Humans are more Animal than being more Human.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The human evolutionary ancestors are traceable to 4 billions years ago when the first one-cell animals first emerged.

The first human only appeared since 2.4-1.4 million years ago and modern humans appeared some 200,000 - 300,000 years ago.

Since all living organism improved upon the previous but retained most of the fundamental features [cells, breathing, digestion, 4Fs], all modern humans are more animals [4 billion years history] than being more human [200,000 years ago].

To facilitate survival within a threatening environment, the default instinct is for all living things to be programmed with an outward paradigm, i.e. things exist absolutely independent of the human self.
This default is that of Philosophical Realism.

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note the other default paradigms, e.g. the Flat-Earthers Geocentric thinkers.
While the majority of people has progressed and shifted from the Flat-Earthers Geocentric paradigm to the heliocentric paradigm, unfortunately the majority of people are still stuck with the Philosophical Realism paradigm.
The reason is because they are more animal driven more instinctually than being-more-human.

But fortunately a certain percentile of humans are progressing to being-more-human to think out of the box with various paradigm shift, e.g. to the Philosophical Anti-Realism [e.g. Kantian] paradigm which has to use more the higher developed rational human brain.

My point,
Those who are stuck with philosophical realism [see above] e.g. Peter Holmes, Eodnhoj7 & majority of posters, theists, and the likes are in a way more animal [instinct dominant] than being more human [rational brain dominant].


Btw, I was once a theist and philosophical realist for a long time but have progressed away from these dogmatic instinctual ideologies.

Agree?

[promethean75]

Yeah sure I can agree with that. But here's the thing. It's not ENTIRELY irrational to at least entertain the possibility that there MIGHT be some kind of 'god' thing going on out there. Combine the fact that intelligent life is so mysteriously complex with the fact that the universe is fuckin yuge and at some point, didn't even exist (big bang theory), and a nigga's gotta start wondering wtf is going on.

But look though. Christianity, or i should say the abrahamic religions in toto, are so utterly ridiculous that they should be exempt from an agnostic's consideration completely.

In other words, if there were a 'god' thing of some kind, it sure as shit wouldn't be the abrahamic god.

When I wuz in my late teens and on the edge of atheism, I usta ax myself 'how could the god that these clowns believe in, actually exist?'

What was happening wuz, I was ruling out the possibility of the Christian god because of the kind of people, behavior and practices associated with that belief. I wuz like 'no way man. If there wuz a god, it would have nothing to do with this nonsense'.

Thus I came to know the Christian god as the god of the ugly little people.

So yeah, even granting that agnosticism isn't entirely absurd, Christian belief can't be a part of that. It has to be an acute psychological condition of a kind of complex twisted animal that is so emotionally fucked up, it would believe and behave as it does.

[promethean75]

If I am to go on record, however, I should state that I am an atheist. But to me, atheism is an equivalent of indifferent agnosticism... in that while I admit of a possibility of a 'god's' existence, I am so unconcerned with it that I might as well not even acknowledge it.

Max(imum) Stirner explains....

"... he cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must “serve a higher cause.” – Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is – a purely egoistic cause."

"The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine [das Meinige] , and it is not a general one, but is – unique [einzig], as I am unique. Nothing is more to me than myself!"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah sure I can agree with that. But here's the thing. It's not ENTIRELY irrational to at least entertain the possibility that there MIGHT be some kind of 'god' thing going on out there. Combine the fact that intelligent life is so mysteriously complex with the fact that the universe is fuckin yuge and at some point, didn't even exist (big bang theory), and a nigga's gotta start wondering wtf is going on.

But look though. Christianity, or i should say the abrahamic religions in toto, are so utterly ridiculous that they should be exempt from an agnostic's consideration completely.

In other words, if there were a 'god' thing of some kind, it sure as shit wouldn't be the abrahamic god.

When I wuz in my late teens and on the edge of atheism, I usta ax myself 'how could the god that these clowns believe in, actually exist?'

What was happening wuz, I was ruling out the possibility of the Christian god because of the kind of people, behavior and practices associated with that belief. I wuz like 'no way man. If there wuz a god, it would have nothing to do with this nonsense'.

Thus I came to know the Christian god as the god of the ugly little people.

