The CBB

I want to post my philosophical view somewhere, but philosophical forums that I found either are payable or are platforms of publishing essays, which don't fit into the friendly atmosphere that is on CBB, so I decided to make a thread in which you can publish your philosophical view (please don't flamewar). So let me start.

I'm a sceptic, in wider sense of that word, but I don't claim that knowledge don't exist. Instead, I claim that not all knowledge claim about the reality. A model is a closed system of knowledge that is independent from other models. Models divide into: reality, practical, theoritical, executive and languages. Reality is the model in which we live. Unlike other models, it don't need a creator. Practical models' goal is explaining the reality. Examples are: math, theory of evolution and Freud's psychoanalysis. Theoritical models go away from the reality and contain things that are extremally unlikely in it. All stories and conworlds belong to this category. Executive models have one specific goal and are optimised to achieve it. The obvious examples are computer programs.

Languages are models that are symbol systems used for communication. Note that math and music aren't languages because they aren't used for communication. The unique trait of most languages is that they can be used to describe models (including that languages). Languages divide further into declarative and imperative. Declarative languages use declarative statements as basic unit of communication, and all statements can be reduced to declarative - for example, spoken languages. Imperative languages, on the other hand, use imperative statements as basic unit.

I don't know about a generalized philosophy, but I think that - observationally - we could not differentiate if a universe would allow for free will or not, unless one were able to time travel into the past. Nor should we try to differentiate it, honestly.

I don't have a philosophy. I do think Aristotle and Plato were headed in the right direction, but generally I find that philosophers grope in the darkness when the light is all around them.

I'd usually call myself a utilitarian. Certainly that's my philosophy with regard to policy decisions and such, and things that affect society at large. The correct course of action is always the one that causes the greatest net increase in people's happiness. In practice this usually comes out as some form of social libertarianism.

elemtilas wrote: ↑11 Sep 2024 07:43 I don't have a philosophy. I do think Aristotle and Plato were headed in the right direction, but generally I find that philosophers grope in the darkness when the light is all around them.

What is the light and the darkness in your metaphor?

Many people are religious nowadays. They just call their religion an “ideology”.

Man in Space wrote: ↑18 Sep 2024 23:31 Many people are religious nowadays. They just call their religion an “ideology”.

I'm ideologically neutral. I think that mild ideologies are okay, but extremes are usually evil. Nazis and Soviets had very opposite ideologies, but their crimes are very similar.

The distinction between the common perceptions of a religion and an ideology is often simply that a religion includes a theist cosmology.

Arayaz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024 16:37 The distinction between the common perceptions of a religion and an ideology is often simply that a religion includes a theist cosmology.

It need not to be theist; Buddhism is a religion and includes cosmology, but it doesn't include gods.

There are my corrected throughts:

---

In my logic, there are 4 logical values: T(rue), N(ull), F(alse) and I(nconsistent). N is value of logical formula when we don't know is it T; I is value of logical formula when it's T and F at once. All formulas about reality are N, because we don't know what reality really is, and even we don't know does it exist!

---

Knowledge always forms closed systems, that I call models. Each model consists of 2 elements: a set of axioms and a function. Axioms are formulas which are T and don't depend on other axioms. Function's first argument is formula and next arguments are data dependent on model (f.e. time, timeline). Result of the function is T when the formula depends on axioms but its negation doesn't, N when both the formula and its negation don't depend on axioms, F when the formula doesn't depend on axioms but its negation does and I when both the formula and its negation depend on axioms. Model is inconsistent when it's at least one formula that is I. Each model must have a creator and each is finite, which means that at least one formula is N.

---

There are 3 types of axioms:
-If arguments are A, then B exists.
-If arguments are A, then B is related to C in way D.
-Everything is identical to model M, except these axioms and their implications. Often M is average worldview (see below).
"If arguments are A" can be replaced with "Always".

---

There are 3 types of models: practical, theoritical and task-oriented. Each practical model is approximation of reality or its part. Scientific theories and religious beliefs count. Specific subtype is worldviews, which are personal approximations of reality based on experience. Average worldview is average of all worldviews of all people in given time and it's the closest approximation of reality (which doesn't mean "the most right approximation"!) in given time. Theoritical models are practical models with changes that make them very far from experience. All conworlds fall into this category. Task-oriented models have practical goals that make them abstract. Languages are ideal examples, but mathematics are between task-oriented and practical models.

---

Arayaz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024 16:37 The distinction between the common perceptions of a religion and an ideology is often simply that a religion includes a theist cosmology.

The difference is that ideology includes only moral values, and religion includes also cosmology and spiritual beliefs.

I don't know what it would mean to say the universe "doesn't exist". If it didn't exist, we wouldn't exist either and we wouldn't be here talking about whether it exists or not. Now, does it exist in the way we conceive of it? No, I'm certain it doesn't. Does it exist in a way we could conceive of? Maybe, at best. But there definitely is Something TM, even if we'll never know the nature of what that is.

But I also don't get why people get bent out of shape that we might be in a simulation. How would "the people running the simulation shut it off" be any worse than "the false vacuum of space collapsed and the laws of reality are being rewritten" or any other end of the universe situation that doesn't involve being simulated? But at least "Am I real?" is a question that makes slightly more sense than "Do I exist?" If you can ask the question of whether you exist or not, you exist. Real has to be defined in some way, but at least that can have a yes or no answer even without getting into nuance.

