Fantastic post.

Tested information is knowledge. The knowledge claim is knowledge plus belief in the validity of the claim. Starting with belief ignores the fact that a belief can be held without any validity. Knowledge proceeds belief. — Megarian

What am I testing if I have no belief? After combining the first two bits of information, the child had a hunch, or a belief that the drink and the wet spot had a link. Otherwise, why would the child purposefully shake the bottle and then immediately feel it?

This is also what science does. There is a hypothesis, a belief, then that belief is tested. My knowledge theory will support, but also explain at a level beyond simple observation and opinion, that yes, the child knows that wet spot came from the water in the bottle. This is a creation of a formal theory of knowledge that can be used to explain why that child knows in terms that can be reapplied to any case.

Again though, read part 2 at least. Part 1 is about distinctive knowledge, or "the knowledge of identities". Part 2 is applicable knowledge, or how I apply the knowledge of identities without contradiction. Once you understand this, I can go back to the child argument and show how the child has applicable knowledge that the spot on the floor came from the bottle.

A formal logic system is itself a knowledge claim.
A formal logic system can validate logically proofs that have no actuality.
A formal logic system creates logical proofs that only prove the system and only within that system. — Megarian

Heh, yes, I am well aware of this. A good summation of the theory is called, "Subjective deduction" What I do conclude is that this methodology of knowledge is our best bet at creating conclusions that match to reality. Knowledge is a tool of measurement. But it is clearly different from simple beliefs. I conclude nothing different from your points above. That does not invalidate it, because the alternative to logical thinking, is illogical thinking. In part 4, I demonstrate why illogical thinking is sometimes necessary, but why using probability, logical thinking is usually the smarter choice if one wants to understand reality.

Logic is one of the best tools we've created to refine information into ever more precise knowledge-claims. Like all knowledge-claims it has limitations, particularly when comes to creating knowledge-claims. — Megarian

Yes, I show that in part 2 with applicable knowledge, later in part 3 with contextual knowledge, and finally in part 4 where I cover the tiers of cogency with induction. Part 1 is only the primer. Think of it as the "I think therefore I am" portion of many epistemology arguments. Every tool has its limits. But limits do not mean it is invalid. Part 4 takes the limitations of knowledge, then says, "What do we do when we reach those limits?" and then uses the lessons learned prior to identify levels of induction that are more cogent than others.

While you may have trouble with the premises, you seem to not be arriving at my conclusions. You are drawing your own conclusions first, without reading my own. Find my conclusions, then see if the premises fit the conclusion. Otherwise, you're only critiquing half of the argument, and seem to be thinking I'm not going to be drawing conclusions that I do, and drawing conclusions that I do not.

I really should try to understand part 1 first. — Jarmo

Not a worry! As long as you are referencing the paper, we can have a great conversation.

Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term ‘belief’ to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

This is also a great way of defining a belief. A wish or desire is one of the attitudes we can have. A "certain way" implies a match with reality, or "what is", or "truth".

Feel free to point out if I've made an error in the argument if we use the encyclopedia definition.

You are being snide again with a side of petulance. It is imperative to ask for clarification when you begin to see that the terms you are using seem to differ from the other persons. Of course you start with assumptions, then ask for clarification when you start to realize there are underlying differences. People who are honest do this with regards to getting to the bottom of the issue. People who are dishonest will use it as a delaying tactic, and ask absurd questions that both parties know is unneeded.

But dishonest people will also shy away from clarifying their position when they aren't sure themselves, or they think it will open them up to countering what they want to believe.

I only asked clarification on what you meant by religion when it was obvious you and I had two very different underlying meanings. This is very simple Jersey. You chose the path of a dishonest dialectician.

I wasn't aware that a masters degree gives one the ability to read minds? — JerseyFlight

Nope, but I also have a bachelor's of science. It allows me to identify BS. (Lame joke, we don't have voice tone here unfortunately) One technique you learn to quickly identify is an inconsistent ideology or stance. A dishonest dialectician will often try to defend their reasoning at any cost, and this is a typical pattern they fall into. I only point it out so you will be honest in the future. I don't begrudge your attempt to defend yourself, but if you feel you have to fall to such tactics, it is very ok to just say, "I need to think on it".

Best of luck to you. :smile: — JerseyFlight

And you as well. I hope our future posts on topics fair better. Less troll, more droll eh?

Because it is a philosophy forum, I believe we should vote up or down with our discussions. We are here to say why we disagree. I think an up or down arrow might discourage people from voicing the "why", when the "why" is key in philosophy.

That being said, my feelings may not pan out in reality. Perhaps a study exists somewhere showing this. So not a bad proposal, but my first thought is, "No".

When did I say I was better? I just don't have time for it. — JerseyFlight

Yes, you are saying you are better, because that person is beneath your time. That's what thinking you are better than other people who reply to you means. Of course, you seem to have the time to give a lengthy reply after I called you out on it. Your claim to carefully measuring posts that are worth replying to doesn't hold water in my case. Let me remind you of the post that you didn't need to reply to, but did anyway.

