Tundra

But all the concepts we have are arbitrarily defined, and also part of multiple concepts, multiple levels of abstractions. For instance we have a concept of 'atom' and there is an 'atom' that makes up another concept we have called 'molecule' and there are bunch of those things that make up a 'cell' and a bunch of those that make up that piece of wood which makes that chair which is a piece of furniture which is a consumer good which is a part of the economy etc. etc. etc. To give an example, In america we label streets and we rarely give the regions between streets names. But we could easily imagine a world where streets have no names and blocks are named. Would that be 'wrong' or invalid or whatever? Without humans on earth, there would be no trees, there would be no water, no dirt, no rocks, no sky, no clouds. There would be nobody to draw lines to distinguish these things from their surroundings, there would be nobody to solidify these concepts in their mind and then identify them as separate things. The thing we call a cloud would still exist, in the sense that there would be whatever fundamental particles there arranged in what ever way that we identify as 'cloud like' but there would be no cloud. To make another analogy, imagine you are hiking through the woods and you climb to the top of a foothill and in the distance you see a massive boulder and you think "wow what a massive boulder" and you are pretty excited because you see that the trail descends that foothill and then wraps around another one in the distance and goes right past the boulder. You continue hiking, make your way to the second foothill, you're walking around it and you turn a corner and you see it. It's a pile of rocks, some the size of basketballs, some the size of marbles. Does the boulder exist? Most people would say no, because a boulder is a solid object, 1 piece of rock. Like the boulder, all objects we come in contact with, including other people, are made up of lots of lots of little 'rocks' that we just can't make out from such a great distance.

Right, I already, I believe that A=A, so it's not a problem that I do so, I am asking HOW you KNOW it. I gave you reasons why induction cannot be used as a basis for knowledge. Are you going to address what I said or are you going to just reference it and move on? Okay, I am not saying the axiom is false. So me using it is besides the point. explain how you KNOW that the axiom is true please. If you say induction, then please address the argument I gave for why induction cannot be used for a basis of knowledge.

I explained that induction cannot be a basis of knowledge in response to your claim that you know it because of inductive reasoning. So this re opens the question. Okay, how do you know that A=A? It can't be induction unless you can explain how induction leads to knowledge or explain how my reasoning is invalid or flawed (first block of text on post #50). We don't exist in the past only in the present so we must rely on our memory in order to 'know' something about the past. How do you know your memory is trustworthy, reliable, and not falsified?

I also believe it's true, and congruent with reality, but when you ask "how do you know that?" and you say inductive reasoning, well inductive reasoning can never lead to knowledge. Just because you saw a ball fall 999,999 times doesn't meas you KNOW what happen the millionth time. It may give you a high degree of confidence but how could you know "well the past is indicative of the future!" you might say. Well if this is merely belief then it's not suitable justification for knowing the ball will fall. If you think you KNOW that the past is indicative of the future then I must simply ask "how do you know that?" and you might say "well in the past it's been indicative of the future!" and this is circular reasoning, or in other words, ultimately foundationless. We don't KNOW that inductive reasoning works, we ASSUME it works. Assumptions cannot be a basis of knowledge. Neato, care to quote where I said I am certain of lack of certainty? I am of course uncertain, but I have a belief about the matter, and I have arguments. Care to quote where I 'asserted perfect knowledge' ? as for the three axioms, which axioms are those? Also Hard mode: How do you know an axiom is true? Editted: I'm going to assume by axioms you mean "truth, justification, reasoning." If am wrong correct me. I've explained truth in this thread, I believe it's objective, it's alignment with an objective reality outside our minds. Reasoning, This is a tool that we humans have, we use it to make coherent sense of the world around us in order to better increase our odds of survival. Justification, a justification for a statement of knowledge must be knowledge or greater. how could you build knowledge off of a mere belief, or a mere assumption? This is what causes the recursion problem for knowledge. Then the 'proximity to certainty' needed to 'justify' action is subjective, just as risk tolerance is subjective, value is subjective, which ends to seek is subjective, and profits and losses from action (both expected and actual) are subjective.

