Philosophy undermines truth

[attofishpi]

It's a tool that we use to do those things. Tools themselves don't "attempt" anything, however, they can be used well or poorly by people.

I know, it's so fucking annoying when people's cars overheat outside my house and I have to let them use my tap.

Are you able to choose otherwise or is there a law where you reside that requires you to let them use your tap? Though, I suppose others are thankful when you allow them to do that. It's certainly kind of you to do so.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No, there's only Brian law. (Did they ask nicely OR are they a hot chick that spoke to me in any manner at all)

[Gary Childress]

I know, it's so fucking annoying when people's cars overheat outside my house and I have to let them use my tap.

Are you able to choose otherwise or is there a law where you reside that requires you to let them use your tap? Though, I suppose others are thankful when you allow them to do that. It's certainly kind of you to do so.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No, there's only Brian law. (Did they ask nicely OR are they a hot chick that spoke to me in any manner at all)

That sounds very nice of you.

[attofishpi]

Are you able to choose otherwise or is there a law where you reside that requires you to let them use your tap? Though, I suppose others are thankful when you allow them to do that. It's certainly kind of you to do so.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No, there's only Brian law. (Did they ask nicely OR are they a hot chick that spoke to me in any manner at all)

That sounds very nice of you.

Well thanks Gary, and you are a lovely bloke that simply misunderstands reality (God) - which is no fault of yours but society and perception.

Now, everytime I return from my study to sit back on my couch my ph pings, and I have to drag my arse back to my compooter to see if I can make a bigger idiot of myself than I did on the last post..

It's getting late mate, but seriously, if you ever want to talk to someone that has done at least some of your yards, PM, email - no worries, happy to chat.

[Iwannaplato]

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 9:25 am

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 9:15 am
My screenreader notifies me when there's an image embedded in the text.

I'm blind, by the way.

Он. ОК. Му bаd.

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:42 am
Speaking as someone who is *completely* colour blind

Sо whеn уоu sаid тнат уоu arе соlоur blind уоu астuаllу меаnт тнат уоu аrе blind?

Yes, that's why I jumped on this thread.

Sorry, I assumed everyone knew. I've certainly never made a secret of it.

OK, but you are lying.

Not unaware of some feature of a program, for example. Lying.

[Skepdick]

Not unaware of some feature of a program, for example. Lying.

Quite correct. There was absolutely a source of noise (entropy, chaos, bullshit generator) in our interaction. It's just that unlike with most philosophers it wasn't located in her head. And I assumed it was.

Once I located the source outside of her head, I realised my own error. That's how adjusting one's priors in real-time works.

Want me to take you through the reasoning? No problem...

Do you see any difference between A and A?
What about A and A?
A human doesn't but a computer does.

Code: Select all

In [1]: 'A' == 'А'
Out[1]: False
In [2]: 'A' == 'A'
Out[2]: True

So when somebody tells you they are blind, yet they visually mistake Cyrillic sentences for English sentences (an error that only a visual system would make) that's clear counter-evidence against the claim of blindness.

Strictly speaking Maia has a visual system. It's just not biological - it's cybernetic. So yes - she is "lying" about being blind in the functional sense, but not in the medical sense.

Instead of waxing lyrical with your usual phylosophical bullshit measure the time it took me to detect and self-correct my error without the need for lengthy arguments, definitions or "battle of wits". Because I am a fucking scientist, not a philosopher and all of that stuff is basic information theory/control theory/second-order cybernetics. The usual stuff computer scientists deal with on the daily.

[Sculptor]

Philosophy categorizes truth.
Philosophy understands truth.
Philosophy defines truth.
Philosophy exposes lies.

I agree that it attempts to do all that.

Which is why next time you are in Australia I'll be happy to baptize you at the tap on the side of my house.

You may have to wait a while.

[attofishpi]

Philosophy categorizes truth.
Philosophy understands truth.
Philosophy defines truth.
Philosophy exposes lies.

