A good question. I believe there are plenty of ideas that have not been advocated by thinkers. However, ideas which are largely independent of established knowledge and thought structures seem alien and difficult to understand by people who are used to the traditional structures.

When I was a philosophy student, I came up with a few philosophical ideas that to this day, I have never seen duplicated. I have chatted about them with other people, and brought them to forums over the years. The number one thing I find is people keep trying to relate them to other ideas they already know.

I have encountered the following metaphorical exchange repeatedly.

Them: "Oh, that's like Locke."
Me: Huh, I don't know Locke's position on this. *Reads* Ok, I can see this one point here, but I diverge greatly on this aspect.
Them: But Locke concludes this based on his particular premises here.
Me: As you can see with my argument, I don't have those particular premises, or go that route.
(Optional final responses)
Them: *Blank stare* *Pause* Well ok then. *Leaves conversation* OR
Them: *Ignores anything in the argument that shows its not like Locke's argument, and insists its Locke's argument*
Them: (Rare bird!) "Oh, I see. Well, continue then."

Most people like to think from the perspective of what they already know. Anything that is too foreign or alien to this base, is most often dismissed, ignored, or derided. Very few people have the actual curiosity and intellectual drive to explore that which is alien. And that is why most of the "new ideas" have some aspect of the "old ideas". While this is convenient for the mind to grasp, it also tends to produce very similar results and thinking to the older ways. Thus instead of having leaps in thought or understanding, change is often very slow and gradual.

I appreciate what you are saying and I you are trying to be helpful and stop me wasting my time overthinking But, of course this site is meant to be about debating the questions of philosophy and not just definitive answers, as provided in the name of science. — Jack Cummins

Certainly Jack! I only added that at the end because it is a certainty of life that cannot be rationally concluded in any other way. I do believe questions like, "Why do humans believe they can live after they die?" are questions worth exploring. Same with, "If we know there is no afterlife, how should we live our life today?"

On the question of life after death however, I believe the answer is as solid as you can get from anything in life. We all die. And that is the end.

Fully agreed TheMadFool. We celebrate each year a person has avoided death. We show our appreciation, and well wishes that they have, "Many more". It is celebration and encouragement into the next year!

And finally back in the saddle! Its been a while since I've read these, so pardon me if I miss something.

To the first post:
Doesn't your counter-argument run the risk of making the concept of "truth" convoluted by assuming that when we claim access to truth we claim access to truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

To claim that something is true does not necessarily entail that we deem it to be certainly true or objectively true or eternally true etc. Now, I believe that such truths exist but the simple claim that truth is "accordance with reality" appears to be basically tautological and need not bring these other assumptions in which appear to confuse the issue. — TVCL

I believe that's what truth is. You can't really have partial truth. You can have knowledge of part of something true. But truth itself is not partial. It is simply what is. I think you're backtracking into equating knowledge with truth again (an easy thing to do). At the end of the day, knowledge is a rational assessment of what the truth is, but truth itself can not be provably grasped.

As for the sense of what you have written, I also do not think it is necessary to address your search for knowledge in such a way. I think you are overcomplicating it. While we may decide to search or not search for truth, I believe what you are implying is there are rational and necessary steps one must do to fulfill this search. I believe the word choice and examination is overly laborous for the audience you are trying to reach. If you view a second pass on your work as only stating what is absolutely needed to convey your intent, it will clean up nicely.

I think in the end you are trying to convey that epistemology is the study and examination of those necessary steps that occur when a person searches for knowledge. Again, I could misunderstand this.

Even if you are not trying to appeal to the layman at first, I still think it just needs a cleanup pass.

According to all the science, we just die Jack. Reincarnation has never been shown to have any credibility. Psychedelic's merely alter your physical brain to encounter reality a particular way. But its all physical. Even the "Light at the end of the tunnel stories" have found that the patient did not actually die.

And that's the way you should live your life. When you're dead, you're done. Why waste time thinking that it will be something else?

Good morning TVCL! My apologies, but with holidays I've been out of town. I thought I would post this real quick, but I should be back next week. Cheers!

Hello again TVCL!

Also note: "true belief" = knowledge
This follows from the argument because knowledge = "belief that accords with reality" — TVCL

I would be careful here. There is a whole libraries worth of devotion in epistemology to destroying the phrase, "true belief". Also, it is not that our belief accords with reality, it is that our belief is not contradicted by reality upon application. This does not mean our belief is true, only that it is reasonable within the current consistent constructs of our beliefs, and that particular application. It still may be the fact that our application did not consider factors we are unaware of.

Here's a quick example. Imagine you spy a sheep in a field. You walk past it, pet its wool, and move on. Unknown to you however, people have created a mechanical sheep that is very convincing except for a visible switch underneath its belly. Now, you don't know about the switch, so you don't even think to look for it. It is entirely reasonable for you to say, "I knew that thing as a sheep." But it doesn't mean it is a true sheep.

Thus, there must be a different argument as to why we should follow rational beliefs, (knowledge) versus unexamined beliefs. I believe a rational belief should be followed, as a rational belief leads to a necessary conclusion from what you are aware of. A belief which is not rational, but inductive, leads to a conclusion that is not necessary from what you are aware of. In terms of odds, it would seem rationality would win in your likelihood of being correct.

This can be shown with some quick math. X is knowledge, and Y is an unexamined belief. Z, will be the underlying reality.

X is one claim to reality. If Z does not contradict X, there is no alternative to X. But if Z does not contradict Y, there are still alternatives to Y. In the case that both X and Y are contradicted by reality, neither has an advantage. But X will always have the advantage if Z does not contradict X and Y.

