There is nothing respectful about it. Using the words "limping" and "lame" do not show respect. Further, if you insist the presented situation is invalid, you would address my counter point, that you were using a straw man argument. You did not. You have provided no evidence that you understand how belief and knowledge are defined within the context of the argument.

Combined with the poor use of words that simply assume your short comments have "solved the puzzle without question", I can only assume at this point you are not interested in having an intelligent discussion, but an emotional one where you try to make yourself feel good by putting another person down.

Now if you wish to remove words which demonstrate ego, and instead wish to discuss the points of the argument using neutral words like, "I think this is wrong because of x", we can happily continue and I will sweep this experience under the bridge. And this, I encourage. It is a poison trap of the mind to believe that indicating superiority over another is the final goal of intellectual discussion. I invite you to address a problem free of ego, and instead join me in a discussion.

I am not quite at your age, but I have had a similar experience. I had reached a point in my life about a year ago where I had obtained everything I ever wanted. I had reached all of my goals, and there was no "What am I going to do next?" going through my mind.

Here I was completely happy, and at more peace in my life then I had ever been. I woke up enjoying each day, doing what I wanted. Yet a part of my mind nagged at me. "Shouldn't you be trying to plan for something else next?" I wondered if it was laziness. But then I just realized my mind was still in the mode of "next goal", because I had been in it so long. Like you, I enjoy life, and do things which enrich my day. Am I "bored"? I'm not. If I feel bored, I do something which eases that boredom. I don't particularly fear death, because I've accomplished everything I've wanted to. Still, I do get flashes of fear if I think about the end. So perhaps I don't quite fit your experience.

But what I do have, is a sense of peace, and no worry about what I'm going to be having to do for the future. I don't think about what comes next. I just live and enjoy life. So few people have that in life, it was my goal, so I learned to love it and appreciate it without worrying about what comes next. Life will come, and I will handle it. Death will come, and I will handle it. For now I can be a rare human who has found their heaven on Earth, and can enjoy the rest of their days, savoring each moment until the end. The goal of life is not to always work towards the next thing. The goal of life is to find the place of the present that makes us fulfilled, happy, and good.

Ha ha! Why the need to label yourself? It sounds like you're an intelligent, empathic person who wants the future to be bright. Why need more than that?

I'm actually excited for artificial intelligence. I think people misunderstand that it will be like the terminator. Its just a new tool that will allow us to reach that dream of extended life span that I too wish were possible within my lifetime.

Probability is all about working with limited information. — TheMadFool

Yes, you are correct. But so are possibilities. While they are both inductions, they are different kinds of inductions with different rules. Probabilities are ratios of all knowable outcomes involved, while possibilities are one or more outcomes that can happen, but have no indication of their likelihood. Lets break it down to see what I mean.

To have a probability of your observation being real, or not real, we need to define a situation in which its not real. Lets say you've been up for 48 hours and have lived on coffee and sugar bombs. In that situation, you find yourself occasionally looking at something, and not being sure if its real. It turns out that occasionally the thing you doubt isn't actually real. You pass your hand over it, and it vanishes. Turns out its your mind playing tricks. You start counting the times you pass your hand on something and it vanishes, versus the time it does not vanish. After counting 20 times, you find 2 instances in which it was your mind playing tricks. So we could say at that point that there is a 10% chance that when you question whether what you are seeing is real, that it is not real.

Without examining actual instances of the outcomes, you can't use probability. Its just like the lottery odds example. You can win the lottery, or lose the lottery. Those are possibilities. Probabilities can only enter by examining the combination of outcomes, and counting up the ratio of times when a win versus a loss happens.

So until we can determine the times and situation in which you have observed something, not been sure it is real, and it has not been real, we can't use probabilities. Any guess or stab at a number is a misapplication of the number. Or like Abraham Lincoln once said, "94.5% of statistics on the internet are fake".

What is the neuroscientific explanation for how brains produce consciousness? — RogueAI

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20long%20thought%20that,work%20together%20to%20form%20consciousness.

The Harvard team identified not only the specific brainstem region linked to arousal, but also two cortex regions, that all appear to work together to form consciousness.

