The origin of mankind

[Karl]

Nice twist Karl, but the thing is ,correct and incorrect ,is not what we are discussing. We are talking about moral right and wrong. It's not an error on my part to use the words in this fashion. You re conflating the Meanings of words which arent identical meanings. I didnt say there was no absolutes either, that too is another subject. You still have grappling to do. ... But it really is a cute move there to try and get out of the ring. You can wave a white flag whenever you want.

Correct and incorrect are EXACTLY what we are discussing. We are conceptual beings forced to make judgements about our perceptions prior to ANY action. Justice is implicit, every action implies a moral choice. X is X. If your world is subjective then you cannot even begin to say it is, because you are uttering an objective statement. If you say 'I can't know anything' then you are making an objective, absolute statement whilst denying objective, absolute statements can be made.

 

What goes for ships and sealing wax applies equally to every other thing.

 

Why not ask the questions of yourself: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

 

You would not hesitate to judge something that you would buy, eat, or wear? You wouldn't get in a boat full of holes, buy a car without an engine, drink poison, or wear a cactus. Why ? What makes you so sure in your subjective world ? Why do you choose A over B ? Did you make an arbitrary choice, was it whim, did you resolve it purely by a feeling alone without any thought ? If you think so, then how does your feeling know it ?

[Stosh]

Yes, we assign names to things we believe exist, according to properties we deem them to have.

But the jack of diamonds , from a deck of cards is deteriorating all the time , watch it a thousand years and that should be clear. Recognize that its perceived existance is a presentation of a continuous progression ,a morphing state rather than a constant. All the evidence that we have of the card we think we see, is also morphing. Taken to the extreme, we can intellectually understand that the card is a transient thing which cannot be truly quantified in any parameter.

Accommodating this intellectual insight ,one may state Something transiently exists but we cant accurately say what it is. So We are being approximate verbally and mentally about the cards traits and existance ,so we can play the hand we are dealt , with an imaginary grouping of transient objects according to arbitrary rules for conceptual currency. But can be quite certain that Something exists since we all agree on who won the hand.

[Stosh]

I dont actually know why I chose a over b, or that I actually did any choosing, for that matter.

If You wish to discuss correct and incorrect , thats cool, but my presentations would not be the same since I dont consider moral rightness as being practical or functional correctness.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Yes, we assign names to things we believe exist, according to properties we deem them to have.

But the jack of diamonds , from a deck of cards is deteriorating all the time , watch it a thousand years and that should be clear. Recognize that its perceived existance is a presentation of a continuous progression ,a morphing state rather than a constant. All the evidence that we have of the card we think we see, is also morphing. Taken to the extreme, we can intellectually understand that the card is a transient thing which cannot be truly quantified in any parameter.

Accommodating this intellectual insight ,one may state Something transiently exists but we cant accurately say what it is. So We are being approximate verbally and mentally about the cards traits and existance ,so we can play the hand we are dealt , with an imaginary grouping of transient objects according to arbitrary rules for conceptual currency. But can be quite certain that Something exists since we all agree on who won the hand.

This is your skeptic mind set. You hold it to be true then you deny that you can know it to be true. A loaf of bread is a loaf of bread, it has a nature, it acts and reacts in a certain way. Part of that nature is to turn mouldy in a particular environment, or to be sliced and eaten. The loaf is gone at that point, it is now a different thing, but this difference is equally valid in its new firm as it was in a previous form.

 

There is nothing magic about the impermanence of an object, it is also a concept, as is 'deterioration' 'fading' 'destruction'. This is incorporated into the absolutes of existence. That things decay, are swallowed, get crushed are all absolutes. So, we can know perceptually exactly what something is, because part of its nature, it's identity is to transform into something else.

 

You are still hooked up on the idea that we can't know anything because everything is changing, but I put it to you that we DO KNOW that things are changing. What you are actually saying is that we don't know things are changing because things are always changing. You have nothing solid to stand upon if you take follow your sophist philosophy. Yet you rule yourself out of having anything pertinent to say by continuing to hold it.