Was probably your best insight in your last set of comments and makes me think that you might be coming to understand my philosophy better than I do. — TVCL

Why thank you! What a compliment! =D

To your second excerpt, it seems too wordy to get to your point. If I recall, you wanted this epistemology to reach the lay person in a clear, manageable and easily understood format. I think your theory can do this. I would try to translate everything you're trying to state into as concise a format as possible. The lay person will want the meat of the idea straight to them. You can add the details as you then dive into the specifics of the argument, and sum up more in this fashion after the reader has read the crux of your argument. Of course, this is just an opinion. Another reader may have different feedback for you on this type of criticism, so I would show it to others besides myself before changing it.

Understood! I've been making sure I have plenty of time in my replies as well, as the questions at this point take more time to work through. Fantastic work as always!

Another weekend arrives! Lets continue.

But a decision that "contradicts reality" simply cannot be made. — TVCL

In the sense that one decides to do something, yes, a contradiction to reality cannot be made. That does not stop us from believing we can. Now in the case of one's first formation of knowledge, you just have to take a stab in the dark. But once you know a few things, you can build upon it. If I know addition I can then develop and know a method called multiplication, which is adding the same thing many times. If I know Geometry, I can know what angles and lengths of planks I'll need to construct a house.

"If you want to be a mafia boss you cannot be an honest man at the same time." — TVCL

If you are seeking knowledge, you will realize this. But maybe the guy isn't. Maybe he wants to commit crime, but then say, "But I'm honest otherwise". Sure, he's not, but he doesn't care about knowledge in this case. Because he does not care about knowledge, he does not see the contradiction. If you are not using knowledge, then you can believe in things that are contradicted by reality. People still believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. If they were looking for knowledge, they would see their belief is contradicted by reality. But they're not looking for that. They are dismissing all contradictions, and looking for that one conclusive affirmation that they hope to discover some day.

And that leads to the big question again, "What goals should a person pursue in life?" That sounds like an entirely different topic from knowledge.
— Philosophim

Not if the question is "How do I know what goals a person should pursue?" ... — TVCL

Heh, true. I should clarify what I mean. We can use the application of knowledge to help us find the answer, but the process of knowledge itself, does not give us the answer. So it is not that we don't use the process of knowledge to find the answer, its just the definition of knowledge is not the whole story.

The model does not equate goals with beliefs. Instead, it recognises that goals contain implicit beliefs. — TVCL

I want to mention these are all good points you have made, and are giving me pause before I reply. Perhaps the tie in is the pursuit of a goal, versus the identification of a goal. This is where the language gets a little funny. A belief that a goal can be obtained can be based on knowledge, but it can also be just an inductive guess. If one recognizes the uncertainty in reaching the goal, one both believes there is a chance of success, and a chance of failure.

For example, I buy a lottery ticket with the belief I might win, but I believe I might also lose. Now if I do the math, I can know that my chance of winning is ridiculously small, and my chance of losing is ridiculously large. In the first case where I did not examine the math, I might believe really strongly that I will win, even if its unlikely I will win. In the second case, I can safely make the statistical decision to not buy the lottery ticket, because I know I will likely waste my money. Essentially the weight of my belief that I will lose is tipped to be greater than the weight that I will win.

In this case the knowledge of the likely outcome, combined with the cost and time investment in buying the ticket, have persuaded me not to buy a lottery ticket. Sure, I might have won, but I will take the safe odds that I will lose.

Pursuing goals is often an act of induction. Meaning we often do not know the outcome until we try. Perhaps you can take your set of knowledge and apply it to inductions to see which inductions are more reasonable than others? I leave you with that to think on.

This is all in how you see morality. The emotion of suffering is not what morality is about to myself. It is about the capabilities and existence of the world for today and tomorrow. Sure, you might both forget the incident, but the stranger isn't going to heal from that anytime soon, and might even have their hands and feet crippled for life.

Considering its just a scream you have to listen to that you will soon forget, and there will be no long lasting damage to yourself, I view it as unquestionable that I would take the torture instead of the stranger.

Let me say it, then: we don't know for a fact that consciousness comes only from the brain. It could emerge from the entire nervous system, or even from the entire body. — Olivier5

Actually, that is within acceptable science. The nervous system can be seen as an extension of the brain. Losing an arm means the consciousness of having an arm is altered. I did not say consciousness only comes from the brain. But to deny consciousness comes from the brain at all? That's clearly wrong.

All of this can be summed up as, "Some people feel we need a new model to talk about consciousness," which I have said several times I do not object to. But NO one is saying that consciousness does not come from the brain.

That's the only real issue we have. I think you've misinterpreted the idea that a different model alters reality, or that needing a new model overrides what we already know. It does not.

Maybe so, but matter and energy are physical concepts created to explain a wide range of phenomena. It's possible that these concepts are lacking when it comes to consciousness, because they are abstracted categories based on careful investigation of what our senses tell us about the world. — Marchesk

Certainly. This can be said about anything, not just consciousness. Alone, that is not an argument to deny what is known today. To deny what one knows today, they must propose evidence that incontrovertibly contradicts a knowledge claim. Again, I have nothing about saying, "Maybe its something else" about anything. But when a person says, "It IS something else" without evidence, its not a rational discussion.

But first off, stop it with the "conscious is entity" strawman. — javra

You may misunderstand. I don't believe consciousness is an independent entity with its own substance separate from matter and energy. Wayfarer does. He believes consciousness is independent from the brain. For yourself, you seem to think a bit differently, and I am much more inclined to agree with your approach.

