Sure. Democritus imagined atoms were real. And there was evidence. It just wasn't available to him at the time that he imagined it. But his imaginings formed part of the overall inquiry that eventually led to the discovery of that evidence. Which in itself is yet more evidence that consciousness transcends that of the individual.... — Pantagruel

Induction is a valuable form of thinking, but we must be very careful in how we use it, and what we can conclude from it. People also imagined that spontaneous creation was real. If you left meat out overnight, flies would spontaneously create themselves. This is because they didn't understand that flies laid eggs.

Induction, depending on how its formed, is a reasonable state of inquiry, NOT assertion. Its a mistake people make all the time. Let me give you some examples.

Probability - The coin in most cases has an approximately 50% chance of landing on one side. This is a calculated set of limited outcomes concluded by reason and the known physical realities of the universe. But we still need to flip the coin to see a side.

Possibility - Its possible the coin could land on heads or tails. Its because we've observed it happening before. If its been known to happen once, it could happen again. But we need to flip that coin to see what comes up.

Plausibility - The coin could change its material essence due to an unknown law of physics, and on flipping, become so light that it escapes Earth's orbit and never comes down. We can imagine it, it, the construction of our statements make it feel (not actually be) reasonable, so we think its possible. We still must have someone die, and find some evidence that they survive after death. But its not possible because it hasn't happened yet. Its plausible, or an imagined scenario that has never come to pass.

Its plausible that we survive after death. But its also plausible that your ceiling is actually a sentient alien that likes watching humans. Plausibility has zero fact behind it, it is just what we can imagine that has not happened even once. Plausibility is not in the realm of facts. Probability is based on the logical limitations that come from known facts. Possibility is based on the fact it has happened at least once. Plausibility is purely the realm of imagination.

Plausible thoughts are absolutely essential for discovery. They are what compel us to explore and find new things. They are the source of creativity. But they are NOT facts. They are feelings that should never be confused as being real until we have confirmed that they are in fact real.

So, no. Being able to think that its plausible we live on after we die is no evidence of any fact that we live on after we die. In fact, every fact that we do know of shows that the probability of our consciousness living on after death is 0%. We know that its not possible to live on after we die. And since probability and possibility are at least based on some facts, they are more cogent, and take precedence in logical thinking over plausibilities.

Therefore it is a deduced fact that we do not live on after death. And if we are to enter into the realm of induction, the more reasonable inductions are that it is both improbable, and impossible that we live on after death. It doesn't mean we can't keep looking for plausibilities we like to be true. But we can never reasonably assert that because we can hold a plausibility, that it is any evidence that it is true.

Arithmetic can be reduced entirely to logic. However, logic can also be entirely reduced to arithmetic — Tarskian

Translation does not mean you did not need to understand logic first to discover math. I don't mean formal annotated logic, I mean 'logical thinking'.

The quote didn't answer my question.
— Philosophim

I think it does, although you might not like the answer. — T Clark

It had nothing to do with like or dislike. It was the same answer you gave before wrapped in a quote. I don't see how it added anything to your point, or answered mine.

but on questions of how I treat others, I think I see clearly. You can doubt that, but that sort of ends the discussion. — T Clark

No, I don't doubt that. Many people believe they are good people, better than average, and have faith in their own judgements. A philosophical examination should find a stance that is rationally consistent.
You're on a philosophy forum, not a religion, meditation, or self-help forum. Its not about what makes us feel good, its about coming up with rational arguments. Your assertion of a personal opinion does not pass as a rational argument. Your morality has a severe flaw if anyone but yourself practices it. And you miss the fact that despite you thinking you see clearly, you make mistakes. If living by your nature is also making mistakes, and you make the mistake of getting drunk, driving, and killing someone, are you living a moral life?

I'm talking about people who aren't good people.
— Philosophim

I have been explicit that I am describing my personal philosophy. — T Clark

That's just an opinion. That's more of a slang or general use of the word, but not a standard of logical reasoning. I have no objection to you deciding to live your life by an opinion, but if you're going to claim its a philosophy that has anymore to it then a personal desire in how you want to live, its not going to pass muster.

If tardigrades have experiences, then near death experiences are possible. :cool: — jkop

I never said people didn't have these experiences. I've just noted they are not evidence of experiences after death, or that there is a survival of consciousness beyond brain death.

You can't prove arithmetic from arithmetic because we created it.
— Philosophim

Given a theory adequate for a certain amount of arithmetic, for example, PA, it's redundant to say that the theory proves all its theorems. But if the theory is formal and consistent, then there are truths of arithmetic that are not provable in the theory. This has nothing to do with who "created" the theory. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I should add a bit more to this. Arithmetic is a tool we've created from logic. It is logic which proves arithmetic, not arithmetic itself.

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer?
— Philosophim

Several others on this thread have made similar comments. I've responded with this quote from "Self-Reliance." — T Clark

The quote didn't answer my question. The problem is you're likely a good person already, so have no qualms with believing in yourself. I'm talking about people who aren't good people. Good on you if you haven't encountered many, but their nature is nothing you ever want to bump into.

My issue with this is that there is absolutely no requirement to postulate objective goodness to explain these things, and to my mind the ontology of "objective goodness" doesnt even make sense. — Apustimelogist

An objective goodness is a definition of goodness that can be rationally used by everyone despite our own personal subjective viewpoints. Its the difference between, "Rain is heavy cloud precipitation that falls to the ground," versus, "Rain is a feeling of rainness."

↪Philosophim

You arr talking as if there are certain things that just ought to exists and I don't think this is how it works. You may postulate something exists, look for it and then find that you have no evidence that it exists. Completely reasonable to not believe it exists. — Apustimelogist

I would agree if there was absolutely no evidence of its existence. But we have plenty. Universally there are moral sentiments such as "Don't murder, don't steal," that transcend culture. Most people understand that laws are societal enforcements, but that laws themselves can be moral or immoral. It is used in vernacular and in culture. The job of philosophy is to find those things, find a logical way to verbalize them and bring them into discussion beyond intuitions. As there is plenty of evidence for morality, to say it does not exist is normally someone who is bothered that they can't personally figure it out, so throws up their hands in the air.

Now, if you specifically want to give an argument against it, I can take it seriously. Most are simply lazy people who self-centered motives, but maybe you aren't.

Well said Timothy! I agree. Just going to add to your already fine points.

1. There are no moral facts (facts about the goodness of different acts, people, events, etc.) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is this a fact? Seems to be that its a fact that there's no morality then.

2. "This is good" is just another way of saying "I prefer that x and I'd prefer it if you would too" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Morality becomes, "Whatever I want to do", or, "There is no morality.

3. Goodness doesn't exist but is rather a mirage enforced by the dominant party in society and is really just a form of power politics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

People confusing laws with morality.

If we don't think any sort of "goodness" exists, how do we choose between different paradigms of morality to use to set up laws, customs, norms of behavior, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly. Its idiocy for self-fulfillment of one's own ego.

Well, we pragmatically select a measure by which norms might be judged good! But then how do we justify our pragmatic standard as a good one? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because I like it, it benefits me, and I don't want to have to think about it beyond that.

This same sort of problem crops up if truth is denied. That is, something along the lines of "nothing is either true or false, but only true or false in terms of some particular system. But we are free to pick such systems pragmatically." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is this universally true or false? Uh oh...

As for the point about reason being "ruined", it's certainly quite common for people to deny moral facts and to use facts about "everything being atoms in the void," to justify this. Thus, they clearly think there are at least other sorts of (theoretical) facts but not moral/practical facts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My point is that maybe morality applies to those atoms as well. You may be interested in an attempt at an objective moral theory I've posted. Read it carefully though. Many people don't. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

I should note here that I am absolutely no enemy of pragmatism or even certain sorts of moral relativism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am. Its intellectual laziness for selfish gratification of one's own ego. Anyone who says, "I can't figure it out, but it would be nice if I could say its because it doesn't exist at all," is the intellectual equivalent of a slob eating potato chips on the couch. With even a modicum of rational thought, one can realize how untenable the idea is.

