I see, the detail I was missing was not thinking in terms of days later. It just takes glossing over one detail to throw you off. I can see that working for two. If you looked around and saw only one, and they didn't leave, then yes, that would mean one other person had to have blue eyes, and logically that would be you.

Alright, let me tackle 3 now as I think I see what you're getting at. From my perspective, I would see 2 blue eyed people. I don't know if I have blue or green eyes. But if I had green eyes, I would see one more blue-eyed person than someone with blue eyes. So after the second day, if no one left, from the blue eyes perspective people, they would know that the other two blue eyes see one more blue eyed person. So by day 3, all blue eyed people will leave.

I'm assuming this pattern continues up to day 100. The reason why blue can do this is because green eyed people will be doing the same calculus, but one day behind blue. Ok, that's pretty cool!

Sure I'm game. I'm not seeing how either could know.

There are 100 blue eyed, 100 brown eyed, 1 green eyed. That's not a "rule", that's just the scenario. — flannel jesus

This is a logic puzzle, every detail is an important rule. If you misunderstand or don't think critically about everything, you're going to miss out. Thank you, I'll think about your scenario again. I find it odd that you mention the day they would leave.

so you're inventing nonsense to be confused about, and now you're inventing stuff to be angry at.

Try to use logic and think about it. — flannel jesus

No, I'm done if you won't confirm that I had the rules right at this point. I just feel like you're trolling. If you want me to keep playing, please confirm my understanding that there are at the time the elder is speaking, 100 blue eyes, 100 brown eyes, and 1 green eyed elder.

2 blue eyed people, 198 brown eyes. Guru says "I see someone with blue eyes". What do you think happens then? — flannel jesus

If this answer is something like, "Everyone will turn and stare at the two blue eyed people, I'm going to be angry. That's not a logic puzzle, that's a riddle. Logically it is not definite that people will turn around and all stare at the blue-eyed people at the same time, as the blue eyed people would need to be looking at both blue eyed and green eyed people to see who's staring at who.

Logic puzzles leave no room for human error or uncertainty.

When you imagine a red apple, you experience the color red in your mind’s eye, but there is no actual red in the brain. — RogueAI

No, because the red that the brain sees is not emitted light. Its physical light that is interpreted into a subjective experience of those brain cells.

01100001 Do you see the letter A? Well if this is processed into a visual medium and displayed on a screen, you would see this binary code as A. But if I don't have a screen and am looking at the bits, I have no idea its A. But its still 'A' in the language and process of the machine.

The fact that a brain state accompanies a mental state doesn’t mean the two are the same. — RogueAI

Correct, if the mental state has some other measurable aspect. But it doesn't does it? Actual neuroscience has demonstrated that altering brain states alter the states of one's experience. Just because we don't have a physical screen to translate that physical experience into something we can see with light, doesn't mean there is some ephemeral non-physical existence. We need some type of evidence for that, and there doesn't seem to be any.

↪Philosophim I'm asking you to imagine something. That's it. Either you can, or you can't. If you cannot imagine any different scenario than the one presented, then you will be incapable of understanding the logic of the solution. — flannel jesus

Ok, so I'm going to assume that YES, its always 201 people, but that the eye color can vary at any one time. In that case, the solution is trivial. Obviously if the eye color can vary, then in the case where one person could see everyone else did not have blue eyes, they would know they have blue eyes. Flannel, your logic puzzle needs another pass on clarity. People not understanding the rules of your puzzle isn't a puzzle, that's just confusing.

↪Philosophim I don't even understand what you're asking. — flannel jesus

I said in my summary that there are at the time of the elder speaking, 100 blue eyed, 100 brown eyed, and 1 green eyed elder. You said that summary was correct. You are now presenting a scenario in which there could be a different balance of eye color. Are you saying that the balance of eye color could be any variety at the time the elder speaks?

↪Philosophim I'm asking you to imagine something. Can you do that? — flannel jesus

I'm asking you to clarify the rules. Imagining something that isn't in the rules is pointless if I'm unsure of the rules. Please clarify the rules as I noted, then I will gladly imagine it.

↪Philosophim I'll work my way up to the answer.

