Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:54 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:41 am There are no objective moral facts, there are sentiments then made into rules and laws or societal norms.
The clue is the term "sentiments".
Where did they arise from?
I have argued these moral sentiments [not the arbitrary ones] are represented as inherent moral potentiality supported by physical neural networks as a matter of fact in the brain/mind of the individual[s].
These potentialities can be verified and justified by science and when inputted into a credible moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.
And you'll notice popeye that he will always come back to mirror neurons because these support his morality. He won't talk about the potentials in other parts of the brain as leading to knowledge of objective moral facts because they would support potentials he doesn't like.

I don't dislike that he hopes we are more empathetic, but occam's razor would slice us down to attitudinal and behavior potentials and that's it.


A credible moral FSK looks credible to those who share the morals and does not to those who don't.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:54 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:41 am There are no objective moral facts, there are sentiments then made into rules and laws or societal norms.
The clue is the term "sentiments".
Where did they arise from?
I have argued these moral sentiments [not the arbitrary ones] are represented as inherent moral potentiality supported by physical neural networks as a matter of fact in the brain/mind of the individual[s].
These potentialities can be verified and justified by science and when inputted into a credible moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.
Morality is thus confined to the individual[s]' brain and mind, where these potentialities are the internal moral laws to guide the individual towards moral progress on a spontaneous and based on freedom.

When these sentiments are interpreted from an external basis and make into rules [religious with threats] and laws with penalties, these are not related to morality-per-se at all but rather they relate to religions and politics respectively enforced by fears, threat of hell and penalties for criminality. Morality-proper's objective is confined to the individual[s] own self-development and moral progress such that the individual[s] will act in alignment with the inherent moral principles spontaneously with freedom [without external coercion].

The big question is how can be achieved the above objective which is in total contrast to the current perverted understanding of 'what is morality' like what Peter et. al. believe with ignorance and arrogance.
Veritas,
All is cognitive. The institutions you speak of are but humanities biological extensions, manifestation of human nature.
or, as I posted in response to him....
And you'll notice popeye that he will always come back to mirror neurons because these support his morality. He won't talk about the potentials in other parts of the brain as leading to knowledge of objective moral facts because they would support potentials he doesn't like.

I don't dislike that he hopes we are more empathetic, but occam's razor would slice us down to attitudinal and behavior potentials and that's it.


A credible moral FSK looks credible to those who share the morals and does not to those who don't.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by popeye1945 »

[/quote] But you ignore my point. The 'stimulus that affects ... or makes changes to the body which gives perception which gives objects' - these are all 'apparent reality' for any organism. You can't say all is illusion (apparent reality), which biological consciousness perceives and endows with meaning - because biological consciousness must itself be an illusion (an apparent reality). You don't seem to recognise the black hole you're in.

And, meanwhile, do you have an example of a physicist who talks confidently about 'ultimate reality' as 'a place of no things' in a scientific context?
[/quote]

Peter.

I think it is better to find another term than illusion, whatever it is it is a functional manifestation, an emergence arising from the relation between subject and object. Your body is of the same status as the world as object/s accept it is conscious but perhaps there is consciousness out there in an unrecognized degree. It is all very weird but the world of quantum mechanics is nothing if not weird. One can alter one's apparent reality simply by altering one's biological state. If you are looking for it not to be weird, it will be a long wait. Again apparent reality is biological reaction all organisms are reactive creatures and different species have different apparent realities although sharing in the same carbon-based biology.

The stimulus which produces apparent reality is not apparent reality, there is a distinction in physics between apparent reality and ultimate reality, ultimate reality being composed of pure energy and being a place of no things. Ultimate reality is composed of what we precive as objects and what we cannot perceive. This is the foundation of the statement that subject and object stand or fall together, take one away and the other ceases to be.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=objective ... FORM=QSRE1

https://amp.interestingengineering.com/ ... ve-reality.

There are numerous articles in, The Scientific American if you are a member.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=articles+ ... A1&PC=ACTS

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ob ... M%3DHDRSC3
Last edited by popeye1945 on Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato,

You both seem to be stuck on the mechanics of it ignoring the fact that there are no moral objective facts, it is all subjective until it is made manifest in the outerworld in the form of institutions, laws, societal norms etc, and again, these are biological extensions manifestations of human nature.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:54 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:41 am There are no objective moral facts, there are sentiments then made into rules and laws or societal norms.
The clue is the term "sentiments".
Where did they arise from?
I have argued these moral sentiments [not the arbitrary ones] are represented as inherent moral potentiality supported by physical neural networks as a matter of fact in the brain/mind of the individual[s].
These potentialities can be verified and justified by science and when inputted into a credible moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.
Morality is thus confined to the individual[s]' brain and mind, where these potentialities are the internal moral laws to guide the individual towards moral progress on a spontaneous and based on freedom.