This may be bias on my part, but I've had the chance to talk live with quite a few of these people, and every single one has come across as an idiot who just wanted to justify doing whatever they wanted to do. My apologies if I'm a bit harsh, but this idea has always just struck me as being terrible and attracts the worst thinkers to it like bear turds attract flies.

For me, personal morality includes the principle that guides me in my personal behavior and it’s very simple - to the extent possible, my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will. — T Clark

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer? The problem with this definition is morals gets changed from, "What should be" to "What I want to do."

Maybe. Does this entail or imply that there is nothing after death? — Pantagruel

Entail. Its easy to make the mistake that just because we can imagine something, and it seems reasonable to us, we think it has the possibility of being real. It does not. For what is imagined to be real, there must be evidence of it being real somehow. There is zero evidence.

ou yourself are an aggregate of individual entities (cells) whose mutual "communication" is integral to what you experience as consciousness. But your cells constantly die. So if you cannot reductively explain consciousness with reference to the finite lifespan of individual entities — Pantagruel

But this applies to every cellular structure. So does my skin transcend physical limits because muscle cells constantly die and are replaced? But lets go further. Does this also apply to society? Isn't a society a set of communicating individuals that constantly die? Does this mean societies transcend their physical application and live on in some other dimension after they die?

The problem is your argument just doesn't apply to brains specifically, but to every single thing that lives and communicates on the planet. And of course you think its absurd that there is a consciousness of society that still lives on in heaven when the society dies. The personal desire for eternal life overrides your ability to apply the argument broadly and consistently. As a rational argument divest of any emotion, bias, or self-interest, it is completely illogical by everything we know to think that a person's consciousness lives on after they die.

My fight with you regarding logic has been entirely based around demolition of a specific mechanism that you don't even subscribe to.

Your empirical (observation) based sense of logic is far more rational than formal logic. It correlates well with the principles of science (excluding mathematics). — Treatid

Then I bow out. Great conversation.

A statement with no context has no inherent meaning.

The better the context is defined, the better the meaning is defined.

The better any given context is defined, the better every other context is defined.

Virtuous Circle

The better we understand a given concept, the better we understand every other concept. — Treatid

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

Impossible to reach omniscience - yes. But partial understanding is better than no understanding.

We are agreeing with each other so hard here it makes me wonder how we can possibly diverge elsewhere. — Treatid

Likely its in our definition differences. Even if we use similar words, there may be personal context to those words that results in us drawing different conclusions. The most important thing to find agreement on in a discussion like this is the definitions themselves. We are two different minds with unique backgrounds coming together. It takes some time to learn what each other intends by our words.

I want to take it further. Apply this to everything. Your perception of the world is rooted in your experience of the world.

I think your description of 'Dread' applies to every concept that we can feel, experience or think — Treatid

Within our own personal context, this is true. I can never know what its like to be another person. That doesn't mean I can't conclude other people exist, or that they and I cannot come to a common understanding of the way we both experience the world. Coming to a common understanding requires finding the things which are uncontroversial between us, while generally dismissing the rest as non-essential variety.

Rain is a common experience and by sharing our experiences we come to regard the experience of rain as being objective - something that everyone experiences in the same way. However your description of 'dread' applies to my experience of 'rain'. — Treatid

Again, it all comes down to contexts. What is the context of rain that is personal to you vs personal to me? I'm sure when I envision rain I have a different memory then you. So we likely can't relate on that context. But we can find common ground. Water percipitates in the clouds and falls to the ground. You and I both understand what that means. We can apply that definition to reality. If we did it together, maybe we would share some more common emotions like both finding the rain cool. Or maybe you would find it hot, I would find it cold, and we would get a good laugh out of it.

That is why society builds certain rules of measurement that do not rely on personal experience. They are abstracts. Meters for length. Liters for volume. Words that fit both an efficient general sense like 'tree', and more descriptive and specific words like Sycamore.

You've talked about taking shortcuts where we don't want to build everything from first principles just to say hello to the neighbour...

Shortcuts are fine, even necessary, but they are a convenient approximation.

When doing a deep dive into philosophical knowledge we are liable to find ourselves led astray if we rely on the shortcuts as being fundamental in, and of, themselves. — Treatid

Perfectly correct. For the build up of knowledge specifically, I noted specific rules to follow. And in cases where knowledge is not possible, or in the quest to build up knowledge, we have a hierarchy of inductions we can follow for cogent thinking. If you feel I'm not being specific enough or taking a short cut where its not needed, feel free to point it out! I will get as detailed and specific as needed.

Here we part ways.

You purport to demonstrate that we consider '1' discretely.

I'm looking at your description and seeing you describe '1' using a bunch of explicit and implicit relationships. — Treatid

Right, I've already noted there is nothing against defining something in relation to another discrete experience. The point I have tried to make is that one can have the discrete experience of everything. What allows us to create relations is memory. I have to remember that I focused on something else just a few seconds ago to compare. I think that's where I've missed the mark in what I've been trying to communicate. Discrete experience is the act of simple focus. We need memory of our discrete experiences to form and process relationships.

You sit down to read a book. The first page contains the word 'one':

"one"

And that is it. That is the entire book.

You understand 'one'. The word has some meaning for you. But simple stating the word 'one' doesn't expand your knowledge. No new information has been conveyed.

To convey information you must put that 'one' into some context - some set of relationships with other words. — Treatid

But first comes 'the book'. The focus. With memory, we can create comparisons. With memory we can relate. With memory, we can create words to recall and apply later.

As I read these two sections I see a disconnect. You are contradicting yourself. You are arguing two distinct contradictory positions. In the first paragraph you argue for the importance of context, in the latter paragraph you are arguing that we can consider things without context. — Treatid

What I am doing is trying to break down complex concepts into more simple and easier to comprehend ideas. People think better when you can get down to fine grained foundations, and build on top of them. So we have discrete experience + memory + comparison between memories = relationships. If everything is a relationship, then what do we call a thinking thing that can discretely experience, but has no memory of it? A camera taking a snapshot and processing it to paper without ever knowing any relation to what it is doing.

And then we have everyone from philosophy through mathematics to physics arguing that there are inherent truths independent of context. — Treatid

It depends again on what they mean by context. Oftentimes context is applied to 'subjective context'. But there is 'objective context' as well. People are oftentimes efficient in language, and leave lots of implicit implications in which get lost as they filter out into the general population, or even over time. Its our job as philosophers and thinkers to bring it back every so often. :)

If you doubt that there is an objective context, how is it that almost all human beings of a particular intelligence are able to learn that 1+1 = 2? How do we all learn that if we stop breathing, we'll die? I do not deny that there are contexts formed between every single person and subgroup you meet. But their existence co-exists within a created objective context of measurement and identification of reality. It does not undermine it, even if it wants to.

You obviously understand that full knowledge (truth) requires all the contexts.

This is my proposal. This is where I think we can make progress as philosophers and as humans. This is where the pursuit of knowledge lies. This is the path to all possible understanding. True, we can't reach the limit - but we can approach that limit. — Treatid

100% agree! I hope you understand that while I may have some counter points to consider, it does not mean I am not considering your viewpoint carefully. It is refreshing to have a conversation with someone who is interested in a good discussion.

Despite this clear understanding, Everybody and their dog suddenly starts insisting that knowledge, truth, meaning, ... are inherent properties independent of context.

This isn't a rational position. It is a direct contradiction of our direct experience of the importance of context.

Even after making the clearest statement of meaning/truth/significance I have ever seen; you flip around to arguing for inherent meaning just a few paragraphs later. — Treatid

Hm, I did not intend to imply there was inherent meaning. There are contexts that apply beyond our individual subjective viewpoints that are the collective context of rational agents. And many times when communicating with one another, we need certain clear and fixed essential commonalities to those words or phrases, or else we will, "miss the mark" if you get my meaning.

We are not really disagreeing much, if at all, in the big picture. The purpose of the paper is to take that common picture that we see, and put it into words that can be communicated effectively and consistently to several people. I know there are several people who believe both in parts and relationships. Does a break down of the act of discrete experience, memory, and the interplay between them forming relationships make it more palatable to you? It may not perfectly coincide, but do you think it can be more easily communicated to others who don't think like us? The world is full of people who found out knowledge, but were unable to communicate it in a way that a majority could agree with and use effectively.