I have nothing against panpsychism as a theory, as long as it reduces down to reality. I don't think we have enough information to confirm or deny panpsychism. First, there's quantum entanglement. Second, there is the reality that we are physical beings composed of the matter around us. It may very well be our concept of "intelligence" is simply one degree higher of a low expression of matter all around us.

We do not, cannot, observe our own identity as a conscious being. Consciousness is that which observes; and is never that which can be directly observed. If you disagree with this, what then does your consciousness look like, sound like, or smell like, etc., to you? — javra

I do disagree with this. I know what my own consciousness is from my self-subjective view point. The problem is you seem to be describing consciousness in terms of senses. Consciousness is not light hitting my eyes or soundwaves hitting my ears. That's why its a hard problem. It likely requires its own language to communicate exactly what it is. Which is perfectly fine. As long as the models are in line with reality, postulating and inventing new models to describe consciousness is perfectly fine.

OK, but a photon is more basic than an electron, and a photon has no mass last I've heard, thereby not being matter, thereby not being an entity. — javra

You might misunderstand this. Energy and mass are interchangeable mathmatically. The reason why we say light has no mass is due to the mathmatical conclusion that light travels at the maximum speed allowed. https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/#:~:text=Since%20photons%20(particles%20of%20light,their%20energy%20from%20their%20momentum.&text=If%20a%20particle%20has%20no,mass%20is%20nothing%20at%20all.

Energy, mass, and waves are all identifiers that allow certain mathamatical states to exist. These mathamatical states have been proven to be sound, so we continue to use them. The models of energy, mass, and waves are simply ways of expressing this math in a way relatable to our common understanding of reality around us. At extremes, these models break down in relatability. The key is that the math underlying it is solid. Now could we come up with a better model that relates the math to us? Quite possibly. The requirement however is that it must be mathamatically sound when applied to reality as well. This is the attempt by unified field theories.

Now, when addressing "awareness" just as abstractly as when we address "physical energy/matter", then, and only then, the primacy of awareness comes into play - this, again, as far as the stance I currently uphold goes. But this existential generality of primacy should by not means be mistaken for a consciousness that is causally untethered from its respective central nervous system's workings. — javra

Yes, I understand what you mean now, and have no disagreement with this.

The model that I've presented appears to have a direct connection to ethics because a concern for what we are tying to do in the world or for what decisions we are trying to make is woven directly into the logic of the model. — TVCL

I think a short and loose definition of ethics could help here. Ethics in general is the question of, "What actions should I do" for the best outcome. If we have concluded that the knowledge is the best means of making decisions that do not contradict with reality, seeking knowledge when pursuing one's goals seems like a better choice then not. So in one sense, we can say that seeking knowledge is the most ethical manner of pursuing one's goals. I might be reaching here, but its what I've got. =)

Use of the model or the process of searching for knowledge reveals which sets of goals can be pursued and which cannot. — TVCL

Here again, and I think you're in agreement on this, the knowledge we discover can't (yet) reveal to us which goals we should pursue. It only reveals which beliefs and results we can or cannot use in pursuing our goal. Perhaps knowledge can reveal when a goal should not be pursued anymore. But when I think of the Thomas Edison example, I find it hard to conclude if there is anything in the knowledge gained that can give a concrete solution.

And perhaps this is because a goal is not a belief. It is a motivation. We can examine why a person would be motivated to obtain a goal, and conclude that there is a certain amount of effort a person is willing to put forward to obtain that goal. Once the effort exceeds what the person is willing to put into the search, they likely stop. The problem with this is I'm not sure that's knowledge, just an examination of why a person pursues, or does not pursue a goal. That seems like it would be different for each individual.

And that leads to the big question again, "What goals should a person pursue in life?" That sounds like an entirely different topic from knowledge. Perhaps you can marry the two together, but like you mentioned, it seems this is as far as the model will take us. And that's not anything to be disappointed by either! I think you still have a fantastic model of knowledge that can be explained and used by the layman! Perhaps you'll come up with a new model of ethics. But before then, did you have other places you wanted to take the model? Again, the conversation has been great, so lead it wherever you wish.

I think the root appeal of fascism is "authoritarianism". When you start to feel that people's political beliefs are dangerous or taking away your personal power, there is an inclination to want to dominate the other people and not let them have a say.

Fascism is just one way to sell authoritarianism. If the current government asks certain people to be too selfless for their tastes, or media can convince a block of the state to be more selfish, fascism is a nice sell.

Positing the existence of something, and not finding it in reality are two different things. For example, there is no evidence that aliens exist. — RogueAI

Right, there is no evidence that aliens exist. So we cannot rationally discuss aliens as if they do exist.
This is different from saying, "Maybe aliens exist," and then looking for evidence that they exist. The people I've been chatting with aren't saying, "It could be that all of physics is wrong and consciousness could exist as something separate from the brain,". I would have no disagreement with that. Having an idea of what could be and looking for it are great. We would never advance our understanding of the world otherwise.

The posters that I have been discussing with are claiming that consciousness IS separate from the brain. Not a maybe, but that it just can't be from the brain. I have asked for evidence that would show this to be true, and none has been provided but speculation. Asserting the existence of one thing, and the refutation of another thing without any evidence that can be shown in the real world is a fantasy world framework.

If, however, you agree that we know consciousness is real, then we at minimum can claim to have discovered three things being real: matter, energy, and the consciousness via which these are known. — javra

I do agree that consciousness is real, but consciousness is a word that represents an identity we observe, but does not assert it is its own composed entity. We don't say, "matter, energy, and water" exist right? Water is made up of matter and energy. Consciousness is made up of matter and energy. Consciousness is not another form of existence separate from matter and energy. If someone claims this to be, they must provide evidence to counter the evidence that shows consciousness comes from the brain, which is made out of matter and energy.

