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.

I think you did a nice job Emma. Good luck in your pursuit of the degree!

Thank you for a nicely written post! First, let me say that while I will critique the argument, please understand this is not out of malice, an agenda, or with the feeling that you are "stupid, foolish", or what have you. It takes intelligence and a curious mind to think on such arguments. I would also invite that if this argument is shown to have flaws, this does not discount your belief in Christ. So with that in mind, lets see if there are holes in this argument.

1. There is an implicit assumption that we all believe the bible to be a true and accurate statement to reality

Now if you believe that the bible is inerrant and accurate evidence, then this is not a problem. But it is a very important key in the argument you present. For example, many people consider the Koran, the holy book of Islam, to be an accurate testament to the history and events of the time. It has prophecy that has been claimed to have been fulfilled, and even predicted scientific theories like evolution before they were made. https://rationalreligion.co.uk/9-scientific-miracles-of-the-quran (for citation).

Now I'm not saying this because I want you to believe the Koran. I'm using this because I know you don't believe the Koran. So if I told you that there were followers of Muhammad who believed in his words so much that they willingly fought and died for him, does that mean their belief in the Koran indicates that it is actually true?

2. Intense belief must be backed by equally sufficient evidence. — Josh Vasquez

Unfortunately, this example proves that this statement is not true. There are people who have incredibly intense belief in the Koran. To the point where they have died for it. But we both do not believe that the Koran is accurate correct? We can conclude then that the intensity of belief does not have anything to do with the accuracy of the belief.

Taking this idea outside of religion, we can see this remains true as well. I can look up at the sky and see that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. It is incontrovertible. From this observation, the only logical conclusion (if I know nothing of space) is that the Sun revolves around the Earth. To believe otherwise, would be foolish no? But because we do know about space, we realize my belief is wrong.

So lets start with that for now. Do the points make sense? Do you believe I've made an error? Again, I welcome the discussion with all respect given.

Ahh, but what moves wisdom forward? Wisdom itself? How is wisdom advanced, and for what purpose? Something beyond pure reason, you think? Please share your thoughts. Those answers are important. — 3017amen

A good question. I believe wisdom is the realization of reality as much as humans can comprehend it. I believe the motivation to find wisdom can be many things. Some people have an innate desire to simply know the reality of a situation. Some want to know what to do with their lives going forward. Some need it for utility. After all, if you have a solid understanding of reality, you are able to much better predict and shape it into what you want.

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. — 3017amen

This is a general descriptor that unfortunately does not answer what it means to have sense, or clear sound reasoning.

Sound reasoning can be summarized as "Holding non-contradictory thoughts". In philosophy, were we are looking for exactness, This means A != A is illogical. A compared to A, is an identical identity to the smallest unit of measurement. A !=99.99999999% match to A is not illogical, but logical. This is because there is a difference between both A's, within a certain unit of measurement. In general language, we often use very broad terms that mean different things in different contexts. So we may use something like, "A birch and a redwood are both trees. In this sense, they belong to a broader term, so we can say,
Birch = tree && Redwood = tree. But we can't say, Birch = Redwood in the technical sense, because they aren't a 100% exact match.

In another sense, we lower the exactness needed. I can say two pieces of cut metal are 1 meter long if I don't care about it being off by a millimeter, and I can say "They are equal in regards to the context of a meter". If however I care about millimeters, "They are not equal in regards to the context of millimeters".

So love then. It depends on the context of love that you speak of. It depends by what you mean when you say its irrational. To be irrational, there must be a comparison to something. Saying love is irrational without comparing it to something, is like saying, "A birch tree is wrong". Wrong how? Irrational how? That's the technicalities of philosophy. A large part of it is diving into the language, finding idosynchrasies in conclusions, and trying to make the implicit underlying assumptions of the topic, explicit to reveal where these idosynchrasies come from.

I actually do not believe in the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Well again, based on how you define it. These are terms that have been battered about by Quine and several other philosophers for years. I find I don't need them as distinctions either to think logically. So when I think of consciousness, I do not think it is illogical, because I find no contradiction in the existence of consciousness within reality. As for the actual inner workings of consciousness, not knowing, does not mean it is illogical. For years people did not understand what the Sun was, or how it worked. That did not make the existence of the Sun illogical.

As for philosophical guesses at consciousness, I believe it is moving out of our hands. We must look to neuroscience for answers, and can postulate on that. For example, 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 . here you can read about Harvard reasearchers who believe they have identified where consciousness is developed and handled in the brain.

Sorry if it was a bit long! I will look for any posts you have started if you want to carry on the conversation elsewhere.

I believe you are unfortunately repeating old paradigms that I seem to recognize as a far-right fundamentalist ideology. I hope I'm wrong there — 3017amen

Lol, no, I mentioned these archtypes as warnings about using illogical thinking. Perhaps it was a poor idea. My intent was to ask you if you had thought about whether using illogical thinking was a good idea, even if it could give you an answer (not a logical one of course) that you desired.

I have a feeling our differences are in the definition of illogical. Typically in the context of philosophy, one of the basic definitions of illogical, is concluding something wrong in regards to equivalence. By equivalence, I mean equal down to the very tiniest part of the context and meaning behind the statement. I feel that when you are referring to illogical, you are doing it in a context beyond philosophy where equivalence is not the focus, but "Almost or similarly equivalent".

