:point: :point:
It’s within one standard deviation of the mean
— T Clark — NotAristotle

Keeping in mind this is a definition, not the definition.

that's natural. — Copernicus

It’s called a normal distribution.

Can you define normal? — Copernicus

Sure. It’s within one standard deviation of the mean.

They are the largest surplus resource we have. They are not special. — AmadeusD

I’m shocked to find we disagree on this.

Did you want to design bridges? — NotAristotle

No.

Yeah, it was Chatgpt, the machine that is built to say smart things, that's probably who messed up in this situation. — NotAristotle

There is no doubt in my mind that it’s not ChatGPT’s fault. I’m sure I set the problem up wrong. That’s why they wouldn’t let me design bridges.

I have to agree that he seems a bit pessimistic about the whole alien contact situation.↪ — NotAristotle

I don’t know what you’re complaining about, I was only off by six orders of magnitude. That being said, if there were 100 million star systems with intelligent life evenly distributed throughout the observable universe, the average distance between them would be roughly 125 million light-years.

Keeping in mind that that might be six orders of magnitude off also.

Wait, what happens after 1 million years? — NotAristotle

It’s just an assumption for the purposes of discussion. Strikes me as wildly optimistic. I doubt we’ll be around that long. Make it 10 million years and it doesn’t really change the situation much.

I had ChatGPT do the calculations for me. If one in 1 billion star systems has life and if one in 1 billion planets with life have intelligent life then there would be 40 civilizations in the observable universe. My intuition is that life is much more likely than that. As for the evolution of intelligent life, I have little to offer. Since it took 2 1/2 billion years for multicellular life to evolve from single cell organisms, it’s hard to know if my number is reasonable.

Assuming every intelligent civilization lasts for 1 million years, what is the likelihood that there would be any time overlap in the civilizations? Even if there were 40 civilizations all at the same time, with the distances between them, it seems unlikely there would be any possible contact.

It is possible for objectivity and subjectivity to be both complementary and mutually contradictory. — Pantagruel

If you mean it’s possible for me to experience something as true when it isn’t really, of course you’re right. It’s also possible for me to choose which point of view I take. But then again that choice is based on my subjective understanding.

Objectivity eliminates every contradiction as soon as it incorporates it inside the bigger frame of objectivity. When you say that there is no contradiction, to me it means that, to write that sentence, you have adopted the point of view of objectivity, — Angelo Cannata

As I noted in my previous post, I think it’s just the other way around. All my concepts, thoughts, feelings, understandings, perceptions, and all those other ways of addressing reality are subjective. It’s not wrong to say that so-called objective reality only exists because of those.

In the conflict between subjectivity and objectivity, the logical outcome for subjectivity is to succumb, because success itself, any kind of success, is by its very nature metaphysical, belonging to the realm of objectivity. — Angelo Cannata

I will grant the existence of an objective reality for the purposes of this discussion. The only way we can know that reality is through our own perceptual and mental processes, our subjectivity. What that means to me is that everything you said about objectivity is actually true about subjectivity. You have it exactly backwards.

Now, in reality, neither what you say nor what I say is right. Objectivity and subjectivity are complementary. Neither exists without the other. The world is half human. There is no contradiction.

I appreciate the offer, but I’m already pretty much a skeptic. That’s not exactly right, it’s more like I don’t see the use of modal logic. Which isn’t to say I don’t think it might not have value for others.

Thank you

Thanks

I’ve always had a hard time understanding the value of the possible worlds way of thinking about things. I read the first section of the SEP article and a little bit of the second section.

I am a self-avowed pragmatist. Can somebody explain how I might use model logic to solve problems or clarify concepts.

Why turning to base trolling and name calling I would expect on other forums? — unimportant

I don’t consider expressing my distaste for the OP as trolling and there was no name calling. I didn’t say anything about you, I only commented on the OP.

I am not saying the OP has the highest intellectual vigour and was rightly placed in The Lounge but there is no need for guttural replies as there it was an honest observation and don't see what is 'creepy' about it. — unimportant

I found it disgusting and I expressed that feeling. That seems reasonable to me.

