Search results

I am not sure why you are suddenly focusing on "something else". I am not even sure what you are exactly referring to. If it is this part, I was merely using it in a similar sense as how people use 'etc'. This is just to leave a room open for other possibilities and types of hypotheses that I...

No foundation. No substance.

A negative/null hypothesis is still a hypothesis. The example doesn't explicitly indicate the presence of third phenomenon, but it doesn't explicitly tell anything about it being absent either. And now for the billion trillion bajillion dollar question...how????? I don't know. I have heard...

Since we were discussing Occam's Razor, 'usefulness' is not really directly relevant. In terms of usefulness, the co-incidence hypothesis can serve as a null hypothesis in practice - which can be abandoned in favor of some alternative hypothesis if there is a statistically significant...

I won't deny that this raises some question. But my point is that it's not perfectly clear that the other position is strictly superior to it in any straightforward manner at least in terms of Occam's Razor. Even in a usual non-solipsist world, the objects in the solipsists' consciousness...

But you are forced to choose one, or at least live like as if one is true unless you are not bothered by the suffering of strangers at all. If you keep on walking without caring about if your steps bring immense pain to the materials making up the road then either you don't care about other's...

It's a matter of phrasing. A1: All bodies are conscious A2: Only One body is conscious. I am not sure how exactly one is more presumptuous than the other if phrased like this. All vs only One - both are assumptions. But if someone interprets Occam's razor as that if two hypotheses have equal...

There are no 'solid' grounds which is what my point was mentioning 'epistemic hole'. I honestly don't know too much about Ockham's Razor. Of course, I know the standard definition and stuff, but I don't think I know deeply enough about it. From what I have seen, there are varying...

Do you mean objectively observable potential correlations of suffering? Can we measure them and make 'expected values' out of them? Can they be 'useful'? If so, why are they 'useful'? What do they tell us about if not suffering? Even though they themselves are not suffering directly...

It does tell something important namely that the conceptual system is untrue (or very likely to be untrue). The impossibility of true contradictions is one of the few things that approaches near absolute certainty if not truly absolute; up there with "I". It is not always clear if a conceptual...

But the planet X, I was speaking of doesn't have anything but phenomenal appearances. There is no cow killing people, there are only subjective experiences of being killed by a cow. In planet X, therefore, it is not correct to imagine people dying by cows. We should be them imagining from the...

How can I add the cow deaths to my imagination model. Those cow deaths are inseparable parts (dependent origination) of the isolated subjective experiences of the one who experiences the death. If I can add 'components' of subjective experiences of different people in my imagination why can I...

I wanted to respond to this before. I may be the unity behind the multiplicity in perception, but it is not clear that I is THE unity behind ALL multiplicity that may exist in ALL perception. There can be in principle multiple simple Is, each being numerically different, yet qualitatively...

But if the cows are merely subjective experiences, aren't they 'simple'. So if by chance, we live in an intersubjective world without anything much living outside the bubbles of consciousness, will nothing be countable? I can experience varying 'intensity' of suffering. Anything that has an...

Law of attraction is too new agey. I would rather prefer chaos magick.

Looks like someone is studying quantum physics from you tube.

I don't mean to say empirical observability altogether is irrelevant. In that context, I meant to say that empirical observability of other people's subjective states are irrelevant or at best only orthogonally related. If we are talking about hedonistic utilitarianism, I believe (I am not too...

So if 'suffering' was empirically observable and/or 'quantifiable' would the needs of many outweigh the needs of one? If not, then empirical observability is irrelevant. The issue exists only in the practical side of things, not at the level of developing\discovering foundational principles...

That's what I meant. There is no actual contradictions, of course, but you will be led to it if you understand the nature of addition (for example, if you confuse addition with the merging of droplets, then it isn't too far to conclude that the result of merging (1 droplet) is also the result of...

Ok, let's make it more interesting then. Let's say the hypothetical world only has 2 people and 2 planets. Would then the statistics of accidents this year hold no resemblance to reality? My point was exactly otherwise. I don't think that's what the concept of arithmatic is at all about...

Let's say in a hypothetical world, there had been 2 car accidents this year. One accident had been at planet X at time Z, and the other at planet Y time K. They didn't interacted with each other. They happened at different time and place. They don't in reality merge or separate. So is '2 car...

If utilitarianism is true, it's a normative policy which means to be more reasonable one has to judge the world by the particular utilitarian standard (which itself would be analogous to a standard of reasoning). If utilitarianism IS a normative standard, is of course, highly debatable, but if...

