Comments

  • Intuition, evolution and God
    Now for the puzzle: when it comes to our faculty of reason the evolutionary explanation seems to be a debunking one, not a vindicatory one. We seem able to explain why we developed a faculty that produces in us the belief that we have reason to believe things without having to suppose that there are actually any reasons to believe things in reality. So we can explain the development of the faculty without having to suppose the reality of what the faculty gives us an apparent awareness of.

    Yet that now means that we've undermined our own case, as any case for anything depends on there being actual reasons to believe things (not the mere belief in such things).     — Bartricks

    Oh! So, you mean to say that just because we have the
    faculty of reason it doesn't necessarily follow that there are any real reasons (to believe anything). An intriguing statement based on the example you gave, which drives the point home viz. our proclivity to believe in god(s) doesn't imply the actual existence of god(s).

    Your thesis, if it is yours, jibes with what Brian Greene says in an interview (paraphrasing): The brain evolved for survival, but truth and survival are different things. Hence also my view that so-called cognitive biases & fallacies (thinkos) have a purpose viz. to keep us alive (only) long enough to reproduce & care for our progeny till they too attain puberty-adulthood; post that these flaws in reasoning tend to be a liability. Mind you, this is my opinion; I don't have anything to back it up.
  • Against simulation theories
    By understanding that if a simulation is a world it is no longer a simulation. A simulation only makes sense in light of a world.

    Is a map of the territory another "territory"? Just because the map does not represent itself on the map even though it is part of the territory does not mean that it is above and beyond the territory. It just means that it would be useless to do so.     — Harry Hindu

    Let's look at this from a human perspective. The possibilities are:

    1. We're in a simulation, meaning there's the real world + the simulation we're a part of.

    2. We're in the real world. This isn't a simulation.

    Your point is that the simulation is part of the real world, whichever world that is, and that implies that I'm wrong (about the simulation hypothesis being a perfect Harry client for the novacula Occami :snicker: ).

    Let's do the math.

    From the simulator's point if view: Real world + The Simulation it creates = Real World (no issues).

    From the simulated's point of view: The Simulation it's part of + The real world of the simulator > The Simulation it's part of.
  • What Makes Someone Become the Unique Person Who They Are ?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    You have a rather colorful life, Jack Cummins. You live in a big city then; I'm a small town boy myself - a frog in a small pond.

    In case you're interested:

    1. Asexual reproduction is basically making carbon copies and uniqueness if it happens is due to copying errors aka random mutations.

    2. Sexual reproduction is making faithful copies of evolutionarily successful forms but, at the same time, mixing things up a bit so that though there's family resemblance, the offspring aren't identical to the parents.

    Random mutations occur in this case too.

    As you would've realized by now, permutation & combination (mathemagic) are at the heart of uniqueness, assuming DNA is the unit of heredity.
  • The Significance of Polarity
    A dichotomy is formally defined as that which is "jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive" — apokrisis

    This form of duality presents a serious problem - a dilemma which, much to our disappointment, isn't a false dichotomy fallacy.

    The only reasonable response is a counterdilemma à la Protagoras' paradox (of the court).

    For instance, in re the notorious trolley problem.

    The dilemma: Either you kill an innocent person or you let 5 people die. Bad, very bad!

    Counterdilemma: Either you save an innocent person or you save 5 people. Not bad, not bad at all!

    My example isn't one in which the options are both mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, but you get the idea.
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    Triad of possibilities
    1. Happiness
    2. Suffering
    3. Neither happiness nor suffering aka contentment

    A 3 sided die, roll it; life is after all a gamble.

    P(x) = Probability of x

    P(getting what you want: contentment/happiness) = 66%

    P(suffering) = = 33%


    :snicker:
  • Consciousness Encapsulated
    They are even using Artificial Intelligence to search for signs of Consciousness — Gnomon

    Like how non-life (Mars rovers) looks for (signs of) life.

    Most interesting! — Ms. Marple
  • "Philosophy simply puts everything before us,"
    Philosophy simply puts everything before us... — Wittgenstein

    where we can see 'em!

    Before us, as opposed to behind us or to our sides, above our heads or under our feet, obscured from view, outside our field of vision.
  • Two Problems with Anselm’s Argument for God, and Another
    There is "something" greater than "that than which nothing greater can be conceived (God)" viz. nothing! and we all know that nothing doesn't exist!

    Conclusion (ahem): Nonexistence is greater than existence!

    G = {x | x is God}

    n(G) = 0.

    :snicker:
  • Yukio Mishima
    It's lamentable that some of us havta be sacrificial lambs in order to get anything done. This is a waste of valuable (human) resource in my humble opinion. It saddens me that only death motivates us to make the necessary changes to improve our lot. No wonder God had to kill his own son, Jesus; it starts to make sense now, oui? It's a pity that we have to be shocked into action! Frankensteinian, too Frankensteinian for comfort.
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    There is an unknow truth: p & ~Kp

    That there's an unknown truth can be known = K(p & ~Kp)

    Because K(r & s) Kr & Ks, we can say that Kp & K~Kp

    Aside: K~Kp = I know that I don't know p (is true). Socratic.

