Deviating from the OP, I was wondering how does one arrive at knowledge or certainty given known knowns, known unknowns, and the seemingly metaphysical unknown unknowns?

Any ideas or thoughts on the matter?

That may be true during the nomination phase; but, when the cards are down most Republicans will fall in line with whoever is the candidate, either a democrat or republican with the obvious choice being a Republican for Republicans.

I'd say that Hillary was just an awful candidate and have to agree with the fact that the nomination was stolen from Sanders. If my memory serves correctly, I think Sanders had a lead over Trump in most polls I saw. Even if Sanders is a social democrat, although he emphasizes the socialist part, was the President, he would have been certainly a more rational and cool headed one.

I thought believing in small government was a sine qua non nowadays to being a Republican.

The same neoliberal policies have been pushed for a while already, with negative effects on the middle class and poor, much to the benefit of the rich.

It's a matter of ignorance and also willful ignorance to think that more of the same would work; but, hey, here we are still trying to get trickle down to work.

Trump has only been in office 8 months; give him time. With any luck, he'll take the Republicans down with him. — Bitter Crank

You can't do anything about a fanatic base who view the government as an evil entity that needs to be drained.

I was hoping the political pendulum would swing pretty hard to the left after Trump, but his base cannot be persuaded that big government isn't always a bad thing.

Just repeat to yourself, 'It is what it is' and your current life with gain meaning.

In terms of efficiency, it would be fascism. Not joking.

Wigga. But, seriously, what a man-child.

The issue isn't Shkreli. The issue is that the same shit he did goes on every day in the pharma world. He just got into the spotlight and seems to like being the villain.

Interesting read. It doesn't seem that Wittgenstein was ready to accept pragmatism on the whole of it and what I make out of the text. Do you know why? Might require some re-reading to jot the main reason as to why down.

Sounds like the story of the ubermensch, Zarathustra.

It is what it is.

I don't take it as a formula because 1 will always be limited by 2 and 3. Certainty then becomes a pipe dream and knowing that one knows, in reality, not that much or amounts to nothing much, well, then some form of certainty about not knowing certainty can be arrived at.

That isn't to say that degrees of knowledge can't be arrived at though. Otherwise, we'd have some version of Zeno's paradox at play here and no progress can be made. Rather, a perpetual sense of incompleteness at the very strongest point of knowledge.

So, to borrow one of my favorite sayings;

There are;
1) Known knowns
2) Known unknowns
and,
3) Unknown unknowns.

It is what it is applied to all three in stronger force by the next saying 1>2>3. Meaning, that for us to begin examining known unknowns and unknown unknowns, we first have to acknowledge 1 & 2, to get to 3. We can acknowledge 1 by asserting that 'It is what it is'. Then we can acknowledge 2 by saying 'It is what it is, or isn't.' And, finally proceeding to 3, based on our knowledge of 1 and 2 (It is what it is, and we know what it isn't), then we can start examining what it really is in reality or to put another way, the sum total of 1 and 2, creates the grounds for beginning to examine 3 by constantly referring back to 1 and 2, with the loop starting from 1 to 2 and repeating until certainty can be arrived at.

Yes, but in a dialectical search for meaning, the ontological preposition to your position has to be asserted first.

But, really I think the saying signifies that there's something deeper than what it is. By stating that it is what it is either affirms that there is certainty lacking in our propositional attitude towards the issue/subject/matter, or that we have encountered a known unknown.

It could also mean that there's an unknown unknown and that no matter of investigation on what it is will be achieved.

It is what it is.

You know as much as I hate bullfighting, there is at least a cultural element to it. This was just bull fighting. — Baden

Yeah, the bull does most of the fighting though, so gotta praise or commend the bull for being the real fighter.

I felt like McGregor was playing with Mayweather from round 1-5 until Mayweather just saw that it was a chance to end it after McGregor got tired after round 5.

Fact that McGregor lasted so long, didn't get KO'd and was tied on points for the majority of the fight shows that he's not all talk and show.

Edited: Mixed up something.

It was a real fight from McGregor, much more than from Mayweather, until round 6 when Mayweather took control of the match from McGregor, by just outlasting him and fighting smart. Most of the commentary, until round 6 was something of the sort: *Mayweather, is a shadow of himself or isn't fighting like he usually does*.

In reality, he just outlasted McGregor.