If life is empty, there should be a lot of space to fit into.

The standard idea of a priori and a posteriori that seems to me to be prevalent these days is that what is a priori and what is a posteriori do not depend on the actual source of knowledge, but on how they can be verified or justified. For a priori facts like "all bachelors are unmarried" one...

If utilatarianism is supposed to be a normative policy, and if according to a version of it (say Hedonistic Utilitarianism), the first world is better, then it is not better to a particular individual, but it is normatively better. So it's like asking to whom is X and not-X true? It should be...

I don't think any utilitarian seriously thinks that they are supposed to compensate in such a manner. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that we ought to maximize utility. Sure, the pleasures of millions will not necessarily alleviate the suffering of a prisoner, but no serious utilitarian would say...

What do you mean 'rules' are made to 'enforce' morality? Philosophy is interested in normative morality which is supposed to analogous to epistemic norms (principles of reasoning, logic etc.). You can enfore morality as much as you can enforce X or Not-X. It is supposed to be something that we...

I don't know any definition of materialism that necessitates that it has to be 'determinate'. Arguably some of the B-theorists who doesn't believe in 'time' are probably also materialists. And I'm sure there should be some immaterialists who believe that events can occur in time and space...

I don't understand how it is a critique - what does a descriptive account of what individuals do have anything to do with a normative prescription?

Some classic video game characters.

Thin air.

I hate to be.

is that an absolute truth?

The underlined reminds me of what Vivekananda said (in his speech in America, I think) about how ancient India started first by looking outside in the 'external world' - doing normal physics. Then they are said to have realized that the world as perceived is within themselves, and they shifted...

My meta-meta-meta-cognitive awareness is far too low for understanding some of meta-cognitive features and properties that are understood by my meta-meta-cognitive awareness.

Depends on the subject of PhD. But regardless I probably won't sell, unless I have some heavy financial necessity.

I have a random thought that balloon-whales exist in reality. Is that a knowledge? Can I say rightly say that I 'know' that balloon whales exist in reality, yet be uncertain of the truth of the balloon whale's existence because whether it's true is a different matter? That sounds like some...

Epistemology is pretty much anything knowledge related - basically a philosophy of knowledge. It is also concerned with 'what is knowledge', 'what is justification', etc. etc. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ By most conventions, if the knowledge is not founded on anything...

Knowledge is usually known to require some form of justification or evidence. Just 'knowing' doesn't sound like 'knowledge' at all. Your understanding of epsitemological nihilism is wrong too. Epistemological nihilists denies the existence of knowledge itself - they would say no one really...

How would anyone know that? Is the claim of impossibility to have any knowledge.

From what I know a genuine pseudo-intellectual appears to be an intellectual. They probably know some tricky terms, and can format sentences in a way that it appears smart. They may use some sophistry and stuff. But their claims may be unfounded and based on misconceived notions, which may not...

Or trolling.

It's not really that complicated. Many arguments are fairly undestandable by any laymen without getting too deep into background contexts. Some of this arguments are sometimes discussed in random internet forums. Like, Pascal's Wager. The issue is however, that most laymen responses are often...

None but the most naive atheists would think invisibility and intagibility imply non-existence. I don't think anyone here thinks in that way. So there's nothing much to say here. Classifying anyone religious as necessarily 'idioits' or 'irrational', may be a bit arrogant. But, one thing to...

There may be naive atheists who follows similar reasoning against ghost and religions. But, all in all, as other said, those are the weakest case for atheism, as far as I know. Most scientists aren't that deep into theism-vs-atheism literature either. Dawkin's arguments against God, for...

The issue of reconciling subjective experience and its supposed corresponding neural state is what is called as the 'hard problem of consciousness' in philosophy. It's problematic indeed. Not everybody agrees that there is a hard problem, but yeah, finding unanimous agreement is hard for any...

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

Mindfulness. Interacted with people. I talked a bit. Didn't go too well. I have made 'friends' all right. But one of them turned a bit strange. Some other ones; I didn't really like as a person. Many others simply used my 'skills'. So I stopped trying. Went back to isolation. I am not...

You don't necessarily have to be in a simulation to watch things getting disappeared. Things may disappear due to some unknown never discovered physical law or phenomena or something else, whatever. Who knows anything? Scientific models are provisionals, open to change as new contrary evidence...

That people inside a typical computer even has a perspective in a 'literal' sense is in-itself a metaphysically loaded statement. When you delete the shoe, the state of the hardware gets change. Sometimes the change is merely superficial, in the software level. There's no absolute deletion in a...