unreasonable effectiveness.

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to. — Corvus

You wanting to is determined. This ignores the objection.

I could have gone to bed instead of reading your post in English, but I decided to read it. — Corvus

No, you couldn't have. It was not open to you to decide anything but what the preceding history of hte Universe determined you to decide.

As I am also attempting to explain, it is the indirect realists who are facing a challenge in explaining how the inner mental states that we enjoy can have intentional (referential) relations to the objects that they purport to represent that are apt to specify the conditions for those experiences to be veridical. — Pierre-Normand

Are you sure? The IRist doesn't seem to be obligated to account for this at all. Merely take it that they are approximations. These can be as-good-as-veridical for practical purposes. The inner mental states (though, are you referring to 'an experience' or valences associated with experiences?) are causally linked to the objects, indirectly. This relationship holds even if there is no 1:1, truth-making correlation between the two.

Yeah, that was badly worded - i'm at work.

I mean to say that, Parfit and others claim that any plausible Moral theory, must have, contained in it, an aim toward the happiness of sentient beings. I think this begs the question. They assume morality relates to the increasing happiness (and then, weirdly, reject S-theory and Hedonism...)

I'm not sure which two you're referring to, or what disconnect is being pointed out.

For example, consider the bi-conditional proposition: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet." — AmadeusD

"The bi-conditional statement "if it is raining, then the ground is wet" is true because it goes both ways. — AmadeusD

Are about the same quote. In any case, I don't defend or criticise it.

I've adjusted my query, and had another version of it's defence, though:

"Yes, the statement "if it is raining, then the ground is wet" is a biconditional statement because it can be written as "it is raining if and only if the ground is wet." This means that if it is raining, then the ground must be wet and if the ground is wet, then it must be raining. Both conditions are necessary for the statement to be true."

Are you implying that certitude is never warranted? — creativesoul

For future events? Depends. In a practical sense, sure it's warranted in that not assuming (to the degree needed) would prevent action.
But I do not think it right that past events can warrant certainty about future events, in the strict sense. Constant conjunction and all..

I wouldn't know. I'm leaving formal logic for institutional learning rather than as a hobbyist. For thoroughness though, The full response was:

"The bi-conditional statement "if it is raining, then the ground is wet" is true because it goes both ways. If it is raining, then the ground will be wet. And if the ground is wet, it must have rained at some point. Therefore, the statement can be expressed as "it is raining if and only if the ground is wet," making it a bi-conditional statement."

This was the relevant AIs response.

the statement can be expressed as "it is raining if and only if the ground is wet," making it a bi-conditional statement.

One can be certain of what's going to happen. Those things can happen as expected. After they happen, one knows.

That doesn't seem right. — creativesoul

One can have certainty, as an attitude. I don't think it's right to say one can be certain, without a Crystal ball. I don't think it's right to say that the occurrence being in-line with the expectation amounts to knowledge. That couldn't be true for someone convinced they've got the Lottery numbers right, and wins. They didn't know. But they were certain, and right, in the event.

Capitalism is based on a 'free miracle' in reasoning, that profit is the (couched in their terms) objective goal of Business practices. From there, Capitalism is almost inarguably 'good'.

Similar for the inverse for Socialists etc... There's nothing that supports the idea that equal treatment is 'correct' or equal ownership or whatever. It's just the miracle they use to support the subsequent, hard-to-defeat arguments.

Morally, the premise that 'happiness' must be attained within a theory for it to be Plausible is a common refrain from moralists. It's one I find to be pretty question-begging.

Via three AI models:

"No, it is not logically sound to deny the antecedent in a bi-conditional proposition because it does not follow the rules of propositional logic. In a bi-conditional proposition, if both the antecedent and consequent are negated, the proposition as a whole is not necessarily true or false. It is important to consider both sides of the proposition in order to determine its truth value."
====
"No, denying the antecedent for a bi-conditional proposition is not a valid form of reasoning. In a bi-conditional proposition, if the antecedent is false, then the consequent must also be false. The only way to deny the bi-conditional proposition is to show that both the antecedent and the consequent are false."
=====
"Denying the antecedent of a bi-conditional proposition is logically unsound because it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the consequent is false. In a bi-conditional proposition, if-then both directions are linked together, meaning that if the antecedent is true, then the consequent must also be true, and vice versa.

For example, consider the bi-conditional proposition: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet." Denying the antecedent would result in saying "It is not raining, therefore the ground is not wet." However, the ground could still be wet for reasons other than rain, such as someone watering their lawn or a sprinkler system being turned on.

Therefore, denying the antecedent of a bi-conditional proposition does not provide valid grounds for concluding that the consequent is also false, making it logically unsound."


Creepily relevant.

I may know that my friend regularly arrives late to appointments, but I need not necessarily do anything with that knowledge.
— Janus
Interesting. A good reply. Could you be said to know this if no action at all followed from it - including saying "You are always late!"? I think one could. So know-that extends past know-how, if only marginally. — Banno

I think he claim only extends to instances in the past. Any application to future appointments would be speculation, and couldn't amount to knowledge, I don't think.
You can only know that your friend, has previously consistently arrived late to appointments. You may know that it is likely he/she will do so again.