Without defining what a religion is, I'm not sure we can come to any meaningful discussion comparing it to technology. Each of us would just use our own subjective interpretations at that point, and we would each be in our own opinionated world. If that is the type of topic you would like this to be, I will bow out and let others continue. — Philosophim

If you are carefully measuring your time/value here, why bother replying to a post that is politely telling you if you did not wish to define your terms, I couldn't see being a contributor to the conversation. I'm indicating I'm leaving, but to please continue on. I did not insult your thread, or your argument, and I thought the conversation had gone nicely.

There is no time/value in leaving a snide comment about me being a "novice".

Lets also put your approach on another foot and see if it holds water.

Lets say you enter a Christian thread and ask them to define God after you're not sure what they mean by God. They tell you,

I have purposely bypassed this approach. This leads to a dead end. — JerseyFlight

Deciding to leave because you see you can't discuss with his approach, you say as such, and take your leave. They then reply:

What I have learned, having had many exchanges, is that the act of formally defining things is often the mark of a novice dialectician. — JerseyFlight

Do you think, "Oh, that person must be so wise and experienced in discussing! I guess I have a lot to learn by asking him to clarify what he meant by God! They aren't being snide, its just a time/value evaluation obviously!"

Or do you think that the person realized they couldn't or didn't want to answer a question because they didn't like where it might go? And because they were insecure about it, they decided to throw a parting shot as you left? Come now Jersey, we know which one you would think.

If mine or your own words still don't convince you, notice others are asking you to clarify what in the world you mean by "religion" as well? Its not a bunch of "novices" asking you to waste your time Jersey. Its people asking a basic question because the topic doesn't make any sense without it. If you want to make your posts take less of your time defending, work on answering questions clearly that ask clarification for on what you're actually trying to say. You'll get far less blow back on what you're defending, and maybe you'll find clarity in the discussion that you didn't realize you were missing.

This claim seems to be that you were born with a set of beliefs that you that you've tested to create knowledge. — Megarian

No, I am not claiming you are born with beliefs. I state in the paper that beliefs are things you make. Knowledge is an attempt to figure out which beliefs match reality without contradiction. The beginning is a thought process to a particular conclusion. That sentence is not a conclusion, only a first premise I consider.

Experience leads him to associate wet-spot with bottle contents. He tested this idea and confirmed its’ correctness. — Megarian

Fantastic, I think you will like my conclusions within the paper then. I would indeed conclude that within the child's context, they had knowledge. While the described process is a witness to this behavior, my paper breaks down the process into a repeatable and verifiable process.

knowledge-claims are not created by belief-claims. — Megarian

I believe you are incorrect on this. A belief is an assertion of some kind. Knowledge occurs after you run a belief through a process. We can have very certain beliefs, but they are not knowledge. I go over this in the paper.

Belief-claims can be tied to objective proofs (Certainty), subjective proofs (Certitude) or no proofs at all. It's knowledge-claims that require an objective justification to be valid. — Megarian

Right, this can be broken down even simpler into having inductive beliefs, and deductive beliefs. What entails objective? What entails a deductive versus inductive belief? Are there certain inductive beliefs that are more reasonable to hold then others? The paper covers all of this, and I think you will be pleased at many of my conclusions.

The main problem is logic as Justified True Belief (JTB). — Megarian

In one of the many iterations of this paper, I used the Gettier problem as a starting point. I removed it because it makes the paper too long, the average person is unfamiliar with the Gettier problem, and it is ultimately unneeded to start the process. Once you read it and understand that I am not proposing JTB, feel free to use the Gettier argument as a method of refutation. I would love it if a person who has some familiarity with common epistemological theories would critique the theory after reading it.

I appreciate your contribution!

This means you arrived at this conclusion via some rigorous process. — Coben

Yes, and what was that rigorous process? I lay that out in the paper.

I should add also that you are using a phrase that indicates less certainty that what one usually means when one uses the term knowledge: "had knowledge of." You also shifted to predictive knowledge, rather than, say knowledge about the world or some facet of it. — Coben

I am using knowledge as I defined in the paper. Distinctive, and applicable. Statistical knowledge would be distinctive, and its predictive claim would be an induction.

This is proven quite easily, when two knowledgeable philosophers come together to discourse they do not define every term, because they are not coming to the conversation without any prior understanding. — JerseyFlight

Jersey, I have a master's in philosophy. You have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to show other wise. What are your credentials? Do you have a source that backs your claim?
See my reply to Judaka to understand why defining terms in discussion is a fundamental of logical discourse.

unless I'm mistaken and you define every conjunction? — JerseyFlight

No, that's not what I stated, and you know this. I asked you to clarify the a key word in your topic so I could better understand the context you were speaking in. You retreated.

It's the same way with more advanced dialectics, this act of presupposing, of shared meaning, is how knowledge unfolds through dialectic. — JerseyFlight

Yes, like when a person asks you, "So when your topic is religion, what do you mean by religion?" you clarify. Its called having a conversation.

I usually do not discourse with novice dialecticians. — JerseyFlight

Jersey, man, you might want to examine yourself first. Your "proof" of two philosophers conversing is nothing solid. You retreat from an incredibly basic request to clarify the term you were using and attack my character instead of attacking the argument. These are all novice moves bud.