Each piece of context you remove takes you further away from knowledge. Every extra piece of context takes you closer to knowledge. — Treatid

I agree with you, but one minor detail. "It takes us closer to complete knowledge". To build, we must start with a basic definition of knowledge in the barest sense. Something you may not have considered yet, is the theory I've proposed here can potentially be applied to non-human intellects. Dogs, computers, the process would be the same. Thus something could be said to applicably know X within its context, while if one has been challenged through multiple contexts, one can only applicably know Y.

Great conversation!

I would agree with Tarskian, especially a mix of both can be harmful, because one can come to be so dogmatic that one starts to think that model or theory of reality is far more real than just the reality itself. — ssu

Isn't your problem with dogmatism, or a misuse and/or misunderstanding of science/positivism, instead of with science/positivism itself?

If you feel threatened by its chaotic nature, it means that it disturbs your ideological beliefs. Someone who uses them as tools of precision and meaningful discovery would never feel threatened by that. — Tarskian

I'm not threatened, I'm just having a conversation with you. Here I try to elevate the discussion more than emotion, politics, or bias. Its about trying to get to the root rationale of arguments and see if they hold up. Your answer is an emotional one, not a rational one. It can take some time to adapt coming from other forums, I get it. So lets think about it again. If these old discoveries really did shake the foundation, why are people smarter than us don't seem bothered and still use them?

It is probably best to use an example from Soviet Union but in fact modern western society does exactly the same: — Tarskian

I think your problem isn't with science, but when people use the word 'science' to describe something that isn't actually scientific. Science is a very rigorous method of testing, and in essence tries to prove its conclusions wrong, not prove them right. The idea is to see if something can be disproven, and if it can't, then it must be something that works with what we know today.

and especially because you will get burned at the Pfizer antivaxxer stake if you refuse to memorize this sacred fragment from the scripture of scientific truth for your scientific gender studies exam. — Tarskian

It sounds like you have an issue with Covid vaccines and gender studies. Or more importantly, perhaps you have an issue with the way some people have reported on it? Many people have opinions on the science involving these two fields, but that doesn't mean it accurately reflects the science of those two fields.

We can test this by first starting with Covid vaccines. What part are you against specifically? I am moderately familiar with the scientific consensus on the Covid vaccines, and we can see if your issue is with the science itself, or people's opinions on the science itself.

No, nothing you have discovered here has shaken the foundations of math or science.
— Philosophim

I did not discover anything. Gödel certainly did. Chaitin also did. Yanofsky moderately did. I just mentioned their work. — Tarskian

Right, and despite their work being concluded for quite some time now, people several times smarter than both you and I combined still hold math and science as tools of precision and meaningful discovery.

My problem is with positivism and scientism. I find these ideological beliefs to be very dangerous. — Tarskian

I find this point more interesting. Why?

Well, instead of being able to predict just 0.1% of the facts in the physical universe, this would improve to something like 0.3%; not much more. — Tarskian

Again, hyperbole. I can assure you if we were able to predict how everything in the universe worked, we would solve all of quantum mechanics for starters. That's pretty huge. We would also master quarks and gluons. That's not insignificant.

Scientism is widespread as an ideology in the modern world. Any true understanding of the nature of mathematical truth deals a devastating blow to people who subscribe to it. This is exactly why I like this subject so much. — Tarskian

Right, people of all stripes can fall into the intellectual trap of, "Nothing is true!" and think that gives them an insight that others don't see. After all, if nothing is true, no more thinking right? Except its really just an illusion of intelligence. Want to really impress? Try coming up with ways to make sense of the world despite the 'chaos'.

I say this not to insult, but to kick you in the pants a bit because I see too many people fall into this trap that stunts their further growth. No, nothing you have discovered here has shaken the foundations of math or science. Knowing some limitations in how it comes about or what it can do, does not invalidate what it can do and is useful for.

In 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theorems dealt a major blow to positivism and scientism, but it was just the beginning. It is only going to keep getting worse. As Yanovsky writes in his paper:

Gödel’s famous incompleteness theorem showed us that there is a statement in basic arithmetic
that is true but can never be proven with basic arithmetic. That is just the beginning of the story. — Tarskian

You can't prove arithmetic from arithmetic because we created it. The concept of "One" is from our ability to create discrete experiences in the world. For example, look at your keyboard. Now your keys. Now a portion of the key. Those are all your ability to create the concept of "one". "Two" is the concept of one and one grouped together. And thus the logic that continues from there is math. Again, just because math can't prove math, doesn't mean that its not a viable and useful tool that results in amazing leaps in technology and understanding of the universe.

In my opinion, scientism needs to get attacked and destroyed because its narrative is not just arrogant but fundamentally evil — Tarskian

That's new! Why is it arrogant and evil?

It is a false pagan belief that misleads its followers to accept untested experimental vaccine shots from the lying and scamming representatives of the pharmaceutical mafia; and that is just one of the many examples of why it is not hyperbole. — Tarskian

Well lets say this is true. What method did you use to find out that its true? Can you be confident that your own method is sound, or at least more sound then science?

That is the only direction that we use in engineering. We never use the other direction:

If it is true, then it is pretty much never provable. It is a rare exception, if it is. — Tarskian

Ah, it depends on how you're using the word 'truth'. If you mean absolutely truth or, "what is," yeah, its hard to find those. If you're talking about propositional logic or terms in math, then true/false is fine. I just think you're being a bit dramatic. :)

Knowledge is a tool. Because its not precise to the nano-meter, does that mean a wrench is highly chaotic and unpredictable? Of course not. Our language, while imprecise at times, is useful for its imprecision for efficiency. Just like I wouldn't grab a wrench if I were studying the atomic level of the universe, one shouldn't use certain language and terms when dealing with the foundations of knowledge and mathematics.

The hyperbole just isn't true. Its like standing in a white room and noting, "Look how chaotic the colors are, flying every which way around this room! The chaos!" And of course there's someone looking at you from the outside wondering if they should pad the walls and give you a jacket to go with it.

The world of mathematical truth does not look like most people believe it does. It is not orderly. It is fundamentally unpredictable. It is highly chaotic. — Tarskian

This is a far cry from the point that math can be difficult to put into words. The proof is in the very fact you're able to post online consistently for us to read your posts. That was all capable through math.

I'll ask you one more time, what do you mean by complete brain death? — Sam26

Here is a scientific article on the matter Sam26. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/5/2/18 I encourage you to read that.

This is a well documented case, here is one of many videos on this NDE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k — Sam26

I know you're well meaning, but a 'for tv' story is not a factual analysis. Here's an analysis of why Pam Reynolds NDE does not note anything remarkable. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461684/m1/1/

First, what you're claiming is not an unerring fact. Just because someone claims something is factual doesn't make it so. — Sam26

Correct. But we have all the proof we need. If I say, "Its a fact unicorn's don't exist," you're not going to question me on it right? There is no measurement of anything that leaves the brain or body after death. If you have brain damage, you will change. You are part of this universe, not separate from it. I get that your intelligence and sense of self-preservation make you want to give the proverbial middle finger to the rest of the universe, but you are not special. You are made up of the same stuff everything else is.

But we are not special. It is hubris to think we are. Check out some neuroscience. Check out psychotherapy. Get drunk for a while and see how much you change. There is nothing special about you beyond your physical make up.

Many thousands of NDE testimonials have been corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family. If someone claims to see something at T1 and others corroborate that claim, then it's objective testimonial evidence, period. — Sam26

I am not disputing that people have these experiences. But I am disputing that they are any evidence in any serious discussion of life after death. All the facts are on my side, while all you have are inductive arguments, and a strong desire for it to be true.

There is no other alternative, what a silly statement, and an arrogant one too. Many scientists dispute this — Sam26

Its not arrogant, its a fact. If its arrogant, give me a counter fact. To not give me a counter fact is a person who is angry at a point, but nothing else. I don't want you to be angry, hopeful, passionate, or anything emotional. I want you to look at the facts. Don't tell me, "Many scientists," show me a scientist who has a peer reviewed study that cites a factual argument for life after death. There are none. Because there is no life after death. It is purely an emotional desire people want to believe in.