It that so? What does ‘realised’ mean, in this context? — Wayfarer

By realised I mean that it has been researched and chemicals have been discovered to inhibit pain. Anesthesia and opiates are two that come to mind. Anasthesia numbs the nerves, and opiates

"Opioids attach to proteins called opioid receptors on nerve cells in the brain, spinal cord, gut and other parts of the body. When this happens, the opioids block pain messages sent from the body through the spinal cord to the brain." https://www.asahq.org/whensecondscount/pain-management/opioid-treatment/what-are-opioids/#:~:text=Opioids%20attach%20to%20proteins%20called,spinal%20cord%20to%20the%20brain.

There are articles on pain research ongoing here https://www.iasp-pain.org/PublicationsNews/NewsDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=10601&navItemNumber=643
At the international association for the study of pain.

And yes, the application of biology stops the sensation of pain.

The question whether brains think “is a philosophical question — Wayfarer

https://www.dw.com/en/we-know-what-youre-thinking-we-read-your-brain/a-47279723
"A group of neuro-engineers at the Zuckerman Institute have been working on a technique called "auditory stimulus reconstruction" for some time. In the jargon of their paper — "Towards reconstructing intelligent speech from the human auditory cortex" — which has just been published in Nature, "reconstructing speech from the human auditory cortex creates the possibility of a speech neuroprosthetic to establish a direct communication with the brain and has been shown to be possible in both overt and covert conditions.""

The quote you cited was from 2003, which is 17 years ago. Now, it is not that there won't be philosophical questions going forward, but they must be based on neuroscience, not philosophical questions from the 17th century. Once philosophy reaches a certain point of verifiability, it becomes science. Science has many philosophical questions still, but they are in their field, and based off of the modern day knowledge we have.

Confirmation isn't useless. It is the lifeblood of the scientific method. — TheMadFool

I'll link you an article from an a person who has a Phd in Astrophysics. Its an easy read though, no worry. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#14b8fc7a2fb1
Perhaps this will better explain why I mean by science being something which has not been refuted, and not science is something which is done through confirmation.

Suppose that you see something extraordinary, say E. you can't believe your eyes, You don't know if what you saw was real or not. What numerical value would you assign to E being real? — TheMadFool

There is no numerical value to assign with that limited information. We have nothing that entails a pattern. It is like a face down deck of cards which could contain anything on each of its faces. The only way to know is to flip the cards one by one until we see the pictures.

First, repeatability in science is not about confirmation of results, it is to check if the results are irrefutable.
— Philosophim

That's the same thing. If refuted then disconfirmed. If confirmed then not refuted. — TheMadFool

No, they really aren't. Let me give you an example. Lets say that some one sees the Loch Ness monster in the lake at a distance. Its really just a man in a submarine having some fun. But the first person invites another to stand where they are, and they too are convinced its the Loch Ness monster. Tons of people are invited, and everyone confirms it must be the Loch Ness monster, because that's what they want to see. Such repeatability is confirmation, but useless. Confirmation when someone is trying to refute a claim, like going down to the water for a closer inspection, is when it is useful.

There are two options: an observation is real or not real. Ergo, the probability it's real = 1/2 = 50% and the probability that it's not real = 1/2 = 50% — TheMadFool

This is also incorrect. You ignored the point about probability being based off of knowables. I'll give another example if it wasn't clear. There is possibility, and probability. It is possible I win the lottery. Either I win it, or I don't. That does not mean I have a 50% chance to win or lose the lottery. We know this, because there are very known instances in which I would win, and many known instances in which I would lose.

The same with something being real. It is possible it is real, or possible that it is not real. That does not mean it has a 50% probability of being real, or not real. To determine a probability, we would need to know instances in which the observation would not be real, and compare it to all the known instances in which it could be real. If we have no knowledge of any of this, we cannot use probability.

Its a fun idea, but I see a few issues here.

First, repeatability in science is not about confirmation of results, it is to check if the results are irrefutable. In putting an experiment before different people, we're trying to introduce a new element to see if the observation can be refuted. If everyone is just interested in confirming what is before their eyes, repeatability has no merit.

The second is how you assess probability. Probability is based on knowables. When you talk about the probability of a jack being pulled from a regular deck of 52 cards, we know that there are four jacks. Probability is making a prediction based off of the limitations of what we do, and do not know.

You cannot assign the probability of something being real, without first constructing some limitations. What does it mean to be real? What are the circumstances in which you observed something, and it was not real? Is there chance involved based on these limitations? Once defined, we can say, "Its either real or not", but that still does not determine the likelihood of it being real or not.