Excuse the limitations of the English language via which this is expressed, but not everything will be a thing, i.e. an entity. Processes are for example known to occur, and a process - though being something - is not a thing/entity. — javra

Processes are actions, and interactions with other entities. When an electron travels across a wire, we get the process of electricity. When that electron travels to your computer, and allows a signal to alter a logic gate, that is the process of computing. Processes are not separate from the matter and energy, they are the result of their interactions. These interchanges are matter and energy.

'

As of yet, no. And they may never be able to.
— Philosophim

Is this not the hard problem in a nutshell? — javra

Yes. The hard problem states it is difficult with our current models to evaluate what it is like to "feel" red. It is not stating that consciousness is not physical, nor that consciousness cannot be evaluated in terms of the physical. The easy problem notes that tieing the laws of nature to brain states is not the issue. But will science ever be able to produce the state of being a bat, and then have us feel exactly what it is like to be a bat? Maybe not. That is not relevant to stating that consciousness is separate from the brain.

You can propose that consciousness is some magical entity
— Philosophim

That's not what I proposed, but it's not surprising that it is how you read it. You show no sign of having actually grasped the argument that I proposed, so I'll give up. — Wayfarer

No, I grasp your arguments well enough. You do not see the consequences of your argument. If you cannot show what consciousness is in reality, yet you declare t is something separate from the brain, then you are necessarily proposing a magical entity. You are saying consciousness exists as something, but you have no evidence or explanation for what that something is. That's a magical entity.

But we can't talk realistically, and rationally, about things which we have no knowledge of being real.
— Philosophim

There's a lot written about dark matter. — Wayfarer

Dark matter is not a descriptor of known entities. It is a placeholder that describes logical conclusions within observed limitations. Here is a good read.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

"If scientists can't see dark matter, how do they know it exists?

Scientists calculate the mass of large objects in space by studying their motion. Astronomers examining spiral galaxies in the 1970s expected to see material in the center moving faster than on the outer edges. Instead, they found the stars in both locations traveled at the same velocity, indicating the galaxies contained more mass than could be seen. Studies of the gas within elliptical galaxies also indicated a need for more mass than found in visible objects. Clusters of galaxies would fly apart if the only mass they contained were visible to conventional astronomical measurements.

Albert Einstein showed that massive objects in the universe bend and distort light, allowing them to be used as lenses. By studying how light is distorted by galaxy clusters, astronomers have been able to create a map of dark matter in the universe.

All of these methods provide a strong indication that most of the matter in the universe is something yet unseen."

What we can rationally discuss about dark matter is based on the data we have. While speculation also happens, as to what Dark Matter could be, it does not assert that the speculation is true, or that the existence of such speculation asserts that the regular physical laws of the universe or necessarily invalid.

I have shown several examples of the brain being the source of consciousness. For a proposition that consciousness is separate from the brain, it needs some evidence that it IS separate from the brain. Saying, "It might be," without any evidence as to how or why is nothing we can rationalize about.

No one, including philosophers and other breeds of thinkers from the world of science and other fields, will ever undertake anything worthwhile if fae doesn't have a stake in it whatever that may be. It would be superfluous to mention the man on the Clapham omnibus at this point. Given this is so, rationalization seems inevitable and is likely to be universal - happening everywhere, anywhere, to anybody. — TheMadFool

I agree!

What does it mean for an idea to 'match' or 'correspond' with reality? — Wayfarer

A claim about reality that is applied without contradiction.

For example, lets say I proposed that all sentience was non-physical, but consisted of a substance called sentisia. I could write a complex paper that details exactly how it works, and it would be incredibly logical and work within the framework. But if I can't find sentisia in reality, if I can't demonstrate its existence and use, all I made was a fantasy world framework.

. So far, the only thing we have discovered in the universe is matter and energy.
— Philosophim

Thereby 'affirming the consequent.' You frame the question in a certain way, and it means there's only a certain type of answer that will be accepted. — Wayfarer

That's not affirming the consequent at all. "All tigers are cats, therefore all cats must be tigers" is an example of affirming the consequent. I am stating that the only thing we have discovered in the universe is matter and energy, so those are the only things we can realistically analyze. Is it possible something else exists besides these? Sure, why not? What we know today could be contradicted tomorrow. But we can't talk realistically, and rationally, about things which we have no knowledge of being real.

Everything that we know points to consciousness forming from the brain. So that is the only thing we can rationally discuss. You can propose that consciousness is some magical entity, but unless you can show some evidence of this magical entity being real, it is a fantasy, and not a rational argument.

the objective sciences can't in principle provide complete description of the first-person point-of-view — Wayfarer

As of yet, no. And they may never be able to. But that just tells us there are either A. Things outside of our knowledge, or B. That we must work logically within these limitations.

Neither A nor B lead to the idea that all of the evidence that points to consciousness coming from the brain is somehow null or void. In the future if we find evidence in reality of consciousness existing apart from the brain, then we have something new that we can rationally consider. Until then, its just a fantasy, a "what if". "What ifs" that do not end ultimately leading back to some application in reality are just fun fantasy, not rational arguments.

Philosophim, for instances, simply assumes that there’s no difference between enzymes and concepts — Wayfarer

You might be misunderstanding my view. Reality is what occurs. Concepts match to reality. If a concept cannot match to reality, it is worthless. Concepts like thoughts and consciousness are fantastic, as long as at their core they represent reality. I am not a "physicalist", I am a "realist". So far, the only thing we have discovered in the universe is matter and energy. If a concept draws on "something else" without providing some reality of it, its just not any good.