Stamina won the match for Mayweather.

But, McGregor won on points until the last two rounds.

K, this works pretty well.

http://www.vipbox.live/boxing/485533/8/money-belt-:-floyd-mayweather-vs-conor-mcgregor-12-rounds-super-welterweight-live-stream-online.html

I have some links; but, they're under heavy traffic and not working as well. Anyone have a good link to the fight?

I like to use Godel's incompleteness theorem to elucidate the matter. There are some propositions in any formal language that can be true; but, can't be proven to be true from with in the same formal language.

Well there is no reward for being wise and a good person. It's a rather selfless desire and pursuit. Not many people are motivated by selflessness but tend to go down into the history books for some reason. Rare people they are.

What happened to education = knowlegde/wisdom. — Gotterdammerung

Well, economically were not at a stage where we can sit back and relax. Compounded with the fact that human desire knows no bounds it'll stay that way until your wants and desires are all fulfilled. I'm a simple man and enjoy philosophical truths and Buddhist koan's. What your really asking here is whether the human condition can be shaped and formed like Playdough. I don't think that is something that can be imposed or forced onto people, only cultivated and nurtured. Then again if you are out to maximize pleasure, as many people seem like hedonists nowadays including the entire structure of our economy and even moreso is cultivated by the elites and mass media, then I don't expect a profound change in the human condition anytime soon until something disastrous and calamity happens, like war or rapid global warming.

I mean definitions are circular but do denote things, otherwise solipsism?

Yes, and if a lion could speak we would not understand it. This hinges on the notion that rationality is distinct and not continuous over other domains of life, which I disagree with. There is something 'holy' and unique about reason that surmounts these quasi differences in understanding language games and family resemblances as Wittgenstein talked about.

Most of the best engineers already have some technical expertise as in formal education in technical schools to then later develop more skills in the field. There's a misconception that your landlocked once after a technical school, which many employers will actually encourage further education in the field to make you an even more productive worker. This might be a particular instance for engineering and not something like of the liberal arts flavor.

What has been said cannot be unsaid. It is what it is. And where of one cannot speak then better leave unsaid.

Isn't 'It is what it is', put together the three laws of thought into one propositional attitude entity? It has all three properties of thought put into one proposition true for any modality and state of affairs that are observer dependent.

The law of identity, check. (It is what it is, ontology affirmed via self-identification)

The law of non-contradiction, check. (Either it is what it is or it isn't -> It is what it is -> thus affirming its own ontological status)

The law of excluded middle, check. (It is what it is, affirming its own state of affairs.)

What's not to like about something being what it is?

After all, it is what it is!

In any case, I contend that there's a very simple example of 'something that isn't physical' that is right before your metaphorical eyes at every moment - and that's numbers. — Wayfarer

Isn't this a case for scientific or even platonic realism and not for the mind body divide that you're trying to construe?

It seems to be different for each observer. So what is is? — Rich

It is what it is.

God that phrase is catchy, like a mantra that needs to be told and told again to a disordered mind.

The metaphysical issue is "what is it?". — Rich

It still is what it is.

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one ought to remain silent.

It is what it is. >:)

It is what it is.

So, as I understand it, you're basically saying that complex systems have emergent phenomena (epiphenomena) within them that could not have been apparent at the start of such a complex system? This could be called quantum randomness or 'the wave function' at play?

Sure, we also already have quantum computers working nowadays. They're not theoretically impossible to make last I heard.

Has your claimed counterfactual - AI is simulating the essence of mindful action - come into sight yet? — apokrisis

I have another way of answering that question, via the CTD-principle mentioned earlier in regards to @Wayfarer. If it can be proven either true or false, then we would have a definitive answer as to the true nature of the human mind, being discussed here.

As I see it the best or safest approach to what you propose would be to program a non-sentient AI to express human ideals, and to give it control over us, forcing us to live up to our own ideals. If it were sentient and too much like us it would be just as irrational as we are. — praxis

That is true to some extent. We just don't know how a human simulated mind in a computer will end up like. It might become depressed, schizophrenic, or other ailments of the mind that are known to us. I suppose we better prepare to encounter some problems of the human mind that might or will likely be mimicked inside silicon. I'm not even entirely sure if a computer mimicking the human mind would be able to accurately diagnose itself, which is dangerous and what people seem to be talking bout nowadays.