So yeah, even granting that agnosticism isn't entirely absurd, Christian belief can't be a part of that. It has to be an acute psychological condition of a kind of complex twisted animal that is so emotionally fucked up, it would believe and behave as it does.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah sure I can agree with that. But here's the thing. It's not ENTIRELY irrational to at least entertain the possibility that there MIGHT be some kind of 'god' thing going on out there. Combine the fact that intelligent life is so mysteriously complex with the fact that the universe is fuckin yuge and at some point, didn't even exist (big bang theory), and a nigga's gotta start wondering wtf is going on.

But look though. Christianity, or i should say the abrahamic religions in toto, are so utterly ridiculous that they should be exempt from an agnostic's consideration completely.

In other words, if there were a 'god' thing of some kind, it sure as shit wouldn't be the abrahamic god.

When I wuz in my late teens and on the edge of atheism, I usta ax myself 'how could the god that these clowns believe in, actually exist?'

What was happening wuz, I was ruling out the possibility of the Christian god because of the kind of people, behavior and practices associated with that belief. I wuz like 'no way man. If there wuz a god, it would have nothing to do with this nonsense'.

Thus I came to know the Christian god as the god of the ugly little people.

So yeah, even granting that agnosticism isn't entirely absurd, Christian belief can't be a part of that. It has to be an acute psychological condition of a kind of complex twisted animal that is so emotionally fucked up, it would believe and behave as it does.

Whilst I've argued the philosophical realists, theists, pantheists, deists, panentheists, are being more animal than being more human, I believe they have no better choice at present than desperately clinging to their current beliefs to soothe the terrible psychological pains that would emerge if they are to give up the present beliefs.

The above ideological beliefs are critically necessary as consonance to relieve the cognitive dissonances which is inevitable in the course of human evolution.
Fortunately most of them are not a threat to humanity except the theism of Islam which command believers [directly and indirectly] to kill non-believers upon the vaguest threats to their religion.

At present the average human is on the evolutionary trend to inhibit the basic animal instincts and triggering the higher human brain to deal with greater threats to humanity of the global and galactical scale. Note the race to space which need higher human intelligence, rationality and wisdom plus development in morality.
What is needed is to expedite this trend of progress to be more human than being animal.

Whilst theism is a critical necessity for the majority at present to fulfill some critical psychological need, theism is grounded on a belief of an illusory being which is impossible to be real.

Note my argument,

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

While we have no choice but to accept theism as a necessary, transitional and temporary measure at present, we must strive from the present to wean off theism as soon as possible by expediting fool proofs non-theistic self-development programs and to achieve reasonable progress in the future within the next few generations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any precise claims of the Triune Brain is controversial, but on a crude basis the Triune Brain do give one an idea of how the reptilian, mammalian are grounded within the supposedly parts attributed to the later evolution of humans.

[popeye1945]

I believe physics has trashed this concept of philosophical realism in establishing the two concepts of the real. One, is apparent reality, that which the experiences of our bodies delivers to us. It being made up of a range of wave frequencies out of a totality that we can't sense. Two, ultimate reality the total of all the stimulus in the way of wave frequencies of that which are out there. Things are what matter and are sensed by organic biological subjects, this to organism is what is real. Science I believe has established ultimate reality as a place of no things. Apparent reality is underlined by the statement that, subject and object stand or fall together. Understanding this means, in the absence of a conscious subject there are no things, it is all wave frequencies. Another concept here which is misleading is the concept of the distinction of humans and animals, there is no distinction to be made, we are animals, we are many many animals, the essence of all life is the same, whatever that might be, the differences in organism form is what fools many in to thinking in two categories, there is but one category, one carbon-based biology of one essence. Nature creates and re-creates the structure of the body and form follows, but the essence remains the same. Understanding the above, it then comes down to one question. When does a condition become a thing, the condition being ultimate reality/ the answer, in the presence of a biologically conscious subject, so it is life itself which creates the real, biology itself creates things. The real is relative only to life itself.