↪Philosophim I'm not sure what you mean by fully brain-dead. People have had these experiences when there is no measurable brain activity. — Sam26

Incorrect. Cite me a case in which a person had complete brain death and I'll recant.

They have also been reported with the blood completely drained from their brains. — Sam26

This is again, impossible. To completely drain the blood from a brain you would have to completely drain the blood from the body. Again, cite this case please.

Besides what matters are their reports while claiming to be outside their bodies, and that these reports have been corroborated thousands and thousands of times which adds an objective component to the testimonials. — Sam26

And what about the thousands and thousands of cases in which there was no testimonial? In which a person was simply completely unconscious and nothing more? My Aunt had a near death experience and she said she was being stabbed and tortured. She was a good person. Are we going to simply brush that under the rug? Cherry picking what you're looking for and saying you have a lot of similar cases is not a viable argument.

I never referred to these experiences as after-death experiences, those are your words, not mine.

To say that "...there is no evidence of life after death" is just an expression of an opinion. — Sam26

No. It is a cold and unerring fact. First, we can cite the complete lack of objective evidence. There has never been any signs of life after something has died. Second, we can cite the objective evidence of how the brain functions, and how it ties to people's personalities and ability to function in the world. Years of drug studies and brain surgery have demonstrated that you are your brain. There is no other alternative.

You will die. I will die. We all, will die. Don't waste what precious life and purpose you have on thinking that fantasy and fiction are real. Go and enjoy every precious second. You'll never get any of them back.

Your one major problem is that in every case of "life after death" experience, the patient has never been fully brain dead. Meaning these are living experiences, not after death experiences. Sorry, there is no evidence of life after death. Conclusively.

Really? Have you seen how infirm a 100 year old person is? — LuckyR

Age is degradation, or the slow march towards death. If you didn't die, you wouldn't degrade.

To sum it up more simply, we have a mind that interprets reality, and we know there is a reality because when a rock hurtles through the air and smashes into our shoulder, our bones break no matter how we try to interpret it. Reality is simple. It is what will happen no matter what you think or believe. We know that reality happens many times despite what we think or believe.

As for "creaturely" it seems to be describing the interplay between physical display and consciousness. Thus I can say, "That is a dog," but I can't experience what it is to be that dog.

What we are likewise does not contain what we will become, our ends. And what we become is tied up in the rest of the world, and so all other created essences. For creatures, what something is must be determined relationally, which seems to suggest a certain lack of freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Isn't this everything though? Rocks will slowly erode as the years pass. The ocean is in constant flux. Living things fall into the trap of thinking that they're somehow not made of the same stuff as everything around us. We are. We just happen to align in such a way that we become aware in a way that water along cannot. Its poetic, but not special to creaturely beings specifically. I think his analysis of metaphysics is a much better analysis of reality then this section.

But of course I'm just reading your summary. :) Let me know if I'm on or off base.

I agree that death is a tragedy for many. You spend an entire life improving yourself. Gaining wisdom. Learning how things work. And you can only pass on a portion of it. Realistically though, we are too successful as a species and reproduce too much for the planet to sustain lives that would exist much longer. Also, some people shouldn't live forever. Pain, tragedy, mental imbalances, and just plain evil people would not benefit from living longer than they do.

Would I choose to live forever? Yes. I say this because I have the right make up for it. I do not get bored. I do not seek to cause strife or excess resource drain in life. I constantly seek to improve as a person. I mention this because I have another deeper question for you. What type of person do you think should live forever, and which type of person should not?

I had an idea when I was younger. I've found the general ideas of attraction and rejection between objects to be rather mystical. When I've asked, "What is causing the attraction?" the answer has always been, "Something smaller inbetween" like energy.

The only logical smallest object I could imagine could have have attraction or repulsion. Its just an existent mess. No rhyme, no reason, just a mess of whatever it is. Reality is full of them, and they constantly bounce around. But every so often, they bounce in such a way that the 'hook' into each other. Because it has to be a very specific angle, its also incredibly difficult to bounce out. If you get a few things going this way, you generate more appreciable mass.

What was interesting about this was that this would mimic heat. You see, everything vibrates. The higher the vibration, the higher the heat. Higher vibrations would accelerate the loosening of those very small particles, which would fly off. Higher vibrations also mean more chances per second for these small things to hook into other small things next to them, allowing chemical bonds, etc.

Just a fun thought experiment of course.

You may be interested in a post I've written here that avoids the dichotomy of objective vs subjective as a basis for knowledge here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

There's a nice summary from the first reply down. Several people have found this to be worth exploring, as it tackles the issues you're noting in a logical way that still allows us a method of knowledge. I would comment more on your post, but it would only dip into these points.

There are a few arguments for God. Here's a layman's breakdown to read. https://18forty.org/articles/3-arguments-for-gods-existence/

If you want to go more in depth, pick one of the arguments and ask why it works/doesn't work. In general, none of the arguments for God have been proven as true, but thinking about them can give you a better idea of why.

I appreciate the extensive elaboration on the various philosophical problems I mentioned. I won’t delve into them too much, just want to give a thanks for the thought and effort, and say that it was a useful read. — Caerulea-Lawrence

You're welcome! And I got the alert that you replied this time. :D

Despite the apparent success of our intelligence, and the importance of efficiency, I believe focusing on that might conflate cause and effect. We don’t have intelligence because it is ‘necessary’, we have intelligence as it coincides with the survival and procreation in the specific niche we humans fill. 
I’m not saying that as an expert at evolutionary biology, it is just that if you look at your argument, viruses, bacteria, amoeba and parasites achieve the same goals; survival and procreation, as us humans, despite having far, far lower intelligence. In a way, for what they achieve, they are miles ahead of us in efficiency, but they do not beat us at complexity in organization. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Very true. It has been argued that our intelligence evolved out of our social nature. The understanding of complex and dynamic situations has spilled into other areas of our brains allowing us to analyze complex relationships outside of social situations.

The thing is, some people Do fight for the truth, despite the cost to their own lives. Humans as a species is very diverse, and I do not believe cost vs benefit alone fits the diversity we see in paradigms. 
What I believe fits better is that we are born with a predisposition to different paradigms, and are drawn to them like moths to the flame. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I don't disagree with your assessment. I think its an equally valid viewpoint. I could sit here and say, "Yes, but fulfilling that predisposition is for their personal benefit," but that's unnecessary. There is a compulsion among individuals and groups that certain viewpoints of the world this fit our outlook better. And I do believe some outlooks are better by fact, only because they lead to less contradictions and overall benefits for the society. A society that relies on logic, science, and fairness is going to be better off than a society that relies more on wishful thinking, superstition, and abuse of others.

So why do we have different paradigms when you can be perfectly happy in a small hunter-gatherer ‘family’, or in a bigger tribe? And if the explanation is «We developed new paradigms to make sense of problems that no longer made sense with the explanations available», doesn’t the argument itself clash with reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I believe that is one reason people change paradigms, but there can be others. I find religion to be an interesting paradigm that can persist in the modern day world. While religions often have logical holes or contradictions purely from a rational viewpoint, as I've mentioned earlier, they provide a sense of community, purpose, and guide that are often invaluable and not easily replaced by abandoning the precepts. Even though the modern day world can explain multiple things in ways that do no require divinity, a divine interpretation of the world can largely co-exist beside it in a truce of sorts if societal rules are established properly. Separation of church and state for example.

I believe the greatest motivator is, to your point, a paradigm that fits within what an individual or group is most inclined towards. As long as reality does not outright contradict the goals of the group, it is acceptable and often times protected from outside criticism.

Seems like we are diverging from the original point you have made about Knowledge and Induction. — Caerulea-Lawrence

No, I believe we are building upon it into the next steps. I wrote a follow up on the third post that includes societal context if you have not read it yet. The original post did not include societal context, as the initial post about the knowledge process of a singular individual is enough to wrap one's head around initially. If you haven't read that section yet, feel free as it might help with the current subject matter we're discussing at this moment. Fantastic points and thought Caerulea!