How do you know that A=A? You don't. We just assume that it does. This isn't to say it's a bad assumption or it's not true. Also I never said that I don't exist, I said that I very firmly believe that I do exist, so it makes perfect sense that I can think about my own existence. I don't need to demonstrate that the law of excluded middle is invalid, even this rests on top of unknowable unprovable assumptions. I can believe something, and not know it. If I believe something, it's not because I think it's invalid. Why does action need justification?

You can believe that "If I plant wheat, wheat will grow" is true, and it CAN be true, and you can still not know it. Lack of knowledge doesn't impede action, it doesn't impede learning.

Neat. Keep reading on that very same page and you will see it talked about in the context of philosophy rather than every day usage. It's not that explaining things in the OP has some authority, it's just that I already explained, in the very first post, why it's not a problem that beliefs are unfounded, that they are unjustified. Why it's not a problem that I Believe X, and I believe that I believe X, and I believe that I believe that I believe X etc. You simply asserting that I need knowledge to have a belief is just that, an assertion. Not only that but it's putting the cart before the horse, if knowledge entails a belief, then how can knowledge be necessary for beliefs? This sort of reasoning would just open a different can of worms that causes problems for anyone who claims knowledge. WHY can't I have beliefs in infinite regression? Why is that a problem? Beliefs do not need any justification. Thats mostly a grammar issue on my end, I meant for it to be read as I do not know, and I am not certain, not that I do know, but am not certain. Sorry about the confusion. I can make all the factual claims I want, beliefs can be true, and I believe that my beliefs are true, and I have reasons why I believe they are true, and I have reasons why I believe those are good reasons etc. When I correct people, it's because we share assumptions (not objective) about the world, and if those assumptions are true then other truths then follow. For instance, if we assume that our memories do not decieve us, that our senses are trustworthy, that I am not the only mind in the universe, etc. etc. And we work in an office together and someone says "wheres bob?" and you falsely say "he is in his office" and me having seen him leave, using all those assumptions I just said say "no, actually he just left" where is the objective standard, other than truth, which I already admitted was objective, so it is not a point of contention. do you HAVE to have certainty to correct people? If you see someone buy a lottery ticket, and they say "I am going to win the lottery!!" can you say "lol no you wont!" even though you are not certain? Yes, and beliefs can be true or they can be false. The POINT is that you can clearly act, you can clearly move through the world, you can clearly live, without knowledge. This is an example. Every day you take actions believing things about the future, and surely you will admit that you cannot know what the future holds. This is a rebuttal to your point that I cannot argue without knowledge, I am arguing, therefore I must have knowledge. I CAN argue without knowledge, just as you can drive to work, uncertain and unknowing about the future, because you BELIEVE that work will still be there when you arrive. why SHOULD it? Does your lack of knowledge about the future inhibit you from taking any action? Because surely all action is aimed at future goals, and the future is unknowable. Also I may not know what "right" is, but I have a belief about what right is, and as it turns out it's the same as yours! I believe that right means correct, it means in accordance with the truth, in accordance with reality that exists outside my mind. It doesn't matter that I don't KNOW. Yeah and I made an analogy, of a christian using a presuppositional argument. Because thats what you're doing, you're presupposing knowledge exists. A standard of godhood must be logically possible in order to be a rational standard (because god exists, duh!) How is that not the argument you are making, just with regards to knowledge? you seem to struggle with analogies by the way, I will try to refrain from them in the future. Also how is my theory of knowledge not logically possible? It's logically possible, practically/pragmatically impossible, there is a difference. Or are you not using 'logically possible' in the way that philosophers generally do? It doesn't even require omniscience, it just requires justification. Hell it sounds simple enough, why dont you just tell me something you know, and show me the justification for it, then maybe I can finally know 1 thing. How can a definition of a word be "wrong"? Unless you think language rules are prescriptions (topic for another time) That said, this isn't some definition I just made up, this is the classical philosophical definition of knowledge. But lets, for the sake of argument, spitball with your definition. Knowledge is a belief that consistently conforms to reason and evidence. So before the discovery of black swans, everyone believed that all swans were white. Nobody had seen a black swan. Every time anyone had ever seen a swan, it was white. Every time someone saw a white swan, that was another shred of evidence for their belief (hey look, another not black swan) This belief was/is false. Did these people KNOW that all swans were white? If yes, then how is it that they had knowledge that was false? shouldn't a reasonable definition of knowledge relate it to the truth in some way? If no (they did not know "All swans are white" they merely believed it), then your definition fails here because their belief was consistently verified by evidence and inductive reasoning. So now lets imagine these people, they know that swans are white. Suddenly, someone discovered a black swan. Now there is evidence that not all swans are white, does everyone suddenly lose knowledge? Or ONLY those who are aware of the evidence? Either way there are some weird implications, in the first case where everyone suddenly loses knowledge now that there is evidence somewhere, it implies that we can never KNOW if we KNOW something, because there MIGHT be evidence SOMEWHERE that contradicts our belief. If it's the latter then it means that the ignorant might be the most knowledgeable among us, if only exposure to contradictory evidence is what causes someone to get downgraded from knowing a thing, and simply believing a thing, then surely the most knowledgeable person in the world is someone who's NEVER seen any evidence of ANYTHING. If they have never seen evidence of anything, then every belief they have is in accordance with all the evidence they have seen. I don't think it's true that it's logically necessary to exist in order to say that you don't know if you exist. But you haven't really made an argument, you simply ASSERTED that it's the ONLY logical possibility. Do you have a reason why I should believe this is the case? Even so, this is all besides the point, because I DO believe that I exist, and I can believe I exist and doubt my own existence, doubt is just the absence of certainty. I am uncertain of my existence, but I am confident that I DO in fact exist. There is no reason I can think of why I would NEED to know that I exist in order to doubt that I exist. It's an analogy, an asymptotic is a line that we can come very very close to, but never reach. We can imagine many standards that humans strive for but can never reach, and people can be described as being 'close to' or 'far from' that standard, without that standard being actually reachable. For instance, certainty, we can never reach certainty, Just because this standard is likely impossible for humans, does not mean that certainty is some alien concept that we can never observe in varying degrees in beliefs. For instance, perfect resonableness, we can imagine someone who never makes a mistep in logic, and is a perfectly logical being who never errs. Just because this standard is likely impossible for humans, does not mean that reasonableness is some alien concept that we can never observe in varying degrees in people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy I think it would be better to hear a history of various different thoughts about different topics rather than listening to one person give you their views on various topics. Just me though.