 

Surely this is becoming an increasingly untenable posion for you to remain. You can either agree that you can know something for certain, or remain ignorant and unable to argue from the point of view that there is no certainty and even that view is similarly uncertain- that you can no nothing at all, even cannot even say that with any certainty.

 

You cannot get in a ring that you aren't sure is there with a you that you aren't sure exists to meet the phantom you aren't certain is me.

 

You must stop evading if you wish to progress: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

 

If you cannot answer those questions you must cease to argue, sow up your mouth, find a cave and seal it up so no light or sound can enter, because that is the path you are taking. You cannot see because you have eyes, you cannot hear because you have ears and you cannot think because you have a mind. All these things have become a burden that you cannot trust and you appear to wish you were rid of them.

[Karl]

I dont actually know why I chose a over b, or that I actually did any choosing, for that matter.

If You wish to discuss correct and incorrect , thats cool, but my presentations would not be the same since I dont consider moral rightness as being practical or functional correctness.

You don't think you have free will ? Are you a determinist at the whim of some intergalactic puppeteer ? Let's first determine if you know where you are and how you know it. If you cannot, then it is pointless to move onto ethics (what should I do).

[Michael Sternbach]

Correct and incorrect are EXACTLY what we are discussing. We are conceptual beings forced to make judgements about our perceptions prior to ANY action. Justice is implicit, every action implies a moral choice.

If I accidentally touch a hot plate and retract my hand reflexively, how does that imply a moral choice?

 

X is X. If your world is subjective then you cannot even begin to say it is, because you are uttering an objective statement. If you say 'I can't know anything' then you are making an objective, absolute statement whilst denying objective, absolute statements can be made.

I can say: "I think I can't know anything," thus avoiding a paradoxon.

[Marblehead]

Well, as soon as we say "I think" we have presented conditions for many questions.  

[Karl]

If I accidentally touch a hot plate and retract my hand reflexively, how does that imply a moral choice?

 

I can say: "I think I can't know anything," thus avoiding a paradoxon.

"I" ;-)

 

I implies an existent you that can think/say.

 

Where am I ? Presupposes that there is an I to be some where.

 

Mystics seek to to scuttle the idea that consciousness has identity, that it is something. That they cannot is a source of great annoyance to them.

[Michael Sternbach]

"I" ;-)

I implies an existent you that can think/say.

Where am I ? Presupposes that there is an I to be some where.

Mystics seek to to scuttle the idea that consciousness has identity, that it is something. That they cannot is a source of great annoyance to them.

That I may not be able to rigorously know anything doesn't keep me from making practical assumptions.

 

Would you kindly reply to my first objection as well?

[Stosh]

You don't think you have free will ? Are you a determinist at the whim of some intergalactic puppeteer ? Let's first determine if you know where you are and how you know it. If you cannot, then it is pointless to move onto ethics (what should I do).

Karl, it should be obvious Im not evading , there are answers which you are prepared to accept, and those that you are discarding immediately. Im stuck using the grammar I was given.

Thinking I have free will would not prove I had it. The puppeteer would also not be determinable to be existant ,unless you said he was literally everything, and even then you couldnt prove everything had will because the universe does not appear to be chaotic... and you cant witness all of it anyway!

Ethics likewise has to be seen in a context of imagination, approximation, unprovable supposition. Employing the same imaginary constructs , we could discuss ethics of men, the attitudes of Ahab, evolution and the stars.. but there always will be the fundemental uncertainty, which appears to disturb you... the avoidance of which pushes you to constructs which dont line up with whatever it is that does exist.

[Karl]

That I may not be able to rigorously know anything doesn't keep me from making practical assumptions.

Would you kindly reply to my first objection as well?

There is an I which is making the assumptions, do you deny it.

 

I won't answer your first question because only you can answer it and until you can answer 'where am I and how do I know it' then the study of ethics is beyond your comprehension.

[Karl]

Karl, it should be obvious Im not evading , there are answers which you are prepared to accept, and those that you are discarding immediately. Im stuck using the grammar I was given.

Thinking I have free will would not prove I had it. The puppeteer would also not be determinable to be existant ,unless you said he was literally everything, and even then you couldnt prove everything had will because the universe does not appear to be chaotic... and you cant witness all of it anyway!