I'm actually arguing against impossible assumptions. My perception is that there is one large multifaceted assumption that is impossible. — Treatid

If I understand what you're saying, I agree. I once sat down and asked myself, "If this is correct, what would knowing the truth be?" I realized the only way to know truth, which is what is real, would be to have observed and experienced something from all possible perspectives and viewpoints, and an understanding of all conclusions which did not contradict themselves (as well possibly the ones that do!).

It is an absolutely impossible endeavor.

Description has a mechanism. Some things can be described. Some things cannot be described. — Treatid

Also very true. The knowledge system I've proposed here is not limited to linguistic thought. If I had a image, or even a feeling about a specific situation, that can be logged as a memory which then is applied in the future.

For example, the emotion of 'dread'. While we might be able to objectively ascertain that people experiencing dread have some common physical tells, that doesn't mean it describes the individual feeling the person is experiencing. While an individual can know if they're experiencing dread by the emotions they are currently having, being able to know if another person is experiencing that same emotion, despite physical tells, is only available to that specific person. We cannot experience what another experiences.

We can get around this in some ways through creating distinctive and applicable contexts. For example, if someone is blind, we cannot use the word, "See" in the same way. Telling a blind person, "Do you see the point?" will have a difference concept. We don't mean "visually observe", but mean, "Understand".

Two people who lift weights in a gym may have a different conceptions of weak. A person who regularly benches 200 pounds may believe a bench of 150 is weak for them. A person who regularly benches 100 pounds may believe someone who benches 150 is strong relative to them. They generally solve this discrepancy when talking to each other by entering into a common context. For example, the weak person, who is friends with the strong, may make a joke about how the strong person is being a wimp for only lifting 180 pounds that day, encouraging them to lift more. The strong person may yell excitedly and get hyped that the weak person is pushing past what they normally do and lifts 110 pounds that day.

It is widely assumed that it is possible to describe an object.

This is wrong. It is a futile effort. — Treatid

It depends on your definition of 'describe'. If I describe a lemon as a yellowish sour fruit, its a description is it not?" When we say that things are impossible, we have to be very specific as you also realize that language and meaning can be very indefinite unless we make it so.

If we were to remove each relationship to get to the essence of 1... we would eventually find we are left with nothing.

The integer 1 is the set of relationships it has with everything else. The integer 1 outside our universe with no relationships to anything is indistinguishable from nothingness. — Treatid

That is one way to describe it, but I can describe a scenario that counters that. The integer "1" is really a representation of our ability to discretely experience. "One field of grass. One blade of grass. One piece of grass." We can discretely experience anything. Not just parts but everything. The discrete experience of "Existence". A sensation in which there is nothing else but the experience itself. No breakdowns, no parts, no relation. It is within this that relation forms when we create parts. But the experience of the whole, of being itself, is one without relation.

A description is a network of relationships.

The mechanism of language is to build a network of relationships. — Treatid

I agree that between more than one person, a description is a network of relationships. It is because we are establishing a common ground between our individual experiences to establish a base of distinctive knowledge and application (context) that we can reasonably and logically apply with each other.

The typical process for finding the essence of meaning, significance, etc; is to strip away all the miscellaneous chaff until we are left with the essential core of the thing we are examining.

This is why this mistaken assumption is so devastating to the pursuit of knowledge.

Every philosophical, mathematical and physical discussion that tries to get to the core of a matter by stripping away all the extraneous concepts, assumptions and frippery is dooming itself to futility. — Treatid

Who determines what is extraneous, an assumption, or frippery? Between one group of people, certain aspects may be important, while between another group of people, it is not. But what is deemed frippery is dismissed within logical language in both groups A and B, even if they have different views of what is not important. The only hard counters are if there is contradictions that result when each group's contextual distinctive context is applied to reality.

Example: Group A believes that goats can only have brown hair, and white haired 'goats' are sheep.
Group B believes that goats can only have white hair, and that brown haired 'goats' are sheep.

The contradiction comes into play if group A and B meet each other. They can either say the other's contexts are wrong, change their contexts to adapt to each other, or form an entirely new C context that they only use when talking between the groups, but reverting back to A or B when with 'their people'.

What you've missed is that we are the one's who determine was is essential and non-essential in the definitions that we create. So its not impossible to make a description. Its not impossible to create words that strip away other observations until there is a central core. We just have to agree what is essential and non-essential when establishing context and conversation.

The assumption that meaning, significance or what have you, is an essential quality of a thing is the single greatest mistake of modern thought.

The significance of a thing is the sum total of its relationships with everything else. Remove the relationships and you have nothing. — Treatid

The mistake is to think that one group's idea of what is the essential quality of a thing is that it is true. Ignoring the relationships between people, society, and history to create a context is wrong. But it is also wrong to think that we cannot apply such things logically after established. We may have a society that has established that houses made of paper are the strongest houses until another person introduces the concept and application of a brick house. Societal contexts can only reasonably hold if reality does not contradict them.

Remove the relationships, and what you've removed is societal context. But you have not removed yourself or the logic that any memory you apply has the plausibility of being contradicted by reality.

So, well said and stated! I agree with a lot of your initial premises, but I'm tweaking them within the bounds of the theory to demonstrate that we can come to different conclusion that still allow us logical arguments, and 'objective' measurements despite our relationships.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

First Order Logic is not the same thing as you are talking about. — Treatid

Your Princess Bride reference may be correct. My familiarity with first order logic is limited. However, I'm not seeing any specification addressed to counter my point. To your point of Axiomatic mathematics, I've gone over the differences between complete, incomplete, and contradictory systems. Where am I wrong?

I've presented arguments relating specifically to the mathematical specification of Logic. Your counter has been to make statements regarding something that has nothing to do with First Order Logic. — Treatid

This is a fine general statement, but I'm not seeing specifically where my points have not addressed yours.

It isn't that what you are saying is necessarily wrong. It is that it doesn't apply to the specific mathematical artefact that is Formal Logic. — Treatid

You may very well be correct. It would be helpful if you could take a more specific example and really break it down. I get that your approach has been more of a general sense, but I'm not seeing the details specifics that back up your claims. Again, I may be wrong, I'm just not seeing it.

Hello Philosophim.

Can I please have any articles written by accredited scientists that state that death is final, there is nothing afterwards? — Andrew Tyson

I just happened to be reviewing old posts I had visited prior and came across this. Since you didn't reply to my posts specifically or tag me, I never got an alert! But I've seen it now, so I'll reply the best I can.

First, I never said a particular article was published that stated "There is nothing beyond death." I said, "Science has concluded this." Just piece it all together.

First, lets define brain death:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772257/
"Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain, including the brainstem. The three essential findings in brain death are coma, absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnoea. An evaluation for brain death should be considered in patients who have suffered a massive, irreversible brain injury of identifiable cause. A patient determined to be brain dead is legally and clinically dead."

So, we can determine that when the brain is dead, you are dead. So what does the brain do?

Here's a run down of neurochemistry and how thoughts work.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/

Basically we've known for years now that the brain is the origin of human thought. You can physically affect the brain to change a person's living experience.

A few examples: Depression medication, psychiatric medication. Diet and blood oxygenation for brain performance. Examples of traumatic brain injury like the story of Pheneus Gage https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114479/ Or people losing the ability to see color purely through brain damage with perfectly healthy eyes.

The evidence that we are our brain is conclusive. When our brain dies, we are dead. There is no form of logic with ensures that our dopamine, epinephrin, and neurochemical selves persist after we die. There is no evidence that we are anything more than our neurochemical selves. Therefore science has concluded that when we die, we are dead and there is nothing after.

The idea of life extending beyond death is the realm of philosophy, religion, and fantasy. Not science.

“In philosophy propositions never get firmed up into a proof. This is the case, not only because there are no top propositions from which others could be deduced, but because here what is "true" is not a "proposition" at all and also not simply that about which a proposition makes a statement.

