Jokes aside, I'd say we reexamine the evidence carefully, thoroughly, and then ... — Agent Smith

Yeah I think it's prudent to keep an open mind and follow multiple lines of thinking to there end to see where that leads. Be thorough yet measured.
Almost all arguments in life have a counteragument which must be considered also - the sign of a good philosopher is to hold two contradictory statements at once without necessarily accepting either.

I think that is the process of branching out one's network of reasoning - like a tree, or a brain.

Finally, I would even be careful about using the term "evidence" too objectively. Are not historical propositions and philosophical arguments and beliefs not parts of the whole sum of "evidence" just as much as scientific discovers are?

That's good advice mon ami, but I've heard it being said before. It goes into me toolkit! Oh, it's already there - as new as the first time I put it there! Awesome!

The face of truth! A magnificent title as far as I'm concerned.

The face of truth! A magnificent title as far as I'm concerned. — Agent Smith

Why thank you. I like the title too. Haha. I see what you mean by learning something new that actually you knew all along and had just forgotten. Funny how that is. Like coming full circle. The start also the end. Questions also being answers

So you don't believe that everyone could at some point know everything about how reality works - have a unanimous reality together? — Benj96

Well, my point was that pondering whether or not that may occur is idle. But we're tiny little creatures on a tiny little planet in a tiny little solar system in a moderately sized galaxy that's one among billions of others. I think it's unlikely we'll ever know everything. That doesn't mean we can't make reasonable judgments and conclusions, though.

"If there are infinite ways to be ignorant -(to hold irrational beliefs, delusions etc about reality), then on the contrary pole should there not be only one way to be privy to the truth?" — Benj96

I don't see why that should be the case. Do you mean it would be nice if it was, or that would be only fair?

Do you mean it would be nice if it was, or that would be only fair? — Ciceronianus

Both. I think it would be nice if we all related to eachother and our external reality in a similar way. We likely wouldn't feel lonely or depressed or excluded in such a case as this "togetherness". I think it would be fair to expect such a case too. It sounds like a good thing to be a united community. To feel like "us" rather than "me" and "other".

Many of the world's problems now seem like great titans - poverty, wars, climate crisis etc. I can't reason of any other way to tackle them but than in united agreement. But as far as I see currently we have a conflict of interests as a species.

Sure, we can make stuff up.

But doing philosophy, being rational, involves sorting out the consequences of the things we make up.

Not just anything will do.

Now the consequences of the two contentions I selected from your comments are that we know everything, that there are proposals that are neither true nor false, that we didn't know yesterday that the OP is in English... I could go on.

I agree with you in rejecting scientism, but "spiritual intuition" mixed with "quantum" while leaving aside rational critique... well, let's just say the results are not worthy of due consideration.

But doing philosophy, being rational, involves sorting out the consequences of the things we make up. — Banno

Agree.

Not just anything will do. — Banno

Agree again.

Now the consequences of the two contentions I selected from your comments are that we know everything, that there are proposals that are neither true nor false, that we didn't know yesterday that the OP is in English... I could go on. — Banno

We know everything for me = we have an inbuilt capacity to pursue useful knowledge to it's ends. Good or bad Logic/reason (the act of judgement/decision).

In other words, that there is a state of pure ignorance and a state of pure truth - a spectrum that we transverse by accepting or rejecting statements (whether true of false), and the ones which are accepted (whichever case they may be) generating a new paradigm (logic/reason - for better or worse) from which to address further statements as either true or false. Consequently either elevating or diminishing our ability to discern what is delusion from what is true knowledge.

In essence we do know everything we need to know to pursue truth.

An individuals logic/reason is not "thee logic/logos" of actual reality but a collection of what we believe to be true that shapes what questions are available to us to ask and what we assume is absurdity. If we change our reasoning/personal logic (what we believe to be the case) then we change our assumptions and thus change the quality and quantity of questions we can posit. So yes we do have the potential to know everything because we can know nothing. "I know that I know nothing" gets its validity from this Idea.

As for proposals that are neither false nor true consider relativism and paradox. If time has an objective present, past and future then the grandfather paradox is true. If time is an illusion created by observers having memory and thus anticipation through reference; that there is no actual time other than the present moment then the grandfather paradox is false.

Thus times existence as a proposal can be false if believed to be a product of observers and true if believed to be a product of objective external reality. It is true and false.

Anything with a dual state, anything dualistic is both true and false depending on the observers decision. Wave-particle duality exists and is both true and false simultaneously until observed, until an observer determines a singular state.

well, let's just say the results are not worthy of due consideration. — Banno

Results are always worthy of due consideration. Even if hypothetical as they lead to stepwise consequences which offer insight. Denying consideration to the possible is merely making a decision to make such possibilities unavailable to you. It is the moment you give up and stop caring about discussion.

In other words, that there is a state of pure ignorance and a state of pure truth — Benj96

This very wording sets my teeth on edge. Pure cream, fine. Pure truth, bullshit.