Knowledge is partly defined as something that is true. So how can there be false knowledge, It seems like you are conflating knowledge and belief/info in your memory... such as... You may have some idea of language, concepts, reality etc. But how do you KNOW these things? How do you KNOW what certain means?

No. I am not equating them at all. If you re-read what I said you will see that I said that knowledge is a justified true belief. This means that knowledge isn't the same thing than a belief. it's MORE than a belief. It's a belief that is true, and you are also justified in believing it. No, because the existence of santa, and the shape of the world, exist outside the child. For the record I believe that santa isn't real and the world is round. If I am correct, then the child has false beliefs. No one can know who is right and who is wrong, but it does seem clear who is rational and who is being irrational isn't it? Based on all the evidence I've seen, and assuming the world exists, and that logic works, and that my senses are trustworthy, and that my memory isn't faulting, and that there isn't a massive global conspiracy to cover up the flatness of the earth (all assumptions that I think are very sound) then we can follow from those and other assumptions, that the world is round. But it is still true that our claim of knowledge about earth's shape, if we choose to make one, is based on assumptions. As for what you're talking about the the matrix, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how this has any relevance to the topic at hand, can you explain? I am not trying to be difficult but I fail to see the relevance for social reasons one might believe in nonsense and the topic of knowledge. Because you and I both have beliefs, beliefs can be true or false. I would prefer to have true beliefs. If you are claiming my belief is false, I would like to see evidence or an argument to show such, so that I may change my belief and have a true belief instead... Also to recap, earlier you were claiming there was such a thing as false knowledge, now you stopped claiming that, were you wrong, will you admit that? Earlier you were also claiming that it is self contradictory to believe that you cannot know anything, you admitted that this isn't self contradictory, and then said that it doesn't matter because you and others will still walk around have knowledge, this implies that my belief is false. Given the fact that I have made an argument for my belief, and you have backed down from your rebuttal to my argument, and given the fact that you still believe my belief is false. It then follows that one of the following is true. 1.) You want to believe false things, there are no flaws in my argument, you have no counter arguments, and you still choose to believe the opposite of my claim (you believe there is knowledge) or 2.) You have some reason, evidence, or argument, that leads you to believe that my claim (that there is no knowledge) is false. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's likely 2 and not 1. So will you share with us why you believe that there is knowledge?

