You are only as certain as how much you can convince yourself of certainty. — Beverley

I disagree.

The proper math is this: You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty. Fear seeks comfort, the lessening of the excited state that is negative. The balancing anger STANDS on its own, confident, because it is, because it exists. It can be seen as foolhardy but, if done right, and there is a right way, it is not foolish at all.

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message. — Chet Hawkins

It seems to be correct that language is not required, but it is not by any means redundant. We have a little Kokoni. Chances are you have never even heard of her breed, but she is constantly mistaken for a miniature border collie. And the funny thing is that she herds as well. The kokoni is an ancient Greek breed of dog, bred for the aristocracy as lap dogs and to entertain the children of the aristocracy. There are pictures of them on ancient artifacts, and yet, for some odd reason, they are only recognized in Greece as a specific breed and nowhere else. They have long and extremely soft fur. Their bark is extremely loud for their size (kokoni in Greek means 'little dog') but they rarely bark. They take time to attach themselves to a human, but once they do, they will stay loyal for life. Their average lifespan is 16 years and they do not suffer any specific illnesses apart from teeth issues. They can be as active as you want them to be, meaning that if you want to play, they do too. But they can also curl up and sleep soundly next to you for hours. She is our little treasure that someone threw away in a dumpster when she was 2 years old. We are the luckiest people to have found her. (although I would for sure take away the fact that someone threw her away in the first place if I could)

Sorry to go on about our dog, but I couldn't help it.

You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty. — Chet Hawkins

I totally agree with this and have said this before. It makes sense to me. Certainty means security and predictability. But we have lived with uncertainty for a LONG time, but we seem to convince ourselves otherwise. As humans, we look for patterns in EVERYTHING, for the same reason: patterns represent predictability. However, I often think that patterns may be simply something we make up in our minds. Maybe there are no patterns at all. Maybe we just see them because it makes us feel more secure. But of course, I do not know for sure.

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message.
— Chet Hawkins

It seems to be correct that language is not required, but it is not by any means redundant. We have a little Kokoni. Chances are you have never even heard of her breed, but she is constantly mistaken for a miniature border collie. And the funny thing is that she herds as well. The kokoni is an ancient Greek breed of dog, bred for the aristocracy as lap dogs and to entertain the children of the aristocracy. There are pictures of them on ancient artifacts, and yet, for some odd reason, they are only recognized in Greece as a specific breed and nowhere else. They have long and extremely soft fur. Their bark is extremely loud for their size (kokoni in Greek means 'little dog') but they rarely bark. They take time to attach themselves to a human, but once they do, they will stay loyal for life. Their average lifespan is 16 years and they do not suffer any specific illnesses apart from teeth issues. They can be as active as you want them to be, meaning that if you want to play, they do too. But they can also curl up and sleep soundly next to you for hours. She is our little treasure that someone threw away in a dumpster when she was 2 years old. We are the luckiest people to have found her. (although I would for sure take away the fact that someone threw her away in the first place if I could)

Sorry to go on about our dog, but I couldn't help it. — Beverley

I love it! Now I want one! I'm getting too old to be punished by a rascal energetic tornado border collie. I love them, but they need open spaces and a job to do. I'm a master trainer (self-proclaimed) and my collies usually surpass that famous border collie that knows 200 objects. Try that and fifty verbs. But yeah, there is no low energy setting. This one STAYS at 11.

You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty.
— Chet Hawkins

I totally agree with this and have said this before. It makes sense to me. Certainty means security and predictability. But we have lived with uncertainty for a LONG time, but we seem to convince ourselves otherwise. As humans, we look for patterns in EVERYTHING, for the same reason: patterns represent predictability. However, I often think that patterns may be simply something we make up in our minds. — Beverley

Yes, order is fear. So fear is all patterns. And the first fear is the primal pattern, fear of the unknown.

Fear emerges the 'like' or friendship pattern of love. We are only COMFORTABLE with those that are like us. This draws the delusional line between 'us' and 'them'. So fear is the origin of separation of all kinds, the limiting force. Want a barrier or a prison? Use too much fear! Identity is sourced in fear. What does that tell you?

Maybe there are no patterns at all. — Beverley

I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos.

Maybe we just see them because it makes us feel more secure. But of course, I do not know for sure. — Beverley

We cling to the easy ones. It's effort to step into the unknown, harder, prone to cause suffering, and therefore MORE, not less, moral. We use the order of patterns only to inform those choices to hone them towards perfection.

I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos. — Chet Hawkins

To me, this seems a little too black and white. Could this not simply be another way of us trying to confirm certainty for fear of acknowledging the grey, in between, uncertain area of things? Maybe there is no either end: perfection or chaos. Weirdly enough, I suspect that perfection and chaos may be the same thing...if they exist.

rascal energetic tornado — Chet Hawkins

Aren't all dogs amazing!? But I may be a little exhausted trying to keep up with that... although I'd have a good try!

