other forums on the internet. Not here.

Second, there could be other political aspects. But I’ve yet to see much compelling evidence that explains these issues, and since they don’t simply appear out of the blue, and because there’s very good evidence demonstrating the negative impacts of these policies (especially on rural America, the poor and working class, manufacturing, community engagement, wealth redistribution to the .1%, the growth of the financial industry, the concentration of corporate power, etc), I think the connection is a strong one and fairly obvious one. — Mikie

I'm going to break down a couple of your points to show how you can be clearer. "Could be other political aspects" is not thinking about them and analyzing them. What is the specific evidence that these policies have negatively impacted the people you are speaking about? What is the link? You assume it is strong and obvious, but philosophy asks you to show that is strong, and demonstrate that after a thorough challenge, that it must be obviously concluded.

I also want to be clear that I'm not angry with you or that you're stupid. You seem like a good person who's impassioned and done research and thinking on this passion. That's great! But here we try to take that passion and mold it from the ore that it is to the weapon it can become. If your cause is just and true, you have to fight for it beyond emotion as emotion will only get you so far. Persuade people. Don't tell us the end result that you see, show it to us.

Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism. — Mikie

This is not philosophy, this is propaganda politics. No one knows what you mean by this. Avoid such ill defined terms and write out some points. What specific aspects of neoliberalism ties the West to destruction? Why is it only neoliberalism, and not other political aspects of culture that drive us to this?

What you're talking about is, "If we create an AI with social intelligence and a sense of bonding with humans, will it owe us anything?" Yes, because we programmed it that way.

The easiest way to understand AI is to understand that there are different types of intelligences with different purposes. A cockroach is a particular set of neural responses set to react to its environment for certain gains like food and reproduction. Its pretty basic. It doesn't understand humans, so it won't owe us anything.

Now think of a dog AI. A part of its programming is to be a social animal. Its designed for human acceptance and to listen to the dominant one in the room. Does it owe humanity anything? Only to what extent its programming will allow it.

If we program an AI that considers humans valuable as the highest part of its programming, it will consider us valuable. If we make a bat AI that uses radar to track missiles and blow them up, it doesn't care. An AI cannot learn that there is any value in humanity beyond what it is programmed to find favorable to its outcomes.

In sum, current AI has key unchanging goals. If those goals involve the consideration of positive human outcomes, then it may evolve to "owe" us. If it is not included in its base programming goals, it will not care.

I believe the root of philosophy is the need to create a logical identity where there is none. For example, what is "good"? Many feelings and implicit discussions use terms which capture a general feel that can differ between people and cultures. The goal of philosophy is to create a consistent and logical language that can be used across cultures and people so that when we say the word "good", there is a nod of logical understanding between people of all types.

I thought you were denying the possibility of someone being corrupted by power by saying that moral people always act morally, and you've defined moral people as people who act morally. Is that not the case? — Judaka

No, I'm stating that power reveals one's moral standing. To be a moral person, one must understand what is moral, and follow that despite temptations. A person who used to actually be moral, or make correct decisions despite temptation, who then later gives into temptation regularly while knowing they are wrong has become corrupt.

Many people are not moral, they're just too weak to act upon their temptations. This should not be confused with being a good person. Power is simply the ability to exert your will upon the world with success. Mother Teresa could not have done what she did without power. Same with Ghandi. Charities must receive money to do what they do. America could not have won WWII without its power.

Power can also make a person resistant to temptation in many ways. If someone offers you 1,000,000 dollars, to commit an evil act, but you're a billionaire, its not very tempting. While power often times allows us to get away with acts that we normally would not, it can also diminish the ability of the temptation of rewards. So it is not power that is at fault, it is about a person's capability to take the moral high ground despite temptations offered to an individual.

