How to deal (in terms of life)

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, please! I have just crossed an inner Rubicon, cut a restraining Gordian knot, removed an irritating pebble from my interpretive shoe — and there you are a Dragon breathing fire standing right in my way! Have you no decency?!

Back! Away!

[Late Latin praedicāre, praedicāt-, from Latin, to proclaim : prae-, pre- + dicāre, to proclaim; see deik- in Indo-European roots.

[1400–50; late Middle English (< Middle French predicat) < Medieval Latin praedicātum, n. use of neuter of Latin praedicātus, past participle of praedicāre to declare publicly, assert =prae- pre- + dicāre to show, indicate, make known; compare preach]

Sorry my man, but if you are about to hit 7,500 posts on a philosophy forum, we're going to need to fix your subject relevant vocabulary. Look on the bright side though... the structure of the proposition was formalised by Aristotle, I know you love to demonstrate learning by waffling about Greeks you don't understand, so here's an opportunity for you to get one thing right.

I sacrifice so much to help you get a rounded education, and just receive no thanks for my efforts. Sometimes it makes me just a little bit sad.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I sacrifice so much to help you get a rounded education, and just receive no thanks for my efforts. Sometimes it makes me just a little bit sad.

Wish you'd stop being so good to me Captain.

[Darkneos]

When it comes to concrete objects such as cars, a resounding no. When a car is non-fundamental then it can't be "real".

You lost me there...

Then everything is equally speculation, I don't see the point of that approach. Indirect realism is 100% consistent with available evidence and is Occam friendly, so it wins for me.

Who said anything about being "right" being a substitute for living life?

Well no one, I'm just musing about my life so far and what I've done and I've realized how much I was wasting it trying to be better than other people or always being right. At the end of the day I wasn't happy, or fulfilled, it was hollow (and often I wasn't right).

When it comes to Occam's Razor I don't generally regard that as a metric for truth, humans like it when things are simple but that doesn't mean they are.

I do accept indirect realism as that is what neuroscience and psychology seems to suggest.

But yeah, everything is equally speculation. All we have are models to navigate the world like you said, and like you said Eliezer is just arbitrarily choosing one to be "reality" and throwing the rest out.

Oh I see, you are in that horrific place where we start to question everything, but don't yet start to assign probabilities to all the possibilities (using Occam's razor for example), so everything is equally a speculation. Imo you have to get out of that place, either go back and forget about it all, or go forward and work out a system where you rank speculations according to some system.

Occam's Razor isn't a good tool for determining truth, it's just a heuristic, not a metric for it. You can't really assign probabilities with it, because it assumes you know what's going on. I know you don't think solipsism is true but under Occam's Razor it would be more likely to be true. Suicide would also be acceptable under it when asking what to do in life, it eliminates all the mess of dealing with life.

I cannot rank speculations because I don't know what is really real. So every day everything I do is wrong because I don't know what the truth is. I used to be able to do that but after reading so much it feels like anything I do or feel is wrong. So I'm in a constant state of both anxiety and stasis.

Hell...I don't even know how to treat people let alone feel about them, ever since it was doubted if they are real and not just merely patterns of elementary particles.

[Darkneos]

Why the hell would I believe that, how did you arrive at that?

You said so. That when it comes to concrete objects like that they don't.

No I didn't say that. I said non-fundamental cars aren't real. Again: I'm not a reductionist so there are no "non-fundamental" cars to me, there are only cars.

I'm not sure I follow because you've said other stuff so far.

Yes because the universe has no parts, which doesn't mean that cars aren't part of the universe in the sense that they aren't real. Hello?

I'm not a reductionist, why would I be? Obviously, reductionism is a neat little tool that helps us get things done, but as a philosophy it has nothing to do with the real world. In the real world a car has no parts and a car isn't a part of the universe, because the universe has no parts, it's continuous. All this talk about fundamental parts and non-fundamental parts is just handwaving of course.

If it's all continuous that sounds like saying nothing exists.