Further, I have a masters degree with a focus on epistemology. Do you see me going around with my nose in the air thinking that "I'm better than all of these novices"? No. That's not what a professional does. When you gain skills and knowledge, you do not suddenly become a person in the clouds. That's egocentric, and irresponsible. You're still a human like everyone else, you just happen to know a few more things. That knowledge is to be spread, shared, and engaged with by others, not hoarded like some treasure of personal superiority.

You are not a dense person, so I leaning on the assumption you are using this as an excuse to avoid conversation when it becomes difficult for you. That is being an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite. You'll be a polemicist and yell at people all day, but when someone asks you to rise to clarify your point, you retreat. Didn't you say thought thrived on conflict? Don't you constantly lament that philosopher's are not willing to engage you on points you find important? Yet here you are retreating with a poor excuse when you have all of that in front of you.

I've lost all faith in sarcasm over the internet. — Judaka

Ha ha! Its hard to know what is serious, and what is not without tone. I've made the mistake of not taking people seriously before, and accidently offended them. Oh well, I would rather err on the side of me taking something too seriously instead of not enough. =P

Wrong, I am incompetent at using formal logic and therefore it is useless, I refuse to see it any other way. — Judaka

Hi Judaka, I stated the unwillingness to define one's definitions is the mark of a novice, or those who cannot arise to the occasion. There is nothing wrong with this at all. That doesn't really counter my point.

But I do want to clarify, it does not require formal logic. It is merely taking the time to clarify what people mean when they mention a word. A common problem among even intermediate thinkers is not clarifying their positions, leaving certain things implicit in the argument that they expect the other person to know. This is not necessarily malicious, but can lead to unintentional straw man arguments, which basically means talking past one another.

I'll give a little formal logic to show what I mean, but don't worry, its nothing crazy.

Lets say you use a term like religion that we'll call, "A".

Now when I mean religion, it means as a base that it is an organized structure in which one or more people look to an authority figure for guidance in how to live their life.

That entire definition of "authority figure yada yada..." can equal "B".

So when I speak about religion, you know that A = B.

But someone might have a different definition of religion. Lets say another poster believed that religion meant, "One or more people who have a cultural awe of some thing". We can call this, C. In their mind, A = C.

Now if these two people talk but do not clarify what each means by "A" (religion), then they will each be implicitly talking about something different. I would be talking implicitly about B, and the other person would be talking implicitly about C even though we are both using the same word, A.

If these implicit differences never come up, both people will likely be confused and angry at the other person's reasoning. If I'm talking about B, it may not apply to C. If they're talking about C, it might not apply to B.

While I stated that intermediates sometimes neglect this, people new to philosophy struggle with expressing the implicit definitions tied to their statement. Its like an ice berg. Often times general language will be used by a novice with the expectation that the listener can see under the water, and observe the rest of the ice berg. Either that or people will intentionally use obtuse or complex language in the hopes that they will sound smarter than they are, and attempt to avoid the need for clarity. More experienced debaters and philosophers, who are honestly trying to get to the truth of the matter, understand that the rest of the ice berg needs to be revealed, and try to tighten and clarify their language.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being a novice, and I am not claiming you need to study formal logic. But if you want to improve your arguments and discussions, a solid fundamental you can work on is to work on communicating the lower half of your iceberg in your argument. Once you've gained some experience here, also try to be generous with the person you are discussing with in too. Try to look for their lower half of the iceberg, and see if you can get them to voice the implicit arguments they may not realize they are doing as well.

Though one would also believe it was true. Knowledge is a kind of belief. — Coben

No, just because you have knowledge of something does not mean that you believe it to be true. I have knowledge of a meeting scheduled tomorrow at 5 pm. Is it true that the meeting will happen tomorrow at 5pm? It turns out someone cancels earlier in the day, and the meeting does not happen.

Further, you may get into discussions that seem to make perfect sense. You know what the premises and the conclusions are, but you just don't believe it to be true.

Knowledge is not a claim to truth. It is a subjective deductive process. Now if we are to have a belief that something is true, it is more likely to be truth if we use deduction, than induction. This is the way science functions. Science does not claim truth. It claims that certain theories have not been proven false yet.

And yes, knowledge is a kind of belief. As I've written here, it is a subjectively deduced belief. The paper is a quest to identify what knowledge and epistemology is. Currently within philosophy, there is no agreement. This is why it is probably best that you read the paper before continuing. Would you critique a plumber on how they are putting the sink together without first reading the instructions? If you are going to put forth the effort to have a discussion, which is a great positive btw, it would make the conversation go much smoother if you understood the terms we are discussing.

It's an incomplete description at best. I can believe X and not X, though — Coben

In a logical sense, you cannot believe both X and not X. When discussing logic, X = X 100%. If its X = 99.999999999% of X, that's not the same thing. So (Not) X = X is impossible. (Not) X = 99.999999999% of X is possible.