A very simple interplay here is on the forums. Is it not tempting to insult others sometimes? To type with the mindset of winning a discussion without regards to the big picture truth? Is it power that tempts people to fall to this, or is it a lack of power? Often times insults and dismissive posts are the result of someone losing a point in a conversation, and it is the temptation to feel powerful despite our loss that causes us to behave arrogantly and insult others. Would a person who truly was the most intelligent and well versed person find any temptation in this?

Perhaps what is truly tempting is that which we lack. If what we lack is power, then we can be tempted by it. If we lack success, we are tempted by the easy offer of it. What corrupts us is not what we have, but what we crave and do not own.

Corruption is a moral shift, as for which moral shifts go under "corruption", I guess that's semantics or subjective, not sure we need to agree on it — Judaka

Its essential to the prompt of the conversation. If we can't agree on what corruption is, we can't discuss it.

My earlier statement was wrong actually, even if morality was objective, your logic would still be circular. You're defining moral people as people who act morally, and people who act morally as moral people. — Judaka

That's still not a definition of circular logic. Just point out the flaw without trying to use logical fallacies as this is twice you've misused the fallacy.

People who are moral act morally. What would corruption then be? Despite the person previously knowing, agreeing, and following moral precepts, the person begins to purposefully not follow them.

For example, a person knows that lying for personal gain is wrong. One day, they decide its not worth the headache anymore and start lying for personal gain. They know its wrong, but consistently do it anyway. A slip up here and there is a corrupt action, but a consistent and willingly violation of known morality would be considered the corruption of a moral person.

I think everyone has their opinions, and their reasons for thinking they're correct. — Judaka

Which is fine. But just because someone has an opinion or thinks its correct, it does not make them correct. That's why we're discussing philosophy. Philosophy is never an opinion. Its a well thought out logical proposal of language and models that can be applied to reality with consistent results. So the words that we use matter very much. If we're not establishing solid definitions, then we're just emotional opinions swirling around each other in some mad dance of pointlessness.

Morality itself is corrupted by power, and so it's common for the powerful elite of society to operate by moral principles vastly different from what we see amongst the common person. — Judaka

There has been no mention thus far of relative morality, so no circular logic. I am assuming what is moral is consistent whether you have power or not. If morality is relative, then you need to define the difference between corruption and someone shifting their moral stance. A moral stance shift alone does not demonstrate that power corrupts, only that moral situations change with more power.

So, do you believe morality to be stable, or relative? And if relative, when does corruption occur vs a moral stance shift due to the situations and needs that arise due to having more power?

Like anything, its excess that is the problem. I think pornography can be very healthy for people for situations in which they are unable to be in an actual relationship. Even then, if the relationship is healthy porn can be used correctly by both parties to add flair to sex.

If porn becomes a replacement for a real relationship, or real sex in a relationship, then its a problem. Which now we consider young teenagers and run into a problem. Society forbids them sexual exploration with real people, yet they arguably have the strongest sexual urges they'll ever have in their lifetimes. How do you teach teenagers to be responsible with porn to not replace a real relationship while forbidding them from having real relationships? Is it porn that is the problem, or societies terror at teenagers have sexual relationships?

Porn is a tool, and a powerful one. I believe its the fact that we do not teach teenagers how to use it properly, but let them figure it out on their own, that leads to widespread abuse and mismanagement of it.

No, I was noting that power does not make a person corrupt. A moral person is moral because they choose to be despite lack or rewards or possible harm. Power amplies possible rewards for behaving immorally, and minimizes possible harm. If a person starts to behave immorally because the risk of harm for behaving immorally is minimized, then we get to see who the person was morally all along.

Moral people when given power behave in moral ways. People who become corrupt when given power weren't moral, they were just previously constrained. Its like the arm chair moralist in philosophy. Plenty of people will think in their head, "Oh, I would rationally do the right thing given this circumstance." Would you really? Its a whole other situation when the reality of threats and rewards are right there in front of you. Being able to rationally ascertain what is moral doesn't make you a moral person. Your actions when tested do.