Imagine instead that of the 200 people the guru was speaking to, 199 of them had brown eyes and 1 had blue eyes. The guru says "I see someone with blue eyes". What happens next? Can anybody leave then? — flannel jesus

You agreed with me earlier here:

A. There are 100 blue eyes, 100 brown eyes, and one green eyed elder. — Philosophim

Are you now saying this was incorrect and that the number of people with different eye color could be different when the elder finally speaks?

"Mental actions are physical actions."
Does not follow at all. How do you get an identity statement out of the first two? Compare:

You cannot have a football game that exists apart from the players and the field.
It is a mistake of category to believe that "a football game" is divorced from the players and the field.
Therefore: A football game is the players and the field.

? - I don't think so. At best, you might conclude that the actions comprising a football game are made by players, on a field, but that's not nearly a good enough description. — J

Your therefore is wrong. You can only conclude a football game is comprised of players and field. If you have no players or field, you have no existent football game. A football game is a game that comprises players and a field. You cannot have a football game apart from these.

Now lets go back to physical reality which doesn't quite fit your analogy. 'Mental' actions are physical reality. If my brain connects in a certain way, that physical reality is that I feel X. "Mental" is a category of physical experience, but is still physical. There is no 'mental' reality that exists apart from the physical. I cannot grab something non-physical out of the air and say, "That's a mental reality." Mental actions are simply a category of physical actions, and it is a category mistake to think they can exist independently when no one has ever shown this to be the case.

↪Philosophim all 200 people. — flannel jesus

Thank you. Then logically taking only the information given, no one would be able to leave the island. All the elder has confirmed is that blue is a color of eye that at least someone has. Of course, everyone already knew that. It didn't need to be the elder that stated it, it could be anyone. "Someone" in the logical sense means "at least one".

At least, this is assuming there is no other outside information that is needed to know about eye color etc. Taking the problem verbatim with no outside knowledge needed, its impossible for anyone to determine the necessary logical conclusion about their own eye color. If you're concerned about posting the answer here, feel free to give me a direct message. I promise I won't reveal the answer.

Not a worry, that's just how I break down things to make sure I understand the situation correctly.

The elder saw all of them and was looking at everyone when she said it. Not any one person. — flannel jesus

And when you say, "All of them" do you mean the 100 blue eyes and 100 brown eyed individuals on the island? Or could this be a variable number like there only being 1 besides the elder at the point the elder speaks?

↪Philosophim it genuinely seems like you're trying to be confused — flannel jesus

Out of all the replies I didn't expect this one. Any good logic problem needs to be broken down and poked at carefully. If I appear confused while breaking down your logic problem, perhaps your logic problem isn't very straight forward and needs some refinement? Feel free to correct my points if I have misread anything.

What are your thoughts regarding Mental Actions as Causal Actions? — I like sushi

Mental actions are physical actions. You cannot have a mental action that exists apart from some physical reality like the brain. It is a mistake of category to believe that 'mental' is divorced from physical reality.

Any islanders who have figured out the color of their own eyes then leave the island, and the rest stay. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. — flannel jesus

Ok, so one person knows all the other people on the island, and knows their eye color. The only one they don't know is themselves.

On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). — flannel jesus

Ok. So I'm assuming that this is taking place when there is this number of people on the island. This is VERY important as if the elder can speak at any time and the number of people would be different, then this is a different story. In fact, if they can change from this number, this initial number never should be mentioned and this needs to be restated more carefully.

but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totals could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes. — flannel jesus

Ok, so no one knows what color eyes another has, and apparently we can make up colors of eyes that people don't have like purple. Are you sure this is just not limited to green, blue, or brown?

Standing before the islanders, she says the following:

"I can see someone who has blue eyes." — flannel jesus

What is "The islanders?" Because you mentioned earlier that there were 100 with blue eyes and 100 with green eyes. "Islanders" implies "All of them". Is this poorly worded? Is it "At least one islander?"

As the initial premise is written, this is the set up.

A. There are 100 blue eyes, 100 brown eyes, and one green eyed elder.
B. However, the islanders do not know that this is the limit of eye color, and their eye colors could be any color under the rainbow. They also don't know the actual number. So even if they see 100 blue eyed individuals, they're own eye color could be blue or anything else.
C. The elder is speaking to all 200 other people on the island, and we're assuming he sees all 200 people, and says, "I see someone with blue eyes".

