All candidates worthy of subsequent time and consideration - whatever they may be - must be amenable to evolutionary terms
— creativesoul

Amazing intro. Thank you for such detailed highlighting. After such great reading I really hope that everyone will stop and reread my first post again. I already put seed there, in third principle to be precise. From my point of view, evolutionary first problem solving system was built around obviousness. Сonsciousness is a secondary thing and simplest problem solving process should work with minimal efforts... — Skeptic

A very kind review. Kinder than my own upon rereading. I should have further simplified/edited it. However, it seemed to at least skirt around what I wanted to emphasize, and it came off the top of my head after returning home from an emotionally intense trip abroad combined with a lack of both proper nutrition and sleep.

:wink:

I'm glad that we agree on the need for evolutionary amenability. It seems we also agree upon the apparent inadequacy regarding the shortcomings of current convention regarding that, in addition to the need for putting any of our notions/models to practical use. However, although I do not want to derail the thread by mentioning the crucial importance that truth plays in our accounting practices, it certainly deserves being kept in mind. Inaccurate and/or entirely false accounts of our minds(and thus problem solving) can be put to use no less than true and accurate ones. With that in mind, it seems that meeting the standard of evolutionary amenability ought perform double duty for us in that regard.

I find that talk of consciousness is riddled with problems. I agree with you that it comes later. There are problem solving skills put on display by creatures who are incapable of taking account of their own mental ongoings. Such creatures are more than capable of figuring out how to acquire resources(food for instance) using a multiple step method including tool manufacture and use, but have no ability to take account of themselves and/or what they are doing. So, I would also concur with the general sentiment regarding last statement in the quote above.

I would like to add the following consideration:Since it is the case that some problem solving does not require language use, language is not part of the foundation of all problem solving. Again, it seems that you agree. Below is an excerpt from the OP that seems to be commensurate with this crucial consideration on the one hand, but perhaps difficult to incorporate on the other...

Is that really so difficult to connect available knowledge to create something solid and meaningful and more importantly, useful?

For example, I would start with following three main principles for that:
principle of similarity - it's a starting point of the mind, we need to sort out somehow a chaos around us.
principle of regularity - we need to be able to see interconnections, sequences and patterns. Principle of similarity creates a static world model and principle of regularity gives us a set of constraints to create a dynamic one.
principle of obviousness - if our world model produces a stable result about some fact then it become obvious for us

All three principles are about fundamental unconscious processes. Principles are extremely simplified and it's only a part of them (unconscious part), but even such a model can already be very useful. For example:
the structure of our knowledge is directly related to our ability to solve problems. Knowledge itself isn't enough, it should be structured properly for the specific problem
our sense of obviousness is faulty but can be adjusted via structure of our knowledge — Skeptic

I'm quite hesitant to talk in terms of "principles" when it comes to the problem solving capabilities clearly demonstrated by language-less creatures, even if these principles are claimed to be about fundamental unconscious processes of those creatures. It would behoove us all to strive for more than just an account about the unconscious autonomous workings of the mind. We need to actually set those out in terms of their basic elemental constituency, and I do not find that similarity, regularity, and obviousness are basic enough. Although, they are most certainly helpful in sharpening the focus. The move us in the right direction, so to speak.

Do the three principles share a set of relevant common denominators(basic elemental constituents), such that that set is more foundational and/or basic than any and/or all of the principles themselves? It seems to me that they do.

Is this pursuit something worth continuing by your lights?

Some starting considerations, given where we are...

The foundation of problem solving is a name that - if adequate - will somehow pick out what all problem solving cases have in common, in terms of basic elemental constituency. The scope of the minimum criterion must be as broad as possible, ranging from the most simple, rudimentary, and/or basic examples of problem solving through and perhaps 'beyond' the most complex cases known.

We are actually problem solving here and now, in this very thread. We are looking to acquire knowledge of what all problem solving has in common, how it evolves and/or grows in it's complexity, etc. So, if there is a single foundation underlying all of the different complexity levels, then it must be amenable to each and every one. If what we propose as the foundation of problem solving cannot adequately account for all known cases, then it is not the foundation. To quite the contrary, it would be utterly inadequate; otherwise sorely lacking, in it's explanatory power. If there is a foundation for problem solving, then all examples thereof must somehow, and in some way or other, be commensurate with and/or otherwise amenable to their own foundation.

In light of these considerations, there needs to be yet another; a standard to bear. All candidates worthy of subsequent time and consideration - whatever they may be - must be amenable to evolutionary terms. This is already supported by and in large by the simple things we already know. All human knowledge is accrued. It begins simply and grows in it's complexity.

Any and all foundational accounts are and must be put in bare minimalist terms, for there is no other way to be able to 'connect' all the cases ranging from what you've called "unconscious" through extremely complex metacognitive endeavors, such as what we're actually doing here and now. In this thread, we are thinking about our own thought and belief, with a particular 'kind' of them in direct view.