When these sentiments are interpreted from an external basis and make into rules [religious with threats] and laws with penalties, these are not related to morality-per-se at all but rather they relate to religions and politics respectively enforced by fears, threat of hell and penalties for criminality.
Morality-proper's objective is confined to the individual[s] own self-development and moral progress such that the individual[s] will act in alignment with the inherent moral principles spontaneously with freedom [without external coercion].

The big question is how can be achieved the above objective which is in total contrast to the current perverted understanding of 'what is morality' like what Peter et. al. believe with ignorance and arrogance.
Veritas,
All is cognitive. The institutions you speak of are but humanities biological extensions, manifestation of human nature.
All is cognitive?
Cognition refers to "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses".[2] It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and discover new knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition
That "all is cognitive" as defined above is ubiquitous and do not say much about 'what is morality' nor objective moral facts.

I am not referring to the arbitrary moral opinions and beliefs by individuals.

What I am referring to is to the physical elements and processes in the brain with their moral potentialities that is related to what is morality; they are the objective moral facts.

Note the analogy to the the inherent 'metabolism and nutrition' potentiality within the brain and body of all human beings.
Surely each individual will have opinions and beliefs [& sentiments] to what they like to eat and how they produce and prepare the various types of food.
But underlying all these are the physical elements and processes in the brain and body that potentiality that drive humans to eat the essential nutrients within the variety of food and the manner they eat it.
It is this potentiality, the physical elements and processes in the brain & body and the "oughtness" to eat essential food that is categorized as metabolic and nutritional facts.
These facts can be verified and justified [thus conditioned] within the scientific framework and the nutritional framework.

I have applied the above analogy to the physical elements and processes in the brain with their moral potentialities that are associated with "what is morality."
Why is this not an epistemological possibility?
The institutions you speak of are but humanities biological extensions, manifestation of human nature.
You meant the 'religious' and 'legal' institutions?
If so, yes they are humanities biological extensions, manifestation of human nature but they are driven by the inherent moral potentialities.
That is why there are religions and secular laws that prohibit killing of humans and other evil acts, but as I had claimed they are of pseudo-morality based on fears, threats and coercions thus not morality proper.

Morality proper promotes the natural unfoldment of the moral potentialities within the individual[s] to act morally with spontaneity and freedom.

Given the current psychological states of the majority such natural unfoldment is not yet feasible but possible in the future provided if we take effective steps NOW to promote and expedite it.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas,

Yes, it is all cognitive all subjective for all meaning belongs to a conscious subject and never to the world as object, the world/apparent reality is utterly meaningless until meaning is bestowed upon it by biological consciousness. There are no objective moral facts in and of themselves to be found out there, they are first subjective and then bestowed upon a meaningless world.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945

I wrote:

But you ignore my point. The 'stimulus that affects ... or makes changes to the body which gives perception which gives objects' - these are all 'apparent reality' for any organism. You can't say all is illusion (apparent reality), which biological consciousness perceives and endows with meaning - because biological consciousness must itself be an illusion (an apparent reality). You don't seem to recognise the black hole you're in.

And, meanwhile, do you have an example of a physicist who talks confidently about 'ultimate reality' as 'a place of no things' in a scientific context?

popeye1945 replied:

Peter.

I think it is better to find another term than illusion, whatever it is it is a functional manifestation, an emergence arising from the relation between subject and object. Your body is of the same status as the world as object/s accept it is conscious but perhaps there is consciousness out there in an unrecognized degree. It is all very weird but the world of quantum mechanics is nothing if not weird. One can alter one's apparent reality simply by altering one's biological state. If you are looking for it not to be weird, it will be a long wait. Again apparent reality is biological reaction all organisms are reactive creatures and different species have different apparent realities although sharing in the same carbon-based biology.

My response:

If all is apparent reality, then so is the subject, the object and the 'functional manifeatation' that emerges from the relation between them. You can't have your apparent cake and eat it. And the hippy woo - 'perhaps there is consciousness out there in an unrecognised degree' - says it all. You say ultimate reality is a place of no things - and so no place either - but that 'apparent reality is biological reaction' - which, in your ridiculous model, must also be merely apparent. You can keep producing this nonsense, but it will remain nonsense.

popeye1945 continued from above:

The stimulus which produces apparent reality is not apparent reality, there is a distinction in physics between apparent reality and ultimate reality, ultimate reality being composed of pure energy and being a place of no things. Ultimate reality is composed of what we precive as objects and what we cannot perceive. This is the foundation of the statement that subject and object stand or fall together, take one away and the other ceases to be.