I agree that it attempts to do all that.

Which is why next time you are in Australia I'll be happy to baptize you at the tap on the side of my house.

You may have to wait a while.

Well, just make sure you check we don't have a drought and water restrictions (I know how big your head is )

But honestly, if you'd prefer baptism via a pint of beer over the tongue, some genius created BOONYISM!!!

A religion for atheists (it even allows you to drink beer in any court case - where none of the Commandments have been broken)

To become a bona fide boonyist of boonyism, head here:- https://boonyism.com/

[Age]

1. What do you mean by "open"?

NOT BELIEVING NOR ASSUMING that you ALREADY KNOW some 'thing'; and above in relation to just looking at or from one limited or particular 'thing' or perspective and NOT from a just Truly UNLIMITED, or OPEN, perspective.

2. What makes you say I am not "open"?

you were looking from an ALREADY PRESUMED position.

I'm not a mind reader.

If 'I' was 'you' I would NOT be SO SURE here.

Obviously one would have to first KNOW what the 'Mind' IS, EXACTLY, before they would then be ABLE TO KNOW if they were a so-called 'mind reader' or not.

I'm not a blank slate.

'This' IS CLEARLY VERY OBVIOUS.

And I can only perceive as I perceive.

It IS this EXACT type of LIMITED, or ALREADY CLOSED position, VIEWING of 'things', which I am HIGHLIGHTING here.

So, if you perceive CLOSED or BLINDINGLY, then you BELIEVE that you can ONLY perceive CLOSED or BLINDINGLY, right?

If yes, then in case you were NOT YET AWARE 'this' was the ACTUAL POINT I was and am MAKING here.

And posing specific questions to others is how I learn what others think or believe.

But posing specific CLOSED questions to "others", as you OBVIOUSLY DID, besides allowing you to learn only VERY LIMITED 'things' it is also 'confirmation bias' at work and at play. As could be CLEARLY SEEN above here.

Others are free to respond to those questions as they see fit--or not at all if that's their choice.

OBVIOUSLY.

But OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS LEADS TO BECOMING Truly WISER. Whereas your CLOSED QUESTIONING LEADS you TO 'trying to' confirm your OWN preexisting BELIEFS, ASSUMPTIONS, PREJUDICES, or POSITIONS.

What more do you want from me that I'm able to comply with?

I do NOT necessarily 'want' ANY 'more' from you. I, however, just KNOW that IF you Truly WANT TO LEARN 'more', and thus BECOME WISER, then your LIMITED VIEWING and QUESTIONING here IS and will NOT HELP you.

[Age]

Philosophy categorizes truth.
Philosophy understands truth.
Philosophy defines truth.
Philosophy exposes lies.

If you think it undermines truth, then the likelihood is that you have been upset by having your lies exposed with reason and logic.

Show me.

Categorize true philosophy from false philosophy.
Categorize me true understanding from non-true understanding.
Categorize good definitions from non-good definitions.

Categorise categorizations by “right” and “non-right”.

ALL of these are EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY TO DO.

However you have NOT YET matured enough to even be just ABLE TO define the words you USE here, which IS what IS NEEDED here, FIRST.

AND, the VERY REASON WHY you do NOT YET define the VERY WORDS you USE here IS BECAUSE doing so WOULD CONTRADICT, and thus DEFEAT, your OWN preexisting position and BELIEF here regarding ' 'philosophy' undermining 'truth' '.

Dumb categorizer.
[/quote]

CLAIMING 'this' here SPEAKS for itself.

[Age]

Show me.

Categorize true philosophy from false philosophy.
Categorize me true understanding from false understanding.
Categorize good definitions from bad definitions.
Expose true philosophy from false philosophy.

Dumb categorizer.

How does philosophy "undermine truth"? Or what is meant by "truth" or "undermine"? For example, someone gets hit by a car. Does philosophy tell us that someone was not hit by a car or something?