[RCSaunders]

I believe physics has trashed this concept of philosophical realism in establishing the two concepts of the real. One, is apparent reality, that which the experiences of our bodies delivers to us. It being made up of a range of wave frequencies out of a totality that we can't sense. Two, ultimate reality the total of all the stimulus in the way of wave frequencies of that which are out there. Things are what matter and are sensed by organic biological subjects, this to organism is what is real. Science I believe has established ultimate reality as a place of no things. Apparent reality is underlined by the statement that, subject and object stand or fall together. Understanding this means, in the absence of a conscious subject there are no things, it is all wave frequencies. Another concept here which is misleading is the concept of the distinction of humans and animals, there is no distinction to be made, we are animals, we are many many animals, the essence of all life is the same, whatever that might be, the differences in organism form is what fools many in to thinking in two categories, there is but one category, one carbon-based biology of one essence. Nature creates and re-creates the structure of the body and form follows, but the essence remains the same. Understanding the above, it then comes down to one question. When does a condition become a thing, the condition being ultimate reality/ the answer, in the presence of a biologically conscious subject, so it is life itself which creates the real, biology itself creates things. The real is relative only to life itself.

I think you have confused the ontological (existence itself) with the epistemological (knowledge of that existence). While nothing matters or has meaning sans human consciousness, what exists (including human existence) precedes conscious knowledge of it, else there would be nothing to be conscious of or know.

Here's one way to see it. When you cease to exist, existence itself remains exactly what it is with the exception of your absence. You might say, existence ceases for you, but it certainly does not cease to be for those who observe your demise.

[Impenitent]

I believe physics has trashed this concept of philosophical realism in establishing the two concepts of the real. One, is apparent reality, that which the experiences of our bodies delivers to us. It being made up of a range of wave frequencies out of a totality that we can't sense. Two, ultimate reality the total of all the stimulus in the way of wave frequencies of that which are out there. Things are what matter and are sensed by organic biological subjects, this to organism is what is real. Science I believe has established ultimate reality as a place of no things. Apparent reality is underlined by the statement that, subject and object stand or fall together. Understanding this means, in the absence of a conscious subject there are no things, it is all wave frequencies. Another concept here which is misleading is the concept of the distinction of humans and animals, there is no distinction to be made, we are animals, we are many many animals, the essence of all life is the same, whatever that might be, the differences in organism form is what fools many in to thinking in two categories, there is but one category, one carbon-based biology of one essence. Nature creates and re-creates the structure of the body and form follows, but the essence remains the same. Understanding the above, it then comes down to one question. When does a condition become a thing, the condition being ultimate reality/ the answer, in the presence of a biologically conscious subject, so it is life itself which creates the real, biology itself creates things. The real is relative only to life itself.

I think you have confused the ontological (existence itself) with the epistemological (knowledge of that existence). While nothing matters or has meaning sans human consciousness, what exists (including human existence) precedes conscious knowledge of it, else there would be nothing to be conscious of or know.

Here's one way to see it. When you cease to exist, existence itself remains exactly what it is with the exception of your absence. You might say, existence ceases for you, but it certainly does not cease to be for those who observe your demise.

IF the other observers exist as you believe you exist that is...

yet one never observes the direct observation of others particularly through their senses...

speaking generally about similar observations doesn't generate certainty...

the continued existence of that which is not constantly observed is tenuous at best...

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

I believe physics has trashed this concept of philosophical realism in establishing the two concepts of the real. One, is apparent reality, that which the experiences of our bodies delivers to us. It being made up of a range of wave frequencies out of a totality that we can't sense. Two, ultimate reality the total of all the stimulus in the way of wave frequencies of that which are out there. Things are what matter and are sensed by organic biological subjects, this to organism is what is real. Science I believe has established ultimate reality as a place of no things. Apparent reality is underlined by the statement that, subject and object stand or fall together. Understanding this means, in the absence of a conscious subject there are no things, it is all wave frequencies. Another concept here which is misleading is the concept of the distinction of humans and animals, there is no distinction to be made, we are animals, we are many many animals, the essence of all life is the same, whatever that might be, the differences in organism form is what fools many in to thinking in two categories, there is but one category, one carbon-based biology of one essence. Nature creates and re-creates the structure of the body and form follows, but the essence remains the same. Understanding the above, it then comes down to one question. When does a condition become a thing, the condition being ultimate reality/ the answer, in the presence of a biologically conscious subject, so it is life itself which creates the real, biology itself creates things. The real is relative only to life itself.

I think you have confused the ontological (existence itself) with the epistemological (knowledge of that existence). While nothing matters or has meaning sans human consciousness, what exists (including human existence) precedes conscious knowledge of it, else there would be nothing to be conscious of or know.