I now respond:

How does ultimate reality - composed of pure energy and being a place of no things (so not even energy?) - 'stimulate' apparent reality? What's the causal mechanism? Is it physical - or non-physical? And what is non-physical causation? Is that an appeal to magic?

You've invented a quasi-religious fiction that, presumably, satisfies you.

(By the way, it's much, much easier just to hit the quote (") button at the top right of the post you're responding to, then bracket any comment you want to insert with /quote between square brackets at the start, and quote between square brackets at the end, which will lift your new text out from the post itself. And it'd mean we wouldn't have to repair your post before replying to it.)
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter.

You have a better explanation? If modern physics tells us that ultimate reality is just energy forms of frequencies then this must be what is the stimulus of what is taken by science and philosophy as the world as object. This is in the sense that this energy is the stimulus affecting the body. If you wish to experience a different apparent reality just alter/change your biological state. It is my contention that all creatures are reactionary in nature and indeed there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction. Evolutionary development is totally dependent upon the reactive nature of organisms, even the disease of organisms is reactionary in nature. Things are objects, more mass than energy, pure energy is not a thing or object. Thanks I'll try to get a handle on the quote system. The causal mechanism is the biological subject, the affects of this energy creating changes in the body is meaning, is the apparent reality/objective world. As to the woooing I watched those debates too. Remember, we only know the world on a cognitive level, there is no other way.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:59 am Peter.

You have a better explanation? If modern physics tells us that ultimate reality is just energy forms of frequencies then this must be what is the stimulus of what is taken by science and philosophy as the world as object. This is in the sense that this energy is the stimulus affecting the body. If you wish to experience a different apparent reality just alter/change your biological state. It is my contention that all creatures are reactionary in nature and indeed there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction. Evolutionary development is totally dependent upon the reactive nature of organisms, even the disease of organisms is reactionary in nature. Things are objects, more mass than energy, pure energy is not a thing or object. Thanks I'll try to get a handle on the quote system. The causal mechanism is the biological subject, the affects of this energy creating changes in the body is meaning, is the apparent reality/objective world. As to the woooing I watched those debates too. Remember, we only know the world on a cognitive level, there is no other way.
1 I'm a physicalist, because, pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, it's the only rational position - in my opinion. And it seems to me you're also a physicalist, because you don't appeal to any non-physical cause.

2 The claim that the 'biological subject' causes apparent reality is nonsense, as is your claim about what constitutes what we call meaning. Your rhetoric ensnares you in grand absurdities.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter,

I am all ears educate me. Did you not use any of the links I provided on there being no objective reality? I don't hear any crediable systems of thought coming from your direction. Answer me one question if you would, what is the source of meaning? Do you consider pure energy physical, I consider physical the tangible, the world as an object.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:59 am Peter,

I am all ears educate me. Did you not use any of the links I provided on there being no objective reality? I don't hear any crediable systems of thought coming from your direction. Answer me one question if you would, what is the source of meaning? Do you consider pure energy physical, I consider physical the tangible, the world as an object.
If an expression, such as 'objective reality', is incoherent, there's no need to enquire as to whether the thing supposedly named by such an expression could exist. It's a fool's errand.

My questions: What is objective reality? And is it different from subjective reality? And what is subjective reality anyway? And I don't think these are scientific questions - though they may be asked by scientists straying unwisely into the philosophy swamp.

You ask, portentously: what is the source of meaning? Do you think meaning is a thing of some kind that has a source? If so, what kind of thing is meaning, and where is it? This is philosophical delusion at work, mistaking an abstract noun for a thing of some kind that can be explained.

Look at the various different ways we do or could use the word 'meaning', its cognates and related words, and that will exhaust what we call meaning. After all, what could be left over? Some essence or Platonic form?

Meanwhile, the physical is energy and the form of energy we call matter. What physicists study.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:33 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:59 am Peter,

I am all ears educate me. Did you not use any of the links I provided on there being no objective reality? I don't hear any crediable systems of thought coming from your direction. Answer me one question if you would, what is the source of meaning? Do you consider pure energy physical, I consider physical the tangible, the world as an object.
If an expression, such as 'objective reality', is incoherent, there's no need to enquire as to whether the thing supposedly named by such an expression could exist. It's a fool's errand.

My questions: What is objective reality? And is it different from subjective reality? And what is subjective reality anyway? And I don't think these are scientific questions - though they may be asked by scientists straying unwisely into the philosophy swamp.
The term 'objectivity' and 'reality' are critical terms for the well being and progress of humanity.
You cannot deny you have used the term 'objectivity' many times in your argument.