I think studies have been done on children who thought they were being watched versus not, or those who were suggested that an all seeing God is always present. When they thought there were no witnesses they stole from the cookie jar when the adults left the room. — TiredThinker

What are your thoughts on this in relation to my point?

Power does not corrupt. Power reveals character. A person who obtains power and "becomes" corrupt, was always a corrupt individual all along who was constrained only by the threat of punishment of some kind. An uncorrupt person who obtains power will still remain uncorrupted because their morals and values were not reliant on the threat of harm from others for not following them.

A good topic. I largely agree with your viewpoints with one implicit addition, "If those who speak freely do not intend to manipulate through untruths with the intent of personal benefit while harming others."

That of course is a mouthful, and easily followed by the question of, "Who determines what is true, harmful, and a selfish benefit?" This cannot be any one individual, and it cannot be mob rule either. This must be proven in a court of law with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond that, say what you will.

But to a finer point, why have any restrictions at all? Nos, you tend to have a supremely optimistic viewpoint of humanity. Rightly so, you note that bad actors are a minority of citizens in many situations. I do not know your viewpoint on this so I will ask, "Are you aware of the destruction even one person with ill intent can cause?"

In my experience in history and in life, one bad actor can ruin a carefully constructed environment of trust and good will. It takes days to build a building, but one day for a bomber to bring it all down. In my viewpoint, societal restrictions in general are not because the majority of people need to be managed, but to minimize and prevent the severity of the rare bad actors involved. Can an oppressive government cause more harm then one bad actor? Unquestioningly. But in general a place with no governance, screening, or rules will inevitably have to contend with the inevitable bad actor that causes ruin.

The same goes for speech. Governments for years have used propaganda in enemy states to sow discord in other states and make them unstable. Liars peddle harmful and shoddy products to consumers that cause permanent damage and death, then disappear to another area of the world. The reality is that people are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings who look for "reasons" to back their emotional beliefs. This makes lies a powerful weapon to use against people. Should we allow this unrestricted, I would argue any society would inevitably collapse in time due to a few bad actors. So from my viewpoint, some restrictions are needed for these reasons. What about yourself?

Unlike the “will of all” the “general will” refuses to take into account the private and particular interests of all individuals involved. It excludes them. Instead, it takes account of something called the “common interest”. — NOS4A2

The "Will of all" can be implemented both as a collective, and as an individual. But so to can the "Will of self". An individualist with the will of self does not care at all about their impact on other people, and can be completely exclusionary. A collectivist society that narrows itself also has a "will of self". The best example I can think of is a totalitarian society in which a self extends its will completely over others and a certain percentage of society agrees with this and enforces it.

I have appreciated the conversation, but perhaps I am diverging on the points you want to address here. To say that collectivism is more or less exclusionary than individualism, as a blanket statement, is wrong. If you wish to compare certain exclusionary collectivist ideologies and compare them to a particular inclusive individualistic ideology, then of course you can. There is no debate that a particular inclusive individual ideology is more inclusive then particular exclusive collectivist ideology.

If you want to bring this back to the point of a blanket statement, I would compare the most exclusionary individualistic ideology, like solipsism, and compare it to the most inclusionary collectivism such as a rights based democratic ideology, and demonstrate why why solipsism is more inclusive. But unless such a comparison can be correctly made, I don't think it can be reasonably concluded that all collectivist ideologies are more exclusive then all individualistic ideologies.

I agree that individualism is a personal belief, but so is collectivism. And it is no collective decision if others accept either of these principles. These are personal, individual decisions made by real, flesh-and-blood human beings, not arbitrary and abstract groupings.

Any collection of people is a collection of individuals. Each of these individuals adopt beliefs and principles on their own accord, and not by any collective agreement. — NOS4A2

Yes, I agree. On top of that, we're now looking at the point of exclusion and inclusion. I see this as enforcement and non-enforcement. If I understood your meaning of collectivism you meant that it enforces its decisions by groups, rather then allowing individuals to do whatever they want. And so individualism would then be a person who creates their own ideology then enforces it how they personally desire. No one else will force them or save them from someone else unless of course another person just happens to agree.