A foundation is never equivalent to what's built upon it. Sometimes, the foundation consists of entirely different elemental constituents(think of a building). Other times, however, the foundation consists of the very same things albeit in much simpler 'form' as compared to the more complex things emerging and/or growing in complexity from that simple basic elementary 'form'.

The foundation of problem solving is one such thing.

Hammers and nails...

For fuck's sake. Someone against the paper:Make your case. Someone against analytic philosophy, go elsewhere or again:make your case.

I'll read the paper and decide what I want to do after . I've a bit of time on my hands, due to quarantine from travel... covid regs and all.

Greetings. Welcome.

:smile:

Very relevant topic. My favorite.

I think we should continue this conversation in private message. — JerseyFlight

I'd rather see it discussed openly.

OP???

Here's the irony...

You claimed both, that natural reason demands coherency, and that laypeople can indeed hold contradictory beliefs. So, either lay people do not use natural reason(which is contradictory to what you've already claimed) or natural reason does not demand coherency(which is also contradictory to what you've already claimed).

...you hold contradictory beliefs.

By personally acting to ensure that the player would be punished for exercising the right to peaceful demonstration, Trump most certainly did deny those aforementioned rights.

By not even listening to the grievance, Trump most certainly did not criticize the grievance being levied.

He attacked the player, the players' mothers, and marginalized and/or trivialized the black American citizens in the process. All the while acknowledging neither the right to protest nor the injury being protested against. To this day, he acknowledges neither. He is the president of the United states of America, and evidently neither he nor you know the difference between a critique and a personal attack.

All the while he defends someone who showed up with a loaded rifle to what was an otherwise peaceful demonstration. That person actually murdered people. Trump defended the murderer. They were young, white, and went looking for trouble... but, they were supporters of his.

He was ready and is ready to execute young black men for crimes that they were accused, but turned out to be completely innocent of. He took out front page ads in major news publications attempting to influence the outcome... attempting to garner support for the execution of those black young men, simply because they were accused of crimes against a white woman. Had he been judge, jury, and executioner those innocent young men would be dead, and he would not have an ounce of remorse.

He is a fucking racist.

Yes, it is good that the argument is rational... ...but that doesn't make the argument a good one... — Judaka

:brow:

Do you not see the self-contradiction/incoherency?

My basic point(the reason I first posted) was that natural reason does not demand coherency. If that were true, it would not be possible for a normal average everyday layperson to hold contradictory beliefs. But they do. — creativesoul

This is not true, as I explained. Contradictory beliefs can be held by a person... — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a bit of irony here...

What counts as necessary?

Rational arguments for treating blacks horribly would be good according to that...

That argument is rational, and it is good for something to be rational...

According to what you said...

...it is good if something is rational... — Judaka

Being rational requires only consistent meaningful language use and valid inference. Rational arguments can lead to things that are clearly not good.

What the heck is going on in the US? — jorndoe

The result of fifty years worth of bad government.

So, this boils down to what exactly counts as being necessary...

If A is existentially dependent upon B, then B is necessary for A.

There are far far too many A's that are existentially dependent upon clothing to deny the necessity of clothing.

There were a couple different points being made...

My basic point(the reason I first posted) was that natural reason does not demand coherency. If that were true, it would not be possible for a normal average everyday layperson to hold contradictory beliefs.

But they do.

The bit about Gettier was in agreement with your other point about someone being convinced that contradiction is acceptable. Except, with Gettier, that contradiction is not admitted...

Smith cannot believe both, that he will get the job, and that someone else will get the job.

para-consistent logic

Gettier...

Racism is in such short supply these days... — NOS4A2

Devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin is not in short supply.

Your head is currently up the ass of a bonafide racist.

Calling peaceful protestors "sons a bitches" for quietly kneeling during the national anthem, and then not ever considering the grievance, but rather insisting that that demonstration was somehow anti-American and disrespectful to American armed services, was a blatant act of denying black Americans the right to peaceful protest and the redress of grievances.

You appear to be saying that within an individual's own tendency to reason (and this is what I called natural reason), a person would allow the existence of contradiction. I disagree. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am saying that people hold contradictory beliefs.

The issue to address here is the question of why natural reason (meaning the innate ability of human beings to engage in reasoning) demands coherency. — Metaphysician Undercover

It does not.

All sorts of people engage in reasoning despite having self-contradictory(incoherent )beliefs. Some refuse to even consider the self-contradiction even when the incompatible beliefs are picked out and compared/analyzed side by side.

I would concur.

We cannot know the future... — Janus

We can correctly predict.

Biblical and biblically based prophecies and revelations...

I believe that there have been and continue to be far too many to even be able take each into deliberate consideration.

We can certainly know what they all have in common, nonetheless.