So yes, outside of philosophy when people say, "Love is illogical," I understand the context is one of sentiment, not equivalence. Within philosophy, love is not illogical, unless it has been proven to be illogical. Of course, the context of what "Love" is may also differ. Romantic love, love for your fellow man, and love for your enemies can all be variations of love that may or may not be illogical if examined in an atomic context.

There is nothing wrong with using language in a loose manner to describe sentiment such as awe, wonder, etc. But philosophy is not "the love of sentiment" it is the "the love of wisdom". Wisdom requires tight definitions and logical conclusions. The sentimental arguments are concerned with working through our emotions, and can serve that purpose well. Budah claimed it was not the fundamental questions of the universe people were asking that needed to be answered, it was simply a matter of the heart and an emotional need that needed to be fulfilled first.

If you like I will ague that from our thinking, and sensory perceptions, we have contradictory, illogical components to them. — 3017amen

If you believe that you can argue about such ideas within the context of logic and illogic within the context of philosophy, then feel free! If it is a matter of sentiment, poetry, and is not willing to drill down into its atomic parts, then there is no need. I have no questions of matters of the heart at this time in my life, only matters of logic. Feel free to start the thread as I would not be sure where to even begin. I will keep an eye out and join you there.

I would say that whether something is reasonable isnt based on what it concludes but rather the reasoning itself.
One could be and atheist for poor reasons, and accurately be called unreasonable even though they reached the right conclusion (atheism). Likewise with theism if you think theism is true, one could have poor reasons and be right by accident.
Its not the conclusion that can be measured by reason, its the process that can be measured by reason. — DingoJones

Seconded.

Irrational??? There are lots of Christians on here and I do not cater to their sophistry. This is no more a crime than resisting those who try to promote the existence of faeries or unicorns.

I reject your false moralism that elevates error and delusion to a level of deserving intellectual respect. I deny this, and not only deny it, but will continue to deal critically with these sophists. — JerseyFlight

The OP asked why you posted on this forum. You replied with people who you don't interact with in this forum. If you had stated you posted to argue with Christians, it would have made sense. But instead you out of your way to point out those you avoid posting against on the forums. Your irrationality is not your personal beliefs about Christianity, or your need to critique it where appropriate. The mention was off topic and unneeded.

Its like a person coming into a topic that has nothing to do with God, but tries to insert God into the conversation. If a Christian came into this topic and stated,

"There is nothing better for a person of faith, in developing his thought, than to go up against a quality contrary intelligence. One cannot replicate this vital negativity themselves. However, it can actually be degenerative to go up against faithless thinkers because they drive the emphasis away from intelligence. In this case, one is not necessarily progressing but regressing. This is why I don't suffer the stupidity of atheists, their emphasis is nonsense."

...I would have, (and have in the past) pointed out the same flaws in their post.

Whether you realize it or not (we often do not realize these things in ourselves), you are simply expressing the other side of the same coin that those who are overzealous for Christianity often times do. Were you a Christian one time, or were raised in a Christian home? I have run across many fellow atheists over the years, and the ones who have the need to prosthelytize their disdain and distaste for Christianity in such ways are often still carrying a wound that has not healed from their personal experiences within Christianity.

You have my apologies for having received so much help from you and for not returning it in equal measure; please understand that given my alternative commitments, I have a limited amount of time to dedicate to philosophy and have the need to focus almost all of it into my own work given its subject and scope. — TVCL

Not a worry! This was your thread, not mine. The intention was mostly to show you a different approach, and that I took the topic seriously. I had a lot of enjoyment going over your work, it was not time wasted.

What I might ask - if your still willing - is to double-check the "chapters" of my argument as and when I complete them with the understanding that this may be over a period of some time. How does that sound to you? — TVCL

Absolutely. I would like to see where you take this further. And good luck on your new career! I'm glad we were able to get this to a nice conclusion in time. I wish you well, and it will always be a pleasure to speak with you on these forums. If I am not around these forums at a later date, feel free to message me directly.

However, it can actually be degenerative to go up against unskilled thinkers because they drive the emphasis away from intelligence. In this case, one is not necessarily progressing but regressing. This is why I don't suffer the stupidity of Christians, their emphasis is nonsense. — JerseyFlight

Perhaps before pointing out the splinter in another's eye, you should remove the plank from your own first. A paraphrase from Mathew 7:5, and an interesting point you might want to consider. A skilled thinker welcomes, and is able to speak with, "the unskilled". Arguably, the mark of a skilled thinker is one who can think effectively in most situations, not simply a certain prescribed environment. They welcome challenges to their line of thought, and are always open to having their mind changed.

Further, an attitude of dismissal can quickly bring you to ruin. It becomes all too easy to write off those who disagree with you as "unskilled" because they just don't see your personal brilliance. Your own mind will try to trick you of its own greatness so it does not have to think to hard on its own conclusions. It is intellectual laziness and ego. A good thinker realizes this, and stays vigilant against these types of thoughts. We should speak to all types of people, not only those we deem, "worthy", because we all too easily can narrow our scope to that which we find comfortable to us.