I can believe that I will graduate college, that since I am managing my courses well, have been complimented by my professors, but also have a belief that I am a failure and won't manage — Coben

So your following example is not a contradictory belief. You believe that you could either pass, or fail. You don't have a 100% belief that you will pass, and a 100% belief that you will fail. Believing either could occur is just fine.

Deduction being one process but not the only one, even within science say. — Coben

Now this is outside of the paper. What other form of knowledge do we have besides deduction? This may also help me bring the paper terms into some other context. After all, I don't want to write the whole thing again in our discussion. =P

Yes, I am not critiquing your theory in the sense that I am not critiquing your papers. — Coben

Again, you are critiquing how I am building a sink, telling me "the pipes don't go that way" when you don't have the instructions in front of you. Now if you read the instructions and inform me I am incorrect, that can work just fine.

It would be nice too. I have a slight burden here. I've never been able to find anyone who can prove my theory wrong. Trust me, this is not through lack of trying. If I could prove it wrong, then I would be done with it. I have tried to attack it every which way I can think of, but I just can't invalidate it. It would be of immense help if someone else would try, and perhaps point out something I'm missing.

Since you're already invested this far in the conversation, would you help me out? All told, its about as long as a philosophy journal article.

We are composed of matter, and matter tends to like to stay at a state of equilibrium. When someone is super happy, and you aren't, you can feel pressure to become super happy. That takes effort though. If everyone around you is not willing to put forward that energy, they'll likely let the happy person know.

Likewise, if everyone is super happy and one person isn't. The group will try to pressure that person to put in the effort to become super happy, like everyone else. Its peer group energy equilibrium! =P

This is a good topic. I was a high school math teacher for 5 years, so its something that I've had time to think on. There are a few things I tried over the years, and there are quite a few factors that can help learning.

1. Removing the road blocks

One of the biggest road blocks to learning is fear. And fear, is often the fear of failing, and having other people be aware of it. When you fail, you are in a vulnerable position. No one wants to be ragged on or attacked in a vulnerable position. The best students are the humble one's that are open to failure. The worst are those who are full of themselves and think they know it all. Dunning Kruger to the extreme, they are always the most difficult people to teach.

A second roadblock is unclear teaching material. If you cannot communicate the lesson in a clear and easy to follow manner, it is not the student's fault. It is YOUR fault (mine in this case).

2. Showing a person the value of learning what you are teaching

I can teach a person how to weave a basket underwater, but why would they want to learn? Demonstrating the value of the skill is essential as well. This is done by demonstrating a positive feeling to the particular student. Some love a challenge, some don't. Some like it when you work with them, some don't. I'm a big fan of giving different options of learning. I used to give my homework and the lesson plan page every morning. You were not required to listen to my lecture, only have the homework finished, and not to disturb others during the lecture. If you were found not completing the homework or doing poorly, only then were you required to listen.

3. As an educator, removing low expectations, but respecting the results of effort given.

If you give your students expectations, most will try to rise to it to some level. If you have expectations of your students that they are dumb or foolish, they will happily sink to that as well. That being said, if a person genuinely tries and comes up short of your expectation, respect that 100%. While sadly school require a timeframe of learning, that really shouldn't be the emphasis. Some things take longer for people to learn than others, and we should not punish those who are genuinely trying because of some arbitrary time frame.

What I have learned, having had many exchanges, is that the act of formally defining things is often the mark of a novice dialectician. — JerseyFlight

You are incorrect. Logical thinking requires solid definitions. It is often the novice who needs to be coached into formally defining their terms. Logic is deductive thinking, and requires the elimination of as much inductive influence as possible. Ill defined terms are inductive thinking, and lead to muddled arguments. They are usually arguments to defend emotional thinking.

That being said, it is not novice to not want to define your terms if you are merely asking for some inductive fun thinking. But if you've been telling yourself people who are trying to have a logical conversation with you that they are a novice for wanting to define their terms? That is either novice thinking, or a lame excuse when you are not clever or capable enough to answer their request JerseyFlight.

First, we would need to define what a religion is.
— Philosophim

I have purposely bypassed this approach. — JerseyFlight

Without defining what a religion is, I'm not sure we can come to any meaningful discussion comparing it to technology. Each of us would just use our own subjective interpretations at that point, and we would each be in our own opinionated world. If that is the type of topic you would like this to be, I will bow out and let others continue.

I don't think of it in terms of a self-conscious religious movement...(Instead) how it causes him to act and how he acts toward it. Do people worship technology, for example? — JerseyFlight

I see. If what we're trying to discover here is whether people's implicit use and regard towards technology trends to a religion, I don't think it quite hits the mark. First, we would need to define what a religion is. Feel free to add or amend to this, but I'll start that a simple definition of religion is a group of people who believe in something besides themselves has the knowledge and power to guide them towards a life with purpose. This could be a cult like figure, or a God for example.

When AI arrives in the future, there might very well be a religion because an AI would be an entity that could provide an "answer". Technology as it is right now might have hints of this depending on what specific technology is being used, but I think it still trends more towards a "tool".

A tool is an object that we use to accomplish a specific purpose. A pen, a book, and a word document are all tools we can use to communicate ideas with other people. But the pen, the book, nor the word document itself provide an answer to life. People who write on the word document may be someone a religion sprouts out of, but no one worships the mighty Microsoft Word to give us the answers to life.