Animals know things, but what kinds of beliefs do they have? Certainly not propositional. — RogueAI

So can you tell us, without putting it in a proposition, something some animal knows?

Hu?

Nuh, best leave it.

So can you tell us, without putting it in a proposition, something some animal knows? — Banno

How can I tell you anything without putting it in a proposition?

Yep. That was my point ). What animals know can be put into a proposition. The content of an item of knowledge can always be put into a proposition.


Knowledge is propositional.

The content of an item of knowledge can always be put into a proposition. — Banno

What's a good Searle article/paper that deals with that?

Maybe see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826747

So the dog knows that it is raining, even though the dog cannot say that it is raining. The content of the dog's knowledge is given by "it is raining", even though the object of it's knowledge is not the proposition that it is raining, but the rain.

Subtle, easily misconstrued, but important.

I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos.
— Chet Hawkins

To me, this seems a little too black and white. — Beverley

Far from it.

The objective nature of perfection is there, the white, and all the rest is only a degree of error. Existence is only some degree of moral failure.

The gray area is only amid the relative nature of comparing one viewpoint in error with another. So, there is both black and white and all shades of gray at the same and no contradiction either. This is the only way it could be.

The trick is holding seemingly disparate beliefs in mind simultaneously and coming to the inevitable conclusion that they are not finally contradictory. That is wisdom itself.

Could this not simply be another way of us trying to confirm certainty for fear of acknowledging the grey, in between, uncertain area of things? — Beverley

I find that being comfortable with that aim is a desire side delusion. Fear will also participate though. You end up with a conspiracy for low aimed moral choice. Everyone excusing the gray areas without challenging them. The proper path is admission of failure and forgiveness, followed by a re-assertion of perfection as the only best aim.

Maybe there is no either end: perfection or chaos. Weirdly enough, I suspect that perfection and chaos may be the same thing...if they exist. — Beverley

All final or perfect states are obtained in an infinite number of ways. It is that infinity of paths that seems to suggest the destination is not a single objective thing. But that suggestion is delusional in every way, and only the objective final aim is perfect.

rascal energetic tornado
— Chet Hawkins

Aren't all dogs amazing!? But I may be a little exhausted trying to keep up with that... although I'd have a good try! — Beverley

When I was younger it was THE thing for me. Border Collies! Accept no substitute! But I am of course in no way biased. ;)

I love most animals but the smart ones that have rich interactions are just charming.

https://rauterberg.employee.id.tue.nl/lecturenotes/DDM110%20CAS/Descartes-1637%20Discourse%20on%20Method.pdf page 28 — Lionino

"I am thinking therefore I exist,* was so secure and certain* that it could not be shaken by any of the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics, I judged that I could accept it without scruple, as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.*" - Descartes

Is there a logical necessity from someone feeling "so secure and certain" about something, and something to exist? It sounds like a psychological statement than a logical necessity.
"I am still so secure and certain that I think there exists life in Mars. Therefore life exists in Mars." Does it sound like a logically necessary statement to you? It sounds like a meaningless joke to me.

Thinking has its contents. Descartes doesn't reveal what the content of his thinking was. From mere his content-dubious thinking, deducing a spatial-temporal existence doesn't quite sound right, does it?

You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something.
— Corvus
Therefore "I know that I know nothing" is incorrect, therefore I know nothing. — Lionino

If you know something, then you know nothing is a contradiction.

Knowing is a delusion. Belief is all that we have. — Chet Hawkins

"Trust yourself, you know more than you think you do."- Benjamin Spock

Playing word games with a word that has never really meant what people thought it means is not useful. — Chet Hawkins

Analysing the vague and obscure use of words and expressions, and clarifying them is a part of philosophy.

It's possible that I am a soul and my body is either a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. According to Hinduism we are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusion called the Maya. — Truth Seeker

Why would it be possible? Do you believe in Hinduism? Are you a Hindu follower?

I don't know whether souls exist or not. I am an agnostic atheist. — Truth Seeker

If you are an agnostic atheist, then you could be a realist and possibly a materialist. Being a brute material realist would make things simpler. All there exists is matter and motion.

Yes, there are lots of things we can know for sure. For example, we know that the website address for this website is https://thephilosophyforum.com and we know that the language this message is written in is English. There are trillions of such examples.

I disagree. If you behead someone, they die. This is not a belief. This is a fact - an item of knowledge.

Thank you for the formula but how does that apply to my problems?