Finally, you let your anger betray your desire to be a rational thinker. There was no need to place your distaste of Christian's to the OP's question. It was an irrational addition. Anger and dislike can be motivators in our discussions, but they shouldn't cause us to need to insert our own agenda in discussions that have nothing to do with them. If your anger against Christianity is causing you to make such mistakes, maybe its something you should take some time to get a handle on.

I'm wondering what your encounters with older people are like. =) Older people are just like everyone else, except they've had more experience in the world. Some people use this experience to become better people. Some use it to become worse. Some just never change.

Let us take this idea. When matter first sprang, much of it disappeared. The claim is that matter and both antimatter collided and cancelled much of it out. Another thing to think on is simply that much matter simply ceased to be over the years.

The matter and energy that remains is that which insists on being. It combines, uncombines, and expresses itself in different ways. But at its core, it continues to exist, and express its existence in different ways.

You are not separate from this. You are made up of this matter and energy for a short period of time. You have the special expression of self awareness. Much like a person born to wealthy parents, you won the cosmological lottery. So if you are to follow what you are made up of, you should exist. Be what you are. Express your uniqueness and being while you live. Do not cease if you can help it. That is your purpose, and nothing more.

Ok. So I think you see where I'm coming from, and I also think I see where you are beginning to come from. You seem to be implying that illogical thinking is a solution to problems. Not the only solution mind you, but depending on how you are defining it, you can come to an illogical conclusion.

To think illogically is to hold contradictions. It is to believe in something that is impossible to exist. It your choice to believe such things. I however, cannot. To me, any time I encounter a contradiction, I know I have done something wrong in my thinking. It could be my understanding, my definitions, or just simply reality not adding up as I intended.

While you can choose how to think in life, I would caution against applying illogical thinking to God. If God exists, it is not a contradiction. God is not illogical, and the things which would extend from God, are not illogical either. Illogical Gods are the fictional myths of Cu'Thulu for example. They are seen as villians and the patron deities of irrational cults. Irrationality is often seen as madness. The Christian God never processes to be illogical. Mysterious? Yes. Beyond our complete understanding? Yes. But there is the underlying idea that there is a plan, an order, and a logic of good that God understands in their plan for humanity.

This is evidenced by then 10 commandments. Simple, logical laws that define how a person should live. Jesus acted with a logical intent. While some who did not understand why Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross might call him mad, when understood it is logical.

It is not that I think you are mad, it is dipping your toe into illogical thinking is to speak with madness itself. It is the realms of cults, and evil. I think you are dipping into illogical thinking in your zeal for understanding what is simply outside of our bounds of knowledge. You are looking for a solution when the only answer is, "I don't know." It is ok to realize the limits of what we can know. It is ok to believe in a God when we do not know all of the answers. But I feel dipping into illogic to get such answer is a road to hell paved with good intentions.

There is the longstanding issue of the mods and admins preferring and even enforcing certain styles and points of view. That's a real thing. Posting here is, as the saying goes, not a right but a privilege. — Srap Tasmaner

There is also a long standing history of trolls and misbehaving people who get their posts revoked, who then go and complain about how unfair it is. Legitimate posters who have been revoked politely talk to the mods and do not make public posts whining. Trolls do. I see such public posts as little evidence of abuse by the mods.

Personally, I think we should ignore such things. It shouldn't be the number of posts, it should be the quality of posts. It shouldn't be the number of mentions, it should be the quality of mentions. We are discussing philosophy where shows of status or symbols of superiority should be discouraged.

So I had a friend years ago that was a petroleum engineer. He explained to me that shutting a refinery off is incredibly expensive and dangerous. Due to the nature of the substance, its best when its in a constantly heated and flowing stated in many parts.

The industry knows exactly what it is doing. It is much likely more expensive at this time to shut things down and turn them back on in a few months. They are likely making the correct bet that demand will rise again. Yes, they won't be making as much money as they were for a while, but its probably far better than the cost of shutting down production altogether.

Ok, I think the issue here is your use of logic can I think be replaced by "knowledge". Its not that consciousness is illogical, its that we don't fully understand how it works. Consciousness is logical, because it exists. If consciousness both existed, and did not exist, then it would be illogical.

Saying something exists does not necessitate that we explain why or how it exists. It is only illogical if its existence would contradict something that we already know must exist. Something can be true, and something can be false. But if A != B, both A and B cannot be true. That's all logic is. Its just a recognition of impossibility in one's conclusions.

Perhaps if you changed your word choice, you would not encounter issues. Few people would take issue with, "We do not know how consciousness works." But when you claim its illogical, what you are saying is that consciousness both exists, and does not exist. Apart from poetics as discussed, that won't convince many people to listen. If you are interested in spreading your belief about God, you want as many people who will listen as possible.

To conclude, when you say things like, "logically impossible attributes exist", you are conveying something which itself, cannot exist. If it is logically impossible, then exists in both a state of truth, and falsity. You can't state it exists, because, it also does not exist. And at that point, we aren't talking about anything real. If you state instead, "there are attributes that we do not yet, or may never fully understand", I think you'll find a lot more reception to your ideas.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Enjoy the Friday 3017amen, I know I am!