It would be like saying that I'm either alive or dead, therefore its a 50% chance that I'm either alive or dead. It doesn't work that way.

One way to look at energy is "matter in motion". An increase or decrease in motion causes different interactions between matter itself.

What is the third point though? I understand that the first point is an origin that has no prior origin. The second point is that a forms current state is due in some form on the causal dependence of the first point. What is the third point? A forms present state?

3 is the correct choice. The probability for a single individual that what s/he's observing is real/not is exactly 50%. — TheMadFool

I believe all three options are incorrect, as this is a misapplication of what probability is. Probability is based on knowables. When you talk about the probability of a jack being pulled from a regular deck of 52 cards, we know that there are four jacks. Probability is making a prediction based off of the limitations of what we do, and do not know.

You cannot assign the probability of something being real, without first constructing some limitations. What does it mean to be real? What are the circumstances in which you observed something, and it was not real? Is there chance involved based on these limitations?

Until these things are answered, you cannot assign a probability. You are instead stuck in an unassessable uncertainty.

Excellent post! I had to reread what "goals" were again to make sure I had everything right. Back then I was not criticizing word choices, because we weren't to that level yet. However, now that we're at the point that the basic definitions are so important, I think a better term instead of goals would be to separate the word goals, and your approach to solving goals as a "Hypothesis".

A repost:

1. A goal initiates the inquiry because the search for truth is a goal.

2. Goals parameterise our enquiry because they determine the point at which a given endeavour can be deemed to be satisfactorily achieved and the criteria by which this point is to be reached.

3. Therefore, if goals set the beginning and the end of the enquiry, they set the parameters for how or when our understanding of the truth is satisfactory. — TVCL

This is due to a few factors. A goal is seen in common vernacular as "the end". Something like, "I want to find out if this apple is edible." How we approach pursuing a goal is not the same as arriving at the goal itself.

When you speak about goals, you imply that it is how we approach the goal which is just as important. If I want to fly by using my arms, then it would be silly to approach that goal without using my arms. Further, we wish to use logic, like the law of non-contradiction in our goals. That requires that our equation to discover Y must be falsifiable in some way. If we do not have this restriction, then someone could introduce a non-falsifiable belief, and state because it is not contradicted by reality, it is therefore provisional knowledge per your definition.

This is because the argument itself requires the use of logic to progress and progress in necessary relation to an aim — TVCL

Without defining our approach to obtaining goals as necessarily being falsifiable, your above claim will not hold. If we split your goal an end result, and the approach to that goal as a hypothesis, I think your approach is communicated with greater clarity, and security in its definition. If you disagree with the inclusion of a "hypothesis", this is fine. But your definition of "goal" as I understand it currently makes some assumptions that are not proven such as point 2.

e) Applying these criteria, we are left with:
i) beliefs that cannot be regarded as knowledge.
ii) beliefs that have the potential to be knowledge — TVCL

One problem here is the exclusion of knowledge itself as a viable definition. If we are to say there is a potential for knowledge, we must be able to show what knowledge is first. You even state this at the end.

As such, what comes to be regarded as knowledge is not "That which has been demonstrated to accord with reality" but "That which has been demonstrated to not be contradicted by reality." — TVCL

We cannot analyze the potential of something without first knowing what that something is. I would think that if you hold a goal, a hypothesized belief, and cannot contradict it, then you have knowledge. Now this assumes that knowledge is something which could be changed at a later time if new information arises that contradicts your claims. That is fine, but that would be knowledge itself, not provisional. What you might be doing here is thinking that knowledge needs to be truth. In doing so, you run into the problems that truth brings to epistemology. It is fine if you decide to go this route, but you'll have to address those problems as they rise up.

Of course, I have not addressed your arguments about discrete experience in here and this is because they were not needed to get the argument to this point. However, if you think that they can intersect with the argument above/are required for it or can build off from it, please do say. — TVCL

This is fine. The arguments I proposed were only used to give you a basis of how to approach the idea of knowledge from a foundational level. I am more eager to see your own approach. The only lesson to be drawn from my approach is to see how to make as few assumptions as possible in constructing an argument. Our arguments are also serving two different approaches. My argument comes from a fundamental construction of epistemology like Descartes, which admittedly is unnecessary for many people. Your epistemology is more a logical approach based on assumed precepts which few would nave need to question. We are not questioning what the "I" is, proving that thought is knowable, or other such concepts. Your goal is an applicable epistemology within our normative understanding of reality, which is useful and easy to grasp for daily use. And I think its going very well so far!

