IQ

[Dimebag]

My question is, can you learn? If you already know everything then you are incapable of learning anything.

Your cup seems full.

[Advocate]

[quote=Dimebag post_id=472997 time=1600913245 user_id=5396]
My question is, can you learn? If you already know everything then you are incapable of learning anything.

You cup seems full.
[/quote]

When you know The Truth, everything but confirmation bias is bullshit. There is plenty i have left to learn and i'll be happy to point out those things when they come up, but that's not going to be very often because i stick close to what i can prove with certainty. The last parts of tiny.cc/TheWholeStory are reserved for particular areas i haven't explored yet and there's a lot i don't yet understand about consciousness and physics, but i can settle the ontological basics of each. I'm not capable of learning what i already know, and that happens to include everything from levels 1-8 in metaphysics and epistemology and levels 1-5 in ethics. I just made those numbers up. You get the point.

[Dimebag]

Very good, as Socrates put it, “the only thing I know is I know nothing”. This to me is the beginnings of learning. It’s a constant message throughout wisdom traditions.

[Advocate]

[quote=Dimebag post_id=473009 time=1600935565 user_id=5396]
Very good, as Socrates put it, “the only thing I know is I know nothing”. This to me is the beginnings of learning. It’s a constant message throughout wisdom traditions.
[/quote]

If wisdom traditions were actually wisdom they'd lead to actual answers instead of convincing people they know nothing. That seems like an anti-wisdom tradition to me. :P People latch onto that example because they venerate humbleness, not because the value wisdom. If everyone is humble that means it doesn't matter if you know anything or not, everyone can still feel special. I don't mean to denegrated wisdom traditions as such but if you browse through them looking for maxims and examples of non-wisdom acting as wisdom you'll find plenty. To know you know nothing isn't a first step, it's a last one, because you've accepted knowing nothing as a valid and positive option, which is absurd.

[Dimebag]

Very good, as Socrates put it, “the only thing I know is I know nothing”. This to me is the beginnings of learning. It’s a constant message throughout wisdom traditions.

If wisdom traditions were actually wisdom they'd lead to actual answers instead of convincing people they know nothing. That seems like an anti-wisdom tradition to me. People latch onto that example because they venerate humbleness, not because the value wisdom. If everyone is humble that means it doesn't matter if you know anything or not, everyone can still feel special. I don't mean to denegrated wisdom traditions as such but if you browse through them looking for maxims and examples of non-wisdom acting as wisdom you'll find plenty. To know you know nothing isn't a first step, it's a last one, because you've accepted knowing nothing as a valid and positive option, which is absurd.

It’s simply the appeal to people to question their assumptions.

[SteveKlinko]

Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.

Please enlighten me Sire, what is the solution to the Philosophical Hard Problem of Consciousness?

[Advocate]

[quote=Dimebag post_id=473022 time=1600945241 user_id=5396]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473015 time=1600939787]
[quote=Dimebag post_id=473009 time=1600935565 user_id=5396]
Very good, as Socrates put it, “the only thing I know is I know nothing”. This to me is the beginnings of learning. It’s a constant message throughout wisdom traditions.
[/quote]

If wisdom traditions were actually wisdom they'd lead to actual answers instead of convincing people they know nothing. That seems like an anti-wisdom tradition to me. :P People latch onto that example because they venerate humbleness, not because the value wisdom. If everyone is humble that means it doesn't matter if you know anything or not, everyone can still feel special. I don't mean to denegrated wisdom traditions as such but if you browse through them looking for maxims and examples of non-wisdom acting as wisdom you'll find plenty. To know you know nothing isn't a first step, it's a last one, because you've accepted knowing nothing as a valid and positive option, which is absurd.
[/quote]
It’s simply the appeal to people to question their assumptions.
[/quote]

The most insidious problems are created like that, having multiple levels of possible interpretation where one is true but mundane and the other is false and harmful. Dennett calls them deepities I call them wrong. That particular example is self-refuting. The only way to get wisdom out of it is to assume the wisdom into it first.