Well I am a part of this world, no doubt there. But I am not the world. I have different experiences than a walking stick bug. I have limitations in my will. The fact we can say our interpretations of our perceptions do not fit the reality of the world outside of those perceptions indicates this as well.

Are you trying to say we are defined not apart from reality, but by our limits in relation to it? I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

This does seem mostly to be putting the symbols in a more modern day friendly form. However, the input of a specific number is logically unneeded. The point is handled by "at least one". If a specific number of things are important in your proof, then we should be using a different proof.

Perhaps a better word would be "context". Then you can break it down into its most basic logical components.

context(Greece)
claim(all men are mortal)

After reading more, I think I see the aim here 3017amen.

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology]
— 3017amen

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology] — 3017amen

3. Jesus had a consciousness that transcends logic. True false or something else?

Nothing can transcend logic, because logic arrives from one undeniable fact. What is logical, is what exists. If God exists, then God existing is logical. If God exists, it is our descriptions about God that must be logical. Just because we might have some incorrect descriptors, does not deny God's existence.

So if we say God is both timeless and in time, it is our definitions that we must take care of. Kind of like the car situation. Its just a problem with us using general descriptors that aren't quite the same.

A true contradiction can be shown through math. 1=1 Now equality is entirely, 100% the same thing. There is zero difference in even the tiniest point. The problem is I think you're taking general words that are similar, but not quite the same.

Its like saying, 1.00001 = 1.0000001. The decimals have a lot of zeros, and for most general purposes, we shave off the remaining decimal places because we don't have time in communicating to use exactness everywhere.

A lot of descriptions of God are like poetry. What they are trying to convey is the majesty and mystery of God. A fine pattern in poetry is to relate things we normally think as the same in a general context, result in an odd dissonance when placed in a context they normally wouldn't.

So for example, we say God is omniscient, omnibenevent, and all the omnis, we are stating these things to convey that the power, goodness, and knowledge of God are so great in comparison to ourselves, we are insignificant. It is to evoke awe. They are not intended as logical arguments.

Now this does not mean that we cannot make them into logical arguments by putting the dropped decimal places back. Yes, it is impossible for a God to do anything, even contradict itself. So a simple fix is to add the decimal places back that state, "God is as powerful as it is possible to be within existence." Basically instead of saying God = infinity, we say God = The biggest real number expression of power in existence.

When you say God is timeless, you can say, "God is the origin. There was nothing before God. So God did not form by time, but was the beginning of time. God of course then is still involved in time. Time is not a substance, it is simply the observation that objects have a set relational position at one moment, then another set relational position at another moment. God cannot be outside of this.

Finally, Jesus did not have a consciousness that transcended logic. If Jesus existed, and he had his consciousness, then it is a logical possibility. There is nothing illogical about proposing that Jesus was God expressed as a man, only the difficulty in describing what that would mean, or how to prove such a thing.

I understand the zeal for belief in God. There is nothing wrong with that. It does not make you unintelligent. It is a hallmark of intelligence that we should be curious about and question about God.
But a zeal for a belief in God should not allow us to dismiss the reality in front of us, or ignore logical principles. Perhaps that means you will have to abandon certain ideas about God. Or perhaps you will have to add the decimals back to some of that poetry, and understand the point in a new light.

At the end of the day, if God exists, he gave us a brain that is better than, for all we know, anything else in the entire universe. God would not want us to throw that away to believe in God. How are we any better than the animals then? God would want us to use that brain to discover God as God actually exists, and not simply be inspired by poetry, or how we might desire that God exists.

I am obliged to use the language we have. — unenlightened

That is a given. But within the language we have, my point still stands. If I'm reading you online, its not the same as if we were speaking with one another, so we have to be careful with the word choices we use. I always worry I come across as cold or overly harsh, when all I wish to do is have a nice discussion. =)

my intention was to convey that the distinction and identification we get is a feature of perception, not of reality as such. — unenlightened

Ok, I think this explains your point better. So why do you believe that perception is separate from reality? If I see the color red, is the sight itself not real? When I taste an apple and find it delicious and another tastes an apple and finds it repulsive, is that not real too? What about my perception that though I wish to fly by my mind alone, I find that I cannot?

Think about all 3 circumstances, and see that each is an indicator of the self. What do those perceptions tell us about the self? How are they real, or unreal?

Wonderful! I believe we are both in agreement, and yes, this conversation was as much for my clarity as yours. It is a rare event that two philosophers come together and think with a mind for the answers to life's questions without worry about ego. I believe you have taken the seed of your idea, and grown it into a strong sapling that will not break in the wind, nor yield easily to an ax. Your focus on goals is a way to make it very relatable and simple to begin with, and the process as a whole is compact, but logically sound. I look forward to seeing where we go next, and I am hopeful a person of your intellect and hard work will be able to make something of it beyond these forum posts once this is said and done.

As for the definitions, absolutely lets table it. Depending on the goal of your epistemology theory, it may not be needed. I think we are ready for your next branches.

I too am excited! I think we're whittling down the remaining issues, and this is looking good. There are just a few questions and clarifications left.

If we considered the alternative and found that we could not in fact walk with our feet but must do so with our hands — TVCL

I hesistate to address this, as I don't want this to lead into certain other questions yet. We're trying to solve the questions of applicability, so lets disregard the question which will hover, "Who determines definitions?"