The problem with the term 'objective reality' as you and your likes believe it to be is, your objective reality [facts, truths] is absolutely independent of the human conditions, e.g. so independent that the 'moon will exists if there are no humans'.
For you there is no other perspectives to the above, period. This dogmatic view is very kindergartenish thinking.

The 'fact' is there are more subtle perspectives of 'objective reality' other than the 'obvious' common sense one you are stuck with.
Upon deeper philosophical reflection, there is an underlying essence of 'subjectivity' to what is crude 'objective reality' where it is entangled with the human conditions, i.e. intersubjectivity, not personal subjectivity.

The point is, we are not to abandon 'crude objective reality' but rather both perspective has its relative usefulness.
Note,
  • 1. Newtonian Physics rely on crude objective reality but it still has its use relative to its qualified conditions.
    2. Then we have Einstein's revelation of some degree of subjectivity 'the observers' effect' which is much more sophisticated than Newtonian objective reality, thus intersubjectivity.
    3. At present we have QM with a higher degree of intersubjective reality with a greater degree of human entanglement.
However note the very contrasting relative degrees of potential utilities [pro_s] to mankind from 1 to 2 to 3. Note the exponential potentials of utilities associated with 'Quantum' e.g. quantum computers, quantum this and quantum that.

Thus if you are stuck with crude objective reality [i.e. 1] your philosophy would be of very low grade in terms of its potential utility to mankind now and in the future.

My proposals of moral facts is based on perspective 2 and 3 thus has greater potential utility for mankind in the future in contrast to your indifference and low quality moral elements.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:33 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:59 am Peter,

I am all ears educate me. Did you not use any of the links I provided on there being no objective reality? I don't hear any crediable systems of thought coming from your direction. Answer me one question if you would, what is the source of meaning? Do you consider pure energy physical, I consider physical the tangible, the world as an object.
If an expression, such as 'objective reality', is incoherent, there's no need to enquire as to whether the thing supposedly named by such an expression could exist. It's a fool's errand.

My questions: What is objective reality? And is it different from subjective reality? And what is subjective reality anyway? And I don't think these are scientific questions - though they may be asked by scientists straying unwisely into the philosophy swamp.

You ask, portentously: what is the source of meaning? Do you think meaning is a thing of some kind that has a source? If so, what kind of thing is meaning, and where is it? This is philosophical delusion at work, mistaking an abstract noun for a thing of some kind that can be explained.

Look at the various different ways we do or could use the word 'meaning', its cognates and related words, and that will exhaust what we call meaning. After all, what could be left over? Some essence or Platonic form?

Meanwhile, the physical is energy and the form of energy we call matter. What physicists study.
Peter,

Objective reality is your everyday experience or apparent reality and is subjective for the only way to know this objective reality is cognitively.
You don't seem to be familiar with the basic terms needed for discussion. I would recommend you access the links I provided and also read a little of Spinoza, this dialogue is finished until you do so.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:09 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:33 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:59 am Peter,

I am all ears educate me. Did you not use any of the links I provided on there being no objective reality? I don't hear any crediable systems of thought coming from your direction. Answer me one question if you would, what is the source of meaning? Do you consider pure energy physical, I consider physical the tangible, the world as an object.
If an expression, such as 'objective reality', is incoherent, there's no need to enquire as to whether the thing supposedly named by such an expression could exist. It's a fool's errand.

My questions: What is objective reality? And is it different from subjective reality? And what is subjective reality anyway? And I don't think these are scientific questions - though they may be asked by scientists straying unwisely into the philosophy swamp.

You ask, portentously: what is the source of meaning? Do you think meaning is a thing of some kind that has a source? If so, what kind of thing is meaning, and where is it? This is philosophical delusion at work, mistaking an abstract noun for a thing of some kind that can be explained.

Look at the various different ways we do or could use the word 'meaning', its cognates and related words, and that will exhaust what we call meaning. After all, what could be left over? Some essence or Platonic form?

Meanwhile, the physical is energy and the form of energy we call matter. What physicists study.
Peter,

Objective reality is your everyday experience or apparent reality and is subjective for the only way to know this objective reality is cognitively.
You don't seem to be familiar with the basic terms needed for discussion. I would recommend you access the links I provided and also read a little of Spinoza, this dialogue is finished until you do so.
So you can't answer any of my questions. No surprise. I strongly recommend rational skepticism and critical thinking - as opposed to mantra-mumbling. Happy to end our conversation - until you actually do some real thinking for yourself.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by popeye1945 »

Truth is individual experience, and experience thus truth is true to the biology that experiences it. Change the biology and you change experience and thus you change the truth. All perceptions, all experiences, and all meanings are biologically dependent and thus subjective, thus truth itself is subjective, because truth is a meaning and truth is an experience and truth is biologically dependent.
Post Reply