Even so the guy who solved Fermat’s theorem wasn’t exactly happy about solving it because it left him bereft of purpose. — I like sushi

I'm sure he's found something else to fill those lonely hours.

Kind of like saying, "my definition of 'dogma'" is correct.
— Pantagruel

Not really. I’m simply saying the other person is misusing the term to suit his purpose — I like sushi

Isn't that exactly the same thing as I said, disputing the definition.? Anyway, it's been pointed out so I won't harp on it if it doesn't resonate at all.

Nope. I never changed the use of the term or switched context. I did point out how the colloquial use can be used to present a mistaken use of the term.

You directed the post at me. I didn’t use ‘my’ definition, merely ‘the’ definition. I’m reasonably charitable with most words, but with some - in certain contexts - less so.

You didnt answer the question sir. What are some things that you have this kind of account for? — DingoJones

But I did answer. Those criterion are at work in my own philosophy which is based upon human thought and belief(mind).

3. If we want to know how the mind works, we have to make a mental image of the mind. But to make a mental image of the mind, we need a storage capacity that equals the mental image, and then some more storage capacity to manipulate the thoughts that explain the mind. Therefore to explain the mind, we need a larger, better, more intelligent thing than our mind. Which is not achievable because you can't have something bigger than itself. — god must be atheist

This seems fraught throughout. The universe is bigger than us with much greater storage capacity, yet we know to some extent how it works, so clearly the above is wrong somewhere along the line.

yet we know to some extent how it works — creativesoul

"To some extent" leaves a huge margin of error, or a small margin of error, or no margin of error, or an unknown margin of error.

When I said "to know our minds" I meant no margin of error. That's all. Because to some extent, we already know our minds.

But thanks for noticing my previous post, and paying due respect by acknowledging its presence. I am actually grateful to you for that. Because earlier I had thought it would go down in history as a never-noticed post.

So...your philosophy? Are you claiming to have achieved this standard with your own philosophy then?
Your philosophy is all this:

“One that is rendered in evolutionarily amenable terms. One built upon universal criterion. One built upon knowledge ofall thought and belief.

One without exception. One that is capable of taking account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our awareness. One that is capable of taking account of that which is prior to our language. One that is capable of setting out a coherent account of all thought and belief.”

Bolded a couple of important words that highlight the magnitude of your claim.
Is that right? Is that your claim? If not, then can you help me connect the above with your statements? (And if youre inclined, how the above is NOT the claim you are making about your own philosophy)

When I said "to know our minds" I meant no margin of error — god must be atheist

Well, that's demanding perfection and/or omniscience.

Are you claiming to have achieved this standard with your own philosophy then?

Your philosophy is all this:

“One that is rendered in evolutionarily amenable terms. One built upon universal criterion. One built upon knowledge of all thought and belief.

One without exception. One that is capable of taking account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our awareness. One that is capable of taking account of that which is prior to our language. One that is capable of setting out a coherent account of all thought and belief.” — DingoJones

Achieved?

:brow:

Those are criterion I use. A few here are redundant, but I was trying to emphasize the important bits of an acceptable theory of belief(mind).

Whats perplexing to me is terms like “acceptable”, which I take to mean nothing less will do, its your minimum standard and it doesnt even seem possible...but ok, I suppose I understand your criteria at least. Thanks.

Well, that's demanding perfection and/or omniscience. — creativesoul

Demanding knowledge.

Well if all you mean to say that all knowledge must be true... we are in complete agreement.

Well which bits do you find impossible?

Well if all you mean to say that all knowledge must be true... — creativesoul

Hehe... that was below the belt. But you're right.

“Universal criterion”, built upon “all thought and belief”, taking account of something in its entirety before being aware of it...pretty much that whole quote is full of lofty, impractical requirements for whats “proper”.
You are talking about infallible knowledge, and saying basically nothing less is acceptable.

Universally applicable is not equivalent to infallible.

With regard to an acceptable theory of human thought and belief, it must be able to take account of thought and belief that is prior to language, ad well as thought and belief that is informed by and/or mediated with language use. It must be able to bridge the divide between thought and belief that is existentially dependent upon language use, and that which is not.

Working from the premiss that at the moment of a capable creature's biological conception, there is no thought and belief, we arrive at the requirement to hold that thought and belief begin simply and grow in their complexity. Taking proper account of how that happens will be amenable to evolutionary progression.

Hence... the criterion put forth.

pretty much that whole quote is full of lofty, impractical requirements for whats “proper”. — DingoJones

We must be working from different ideas of what's impractical... I use them, and have been since I began serious interest in philosophy twenty or so years ago.

So you are claiming you have a coherent account of ALL thought and belief?

Not exactly... I'm putting forth an outline(methodological approach) that is best suited to render one.

So its an ideal, not something you actually have or use, but something you strive for?

Both...

...ok then you are saying you have a coherent account of all thought and belief, aren’t you?

I'm saying that I've the beginnings of one.

Ok, I understand.

:ok:

Totally. l had a discussion a few weeks ago, where the other person wouldn't acknowledge that scientific statements are not a priori. — Wittgenstein

This brings up a question that I think you may have a good quick answer for (it is off-topic, so I understand being ignored):

How are scientific statements not both? Some are a priori, but not all. Example: The tree is taller than the shrub. Does that NOT count as a scientific statement? I understand that foundational concepts of science are a priori, but wouldn't any scientific statements that stem from using the scientific method be entirely based on observation and experience?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

↪ZhouBoTong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori — ZzzoneiroCosm

Thanks. I was just using definitions before. But for me, that page would suggest that I am right and that many scientific statement are based on observation and experience and therefor NOT a priori???

I was responding to:

l had a discussion a few weeks ago, where the other person wouldn't acknowledge that scientific statements are not a priori. — Wittgenstein

Which suggests that statements like, "the tree is taller than the shrub" are not scientific? Because surely that is not an a priori statement?

But @Wittgenstein used this as an example of something that is obviously right...so I feel like I am missing something...possibly it is a joke but my philosophy knowledge is too weak to get it?

I hope l don't get this messed up but l think these two examples will clarify a priori from a posteriori.
A priori
If John is taller than Mary and Mary is taller than Sam, then John is taller than Sam. Since this statement reduces itself to a logical property , If X>Y and Y>Z then X>Z.

A posteriori
John is taller than Mary. In order to make this statement, we need to have some empirical data.

On the point of science, foundational principles of science are a priori but l would put them into the category of metaphysics. Eg the statement, effect comes after the cause is an a priori statement.

An apple is a fruit.
Dogs are animals.

These statements are also a priori but in my opinion these statements should not be classified as scientific as they merely come from the category we assign to them. It is almost a matter of convention. Even if we give them a certain scientific veneer, they will be foundational.

My friend didn't only regard foundational topics as such but statements like " Gravity causes objects to fall towards earth" to also fall under a priori statement.

My friend didn't only regard foundational topics as such but statements like " Gravity causes objects to fall towards earth" to also fall under a priori statement. — Wittgenstein

Oops! I need to learn to read. I missed the "not" in your previous statement (all scientific statement are NOT a priori). Suddenly it all makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain anyway. As I was reading, I was like, "this is exactly my point". Then I read your last sentence and realized I may have misread your original statement...and sure enough I did :grimace:

Thanks again for the patience, and yes, your friend is a bit crazy.