[Darkneos]

All of this is beside the point anyway, because regardless of whether Atla is a reductionist or thinks the universe has cars in it, the OP is still convinced that all reductionists think non fundamental things don't exist - despite the numerous actually reductionist sources saying otherwise.

That's the real part that needs ironing out.

There are reductionists who think that. They're called eliminative reductionists. However most people who have a reductionist view of reality don't consider themselves eliminativist, so it's a bit of a - is strawman the right word? - strawman to talk about reductionism as if they're all eliminativists, when they're clearly telling you they're not.

You haven't. The only source you had was Chat GPT (which wouldn't load) and another blog post from the same guy saying he's making a distinction when he isn't, merely randomly deciding what it applies to and what doesn't.

The actual reductionist sources do imply nothing exists, and by extension they also say beliefs, desires, and wants don't either (see Eliminative Materialism).

People who are reductionist and yet don't go to eliminative are inconsistent in their views as that's the natural endpoint of reductionism barring any sort of "soul" or otherwise.

You have no source showing otherwise so far, and mere insistence it's not the case despite what I have show is such. Reminds me of BigMike in the other thread.

[Atla]

You lost me there...



Well no one, I'm just musing about my life so far and what I've done and I've realized how much I was wasting it trying to be better than other people or always being right. At the end of the day I wasn't happy, or fulfilled, it was hollow (and often I wasn't right).

When it comes to Occam's Razor I don't generally regard that as a metric for truth, humans like it when things are simple but that doesn't mean they are.

I do accept indirect realism as that is what neuroscience and psychology seems to suggest.

But yeah, everything is equally speculation. All we have are models to navigate the world like you said, and like you said Eliezer is just arbitrarily choosing one to be "reality" and throwing the rest out.

Oh I see, you are in that horrific place where we start to question everything, but don't yet start to assign probabilities to all the possibilities (using Occam's razor for example), so everything is equally a speculation. Imo you have to get out of that place, either go back and forget about it all, or go forward and work out a system where you rank speculations according to some system.

Occam's Razor isn't a good tool for determining truth, it's just a heuristic, not a metric for it. You can't really assign probabilities with it, because it assumes you know what's going on. I know you don't think solipsism is true but under Occam's Razor it would be more likely to be true. Suicide would also be acceptable under it when asking what to do in life, it eliminates all the mess of dealing with life.

I cannot rank speculations because I don't know what is really real. So every day everything I do is wrong because I don't know what the truth is. I used to be able to do that but after reading so much it feels like anything I do or feel is wrong. So I'm in a constant state of both anxiety and stasis.

Hell...I don't even know how to treat people let alone feel about them, ever since it was doubted if they are real and not just merely patterns of elementary particles.

Again, we have no access to absolute truth, can we please stop with the "determining truth" expectation. Aside from that, Occam's razor kills solipsism. Whatever, okay this isn't for you just forget about it.

[Atla]

You said so. That when it comes to concrete objects like that they don't.

No I didn't say that. I said non-fundamental cars aren't real. Again: I'm not a reductionist so there are no "non-fundamental" cars to me, there are only cars.

I'm not sure I follow because you've said other stuff so far.

Yes because the universe has no parts, which doesn't mean that cars aren't part of the universe in the sense that they aren't real. Hello?

I'm not a reductionist, why would I be? Obviously, reductionism is a neat little tool that helps us get things done, but as a philosophy it has nothing to do with the real world. In the real world a car has no parts and a car isn't a part of the universe, because the universe has no parts, it's continuous. All this talk about fundamental parts and non-fundamental parts is just handwaving of course.

If it's all continuous that sounds like saying nothing exists.

Something that doesn't exist can't be continuous.

[Flannel Jesus]

All of this is beside the point anyway, because regardless of whether Atla is a reductionist or thinks the universe has cars in it, the OP is still convinced that all reductionists think non fundamental things don't exist - despite the numerous actually reductionist sources saying otherwise.