Let’s assume nothing is eternal. Either this is true for a limited time, or for all eternity. — leo

Your options are incorrect. If it is eternal, it is either eternal for all time, or it is not eternal. You can't be eternal for a short amount of time.

But let continue with your modified premises.

If there is something that is eternal, then it is false that nothing is eternal. And this statement of false, would be eternal.
However, if there exists absolutely nothing that is eternal, then our statement is true. And this statement of true, would be eternal.

So what can we conclude from this? That the conclusion of logical, deduced statements which are fulfilled perfectly, are eternally true, or eternally false.

We can therefore conclude the general statement "At least one thing is eternal, therefore eternal things can exist."

Of course, this only applies to statements that accurately reflect reality, so I'm not sure how useful this is. Perhaps you can extend this or think of a use?

But what if one knew - using the model - that a given goal could not be pursued? — TVCL

Are you sure? Let's think about that. Now, I agree with you that knowledge as-such is not a goal, but what of the idea of positing a goal to be pursued if one does not believe that the goal can be attained? We can either say that a goal is a belief or at least based upon a belief: the implicit belief that the goal can be pursued. Now, like any belief, the goal is a working hypothesis - one knows that they can pursue a goal in so far as it is non-contradictory and in so far as the can, in fact, pursue it. — TVCL

Sure, let me break it down the way I see it as I've interpreted your stance so far, and see what you think.

Goals are the precursor to the search for knowledge. If goals are beliefs, then they are not the precursor to the search for knowledge anymore. The evaluating of beliefs to be applicable and consistent is knowledge. That would mean you would have to apply the method of knowledge to the goal itself, as its technically a belief.

But let me clarify what I mean by belief as well. A belief is an assertion that reality is a particular way. While in English we might say, "I believe I can reach my goal, we can also say, I don't believe I can reach my goal. The belief is not in the goal, but whether one can obtain, or not obtain one's goal. The outcome is what we can know, the motivation to seek that outcome is the goal.

Another way to see it is the goal itself is not true or false. What one discovers on the way to obtaining that goal is true or false. What we can determine from pursuing goals is that particular outcomes are false. So let us say my goal was to walk 1,000 miles in a day. I attempt it, and fail. I know that on that day, with what I prepared and did, I did not meet my goal that day. But what if I try something else? Maybe train for a month, or drink water more frequently then I did last time. The result is true or false based on all the circumstances one made in pursuit of the goal on that particular attempt. It does not mean that if you try another way, you will not meet the goal.

Thus I can look at some goals and evaluate certain attempts that have been made to determine if my pursuit of a goal in a particular manner will result in a success or failure. Take epistemology. We know that certain ways of trying to define knowledge fail. Part of evaluating epistemology is trying to examine why it failed, and then not repeating the same mistakes. But that doesn't mean that the goal of figuring out knowledge cannot be obtained if we don't try another way that has not yet been tested.

Admittedly, at this point the argument only goes as far as to argue that the model can reveal what sets of goals one should have in reference to their hierarchy of goals or even their primary goals. — TVCL

I understood that. I just don't think that is anything that people don't already understand. Evaluating what you want, and making sure that you don't want things that are at odds with each other is a given for most people. Your model has a specific purpose, and I think it does it very well. Its purpose is to answer the question, "Why use knowledge? And in evaluating this, we find knowledge is a rational methodology that will help us obtain our goals better than the alternative, irrationality.

it does not yet give an argument for which primary goal we should have as opposed to another. The only thing that is worth adding to this is that the model will reveal that not all primary goals are possible because some simply cannot be pursued. — TVCL

Yes, it is a very tricky thing to figure out what goals we must pursue over others. But perhaps this can start with the explanation that demonstrates certain goals cannot be pursued. Recall my examples of people pursuing goals that have failed time and time again. While I think we can both claim we can determine that an attempt at a goal can be knowledge of success or failure, at what point do we rule the goal out entirely as something someone should pursue? Is this even possible?

All the best returned as well. I feel this is an interesting exploration, and one I am not sure I have the answer to.

Breath in through the nose...scream out through the mouth.

Seriously though, that's more psychology.
https://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control

If you have something more specific in mind that isn't covered by psychology, feel free to follow up.

I've read the first and second of your essays, but neither address the degree to which deductive beliefs form networks. — Isaac

Oh fantastic! Lets take it there then. The first two build up knowledge from the self-subjective viewpoint. Part 3 goes into how knowledge works within society. I would love your comments on it there. Part 3 should answer how we resolve the point from Quine.

Nonetheless, there's an attempt to reason, no matter how contrived or affected, even in rationalization, right? Commendable in spirit then, if not in letter. — TheMadFool

Not necessarily. People are varied in their level of rationalizing, versus being rational. Rationalizing is an attempt to support one's emotional belief. If one rationalization fails, another will be invented depending on how much a person clings to that belief.

But I do believe that if you can rationalize, you have the potential to be rational. There are plenty of philosophers who rationalize. They may talk a good game, or create a system that fits within narrow confines, but in the end is not really rational.

Being rational requires a self-awareness of your emotional bias and desires. We need those biases and desires to care, but we need to measure ourselves that to times when we must let those biases and desires go in the face of contrary evidence.

Anyone can come up with reasons that confirm what they desire to be. Only the truly rational can conclude their desires were wrong. It is something we all have to be vigilant against, and can easily stumble on.

Faith is not an valid argument. — Gus Lamarch

Of course its not. Its not an argument they are giving you Gus. Pointing that out to them misses the entire point. Appealing to faith means, "I don't care about your rationality, this is what I believe".