So yes we do have the potential to know everything because we can know nothing. — Benj96

Utter cobbler's awls.

Thus times existence as a proposal can be false — Benj96

Fucksake.

Seems you are beyond redemption. The only hope is that you don't infect others. Were I a mod I would ban you for the good of humanity.

Seems you are beyond redemption. The only hope is that you don't infect others. Were I a mod I would ban you for the good of humanity. — Banno

Seems a rather personal attack based on mere discourse. I wasn't informed freedom of speech was not tolerated. I also don't believe anyone is beyond redemption. As that would be uncompassionate and unethical. It leaves no room for hope.

If one is beyond redemption then they are unable to change and if they are unable to change their views they have no free will. A slave to how others define them. Not really a moral paradigm to hold. Are you sure you are just in attacking me for what I believe to be true. I am not attacking you. Nor would I ever want to. For me you are free to believe what you want

Are you sure you are just in attacking me for what I believe to be true. — Benj96

No, I'm attacking what you say for its incoherence.

If you don't understand what I say you can choose to ignore it in which case our chat stops here, or continue our discussion. What would you like to ask me to elaborate on so I may make it a bit more clear for you?

What you don't have the authority to do is believe you are so outright absolutely and definitively correct that it would be prudent to ban me so I don't infect others for the sake of humanity. I mean sorry but I fail to see how that is constructive and how you are some god that I'm forbidden to contest. As your comment below would suggest

Seems you are beyond redemption. The only hope is that you don't infect others. Were I a mod I would ban you for the good of humanity. — Banno

Level/temper yourself please my friend.

If you don't understand what I say you can choose to ignore it — Benj96

I fear i do understand what there is to be understood of it; pop philosophy mixed with a bit of Eastern spirituality and Quantum. You have not shown yourself capable of replying to the criticism already levelled at your posts without wandering off on irrelevancies.

There's s saying, which my departed friend Gassendi attributed to Aristotle, that there is a point in attempts to engage in rational conversation at which the only reasonable thing to do is to laugh and walk away. Here we are.

irrelevancies — Banno

Irrelevancies according to you I guess. Does that mean they're universal Irrelevancies?

You have not shown yourself capable of replying to the critic — Banno

On the contrary all I have ever been doing is responding with further elaboration to each of your reponses. If your responses were not to outline critiques/ queries you found against something I said then what were they? Does one argue with someone else if they are in agreement? I think not.
I'm quite capable of replying further to your critiques if you'd like.

Happy to entertain them.

there is a point in attempts to engage in rational conversation at which the only reasonable thing to do is to laugh and walk away. Here we are. — Banno

Again "rational" according to who? Are you speaking on behalf of just yourself or humanity here? I think I am rational. You do not. Fine. Let it be so. You are always free to walk away, hell even laugh if that's what would satisfy you. No harm no foul. It is only discourse. I'm sorry my views appear to be so offensive I did my best to explain them.

Welcome to the world according to Banno.

Both. I think it would be nice if we all related to eachother and our external reality in a similar way. We likely wouldn't feel lonely or depressed or excluded in such a case as this "togetherness". I think it would be fair to expect such a case too. It sounds like a good thing to be a united community. To feel like "us" rather than "me" and "other". — Benj96

"Nice" yes, but I'm not certain about "fair." But alas, the universe isn't beholden to us to us in any sense. We're merely a very small part of it. As some appellate court judge said of his court (I paraphrase): "The Court is not a performing bear, required to dance to every tune litigants play for it." Neither does the universe dance to our tune. We dance to the music it plays. We (some of us, in any case) barely have the wit to recognize that's the case.

I think you're too fond of absolutes. Dewey had a strange writing style, and his wording can be clumsy, but I think he was right when he wrote that "truth" carries too much baggage and is too prone to misuse, and prefer his "warranted assertibility" as a substitute. There can be nothing more to "truth" than being supported by the best available evidence.

But alas, the universe isn't beholden to us to us in any sense — Ciceronianus

I disagree, on the contrary the universe is beholden to us through every sense. We are not a closed system. Our borders with the environment are open ones. We are in constant transaction, constant exchange with the external world. Give and take, acknowledge and express, observe and project. If we don't accept that fact we simply live in our own internal mental world devoid of external narrative. We become this or that, victim or aggressor when it is a spectrum.

And as far as I see we are so far simultaneously the most capable and incapable species on that spectrum in the capacity to understand the logic/ irrationality of the universe. Other animals simply do what they need to. They live in a natural and balanced ecosystem. An equilibrium. While we are biased - argue and justify every reason for something before committing to it/rejecting it stifleing intuition/instinct in favour of exacting and precision rationale.

In a way that's a great advantage to exacting things like science but a great disadvantage to intuitive things like ethics/morality. We can pretend absolutes don't exist but of course they do. The spectrum has ends, polarity, opposites. If - 10 and + 10 are taken away as the absolute extremes of a set then are they not replaced by - 9 and + 9 (which are still the greatest extreme) available to the set.