Ethics likewise has to be seen in a context of imagination, approximation, unprovable supposition. Employing the same imaginary constructs , we could discuss ethics of men, the attitudes of Ahab, evolution and the stars.. but there always will be the fundemental uncertainty, which appears to disturb you... the avoidance of which pushes you to constructs which dont line up with whatever it is that does exist.

What does proof reply upon ?

 

Seriously, this isn't about 'answers that I'm prepared to accept', it is you who are telling me that you have no answers because no proof is possible. It is then obvious that you won't see ethics as any different, at least, from that perspective you are consistent.

 

There is no uncertainty at all, I know that what I perceive is reality. It is only you that keeps telling me that nothing you see is real and that you can't know anything for certain. What can I make of you when you say such foolishness as if it was proven fact and yet deny there are such things as facts or proof?

 

It is you that asserts you don't know anything, when clearly you are making an absolute statement that you KNOW that you don't know anything.

 

I asked if you could answer the questions: where am I and how do I know it ? Yet you refuse to know where you are. This is mental evasion like a child that hides under the bed clothes to evade an imaginary monster. There is no monster and if there was, hiding under the duvet wouldn't help. :-)

[Stosh]

Correct, beneath all the proofs there is a chance that its all a house of cards,, you may be the nightmare of a butterfly. Yes, as well, there is no monster.

Your certainty however is a sentiment , and thats all, no matter how tightly you wrap your arms around it. Frankly ,I dont see why you need it anymore, it is a requirement you are placing upon your own understanding, and so I imagine you could lift that requirement.

It strikes me odd, that what is called faith, is maintained by a sense of disbelief about facts,, and faithlessness? has the requirement of proofs which require a sort of faith in facts.

 

To safely ensconce a belief in things ,so that no additional external conclusive proof is required ,is securing against an upset. One need not perhaps wonder about ones place in the scheme of things ,nor doubt ones conscience, nor have fear of rejection etc. The price of requiring proof is the possibility that proof will falter. The price of faith is that one may reject best evidence.... no surprise in any of that Id say.

[Stosh]

There is an I which is making the assumptions, do you deny it.

I won't answer your first question because only you can answer it and until you can answer 'where am I and how do I know it' then the study of ethics is beyond your comprehension.

Youre asking him to confirm your absoulte on himself existing , before you will entertain his point. Like I said, youre being closed to his idea,, and if you are interested in getting to solid ground,, you should be open to what that is. Its doubt.

[Karl]

LOL the ultimate irony is that you accuse me of faith. A man who doubts his senses and his mind, who denies he can know reality, that shirks proof and instead, blindly accepts what he sees whilst denying he sees it ?

 

If that isn't faith what else can it be ?

[Stosh]

People often want to know what they just cannot.

Heres an example. A guy wanted to figure how long humanity would last. Making the broad statistical assumption that any non specially picked given duration would fit a bell curve with 95 percent certainty assuming one knows nothing else about the future, then the duration remaining for humanity is between zero and forty times the length of the past. Thats just a function of the random statistical bell curve.

Assuming weve covered 100000 years to get to now, we could be 95 percent sure we will die out in the next four million years.

Woohoo he he has a number!

[Karl]

Youre asking him to confirm your absoulte on himself existing , before you will entertain his point. Like I said, youre being closed to his idea,, and if you are interested in getting to solid ground,, you should be open to what that is. Its doubt.

Like you, he is making the argument whilst denying that any argument is valid. If there is no I, then there is no hot plate, nor hand on which to place it. There are no morals because there is apparently no standard on which they can be based because nothing is certain.

 

I'm not closed to his ideas, he is saying, like you, that he has no basis for any ideas, or any certainty about any ideas he claims he cannot have. How can I possibly converse with a ghost, or a zombie ? What ideas can we discuss ? None. A ghost has no body in which a mind could function and a zombie is a body without a mind. Neither of these things exist, but you claim that this is your state of being whilst simultaneously denying that you can prove anything at all. Why would I enter into a discourse with something I know does not exist ?