The only uncertainty that isn't listed here is how many people the elder saw while speaking to everyone. If its more than one person, there is no one who could know their eye color, as they don't know the total of blue eyes on the island. Therefore the only logical conclusion I can think of if we know someone does figure out their eye color, is if the elder is speaking to everyone, but one person is the only one being seen, and understands they are the only one being seen. That person could figure it out then and leave that night.

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes, I did that in the link for a proposed objective morality. I have yet to have anybody rationally critique its first premise conclusions that the necessary base of any possible objective morality that is real, must note that existence is preferable to non-existence. From there I build a theory which is absolutely a work in progress, but I can't get anybody to go deeper than the initial premise because most just want to talk about human morality. My morality starts as 'existential morality' which eventually builds up to human morality.

The only thing that I ask from any "astute reader" is an agreement on the perception of the conditional truth that physical things (the things consisting of mass or energy) exist. All my understanding follows from this assumption. — Pieter R van Wyk

It is perfectly fine to insist on any starting conversation "We are going to assume X is true." If anyone says, "But I don't believe X is true" then you simply note that is not the scope of the conversation and that the discussion is IF X is true. Anyone who does not agree to this can be ignored in their responses.

If philosophy could not arrive at a better understanding of "human nature", an understanding that would render a better chance for solving humanity's problems, then it is high time that we consider a different understanding. — Pieter R van Wyk

Correct. Its why I entered into the field. Its what I've focused on for years. But most people in this field are not interested in it. They want to safely stay in the things they are familiar with as scholars. They want to play word games or tell you what THEY think instead of listening to and actually dissecting your ideas. Or worst of all, just troll your thread.

I am very interested in talking about things besides long dead philosophies of the past that truly have no further relevance or solutions. If you are interested in seeing my takes on the issues, feel free to read my posts and comment in them. If you have your own take and you want me to dissect it, feel free to post and I will do my best.

Oh, one more on the valid speculation of God. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

Pick something you believe doesn't exist. Why do you believe it doesn't exist? What is your criteria for deciding one way or the other? I ask because the criteria specified is most often based on observation, making it observer dependent. — noAxioms

Its irrelevant why I believe something does not exist. Its relevant if I know that something doesn't exist. Belief is a feeling. Knowledge is an objective determination.

There is often a confusion between "What we know" and "What is".
Almost everything is 'what we believe'. Much of what claim to be known is just beliefs. I'm fine with that. I'm not asking if we know reality is mind dependent. I'm seeing if the beliefs are really what they claim to be. — noAxioms

The only way to know if a belief is valid is if you have done the diligence to turn it into knowledge. There is a way to measure inductions by a hierarchy of types, but you need to know what knowledge is first.

That is a fantastic example of a belief. Plenty of self-consistent views deny this. I personally would say that a world external to myself is perceived. That much makes it relation with an observer. It does not imply that said world exists, unless 'exist' is defined as that relation (which is often how I use the word). — noAxioms

No, its basic knowledge. There was a time you did not exist, now you do. Do you think you spontaneously created and are the only person in existence? Why do you need to breathe? Go ahead, hold your breath for as long as you can. Don't eat for a month. Stop drinking water. Don't make the mistake of getting so caught up in word games that you ignore the basic reality that will kill you no matter how much you don't want it to.

And yes, you perceive the outside world. its 'outside'. How else are you supposed to experience it? Why does the fact that you perceive means it can't exist apart from yourself? You even know you can misperceive it. Try jumping 10 feet down and believe that you'll float. Doesn't work does it? The outside world will happily grab a two by four and smack you over the head again and again. Those who don't learn end up crippled or dead.

If you're interested in a knowledge theory that results in a hierarchy of induction (a rational way of managing beliefs), read my knowledge theory. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 There's a summary from the first poster if you want the cliff notes.

Welcome to the forum Pieter! You might look at the current world and think philosophy has done nothing to fix it, but the reality is the world of today is a far better place than it was even 300 years ago. The important part is to understand what philosophy actually is to understand its contributions.