That's the real part that needs ironing out.

There are reductionists who think that. They're called eliminative reductionists. However most people who have a reductionist view of reality don't consider themselves eliminativist, so it's a bit of a - is strawman the right word? - strawman to talk about reductionism as if they're all eliminativists, when they're clearly telling you they're not.

You haven't. The only source you had was Chat GPT (which wouldn't load) and another blog post from the same guy saying he's making a distinction when he isn't, merely randomly deciding what it applies to and what doesn't.

The actual reductionist sources do imply nothing exists, and by extension they also say beliefs, desires, and wants don't either (see Eliminative Materialism).

People who are reductionist and yet don't go to eliminative are inconsistent in their views as that's the natural endpoint of reductionism barring any sort of "soul" or otherwise.

You have no source showing otherwise so far, and mere insistence it's not the case despite what I have show is such. Reminds me of BigMike in the other thread.

The only source I linked to? Did you miss the Stanford encyclopedia link?

Linked again for your pleasure. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... reduction/

Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative. They are committed to the reality of the reducing base and thus to the reality of whatever reduces to that base. If thoughts reduce to brain states and if these brain states are real, then so too are thoughts.

[Darkneos]

All of this is beside the point anyway, because regardless of whether Atla is a reductionist or thinks the universe has cars in it, the OP is still convinced that all reductionists think non fundamental things don't exist - despite the numerous actually reductionist sources saying otherwise.

That's the real part that needs ironing out.

There are reductionists who think that. They're called eliminative reductionists. However most people who have a reductionist view of reality don't consider themselves eliminativist, so it's a bit of a - is strawman the right word? - strawman to talk about reductionism as if they're all eliminativists, when they're clearly telling you they're not.

You haven't. The only source you had was Chat GPT (which wouldn't load) and another blog post from the same guy saying he's making a distinction when he isn't, merely randomly deciding what it applies to and what doesn't.

The actual reductionist sources do imply nothing exists, and by extension they also say beliefs, desires, and wants don't either (see Eliminative Materialism).

People who are reductionist and yet don't go to eliminative are inconsistent in their views as that's the natural endpoint of reductionism barring any sort of "soul" or otherwise.

You have no source showing otherwise so far, and mere insistence it's not the case despite what I have show is such. Reminds me of BigMike in the other thread.

The only source I linked to? Did you miss the Stanford encyclopedia link?

Linked again for your pleasure. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... reduction/

Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative. They are committed to the reality of the reducing base and thus to the reality of whatever reduces to that base. If thoughts reduce to brain states and if these brain states are real, then so too are thoughts.

You didn't give the Stanford link, you also missed this part that follows:

Though conservative realism is the norm, some reductionists take a more anti-realist view. In such cases the reducing phenomena are taken to replace the prior phenomena which are in turn eliminated.

Or This:

Scientific reduction became an important topic in the philosophy of science within the context of a general interest in the unity of science, and it was inspired by specific cases of what seemed to be successful reductions. The most prominent argument against reductionism stems from the observation that straightforward reductions hardly ever occur. Hence, reductionism cannot be regarded as yielding a coherent picture of what actually goes on in science. As long as reductionism is supposed to be more than a purely metaphysical position and is intended to say something significant about scientific change or norms, the value and relevance of the notion of reduction seems to depend in part upon how well the reductionist positions fit the facts, which their critics argue they do not

so you obviously didn't read it because it actually backs my position and shows you're mistaken. The quote you linked also doesn't mention they regard people and things as real, only they are realists about the reduced phenomenon and what reduces to that based. Meaning to a reductionist there is nothing real beyond the elementary particles.

[FlashDangerpants]

You didn't give the Stanford link

You have a tremendous capacity to doubt everything except your own special genius don't you?
It's really easy to use the search function on this site if you ever have a mild suspicion that you are incorrectly accusing somebody

And here's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spelling it out for you:

[Darkneos]

Oh I see, you are in that horrific place where we start to question everything, but don't yet start to assign probabilities to all the possibilities (using Occam's razor for example), so everything is equally a speculation. Imo you have to get out of that place, either go back and forget about it all, or go forward and work out a system where you rank speculations according to some system.

