If it smells funny, check it out!

This doesn't resonate with me at all. I have never watched or played any sport. I dislike games and sport with something approaching a passion. — Tom Storm

Heh. I don't dislike them, but I'm no good at them, and never did any beyond Little League baseball and CYO basketball as a young teen. Enough was enough. My point was that sports have been extremely important to humanity forever. From the ancient Greeks putting a war on pause because it was time for their Olympics (I heard they did that. I don't know if it's fact, but have no trouble believing it.) to Aaron Judge getting paid $40,000,000 per year. People compete against each other. I doubt anything drives us harder than striving to win.

I do agree with the point that many men are aggressive creatures and as long as they are running around on the field like thugs chasing after a ball, they are not out on the streets rioting. That's a cartoon summary with perhaps some truth to it? — Tom Storm

Or getting in the ring/cage to fight each other, rather than beating each other up on the street and going to jail for it.

I think this is the impulse i lack. I have never had any desire to challenge myself or do any of the kinds of 'growth-based" righteous middle class rituals you read about in self-help. That doesn't mean I haven't had to face challenges and overcome obstacles, but this happens without planning. — Tom Storm

Yes, it does. But you can turn away from them. Is the reason you faced every challenge you faced, and overcome every obstacle you overcame, because you had no choice? It was absolute necessity, sometimes even life or death, that you do it each time you did? It was never because you saw a challenge, and just wanted it?

I agree. Thank you.

I agree. Thank you.

if you're referring to something extra-self, then show us something
(existentially mind-independent, objective, applicable to us all) — jorndoe

How can we know anything that is mind-independent? I am looking at the computer screen and I can only do this because my brain generates a model of reality. Our perceived reality could be real or simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. How can we know with 100% certainty which of the five options is the correct option?

if extra-self, then explain your interaction therewith
(that others may differentiate you and the claimed) — jorndoe

I don't understand what you mean by this. Please explain. Thank you.

Good idea!

... my brain generates a model of reality ... — Truth Seeker

Certainly this – what you describe here – is mind-independent, no?

I think that if we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

Maybe we already work it out in the best way possible, and today, I grumble about the seeming confusion in the world over the difference, tomorrow I might celebrate.

Since we have two conventional Signifiers, we have clearly evolved the mechanism to differentiate. It is how these Signifiers operate in minds and any given mind which raises your problem. But it is, I submit, a built-in/evolved process which always rests on what is the most functional/fitting outcome in a given situation; we cannot easily change universally but through a very slow historical transformation
1. In clear cases the difference is readily settled upon by most because it is blatantly functional. Think of obvious eg of opinions/facts. Vanilla is better than chocolate/red light means stop. Each of opinion/fact results in the fitting, why argue?
2. In middle cases the Dialectic and the settlement on either side is patent and gives the impression of choice, but, in the end what is functional "wins" projection into the world. If it is most fitting to agree that the evidence shows a thing is fact, it is fact, and vice versa. That's where you get the battle between "that's a difference of opinion" vs "no its not look it up".
3. I very controversial cases, where it is not obvious at all, the Dialectic and settlement on whether a thing is fact or fiction is not as conventionally determined but rather very locally determined by what is most fitting locally. E.g. to a Westerner or Israeli it might be a fact that the Oct 7 Hamas attack started the war. To a middle easterner it might be my opinion. I might even get back lash for this e.g., people saying that it is an obvious fact. But I submit, though sensitively, those protestations are not recognizing the functional turn necessary to settle at that conclusion. And ultimately only that renders the statement a fact for that locus. It doesn't matter the arguments. In another locus, it will always be viewed as opinion, because of the function of those words for that other locus. Not because of anything real

Are opinions not beliefs? — Relativist

I think that is a bit of an awkward question, so I will just say that opinion and belief refer to different things, hence the difference names. An opinion is simply "This massage feels good" or "This massage was expensive". A fact is "The bird flies in the sky" or "The bird has two wings". I guess anyone that utters any of those four sentences believes in its content.

, ah, but you won't find any purely deductive dis/proof of solipsism.
You might think that I'm just a figment of your mind — rude. :)

Seems you've moved on from that, as noted by...