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. — Outlander

It doesn’t surprise me that’s your opinion.

I have some of the same thoughts the OP has. But I don't think babies are all that special. — RogueAI

There is a difference between having thoughts and making them public. And babies are very special. The most special things.

This is the saddest, creepiest OP I’ve ever seen on the forum. It’s worse than even Hanover’s true stories.

I have an idea—why don’t we close out this thread for now. It’s getting sort of personal.

I have had different times when I broke off from the discussion for different reasons. I miss some of those who have wandered off. — Paine

Yes. I feel the same way.

Too bad. I kind of liked them, even though we did bark at each other once or twice.

OK, I will take your suggestion and go elsewhere.

No it was addressed towards everyone. I think it would be better, if one of you were to conclude that i'm beyond "getting it", to either leave or try explaining again rather than insulting me, don't you? — ProtagoranSocratist

What did I say to you that was insulting? I only said I thought what you wrote was wrong and then I explained my reasons. I don’t understand.

"When I think in language, there aren’t ‘meanings’ going through my mind in addition to the verbal expressions: the language is itself the vehicle of thought." — PI §329 — Hanover

This of course is the problem. Assuming all thought is verbal is clearly not right.

As I noted elsewhere, the answers to your questions are not philosophy, they’re science. I doubt anyone likely to participate in this discussion knows enough to have a credible opinion about this subject.

Nuff said.

Keep in mind you can leave the conversation anytime you want if i seem too obtuse or stupid, but i do think remembering a word does have to do with the specifications i've layed out here. — ProtagoranSocratist

I’m not sure, is this addressed to me? Are you saying if I don’t agree with something you write, I should go away?

because so far, nobody has been able to give a clear and distinct definition to the term: — ProtagoranSocratist

I don’t think this is true. I gave a clear and distinct definition that you and most others don’t like. The confusion can only be resolved by consensus, which is unlikely, as evidenced by this and past discussions here on the forum. There will be another one just like it within a month and the same arguments will be regurgitated over and over.

we could say that my innate ability to recognise space and time is a priori, where a priori is being used in a temporal sense.

However, as I understand it, this is not how Kant uses the term a priori. — RussellA

We have reached the end of what I’m willing to say about what Kant described. You certainly know more about that than I do. I haven’t read the Lorenz article in several years, so I think I’ll go back and reread it.

Hey Clarky — javi2541997

Thank you for looking out for my cultural education.

Reason must have content, As Kant said "thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind”. Reason must be about something. Pure — RussellA

I’m taking a shot at this, but as I noted, Kant's work is not something I have deep insight into.

I come to this question through the back door–through my interest in psychology and cognitive science. It is my understanding--and there is evidence to support it--that human nervous systems, sense organs, and minds are structured in such a way that we exhibit the mental processes we observe and experience. Example–studies by Karen Wynn show that children only a few months old exhibit behaviors that show a capacity for simple moral and mathematical thinking. Another example–Stephen Pinker and others have described innate language acquisition. It's not that they have innate knowledge, what you call content, it's that they have the capacity to gather and process that content–to think in structured and organized ways. To be fair, these claims are not without controversy.

The thing that jumped out to me when I read about the critique of pure reason was that Kant identified space and time as being known a priori. These strike me as exactly the kind of structured principles I described above. Time and space are not what you call "content," they are principles that allow us to organize and process content provided by our senses. Is this the same thing you meant when you wrote what I've quoted below? I don't know.

As I wrote before: “Kant did not propose that we have knowledge prior to our sensibilities, which we then apply to our sensibilities. Kant proposed in Transcendental Idealism that a priori knowledge is that knowledge derived from our sensibilities that is necessary to make sense of these very same sensibilities.” — RussellA

The question is, did Kant mean by “a priori” what today is meant by “a prioiri”? — RussellA

Well, Lorenz certainly thought so and he was a pretty smart guy. He was also much more familiar with Kant’s philosophy than I am. I suggest you read the article.