Instead, what I will assume so we can resolve this portion (unless you think going into that right now would help), is that we know what definitions are. This is necessary, for then we can say we know what beliefs are. So lets define walk. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/walk?s=t
"to advance or travel on foot at a moderate speed or pace"

If you move using your hands, you can say you were able to mobilize yourself using your hands, but you (under the assumptions we are working on) could not say you would walk using your hands. That is because you are introducing something that is not the definition into the definition.

Lets use another example, the old stand by of, "A bachelor is an unmarried man." If we found an unmarried woman, then called her a "bachelor" because she fit part of the definition of being unmarried, we would be violating the portion of the definition that notes it must be an unmarried man.

This would violate what we have set up so far. We cannot have a contradiction in our belief for our belief to be knowledge. If I hold that a bachelor is an unmarried man, then conclude that an unmarried woman is a bachelor, I have a contradiction. The same applies with, "Walking with your hands," Walking uses feet. If I say I can walk with my hands, and hold the definition of walking as is, I have a contradiction.

Application as mentioned does not have to happen only in realms beyond the mind. In showing that a woman cannot be a bachelor, we have used no actual woman or man, because we have determined this logic through the definitions we hold alone. The 2+2 = 4 math equation is the same. While someone could tell us the definition of 2, 4, and addition, we can apply this within our minds in regards to other definitions such as five. Thus I can, without being told, apply 2+2 in my mind and realize that 5 would not be the answer, because it would contradict the definitions of the numbers I hold.

The application in the mind can be summed as, "Applying beliefs to other beliefs without contradiction." The belief could be a definition, or a belief that has been applied without contradiction, aka., knowledge. The application outside of the mind would be a different application, though with the same rule that it cannot be contradicted in its application, and result in a different type of knowledge. I find it helpful to call this "realm or area" in which application is occurring, context. Thus we can apply beliefs within the context of our mind, or the context of empiricism and result in different contextual knowledge.

I believe this gives you the consistency that you are looking for. Further, this will let you clarify a goal by context. Thus I could have my goal be, "To learn if a woman is a bachelor in the context of my mind," and have another goal be, "To learn if a woman is a bachelor in the context of empiricism". This compartmentalizes the goals as a person wishes, and allows a way to establish the limitations one desires in their pursuit of knowledge.

If this is amenable, I believe you have the base you need to continue. The question that I tabled, "What determines definitions?" is something you may want to ask yourself next. You may find this irrelevant to your pursuits however, and feel free to ignore it if you wish. Regardless, what you have constructed so far seems like a solid foundation. Amazing work!

The problem OP, is you define a "you" in your premises.

The skin is the parish boundary of the self. — unenlightened

The remote senses establish the existence of a world beyond the skin a world of things and others — unenlightened

Memory allows for learning, and the integration of the senses. — unenlightened

So I'm having a hard time following the conclusion that we can't get a "you" out of that. "You" is the thing with the skin, senses and memory. Then there is the world of others. If such a claim is a fallacy, then we need to see some indication why. All you've done is present arguments against this fallacy through your premises.

Nice! — 3017amen

I took this to mean you understood why the driving/not driving idea was not contradictory logic, and did not press the issue. Acknowledgment of such things is unimportant as long as you understand in your own mind. But I see you've continued to insist on this paradox in the thread, and now I'm not sure if you were simply dismissing the point. I have great respect for your viewpoints, and enjoyed our conversation in my last thread immensely.

Do you understand my question about controlling being defined as conscious or unconscious being key to the issue? It is thus. If you define controlling as conscious, then the moment a person controls unconsciously, they are no longer in control, and not driving. Thus their death was due to a lack of driving on their part.

If you define controlling as something that can also be subconscious, then yes, the person drives to their death while daydreaming. We could say that their subconscious control was not enough to handle the vehicle when it came into a situation it needed conscious control.

If you understand, there is no need to reply. This conversation seems to have become a little heated, and in such cases, an acknowledgement does no one any favors. If you disagree however, feel free to reply with a counter point.

technically, this is only "provisional" because we have no means of knowing whether reality will not contradict a given piece of knowledge later (as of yet). And so, we could either consider if "provisional knowledge" or say that "all knowledge that we have is technically provisional". — TVCL

Great! Truth is the only thing that is certain. Knowledge is our best rational guess at what the truth is. As such, we can imagine that something might come around that may prove our guess wrong one day.

Ok, now we get to a potentially very technical and difficult to discuss section. I will try to break down your examples and see if I can demonstrate the applicable as I have come to understand it.

1. Make gold by touching it.
This is a perfect example of the logic you have concluded. Nothing within the sentence structure necessitates any defined link between the two. You can believe you can make things into gold by touching them. You know you have this belief. What you don't know is if you apply this belief by actually touching things whether this will turn these things into gold.

So you apply it. You take you finger, touch a rock, and it does not turn to gold. Reality has contradicted the application of your belief, not the fact that you had the belief.

2. I want to walk
The problem with this example is the word "walk" is defined as using feet. You aren't confirming that using your feet allows you to walk, because that's part of the definition of walk. If we change the structure to,

a) Goal: "I want to walk"
b) Belief: "I can walk"
c) Outcome: "I am able to walk"
d) Conclusion: Therefore I can walk.