Absolutes paint the whole picture but the middle is where one should view them from. It isn't good to "be extreme" but it is good to "acknowledge extremes" for what they are.

I would not dare to underestimate ourselves as part of the plotline in the beholding of the universe. I don't think it's egocentric or naive I simply believe that we are just as much the universe as a mountain is, as the moon is. Its the ego that convinces one that they are separate. That's why egotistical people are self indulging.. Because they only consider a singular object as part of themselves - their own body. Selfless people serve others because they really believe they are part of something bigger.

We are in constant transaction, constant exchange with the external world. Give and take, acknowledge and express, observe and project. If we don't accept that fact we simply live in our own internal mental world devoid of external narrative — Benj96

Interesting. We agree on this. But we disagree on whether we can know everything.

I think the problem with most of the traditional "problems" of philosophy is that they look on us as apart from the world (the universe), rather than a part of it. But, I think being a part of it doesn't mean that we know or can fully know all about the world. What we may know is limited by our abilities and the way in which we interact with the rest of the world. And those abilities and interactions, and the extent of the universe with which we interact, are limited.

But we disagree on whether we can know everything. — Ciceronianus

I think living/existing in a larger system has inherent uncertainty in it. That is in essence the experience of time isn't it? : it gives us the present moment which we know/can observe actively as it happens. It is known. And the past is progressively less known the further we investigate backwards due to increasing possibility for other variables to result in the same present moment. And likewise the future is also unknown but again can be predicted pretty well at a short range into the future: think of weather forecasts and climate change and current economic instability/stability etc.

Knowing everything and understanding everything are not the same thing. Knowing everything requires all of space-time and all information - all variables.
Understanding everything only requires the present moment. For example if I understand a formula - I can expect to know the result in the future when that future is "realised" - when that future becomes the present (reality).

In essence understanding something (its relationship and interactions with other things - a cause) has predictive value for knowing something (the effect).

If I understand a person behaves selfishly. And my friend wants to help them/offer resources to them, I can expect to know (predict) that my friend will get exploited at that future moment. That such a selfish person would parasatise them and take their help for granted.

Also if the observer is to analyse everything around them as an object they lose the information about others feelings and emotions etc - abstractions that they cannot physically see. That's why scientific method cannot be disconnected fully from ethical consideration. They are "entangled".

And if an observer is to be completely intuitive (only use belief) on the other hand and forego objective observations they again lose information - that offered by control and analysis and objective measure (scientific method).

The system must always have some factor unknown in order to know the other factors. Heisenbergs stated this.

So no its not possible to know everything that has and will ever occur, just as one cannot know everyone's name on the planet, but it is possible to understand of all of their relationships with one another and inherit good predictive ability. You can apply that ability (that formula) to whatever you want to. You can specialise in whatever you want to know.

It's not random or luck that certain people make discoveries or invent things and others do not. It's about building your own algorithms for reality. And testing them

So no its not possible to know everything that has and will ever occur, just as one cannot know everyone's name on the planet, but it is possible to understand of all of their relationships with one another and inherit good predictive ability. You can apply that ability (that formula) to whatever you want to. You can specialise in whatever you want to know. — Benj96

Well, we may differ on our definition of "understanding" and what it entails.

We're largely creatures of habit, and what we interact with is in most cases familiar and it requires little or no thought on our part to interact with the familiar satisfactorily. Perhaps we may be said to "understand" the familiar and our response to it, in that sense.

We only think when we encounter problems (Dewey again). When we encounter problems we're dissatisfied, and seek to resolve that dissatisfaction. We try to resolve the problems in various ways until resolution takes place. Thus do we learn and acquire knowledge.

Maybe that's what you mean. I'm not certain.

We're largely creatures of habit, and what we interact with is in most cases familiar and it requires little or no thought on our part to interact with the familiar satisfactorily. Perhaps we may be said to "understand" the familiar and our response to it, in that sense.

We only think when we encounter problems (Dewey again). When we encounter problems we're dissatisfied, and seek to resolve that dissatisfaction. We try to resolve the problems in various ways until resolution takes place. Thus do we learn and acquire knowledge.

Maybe that's what you mean. I'm not certain. — Ciceronianus

Yes that's what I'm saying. We learn through trial and error. Making assumptions, testing them and then getting an outcome. And if the outcome was not expected we then revise our assumptions or how to test them.

This is both applicable in science and in social interaction with one another. I hypothesise something, I make an experiment to test it, the experiment has good controls and is unbiased and the result is what I predicted therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that the hypothesis is correct.

Similarly I can make an assumption about someone based on what I observe - their behaviour or what they tell me about their beliefs. I test whether me assumption is correct by pointing it out to them/articulating it. If they agree then I was reasonable to assume such a thing, if they disagree they can offer their logic/reasoning as to why my assumption is incorrect. If their logic seems just I apologise for making the assumption and revise it/ accept their reason. If their logic doesn't seem just - for example because it causes harm to themselves or to others, then I can offer that as the reason why I still hold my assumption.