Although I am very far from a Kant scholar, I’ll go back and take a look and see if I can answer your question myself later today.

Do you have access to a clean copy of the article. From the Internet Archive, the “full text” comes out as: — RussellA

If you go to the linked page and scroll down, you’ll find options to provide the document in various formats. Push on PDF with text then download to your files. What you get is a fairly bad scan of the article, but it’s searchable and you can copy text out of it.

However, if we are talking about Kant, this is not what Kant meant by “a priori”. In this different context, the term “a priori” as used by Kant has a different meaning — RussellA

In case you’re interested, here’s a link to an article by Lorenz—“Kant's Doctrine Of The A Priori In The Light Of Contemporary Biology.”

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

From that if/then, follows necessarily that because noumena are not phenomena, noumena cannot be entities, insofar as phenomena are necessarily representational entities, within that metaphysics demanding that status of them. — Mww

Agreed.

But there isn’t talk of noumena other than the validity of it as a mere transcendental conception, having no prescriptive properties belonging to it. There is no possible talk whatsoever of any specific noumenal object, which relegates the general conception to representing a mere genus of those things the existence of which cannot be judged impossible but the appearance of which, to humans, is. — Mww

In the context of Taoism, I think of speaking the unspeakable as something of a joke, or at least a self-aware irony. Hey… What else are you gonna do?

As I wrote before: “Kant did not propose that we have knowledge prior to our sensibilities, which we then apply to our sensibilities. Kant proposed in Transcendental Idealism that a priori knowledge is that knowledge derived from our sensibilities that is necessary to make sense of these very same sensibilities.” — RussellA

Yes, this is the quote I responded to. Unless I’ve misunderstood you, this is not how I understand what Kant was saying.

As an analogy, suppose you fly over an island about which you have no previous knowledge. You observe stones on the beach in the form of the letters SOS. You may have the thought that these stones rolled into that position accidentally through the forces of nature, whether the wind or waves, but find such a thought almost impossible to believe. The only sensible explanation for your observation would be the existence of a human agency, even if you have no direct knowledge of such human agency. — RussellA

Again, this is not my understanding of what a priori means. As I wrote previously, I see it as knowledge we have as part of our human nature. It’s built into us.

I don't buy this mystical woo woo interpretation of most ancient philosophers. It amounts to cognitive & spiritual nihilism if taken seriously. — Sirius

Then we probably don’t have much to talk about.

Noumena is in the plural. If it's just that which is unknown or beyond naming, then why does it have a singular & plural form which Kant uses (knowingly) throughout his book ? — Sirius

As I mentioned in that post, the Taoist idea of the Tao is similar to Kant’s noumena, but there are differences. At the same time, I think they’re talking about the same unnameable… The Tao is not spoken of in the singular and plural. There is only the One.

I see this common misinterpretation of Kant a result of Schopenhauer's conscious reinterpretation of Kant gaining currency in the public imagination. Unfortunately, even this involves misunderstandings since Schopenhauer has no room for "thing in itself" in his philosophy — Sirius

The idea that reality is an unnamable One is not limited to Kant or Lao Tzu. It is common in many philosophies. There comes a point when you can’t count on what other people say and you have to just look for yourself.

It is obviously, clearly, not unintelligible to posit unintelligible objects. Its just pointless. It would be unintelligible (and its obviously, because this isn't possible - which is essentially what the term claims) to posit a specific unintelligible object. That is not what's being done in those sorts of theories. — AmadeusD

This is something I’ve struggled with, but I will say it is not obvious and clear.

Kant did not propose that we have knowledge prior to our sensibilities, which we then apply to our sensibilities. Kant proposed in Transcendental Idealism that a priori knowledge is that knowledge derived from our sensibilities that is necessary to make sense of these very same sensibilities. — RussellA

I am certainly not a Kant scholar, but it’s my understanding that he did see a priori knowledge as coming before any sensory input. It’s part of our human nature. Konrad Lorenz claims that that knowledge results from biological and neurological Darwinian evolution. That makes a lot of sense to me.