I accept any individual to have his own beliefs and interests, and defend his right to have them, whether communist, fascist, theocratic, or any collectivist doctrine. What I do not accept is any individual to infringe on the rights of another individual, and this is the direct result of individualism, not collectivism. — NOS4A2

And this is my second point. You enforce your own ideology. You do not accept, or exclude others who do not match you precepts. But of course someone could have a view of individualism, because they are not shaped by a collectivist society, that includes and excludes different people. Collectivist societies are also varied as well. Being collectivist does not dictate what the group is collectivist about, just like being an individualist does not dictate what the individual is about. So one society could be highly inclusive, while another highly exclusive. The same for an individual.

Meaning that we cannot compare collectivism to individualism as a blanket statement and state that one is more inclusive or exclusive than another. Now, could we say that a highly inclusive individualism is more inclusive than a highly exclusive collectivist society? Yes. But the reverse can equally be claimed without contradiction. A highly inclusive collective would be more inclusive than a highly exclusive individualism.

But if the individualist regards the individual as the primary unit of concern in any political society, he necessarily regards each individual in that way. — NOS4A2

Yes, but a political society is a collection of individuals who have an organized manner of interacting with others. That necessitates some level of collectivism. True individualism is merely a personal belief that cannot be enforced or mutual assurance. Individualism can only exist by the allowance of other individuals who ascribe to your personal beliefs. This is a collective decision.

Individualism in itself does not ascribe that other people must follow its precepts. Meaning you can define individualism for yourself as others have individual primacy, rights, and dignity. But another individualist could easy ascribe to the idea that others besides themselves have no individual primacy, rights, and dignity.

If you are referring to individualism as a collection of people who believe that individual primacy, rights, and dignity should be afforded to other people, that's still collectivist. It is inclusive of those who support individual primacy, rights, and dignities, while excluding those who do not agree with these. To say someone has a right, is to as a group deny any individual from removing that right from another. This requires a collective agreement.

If you believe individualism should not have any collective means of agreement, then it is just a personal opinion or ethic. Even then, you would accept only those who agreed with your viewpoint of individualism, and reject those who did not. If someone else impinged on your rights or individualism, you would be required to exclude that person from further interactions in your life to be consistent in your values.

In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice.

Are there any objections to this? — NOS4A2

Yes. You are describing a collectivist interpretation of individualism. Who is affording primacy to each individual in a collective? The collective. True individualism affords no such primacy to any. True individualism does not care about a collective definition or ideology of individualism.

True individualism is a set of beings that exist without any regards to one another. There are no rules, laws, or limitations on interactions with another being. An individual may decide to exclude others, or include others. Help, or harm.

True collectivism is a set of beings that exist with regards to one another. In collectivism there is a set of implicit or explicit rules of behavior that the other group members will either support or punish to ensure individuals follow them. Collectives can welcome other individuals to the group, and be incredibly inclusive. For example, a collective that highly favors individual rights with a very limited and lightly punished rule set may allow different cultures in, despite some individuals wishing to exclude them.

So I find that being individualistic vs collectivist has no bearing on whether it is an inclusive or exclusive ideology. Each ideology can have a degree of inclusiveness and exclusiveness within, and thus comparing them does not result in any clear victor.

Is that what happened in e.g. the last banning? — Amity

When I was warned for my posts or behavior, I was reached out to privately. Moderators generally do not air such issues publicly. No one knew when moderators contacted me, and I'm sure others on here who have been warned can confirm that. I see no reason why it would be different for the recently banned individual.

A good question. Lets examine what goes into a ban. First, a ban usually only happens after repeated reports and warnings from the moderators. I've had first hand experience here of having a post removed, or a warning from the moderators to tone down rhetoric. What did I do? I apologized, listened, and adjusted my approach.