I like using the idea of computer simulations as an analogy for our universe, and I believe the universe is computed based on metaphysical principles somewhat beyond our ken, but possible observable and possible able to be theorized on. I'm no chakra-loving hippie; I'm not fond of ridiculous stuff like that. I'm referring to far more basic principles such as giving and taking, similarity and difference, general application and specific application, etc.

I love Kalam, and as far as I'm concerned, its arguments are as real to me as the CMB is. I'm wary of Kantian arguments for the existence of G-d (though I have a friend who swears by it for praxis uses, and he often wins against me when we argue).

-----

This I think is more interesting:
I think arguments can be divided into two functions for quality: pragmatic versus semantic.
Semantic functions deal with whether something is actually true, is moral, is good.
Pragmatic functions deal with whether the idea has a good outcome. It's irrelevant the actual truth behind it.
The idea is still muddled to me, and I've still got to hammer it out.

I like to ask: Semantically, is this argument true/just? Pragmatically, regardless of truth, does following it lead to a positive outcome?

Everyone talks about the banality of evil, but what about the banality of good?
For example: What is filial piety? Is it a son giving up his life for his father? Is is extreme deference in his everyday conduct? Sure. But at its very core, it's listening to his father even when there is basically no reason to and no reason not to.
So many decisions that lead to good outcomes, even ones that save people's lives, are often little more than a completely mundane decision the agentive party is hardly aware of. Subjectively...

...evil and good look exactly the same.

Hence the need to grasp what they actually are.

thinking anything that has a noun associated with it is an actually existing entity has lead so many people philosophically astray, socrates the most prominent and first probably. like lmfao yeah, right, there is "an beauty" and "an 45 degrees" and all the rest of it in a mystical, transdendent realm. sure. we say of things that they're good or evil, just like we say of things that they're yellow, and we mean various things by it: that doesn't mean that there is some essence of yellow that exists somewhere. similarly, what would it even mean to "find out what evil really is"

yeah, i don't believe in essences

reality is only its perception and memory, and we fully memorize only what we name,
nothing exists but words, what has no word doesn't exist until it's named,
just change the words to change the world,
conlang yourself...

Torco wrote: ↑09 Nov 2024 19:58 thinking anything that has a noun associated with it is an actually existing entity has lead so many people philosophically astray, socrates the most prominent and first probably. like lmfao yeah, right, there is "an beauty" and "an 45 degrees" and all the rest of it in a mystical, transdendent realm. sure. we say of things that they're good or evil, just like we say of things that they're yellow, and we mean various things by it: that doesn't mean that there is some essence of yellow that exists somewhere. similarly, what would it even mean to "find out what evil really is"

yeah, i don't believe in essences

We call things yellow because the color of an object affects how we think about it and interact with it. Maybe the purpose of dividing things into good and evil is to change how we think about them and interact with them, and thus defining evil is vitally important. Or at least, classification itself is vitally important. You could argue that good vs evil isn’t the best dichotomy…

HolyHandGrenade! wrote: ↑18 Nov 2024 22:03

Torco wrote: ↑09 Nov 2024 19:58 thinking anything that has a noun associated with it is an actually existing entity has lead so many people philosophically astray, socrates the most prominent and first probably. like lmfao yeah, right, there is "an beauty" and "an 45 degrees" and all the rest of it in a mystical, transdendent realm. sure. we say of things that they're good or evil, just like we say of things that they're yellow, and we mean various things by it: that doesn't mean that there is some essence of yellow that exists somewhere. similarly, what would it even mean to "find out what evil really is"

yeah, i don't believe in essences

We call things yellow because the color of an object affects how we think about it and interact with it. Maybe the purpose of dividing things into good and evil is to change how we think about them and interact with them, and thus defining evil is vitally important. Or at least, classification itself is vitally important. You could argue that good vs evil isn’t the best dichotomy…

We don't know do "yellow color" exist really, but it's parameter of objects in models that our brains build. These models are purely abstract and they don't need to be "real", because they're "reality" to us.

lsd wrote: ↑10 Nov 2024 09:04 reality is only its perception and memory, and we fully memorize only what we name,
nothing exists but words, what has no word doesn't exist until it's named,
just change the words to change the world,
conlang yourself...

No. Some people think entirely in pictures, not words.

eldin raigmore wrote: ↑20 Nov 2024 00:45

lsd wrote: ↑10 Nov 2024 09:04 reality is only its perception and memory, and we fully memorize only what we name,
nothing exists but words, what has no word doesn't exist until it's named,
just change the words to change the world,
conlang yourself...

No. Some people think entirely in pictures, not words.

Citation please???

HolyHandGrenade! wrote: ↑20 Nov 2024 00:49

eldin raigmore wrote: ↑20 Nov 2024 00:45

lsd wrote: ↑10 Nov 2024 09:04 reality is only its perception and memory, and we fully memorize only what we name,
nothing exists but words, what has no word doesn't exist until it's named,
just change the words to change the world,
conlang yourself...

No. Some people think entirely in pictures, not words.

Citation please???

Maybe Eldin's thinking about people like Temple Grandin?