Feel free to confirm or deny any points I've made. If we are in general agreement with this base, then we can continue with the further branches from this I'm sure you're ready to get to!

You seem to be addressing the nature of a "first cause". I addressed this more fully here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8924/a-fun-puzzle-for-the-forums-the-probability-of-god/p1
but I will repaste the pertinent points.

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow.

2. We can represent this as answering the question, "Why did X happen?" A prior cause is Y. A first cause is simply X.

3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities.

a. There is always a Y for every X. (infinite prior cause).
b. Y eventually wraps back to an X (infinite looped prior cause)
c. There comes a time when there is only X, and nothing prior to Y (first cause)

4. The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist. In other words, you cannot claim "Its not possible for X to exist." To say there existed such a rule would entail "X exists because of Y". But there is no Y when X is a first cause. This can mean a first cause could be anything without limitation. X as a prime cause does not follow any rules besides the fact of its own existence.

5. The two infinite loop options cannot answer the questions with another cause, "Why is is all of causality infinite? What caused it to be this way, instead of finite?" If we say, "Well X happened because of Y", then we're right back where we started. The only answer that can be given is, "It simply is". X is X, because X exists, and nothing prior. In other words, even if there is an infinitely looped chain of causation within the universe, the reason why it is infinitely looped in its causation, is a first cause. Its like that, because it simply exists that way.

6. Therefore the only conclusion is that there is a "First Cause" to our universe. This means that there is no rule or reason why the universe exists, besides the fact that it does.

If I understand your analysis, with this no third point needs to enter in. I confess, you explained the first and second point well, then did not explain what the third point was in concrete terms. We can speak of reality within the terms of understanding that there is a first cause, though we do not know what it is. Feel free to correct where I am wrong in understanding your theory.

You know a probability. You do not know before the draw date that it's a losing ticket.

You buy the lottery ticket not because you believe you will win, but because you hope you will win.

Two mistakes for two tries. Not a very strong argument. — god must be atheist

I was giving an example in which a person believes they can win, but knows they likely will not. Having hope that they win can also happen, but was not the example I gave. These are two separate examples. Attacking an example I did not give is not evidence that the argument I gave "wasn't very strong".

Further, you seem to be ignoring the context of the discussion, which is the paper. This is evident, because you would know how I define belief, and that is not defined as "hope". I will enjoy your contributions to the discussion, but double check that you understand the context of the discussion before adding your opinion to a question between another poster and myself.

Hi TVCL, I know you are busy. I've had time to think if I answered you question adequately last time, and I feel I did not.

The problem here is that the discussion thus far holds the effect of the belief as being limited (only that the effects are), not that the belief itself is limited. To extend this argument to beliefs, we would have to conclude that beliefs are their effects. — TVCL

Lets first clarify what "effects" means. You stated a belief can or cannot be put into effect. To me that means you are applying your belief to reality. As an example, I believe that there is a red ball in front of me. Somehow we need a standard to confirm that it is a red ball. If we figure that out, we figure out the synthetic part of knowledge.

But what about the belief itself? Do I know that I believe there is a red ball in front of me? Yes. If we can figure out how we know that we are experiencing the belief of a red ball in front of us, then perhaps we could apply the same trick in applying that belief we do know, to the reality we don't yet know. In other words, we are creating an external standard to our knowledge that we have beliefs. For your purposes, you have started with the law of non-contradiction. For my purposes, I did the same. I concluded that we absolutely must have discrete experiences, as to not have discrete experiences, is a contradiction. I then build into basic beliefs.

While we can be unlimited in our beliefs, we are limited in our application of those beliefs to reality. So for yourself, I would questing if you can know that you hold beliefs. How can you conclude this? And if you can create this, try applying it to the "synthetic" (used as a broad term, not any one defined interpretation) aspect of beliefs.

Lets look at the philosopher's claim: There is a mysterious phenomenon associated with my brain that is something which is not encompassed by the rules of physics, chemistry or computation.