Occam's Razor isn't a good tool for determining truth, it's just a heuristic, not a metric for it. You can't really assign probabilities with it, because it assumes you know what's going on. I know you don't think solipsism is true but under Occam's Razor it would be more likely to be true. Suicide would also be acceptable under it when asking what to do in life, it eliminates all the mess of dealing with life.

I cannot rank speculations because I don't know what is really real. So every day everything I do is wrong because I don't know what the truth is. I used to be able to do that but after reading so much it feels like anything I do or feel is wrong. So I'm in a constant state of both anxiety and stasis.

Hell...I don't even know how to treat people let alone feel about them, ever since it was doubted if they are real and not just merely patterns of elementary particles.

Again, we have no access to absolute truth, can we please stop with the "determining truth" expectation. Aside from that, Occam's razor kills solipsism. Whatever, okay this isn't for you just forget about it.

How does Occam's Razor kill solipsism? A lot of arguments say it's supported my Occam's Razor.

Something that doesn't exist can't be continuous.

If it's continuous then does it exist if there is no distinction between it and anything else? It reminds me of what Buddhism says and that koan about rivers and mountains.

Like with me right now, I've not only lost love for people but also any attraction to the same sex because I'm not sure people exist anymore. I mean...if it all just reduces to elementary particles then nothing exists.

[Darkneos]

You didn't give the Stanford link

You have a tremendous capacity to doubt everything except your own special genius don't you?
It's really easy to use the search function on this site if you ever have a mild suspicion that you are incorrectly accusing somebody

And here's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spelling it out for you:

Actually read links before you given them to me because I just explained how it doesn't support what FJ is saying about reductionism, in fact it says the opposite. Reductionists are realists only about that reduced phenomenon and nothing above that, that includes people.

[FlashDangerpants]

You didn't give the Stanford link

You have a tremendous capacity to doubt everything except your own special genius don't you?
It's really easy to use the search function on this site if you ever have a mild suspicion that you are incorrectly accusing somebody

And here's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spelling it out for you:

Don't lecture me about reading

[Darkneos]

You didn't give the Stanford link

You have a tremendous capacity to doubt everything except your own special genius don't you?
It's really easy to use the search function on this site if you ever have a mild suspicion that you are incorrectly accusing somebody

And here's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spelling it out for you:

Don't lecture me about reading

I will lecture you about reading because it was easy to find the parts in the entry that supported my view and shows what reductionism actually is which is what I've been arguing, not FJ.

I explained to him how that quote (which he ignored the next part mind you) shows they are realists about the reduced stuff, that means they aren't realists about people. There is also the "IF" thoughts reduce to brain states and brain states are real, IF.

So even by his quoted statement he's still wrong about reductionists and reductionism.

Again...read your links before you send them.

[FlashDangerpants]

You didn't give the Stanford link

You have a tremendous capacity to doubt everything except your own special genius don't you?
It's really easy to use the search function on this site if you ever have a mild suspicion that you are incorrectly accusing somebody

And here's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spelling it out for you:

Don't lecture me about reading

I will lecture you about reading because it was easy to find the parts in the entry that supported my view and shows what reductionism actually is which is what I've been arguing, not FJ.

I explained to him how that quote (which he ignored the next part mind you) shows they are realists about the reduced stuff, that means they aren't realists about people. There is also the "IF" thoughts reduce to brain states and brain states are real, IF.

So even by his quoted statement he's still wrong about reductionists and reductionism.

Again...read your links before you send them.

You see the bit I made big for you, where you wrote "You didn't give the Stanford link". I gave you the quote of him giving you the Stanford link... the one you accused him of not giving.

And I pointed out how easy it would have been for you to fact check your own accusation and thereby not make a false accusation.