Fear drives them. Reality feeds the belief, regardless of whether or not the belief matches reality. I mean... regardless of whether or not the belief is true. Clearly they were not. Hence, we're here - in the here and now - talking about then. They believed the end was near. It was not. They were wrong. They formed and maintained strongly held belief; conviction; about much of what was happening around them at that time.

Those beliefs turned out to be false.

Belief in the end of times, that the end is near, etc., have lasted for two thousand years. It transcends generations. Throughout each generation there were widely shared, deep seated, common belief(s) - it was commonly believed - that what was happening at that time was proof that the return of God was near; or the end was near, or some such.

They've all been wrong enough for me to pay them no mind.



Prophetic speakers vary widely regarding how far into the future they care to venture a guess about what will happen. The amazing thing to me is that so many lose sight of those who got it right at the time.

To some...

Those numbers mean nothing to me.

:smirk:

Caring what others think about us is inevitable. Blindly following(agreeing with/to) the value system underwriting the judgment of others about us is not necessarily.

The lbgtq community is chock full of people who have cast that value system aside, for example.

The US is amidst a similar transformation between old white racist beliefs and new more inclusive, less fearful(xenophobic) ones...

:point:

Misplaced decimal point...

Good catch, I wasn't paying attention...

0.66

I do not think that that ratio is trustworthy reliable ground for any conclusion about the quality of the individual's contributions... at all.

In a time long ago, on an internet now far away, there was once a philosophy site that had a karma feature. Each participant/member had a karma score which was determined/established by how other members voted, and the ranking was visible to everyone at all times. I take it that that score was influenced by how the interlocutor voting felt after interacting with the member. An individual score could range from -10 through +10, if I remember correctly.

Assuming interpretation was accurate(which is a stretch around here sometimes), that may be a relatively good, or at least better, indication of at least one qualitative aspect of an individual poster. How they 'made' others feel with their own word use(I don't like that accounting practice). How others felt after... that's better.

Here, my mentions over comments score is 6.6. The karma score on the aforementioned site was 8 point something or other.

You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said beyond to attack me personally in some way. — Pro Hominem

Where have I attacked you personally? The reverse is easily shown, so...

Offer one criticism of white privilege that follows from what I've been setting out here. We can go from there. You'll have my undivided attention.

Got one?

You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said... — Pro Hominem

That's not true at all. What valid response and/or criticism have you levied that I've not given due attention to?

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.
— Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one.
— creativesoul

Because no one who doesn't agree with you can legitimately oppose racism? Because you have some special understanding of the issue that only you can possess due to the moral superiority of your particular experience? Because black people taught you about white privilege, therefore it must be real? — Pro Hominem

No. It is for none of those proposed reasons that I suspect you are aiming to muddy the waters and deliberately confuse the issues. Rather, it's because I've assumed that you are capable of understanding what's been written.

I could be wrong about that.

Still the root of the problem is the existence of the categories it seems. — ChatteringMonkey

Red kool-aid would still stain clothes even if we did not call it "red". The root of the problem is not language. That misgiving has been addressed more than enough in this thread.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is. — Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one.

The only thing that all chairs have in common is that we call them all "chairs".

That's nothing that raising the minimum wage won't fix... quit talking about race!

:roll:

This is sarcastic in tone... to be clear.

I'd be thrilled if anyone in this thread were prepared to dissolve statements, assertions, beliefs, propositions and truths into one colour... — bongo fury

Mental correlations drawn between different things. But that's another topic in it's entirety, and I'm unprepared to add anything more to this one. Seem there are enough knowledgable folk hereabouts already, and I'm not one of them to begin with.

:wink:

That which has an effect/affect.
— creativesoul

Seconded. — Mww

We seem to be in the minority.

:wink:

I'm having a bit of trouble here understanding what "the truth" and "the truth besides the truth" are doing here. They could be left out completely, or better summarized, and by doing so gain clarity. Particularly with regard to the perfume example.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An advertisement shows a pretty woman holding using a perfume, she smiles at you while offscreen a man with a deep, masculine voice describes the qualities of the perfume.

"The Truth" most would advocate should be sought is the actual quality of the perfume but the "truth besides the truth" is that the perfume will be sold by the image of the beautiful, possibly famous woman and the authoritative, dependable voice which explained how good it is.




What's lost aside from unnecessary complication/confusion if we change the above to something like what's below???

An advertisement shows a pretty woman holding using a perfume, she smiles at you while offscreen a man with a deep, masculine voice describes the qualities of the perfume.

What matters most is the actual quality of the perfume, but it will be sold by the image of the beautiful, possibly famous woman and the authoritative, dependable voice which explained how good it is.

It has become a waste of time to read anything that creativesoul writes because they are so inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

I've been accused of much, but that one does not happen very often at all. Perhaps after reading through page seven and eight to get a feel for what white privilege is, you could then go straight to the source by clicking on my avatar and perusing my comments.

Care to show these purported inconsistencies by quoting them and placing them beside one another?