How do they know this? They are not looking at their brain, physics, or chemistry. Its just a feeling. Does the phenomena that is undefined, untested, and unrealized exist? No. Does pain exist? Yes. But we also know that pain has been realized through physics, chemistry, and the study of the brain.

The mind/body problem is largely outdated in philosophy. If you're seeking questions about mind/body, neuroscience is now the best realm to do so. Many mind/body problems in philosophy predate modern day neuroscience, and are mostly just for historical study.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. So if I do nothing in the face of good, it is still considered being an accomplice to good? And by doing the same thing in the face of evil, I am an accomplice to evil? How can the same action have such contrasting interpretations? — Legato

Humans are not fully good or evil. We are a mix. Sometimes we choose evil, sometimes we choose good. I don't see a contrast here, but feel free to point it out if I am missing it.

Since the idea of good and evil has been ever-changing (refer to my above response to tim wood), how can we judge someone's silent neutrality as being accomplices of evil or good? — Legato

The only way to be neutral is to not realize that something is good or evil. In that case, not acting on another person's action, or acting on another's person action would not be a support or fight against good or evil. But if one has knowledge of good and evil, one can no longer be neutral when one sees it in action.

And before you think, "Well I'll just avoid all knowledge then," willful ignorance is often considered evil.

As for good and evil changing throughout history, you might be surprised that not much has changed. Organizations may claim certain things as good or evil, but generally there is an understanding that showing empathy for human beings, defending the weak, and not causing harm for our personal ego are all considered good, while the opposite is evil. Perhaps what is most important is what you consider good and evil in your heart and mind, and living according to that.

Lets make the quote's implicit more explicit.

"To not resist evil is to be an accomplice to it." Thus if we switch, "To not resist good is to be an accomplice to it" still works.

I think this is a fairly accurate statement. If you see evil being done, but do nothing about it when you have the power to, then you are allowing it to happen. Now that doesn't mean you have to stop it right then. You can also be smart about it. If you see a person robbing your neighbor's house, it doesn't mean you have to get your shotgun and go over there. You can call the cops.

If we all did this. We could likely eradicate evil. The same of course applies to letting good happen without you interfering.

So at the same time you believe that “you will win” and that “you probably will not win”? I don't think that is possible. — Jarmo

I'm going to assume at this point that you've only read part one, otherwise you would understand what I meant by probability, and what I mean by believing something while also knowing that it is not likely. If you read through to part 4, my answer should make more sense.

If this bothers you at this point however in part 1, notice the claim is not a hard claim, it is a supposition as a starting though. I then lead from that supposition refining it into something more concrete using the law of contradiction. That is to ultimately discover that the purest form of knowledge is a discrete experience. Part 2 begins to take the knowledge of discrete experience, and then see if it can be applied to reality. For example, I might believe that a creature over there is a sheep, but how do I know its a sheep? So for now, read part 2. If you still have a question or issue with the point, we can come back to it and I can use the language and examples in part 2 to answer your question better.

Reality at its most basic is our will and what happens apart from our will. I may want to fly with my mind alone, but no measure of trying will let me. I am able to type a response on the computer to you, so that is real as well. Reality is what we can, and cannot do.

Can you really believe in something without believing that “the something” is co-existent with reality? — Jarmo

Yes you can. I can buy a lottery ticket believing that I will win, but with the knowledge that I probably will not. This statement is a very basic beginning to knowledge, which I go more detail into. My next line is, "Yet how can one be certain one’s belief is co-existent with reality? " I am starting with a basic premise, then questioning it myself to try to make it better. That second belief in a beliefs concurrence with reality needs something more. Then I go into contradiction.

Can you really believe something is red and at the same time experience it as blue? Or does that “negative belief” mean that you don’t actually believe, you just “claim”? — Jarmo

So in the beginning, it is assumed we are speaking colors in a "normative" way, That being that blue and red are both different colors. You understand what blue and red are, and you see red and blue as different colors. If you are seeing one color, regardless of what it is, and it is not another color, regardless of what it is, you cannot claim it is color B, when you see Color A without a contradiction.
Now if you wish to change the premises to avoid a contradiction, that is fine. But then we're not talking about the same example. The point is to understand that a person cannot hold a true contradictory belief. I cannot see 1, understand what 1 is, then claim it is 2 when I understand 1 is different from 2. Does that make sense?