I think this works more the way you intended. You have a belief that you can walk, then you apply that belief, by trying to walk. Reality does not contradict you. The definition of walk is subsumed in the goal, as we know what walking entails. For your purposes, we have a goal, a belief, and an attempt to confirm or deny that the belief fits the goal. Yes, I know this is technical, a subtle difference, and seems like semantics, but this is an important for part 3.

3. To know how 2+2 makes 4

While in your second example, the reliance on a definition for your conclusion was subtle, here it relies on definitions almost exclusively. At this point, we've said, 2+2=4 because there are a set of definitions that tell us 2+2=4. That really doesn't prove anything except that a bunch of definitions say certain conclusions should happen. At this point we've said, I have a belief, and it is proven because I have that belief.

Lets reshape this once again to fit what I feel you are trying to do.

Goal: I want to know if 2+2 makes 4
Belief: I believe 2+2 can make 4
Effect: I make sure I understand the definitions, then I actually add 2+2 together. I find it makes 4 without contradiction.
Outcome: I know 2+2 can make 4 by application

Now I will clarify, you do not have to do math empirically. There are many beliefs and concepts we can test within our own mind, especially if they are products of the mind itself. But it is still an application of our belief to see if it is contradicted. If I stated 2 objects + 2 objects make 4 objects, you would need to apply that with objects. You could imagine objects in your mind, but they aren't actually objects. You need the real deal. What level you need to apply your belief at is determined by your definitions. Thus you could know the definition that 2+2 = 4, but you won't know if that belief is knowledge within your mind/empiricism/etc. until you apply it for yourself within the scope of the potential application.

And yes, if this is what you are going for, this is separate from science. Science rigorously tries to disprove a hypothesis, whereas we are simply trying one application, and determining whether we are contradicted. Still, every belief that is applied is falsifiable by the fact it is being applied. If it is contradicted when it is applied, then we know the belief is false. If it is not contradicted, then it is "knowledge". This should also answer your final question, that 2+2=4 is a falsifiable belief if one applies it.

As others have echoed here, such an issue should probably be relegated to a medical professional. If however you want an idea of what dissociation is apart from the mechanical, we can speculate.

One thing we've learned over the decades of studying the brain is that the brain is composed of several different parts and functions. A part of your brain handles digestion, and your heart rate for example. Consciousness can be seed as a regulator of manager between certain parts of the brain. Some things you have control over, others you don't. But consciousness is part of the brain itself, meaning it is influenced by those separate parts as well.

It has been my idea that certain parts of the brain want things, and the degree that they wish to express themselves over others varys. People with a temper for example have to manage a part of the brain that gets angry easily, and it can be very difficult for the consciousness to control.

So on that note, I could speculate that there is a part of your brain that heavily still desires alcohol. You as the conscious regulator understand and tell it no, but it may in effect be "fighting back". This makes it more difficult for you, the conscious part, to remain in control.

Fortunately, we understand that neurons can be trained to strengthen and diminish the strength of neural signals through repetition. If you keep shutting down the urge to drink alcohol, and keep steady on your decision, over time you might be able to tame that part of your brain.

Of course this is PURE speculation. Please only use thoughts like this to give meaning or some semblance of peace to yourself. In all matters medical, speak with a professional.

Driving is the controlled operation and movement of a motor vehicle, including cars, motorcycles, trucks, and buses. In that case, it was controlled, yet not controlled. — 3017amen

Alright, what is your definition of controlled? Does it have to be conscious controlling, or can there be unconscious controlling?

But I 'was' driving the car, otherwise, wouldn't have crashed and killed myself. So in a proposition, I was both driving and not driving holds true. Hence violation of LEM. — 3017amen

If you noticed, I gave you two definitions and noted that what "driving" is depends on context. You are saying, "I 'was' driving the car". What is your particular definition of driving? Is it that you are conscious? Your full attention at the wheel? Can you drive while daydreaming? If you break down what it means to drive, I'm sure you'll find its impossible to both drive and not drive at the same time.

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. As a proposition, it's logically impossible to explain (its nature) as it would only violate LEM. — 3017amen

If you run into a contradiction when constructing words, then you should examine your words more closely.

Driving the car could mean many different things depending on context. Let us define it your way however, that a person needs to be actively paying attention. If that is the case, when you are daydreaming you ceased driving the car. You may have been holding the wheel, but you were not paying attention. Thus you died because you stopped driving the car, and started daydreaming.

But lets say driving the car means being behind the wheel in a conscious or subconscious state. In that case, daydreaming meant you were driving the car in a subconscious state.

If there is one thing that is incontrovertible, is that you cannot have something both true and false.

Because people like that understand that the continual existence of certain people is worth more than their own continual existence. Think of it another way. If no one's else's lives hold any import to you, why not kill everyone if you could get away with it? I believe that if most people were given this option, they would not do it.

There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes. After all, consciousness itself operates that way. — 3017amen

When something is logically impossible, it means it is something that cannot exist. Something cannot be both true and false. Consciousness is not an impossible attribute. It is clear consciousness exists. We could have contradictory ideas of how consciousness exists, and these can be thrown out. But consciousness itself must operate on some logical means, because consciousness is not both true and false at the same time, its very much true.