I find it easiest to start with science. Science starts with a hypothesis, which is a set of known words, and posits a conclusion. We then test against those words and conclusions to see what outcome we get.

Philosophy is the creation of logical words that we can put together to test in science. "Gravity" at one time was not a word. "What if everything in the world is constantly pulling on everything else in the world?" That's a philosophy. You piece together a hypothesis. Then you test it.

Philosophy that is successful integrates into a culture and the sciences. The idea of a 'human right' was proposed as a philosophical concept and is agreed upon by many cultures as defacto. "Gender ideology" I would argue is still a philosophy, and a particularly bad one at that.

So why is philosophy seen as dead? Because it has generally been subsumed into other areas that have science and specialized learning behind them. Can you wax philosophically about the mind without keeping up with the current science of the human brain? Not effectively, no. Philosophy is ironically an independent field of study that eliminates itself over time as it succeeds. There really aren't many problems left that do not already have an associated field. I would argue that AI involves a massive amount of philosophy, but you also need to understand how it works to construct something that you can test.

I argue that there are only a few areas of pure philosophy that are still left.

God, knowledge, ethics, and art. Even then, there are specialty fields and discoveries that one must be aware of it adequately approach these. Its just that none of these areas of philosophy have become objective fields yet. The day that they do, they will no longer belong to 'philosophy' but become a science.

The fact that there's not much left shows how much philosophy has already accomplished. Unfortunately many people come into philosophy and try to make a career out of its failures. The preservation of old philosophy and its study is really just an academic pass time at best, and often times just a fun exercise in creativity and logic if one wants to tackle the subjects in seriousness. There are a few people who genuinely try to push the field forward, but its a hard road. I have two papers here that attempt to tackle knowledge and ethics from a unique venue, so if you're interested in exploring something that has not been ascertained by society as 'true or false', you might enjoy the read.

Knowledge as context
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context

A proposed start for an objective morality
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Maybe you'll enjoy them and find some value. :)

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner

I really like this post btw. I would like to propose an alternative. "Everything has subjective experience, but consciousness is one aspect of subjective experience."

In other words, I'm going to give you the idea that everything has subjective experience. We can't prove it one way or the other currently anyway, so why not? But is all subjective experience consciousness? I don't think so.

Consciousness is more like a meta subjective experience. It is the subjective experience about experiences. Let me see if I can explain. Right now you're looking at these words, but there's still light from outside of the screen coming into your eye. Your brain is processing that light, but you aren't 'conscious' of it. Consciousness is the attention to the multiple subjective experiences your brain has, in a way that can sort it all out and decide what to do about it.

So while a rock could indeed have the subjective experience of being the atoms, it doesn't mean that there is an awareness of 'subjectively experiencing'. When I'm conscious I am aware I turn my head. When I'm not conscious off it, I'm not aware that I've turned my head. Thus consciousness is a level and intensity of meta awareness. I'm not conscious off my intestines digesting food, that's handled on its own. But I am conscious of what I decide to pay attention to within my vicinity.

Is anyone willing to defend a mind-independent view? — noAxioms

Yes. How did you type your response and send it over the internet to me? Do you think there was a mind involved that created the electricity? Do you think that if your power was out, you could walk over to your computer, type a message, and it would appear on the internet? Reality constantly smacks us in the face with a two-by-four with contradictions daily to what our mind wants to believe is true.

There is often a confusion between "What we know" and "What is". What we know is what can be best reasoned with the limited information we have. But even that knowledge could be contradicted one day if we haven't yet encountered everything that involves the knowledge claims reasonableness.

What we know is clear: There is a world independent of our own minds. Does that mean we've grasped that world accurately? What does accurately mean? To create a concept of the world that when applied is good enough for most purposes. Gravity accelerates at 9.8 meters per second on Earth. For most calculations, this gets us the outcome we predict consistently. And in this regard we have what could be considered an accurate assessment of reality independent of a mind. We didn't set gravity to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second on Earth, we discovered it.

An interesting topic. I've found myself drawn away from these forums for just this reason. Creativity is rare and the proposal of it is rarely explored beyond basic thought. I've had a few truly wonderful discussions here with some members, but most people just aren't willing to engage at a curious level and really dig in.