What happens if the average person must go without their phone, without the internet, without television, even for the space of one week? — JerseyFlight

They become bored. Technology has been a fantastic way to gain human connections, business, and entertainment. It is not the tools themselves that we are enamored with, it the tools ability to provide us access to these things that we crave that we appreciate. But at the end of the day, we don't look to the tool itself for answers to life's questions, but the people we connect with.

I would like to see some of the thinkers on here comment on technology within the context of symbolism, specifically contrasting it with religious symbolism. — JerseyFlight

Did you have a symbol in mind yourself to discuss? If not, I suppose the closest we could get to symbols with technology off the top of my mind is the Apple symbol. I don't know about now, but at one time it meant a name brand of originality, creativity, and quality. But I'm not sure that's isolated to technology. Name brand imagery and symbolism is supposed to excite you to buy the product, not look to it for life's deeper answers on how to live.

Alright, I've added enough for now. Is my line of reasoning going where you expected, or did you want to go somewhere else with it?

Neat topic. I don't think its a new religion, just people "nerding out" about the possible future. People did it in the industrial age, when computers first came out, the internet, and now. If we are to achieve immortality, it will likely be due to AI.

Can computers think? Here's a cool video where they train a robot arm to be able to write the word "Hi" without ever actually teaching the robot arm how to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chukkEeGrLM

In the future it is not unreasonable that they will be able to think at a much higher level. As for when they will reach the "human" level of thought, that still may be quite a ways off. Also, I don't think everyone believes tools dehumanize people. Many people praise the wonders of humanity because of our tools as well. Tools often times make certain skill sets obsolete for jobs, which can be seen as hurting human kind. I see this as short sighted thinking however. We will always invent new jobs for people to do. And if not? God forbid we get robots to do things for us to the point we can use our time for our own pursuits instead of the drudgery of "making a living".

As for a new "religion", there will always be those who find causes they obsess over and "worship". It could be science, sports, philosophy, or some other passion in their life they believe gives them meaning, purpose, or fulfillment. I would say religion slowly loses steam in open and educated societies because people have alternatives. In ignorant societies, religion may be the only avenue they've heard towards fulfillment and the value of the self. It may be the first time they've heard about working towards something greater than yourself, your village, or your government.

I believe religion fulfills a human emotional need that provides a rationality the secular world often cannot. If the secular world can produce alternative rationalities that fulfill the human need that religion fills, then it presents an alternative that people can choose.

First I want to point out these are descriptions of two very different scenarios. The belief that one can win, but knows it is likely they will not, is a description of two beliefs (one a belief classed as knowledge, that do not contradict each other. The belief that one WILL win despite one's knowledge of the odds, is completely different. — Coben

Correct. One can have knowledge, but believe that knowledge is wrong. One cannot both know, and not know the same thing. One cannot believe, and not believe the same thing. But one can know something, and believe their knowledge to be wrong. This is what you were to pull out of the example.

Knowledge is a logical process that must follow certain path, and arrives at deductive conclusions. A belief is simply a wish or desire that something is a particular way. I can believe whatever I want. But what I can know is based on a logical process and deductive conclusion. Part 4 goes into inductions, the specific kinds of beliefs like probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational beliefs. There I analyze what each entails, examples of when it is used, and the soundness of them.

I'm afraid I am not going to read a long essay or series of essays online. If you prefer not to respond to people who won't read the paper, I'll understand. — Coben

That is fair. This OP is about those essays though. I would wonder why you would post if you aren't going to read the theory though. I can't imagine arguing about a theory I have no knowledge of.

I define knowledge and beliefs a very particular way using logic from the base up. As such, I'm going to use those terms here. You may find the reads enjoyable. I have never had a single person able to prove these essays conclusions as wrong. In fact, I use this method of knowledge within my day to day. Just a small background if you are concerned it is amateur, I have a master's in philosophy, and I program for a living today. I am no intellectual slouch, or naive. It does not mean my argument is correct, only that it is likely worth your time to read.

Each is about the length of part 1. Part 1 is basic, and does not vary much from the conclusions of many other epistemologists. Part 2 is where you'll see a new way of looking at knowledge. Part 3 and 4 are mostly expanding upon the conclusions of part 2, and are only needed if there are further questions.

So when you're whole body looks different (different face, shape of body, length) you keep the same personality? — CarpeDiem

Oh, in that case, your personality would likely change a little. Imagine being short, then suddenly becoming tall. Or being tall, and suddenly becoming short. As a male, your interactions with other people would likely change significantly. This goes from being beautiful, to being ugly as well.

I would put though that your personality would likely change with other people, but your private personality might remain the same.

Very nice Tim Wood! I think he's got you covered Ignoro.

In a way, yes. How different depends. While memories do shape us, our genetics and chemical makeup are a certain base that our memories rest in. So if we forget, we change what we have built ourselves to be, but retain the core of what we are.

If you mean identically? No, you should be the same. Your personality is a combination of genetic and chemical expression. If that is identical, to what you had a second before, your personality should be the same.