[Stosh]

part two,

Timmy is ten, his odds of dying are then 95 percent by the time hes 50. Seems good, then do the math for Timmy at 50, well now his life expectancy is up to being 95 percent sure he will die between fifty years and two thousand years old. Woo hoo , the assumptions chosen, that timmy is a non special statistical event, means the Longer he lives the less likely it is he will die.

We know this isnt true from statistical analysis of known events with known causes. If he made it to 60 he was way off the bell curve based on his original calculated life span. So Timmys life span should be understood not to conform to a random statistical model. There is causality each of us may end once born at any time, it depends on the particulars of what happens to us.

Same is true for humanities expectations. And the guys who want math to predict the future dont understand that math itself isnt real .

Edited July 23, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

People often want to know what they just cannot.

Heres an example. A guy wanted to figure how long humanity would last. Making the broad statistical assumption that any non specially picked given duration would fit a bell curve with 95 percent certainty assuming one knows nothing else about the future, then the duration remaining for humanity is between zero and forty times the length of the past. Thats just a function of the random statistical bell curve.

Assuming weve covered 100000 years to get to now, we could be 95 percent sure we will die out in the next four million years.

Woohoo he he has a number!

That's science not philosophy.

Now, I could be in error about any number of things. The spec of dust I see might be a teeny space ship, but I see it never the less, the error is in the conception. This is the difficult part to explain to a mystic who is used to his own absolutes in terms of everything being non-absolute.

 

You are asking how I can be certain that a thing is the thing I conceive, but I can't be sure that it is what I conceive. However I can be sure that it is the thing I percieve and if it proves to be a spaceship, or dust, then it is what it is and it is no other thing.

[Stosh]

Like you, he is making the argument whilst denying that any argument is valid. If there is no I, then there is no hot plate, nor hand on which to place it. There are no morals because there is apparently no standard on which they can be based because nothing is certain.

I'm not closed to his ideas, he is saying, like you, that he has no basis for any ideas, or any certainty about any ideas he claims he cannot have. How can I possibly converse with a ghost, or a zombie ? What ideas can we discuss ? None. A ghost has no body in which a mind could function and a zombie is a body without a mind. Neither of these things exist, but you claim that this is your state of being whilst simultaneously denying that you can prove anything at all. Why would I enter into a discourse with something I know does not exist ?

The basis is that one can conclude to have faith that something exists which we cant be particular about, and other things dont actually exist just because its handy to make certain approximations. Why talk to someone you doubt exists as you conceive of them? ..... Why not? you dont actually know anyones true self as it is.

[Stosh]

That's science not philosophy.

Now, I could be in error about any number of things. The spec of dust I see might be a teeny space ship, but I see it never the less, the error is in the conception. This is the difficult part to explain to a mystic who is used to his own absolutes in terms of everything being non-absolute.

You are asking how I can be certain that a thing is the thing I conceive, but I can't be sure that it is what I conceive. However I can be sure that it is the thing I percieve and if it proves to be a spaceship, or dust, then it is what it is and it is no other thing.

That actually sounds correct for the most part.

Error must always be in the realm of the imagined ,the perceived difference between expectation and event. For the physical to err, would imply the physics went chaotic in a way violating the physical laws of the universe. As far as I know, that doesnt happen , those rules are absolutes, but I still can remain in the dark about their function and absoluteness quotient..and so, not be self contradicting.

[Stosh]

LOL the ultimate irony is that you accuse me of faith. A man who doubts his senses and his mind, who denies he can know reality, that shirks proof and instead, blindly accepts what he sees whilst denying he sees it ?

If that isn't faith what else can it be ?

Yep its a very ironic twist. Maybe we could just drop the idea that there is faith. We differ in what we are accepting as the basis for action or understanding, but both structure the scenario . Some prophet in the desert is very much like the explorer in a lab..he has his reasons, built on SOME kind of input of experience.

[Nungali]

I see the price of fish has gone up again   

[Stosh]

I see the price of fish has gone up again  

 

Id figure youd Just ignore whats disinteresting. Ive got a thing to do...

[Jim D.]

There is an origin of mankind, and it isn't me.