Another thing to consider is that most truly intelligent people don't go into philosophy anymore. If you're brimming with intellect, creativity, wonder, and trying to solve problems, there are so many better ways to do so while also profiting more. Philosophy is mostly the realm of caretakers and hobbyists now. Not real thinkers or people looking for wonder. They have made their own mind up on their own outlook in life, and desire the comfort of knowing what they know and their ability to defend it.

This has a consequence of philosophical academia being ironically, a conservative ancient dinosaur. Creativity is stifled in place of simple takes wrapped in complex word play on well worn topics that you can complete quickly to keep publishing. I got my masters in it, and could barely stomach the fact that every professor seemed desperately trying to keep their job and were constantly telling everyone to hold back and focus on 'what was popular' at the time.

Finally, many people come into philosophy thinking it has a pedigree to it. Where real intellects lack, false intellects gather that pretend to be smart and prey on those coming in. Use of esoteric vocabulary and a focus on minutia and inconsequential points can make one appear smarter than they are, with words and concepts to retreat behind if one is found out. Its not exactly friendly to genuinely curious people who lack such an ego, and those are the people who are most likely to be creative and contribute to a field.

Finally, creative ideas are hard to communicate, read, and grasp. Search some of my work on knowledge and morality. I can safely say I'm actually a creative philosopher. Check it out and maybe you'll see why more like me aren't here.

All in all, philosophy is best pursued not as a focus, but alongside what people are working on in today's world. That's where I'm focusing now, and its definitely been far more satisfying and impactful then these boards of late.

↪Philosophim What do we need to measure? If we are empathetic, we know when someone is suffering. The idea of an objective morality is, as much as possible, to avoid causing others to suffer. It is not so much a matter of a moral system; it is more a matter of having a moral sense. — Janus

Look at it like this.

I have subjective empathy and that causes me to give a person 5$ who needs it. I don't have subjective empathy but I have objective knowledge that a person needs 5$ so I give it to them. The action of giving 5$ is correct because it actively helps them. Whether I feel it helps them or not is irrelevant. I do lots of things I deem good without any feelings behind them Janus. Sometimes I don't want to do them, but I do anyway because the situation calls for it. Morality is not a feeling. That's just someone being directed by their own emotions.

Whether someone fells empathy for others or not is an objective fact, just as whether or not someone suffers is an objective fact. — Janus

Right, but a moral system needs an objective measuring system. All feelings are objectively felt by every being that has those feelings, but the feeling itself is a subjective experience that no one can measure. We can measure brain states or actions, but not the feeling of being that person itself.

Empathetic people know when others are suffering. Suffering is an objective fact; if someone suffers they suffer regardless of whether anyone knows about it. — Janus

I wish that were true. What you're describing is human empathy which is a subjective experience. We're talking about an objective morality which literally has zero feelings behind it. An objective morality should be measurable like a liter of cola. It is not a measure how how much someone personally likes or dislikes cola.

1. What do you mean here by "morality"? — 180 Proof

A system that evaluates the consequences of a decision holistically and not merely to a narrow goal as to the best action in a particular circumstance.

2. In what way does suffering-focused ethics fail to be "objective" (even though, like the fact Earth is round, there is (still) not universal consensus)? — 180 Proof

Because it doesn't hold up if we treat it as an objective principal. Suffering is a subjective principal in many cases. Take two people who are working at a job and look at them from the outside. How do we know how much suffering each has? What if one person expresses how much pain they're in, but the first person is lying and the second person is not?

And this is only in regards to a specific suffering, pain. How do we compare and contrast the pain of losing money to taxes vs the ease of suffering from someone who doesn't pay taxes? Is inequality of outcomes suffering? Should we all win the at games and eliminate competition? Is exercise or dietary discipline suffering for a healthy weight suffering?

Finally because suffering is subjective, it relies on the human emotion of sympathy, something an AI does not have. It needs something objective. Measurable. Ironically, a measurable morality may be beyond the complexity of human kind and only a computer will have the ability to process everything needed.

3. Why assume that "AI" (i.e. AGI) has to "reference" our morality anyway and not instead develop its own (that might or might not be human-compatible)? — 180 Proof

What you're saying is that morality is purely subjective. And if it is, there are a whole host of problems that subjective morality brings. "Might makes right" and "It boils down to there being no morality" being a few.