I'll give it my best shot.

So one of the things about logic is it is irrelevant to time. The premises state the facts as they are at a particular moment. If the facts change, then that is a different argument.

So lets start with your first premise. We know it is unnecessary to consider time, just a "slice of time". So lets examine your slices.

So our first premise is that Q exists.
Our second premise is that P can exist while Q exists, but it is not necessary that P exists, for Q to exist.
In logic it would be
1. Q
2. P
So far, you have indicated no casual relation between the two.

Now your third premise is a little trickier to break down. You are establishing a relationship, but it is indirect. If I understand this correctly, it means there is no causal relationship between the two, but perhaps there is a consequent interaction. Maybe P and Q bump into one another. Maybe P bumps into R, which bumps into Q, changing the state of Q into something else like W.

In logic, P, Q, and all the letters represent a sliced state of being. Meaning if Q is altered, it is no longer Q anymore. We make a new letter at this point. If we say things rely on Q, we would say, "Q causes R", which is represented by Q -> R.

So I would say at this point you'll need to clarify what you mean by an indirect relationship. The best way to do that is invent states of relation, creating a new letter for each one.

As for a contributory cause, I believe that means that Q's existence or state is part of the necessary requirement for R to exist. As it is a contribution, it implies that more than one states are necessary for R to exist.

So for example, (P and Q) -> R

P and Q do not rely on each other for their existence, but together, they create a new state. Just remember that P and Q should be careful translations of the words you are using. I hope this is a useful start, but I think we'll need some greater clarification of the idea before we can really examine it in detail.

Your book may be great, but as they say, "Marketing is everything". (I struggle with this myself)

So what does your book give us? If you could sum up why we should read your book, what new insights can we glean? Is there an overall message? A theme that courses through the book to the end?

Its definitely sad, but no one can say she didn't live a meaningful life. I honestly see nothing wrong with a "conservative" judge if they are a good judge. The nice thing about being assigned to life on the supreme court is you don't have to think politically anymore. You are free to judge as the philosopher's do.

Then please explain using logico deductive reasoning; driving while daydreaming and being in a coma, living yet not living. — 3017amen

Certainly. I will use the terms in the paper. Please feel free to critique and ask questions if something does not make sense.

When using subjective deduction, we realize that if we applicably know one thing, we can use that as a basis for greater knowledge. The most simple example of this is math. As we applicably know that numbers are deduced by discrete experience, they follow the logic of discrete experience. So if I know that I can create "an" identity, or the number one, then I can also create 2 identities, and examine the logic between the two.

Recall the point in which we can examine a field of grass, a blade of grass, or even a portion of the grass as a discrete experience. What this lets us do is affirm that if I create an identity of one blade of grass, and another blade of grass together in my mind, I now have 2 blades of grass. With this logic, I can build algebra, calculus, and all other math.

This applies to knowledge outside of math as well. Let us apply this to driving.

So first, I need the distinctive knowledge within a specific context of what "driving" is. As you can see here, the term, "Driving" has evolved over the years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving So we don't want to take the term used in the 1800's, but the term used today.

Now because you are also chatting with me, we both have to agree on the context of the word as well. So we must both be happy with this definition before we try to apply it. I will propose the definition, feel free to add or detract from it in your reply.

Lets start with driving as, "steer, guide, navigate" in regards to a motor vehicle. The vehicle in this case is a car. We will also now need a few other definitions. Consciousness, and daydreaming. Consciousness can be defined as our personal awareness and agency. I can consciously think about the words I'm typing, wondering if the word "expeditious" is spelled correctly. The unconscious happens outside of my awareness or focus. For example, I don't think about where the letters that make up "is" resides on the keyboard anymore, and I type it without thinking about it at all.

Of course, maybe that's not fully conscious, or unconscious. Because there are other aspects of the body that I have no agency over at all. I cannot will my digestion to alter, or my kidneys to do a better or worse job of filtration. Some might call this unconscious, but perhaps a better term would be "autonomous". These are functions that are outside of our conscious capability.

Ok, with this established we can more clearly state that consciousness is our agency, and unconscious actions happen outside of our agency, but we could put our focus on them and regain conscious control over them at any time.

That's the first definition. We are going to use that to build into daydreaming, so make sure consciousness is well defined for you first. Now daydreaming is a state of emulated sensory imagination. It is interesting, because we do not have to have conscious focus on our senses at all times. Many times I find I am not conscious of the temperature, or seeing what is in front of my face. Basically this becomes an "unconscious" (as defined here) process.

There is usually the implicit notion that when daydreaming, we are consciously aware of it. For all we know, daydreams and processes are constantly firing in our head, and we are only aware of them when we focus on them. But regardless, I think for your purposes you would like daydreaming to be the conscious focus. If we daydream an emulation of something visual, we tend to focus our consciousness away from what is in front of our eyes. At least, I do. At this point our visual processing becomes unconscious.

Back to driving. Can we drive unconsciously? Yes. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sleepless-in-america/200812/can-people-drive-while-asleep
There are several instances of people driving while sleep walking. As literal "daydreaming" as you can get! At this point, the consciousness has no awareness or control, so it must be that the person is driving unconsciously.