I don’t think that experience of remembering something requires that you actually have memories. I would grant that we both have memories, but I believe that at this point we step outside of absolute knowledge. — Jarmo

But can you counter the point that I made about memories as being knowledge? The point is that I know I experience memories, not that those memories are accurate representations of a past reality. If I experience a memory of a pink elephant, that memory is what I know, not whether there was a pink elephant in reality that gave me that memory. At that point in the argument, I am claiming nothing more than this. Does this clarify what I'm pointing out?

I appreciate the feedback!

Philosophy is not a feel good game, thought is brutal, it walks against the silk of delusion, it is often sand paper to the heart. — JerseyFlight

A ridiculous excuse to try to justify your desire to be mean to people. You can be intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful of others. You don't care about changing his mind. You're spitting words for the fullfillment of your ego. People who actually wish to change others minds understand that you must talk with people, not at people.

You did not talk with the man. You talked at the man, while completing disregarding his OP. You fool no one with this excuse. And if you've fooled yourself? Then you are far less intelligent then you believe yourself to be.

This is not my argument. And I have little patience for people like yourself — JerseyFlight

Fortunately, I have patience to spare for the both of us then. You asked a question, and I provided you an answer. I did not say I believed in a God. You are letting your personal emotions impact the conversation. An even temperment would examine the point I made, not the point your emotions are leading you to think I made. An intellectual lets their emotions compliment their thoughts, not the other way around.

Philosophy is not about elitism. It is not about letting our perceived superiority belittle others theories we dislike. Such actions are not about discovering the truth, or lifting others to the truth. They are self serving primitive parts of the brain which intelligent people must EVER be vigilent against. Failure to do so is a waste of intellect.

Lest you dismiss this because you think I am a religious nutjob, I do not believe in religion. I have 3 degrees. I have spoken with many people far more intelligent then myself. Being an atheist does not give you a pass to the intelligence club. It is the default stance of most of the world. The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path.

What makes it an act of intelligence? — JerseyFlight

Animals do not question about God. The idea of God is a formation of imagination, what ifs, and wonderment of the world. It has driven entire philosophies, societies, government, and art. You do not like the idea of people thinkging about God, that is obvious. But I think you're trying to rationalize your dislike, and not thinking about discussions of God rationally.

The comparison to agriculture is poor. That's like saying the only thing worthwhile to spend our time on is on pure survival. What a poor life that would be! Considering the impact of belief in a God has on the entire history of humanity, and present day, it would be unintelligent not to think about it. Feel free to be detest it if you wish. I detest sports. But I don't go to sports forums and tell them all how they are wasting their time on life. Even if we don't appreciate the subject, we as intelligent beings should appreciate the variety of topics our minds are able to think on.

A fair point tim wood. I'm just trying to lend a positive voice to this thread. Whether we have decided our own beliefs on God is irrelevant. We should welcome people who take the time to post on something they've thought about and are generally passionate about.

When I was young, I was once a passionate believer in God, and philosophy about God was my beginning into exploring God beyond the matter of faith. It is the people who engaged me on these grounds and treated me respectfully which is why I evolved in my viewpoints on God and faith, and lit my passion for philosophy I still enjoy to this day.

Feel free to engage the OP's point, I am putting no skin in this game at this point. =)

Mutakalem, I appreciate your attempt to tackle the issue of God and omnipotence. I think this is a much better way of analyzing omnipotence then the normal, "God can do anything"

Wow Jerseyflight, you are being a jerk. The man wants discussion, not insults. It might be unimportant to you, the same football is to me. Do I go to football forums and post how they are all wasting their life? No. Come on, lay off the guy.

They aren't absurd questions at all! They are avoided by lazy or uncomfortable minds. Philosophers demand we think about them and try to glean answers.

Best you can do is start the conversation and see if people join. People can be messy. You won't always get nice people, but you also won't always get egocentric people either. I would pick the topic you want to explore, cite it, give your opinion, and see what others think. Just be aware you have to handle the bad with the good.

Regardless, I'm glad you are interested in philosophy, and wish you well in encountering more good than bad!

This is the issue that all theories of knowledge struggle with. This is the analytic/synthetic section of the problem. Some might argue this is THE problem of epistemology.

For a general strategy, you need to find a basic and solid answer, and build from there. I think most philosophers conclude that beliefs can be anything, but how they arrive at that sets up the next step.