Every time we advance technology that replaces tons of jobs we come up with new things we didn't think of before that requires humans. We'll still need oversight on AI, manual labor, and who knows what else.

What we probably aren't prepared for is AI without morality. We have no objective morality that AI can reference, therefore it may usher in one of the deepest immoral eras of human history.

↪Philosophim because talking with you is relatively pointless. — DifferentiatingEgg

Whereas talking with you in this post is objectively pointless. Have a good day and bring a better attitude next time.

Except that's what you were arguing for so, no, no I was not confused about anything. — DifferentiatingEgg

Clearly you are as I just told you it was not. You seem to have also lost your ability to continue to read past one sentence and address the full point I gave you. This does not make you look intelligent, but someone with a chip on their shoulder. Be better than that as I know you have the capability to.

No, in fact you're one of the people who tried using this bogus appeal towards me in your stupid is-ought fallacy post. "Good is" thus "Good ought to be." Tautology and Is-Ought at that... that you forgot and said I made it up... well, just goes to show how piss poor your memory is. — DifferentiatingEgg

You confuse the question "So if I desire to murder a child is that good?" as proof of an objective morality. It is not, nor is it ever claimed as proof. Its a question designed to make you look at your own stance on subjective morality. Often times subjective moralists like to criticize objective morality and simply assume subjective morality is the default. What they forget is that exact same criticism comes back their way.

The reason you get angry with it is because its effective. It forces you to defend subjective morality with more than 'people can do what they want and its fine'. Often times the desire to hold onto subjective morality isn't for a rational well thought out reason, but a selfish and lazy one. Thinking about morality is hard. Thinking that maybe there are some things you should do and not do that you don't personally want to is annoying. Its essentially one of the first questions to test if you've given the notion of subjective morality serious thought, or if its just because you like what it lets you do personally.

Any person who's seriously thought about subjective morality and its larger consequences will have a good answer to that question when it pops up. Have you really thought about the consequences beyond your own personal desires as to what that would entail if morality truly was subjective?

The argument is a cheap rhetorical tactic, relying on multiple logical fallacies, including: Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Popularity, Begging the Question. — DifferentiatingEgg

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question?

I'll start with the unimaginative low-hanging straw these moralists love to grasp for when making the foundation of their argument—the claim that "killing babies is objectively evil." — DifferentiatingEgg

Is that really what objective moralists claim? Are there no objective moralists who support abortion? Are objective moralists really so simple as to have a 5 word argument without any justification, clarification, or objective evidence? This seems to be an unimaginative low-hanging straw you're grasping here to make the foundation of your argument.

Eitherway their rigid morality collapses in on itself as a house made of straw. — DifferentiatingEgg

No, a five word sentence you invented for some imaginary objective moralist, which has no evidence for being objective, is collapsing because you designed it to. A straw man.

I sense you got into a conversation with someone recently and became frustrated. So you came here to vent and invent a scenario that you could win and express your belief in your self-perceived superiority to them without them actually being here to shut down your personal delusion. Color me shocked that a subjective moralist is a lazy thinker who creates poor arguments to look down on other people, and likely holds onto the 'philosophy' to justify their own less than stellar behavior towards others.

I've read about half in seriousness and about half skimming because of time this morning. What I can say so far: Well done. This is a serious paper that a LOT of work went into and there's no way I could answer such a piece without really looking into it in depth. I'll comment more later.

I see you made an extensive argument against God, — Gnomon

Then you have not read or did not understand the post. God if one of infinite possibilities and my argument makes God plausible.

If you can prove that the universe is self existent, then there will be no need for a transcendent Creator. :smile: — Gnomon

I did, and you're correct. But it doesn't eliminate its plausibility of being. Feel free to go over and try poking holes in it, I've been looking forward to someone doing so. Otherwise what else can I conclude except that its right?

This, I think, is close to Chakravartty's sense. He specifies "minimal constraints of internal consistency and coherence” -- so, broadly speaking, logical. In that sense, then, you're saying that such a stance is not voluntary or optional; we should choose it. — J

You should choose the most rational stance in X context if you are in X context. If you don't, then don't. Just clarifying there is nothing innate forcing anyone to choose anything.