Certainly this – what you describe here – is mind-independent, no? — 180 Proof

:up:

Anyway, differentiating fact and (false) opinion can sometimes take a bit of work.

How do we decide what is fact and what is opinion? There are more than 8.1 billion humans on Earth and our conflicting ideologies, religions, worldviews and values divide us. I worry that we will destroy ourselves and all the other species with our conflicts. I think thatif we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

You seem to be describing the role of Philosophy in a world of divided opinions. Modern Science has found that the job is easier if you focus only on the objective material world. Today, Science works on the "easy" problems ("what is?" ; "how does?" ; Quanta), and leaves the "hard" problems ( "why?" ; "whence?" ; Qualia) for Philosophy to contend with. Both approaches are supposed to "decide" on the basic of observation and reason, but measures of success are easier to quantify when we objectify. And resolution of opinion-based conflicts are easier to find when we agree in advance to accept ambiguity in our answers. :worry:

I only know about my brain through my sensory perceptions which are part of my mind. My brain, my body, the Earth, the Universe - they all could be real or simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.

I am ok with accepting ambiguity.

You and I and other minds could be plugged into an illusion of being in human bodies on Earth. Solipsism is not the only possibility.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

It depends on what your beliefs are. Reality doesn't have to make sense, we just want it to. For all we know, tomorrow logic could stop making sense, it's our subjective opinion that it won't. But the way I understand reality to be is that this world is real, it actually affects us. In other words, a person can believe just about anything, but the moment it starts hurting them to maintain those beliefs is when they will be motivated to change them, and when it hurts to an extreme degree, they will have no choice but to change them or die. For those that choose death, well, they stop causing the rest of us problems. But this is not myself saying that death is the answer, I am simply saying that those who are hyperfixated on being wrong in their beliefs will cause their own beliefs to destroy themselves because they're out of sync with reality, preventing them from "seeing" where the walls are in life. Bang your head on enough "walls" and you destroy yourself from stress or other things.

But for those who can still be reasoned with, you must understand your system of reasoning and their system of reasoning, and figure out where you both have common ground, then either realize the direction they went in after that was correct (because you're wrong) or realize that the direction that you went into is correct (because they were wrong), then you explain to them how you understand why they made the mistake of going into the direction that they did, and explain why your method is actually in sync with reality.

Reality is our common ground, but when you don't know what is reality and what isn't, it makes you prone to delusion. Say I said in a box there are 3 oranges because I could smell the scent of oranges from within the box, and estimated the weight to be 3 oranges, as well as estimated there to be 3 oranges because of how shaking the box would seem to cause the impact of 3 oranges, but in reality there were only 2 oranges. My estimated guess would be a delusion, because it was out of sync with the way reality actually is. It would be even more of a delusion if after the box was opened and revealed to be 2 oranges, if I still thought there were 3 oranges.

Edit:
A reason why we want reality to make sense is because it lets us think everything we've learned so far matters, that we've accomplished something, and that we can accomplish more. As for why those accomplishments matter to us is because we believe that suffering and enjoyment are real, so it allows us to have hope that we can enjoy life more through understanding.

I agree with you. Our suffering and enjoyment are certainly real. What I am not 100% certain about is the nature of reality. There are five possibilities: our perceived reality is real or simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. They are not all equally likely to be true. I am almost certain that our perceived reality is real. I think this because of how complex our perceived reality is. However, there is still a one-in-infinite chance that our perceived reality is simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.

No, there's still another possibility you haven't thought of yet, which is ???. In other words, a possibility we can't understand at all.

You are right.

Wow, it's actually rare that I find someone who agrees with me about anything.

I worry that we will destroy ourselves and all the other species with our conflicts. — Truth Seeker

As well you should.

Speculation about nuclear war suggests that not being able to determine the facts (is that a missile, a bird, a plane, or superman...) might trigger a nuclear holocaust rather than a difference of opinion about which nuclear power is a superior society. But delusions might also be the determinative factor.

We have come fairly close to launching nuclear weapons based on facts (that were not correct).