With all of these definitions and bits of applicable knowledge set up, now we just piece them together in a way that avoids a contradiction.

1. We applicably know people can drive while sleeping, so people can drive unconsciously.
2. We distinctively know the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness.
3. If a person is daydreaming, we assume their consciousness if focussed on that daydream.
4. If their consciousness is not focused on driving, yet they are still driving, it must be they are driving unconsciously.
5. If they wreck while daydreaming as stated above, then they wrecked while driving unconsciously. Their unconscious driving failed to handle the challenges of the road.
6. There is no contradiction in having one's consciousness focused elsewhere while the unconscious mind processes other functions.
7. Therefore there is no contradiction if a person crashes while daydreaming.

There's your start! So feel free to break it down and show where we have disagreements. Appreciate the conversation as always 3017Amen!

A good point. While yes, at the end we all die, it is the measure of the life that we live that will be different. If you are person born in a wealthy country, and have the intelligence and connections to gain wealth, you live a great life before your death.

Those who are born in war torn countries with no opportunity for wealth or peace, live lives far less then the fortunate. It is a good reminder. While people may believe there is something after this life, there is only us to help each other in this life.

But we can't know it through deduction. — 3017amen

Knowing by application is knowing by deduction. I would read parts 2, 3, and 4 if you want to understand it all. Part1 is only a primer, and is only a small portion of the argument. Don't worry, they're all about the same length.

Would that mean you agree that deduction cannot adequately describe ontology/conscious existence? — 3017amen

No, deduction can adequately describe ontology or conscious existence without issue. It is all about defining it, then applying it.

All of the above, including all such tenants of philosophical idealism. — 3017amen

But these are actually different definitions of consciousness within different contexts. Again, you'll need to read through part 3.

Deductive logic has taught us consciousness cannot be explained. — 3017amen

How is this so? Perhaps if you show me, I will be able to explain it within the terms I've put forward.

But if you wouldn't mind, please read the rest 3017Amen. With this theory, I can answer virtually any knowledge question you ever ask.

This thinking can come about because you are leaning greater weight on the doubt then what you see before you.

Why should you believe the doubt you have? If you do not exist, what is the alternative? You can doubt anything. I can doubt that unicorn's don't exist. It isn't worth anything though without some evidence. You know what existence is. You don't know what non-existence is. Why do you lend credence to doubt what you do know, for something you don't know?

The difference between a paradox and a poorly constructed sentence can be tricky. A paradox would be the result of a logical concept taken to its conclusion. For example, someone is able to time travel, and ends up accidently killing their mother before they were born. A paradox denotes something can happen, but if something is done within that action, it could negate the possibility of being able to do that action to begin with. This is a contradiction, but it is a contradiction that states limits within action A that do not allow it to do action B.

A poorly constructed sentence is written as a contradiction. Poor sentences often come about because there is implicit cultural understanding that confuses the issue. That's why I broke the sentences down into explicit parts, removing the implicit assumptions that muddy the waters.

If you are saying that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, and also himself, then its fine. If you say that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, and himself, even though he doesn't shave himself, then its a contradiction. We can remove the first part about "other people", because its unnecessary. You cannot both shave, and not shave yourself. That's the contradiction, not a paradox. If you include a contradiction with extra sentence combinations, it still doesn't negate the fact of the contradiction.

That sounds like a subjective truth. A truth that relates to me and no other object. For example if I have a will to be or a will to exist, what deduction is required for the will? — 3017amen

No, knowledge is not a claim to the truth. Knowledge is a methodology that to our understanding, will have the best hopes of obtaining the truth. Have you read part 2 and 3? (Almost no one has, lol. I take no offense). They introduce the idea of context through other subjects.

Since you've read part 1 at least, you can go back to the first part and show how will is a deduction through an understanding of discrete experience. I note that a "will" is a desire, and an action for that desire to happen. That is the distinctive knowledge we have introduced. If we agree upon it within our context, then we attempt to apply that knowledge. I find I can will to type an answer using a keyboard. Reality does not contradict me. I can will to fly with my mind alone, but reality contradicts me. As long as the application of our definition for will is not contradicted, we can know will by application.

It seems to me you're making a case for subjective idealism. — 3017amen

No, I am not stating that only ourselves exist. In part 2, I go over that very briefly at the start by explaining what an "I" is, and showing that other people are other "I"s.

Since your holy grail is deduction, the consequence of such methodology in exploring or describing a particular truth value is tantamount to logical impossibility, when applied to the nature of a thing. — 3017amen

Deduction does not prove something to be true. But it is the most rational method of matching to truth, if what we know is true. I go over that in part 4 with inductions. We cannot prove something to be true through knowledge. We can only show that knowledge is a logical methodology that holds conclusions which have not yet been contradicted by reality. As long as reality does not contradict knowledge, then it is rational to hold such a viewpoint as being the best fit for what is true.