It encourages unwarranted skepticism.

Will you provide examples?

If no, then WHY NOT? What are 'you' AFRAID and SCARED OF here EXACTLY "skepdick"?

[Age]

How does philosophy "undermine truth"? Or what is meant by "truth" or "undermine"? For example, someone gets hit by a car. Does philosophy tell us that someone was not hit by a car or something?

It encourages unwarranted skepticism.

Does it? It seems to me that if skepticism is "unwarranted" then it is "unwarranted" and philosophy would tell us that it is "unwarranted".

ABSOLUTE BRILLIANT response here "gary childress".

[Age]

Does it? It seems to me that if skepticism is "unwarranted" then it is "unwarranted" and philosophy would tell us that it is "unwarranted".

Will it? How will a way of thinking characterised as “challenging or ideas” going to help you realise that you are over-indexing on the “challenging” part?

I don't know the answer to that. You seem to be skeptical about philosophy's ability to guide us, though. Is your skepticism "warranted"?

GREAT QUESTION here

[Age]

Will it? How will a way of thinking characterised as “challenging or ideas” going to help you realise that you are over-indexing on the “challenging” part?

I don't know the answer to that. You seem to be skeptical about philosophy's ability to guide us, though. Is your skepticism "warranted"?

It is.

you do NOT WAIT. you JUST ALREADY KNOW, right?

Having had plenty of my truthful claims dismissed on philosophical grounds (lack of evidence) it makes my skepticism of philosophy warranted.

So:

1. To you is 'philosophical grounds' JUST 'lack of evidence' ONLY?

2. iF you had ANY ACTUAL PROOF FOR ANY of your ALLEGED 'truthful claims', then all you would have to do is just PRESENT that PROOF, and then NO one could DISMISS your so-called and alleged 'truthful claims'.

I suggest that BEFORE you present ANY so-called 'truthful claims' here, in public, that you HAVE the ACTUAL PROOF, FIRST, and have 'it' READY TO PRESENT. Otherwise:

1. WHY are you WANTING TO MAKE the CLAIMS anyway?

2. HOW do you even KNOW, without ANY DOUBT AT ALL, that your so-called 'truthful claims' ARE in Fact Truthful, if you do NOT YET even have ACTUAL PROOF, FIRST?

By the way, dismissing absolutely ANY 'thing' just because of 'lack of evidence' is NOT a 'philosophical grounds' and has NEVER BEEN., you are just 'TRYING TO' make 'THIS CLAIM' because you are on your 'last legs', as some might say, and have NOTHING ELSE to rely on. 'lack of evidence' has also 'ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with 'philosophy', itself.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Adding NONSENSE like this is NOT helping your BELIEF and POSITION AT ALL here

[Age]

I don't know the answer to that. You seem to be skeptical about philosophy's ability to guide us, though. Is your skepticism "warranted"?

It is. Having had plenty of my truthful claims dismissed on philosophical grounds (lack of evidence) it makes my skepticism of philosophy warranted.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Was it "philosophy" that caused your "truthful" claims to be dismissed or was it individuals who weren't practicing philosophy the way it ought to be practiced that caused the claims to be dismissed?

ANOTHER GREAT QUESTION.

[Age]

Does it? It seems to me that if skepticism is "unwarranted" then it is "unwarranted" and philosophy would tell us that it is "unwarranted".

I think it is "unwarranted" when it disagrees with Skeptic. (paradoxically) LOL

If I am telling the truth and you disagree with me then you are disagreeing with the truth.

AND, when 'i' am telling the truth, and 'you', "skepdick", disagree with 'me', then 'you' are JUST disagreeing with the truth.

But so what?

This is just a fairly straightforward Fact, and thus straightforward Truth also, right?

Of course it’s unwarranted.

Would 'your' doing here "skepdick" also be, of course, unwarranted as well?

OR would 'this' be DIFFERENT now?