I think that if we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

Or maybe recognize that disagreement over fact and opinion just goes with the territory.

A fact or an opinion? It just doesn't matter that much what other people think.

Yay! Something to celebrate!

What do you think will ensure global cooperation instead of global annihilation?

What do you think will ensure global cooperation instead of global annihilation? — Truth Seeker

Short answer: I don't know. That said...

World-wide free trade was thought to be helpful for global peace. A global government (League of Nations first, United Nations second) has been tried. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has worked so far, but living on a knife edge is a losing gamble in the long run. Global unity has been brought about through universal global threats -- but only in science fiction novels. Now that we have a real global threat (severe climate change) we see new opportunities for instability and conflict.

Over population is thought to be a threat to world peace, or long term survival, but world population before WWI was about 1.8 billion. Before WWII it was about 2.3 billion. The world's two most destructive wars, then, were way before our present (too many) 8+ billion.

We are capable of cooperation, certainly. Humans have cooperated a lot over the last 12,000 years, since the beginning of more settled communities. But we have also fought a lot. A lot of ancient hunter-gatherers died from their brains being bashed in (so says archeological evidence).

We are an intelligent species. Unfortunately, our smart cerebral cortexes are balanced by volatile limbic systems which react with the fight or flight response to real or imagined threats. We are an imaginative species, so we can see threats where they may not actually exist, everything from ghosts, evil spirits, monsters under the bed, angry gods, and so forth to little dictators with nuclear arsenals (North Korea). Given a little encouragement with propaganda, we can see threats behind every tree. And beside all that, there are real, bona fide threats.

I do not think we can expect to have peace and cooperation over the long run. Our best bet is to downgrade our weapons so that we can survive and prosper after our inevitable wars.

Depressing opinion? Depressing fact? Yes.

What do you think will ensure global cooperation instead of global annihilation? — Truth Seeker

Mars Attacks! Maybe. The giant asteroid heading for Earth? Maybe. If climate change hasn't done it yet, I'm not counting on either of those.

We should be cooperating over climate change and to a limited degree we are. We need to do much more but our selfishness and short-termism are getting in our way.

Overpopulation is a myth. The Earth is not overpopulated with humans - only our cities are. What we need to do is redistribute people evenly. Please see https://www.pop.org/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth

I agree with the other things you have said. I really hope that we wise up.

When Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb (1968) the world's population was about 3.7 billion. Today world population is a little over 8 billion. True enough, we are not running out of space, and mass starvation has not ensued. 'Population' per se isn't the problem. The issue is sustainability in a rapidly warming planet. If world population were 3 billion today, and everyone was consuming goods, energy, food, transportation, and so on the way the the G7 countries are, the sustainability problem would still exist.

In 1968 global warming was not an issue, outside of a small circle of friends in climate science.

Sustainability is an emerging problem. Warming is disrupting climate, ecology, agriculture, oceans, mammal, bird, and insect populations, fresh water supplies, and on and on. Despite the pledges in numerous climate conferences, heat-trapping gases continue to rise, and warming continues, pretty much unabated.

It isn't a question of too many people. It's a question of how many people will have a chance at a decent life, and how many will suffer from intolerable heat, drought, flooding, new diseases, economic decline, crop failure, fishery collapse, etc.

Malthus didn't know about the Haber–Bosch process (around 1900), which produces nitrogen fertilizer from the air, or Norman Borlaug's 1950s-60s Green Revolution research in plant genetics -- both of which greatly increased food production in the 20th century. "Past performance does not guarantee future results" as economists say.

True enough, we are not running out of space, and mass starvation has not ensued. — BC

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10062021/agriculture-greenhouse-gas-emissions-food-production-climate-change-paris-agreement/

Emissions from food production, already considered one of the biggest contributors to climate change, have been underestimated for decades, potentially skewing the pledges that countries have made under the Paris climate agreement to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research.

In a study published this week in Environmental Research Letters, researchers found that the food system was responsible for as much as 40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

“When you count it all up, across the food system, it’s enormous,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So it offers countries really enormous opportunities.”

I agree. This is one of the reasons I want all humans to go vegan. Going vegan would reduce our ecological impact.