    Kp p. Ergo, K~Kp ~Kp.

    Kp & ~Kp (contradiction).

    Hence, ~K(p & ~Kp). Meno! It isn't possible to know that there's an unknown truth. Inquiry is ~◇.
  • Roots of religion
    The radices of religion. :chin:

    Off the top of my head:

    1. The hunger for explanations (storm gods, fire gods, etc.).

    2. The desire for control over our destiny (prayer, sacrificial offerings, etc.).

    3. The need for a loyal, reliable ally/benefactor (Sky daddy)

    4. The need for a moral enforcer (God as judge, jury and executioner; karma)
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    Kp & ~Kp

    Kp
    1. p is true
    AND
    2. Someone believes p
    AND
    3. p is justified

    ~Kp
    1. p is false
    AND/OR
    2. No one believes p
    AND/OR
    3. p isn't justified

    Is Kp & ~Kp a contradiction? No! :snicker:
  • Roots of religion
    @OP, You mean like Star Wars, technologically advanced but still in the grips of medieval thinking - (jedi) knights, (light)sabers, emperors, and so on? There was something really appealing about our past, romanticism notwithstanding.

    We don't learn, do we? Too bad.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

    Mark my words, we'll soon be back at square one.
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    When we say we don't know then we mean, for a proposition p, p v ~p ( p or not p).

    An unknown truth: p is true but we don't know p is true = p & ~K(p v ~p).

    We know that p is an unknown truth = K(p & ~K(p v ~p)).

    No K(p v ~Kp), no paradox.

    1.8k
    Can you lay out the argument clearly in plain English?     — Luke

    Good call!
  • Intuition, evolution and God
    Great OP!

    Our brains look like they've adapted to something and that something is an external world. Ergo, there is an external world. Why would our brains have to calibrate themselves to their own creation? They could've simply modded it to suit their own nature, idiosyncracies and all. In other words why is there dukkha (dissatisfaction) if it isn't the case that there is an external world independent of our brains/minds?

    :snicker:

    Intuitions are more harmful than helpful when it comes to truths but the converse is true when it comes to survival (re cognitive biases). My hunch is that certain patterns in our thinking gave some of us an edge over the others and these subroutines were automated, occuring subconsciously rather than consciously, in order to enhance its benefits (to our wellbeing).

    Paradoxically, irrational folks should live longer, healthier, and happier lives than rational peeps. If not then the mad and the foolish should have thrilling albeit shorter and unhealthier lives. It's a tradeoff you see. :grin:

    I'm off-topic aren't I? Oh well!
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    There is an unknown truth p & ~Kp for the simple reason that ~Kp means we can't assert p for to assert p implies Kp.

    1. p & ~Kp (assume for reductio)
    2. p Kp (premise)
    3. p (1 Simp)
    4. Kp (2, 3 MP)
    5. ~Kp (1 Simp)
    6. Kp & ~Kp (4, 5 Conj)
    7. ~(p & ~Kp) (1 - 6 reductio)
    8. ~p v ~~Kp (7 DeM)
    9. ~p v Kp (8 DN)

    Either p is false Or we know p (is true).
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Who’s to say that existence is pointless? — Moses

    Good question!

    This is the paradox: We look for the meaning of life in God, but we believe in human arguments that life is meaningless. That's like loving Jane, but marrying Sarah! :snicker:
  • What Makes Someone Become the Unique Person Who They Are ?
    ↪Jack Cummins


    I was simply pointing out the basis on which each one of us can claim to be unique and how the fact that there are only a finite number of possible personalities implies the illusory nature of being one of a kind. We'll always find someone who either looks like us (look-alikes) or thinks like us (soul mates) or both ( :scream: )
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    ↪Athena
    I must apologize, I've lost the plot. Nonetheless, quite an interesting post. Danke.
  • Against simulation theories
    ↪Harry Hindu


    Let's discuss the point further. You say that a simulation is part of (some) real world. I concur.

    However, this hypothesis entails the existence of 2 worlds: the real + the simulation (within that world). Compare that to the belief that this which we experience is real (only 1 world). How would William of Occam tackle this?
  • Against simulation theories
    ↪Harry Hindu


    There is reality and then there is the simulation. I count two "entities"; how many do you see?

    It's true that the simulation is part of reality, within it to be precise. However, the simulation is a world unto itself and so must be treated as equals with the world it is within.
  • Against simulation theories
    Invalid if we think of the simulation as part of reality. All simulations exist within one reality. Simulating an old gaming console on your modern computer is real example of a simulation within reality. Both the simulator and the simulation are only a fraction of reality. The problem is that we just don't know how big reality is, or how much information exists. — Harry Hindu

    I humbly disagree.