I made an argument that argues that you cannot know anything, if you are backing down on your critique of my argument, and then continue on claiming that you know something, surely then there must be some argument you are privy too but are not sharing with us? Of course you won't admit when you're wrong, as you haven't done so in their thread earlier when you were making claims that were clearly false, such as the existence of knowledge of something that is not true. No claiming that you believe X and claiming that you know X are two different claims. And It doesn't matter that I don't know if I believe X, I believe that I believe X. And I believe that I believe that I believe X, and I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe X, etc. But this recursion isn't an issue for belief because belief requires no justification, I explained this in the OP. I may not know, for certain, what I wrote in the OP post, my memory might be tricking me, maybe the boards themselves as displaying something I didnt write, maybe FDR doesn't even exist. But I don't believe any of those things. I believe that FDR does exist, I believe that my post displays what I wrote, and I believe that my memory is fairly trust worthy, and I remember what I wrote, and when I read what I wrote it matches my memory, and when I read what I wrote I believe that that is something that I would write. All of these believes lead me to believe that I did address this argument in the OP. I'm also going to assume that you share beliefs like FDR exists and that my post displays what I wrote etc. So you likely ALSO believe that I addressed in the OP. When you wake up in the morning, and you are getting ready for work, you cannot know if your place of employment still exists, it may have burned down in the night, but your lack of knowledge about that doesn't prevent you from getting ready, and driving to work. Similarly, my lack of knowledge about everything doesn't inhibit me in the least. I've addressed this type of line of argument several times in this thread already. It doesn't matter that I don't know anything, because I believe a lot of things and I have various reasons to believe these things and I believe they are good reasons, and then I am sharing some of these reasons, of which some are arguments, with you. As for "You don't know if belief requires justification" you're right... So? Do you have some good reason for me to believe otherwise? Because right now the idea that belief doesn't require justification seems to fit well with all the other things I understand and believe about the world around me. Also for the record, saying that belief doesn't require justification doesn't mean that every belief is justified, or that every belief is true, or that every belief is reasonable, or anything like that. A standard of godhood must be logically possible in order to be a rational standard. So lets reduce the standard of godhood so that it achievable! See how this line of thinking begs the question? It assume that there IS a god and that therefore the standard for godhood must be possible. But to use this sort of reasoning in a debate about the existence of god would be begging the question. If you don't like my definition of knowledge, present your own. I could be a butterfly dreaming that I am Tundra. In the dream, tundra believes that she doesnt know if she exists. This is logically possible. Do I think this is true? No, I believe I exist, and I think "I exist" is a true statement. This isn't the only logically possible option though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote

What if you merely obtain joy from the byproduct of 'evil' EG: I steal $1,000 from you, I get to enjoy that $1000 Is it rational then? Or is it only rational when you enjoy the actual evil act itself.