Here's one way to see it. When you cease to exist, existence itself remains exactly what it is with the exception of your absence. You might say, existence ceases for you, but it certainly does not cease to be for those who observe your demise.

IF the other observers exist as you believe you exist that is...

You doubt it?

Who are you writing to if you are not certain anyone is conscious of and reading what you write? What do you think certainty is?

[Age]

The human evolutionary ancestors are traceable to 4 billions years ago when the first one-cell animals first emerged.

The first human only appeared since 2.4-1.4 million years ago and modern humans appeared some 200,000 - 300,000 years ago.

Since all living organism improved upon the previous

But 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were, most of the time, which is more or less just about all of your waking moments, MORE STUPID than ANY other animal is, including ALL of your predecessors. So, how, EXACTLY, did you arrive at this 'improved' conclusion? And, what is the word 'improved' in relation to, EXACTLY?

Adult human beings were FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than 'you', adult human beings, were, back in the OLDEN days when this was being written. Oh, and by the way, a new born baby is ALWAYS FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than ANY, and even ALL, of 'you', adult human beings COMBINED.

And this VERY Fact can be CLEARLY WITNESSED and SEEN here in what is being CLAIMED by "veritas aequitas". The MORE the 'posters' here write, the MORE they are PROVING my CLAIM here absolutely True, Right, AND Correct.

but retained most of the fundamental features [cells, breathing, digestion, 4Fs], all modern humans are more animals [4 billion years history] than being more human [200,000 years ago].

To facilitate survival within a threatening environment, the default instinct is for all living things to be programmed with an outward paradigm, i.e. things exist absolutely independent of the human self.
This default is that of Philosophical Realism.

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note the other default paradigms, e.g. the Flat-Earthers Geocentric thinkers.
While the majority of people has progressed and shifted from the Flat-Earthers Geocentric paradigm to the heliocentric paradigm, unfortunately the majority of people are still stuck with the Philosophical Realism paradigm.
The reason is because they are more animal driven more instinctually than being-more-human.

But fortunately a certain percentile of humans are progressing to being-more-human to think out of the box with various paradigm shift, e.g. to the Philosophical Anti-Realism [e.g. Kantian] paradigm which has to use more the higher developed rational human brain.

My point,
Those who are stuck with philosophical realism [see above] e.g. Peter Holmes, Eodnhoj7 & majority of posters, theists, and the likes are in a way more animal [instinct dominant] than being more human [rational brain dominant].


Btw, I was once a theist and philosophical realist for a long time but have progressed away from these dogmatic instinctual ideologies.

Agree?

This is just FURTHER PROOF of just how CLOSED a human being becomes, and thus STUPID and NOT INTELLIGENT AT ALL, when they BELIEVE some 'thing' is true, which they HOLD ONTO without ANY PROOF AT ALL. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE MORE, they will "find" and "see" 'things' that are NOT True, NOT Right, and NOT Correct, but will STILL express those 'things' as though they are. They do this just to SATISFY their 'confirmation biases'.

ONCE AGAIN, they will say just about absolutely ANY 'thing' in order to 'try to' SATISFY and MAKE their OWN ALREADY BELIEFS become true, right, AND correct. As PROVED True by what "veritas aequitas" has said here.

[Impenitent]

I think you have confused the ontological (existence itself) with the epistemological (knowledge of that existence). While nothing matters or has meaning sans human consciousness, what exists (including human existence) precedes conscious knowledge of it, else there would be nothing to be conscious of or know.

Here's one way to see it. When you cease to exist, existence itself remains exactly what it is with the exception of your absence. You might say, existence ceases for you, but it certainly does not cease to be for those who observe your demise.

IF the other observers exist as you believe you exist that is...

You doubt it?

Who are you writing to if you are not certain anyone is conscious of and reading what you write? What do you think certainty is?

I (philosophically) doubt everything...

it could be as it appears, it could be brains in vats or evil demons, elaborate dreams/hallucinations...

one acts habitually- without deep thought in the instant...

of course, momentary existence creates difficulties (yet that's all there is, and I have no desire to empty the dustbowl...)

certainty exists on the same scale as "K"nowledge...

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

IF the other observers exist as you believe you exist that is...

You doubt it?