    A simulation’s an additional entity over and above reality.
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    Were'd it go? — Banno

    :chin:
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    Principles:

    Knowability: p Kp

    Non-O: p(p ~Kp)


    Rules:

    A. Kp p

    B. □~p ~◇p

    C. p □p

    D. K(p & q) Kp & Kq

    p & ~Kp (instantiation of Non-O)

    (p & ~Kp) K(p & ~Kp) (substitute p & ~Kp in Knowability]

    1. K(p & ~Kp) (assume for reductio)
    2. Kp K~Kp (1, rule D)
    3. Kp (Simp 2)
    4. K~Kp (simp 2)
    5. ~Kp (4, rule A)
    6. Kp ~Kp (3, 5 Conj)
    7. ~K(p ~Kp) (1 - 6 reductio)
    8. □~K(p ~Kp) (7, rule C)
    9. ~◇K(p ~Kp) (8, rule B)
    10. ~p(p ~Kp) (from 9)
    11. p(p Kp) (from 12)
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    No. Just a hypothetical. If p then q. — Banno

    Why? Some propositions are provable (e.g. Fermat's last theorem) and others not (e.g. the theory of relativity).
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    It's taken as true by various philosophical notions, explicitly or more often implicitly. Those notions that do so must explain how they deal with Fitch.

    The argument doesn't asserting it, but uses it hypothetically to show that consequence,     — Banno

    Two categories of propositions then:

    1. p's that are provable, belief-apt, and true e.g. Biden is POTUS

    2. p's that are unprovable though belief-apt and true e.g. scientific hypotheses.
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    p→♢Kp — Banno

    False, a given observational dataset is compatible with multiple hypotheses. There's no way of knowing which one is the true hypothesis even when one hasta be true (re the scientific method).
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    Don't you worry Bartricks, at some point in the future, having children is going to be a crime punishable by death! Either that or cannibalism. :scream: :groan: Choose, and choose wisely! We still have time, about (say) another 50 years. We need to get our act together and pronto!
  • Skill, craft, technique in art
    Don’t worry about it. Sometimes I get butt hurt too quickly, apologies. — Noble Dust

    :up:
  • Skill, craft, technique in art
    Hey ND, don't derail the discussion. Agent Smith just likes to get involved in every discussion even when he doesn't have anything to say. His comment was likely more playful than malicious, and I deleted it because it wasn't a good contribution. — Jamal

    Muchas gracias señor Jamal. G'day.
  • Skill, craft, technique in art
    Alright. Sorry for assuming otherwise, Agent Smith. From my perspective it just looked fishy. — Noble Dust

    A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

    I should've minded my own business. Lesson learned. Danke and au revoir monsieur.
  • What Makes Someone Become the Unique Person Who They Are ?
    Maths to the rescue.

    It is quite obvious that the number of possible permutations/combinations of relevant factors/qualities (how to think, psychology and what to think, ideas/emotions/etc.) is finite. Ergo, expect repetitions [look alikes, twins (body & mind), soul mates, so on and so forth].

    Nevertheless, in a given location, at a particular time, a person is unique enough for government work if you catch my drift.

    A very important corollary: Conviction in certain criminal cases are based on the "uniqueness" of our DNA (DNA fingerprinting), but do bear in mind how it works. The probability of someone else having commited the crime isn't zero!

    Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
  • Skill, craft, technique in art
    I'm not concerned, I'm wondering why you made some latin joke about "no offense" in regards to Jackson telling me to get lost, and then it and my response to it disappeared. — Noble Dust

    If it has disappeared, good that it has. Let's close this chapter.
  • Skill, craft, technique in art
    Vis-à-vis art,

    Technique: A way of painting, sculpting, writing, composing music, etc.

    Skill: Mastery of a technique, sometimes adding a personal touch, a signature move, etc.

    Craft: Inter alia a profession involving producing certain products of artistic cum commercial value e.g. smithing, pottery, tailoring, etc.

    To craft an item one hasta know a technique and be skilfull as well.

    What happend Agent Smith? — Noble Dust

    Nuthin'. Thanks for your concern.
  • "Philosophy simply puts everything before us,"
    Explanations, from a scientific point of view, aren't truth-apt. For any observed pattern, there are n number of explanations. Ergo, suss out the patterns in nature, mathematically formalize 'em and then use 'em. Explanations? Boys and their toys! Bah humbug! :snicker:
  • The pernicious idea of an eternal soul
    I quite like physicalism. The mind is either matter or energy and we all know that neither matter nor energy can be created/destroyed! If the mind is a pattern in matter-energy, we can always recreate it (re resurrection/reanimation; designer bodies! :scream:)
  • Some Thoughts on Life and Death
    If only Dodo could be resurrected, — enqramot

    Just so that we can kill 'em again! :snicker:
  • Some Thoughts on Life and Death
    Live as if you were to die tomorrow there's no life after death. Learn as if you were to live forever there is life after death. — Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
  • Ethics in four words
    4 cardinal virtues

    1. Prudentia
    2. Iustitia
    3. Fortitudo
    4. Temperantia

    :snicker:
Home » Agent Smith