They are separate becau — TVCL

"What will your theory serve?" Those who seek knowledge. — TVCL

In regards to potential knowledge versus a belief:

They are separate because belief is potential knowledge and knowledge accords with reality. Beliefs are excluded when they are inconsistent or inapplicable. All that remains is [provisional] knowledge. — TVCL

To clarify, what you are saying is that a belief that has not been contradicted is 'potential knowledge'. A belief that has been contradicted is a 'belief'. But if knowledge is what has not been contradicted, and potential knowledge is what has not been contradicted, is there a difference?

I think I see what you're trying to go for, and its a means of application to decide whether you have reached at knowledge, versus potential knowledge. If I believe that I can flap my arms and fly, but I never try it out, do we want to say that is in the same category as knowledge? I don't think that's what you're going for.

Perhaps we could say something like this. A belief which has been contradicted by reality, is a contradicted belief. A belief which has not attempted to see if reality will contradict it, is an unverified belief. I would say both of these categories are still belief, and not knowledge. And this fits within the terms you've crafted so far. You know that knowledge can only form when it cannot be contradicted, but one must try to actually contradict it for this to be. I believe this also fits in with your aims of a rational person who wishes to seek the truth.

This leads us back to falsifiability. I want to make sure we're both on the same page as to what this means. To be falsifiable means that there is a way to test if it is in accordance with reality. This is a hypothesis. It is a proposition that we can test and discover if an attempt to prove our claim as false will pass or fail. So to fit in with your example, ""The revolution will eventually come", your are correct, this is not falsifiable. It does not become falsifiable until we place restrictions on it that let us actually test it. But until it has actually been tested, it cannot be potential knowledge either. This is because we can construct a contradiction.

If I claim, "The Revolution will not eventually come", then both I and another person could have contradictory potential knowledge. If we understand however that they are both merely untested beliefs, we do not run into a contradiction. This applies whether we put a timeline to test it, or not. If we claim two contradictory beliefs are both potential knowledge, we run afoul of our core rational argument for what knowledge is: something which cannot be contradicted.

Because knowledge is something which cannot be contradicted, I do not think we cannot allow the idea of potential knowledge. The logic can be crafted as thus.

k = knowledge, p = potential knowledge

If k, then !k = false
If p, then !p = true
but p =!p is a contradiction, and knowledge cannot have a contradiction.

This is why I believe potential knowledge as you have defined it now, cannot be a fundamental part of your knowledge system, even if we do not wish to be as precise as science. Ok, I hope I didn't spend too much time on that part.

One of the main differences is that I have not yet made one appeal to data/empiricism/observation to support the argument. — TVCL

I do not think that you need to. We can hold a belief in our head that we cannot contradict with our own beliefs. But then when applying those beliefs in any way, be this empirical, data, or observation, this belief cannot be contradicted by the respective empirical, data, or observation realm.

Hopefully this explains why I will take your advice and use the term "hypothesis" but I will use this to refer to the approach, but not the goal itself. — TVCL

Great, I am in full agreement. I did not mean to imply they should be joined, just that you needed something to explain the process that we arrive at the goal. I'm think I fully understand now, I appreciate you re-explaining. =)

It is more than Sophists you will have to worry about. Your base theory is very close to science at this point, but science does not allow non-falsifiable claims. If you allow non-falsifiable claims into the realm of knowledge, we are also back again to what you mean by provisional knowledge. How is provisional knowledge separate from just a belief? Further, if you do not address non-falsifiable claims, how will you convince someone to use falsifiable claims? Let me give you an example.

Early on in America, there was the idea that taking an anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloriquine would be a good fight against Corona. After all, they seemed to hit what was needed, and a few people who took it had better results. There was no need to try to prove these things false for these people, and many accepted it. It turns out upon more scientific study in which falsification was applied, the medication did not have appreciable effects, and could potentially kill you.

In only preaching to reasonable people, you are only preaching to the choir. And in that case, why would reasonable people not just use science? If you are to create a new theory of epistemology you must ask yourself who is going to use, and what are the alternatives for other people to use?

This brings me back to a couple of points I made earlier. People are not always rational. If you let them escape a rational argument, they will. If you don't fight them from a place of intellectual certainty and clarity, they will think they are right. They will take that with them to the world, and knowledge becomes a thing of relativity and who is more forceful in their beliefs. On the flip side, rational people aren't going to learn or use a method of epistemology that has easily identifiable holes in it.

Your competitor with rational people is science. Your competitor for those who do not use science, is a vast variety of personal opinion, bias, and induction. What will your theory serve? Who will it save? Just something to consider.

This is not a criticism of a single argument that you have presented — TVCL

No, not a worry! And I hope my statements were not taken to be a critique of your approach either! I feel like your intention is to produce an epistemology that is rational, and can be understood by someone who is not a nit picky philosopher. This is a very good thing. To this end, I understand what you mean about not addressing the Sophists. My only concern is that you will be critiqued by a lot more than them in this particular instance. And this is what I truly meant by airtight. If you fight to make it airtight, you will likely fail, but your failure will be difficult to identify, and arguably irrelevent. If you do not make it airtight, you will assume you can let things slide, but you will misjudge on this and leave yourself open to holes you never thought of.