I don't know, I believe so, but I'm also fairly close to certain! The problem with this is that I never claimed knowledge at any point, and if you asked me I would admit that all of my beliefs are ultimately unjustified. #3 is where you misstep. Sure you can say If S believes P, then P is true. but what justification is there to say that I believe something? Any justification itself falls into the recursive problem of justification, as I explained in the OP post. Good thing I never claimed to know, I just claimed to believe. To claim I believe something is to claim that I believe that I believe it. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, isn't the same thing as I know I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. "Well how do you know you believe the sun will rise tomorrow". I don't but I am believe that I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I am pretty confident. Belief doesn't have a recursion problem because belief requires no justification, I addressed this in the OP. I addressed this in the OP. I don't know. I believe, there is no justification for the belief. I believe it to be true though, and I think it's fairly reasonable for me to believe that I am correct in identifying what I am thinking. Maybe you can quote me where I said I know what my stance is? Also earlier you were claiming that knowledge can be false, and now you seem to be using the justified true belief definition, are you not even going to acknowledge this? Ultimately, you can brush away my arguments, brush away my stance with claims that it is self detonating, but this should raise a very serious question in your mind, at the very least. How is it that I know what I know? Any time you find an answer, ask yourself, how do I know this? Rinse and repeat, and soon you will see the nature of your knowledge, unfounded, unjustified, resting on shifting sands and empty air. I honestly have no idea what you mean to say, I really don't. I'm sorry. I read this a few times and still don't understand. Maybe you can elaborate or explain in other words?

I already addressed your argument that I must know language to make an argument. Saying my claim is false is not an argument. How can you know something that is false. If you are going to use a different definition of knowledge then the one I posted in the OP, then you need to at least make that known. It seems like you are conflating belief and knowledge. A belief can be false, Knowledge cannot be false because knowledge is a belief that is true that you are justified to believe. What argument? Calling my argument a trap isn't an argument. Then you claimed you "push hard" to define terms, I defined knowledge in the first post, then you make claims that are directly contrary to that definition. Also if you made an argument I didn't address, then I'll just say it's a trap and ignore it, since I guess that is fair play. No but I can believe that it's my stance, I can believe I am confident, I can believe that I believe it, and I can believe that I don't know anything. And hey, I do believe all those things. I never claimed to know any of those things.

Why couldn't you post something like this the first time? I dont have to know anything to make an argument, I just have to believe things to make an argument. For instance I BELIEVE that when I type these words you will understand what I am saying, I do not know this. I believe I am making arguments etc. And I also believe that I have good reasons to believe these things. Where have I "tried to kill" what our ancestors produced? Also I never claimed I was wrong, Why would I claim to believe that I was wrong, that would be nonsense. I just claimed I do not know anything. Also knowledge cannot be false, because truth is in it's very definition, I do not try to convince you that some knowledge is false, and some knowledge is true, I am trying to convince you that some statements are true, and that some statements are false. That is that I am trying to get you to BELIEVE as I BELIEVE, because we cannot know. (in reality I don't care what you believe, I just want the truth, argument I believe is a great means to get the truth, but I have to argue for what I believe in order for it to be rebutted, which is really what I seek) Oh I see, when a nill ist makes an argument it's a 'trap'. Gotcha. If this isn't just a dismissal of an argument, I don't know what is.

Yes. I don't see how being 'evil' necessitates being insane. I mean what is the rational reason for acting morally. The way I see it is, it is either the case that it is in your own interest to act in a way that is 'morally good' in which case, even a nihilist would be rational to 'act good' out of selfishness. Or it is the case that you can benefit from acting "morally bad", in which case why is it irrational to act in morally wrong ways if it benefits you? For the record, I think of these two cases, the latter is the case in reality. This thread is more or less the "why act morally?" question rephrased.

Where is the self detonation? Also maybe you shouldn't use connotations and rather use denotations. Because 'self detonating argument' denotes that the argument defeats itself. But in my mind it connotes that the person saying it doesn't know what they're talking about, listens to stef to much, and doesn't know what a 'self refuting idea' is or a 'stolen concept fallacy' which is what everyone except stefan calls them. See why when engaging in debate it's better to stick to denotations rather than connotations? This also relates to the principle of charity, in which when someone says something that can be interpreted in multiple ways, you choose to interpret it in the most interesting way, or the strongest way, or the most relevant way. etc. https://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/098_PDF/06Sep15Connotation_Denotation.pdf Not even self existence can be known for certain. (although I believe that it is very very very very likely) Can you give an example of a belief that is justified to a reasonable degree that it graduates to knowledge? Because as I pointed out any justification is another knowledge claim and each additional knowledge claim requires additional justification. Eventually even the "reasonably justified" beliefs are going to reduce down to assumptions and assertions which isn't a 'reasonable justification' (although this is not to say that they are not reasonable assumptions) As an aside, it looks like you and I will share the same fate, being down voted because people disagree with us, in an attempt to censor us.