If you have a handle on these concepts, then I can go into consciousness. First, consciousness must be defined. Is is the consciousness of the poets, the consciousness of science, or something else entirely? This establishes the contextual distinctive knowledge. Once that is done, we apply it. If we can apply it without contradiction from reality, then we can say within our context, that we know what consciousness is. If we cannot apply it without contradiction, then we cannot applicably know consciousness within our distinctive context.

What can be concluded is that a contradiction of terms within our distinctive knowledge, or "definition" in this case, means it is not distinctive knowledge. It is a mere belief. And if one cannot apply that definition to reality without a contradiction, it is not applicable knowledge, just a mere applicable belief.

There is nothing wrong with positing your ideas, as long as they are logical. I view science as taking words that we know, and testing them against reality. Philosophy is more like taking the concepts that we have a nebulous understanding of, and using words to describe them in a logical and useful manner.

If you receive hostility from certain people, ignore them. You cannot please everyone in life, and people bring their own baggage and ego to discussions where it does not belong. You will find plenty who wish to engage with you with respect.

First, high and low IQ are not necessarily good judges of a person's competence in a particular area. One could be a genius cook for example, and a terrible artist. Its best just to ask questions without loaded words like IQ. In the end, the person's IQ doesn't matter, just the answer.

First, lets look at your interpretation:

I am suggesting that if entropy is the predominant force then enformy is humanities' response to it therefore the underlying dynamics are a consequence of entropy — Spartacus

Entropy is the law of nature that pressures all heat to an equilibrium. Basically, the universe trends to spread all matter and energy out equally. While humanity fights entropy, we don't need to go that high up. We can just look at life itself. Life is not separate from matter and energy, it is simply another expression of matter and energy like the sun combusting.

The difference between life and the sun is that the sun will eventually run out of energy, and it does not seek to replenish that energy. A life will run out of energy, but it actively seeks to replenish that energy.

So I'm not sure if humanity or life is a microcosm of entropy, but simply an example of actively resisting entropy, or doing enformy as you so put. Perhaps a microcosm of entropy would be chemical reactions that burn themselves out, like the sun. Does this answer your question?

The trick in the sentence is that it implies its talking about people other than himself. If we put the true intention of the sentence together we get:

The barber only shaves others who do not shave themselves.

Now, if we add in the idea that this also includes him, there is no paradox, we just realize the sentence contains a contradiction.

The barber only shaves others who do not shave themselves. The barber also shaves himself, because he does not shave himself.

The first sentence makes sense. The second sentence, which was attempted to be placed implicitly within the OP's sentence, reveals itself to be a nonsense statement when made implicit. If you combine the first and the second sentence together, then the contradictory part of the second sentence makes the combined sentence false, but not a paradox.

The attachment uses a concept called "subjective deduction." Is that your theory or way of combining both a priori and a posteriori kinds of reasoning in an all inclusive way for gaining knowledge and wisdom? (And or perhaps combining subjective truths and objective truths.) — 3017amen

I have had people use the a priori and a posteriori words to relate before, and it has often caused them to misunderstand the points. Subjective deduction is really the best summary of what knowledge is. The "subjective" depends on the subjects involved. This may be the self, or the context of friends, scientists, the world, etc.

However, I do have two terms that mirror the priori duo. Distinctive knowledge, or the knowledge of one's discrete experiences, is similar to a priori. Applicable knowledge is similar to a posteriori. In either case, knowledge is not a claim of truth. Knowledge is a claim of deduction. While a deduction may not be the truth, if we were to find and be certain of the truth, it would most likely come from a deduction, and not an induction.

So to your summary, it is near the mark. Just know that these are not a priori and a posteriori as fully defined. Feel free to ask on anything else, I will do my best to clarify the definitions or simplify any arguments I've put forth here.

Actually, this may be a good time to get on another thread as we had discussed. I have a thread on knowledge here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge So far it hasn't garnered much discussion beyond a few troll posts, but I know you'll take the conversation seriously. Here you'll get to see what I mean by stating the a priori and a posteriori distinction (depending on how they are defined) are false dichotomies. Its also the perfect place to discuss what is logical and illogical. I should have though about it sooner. =P See you there!

My words were not an invitation to discussion. They were a voice from the community that you might want to remember in your behavior going forward. If the mods remove this topic, you will have a reason apart from theirs to mull over.

1. If you have a suggestion for the moderators, then you can message them. Publicly attacking a segment of people who visit this forum in one unedited and bolded paragraph is not inviting a conversation, it is a rant. That is NOT philosophy.

2. The philosophy of religion has a long history. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
Read here if you are interested. They are not hijacking philosophy, and they have their own section on the forum.

3. If you don't like people posting philosophy of religion, then don't partake in them. If they come in your threads which have nothing to do with religion, then feel free to not respond.

I'm speaking common sense — JerseyFlight

No. You are not. You are speaking your anger and frustration that you cannot control what other people think and do. That is not philosophy. That is not common sense. I do not know what happened to you to be so angry and controlling, but you need to learn to deal with that before you try to solve anyone else's problems.

If you feel your post deletion was a mistake, then you should be privately reaching out to the mods. No one here can confirm what your post actually was, and what they were thinking.