This voluntarist position has to answer the objection made most recently by Christopher Pincock here (and in other places by other philosophers, of course). It is, in brief, that an epistemic stance that can, for instance, endorse scientific realism is made obligatory by a certain understanding of rationality. And this understanding (which, its proponents have to claim, is the only legitimate or defensible version) can be shown to rule out other epistemic stances as irrational. — J

Again, its contextually dependent. Its irrational to be rational if you want a conclusion that is not rational. If you want a conclusion to be rational, then it is rational to be rational. And what is rational is based on the context of the knowledge and tools you have available to you at the time.

How would you argue for that? Or do you think Pincock's position basically sets out that argument? — J

I think I have set it out straight clear and I really have no interest in what Pincock thinks. Comparing and contrasting two philosophers is way below my interest at this point. I care about arguments, not about what people might think or how they would defend something. If you think I'm in line with Pincock or against Pincock, great either way. Does the argument and point work? That's all that matters to me.

OK. And would you say that's a voluntary epistemic stance, in Chakravartty's sense? — J

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you're trying to achieve the most logical outcome, then you should. If your goal is to justify something you want and you don't care about it, then no. For example, lets say I want to believe in God. Being truly rational may not allow me to justify that belief. So instead of choosing the most rational outlook, I choose something more subjective and emotional.

Can I voluntarily decide to be rational vs less rational? Of course. There is nothing holding a person down requiring them to be rational. Lots of people hate it. They want what they want and they'll use any tactic to get it. There are of course consequences for being less rational in life, and a person has to decide if paying those consequences for being less rational is worth the outcome they want.

Or perhaps I should ask, do you think there's a single version of what is rational -- and hence what should inform our epistemic stance -- when doing science? — J

Yes. I note it in the paper I linked. First, use deductive knowledge based off of context, resources, and time. Where there are limitations, use inductions based off of hierarchy of induction. So in order of cogency, probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational.

From such evidence, he concluded that some kind of rational intelligence must be "behind" it. — Gnomon

Well I logically prove that wrong in the linked post. Feel free to point out if its wrong and if Whitehead would be able to counter it.

Its a good stab, but 'stances' can be greatly simplified to 'contexts'. The idea that there is one 'this is rational' context misses the point of language and identity. What is rational in one context may not be rational in another context. Prior to the discovery of oxygen, phlogiston theory was a rationally considered theory. With today's knowledge it will be absurd, and 200 years from now oxygen theory might seem laughable as it is replaced with a better one.

If you want to know about knowledge within contexts, read here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 We create our own contexts and knowledge is essentially deduction within that context. With that we can rationally also figure out induction. I think this explains what you're asking far better than this theory here.

But, why do we need a God-concept anyway? Typically it's supposed to provide a basis for Morality, explain the Existence of the universe, and ground the search for Meaning and Purpose in human life. — Gnomon

Here I've conclusively proven the only thing we can conclude about the existence of the universe. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1 Anything could have happened, and there is no innate meaning or morality behind it.

If you want to consider an objective morality, go here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 I conclude that all of existence essentially must be good in any objective morality, then build it up to evaluation existences and determine which ones are better than others.

Its much better to do philosophy then do philosophy about process.

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

No. If its a true universal moral system, it will be objective. Not saying it can't be improved upon or more discovered, but it would be a solid science at that point.

What is the point in laying out moral edicts that are so abstract and impractical when the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, "common sense"? — Dorrian

1. AI. We are rapidly creating intelligence without morality. This is incredibly dangerous.

2. "Common sense" is not so common and really just a comfortable cultural subjectivity based on context. So for the common everyday, sure. But I also don't need a ruler to see if one person is taller than another. Its pretty useful when I have to use specifics, height matters, etc. Moral precepts would be for the higher levels situations. If they're generally accurate we would think they wouldn't contradict the base moral too much. Essentially an objective morality should measure how 'tall' something is, not declare that the taller individual is somehow shorter.

If you're serious about it and not just lamenting, I've done a serious attempt at an objective morality here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 Its a several part series, so ask for clarification on the first part but then go onto the second part linked at the bottom of the OP when you're ready.