Your picture will not do anything but make them roll their eyes at you. They get the argument. You can never change what a person believes by appealing to rationality, when a person abandons rationality as a reason for their belief. What you've been missing is people of faith are presenting you with rationalizations for their faith. You can dismantle rationalizations, but that does not dismantle faith.

If you want to get people to not believe in God anymore, you need to address the emotional and societal ties that bind that faith.

A good weekend to you again! I'll jump right in.

Just as the model allows us to discover which means do or do not facilitate the attainment of particular goals, it allows us to discover which goals we can or cannot pursue as-such. After all, if one's belief that a given goal can be pursued cannot be put into action, that belief is not applicable and is therefore not knowledge. Therefore, if we are seeking knowledge the process of discovery will rule out those goals that cannot be pursued. — TVCL

I just want to clarify a breakdown here. This is where I see an issue with goals being blended with beliefs. A goal does not start out with any idea that the goal can, or cannot be obtained. As we obtain beliefs that are attempts to reach the goal, there may be several failures along the way. But those failures do not indicate that the goal should not be pursued anymore. Look at the many failures of epistemology. Does that mean we should abandon the goal of trying to figure out knowledge? I think not. =)

A goal isn't really a belief. Its an objective someone wants to reach. As you've stated, its the first step toward pursuing knowledge, but it is not knowledge itself. We can believe we can reach that goal, or believe that we will fail in our obtainment of that goal. Knowledge applies to the beliefs that we farm in pursuit of that goal, but I hesitate to claim that knowledge of the beliefs along the way should determine what goals a person pursues.

Why we pursue goals is a weight of personal interest, societal benefit, and energy and time investment needed in its pursuit. Thomas Edison had a goal of creating a cheap and easily manufactured light bulb. He went through 3,000 theories over the course of two years at making such a light bulb before he succeeded. If he hadn't succeeded after 3,000, should he have tried another 3 thousand? At what point of trying to obtain the knowledge he desired should he have quit?

In your mafioso example, I don't feel we're addressing knowledge, or what we should do. We're just addressing that certain goals have conflicts. If my goal is to go left and right at the same time, we find a contradiction of definitions, and therefore a contradiction of goals. This is different from exploring beliefs, and then finding that there is a contradiction in one's beliefs about reality using applicability and consistency.

So I think not pursuing conflicting goals is a given. But that doesn't answer the question of when we should start or stop pursuing goals that are not in conflict with our other goals, but over time and effort have never yielded results.

Given the model, we should search for knowledge if we want to be better equipped to pursue our goals. — TVCL

As such, I think an adjusted sentence would be, "Given the model, we should search for knowledge if we want to better equipped to obtain our goals". We can pursue our goals in many ways. Knowledge lets us know when we have obtained that goal. But does it necessarily show us that we cannot obtain that goal? I think that is the overall issue.

What I am saying is that the theory that brain = mind is a default position, a theory, not a proven fact. — EnPassant

No, that's not a theory. That's a hypothesis, a postulate, a proposal. Not a theory when speaking in terms of science.

"a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. "
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Evidence can be data, physical facts or convincing argument. But in your world view - if I understand you correctly - only physical facts are admissible as evidence. — EnPassant

Lets clarify then. First, a "convincing argument" means a rational argument concluded with deduction. Deductions must then be applied and tested against reality to ensure we had the entire picture, and that the deduction holds when faced with other people, or use in reality.

For example, we could deduce in physics that if X object is applied Y force in a vector, it will accelerate at Z speed. So we go outside, we do that, but it doesn't work. We think about it for a moment and we realize we didn't take into account the wind. So we go indoors without any wind, and it turns out our deduction works. We just forgot to take wind as a factor.

If you make a claim about reality, you must test it against reality. It is not that everything MUST reduce to physical reality, it is that we have discovered no reality that is not physical (matter and energy). Same with consciousness. We have not discovered any application of "deduction or rational argument" that consciousness exists apart from the brain. It does not exist. I'm sorry. You seem very passionate about this, which implies there must be some emotional reason why you keep wanting this. I am not saying you don't have to give up on your desire that consciousness exists separate from the mind, but you have to demonstrate in some way, that your theory about consciousness actually exists in some way that can be demonstrated.

Finally, I am not a logical positivist. I am not accusing you of holding any particular philosophy, I am asking you to think rationally for yourself. Please do the same for me.

How do you decide which is the first premise? Is it just the one you first thought of (temporally arranged)? In my example - A belief that A and a belief that evidence exists contrary to A (which we're calling a belief that B) - which is the 'first' premise and why? — Isaac

1. Have a belief A
2. Demonstrate that it is impossible for A to be contradicted through deduction.
3. A can become a prime premise for B, etc.

Again, I spend a few paragraphs on it, with lead up there. If you want to know how I do that, or if you think the above does not satisfy what you are looking for, it is best we take the conversation there, and not distract from the thread here.

3) Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws. — Chris1952Engineer

True. That doesn't mean physics is flawed though. For physics purpose is not to explain why, but to explain what and how. I'm sure as an engineer, you understand that it is a tool for a particular job, and should not be criticized because it is the wrong tool for a different job.

I can put the same question to you; what evidence is there that the brain is conscious? — EnPassant

I already answered this several times. I told you very clearly that you cannot use an "analogue" on something you haven't already proven exists. You are either ignoring this, or do not understand. Go back and read those answers, then feel free to try to counter them. But if you are not going to address the words I've already spoken, I'm not going to repeat them.