It may be time to analyze what I wrote in part two now. The strategy I took was to use the same methodology that I used to determine discrete experiences are knowledge, in applying those discrete experiences to reality. Thus there should be no gap, at least in logical consistency.
But maybe you will see a flaw and that will spark a better solution.

This is a fantastic start! With regards to defining reality, it is fine to start with a loose but accurate definition. You make an interesting point about showing the difference between belief and omniscience. I've never seen it before, well done.

Philosophies emphasis should be about logic. Politics and ideology generally emphasize emotion. Its not that emotion isn't useful or helpful in persuading others. Its that emotion is often not a good tool for constructing logical arguments.

I will second Tim Wood. Yes.

I'm not sure what you're describing is a contradiction in morality, but inconsistency in the law. If a person feels they should sacrifice their time to help other people, and they are consistent in that, then they are consistent morally. If one is inconsistent in implementing one's morality, that doesn't mean there is a contradiction either. A person can fully realize they are being inconsistent, and view their inconsistency as immoral.

To sum, inconsistent implementation is not a contradiction of what one considers moral.

I had to read up on Rawls ahead of this, so take it with a grain of salt. My understanding of his original position is that morality is formed as a social contract between social individuals, not as pre-social individuals.

This means that the contract takes into consideration the other people involved in the moral rules. In the case of the 3, it would depend on each of the individuals feelings. Maybe one of the people doesn't want to share their "marriage" with more than one person. In that case, they would not advocate for polygamy. Polygamy would only be the most "rational" if they considered that each of them would not simply tolerate, but actually like having more than one person in the marriage.

This would be in contrast from a "pre-social" individual, who would have their own personal moral code apart from others. Such a person would dictate a moral code that the others had to follow, regardless of the other's feelings on the issue.

So I don't think that polygamy is the most rational justification according to the original position. Feel free to disagree.

I think you're over complicating the issue.

1. Doesn't have to be 8 years of Biden/Harris. You can just make it 4.
2. If you're concerned about the balance of power, vote Democrat for president, and Republican for house or senate.
3. You're either making a choice, or not making a choice. If you don't make a choice, you have no skin in the game. Others will decide for you. You sound like you don't like others telling you what to do. Well, if you don't vote, guess what? We voted in a guy to tell you what to do, and you had no say.

Vote for the lesser evil if you find no positives. You will at least feel like you made a decision. Otherwise you may end up with what you know in your heart is the greater evil, and and have to deal with that for the next four years.

There are some bumps in it and so, as you requested, I thought I'd bring them to your attention.
The first one was your definition of Reality as "What results independently of a belief" - I'm inclined to agree but the counter occurred: "This presumes that belief cannot dictate reality. Why not?" It seems that you can answer this within your framework but it may be worth pressing you to do so explicitly. — TVCL

First, thank you for the compliment! And absolutely, question even the slightest issue you find. It is the only way to the truth, and I never take offense or slight to it.

First, when I wrote this theory I thought to myself, "A knowledge theory must be able to know itself". The way I have written the work is as a newborn discovering things for the first time. I take what I can glean at the moment, and build upon it from there. However, that does not mean I cannot return to it after. Indeed, at this moment of claim it could be drawn that belief cannot dictate reality, but I also make no claim one way or the other.

The key comes after I demonstrate what "discrete experiences" are. Once you realize that a belief is a discrete experience, you also realize that belief is concurrent with reality, because a discrete experience cannot be contradicted. To streamline the theory for first time readers, I have removed a lot of going back to the beginning. But feel free to take any future conclusions I make, go back to the beginning, and see if a contradiction is found, or a question you had now answered.

And to clarify, the belief itself is reality. A belief's claim, such as, "I believe Tim is waiting just around the corner" is not necessarily confirmed by reality. A belief's claim is an application of our discrete experiences to reality, which is covered in part 2.

And then, there was a question about what you mean by a "Will" or "Sureness" when you define Belief. — TVCL

In essence belief is a desire. A claim that you are sure reality is X, even if it might be Y. I use belief as a precursor to action in its introduction, but it can also be a claim about reality without any action. "The sun is made of hydrogen" for example. Whether I believed this, or that it was made out of helium has no recourse in the actions I will take as a random belief simply appearing in my mind, then quickly disappearing. This is where the "Sureness" comes from.