Any evidence that I am a hypocrite? Any at all? I'd love to see it. I don't grandstand, for I have no audience here. I never accused you of not caring about the truth, I merely said that I personally value the truth. I obviously don't think you are beneath me because I am attempting to engage with you, which I wouldn't if I thought you were beneath me. So where is the hypocrisy Kevin? Having muscles is a physical attribute, not a desire. Obviously nobody can change their physical attributes by will alone. Also if you have no choice in the moment, then it DOES follow that you have no choices in the future, unless you can demonstrate that the future is some how different in such a radical way that one moment we have no free will and the next we do. After all is the future not made up of moments? It doesn't make sense to me that you would be able to choose your own desires, because the act of choosing desires would obviously be the result of some greater desire. If you at this moment desire brownies and abhor broccoli, and in the next you desire broccoli, there is obviously some greater (higher order) desire driving this, like a desire for health. Because you're using 'value' in the sense of values, similar to the word virtue. I am using it in the sense of value in the Austrian sense. In that sense "I desire the cookie" and "I value the cookie" are the same thing. Desires are not necessarily emotional. I desire to go to work, why? Because they pay me money and I want that money so that I may buy food and a place to live etc. Is this an 'emotional' desire? In either case, the way I intend the word desire to be interpreted in my argument, is as I described. Either way, to say that your desires are contingent on past choices is to say that we have choices, assumes we have choices, which is what we are arguing about. You cannot simply assert that you choose your desires because in the past you had choices. You can't assert that you have a choice regarding the cookie... thats the very argument we're having. And you can't assert that you aren't controlled by your desires because "thats compulsion" (which by the way is a word you introduced, not I) I gave an argument for HOW you are controlled by your beliefs and desires, you are simply asserting that we're not and there is totally choice involved, your only reasoning thus far has been that we go against some of our desires (which is obviously true since we have conflicting desires EG: desire for cookies, and desire for health.) You mean like how you introduced compulsion? Also for my own curiosity, whats the difference between "saying no" to a desire (your words) and ignoring a desire? You introduced compulsion, I was under the impression that compulsion just meant you acted without choice (Which as you surely know is the very subject of this debate) so of course I said that desire and compulsion were the same thing. I was mistaken about the definition of compulsion and I'll admit that. But if that is the definition of compulsion then it has no place in this debate, because I believe that all of my actions are without choice, and yet nearly all of my actions are not 'irrational' as the definition of compulsion states. So either compulsion means something that drives action without choice, in which case I was using it correctly. Or compulsion means something that drives irrational action without choice, in which case it has no place in this debate because to say that I as a determinism think all action is irrational would be a strawman. You misunderstand me then. This would be a lot simpler if you were familiar with praxeology, so give me a second to try and explain. If you are thirsty, you desire water more than you would if you were not thirsty. You walk to the kitchen and drink water, and the circumstances have changed, you are no longer thirsty, your desire for water changes. Desires come and go, they change constantly. This can be inferred from the initial assumption I made in my argument "when a person acts, they pursues their most highly valued (or desired) ends through what they believe to be the most appropriate means." The value you place on water increases when you are thirsty, and decreases when you are not thirsty. Same thing applies to dogs. When he sates his thirst, his desires change, and thus his actions change as a result. If you think that your desire for a cookie doesn't change after eating a cookie, then look up marginal utility. " I made an argument demonstrating the actual relevant distinction between humans and animals. I didn't just say "We're more complex, therefore...X". Complexity tells me nothing. " It is plainly obvious that human desires are more complex than that of a dog. Do I really need to argue that human desires are more complex than that of a dog or a mouse? Please. Which was my original claim of complexity. You asserted that the key difference was choice (again, the thing we're arguing about?) "As for choosing the NAP, yes I know there are lot's of drivers behind it but there's also me who navigated that sea of desires and preferences. I have some degree of volition that shapes my desires, etc. " To say that "I have some degree of volition that shapes my desire" is to simply say you have choice over your desires. If your argument is assertion then I can simply assert "nuh uh!". Assertions are not arguments. As for choosing the nap, you gave this as an example of a desire you chose, I asked you what drove this choice and was it some desire to be inline with what you believe to be the truth, your response is that there were lots of drivers behind it, but that there was totally some choice there! please explain the choice, how did you CHOOSE it? Weather is an easy one. Also check this out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory From the wiki page: Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[2] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[3] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[4][5] PS: I had to cut out some quote blocks to make the system allow me to post, sorry for the reduced readability. I put those quotes from teabag in italics.