So why can't someone offer an alternative theory? — EnPassant

Again, showing you either did not read, or understand what I've already written. You absolutely may offer an alternative theory, but it must have evidence to compete with another theory that has evidence. You have zero evidence of how consciousness can exist apart from the mind.

Provide some evidence of a mind existing apart from the brain
— Philosophim

It doesn't work like that. — EnPassant

You are right. Because there is none. It works like that for evidence that consciousness comes from the brain. It is on you to demonstrate A. Why this is false, which so far, you have not. Or B. Provide evidence that consciousness does not come from the brain, which you have not.

The Greeks invented geometry to measure the physical world. Their calculations are congruent with the actual world which is why they were able to create their famous architectural pieces. This means that geometry and deduction about the world is very similar, if not identical, to the objective world. So, to a large extent, we are conscious of what is actually there. — EnPassant

Ok, so you agree with my meter stick analogy and point then. Please go back and read my replies to you carefully about evidence for consciousness coming from the brain, and why the use of "analogue" does not work. If you address them, then we can continue the conversation.

Either way, how do you avoid the problem I mentioned at the beginning that one cannot distinguish the presence/absence of evidence from unchecked belief? — Isaac

You must demonstrate that the first premise in the chain is incontrovertible. I do that in my theory here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge
I do not want to distract from the OP's point here however. If you are interested in exploring how I solve this problem, feel free to visit.

Induction is not the recognition of patterns. Induction is drawing a conclusion that does not necessarily conclude from the premises, or evidence involved. — Philosophim

That's not induction specifically, that's just any invalid inference. — Pfhorrest

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Induction_(philosophy)#:~:text=Induction%20or%20inductive%20reasoning%2C%20sometimes,but%20do%20not%20ensure%20it.
"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it."

I leave you to consider the statements of my last post with the definition of induction clearly defined.

Induction doesn't give you certainty like deduction does, but noticing patterns (which is all induction really amounts to) is still a way to form beliefs — Pfhorrest

Induction is not the recognition of patterns. Induction is drawing a conclusion that does not necessarily conclude from the premises, or evidence involved. Deduction is drawing a conclusion that necessarily must be concluded from the premises. With those definitions, what do you think about my earlier statement?

It's not until you wonder to yourself "is that really right though?" — Pfhorrest

You may not necessarily have thoroughly vetted the idea yet, so that belief may not count as knowledge. If you have thoroughly vetted it, such that you would have already found that it was false if it were false, then you know it. — Pfhorrest

What counts as thoroughly vetting then? So it seems we can have beliefs that have not been examined that are not knowledge. Once we start examining them, when do we stop? At what point do we say that's been enough? Who determines the criteria for what is false? What if I believe Bigfoot exists? This is where induction versus deduction comes in handy. Deduction can give a clear, reproducible answer. If we use induction to believe Bigfoot, necessarily two people could come to two contrary conclusions. I've got to run though, sorry I can't flesh this out better. Just think about induction and deduction as defined here and how that would fit in with your knowledge theory.

The issue of whether a belief is 'examined' is another matter - the effort one puts in to gather even more external data relevant to the belief. Here the issue is scaler and the answer can be none, but in fifteen years of working on beliefs I've yet to see any evidence of a single belief which is 'unexamined' in this sense. — Isaac

My apologies then. I see where you drew this conclusion from my point. Of course there is a reason for every belief at some level. I mean, Joe is male, and I've seen him date women before. There's something. When I mean by "examined belief", is a consciously examined and processed belief. Its like entering into a room and feeling dread. You might instantly form a belief that the place is dangerous from that. But do you know it is dangerous? This is where a person has to actively and consciously examine their beliefs. What is evoking dread? What is actually unsafe in this room?

I think most of us intuitively feel that a "gut reaction" is not necessarily knowledge, but can be a guide that we examine to gain knowledge. The point at which instinct crosses into knowledge is the question of epistemology. I think the OP is trying to do away with that, because it can be a tricky thing to answer. I feel that it more avoids the question of epistemology though, then solves it.

A question that I think is worth considering is, in what sense do numbers exist? — Wayfarer

Its a good question that touches on language and identity. One ability we all have is to take the sum of experience we have, and then create discrete identities within it. You can see a field of grass with a sheep, but take that image and identify a blade of grass, and a piece of grass. Basically we can take and parse that image however we like.

Language and symbols are the attempt to communicate the ability to discretely experience. "1" as the concept is the idea that in a picture of experience on a portion. That is the "1" within the infinite. "2" is the concept that if we take 1 identity, and 1 very similar identity, we then create a new identity of including them together.

Numbers as the concept describing this ability to discretely experience are things most of us can easily reproduce, so they are easily communicated. The symbol is just a medium of communication through sight, sound, smell, etc. that are distinct enough to recognize that we can trigger the concept within us again.

One question I would ask is this: is there anything that exists that does not have a temporal beginning and ending (i.e. begins and ends in time) and is not composed of parts? — Wayfarer

I don't know. And that may be because of our ability to discretely experience anything. A part is an identity we create. Normally this is because that part has some function that is different form that around it. Yet if I think of even a perfectly round sphere, someone will try to make a North pole, a South pole, and divide it up. =)

As for time, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "beginning". Time is really a concept we invented to note that what is now is different from a memory of what was then. As for something which does not end, that is also not likely to be known. So far existence has existed for billions of years to our limited knowledge. Yet even that is such a small time compared to "never ending".

Actually, the human mind is capable of far outstripping the requirements for 'successfully interpreting the world'. Any animal must do that if it is to survive. But h. sapiens has gone far beyond what can be rationalised solely in terms of the requirements for survival. You don't need to be able to weigh and measure the Universe just to get by. — Wayfarer

This has nothing to do with the idea that the consciousness does/does not come from the brain.