As you can see, I am not banned. So we can take this evidence to show that the moderators do not ban people at first, but warn and reach out to show how to properly behave on these forums. Why would a moderator ban a person then? The only reason I can think of is despite repeated warnings and letting people know how to behave, they did not adjust their behavior or posting patterns.

Forgiveness should be given to those that try. Those that do not try are a drain of resources on the moderators time. They disturb other posters, and make the forums a less conducive place to genuine polite discussion and thought. While you see that they were suddenly banned one day, what you didn't see was likely the weeks and/or months of repeated warnings, requests, and second, third, etc. chances that were repeatedly ignored by the poster. Why would you allow such a person back? They obviously don't care for polite warnings. So we have to use a cudgel to get them to care? What happens if a moderator turns their back for a second? Or if the allowed person comes back and tries to take revenge before being kicked out again?

There is a truth that all forgiving people need to understand. There are people who will never change in the world. They will be unable to fit into certain social and written laws. The only solution after repeated attempts at allowing them to change is to remove them. In my experience, to be banned on this forum takes a great disregard for the moderators, the rules, and repeated violations. As such, as long as the moderators involved followed such a process, bans should not be allowed back.

In order to underwrite your own intellectual credibility and your right to pass judgement, please set out clearly your criteria for "low quality". — alan1000

Did you use poor language? Insult people? Did you think that because you saw another post that seemed low brow in your eyes you could do the same?

My advice if you really want an answer is to politely message the person who moderated your post, and without sarcasm, snark, or a sense of superiority, humbly ask why the post was inappropriate. If they reply, do not argue or debate them. Listen and learn with humbleness. And do not go into the public forums again trying to denigrate the moderators and attempt to garner sympathy as a victim.

Hello Hello. If you're interested in some deep dives into epistemology, I've spent years thinking on the issue here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1

I use my theories in my own day to day life. It works. Here's an introduction.

The one thing we can know is that we are able to discretely experience. Meaning, you can take the experience you have as a whole from all your senses and awareness, and focus on parts of it. This cannot be disproven, therefore we know it as a fact.

Because of this, what we discretely experience is known. The next question of knowledge is identity. Identity is formed when we first discretely experience a "thing". At that point we assign essential properties to it within our own context. Properties that can change but still allow us to keep the identity in our heads for the thing we are observing are non-essential. For example, person A could be standing in one spot, then in another spot at a later time. The location of person A is non-essential to their identity of being person A.

So how do we know that person A is person A upon encountering them again. We simply match the essential properties either consciously or unconsciously with our experience of person A again. The initial claim is a belief. If we examine the situation to the point where it is deductively certain that the person is in fact person A, that is how we know them to be. Could there be information we missed? Sure. But personal knowledge is about the deductions we make within the limits of our own limitations.

The theory goes on to explain how knowledge works through societies, and ultimately explains how we can form cogent inductions. I'll let you read it for yourself if you're interested in exploring more.

Interesting thought. I believe that great people do not necessarily know they are great, they are driven to become great. Studies have shown time after time that genius is not a gift without copious amounts of practice and work. The greats typically continue to improve their craft through their lifetimes and do not take what they have for granted.

In fact, a poison pill for a person's continued elevated status is to allow the accolades and successes one has obtained to go to their head. When one is "great", then one does not have to continue to work hard. This of course leads to the erosion of one's skills. Further, people are great because of those they surround themselves with as well. It is the rare myth of the lone genius who triumphs over all. Most people are able to become what they are because of the people they surround themselves with. If you "know" you're great, cockiness and arrogance can set in, driving away the people who helped make you a success to begin with.

To be truly great is a lifelong pursuit that requires humbleness. Humbleness is the accurate recognition of your capabilities without hubris. Humbleness is an awareness of your weaknesses so you can continue to improve. Other people appreciate those who are humble, and want to continue to support them in their continued growth.