[Advocate]

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=473023 time=1600945658 user_id=14793]
[quote=Advocate post_id=472817 time=1600828474 user_id=15238]
Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
[/quote]
Please enlighten me Sire, what is the solution to the Philosophical Hard Problem of Consciousness?
[/quote]

Most versions i've head are actually how words for neuroscience. The simplest philosophical answer is; mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. Consciousness is a tricky subject because no definitions are agreed by anyone. When we have more of the science i imagine the questions will make more sense and be solvable, and the Hard Problem will either be rephrased completely or disappear. Do you have a specific version in mind to be answered?

[SteveKlinko]

Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.

Please enlighten me Sire, what is the solution to the Philosophical Hard Problem of Consciousness?

Most versions i've head are actually how words for neuroscience. The simplest philosophical answer is; mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. Consciousness is a tricky subject because no definitions are agreed by anyone. When we have more of the science i imagine the questions will make more sense and be solvable, and the Hard Problem will either be rephrased completely or disappear. Do you have a specific version in mind to be answered?

Since you said you had all of Philosophy figured out I was hoping you would tell me what the correct version is. Since I have found all the known versions to be lacking, I was further hoping that you might have discovered a New version that was the ultimate true version, that would solve the Hard Problem.

[Atla]

i'm afraid i must ignore your request to ignore you.

Okay well if you want, here's another one:
Do you know why it's impossible to fully solve the Hard problem of Consciousness using your Cogito-based solution of philosophy?

[Advocate]

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=473114 time=1601046580 user_id=14793]Since you said you had all of Philosophy figured out I was hoping you would tell me what the correct version is. Since I have found all the known versions to be lacking, I was further hoping that you might have discovered a New version that was the ultimate true version, that would solve the Hard Problem.
[/quote]

I don't have all of philosophy figured out, but i can answer all philosophical questions cohesively, directly or by logical extension.

If you'd care to provide a specific question i can either answer it, show how it's an empirical question ( most Why? questions about consciousness are actually How questions for neuroscience ), or why it's not a meaningful question. As for the hard problem, I've heard it phrased so many ways i can only answer what i perceive to be the central idea. "How does consciousness arise?" in the general sense is anthropology. In the immediate sense it's neuroscience. In no sense is it philosophy. in both senses it's not defined sufficiently to test.

Mine is no new philosophy, (probably) it's a new combination of maxims and answers that completes the task as has never been done before. The strength is in the combination - no gaps left unfilled. The Truth is but one thing and the best version is a practical and aesthetic choice. For some people "Ignorance is Bliss." is sufficient because they have no aspirations to truth. It's also The Truth, just at a remarkable low level of understanding, insufficient for running anything more complicated than a water faucet.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=473119 time=1601049649 user_id=15497]
Okay well if you want, here's another one:
Do you know why it's impossible to fully solve the Hard problem of Consciousness using your Cogito-based solution of philosophy? :)
[/quote]

I'll prove you wrong if you care to ask the hard problem in a specific way. I don't think you'll be satisfied though because most versions deconstruct to emperical questions, not philosophy.

[Atla]

I'll prove you wrong if you care to ask the hard problem in a specific way. I don't think you'll be satisfied though because most versions deconstruct to emperical questions, not philosophy.

You can try. This is how I've seen it best worded:

Why doesn't all this neurological processing just 'happen in the dark'? Why is subjective experience going with it?

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=473123 time=1601050415 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473122 time=1601050107 user_id=15238]
I'll prove you wrong if you care to ask the hard problem in a specific way. I don't think you'll be satisfied though because most versions deconstruct to emperical questions, not philosophy.
[/quote]
You can try. This is how I've seen it best worded:

Why doesn't all this neurological processing just 'happen in the dark'? Why is subjective experience going with it?
[/quote]

"Why?" in that context is meaningless. There are no "reasons" out there. If you mean causality, that's emperical. If you mean "to what end?" that's contingent. It's not a hard question to answer, it's just a hard question to ask.

[Atla]

"Why?" in that context is meaningless. There are no "reasons" out there. If you mean causality, that's emperical. If you mean "to what end?" that's contingent. It's not a hard question to answer, it's just a hard question to ask.

Well not really meaningless. We can describe all the physical processing that's happening inside the head, without ever mentioning subjective experience. So there are now people, especially physicalist skeptics with issues, who outright deny the existence of subjective experience.

Okay let's just say that they are crazy, and subjective experience is certainly real. Try to answer this one then:

How is it so that all this neurological processing doesn't just 'happen in the dark'? How is it so that subjective experience goes with it?