Well, it implies belief in Bicycles and riding. — Banno

:ok: Agree. I think this is being ignored in many comments here. The belief is actually required for the 'know' part to exist, I think. It's implied, very strongly, that you must hold the belief to know.

This is because it would be perfectly possible that one needs to believe while learning, but once they are an adept practitioner that belief ceases. — Leontiskos

I don't think so. It just becomes a less conscious belief. I don't suddenly not believe the ILAC method of legal writing, simply because I now use it as a pre-recorded framework for writing certain types of advice. I still believe ILAC is credible, that I know how to use it, and that it will fulfill the instruction I've been given (if applicable). Trust might be a better word, as it's been relegated to thre pre-or-sub-conscious at that time (and similarly with the Bike examplar viz. you must still believe that the rotational pressure of your peddling will move the bike forward, to bother with the act).

So positing an "inversion" of color qualia may not actually establish a difference in phenomenal experience - it may just be describing a difference in linguistic labeling habits. In the end, it may not even make sense to talk about "experiencing the qualia of red" — Matripsa

I agree. But if receiving a certain exact wavelength (termed Red, rather than the valence of it's presentation to an S being termed Red) causes a different phenomenal experience in two individuals who do not differ in their hardware (colour-blindness) then I think the argument is still live.

As it seems Apustimelogist below (above - I was still typing when he commented) has noted, it's not as if this wouldn't, from their perspective, mean one is 'right' and in line with the experience of those others without a physical aberration, and one is 'wrong' in the same way. This would mean the language would respond to the scenario, rather htan the other way around, over time. I think this is true, and why we have a very specific idea of Red globally.

However, I think this speaks to a point that will get very quickly political:

There are objective facts about colour. They are constructed, linguistically, but that to which they refer is objectively xxxHz or some such designation which is independent of experience or observation (it is hte same observation, however it is noted by the S observing it - the langauge is not important to this element).

Do we rely on these objective 'core' facts of perceivable objects to denote when, and where someone has deviated from the 'norm'?
I think its the only sensible way to deal with data. Others don't, and it gets aggressive quick. Apparently, noting that someone failed in being on-time, chronologically, is bigoted.

IT applies to anyone who thinks they have Morality figured out. You cannot reason with someone who bases their position on a free miracle at the beginning of their reasoning. Almost any ideology includes this free miracle.

But how could anything (physical or mental) consist of one's readiness (a disposition) and expectation (an attitude)? This makes no sense. How could 'readiness' and 'expectation' instantiate as actual conditions of satisfaction that causally fixes the content and character of the perceptual experience? — jkop

Some thoughts: I take it that Direct Realists must, to a least a large degree, accept Physicalism. If that is so, these are brain states, not dispositions. They are emergent, in experience, as an attitude or disposition, but are in fact, specific physical states of hte brain in relation to whatever objects are in question. So, a DI could plausibly argue that those states are conditions necessary for whatever experience they are calling veridical. The state + the object = the experience. That seems direct enough.

I reject all of this, though.

I think, in line with Banno's comments(whether or not he would agree), its probably a good idea to not conflate 'conservative', 'right-wing' and 'evangelical' or something other politically-Christian label.

Correlations are the bane of good analysis.

If you are in the Nickelodeon Morality Crew TM then Mikie must be in the Nick Jr crew.

that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can. — boethius

Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic.
In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'? Too many ideas?

:ok: Thank you mate, appreciate that.

no concept of Time, just meaningless Change — Gnomon

I take Time to be nothing but the acknowledgement of before-after wrt states of affairs. Obviously, something insentient can't acknowledge this, but the changes still occur.
Is that you feel for an insentient being this is just not relevant, or that for them, metaphysically, time wouldn't pass?

I have made one.

But given I expect this to either be missed or ignored, lets just move on to agreeing IQ is a fairly robust psychological measure.

pre-determined — Hanover

I do not think this is hte right word. It is determined at the time, not previously, in any practical sense. Yes, your response is determined by the exact sequence of events that preceded it, but it is not already determined before you actually do the thing. That would be time-travel.

Why not Perspectivism? — Joshs

I take Emotivism to entail Perspectivism - but the latter is restricted to moral statements, where the latter can essentially relate to any valence one has.

If our emotions are expressions of individual development in terms of knowledge construction, and the latter is inextricably tied to reciprocal interaction within a larger social community, then there can be a kind of universal evolution of moral understanding. — Joshs

I see where you're going. I don't quite think this is the right analysis, But i do think I land at a similar place. But it's called Emotivism, morally, as best I can make out. Overall, I don't think we're far apart (in this post - No idea if this is your view or not).

Doubting that a method of simply gathering data is "discredited" is not what I would a call a "defence" of something. If anything, it is progressfocuses dot com that seems emotionally invested: — Lionino

An interesting little Zoom-in you've made there.