Read what I wrote. If you read my post you would see that A.) I already admitted I don't know. B.) I gave reasons/arguments why I believe this and think it is a reasonable thing to believe. C.) Pointed out that beliefs require no justification.

MY stance is that humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge. This I believe is the strong form of epistemological nihilism, the weak form being 'there is no truth' which I am not defending, and I do not believe. Knowledge is a justified true belief. With each of the three components being necessary but not sufficient for knowledge. IF you do not believe it, then you do not know it. If it is false, then you do not know it. And most importantly, if you are not justified in believing it, you do not know it. For example if you 'know' that tomorrows powerball numbers will be 1, 15, 17, 22, 34 and then tomorrow we learn that those were in fact the powerball numbers and we ask you how you knew and you say "well I just sort of had a feeling I guess" then it cannot be said that you actually have knowledge. The justification is the biggest problem, in my opinion, with knowledge. Because any piece of knowledge needs justification, and any justification is going to be another claim of knowledge. Eventually you will end up getting to a point where you have to admit that you do not know, or you admit that you simply assume that it is the case. This means that all claims of knowledge, if they are founded on anything at all, are ultimately founded on assumptions. Assumptions are by definition something that we cannot know, they are things we have no evidence of, no proof for, and we just accept it as true because it is convenient for us to do so. Some of the basal assumptions that we try to build knowledge on may include things like 'the universe exists' and 'I exist' and 'my senses are fairly trustworthy' and 'my memory is fairly trustworthy' etc. These are all fine assumptions, there are assumptions that I make as well. But when these assumptions are the basis of your knowledge then you cannot claim that you actually know the thing. Because justification needs further justification, there is a recursion problem with knowledge as a whole. Truth has no recursion problem, because statements are true or false, independent of us. Even if nobody believed that the earth was round, it would still be round and "The Earth is round." would still be true. Belief has no recursion problem either, as believe requires no justification. As someone in chat pointed out, this means that anyone can believe anything for any reason. Sure. Why not. I don't see any problem with this, you are free to believe that the earth is flat for instance, it's just that you are wrong. (How do I know? I don't, but I am fairly confident.)

I didnt define desire that way, I gave an argument to demonstrate that desires are not chosen. You cannot choose to desire something you previously, just a moment ago, abhored. It's that simple. I avoided using the word value because people often confuse value in the sense that I mean (like, I value a grilled cheese sandwich) with value like "honesty" or "integrity". These are two different definitions of value. I am talking about the grilled cheese sandwich version, which is more or less the same thing as desire. oh? Because that seems to be what you are saying here, that your past choices is what allow your desire for good health to win out over delicious cookie. Humans can say no to their desires? How? I don't believe so. We just have a more complex system of desires. So some desires (like a desire for food) can be ignored in the name of a stronger desire (like a desire for health) To say that we can ignore our desires is to assert the point we are arguing here. Compulsion is just a really strong desire. when we speak of desires and compulsions we're not speaking of different things but rather different magnitudes. And of course I think desires are similar to compulsions, and they preclude choice... thats what we're arguing about. Sure he does, at some point he does not want any more water, it';s right there, he can have more, but he does not want more, he does not desire it, he would rather do something else, his desires changed. He wanted to alleviate his unease that resulted from thirst, he did so, now he wants to do something else. It's a perfectly valid comparison. Funny given that you gave that reason earlier, and I quote. "Yeah we're animals technically but there's a valid distinction between a human animals and a non-humans one in terms of conceptual ability and rationality. That's the vital difference. Animals are compelled by their desires and lack the capacity to say no. Humans have such desires but can say no (or yes I guess). Hence the choice." So it's not okay for me to simply point to our complexity as an explanation for why our hierarchy of values (of desires) are much more complex, but it's okay for you to point to it to show that we have choice? Okay you choose the NAP and value making choices that do not violate it. How did you choose the NAP? Was it that you desired to be in line with the truth and with reason and someone presented an argument that made you believe that abiding by the nap would be the proper path for you to take to act in line with truth and reason? Because there must have been some reason that you choose the NAP, and if there was a rationality behind your 'choice' then it stands to reason that you were compelled in that direction. You had a belief, you had a desire, and that resulted in action towards that goal, that desire, that value. There were mental processes at work that concluded with you accepting the NAP as your lord and savior, that culminated in your self sacrifice towards that ideal. Are these mental processes 'choice'? did you really have free will in selecting the NAP?