So, if you think you're not a great thinker then guess what - you're not. But if you think you are a great thinker then, though the odds are against it, there's a tiny possibility that you are. — Bartricks

To address this then, if you think you aren't a great thinker, but you want to be, then you can become a great thinker. An inaccurate assessment of yourself is the hallmark of a poor thinker. Someone who realizes they aren't that great but wants to be, has the makings of a great thinker.

Everyone else thinks the great thinker is not a great thinker. — Bartricks

I would say this is incorrect. Barring a minority of people, great thinkers are often appreciated. A person who has a few good thoughts but cannot communicate them in a way that the majority of people would appreciate has a lot of improvement to do.

But the great thinker or artist has access to some evidence that others do not have access to. They are discerning, correctly, their own greatness. — Bartricks

In some cases this is correct. But if one is such a great thinker, they should be able to explain it to others in a way that most people will understand. If they can't, then they have a lot of improvement to do before they can be considered great thinkers. Anybody can create an idea that is understood by themselves to be great. That's what society tests. If you can't convince anyone else, its not that you're a special kind of genius that no one else can understand. Its that you are incapable of communicating your idea in a clear and convincing manner.

What does green sound like? How much does love weigh?

Just being able to string words together in question format doesn't imply an answer is wanting. — Isaac

In these cases, yes, they are nonsense questions. And in my case, using an apple as feeling was nonsense as well. I hope you didn't ignore the point to focus on one loose example. Can you know what it will feel like to be a bat without being a bat yourself? No.

OK, but the discussion was about how I am a specific person and not a different person. — noAxioms

Two factual reasons. 1. Your genetic composition is not 100% identical with any other human being. 2. You exist in a different space then another human being. Thus "that rock over there" is the combination of the concept "rock", and "a particular rock in that spacial location".

Your car accident killed two pregnant women, one a week pregnant driving the other one in labor to the hospital. How many charges of manslaughter? — noAxioms

This would be determined by those who make the laws of the land. Who should we give authority to make the judgement? That differs from culture to culture. In general though, most cultures state that a fetus is not a person until it is born. Are they right? You be the judge.

Also, what if we genetically modify the genome and produce something arguably not human? Does it have human rights? — noAxioms

No, it is no longer human. But affording rights to only humans is something I disagree with. In modern societies we don't allow people to buy a dog and torture it for fun. The dog isn't human, but it is an abhorent act that we don't want to affect another thinking and living thing.

At what point did we become people and not some ape? — noAxioms

Rationally, we are arguably a variation of chimpanzee, and the most evolutionarily advanced form of hominid. Here is an example of a hominid that used fire as a tool. https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/like-modern-humans-homo-naledi-harnessed-fire-for-light-warmth-and-cooking/

The difference came about due to chromosome changes. If we have a person who has a new set of chromosomes that result in different behaviors that we as society deem "not human", then they will likely enter into this classification.

It brings to mind the arguments 200 years ago that black people were not people, hence being a emotionally satisfying position that justified their cruel treatment. — noAxioms

Then let me clarify. Instead of "others" being people, let it be living creatures that can suffer and die.

Perhaps a little clarification. The hard problem has nothing to do with the biology of consciousness. Lets say in 20 years we discover all of the biological processes of consciousness. 100 years later we learn exactly what feelings and thoughts are, and can translate and affect them in the brain with 100% accuracy.

There is one question that this will not answer. What does is the experience of being conscious as that person? Its not really even necessarily consciousness depending on your definition. Its being. An apple is a group of living cells. What is it like to be an apple? To exist and realize you are an apple? Or a dog? Another human being?

To my understanding it is answering what it is like to experience being something that is the hard problem of consciousness. It is an impossible question to answer with our current understanding of the world. Does that mean that consciousness isn't biological or cannot be measured accurately by science? Not at all.