I would re-examine once more belief, knowledge, and potential knowledge, and see if the terms as defined are clearly different from one another, and useful to your purposes. At that point, I will accept whatever you decide, and we can move onto where you would like your theory to go from here. Again, your work and dedication to this topic are always appreciated. I know the effort it entails.

"Perhaps the most common attitude for neuroscientists is to set the hard problem aside." — RogueAI

Certainly, that was just one aspect, on the mechanical side. What about the second aspect? Does that cover what you wanted addressed?

Thank you for the link. — TheMadFool

No problem! Anytime.

The Hard Problem is WHY are we conscious AT ALL and HOW does consciousness arise from non-conscious stuff? — RogueAI

I see now. Lets break down into two ways to interpret this to see if we can get to the problem then.

First interpretation: The answer to the hard problem is through the mechanical workings of the brain. A good read on this is here from 2018 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-neuroscience/ He has a section on the hard problem, and correlates of consciousness as well. He will do a much better and in depth job of covering the role of neuroscience as the essential ingredient in the mind/body problem at this day and age.

Second interpretation: We don't care about the mechanical why and how. Any attempt to link a physical action to a thought in the mind can only be correlative, because when I cut open a skull and look at a working mind, I can't see the thing its thinking about. This is the hard problem.

Lets break it down further. Your second part, "HOW does consciousness arise from non-conscious stuff?" in the non-mechanistic way.

How does water arise from hydrogen and oxygen mixing together? Water does not catch on fire and burn, (normally) but if I take the hydrogen and oxygen out, they are highly flammable. The idea that new states arise out of the combination of the elements is a given. Now we know the mechanical function behind it. But in the non-mechanical sense of, "HOW does this happen?" ,we honestly don't know; it simply does. This of course does not mean that we think such reactions happen apart from the mechanical processes. We do not envision a separate realm that actually produces the fire or water, and the mechanical processes are merely correlative. We are looking at hydrogen and oxygen separately and do not see fire. Why then is it so hard to believe that consciousness is simply another combined state of matter?

You are a combination of matter and energy. You are a carbon based set of chemical reactions, that has the property that unlike, "non-living" matter that burns its reaction out, you actively seek to replenish it and keep it going. You are simply another expressed combination of the elements. Your consciousness is part of that. This is honestly the only reasonable conclusion backed by the reality we are aware of. The idea that somehow this consciousness is not an expression of matter comes from...where? We have never observed any expression of existence that has not come from matter and energy. It is merely an idea from the imagination, and has no bearing in reality.

I have written a paper on knowledge here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge
I feel questions like the "hard problem" come up because of a misunderstanding of the knowledge of our ideas, versus the knowledge of our application of these ideas to reality. To simplify it, just because I can imagine a unicorn, does not mean one exists in reality or has any bearing apart from the fact we can imagine it. The hard problem is like asking why we can envision a unicorn, but can't find one. It is a misapplication of our ideas to reality.

And for the first part of your point, "WHY are we conscious AT ALL", the answer is the same. The how is the description of the process, and the why is the existence of that process. If you mean to take this back to why is there humanity, the Earth, anything really, we are beyond the question of consciousness. Matter and energy can be combined a particular way to form a consciousness. It is done in billions of beings on this Earth every day, and not a radical statement. Why is matter and energy able to do this? Why does anything exist at all? A topic for another time.

I can go on and give more examples, but I feel I need to make sure I'm on the right track with how you see what the hard problem is. Feel free to critique or correct my assumptions in any way, I will try to reply the best I can.

I'm not sure. I don't follow any one particular individual. I just like to read the news and see new things that are being discovered. Here's a pretty good article that sums up a bit of the history through the 1990's to today. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1

Perhaps there are aspects of this that you might be more interested in exploring.

The principle 'it happened like this before, therefore it will happen like that again', is not logical, nor reasonable in any way. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you conclude this? Now some instances of predicting the future based on the past are illogical. But will you say that predictions on physics and math are illogical? All predictions are illogical? My desire to eat an apple because I liked the taste in the past is illogical?

Repeatability, we can understand as being the necessary condition for a general principle, produced by induction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the claim that the future will be a certain way is always an induction. But we can have logically based inductions, and irrationally based inductions. For example, I can claim the probability of an evenly balanced coin flip will be 50% over time. This is based on the knowledge we've gleaned from the past that we assume still stands. Knowing this information, it would be irrational to predict that it is 10/90% probability for heads/tails.

And that is the point I am trying to make. A rational assessment of the situation can allow you to avoid making a mistake. Note I was not intending to imply a guarantee. You can still make a rational choice about something, and it turns out to be wrong. But making a choice based on logic and previous knowledge gets you in a better ballpark on average than a guess that ignores or does not consider these things. Have I communicated this better? Feel free to point out if I need to clarify.

As is evident then, there are two possible reasons to seek status and which reason motivates people will determine how well a person makes us of his/her status. — TheMadFool

I agree with this. I feel the evil comes in when people solely pursue status for personal gain, and disregard the part where they have a duty and responsibility to others. Personal gain is also necessary for higher roles, as the person in higher status often has more demanded of them. Without any personal reward at all, few, if any people, would be willing to do it.