The meta-analysis says: — Lionino

These do not indicate what you've claimed. They bring to the fore the flaws in the study for ascertaining anything between Twins specifically.

That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention. — Joshs

As I understand it, it is only contentious with those who do not like the results in aggregate. It is one of the better-tested psychological parameters we know of.

IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they? — flannel jesus

The above from FJ makes it clear that IQ is not 'fraught' in any way that you can't ascribe to 'Why are we alive'. We are. It's not arguable. IQ's are consistent and heritable. Minimally mutable. But we don't know what it is. That's not a huge problem.

Well, whenever someone denigrates the forum, I am always skeptical of these claims of irrelevancy. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. You're here, I'm here, a bunch of other clever people are here, we can't know who's lurking in the shadows. — boethius

I'm not sure how this relates. My point is that this Forum is not a good indicator of the real world.

I suppose the next step is to write a book or something and try to make the knowledge more accessible. For now, the forum permits creating material for the project in a reasonable amount of time, due to the stewardship of the moderators. — boethius

More power to you. That's a good project!

So, the mere example of there being entirely opposed views "allowed to exist" here on the forum and the world doesn't end and actual debate between people who disagree can then take place, is as valuable a lesson as what approach to bad faith tactics are effective within the discursive battle field. — boethius

Im unsure why this is nested in the rest of hte comment. I agree, but didn't cover anything around this in my reply earlier.

What is it that you find unsatisfactory? — Banno

Without delving into the history of my Internet reading, from what you've posted her entire passage about Huck Finn is risible.

I remember when the song came out. I forgot about that particular shooting. — Tom Storm

Fair enough :)

but he was still very much a philosopher — Bob Ross

Vehemently disagree, but I also have no idea how I would enunciate why. I don't think he did philosophy. I do not take Shakespeare to be a philosopher, either.

I am inclined to agree that most people out-grow his view in a holistic sense; but so did everyone out-grow kantianism. There are still, in both views, some positions (that each took) that seem very true and accurate. — Bob Ross

I agree, but I don't see them as at all analogous. Nietzsche would be analogous to something more like Sunday school, in my eyes. Interesting ways to teach children fairly obviously co-operative strategies.

Likewise, I do think Nietzschien thought is found deeply rooted in post-modern thinking, and is the culprit for most of (what I would consider) radical political views. The core of his views have become the norm now, and it is disheartening. — Bob Ross

Very much agree, ignoring the above responses.

If that becomes Nietzsche’s fate, then it will also be the fate of Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others whose work is closely tied to Nietzsche — Joshs

One can only hope, Joshs ;) I do believe Foucault, at least, has gone beyond his 'mold' and will survive the jettison of PoMo thinking in general (if and when it occurs).

Twas a shitty joke (importantly linked within)

Do you not like Mondays?

Not at all.
Plenty of absolutely fantastic women in Philosophy. Manne just isn't one on my account :) poke poke ;)

oh, so this has been ongoing.

Okay. Less interesting.

Kate Manne? *sideeye*

Tsk tsk Banno.

That is novel kind of retreat. Interesting.

I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating. — Relativist

For the first part: I don't take your response as engaging with what I put forth, but it also doesn't matter. You've totally adequately answered me above.

Nice. Yes, I am in that boat too.

The world within Samuel Sagan's books is immensely satisfying to me. Extremely complex (to the point that a Film of most of his books would be impossible to make) and philosophically fulfilling, for a younger person.

Note: You have to get past his potentially delusional Cosmology and read these as pure fiction. As any reasonable person would.

You've explained how to answer it in your response.

(such as observations, measurements... — Relativist

Do you think there are observations, measurements etc.. That we cannot know? One such could be the observation that "Gene X, in concert with B, F and F^4, causes Life to arise out of sufficiently complex biological material". That is a fact which we, theoretically, could know. I am asking whether you accept, and are emotionally fine with, accepting that many of these we cannot actually know.

I think his chief contribution is his work on self-development and self-reliance. — Bob Ross

I think the chief result of this, though, is the bad side of what people call Peterson's followers. A commitment to words, only. Nietzsche didn't do academic philosophy, so spiritual by-passing, as it's terms, comes with his package basically. I don't knwo a single person who hasn't grown out of Nietzsche once they get a job. Literally none. Though, half of them decided Zizek was the next guy, so it's probably that I went to High School with idiots.

It really does now seem entirely unreasonable to support Israel's ongoing violence here.

I really tried to stay on the fence, given there are legit grievances for both. But I am not able to continue to be so stoic. Israel is the aggressor now. They must stop.

that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent. — ENOAH

This seems to contradict itself (not uncommon with Witt, and the main reason I think he's a load of bollocks). If we cannot speak on something, we need no imperative not too. We cannot.
And if we can, we must.

We're on similar "pages' here hahaha. Likely, for reasons we agree on Nietzsche too :P