Of course. This is the only efficient way to function. Assume I have a car. If I have a car I can drive to the store. Now have I proven how its a car? No, its assumed that its a car. Why? Because I don't need to prove its specifically car and not a truck without a bed before I drive to the store.

Currently the smallest know piece of matter is a quark. Does that mean it actually is? No. And it doesn't matter for the purposes of the rest of our logic.

Logics assumptions start at a point of mutual agreement to consider a specific segment of logic out of the potentially infinite logic behind that assumption. As long as that assumption is not invalidated, it serves as a base for the rest. This is the only way we can think and process the potential infinite.

So this got me thinking, and I could only conclude that what constitutes an 'object' is entirely a matter of language/convention. There's no physical basis for it. I can talk about the blue gutter and that, by convention, identifies an object distinct from the red gutter despite them both being parts of a greater (not separated) pipe. — noAxioms

The physical basis is in application to reality, and seeing whether there is a contradiction. If I call a ball an object, and all the points that define an object are confirmed without contradiction, then it is an object. Language and convention or hypotheses about reality. Application without contradiction is the affirmation of those hypotheses.

If you enjoy epistemology, you may enjoy my paper here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

There is a summary after my initial posts that does a great job if you wish to check that before reading it.

Glad I can finally get to replying to your post! First, there is a lot to cover, so I'll post a few answers at a time.

Sorites paradox: When does a heap become a heap?

What we have to understand here is that the word 'heap' is a purely cultural word. It was not invented with any particular amount of grains of sand in mind, only a 'feeling'. As long as two people share that feeling when looking at a pile of sand, they'll both agree its a 'heap'. If one person doesn't feel its a heap, there will be disagreement. The disagreement cannot be boiled down to explicit grains of sand however, but the personal applied feeling of the observed mass.

The problem here is attributing more to the identity than it ever had to begin with. So there is no paradox. Its just a word that is based on a cultural agreement of emotion. Not all distinctive knowledge is precise. We just can't expect precise application out of them.

Hume's problem

If you're referring to the problem of induction, the reasoning which leads to the inductive hierarchy takes care of that.

Karl Poppers Falsification This theory of knowledge is consistent with the idea of falsification. For something to be applied, there must be a scenario that we can imagine if it is misapplied.

Falsification is often misunderstood. It does not mean that, "X is false" or "Its possible that X is false." Its "There is a reasonable imagined possibility where X is false, and we can test it." Lets use an example of a unicorn that is falsifiable, vs one that is not falsifiable.

Non-falsifiable Unicorn - This unicorn has magical powers that hide itself from all detection. They will never let themselves be detected by humans, and will always use their magic to hide themselves from any detectable means.

As you can see, we cannot imagine a scenario to test in which this could be false. No matter our detection results, it will always be an affirmation of the unicorn's existence. There is no imagined scenario that we can test in which the unicorns' existence can be false. As I note in the paper, this would be an inapplicable plausibility, which is just one step above an irrational induction in the hierarchy.

Falsifiable Unicorn - This unicorn has magical powers that make it invisible. However, it cannot hide anything else. You can still hear it, it leaves footprints, etc.

As you can see, we can imagine a testable scenario in which this is false. Can we find horse-like footprints that lead to discovering an invisible creature? If we can't, then the claim is false. This is an applicable plausibility, which is essentially a testable hypothesis.

Thomas Kuhn's paradigms To easily sum his point: Science has a paradigm that remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon, and someone proposes a new theory.

This is completely consistent with the knowledge theory proposed here. As we create distinctive knowledge and applicably test it, we are constantly looking to see if the application is contradicted by reality. If it is not, then we assume it to be applicable knowledge, and we can build upon it. For example, lets say we applicably know that the Sun rotates around the Earth. After all, its obvious if we look up at the sky. We build a system of astronomy based on this.

One day, a person discovers that the Earth actually rotates around the Sun! This mind blowing discovery upends everything that was built upon the idea that the Sun rotated around the Earth. We have to go back to this new applicable base, and build from here. It doesn't mean that our previous applicable knowledge wasn't knowledge. For at the time, there was no other reasonable conclusion that could be made. But a reasonable conclusion of today may not be a reasonable conclusion of tomorrow. What we applicably know is a tool that could be invalidated with new information, but it does not invalidate the process of creating and applying distinctive knowledge applicably to reality.

Ship of Theseus Theseus buys a ship, and overtime replaces every piece of the ship due to repairs. At this point, is it still Theseus' ship? Ah, a great example! I have written about this before, it was just had to be cut out to make the original post more manageable.

This thought experiment is not so much one of application, but of how we define the ship. If we define his ship purely by its physical makeup, how detailed should that be? Is it based on the atomic makeup? Because that changes as soon as he buys the ship. So it can't be that detailed, even if we do base it purely on the physical makeup. Is it based on the replacement of one plank? Most would say no. So what is it based on?

Cultural ownership. We agree that there are certain identifiers that indicate ownership. Maybe there's a serial number. A great modern day analogy to this are software licenses. When you purchase software, you are copying from a base software implementation. But it doesn't have to remain a copy. As you save or make alterations to it, its still your program because you have a stable identifier, the license key.

The point though, is because it is cultural, there is no hard and fast rule. We can extend the initial Theseus ship example further. Over the years, Theseus replaces all of his parts, but keeps the old parts in a pile. Someone else comes along and uses all of his original parts to build the ship again. Is the ship of the old parts Theseus ship too? Again, this depends on the culture. Are abandoned old parts owned? Is ownership of something based on who builds it? It is how society that defines it that determines the answer.

Plato's allegory of the cave People in a cave look at the shadows on the wall based on a fire they behind them that they cannot see, and believe the shadows are reality. Looking behind reveals a different truth.

I believe this is covered by my remarks on Kuhn's paradigms. If you need me to go further into it, I will.

Brain in a vat Everything you experience seems real, but in reality its all in your head. The reality is you are a brain in a vat and no nothing of reality outside of your thoughts.

As you can start to glean by now, this is also answered by the theory. Applicable knowledge is what cannot be contradicted. The theory that we are brains in a vat is an inapplicable plausibility. It is impossible to apply, therefore an induction very low on the hierarchy. As such, while it is fun to think about, it is no better than an inapplicably plausible unicorn.

I'm not too familiar with the biblical reference, so I'll pass for now. I think we have enough for now to tackle your other points.

And you also seem to 'misunderstand' me to such a degree, that I wonder if you are able to see me as someone who actually does something very similar to you, in a very rigorous manner, but through a process I might call Indiscrete experience/Inferring. — Caerulea-Lawrence

We are two people with different outlooks in the world. Hopefully through discussion we'll reach a common understanding. Please don't take my disagreement or my viewpoint as looking down or disrespecting yours. You are obviously an intelligent person trying to communicate a world view you see very clearly. Most people think it is simple to convey this experience to others until you have to write it down in a cohesive way. Its much more difficult then we expect!

One interesting thing about Jesus and Platon's cave is 'why would they try to change people's minds?' However, when we look at the interactions, at least between Jesus and the Pharisees, it doesn't look like he understood that they didn't 'get it'. If one person went out of the cave, and had their life changed, why 'wouldn't' the second one do it once told about it? But it seems neither of them were aware of the Typical Mind Fallacy

To me, this is more of a question of inferring, than deduction or induction. It is of course possible to induct in these instances, but you need some kind of 'weighing' process. — Caerulea-Lawrence

This is a question that I have addressed in the past, but never tackled in depth because most people never had the understanding of the base discussion to get this far. This is more theory then, "I have the answer," as I believe we would need to test this to confirm it.

The human brain is amazing not just for its intelligence, but its efficiency. A computer can do more processing for example, but its energy cost shoots through the roof. The fact we can think at the level we do without overheating ourselves or using more energy than we do, cannot be beat. Its easy to forget, but we thinking things that had to evolve in a world where danger and scarcity once existed at much greater levels.

This means we are not innately beings who are situated to think deeply about new experiences, or reorganize thought patterns. Doing so is inefficient. Thinking heavily about something takes concentration, energy, and time. Reprocessing your entire structure of thinking is even more difficult. So when we think about human intelligence, we shouldn't that its a font of reason, but a font of efficient processing.