Here are my two problems:

1. What is my true nature? Am I a soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul?

2. Is the universe real or a simulation or my hallucination or my dream or an illusion?

Are all of the above possibilities equally likely? I don't currently know but does that mean I won't ever know?

I agree.

I disagree. Evolution is not sentient. It does not choose anything consciously. It is a process that occurs in the real world - whatever its true nature.

Actually that is where the question of illusion arises.
We will never know if it real or certain. Like that is advaita Vedanta where there is an epistemic world and real world. The epistemic world is not considered real and their is a world of illusions.

It is possible that Hinduism is true. No, I am not a Hindu but there are Hindus on Earth. It is impossible to test the hypothesis that living things are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusory universe called Maya.

I am an agnostic atheist pragmatist. When I am driving, I don't go around thinking that hitting pedestrians won't matter because the pedestrians are not actually real. They are real enough to have consequences for them and for me.

We don't know and probably can't know whether living things are real souls without real bodies, real souls in real bodies or real bodies without real souls.

We also don't know and probably can't know whether the universe is actually real or is a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. The most likely scenario is that we will all die without knowing the true nature of selves and universes.

I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death.

Dear living things,
My aim in life is to save and improve all lives. I am requesting all living things to share my goal. One for all and all for one. Together, we can do much more than we can alone.
With unconditional love,
Someone who loves you.

Justified true belief? — Banno

It is subjective experience itself. Think of it , it is a belief and it is justified. It is as simple as that. It is one part of it.

Whatever "it" is. Our knowledge is not limited to subjective experience. For example, that you answered my post demonstrates that you know you are a participant in a social organisation that spans the globe... — Banno

That is an argumentum ad absurdum. Everything is based on the subjective experience. You don't know anything out of your subjective experience. Even every concept you know is bound to your own subjective experience. I answered your post because it is in field of experience. And i am subjectively experience this activity.

I agree.

If we play the game of skepticism, then we will not go anywhere, for there is nothing which is 100% certain in the empirical world.

If we loosen our restrictions a bit (leave aside skepticism), then we can say that we were born. Death would be a close second, assuming no afterlife.

Pragmatism is my solution.

That's much better than the incoherent claim that we know nothing, or its inane sibling, that there are no true statements. — Banno

When someone says they "know" something, 'know' is a word with composite meaning, indicating at least an attitude (belief) and a state of affairs (being true). To say you know something implies a commitment to something being true, and for me that implies certainty, which is why I think it is faulty when people say they "know the sky is blue" like they "know" they "can trust their eyes", as one is reliant on the other.
But if you want to say that knowing is not the commitment that something is true but that it is much more likely than its opposite (not-X), I am happy to say we know many many things.

One can't play chess without the certainty that one's opponent will keep their bishop on the same colour. — Banno

One can hardly discern whether there is something "true" about the game they just made up to communicate or whether it is a useful fiction.


Are you trying to apply mathematical operations to English? Because
* "It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone" and
* "It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone"
can mean completely different things, even though both are made of a negative with a positive.

Or we can accept skepticism and carry on from there without stressing about certainty, knowing that we will die is as likely or less than that we were born.

:up:

That's a good approach, among others. Skepticism can't be defeated merely kept in check occasionally.

↪Gnomon
So you are certain of that formula? — Banno

Because it begins with a subjective guess, the calculation will never produce 100% certainty. Here's Bayes' formula in the form of an equation — Gnomon

Probability, not Certainty :
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Thank you.

"I am still so secure and certain that I think there exists life in Mars. Therefore life exists in Mars." — Corvus

Because there is nothing necessary about life in Mars, physically, metaphysically, logically. The point of the cogito is that it always confirms itself circularly, you can't deny it, because by denying it you prove it.

I will leave you with some editor/translator notes from some translation of the Discourse to show what I am saying:

AT 9B. 7: ‘it is contradictory to suppose that what is thinking does not, at the very time when it is thinking, exist.’ Two other points emerge from this passage: the first step towards the cogito is in fact the dubio (‘I am doubting, therefore I am existing’). — Discourse on the Method Oxford World's Classics

More than anything, this is the key part:

Sobrou-lhe deste ato de generalização da dúvida apenas uma certeza, a de que o sujeito que duvida radicalmente não pode duvidar do ato de duvidar. E como o ato de duvidar é um ato de pensamento, ele extraiu a conclusão de que a proposição “Penso, logo existo” era verdadeira, constituindo um novo começo, o verdadeiro ponto de partida da filosofia. — Discurso do Método LP&M Editores

From this deed of generalising doubt there was only one certainty left: that the subject that doubts radically cannot doubt that he is doubting. And since doubting is a thinking action, he [Descartes] extracted the conclusion that the proposition "I am thinking there I exist" is true, the proper starting point of philosophy.