Who are you writing to if you are not certain anyone is conscious of and reading what you write? What do you think certainty is?

I (philosophically) doubt everything...

Beyond the fact that statement is a logical contradiction in the same way, "nothing I say is true," is a logical contradiction {if you doubt everything then you doubt you doubt everything], it is not possible to begin with doubt. Before can doubt anything you must have something in mind to doubt, something that you identify as something, only after which can it be questioned or doubted.

... it could be as it appears, it could be brains in vats or evil demons, elaborate dreams/hallucinations...

Not unless there are vats, demons, dreams, or hallucinations, which really are doubtful.

... one acts habitually- without deep thought in the instant...

Habituated behavior still must be chosen. One cannot form habits without first consciously, "practicing," behavior which beomes, "automated," and one can always choose not to do what one's habituated behavior prompts. While everything is going well, one does not have to pay attention to their driving, but the moment something unusual happens (like the care stopping suddenly in front of you) deliberate conscious behavior takes over.

No one knows what actually occurs in another individual's consciousness, but from all I do know about those who claim extreme scepticism, there is a common motive which is, like all other repudiations of knowledge, an attempt to evade one's responsibility for their own choices and actions. After all, if they can't know what is true, or correct, or right, how can they be responsible for their choices. It's also why volition itself is denied, as though one denying they actually consciously and deliberately choose what they do lets them off the hook. Of course it doesn't. Reality never forgives.

I wrote a couple of article about skepticism and cynicism about six years ago. Since most people around here don't like links the following is excerpted from one of those articles:

Skepticism About Objective Knowledge Actually Gullibility

Human beings are not born skeptical. You might say human beings are born gullible. Most children believe everything they are taught, and since they are usually taught by people who love them and would not intentionally deceive them, there is nothing wrong with that gullibility. It will not be long in most children's experience before some expectation or belief is disappointed or dramatically falsified. The nice looking buzzing fuzzy creature stings.

One learns to be skeptical, skeptical of first impressions, of what one is taught, and of what others say, at first from experience. That learned skepticism is itself a kind of knowledge, knowledge that something is only true if one knows why it is true. True skepticism is built on one's conviction they can know the difference between truth and falsehood, and that it is always the truth that is the cure for credulity and superstition. One knows what is false because one knows what is true, and a thing is false because it contradicts the truth.

What is wrong with radical skepticism is that it denies one can know the truth, but if one cannot know the truth, one cannot know what is false either. Knowing what is false is knowledge.

About Certainty

I have no idea what the radical skeptics think certain knowledge is. Certainty does not mean omniscience. It does not mean infallibility. Certainty means knowing what one does know, based on objective evidence within the context of that to which the knowledge pertains. It means one has examined all available evidence and it all supports the knowledge and no evidence exists that contradicts the knowledge. It usually means, when something is known, denying or doubting it contradicts all supporting evidence as well as all related knowledge.

Most knowledge is simple and absolute. The cat is either in the closet or it isn't. Looking in the closet provides absolute knowledge of which it is. This is no doubt what Da Vinci had in mind when he said, "to see is to know."

Everything that ever had to be done that required knowledge to do is proof of of that knowledge. Every blood transfusion ever performed is proof of knowledge about the circulatory system and the nature of blood. Sending men to the moon was proof of the enormous amount of knowledge that was necessary to accomplish that mission. Every trip taken by any human being made possible by any of the man-made means of travel from ships to airplanes is proof of the knowledge necessary to produce those methods of transportation.

There is almost nothing in modern life in Western Civilization that would exist or be possible without heaps of knowledge, from coffee-makers to cell-phones.

Every actual technological achievement is not just probable, it is absolute. We know with absolute certainty that heavier than air human fight is possible, that antibiotics cure many infectious diseases, that the atom can be used to produce usable energy by fission (already done) and fusion (if it can ever be controlled). We know geo-stationary satellites are possible (though it was doubted when Arthur C. Clarke first described it.) We know anesthesia and painless surgery are possible (though the knowledge was fought against when first proposed) Almost everything we do every day would be impossible without the knowledge that made the things we use possible from electricity to air-conditioning.