So then, what does an efficient thinker focus on? Getting a result with as little thought as possible. Too little thought, and you fail to understand the situation and make a potentially lethal or tragic mistake. Too much thought, and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on a situation and are isolated from social groups, starve, or miss the window to act.

As such, humans are not wired for excellence, or the ideal. We are wires for, "Just enough". As a quick aside, doing more than "Just enough" is an expression of status. To do more than "Just enough" you must have excessive resources, be remarkably more efficient than others, or in a place of immense privilege. To spend time on inefficient matters and demonstrate mastery over them is an expression of one's status in society.

So then back to your point. One person has a paradigm, or set of distinctive and applicable knowledge that works for their life. They come across another person or group of people that a set of distinctive and applicable knowledge that works for their context. Why should one bother with the other paradigm?

My hypothesis is its about cost vs benefit. Maybe paradigm A is more accurate, but less efficient. Despite being more accurate, it doesn't provide much more benefit than paradigm B which is much more efficient. So society uses paradigm A in special circumstances where more accuracy is needed for a substantial benefit, vs usually using paradigm B for most other cases.

Religion is a great example of this. An atheist might have proof that there is no God, and go to a religion to persuade them to abandon their faith. The atheist may have a more accurate and cohesive world view. But what does the religious group gain? As it is now, they have group cohesion, and a community that cares about one another. They have a higher purpose that motivates them to volunteer and try to make the world a better place. The simple view motivates them and helps them when they're sad and down.

If they decided to take the atheistic standpoint, sure, it might be more accurate. But at what cost? A loss of community and purpose? A loss of motivation to care about others? People do not fight for the truth. They fight for the good that a certain viewpoint provides for their lives. If reality lets them have this viewpoint and benefits with few contradictions, why change?

Perhaps this is part of the 'intuition' you speak about. It is a mistake to think that our thought processes are for logic and truth. They are for efficient benefits to ourselves and society. And sometimes we can't voice that, but its there, under the surface.

I'll let this rest for now. What do you think about the topics? is starting to touch the surface of what you're thinking about, or is there another direction we need to go? I appreciate your thoughts.

I see your arguments and they seem well formed given your assumptions. We have enough commonality that we are clearly drawing from similar enough experiences to communicate. — Treatid

Thank you! Yes, I agree that we're both observing and thinking along the same lines, but with different viewpoints.

I can see how it would be annoying if you felt I was derailing your thread with my pet theory. Tell me to bugger off if you feel like it. — Treatid

No, your contribution is more than fine. We are here to explore the topic, and your polite and passionate viewpoint are valuable.

I have some sense of what you are trying to do in presenting a framework of thought and communication. I think others have made similar efforts before and met with lacklustre success because you are (mistakenly) assuming a fundamentally objective universe. — Treatid

Let me clarify. You'll notice in the paper I do not use the words "objectivity" or "subjectivity". We did have another conversation going in another thread, and that might have been crossed here (no worry). Let me see if I can summarize the points again.

--Summary begin
The point is to create a foundation of knowledge. Not a foundation of truth. If you recall I never claim "This is true." Knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Truth is what is. Knowledge is a logical attempt at trying to ascertain that truth, but cannot prove that it does indeed hold the truth. What is more important than subjectivity or objectivity are deduction and induction.

The initial build up is demonstrating that an individual can deduce they discretely experience. What you discretely experience, is what you experience. See a pink elephant in the room? That is what you see. It is not an attempt to claim, "Everybody else see that too." or "It is true that there is an actual pink elephant dancing in my room and causing a mess".

Combined with the ability to discretely experience, we have memory, and the ability to recall that experience, and subdivide discrete experience. So I see an elephant as a whole, but also that its pink as a subdivision. This experience and memory is distinctive knowledge.

But individuals go one step further. We try to apply that memory to a future discrete experience and claim that our memory matches what the new discrete experience is. This is applying our memories and identities. And this application has a chance of being wrong. Recall or reread the goat and sheep example I gave. An attempt to claim that one's distinctive knowledge applies to the new discrete experience is a belief. Distinctive knowledge which can be applied without contradiction is applied knowledge. That which is contradicted is an incorrect belief. That which cannot be quite ascertained, but can be induced based on previous knowledge is an induction, and can be placed in a hierarchy to measure cogency of that induction.
--Summary end

As you see, I don't assume an objective universe. I don't assume that knowledge represents the truth. I note that its a tool, and the most reasonable tool we have to understand the universe. It could very well be that the universe is not objective. There's no reason that the rules of physics need to stay the same tomorrow. But this theory of knowledge does not care. It can adapt to that.

As such, I suggest steering the discussion towards the question of whether it is, in principle, possible for two Cooperative participants to arrive at a definite solution. — Treatid

As long as you understand the former, we can build upon that to discover the later. And your criticism here is on point: I did not address knowledge between more than one person, only knowledge of the self in the original paper due to not wanting to overburden the reader.

My apologies if this will be a little long to get to your point, but its important to understand the whole theory. The identity we'll be using when two people interact with each other is context. You can have distinctive context, and applicable context.

Distinctive context is what each person's distinctive knowledge entails. A botanist and a generalist are walking along in the woods and spy a tree-like plant. The botanist has two competing definitions "treeicus shorticus" and "bushimus maximus". The generalist has the definition of "tree" and "bush". The botanist has very particular essential attributes while the generalist has "trees are tall, bushes are short".

Before any applicable beliefs are made, we can see that their definitions are different. If they do not communicate and agree upon these definitions, they will come to very different applicable conclusions. Both would applicably know the treelike plant as different things, and would be correct within their own distinctive contexts. To agree on application, they both must come to an agreement on distinctive contexts first.

So they hash it out, like we are on the definition of what a discrete experience is. It could be that the botanist and generalist cannot agree. The generalist finds the nitpicky distinction useless to their own life, so just keeps calling it a bush. Perhaps the botanist will relent and note, "Since we're not in a lab, it doesn't matter. Call it a bush if you want. But if you're ever in a botanist convention, remember that its actually "treeicus shorticus" so you don't embarrass yourself. Or maybe the generalist is curious, finds the nitpickiness fascinating, and desires to add the botanists context to their applicable reference material.

It is always a choice. That choice may be based on several things. Time and effort needed to confirm and use the terminology based on the perceived benefit is a high priority for most people. Risk of loss if one uses a poor term is another. But in many cases, terms are going to be very middle ground for most people, and they'll find the most efficient term that works in most general cases.

So then, back to your points.

My disagreement is with your fundamental perception of discreteness.

In the above quote you state that "this" and "that" are requirements for a connection to exist.

I disagree. I think that "this" and "that" are illusions created by the connection. — Treatid

What I am pointing out is primacy. A connection by definition is a relation between two things correct? So one cannot have a connection without the concept of two things. But to your point, can one have two things without the ability to relate? As I noted earlier, to have a discrete experience within existence, one must separate 'this' experience from 'that' sea of existence around us. So as a fundamental, we can say that for one thing to be discretely experienced, it must be in relation to what is not being discretely experienced. I don't know if I would call it a relationship, but I can see that fitting what you're going for.

As to the primacy of how a discrete experience is formed, its not that important to me for the following reason. The process of correct application is still the same. Back to the tree/bush example! No matter what the two agree on in the end, once they do agree on it, they can apply it. If they go with the botanist's definition, they pour over the plant for an hour and determine conclusively that it is in fact a "treeicus shorticus". If they use the generalists' term, they determine conclusively in five seconds that its a bush.

So to with our discussion of detailing discrete experience. If you discretely experience something and feel that every part of that discrete experience is a relationship with another experience, that's fine. That's your definition. Now the question is a matter of application. Can you consistently apply that definition repeatedly as you got about your day with minimal induction? How much time does it take you to applicably know it? How useful is it to you in relation to viewing something as an object? Is your definition more useful than others, and are others willing to enter into your distinctive context?