But an excellent point on noting that it is not well explained. I had to cut quite a bit to get it down to a manageable read, and explaining belief in further detail seemed like something I could let slide a bit. It seems I may need to cover it again.

One note: if knowledge is belief in something which is co-existent with reality and requires that the belief is not contradicted, it would appear that knowledge is provisional. That is, we have knowledge up to the point that the knowledge we have is contradicted. — TVCL

This is correct. Part two covers how we can handle these contradictions. Sometimes, what might appear to be a contradiction, may not be at all depending on our definitions.

Now, admittedly, by the end of your first piece I got off of the boat. Moreover, it begins to raise far more questions far too quickly to keep pace with. — TVCL

A very fair assessment. As I mentioned earlier, once a foundation type of, "I think therefore I am" has been established, the true complexity starts. Originally, this was a MUCH larger read. I covered so many branches and different considerations. The problem in doing so is that ultimately loses the reader. What I tried to do was cut it down to the necessary fundamentals that allow the building blocks to answer all of the branching questions within section 2. But I feel it may be good to table section 2 for now. I am more interested in how you will construct your fundamentals, and where you will build from independently of mine. Without your own strong conclusion on the "I think therefore I am" section of epistemology, going further would not be productive.

5a. The attempt to make epistemology "airtight" is potentially endless/unattainable.

5b. Likewise, the attempt to define epistemological terms and make them "airtight" is potentially endless/unattainable — TVCL

That is only half the story! The attempt to make epistemology "airtight" is potentially obtainable. The attempt to define epistemological terms and make them "airtight" is potentially obtainable.

Let us combine this with, "A common thread of all epistemological theories is their lack of "airtightness".
Therefore perhaps creating an airtight epistemology would lead to a success.

Also one other thing, we are assuming "knowledge" before knowledge has been figured out. What is "airtight"? What is "unobtainable/obtainable" in regards to knowledge? What is potential? If the questions themselves have questions, that tells me there is something underlying we still do not understand yet, and we should work on that first.

Take as long as you want to think, I'll be here when you're ready.

Thank you Mww, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

First; we seem to agree that knowledge is a tool. Perhaps we agree that theories of knowledge are tools too. Perhaps, is there a distinction between a "perfect" tool that is never prone to failure and a tool that is as good as it can be but that we must accept will eventually break down? — TVCL

I agree entirely with this. No person has ever built a tool that cannot be improved upon over time. Science is considered one of the best methodologies of understanding the world, and even it is still debated and tweaked with improvements to this day. One thing that usually repeats in historic use of tools, is that the next tool offers something the previous one's did not. If a new theory of epistemology is to offer something new to the world, it must differentiate itself from its competitors. To me, that is to make a foundation of epistemology so strong, that it is taken seriously as a branch of study, and less as philosophy.

This also bleeds into your second and third points. Innovator's take two options. Refinement, or advancement. Refinement is a polish or improvement on the old ways to produce something better. This works in many ways. Advancement is much more difficult, because it requires a new approach, and is riskier to pull off.

In either case, I think using the lessons of the tools before us as information to think about is invaluable. But this information must not be enshrined. Polishing keeps the fundamentals while advancement understands that the fundamentals have reached their limit, and it is time for something new. I believe a little of both is in order.

I am of the opinion that epistemology suffers from a few flawed fundamentals, one being its assumptions and allowance of uncertainty within its fundamentals. Yet they are also built upon a few fundamentals that are nearly timeless in epistemological history. To me, these shaky errors manifest after the spring board from the "I think therefore I am" type conclusion that I believe all epistemology reaches as an agreed upon start. I believe there is also some merit in the analytic/synthetic type of arguments as well. When i say "type", I mean the fundamental core of the argument. It is their specifics that I find may not quite nail the issue, and lead to failure down the road. But perhaps I am wrong there as well, which is why I think we both understand we have to present and listen to each other's viewpoints. If two people are looking for the truth, then as you have stated, I believe our viewpoints should point out contradictions or show alignment.

Please take all the time that you need. I have visited a number of philosophy boards over the years, and all of them have been dissapointments. I'm not sure what made this one work, but it seems to be full of people who genuinely like to think on philosophy. I do not mind continuing the discussion for as long as it takes, and I have also been having a blast!. Philosophy and epistemology have long been a passion of mine; it won't burn out any time soon.