None of these examples would be possible without certain knowledge. "But human knowledge is always limited, it is never perfectly precise, and nothing can be known to be 100% true," the skeptic says. Human knowledge is limited because human beings are neither omniscient or infallible but that does not mean they have knowledge of nothing or that everything is a mistake. Even when knowledge is limited by the nature of what is known, when absolute precision is impossible, knowledge that a parameter must fall within known limits is in fact certain knowledge. I do not know what, "100% true," means. If a proposition is true, it is true. If it is 99.9999% true, it is then .0001% false, and the proposition itself is false.

One thing is certain, nothing of value has ever been produced and nothing of import has ever been discovered by means of doubt, ignorance, skepticism, or cynicism.

If you are interested, this is a link to the other article: "To My Skeptical Friends."

By the way, I'm not trying to convince you of anything or attempting to change your mind. I do not promote any ideology and expect everyone to use their own mind to choose what to believe and how to live their lives, which, unless they overtly harm anyone else, I never judge.

[Impenitent]

You doubt it?

Who are you writing to if you are not certain anyone is conscious of and reading what you write? What do you think certainty is?

I (philosophically) doubt everything...

Beyond the fact that statement is a logical contradiction in the same way, "nothing I say is true," is a logical contradiction {if you doubt everything then you doubt you doubt everything], it is not possible to begin with doubt. Before can doubt anything you must have something in mind to doubt, something that you identify as something, only after which can it be questioned or doubted.

I (philosophically) doubt everything in the same way Hume did... no one (practically) lives that way (even Hume admitted such) but moreover, I cannot absolutely reconcile the existence of the sensed external world being exactly correlated to whichever linguistic label appears to fit in the moment- nor am I capable of an absolute encompassing perception and perfect memory thereof...

... it could be as it appears, it could be brains in vats or evil demons, elaborate dreams/hallucinations...

Not unless there are vats, demons, dreams, or hallucinations, which really are doubtful.

Rene's "proof" of God doesn't help here either...

... one acts habitually- without deep thought in the instant...

Habituated behavior still must be chosen. One cannot form habits without first consciously, "practicing," behavior which beomes, "automated," and one can always choose not to do what one's habituated behavior prompts. While everything is going well, one does not have to pay attention to their driving, but the moment something unusual happens (like the care stopping suddenly in front of you) deliberate conscious behavior takes over.

I don't disagree with this statement... but slamming on your brakes is just another reflex as the time it would take to consider the alternatives could prove fatal...


No one knows what actually occurs in another individual's consciousness, but from all I do know about those who claim extreme scepticism, there is a common motive which is, like all other repudiations of knowledge, an attempt to evade one's responsibility for their own choices and actions. After all, if they can't know what is true, or correct, or right, how can they be responsible for their choices. It's also why volition itself is denied, as though one denying they actually consciously and deliberately choose what they do lets them off the hook. Of course it doesn't. Reality never forgives.

no, my skepticism is ontological and epistemological... responsibility in a moral sense is a moot point; yet if the "world" follows previous patterns (there is no guarantee the future will appear as it did in the past) one can act accordingly


I wrote a couple of article about skepticism and cynicism about six years ago. Since most people around here don't like links the following is excerpted from one of those articles:

Skepticism About Objective Knowledge Actually Gullibility

Human beings are not born skeptical. You might say human beings are born gullible. Most children believe everything they are taught, and since they are usually taught by people who love them and would not intentionally deceive them, there is nothing wrong with that gullibility. It will not be long in most children's experience before some expectation or belief is disappointed or dramatically falsified. The nice looking buzzing fuzzy creature stings.

One learns to be skeptical, skeptical of first impressions, of what one is taught, and of what others say, at first from experience. That learned skepticism is itself a kind of knowledge, knowledge that something is only true if one knows why it is true. True skepticism is built on one's conviction they can know the difference between truth and falsehood, and that it is always the truth that is the cure for credulity and superstition. One knows what is false because one knows what is true, and a thing is false because it contradicts the truth.

What is wrong with radical skepticism is that it denies one can know the truth, but if one cannot know the truth, one cannot know what is false either. Knowing what is false is knowledge.

About Certainty

I have no idea what the radical skeptics think certain knowledge is. Certainty does not mean omniscience. It does not mean infallibility. Certainty means knowing what one does know, based on objective evidence within the context of that to which the knowledge pertains. It means one has examined all available evidence and it all supports the knowledge and no evidence exists that contradicts the knowledge. It usually means, when something is known, denying or doubting it contradicts all supporting evidence as well as all related knowledge.