Its a tool, not an expression of truth. Tools are judged on their simplicity, usefulness, consistency, and ease of use. My point will be that your use of relationships comes in handy in particular contexts where the identifies essential properties are the relationships. We may have a general wrench, but maybe we need a slightly altered wrench for a different job.

It is the relationships between 'Left' and 'Right' that define each of them. Similarly with 'Hot' and 'Cold', 'Tall' and 'Short', .... — Treatid

In this instance, these discrete experiences cannot be divorced from relationships, as they are the discrete experiences of relationships themselves.

But if we think in terms of abstracts like "The number one" which is merely the abstract idea of what a discrete experience is, does bringing relationships into it help us with math? Not so much. So here it seems unimportant, and we don't bring that property in as it doesn't serve us in our applicable needs.

What I'm interested in is whether you can imagine a relationship centred reality as distinct from your current perception of an object centred reality? — Treatid

As you can see, yes. That is one of many contexts we can think in.

For my part, I can see your assumption of the primacy of objects over relationships. I'm not in doubt about what it is you believe. I disagree with it. — Treatid

Hopefully you'll see now my point was more that we need the fundamental ability to create a 'this' and a 'that'. We're nitpicking on whether this is a fundamental relationship, or a fundamental object that becomes a relationship, but we don't seem to be disagreeing on the fundamentality of discrete experience and its application. (Feel free to disagree :) )

We both agree that we directly experience Sensory Data. You perceive that Sensory Data as having been caused by objects (hence you have indirect perception of objects). I perceive Sensory Data and more Sensory Data. — Treatid

No, I actually don't claim that in the paper. You probably understand this now after reading the above.

What reason can you give me to believe your indirect perception of objects is an accurate representation of reality? — Treatid

Like any application of distinctive knowledge, I must demonstrate that its application is not contradicted by reality. So if I believe that eating fresh apples will not kill me, and I eat fresh apples without dying, then I applicably know eating fresh applies will not kill me. Feel free to create a set of definitions that do not require there to be objects. Nothing is stopping you distinctively. The question will be its applicability. Can you create a system that is easy to understand, apply, consistent, and helps people better understand and interact with the world then a system that relies more on objects? Is your system of relations always good, or is it only sometimes good based on context?

My point is that we can invent an infinite number of distinctive ways of viewing and analyzing the world. The proof comes in its application. I hope this lengthy reply answered your questions and added a little more clarity to my points. Let me know what you think!

When I talk about change in context, I dont mean going from ‘its raining’ to ‘its not raining’, I mean going from subject to predicate and back to subject again. in a logical
proposition. — Joshs

Again, there is nothing in logic that does not let you do this. Logic is a tool. You can be meticulous with it, or generic. Noting that people are not very meticulous in their logic does not mean the tool can't be meticulous. I understand your point, because many people do not use logic in such a way. But it doesn't mean it can't.

The problem with formal logic, or I should say its limitation, is that it ignores changes in contextual sense. — Joshs

No, that's just a poor use of logic. A good use of logic would be to include all the variables involved, and that includes the particular context. As a very basic example, we can say the context of whether its raining or not today. If its raining, C follows. If its not, D follows. Take that to any situation. If you introduce a new variable stating, "What about X context?" then you introduce that context as a particular variable within logical thought.

The more important limitation is that, while we build our computers to calculate by logical symbol manipulation, this doesn’t mean that this is the fundamental or most useful way that we think. — Joshs

Logic is a tool, and a usually inefficient one. Logic is a careful examination with a solid and certain process. Its usually very slow, requires sometimes intense thought, and therefore terrible for situations that need snap judgements. As such, we tend to generalize logic, like create principles that don't consider context. Very useful to do so, but takes short cuts for efficiency and loses accuracy in application when context changes.

Its only proven as long as "There are some lemons that are not yellow" is not introduced.
— Philosophim

What do you mean "introduced"?

Are you saying there is a second round of axiomatic systems where we introduce more axioms? — Treatid

In an axiomatic system, premises are generally introduced one at a time. So if in the system you had, "All lemons are yellow," there is no contradiction until you put in, "Some lemons aren't yellow." Think of the following.

1. All lemons are yellow.
2. All limes are green.
3. A blue lemon was found today.

At this point the Axiomatic system might have been complete yesterday, but is not incomplete today. If you want to call these two different systems, that's also fine. In either way we label it, a separate system, or a system in which a new property is introduced, the end system ends in a contradiction. This does not contradict the rules of Axiomatic systems, it just shows this particular system ended in a contradiction.

Since I've seen you understand and use effective arguments, this non-statement tells me that your prejudices have come up against a set of facts that don't fit. In a panic, you are re-iterating your prejudices rather than forming an argument which would require examining those prejudices against the new evidence; a process that you can already see will be deeply uncomfortable for your prejudices. — Treatid

Sure, that definitely happens over the internet. I can tell you that in this case its most likely a misunderstanding between us. I'm genuinely engaging you, and if I'm wrong, I don't mind saying so. Keep pointing out if you think I'm mislabeling, misusing, or misunderstanding the points. I can only ask at this point to give me the benefit of the doubt, and I will do the same to you.

Since Axiomatic Mathematics has been hoisted by its own petard in the form of The Principle of Explosion; — Treatid

I have still not seen you prove this point.

This story about mimicry has one particular feature I'd like to underline: Logic isn't necessary. — Treatid

No, its not necessary for survival. Several creatures have no system of logic. But, logic still applies in terms of survival. If a creature behaves illogically, or contrary to a logical outcome of reality, it many times may not survive. Logic is incredibly useful to assess a situation accurately as intelligent develops. Air conditioning was not built by mimicry or instinct. The internet we now use to communicate with each other was built on logic, not intuition.

Without logic, you have brute force evolution. Throw 1000 random creature behaviors at a situation, and what lives will continue to reproduce. Logic is a tool that increases the survival rate of whatever animal uses it. Logic is simply the understanding that step A necessarily leads to step B, and that two things cannot co-exist at once. Though it is simple, like the concept of the number 1, it can be built into something monumental.

If you've ever met an accountant, or worse, an economist you will know that they confidently perform the prescribed tasks with little comprehension of the tools and processes. — Treatid

Logic does not require a full understanding of the underlying process. Assume A. If A is true... is all you need. We're not asking where A came from. The structure of A, its history, etc. We're assuming A exists. In this instance, "A program called Excel exists with these functions. If I use function B, I get output C." While one could operate Excel at an extremely basic level by someone giving them formulas and telling them to just plug the same numbers in again and again, logically they know using a different formula will lead to an unknown result. Our use of logic does not need to build Mt Olympus, sometimes its used to build a card board box house.

Networks of relationships do not contradict each other simply through the nature of their shape. — Treatid

But they can.

A. All of my networked people are friends to me.
B. All friends are good people.
C. Today one of my networked people stole money from my bank account.

As you can see, like the lemon example I gave earlier, we run into a contradiction. Does that destroy the idea of a network as a system, or just destroy my past outlook of this current network? Again to my point that I'm not seeing Axiomatic Logic being invalidated at this time.

If you abstract away your existence there is nothing left. — Treatid

Of course there are things left. The world will go on. My friends and family will still be alive. The birds that chirp in the morning will still be. In fighting over politics will continue. Taxes will still be paid. :D

Among these relationships is the relationship between your existence and everything you do and experience.

If you try to sever this relationship, you cease to exist. — Treatid

Sure, no argument there. I'm just not seeing how relationships is an invalidation of proofs. It seems rather easy to prove the importance of relationships doesn't it? Its just not the foundation as I mentioned earlier. To even think of a relationship, you must think discretely as in "This" vs "That". I haven't seen you attempt to counter that at this point, and it may be because its unimportant to your point, I'm not sure. Let me know what you think.

I think thats merely redefining principle. If someone can steal and improve their already good life then to do so in a way that allows them to avoid punishment must be a good for them. — Ourora Aureis

Generally principles are thought of as guidelines that should be applied in different circumstances. "You should not murder" is a principle. Principles, if taken without exception, usually have difficulty with contexts where perhaps the principle may not apply.

Now we could go through all contexts and determine the best outcome, but that's not really a principle, but a measure of what to do in that particular situation.