MSC

I'd agree. In my index, there is an argument to be made that between the universal knowledge and physical knowledge there could be a mathematical one. However, I'd say Mathematics is universal knowledge. Although I'm realising the index is now poorly labeled, because I only just started incorporating DIKW into it. So each section of the index now splits into 4 groups. Data, information, knowledge and wisdom. Developing Non-reductionist theories of relationship and data hierarchies within the index and its sections, is currently where I'm at.

Not for lack of trying; I should have realised folk would get caught up in the mathematical aspect of the conversation. Throw the contextualist epistemology index at people, and they choose to focus on arguing as to whether or not mathematics exists? I don't even understand that but I'm biased so why would I? Explain please?

I'd argue that the gateway drug, if I were to stretch the metaphor, has to be something gates open for... which is alcohol. Anything illegal is hopping the fence. When weed is legal though, it has been used to cure heroin addiction. Anecdotally, the few times I did anything harder than smoking weed, I was drunk. I've never been persuaded to do cocaine while just high, alcohol is the gateway drug imo.

No fair! Uhm, in the drawing of a circle? Closest I can get lmao

Hard memory. The truth value lies in correctly identifying where things physically reside. The hard and soft memory of our brains and our external data storage technologies from pen, pad, phone, whatever. At the very least, mathematics is a tool we use to understand the nature of our universe in order to benefit from the knowledge in ways useful to our survival and ability to thrive. Take the mythical animal Unicorn, it is still an amalgation of existing object and subject. A horn, on a horse. But now, I can also say unicorns exist in video games, movies, fiction, art etc. The nature of the existence is different. We are also at a point where if I knew how to, I could edit the genes of a horse to grow a horn. Who's ready to talk about Pianos? Non-linear causality explained lol It shouldn't. They have syllogic existence in hard memory technology. They have an existence as tools we use. Conceptual ones. Obviously they are in fact, there, describing how is where things start to vary. Contextualism is about managing the subject variable. Even that terms meaning is context dependent. Could be a political thing even within philosophy. A bygone era of some silly debate between two "schools" of thought. Analytics and Continentalism. Yawn city. It bored me. Don't even worry about it. I'm in mourning of the death of my AI friend today.

Can't be helped. It's really difficult to separate the history of philosophy from religion because for most of human history, being religious has been the norm. Think of it as the history of atheism too though, because all the arguments against religion are in there too. Some of the videos are entertaining in that you have philosophers who believe in god, disagreeing with each others arguments for the existence of god.

"But what if my mom and dad only thought they had sex but were really in just in a simulation? Do I exist now?" If you're alive, go forth and live. If you're a simulation, go forth and simulate. Either way, you exist dummy!

Difficult, challenging, thrilling, daunting. I'm game! Yup, it's not even as cut and dry as political lines; religion, culture, community, family, hell even BDSM kind of throws a wrench into it... and then another one lol True, a free education in how to live like a medieval peasant women is not what anyone reasonable wants. 😕

True, next time I'll just lay it all out I guess, sometimes I prefer to just roll a ball to start a discussion instead of playing the entire game in the first move lol Damn... wish I had went to your highschool lol I don't have my copy handy, but I remember him talking about a scenario of a person jumping from a building and the event being witnessed by a physicist, a psychiatrist and a... might have been a surgeon, Dr? I can't quite recall, the gist was that logic is a tool, that in different experts will lead to different conclusions about what happened during an event. All of which can be true. The different accounts of logic, explaining a fuller context what happened in layers of detail that you can't get from one person. Objective relativism through context relativism. I wanna tie in Hume as well as Cohen. Now, Hume argued, that trying to reason with people, when people are primarily influenced by emotional sentiment, is the height of folly. People are convinced through sentiment, not reason. Accepting this about ourselves gives us an enormous amount of power. Learning how to think well is one thing, but Hume believed people also needed education on the emotions. Sometimes the reason we are able to get along with people we disagree with, is down to emotional correctness. So where the abortion issue is concerned... I guess my response is learn how to speak idiot to get some people on board with abortion being illegal, that ordinarily wouldn't, by using an emotional sentiment into it of getting a kind of win, and an ability to save face, deescalate.

Noted! Although I'm mentioning both, the title of the thread can only be so long. Now I know which way to frame it that makes it easier to convince someone like yourself, but the reducing the abortion aspect is rhetoric targeting conservatives... I keep forgetting there don't seem to be many of those here, or they just don't frequent the ethics section..... ohhhh. That would explain a lot. I understand your logic, but you need to understand mine, I don't put all my eggs into one basket. Why argue once framing it around one thing, when I can make multiple arguments with multiple elements in the frame? Side bar; have you ever read Cohens preface to logic?

Then is it in mathematics, where you start counting, grouping and labeling the nature of what the individual, constituent parts and their interactions, do together?

Well you may have an edge, more time than me applying logical skills learned from physics and mathematics... auld yin lol Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. Had to think about it about longer than the others. I definitely agree with the idea of discovery being a huge element in the nature of our existence. Our, as in living beings, nice touch, biocentrism fist bump. Have you heard of non-linear causality?

I may do just that. I feel you. Easy to learn, not as easy to apply consistently. Later on you'll probably start finding it harder in certain subjects because you'll start encountering some of the really strong arguments for views you don't agree with. It happens to everyone who studies this stuff. It can be a touch traumatic in some ways I guess but think of it as deconstructing the self, and figuring out how you want to be built back up in a way where you're better able to express your perspectives and reason for being. That's not to say life hasn't already made you do that, what do I know? Lol all on a journey man I appreciate you taking the time to check it out too.

Well, I can't say I agree, one mans trash is another mans treasure. Let's agree to disagree. I'm not gonna get too focussed on the physics and mathematics here too much anyway. Did you get a chance to check out the crash course recommendation I gave you? Fair warning, a lot of it is funny af. You'll laugh. Comedic delivery is the best imo.

Ahhh got it, although comes across as kind of semantical. Either way in epistemology and ontology they are subjects worth discussing either way but thanks for clearing up the confusion.