Most knowledge is simple and absolute. The cat is either in the closet or it isn't. Looking in the closet provides absolute knowledge of which it is. This is no doubt what Da Vinci had in mind when he said, "to see is to know."

Everything that ever had to be done that required knowledge to do is proof of of that knowledge. Every blood transfusion ever performed is proof of knowledge about the circulatory system and the nature of blood. Sending men to the moon was proof of the enormous amount of knowledge that was necessary to accomplish that mission. Every trip taken by any human being made possible by any of the man-made means of travel from ships to airplanes is proof of the knowledge necessary to produce those methods of transportation.

There is almost nothing in modern life in Western Civilization that would exist or be possible without heaps of knowledge, from coffee-makers to cell-phones.

Every actual technological achievement is not just probable, it is absolute. We know with absolute certainty that heavier than air human fight is possible, that antibiotics cure many infectious diseases, that the atom can be used to produce usable energy by fission (already done) and fusion (if it can ever be controlled). We know geo-stationary satellites are possible (though it was doubted when Arthur C. Clarke first described it.) We know anesthesia and painless surgery are possible (though the knowledge was fought against when first proposed) Almost everything we do every day would be impossible without the knowledge that made the things we use possible from electricity to air-conditioning.

None of these examples would be possible without certain knowledge. "But human knowledge is always limited, it is never perfectly precise, and nothing can be known to be 100% true," the skeptic says. Human knowledge is limited because human beings are neither omniscient or infallible but that does not mean they have knowledge of nothing or that everything is a mistake. Even when knowledge is limited by the nature of what is known, when absolute precision is impossible, knowledge that a parameter must fall within known limits is in fact certain knowledge. I do not know what, "100% true," means. If a proposition is true, it is true. If it is 99.9999% true, it is then .0001% false, and the proposition itself is false.

One thing is certain, nothing of value has ever been produced and nothing of import has ever been discovered by means of doubt, ignorance, skepticism, or cynicism.

I think you have described personally correct opinion and given it the value of "K"nowledge... besides, the world used to be flat - and everyone "knew" that too...


If you are interested, this is a link to the other article: "To My Skeptical Friends."

By the way, I'm not trying to convince you of anything or attempting to change your mind. I do not promote any ideology and expect everyone to use their own mind to choose what to believe and how to live their lives, which, unless they overtly harm anyone else, I never judge.

Thanks for the link, I'll have to read it as well...

-Imp

[jayjacobus]

The human evolutionary ancestors are traceable to 4 billions years ago when the first one-cell animals first emerged.

The first human only appeared since 2.4-1.4 million years ago and modern humans appeared some 200,000 - 300,000 years ago.

Since all living organism improved upon the previous but retained most of the fundamental features [cells, breathing, digestion, 4Fs], all modern humans are more animals [4 billion years history] than being more human [200,000 years ago].

To facilitate survival within a threatening environment, the default instinct is for all living things to be programmed with an outward paradigm, i.e. things exist absolutely independent of the human self.
This default is that of Philosophical Realism.

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note the other default paradigms, e.g. the Flat-Earthers Geocentric thinkers.
While the majority of people has progressed and shifted from the Flat-Earthers Geocentric paradigm to the heliocentric paradigm, unfortunately the majority of people are still stuck with the Philosophical Realism paradigm.
The reason is because they are more animal driven more instinctually than being-more-human.

But fortunately a certain percentile of humans are progressing to being-more-human to think out of the box with various paradigm shift, e.g. to the Philosophical Anti-Realism [e.g. Kantian] paradigm which has to use more the higher developed rational human brain.

My point,
Those who are stuck with philosophical realism [see above] e.g. Peter Holmes, Eodnhoj7 & majority of posters, theists, and the likes are in a way more animal [instinct dominant] than being more human [rational brain dominant].


Btw, I was once a theist and philosophical realist for a long time but have progressed away from these dogmatic instinctual ideologies.

Agree?

You haven't explained why your thinking changed.

For me, I often just act without considering the logic of my actions but I think logically at other times.

Neither theism nor atheism are instinctive. They require thought.

And realism and idealism are not instinctive either.

Humans are biologically animals but they are logical while animals are not.

Animals drink water. Humans use water in many ways besides drinking it.