That being said, if you're implying there's something special going on, you're misinterpreting this. Life does not just, "Get by". It struggles daily against disease, predators, and in our social case, other human beings. Life is always seeking a way to one up things that would destroy it or cause it harm. It turns out, the most successful creature on this planet that is able to combat almost anything else, is the human being. Higher intelligence has incredible benefits to a person, and the tribe that person belongs to. This is not beyond what can be rationalized in the slightest.

Of course but that is because the interface/brain has been damaged. If a camera is damaged you can not see through it but that does not mean the camera sees. The body is an interface between the mind and the world. If the interface is damaged then of course information cannot reach the mind. But the mind is also conscious independently of the body. For example, it can think and it can say 'I think therefore I am'. The mind's knowledge is not restricted to the five senses. — EnPassant

I should have been clearer. The brain damaged individual can no longer consciously envision color. His eyes work fine. The person can no longer process language internally, their ears are fine. Phineus Gage's entire core personality changed. We are talking about the part of the camera that processes the light from the lenses. That is physical, and when that is broken, the light will not be processed any longer.

What has been established is that there is a physical analogue of the mind's interaction with the world via the brain. — EnPassant

This makes no sense. An analogue only works if you have something that you know between the two. For example, a foot is analogue to a paw. Both have a similar function, but are still different in structure. The problem is, you've given no structure for what the "mind" is, apart from the brain. The question that I will keep asking, and no one has offerred anything is, "If the mind is not produced from the brain, what is it?" Without evidence, all your saying is, "It could be something else". You can't make an analogue to something that "could" be. What "mind" is needs to be given some meaningful term to be used this way. Otherwise there is no analogue.

If you replace the meter stick with geometry you'll get very close. Geo-metry means 'earth measuring'. — EnPassant

Would you mind clarifying what you meant by this?

https://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

I looked through your articles. None of these provided any of the evidence that you would need.
1. The "IQ" measurement tests for people with lower brain mass do not measure the entire picture of the person. For example, there are "idiot savaants" who can have high IQ in things like math or art, but are unable to understand emotions, read faces, etc.
2. The key is to show if a change in brain health, size, etc, affects a person. None of these experiments show this. They only show the person in one unchanging brain state. A good experiment would be to examine a person in their 20's who has brain fluid build up, then check in ten years to see if major alterations to personality or capability have occurred.
3. A few of these sources are from the 80's and 90's, using some fairly old computer tech. One of the big studies in which people were questioning the accuracy of his scans was done before Microsoft invented Windows. A few findings within the last decade would be better. These old one's seem like "Bigfoots", if you know what I mean.
4. Many of the links to where these sources can be checked are broken and not working.

There is no evidence that the brain is conscious. What does exist is a materialistic dogma that insists there is no difference between the brain analogue and the mind. It is simply dogma. — EnPassant

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Dogma is a claim that the mind exists apart from the brain, when there is no evidence of that being the case. If you had something, anything that would show consciousness existing apart from the brain, then we could have a debate. Your second need to insist it is "Simply dogma" without such evidence is the way dogma actually works. You have not earned the right to use that word yet. Provide some evidence of a mind existing apart from the brain, and you can earn it.

No, because the mind is the processing brain.
— Philosophim

That has yet to be established. — EnPassant

No, it has clearly been established. What has not been established, is that consciousness is not part of the brain. I asked Wayfarer, and he was unable to provide any evidence of consciousness existing apart from the brain. The citations I've linked have clearly shown that damage to the brain can affect the consciousness of people's ability to see color, their core personality, and ability to comprehend language. There is not one person proposing that consciousness exists as separate from the brain that has any evidence to back their claims. That being said, feel free to be the first.

The question is; how closely does subjective experience resemble the objective reality that is the source of that experience? — EnPassant

None. The brain constructs a way of interpreting the world. Successful brains are able to interpret the world in such a way, that the actual contradict this interpretation as little as possible. Brains that aren't so good interpret reality in such a way that actual reality keeps contradicting their interpretation of reality. Its like a meter stick. A meterstick is a notched tool that helps us divide physical space. Physical space does not have an underlying grid of meters that we can't see or exist in some other dimension. But we can mark it that way if we like. And it is a useful construct that is rarely contradicted by reality.

But that does not mean the physical context is consciousness. — EnPassant

No, it does. I think you misunderstand the difference between correlation and causation. Don't make the opposite mistake and think, "Well just because something has causation, doesn't mean it might not be correlation." If every time I leave the house it rains, there is correlation. Causation only happens after we demonstrate that something necessarily needs to happen or the correlates can never happen. Since it also rains when I don't leave the house, my leaving the house is not causing it to rain.

Consciousness necessarily comes from the brain, because there is no alternative. I mean, feel free to show any evidence that consciousness comes from something else. But all of the articles I've linked combine to show that there is no alternative to consciousness coming from the brain.

I can give you a few examples of evidence that would cast doubt on the idea of consciousness being caused by the mind.

1. Evidence of consciousness existing in a human being with a completely dead brain.
2. Consciousness existing apart from the localized part of your head. For example, having your body walk away while your consciousness stays right here.
3. Evidence of serious brain damage/chemical changes/proper functionality without the slightest change in personality or character.

Philosophy of mind can only be about what we have knowledge of. We can make philosophy about the current science of the brain. Philosophy of mind as questioning whether the brain causes consciousness is dead and done. Science has long proved consciousness is produced by the brain. The only question at this point is, "But maybe we're wrong", which can be said about anything, and is a useless critique in any rational argument.