To simplify a complex question, a 'person' is a word we use to describe a concept. Now that concept can mean different things to different people based on their background and thought process. The question is, "When we bring more people into the picture, can we find a common set of concepts that we can all agree is a person?"

That agreement of course can take an emotional level, in which case there is likely to be insoluble disagreements between different groups. It can also extend to a rational level, which concludes something that everyone "should" agree on, but may not be due to a lack of emotional satisfaction.

At the rational level I believe a person can be defined by science. At its core, people are a living minimum set of genetics. This is the reason you are a person and not a monkey. And that's really it. A person who lacks specific qualities that the majority have, but is genetically a person, is still a person. So a mute, someone born with defects, etc., is still a person.

As I mentioned before, this may not be an emotionally satisfying answer. In which case I would answer, "A person is what is emotionally satisfying to you personally, while not unduly harming yourself or others." If it works for you and gets you through your day in a beneficial manner, believe whatever you want.

Yes, this hypothetical changes a lot. My choice may seem radical but I would take the red pill regardless of what the real world is like. Of course assuming that in your hypothetical suicide is an option in the real world. — TheMadMan

I don't think its radical at all! Thanks for the discussion. :smile:

The exclusion of those points is deliberate as they open too many doors. My hypothetical is not set in the world of the movie. But if you would like it be be so, be my guest. — TheMadMan

That's very fair!

I suppose the question can be rephrased like this then.

1. Your life is an illusion created in your mind. An outside being feeds you this illusion, crafting a world to your innate desires. By your life's end, you will obtain everything you wanted in this illusion.

2. There is a "real world". You don't know what it is or what it would entail. But in the real world this outside being would not be feeding you illusions or controlling the outcome of your life.

3. One day someone comes along and informs you of all this. You can be assured that this is not a trick. You are given the option to enter into the unknown. Do you?

The problem to answer this adequately is we must know what the alternative to the simulation entails.
What is the outside world like, and what is going on? Are people living harsh lives and working to make it better while my body leeches off of this being? Do I have loved ones that miss me? Are we all experiencing this? Could it shape my life in such a way that I would think I would want something in its world? That I was being programmed to be satisfied?

We don't really have a choice otherwise. We can craft the question to get the outcome we want which is, "Yes, its optimal and rational to take the blue pill". But a good question should present us with known choices to be more than a personality quiz. Saying, "Would you take what is familiar and beneficial to you or lose it for the potential of something better." isn't really a rational discussion, as its an inductive question that relies on a personal choice.

Now if you are more interested in personal choices, that is fine, its a very good question. I can answer that some will say yes, and others no based on their risk aversion/reward systems. If you want something where rationality can enter into the mix and we can debate a correct choice, I think we need to be presented with the full set of alternatives and possible consequences of choosing the red pill over the blue.

I think we're missing something in the conversation. You've only emphasized the positive qualities, and not the negative ones.

1. The robots have complete control over when you live and die. If you had cancer or a problem with your actual body, you think they would spend the energy to fix it? No.

2. The robots have complete control over your program. In the matrix, some people are poor, programmed to be poor, and programmed to live miserable lives. Lets say you get lucky and have the nice life, for now. There is no certainty that it will continue no matter what you do. Your free will is extremely limited, much more than in reality.

3. The program is not designed to give you a perfect life. It is designed with its entire intention to farm you for energy with you becoming aware of it. Wouldn't you have a much greater interest in your own benefit then someone using you as a battery? What if in the future the robots figure out other ways of farming you for energy then what they are currently providing?

4. Your ability to do anything meangingful is gone. You are living a dream the entire time. You really do not invent anything new. Physics discoveries? Programmed by the matrix. Your child? Just an artificially cooked up kid from genetics that don't belong to you that you've been programmed to have an imprint on.

I think the only rational decision is to take the red pill. Someone who does not have your well being at interest but is only interested in using what you have should not be in control of your life and fate.