Funny that you accuse me of begging the question, then define desire as "something you have choice over" Is that not begging the question? Of course desires are in a hierarchy. Your actions betray your values, they reveal your values. When you act towards end X, you express that you value X, and since when you make a decision you necessarily forsake other options it can be inferred that you value what you act towards more than that which you did not act towards. If you're familiar at all with praxeology this should be very familiar. And to say that your desires are in part contingent on your past actions does not say that they are chosen, because in order to conclude from this that they are chosen, you must assume that your past actions are chosen, but we cannot assume that because that is what we are debating. Animals are compelled by desire, and we are animals are we not? Just because our desires are more complicated and are beyond just food shelter water and fucking, doesn't mean that we are not compelled by our desires. Every action is towards a desired goal. In that sense every action is compelled by that desire. Even the action of refraining from eating a delicious, hot, fresh baked, steaming, chocolate chip cookie. It is necessarily true that the action of refrain is set after some end goal, some desire. Our desires change over time, sure, but so do those of animals, as evidenced by the fact that if you give a dog water, he wont sit there and drink it forever, eventually he is satiated and he leaves to do something else. We just have more complex desires because we have more complex minds, more complex social situations, etc. etc. And you still haven't given a single example of a desire you chose. If it is so plentiful, then it should be easy.

I did give you an argument that suggests that choice is an illusion, you dismissed it by saying that the conclusion doesnt follow (and still, have yet to explain how the conclusion doesn't follow) as for the desires being chosen aspect, I already rebutted your 'rebuttal'. By simply pointing out that claiming correctly that we have multiple desires does not show in any way that we choose our desires. Also who knew "I dont like you!" was an argument. Because it seems firmly rooted in the "not an argument" territory. Also trust me, I dont do ANYTHING for YOUR benefit, just mine. I'm really really selfish like that. See I know this is going to come as a shock, but the truth is a useful tool, the better you understand the world the better you are able to move through it to get what you want. If I am wrong about something, I want someone to tell me. How better to learn that I am wrong about something then to engage in arguments? Of course you have utterly failed to demonstrate that I am wrong about anything on any front. You are too busy grandstanding, sitting on your high horse and acting like I am beneath you. Yes your desires change over time, as a result of your choice? I doubt it. And just because you decide to eat broccoli rather than a cookie, doesn't mean you are choosing to go against your desires. Why did you eat the broccoli, because you know it is healthier for you and you desire to be healthy? Also this isn't a strawman at all, if you refer to my argument in post #150 you will see how if you are unable to choose your desires, and you are unable to choose your beliefs, then you are unable to choose your actions. If you cannot choose your actions, then where is the free will? I asked for a single example in which you choose your desires, or your beliefs, and you cannot give them to me except examples in which you decided to go against 1 desire in the name of a second stronger desire (EG: deciding to eat healthy food) And if we choose on standards other than desire, what standards are those? If you mean for example that we may desire to steal and we refrain because we choose our action on a standard of morality rather than raw desire, can it not be said that you decided to act morally because you DESIRED to be moral? Morality doesn't compel you to act morally. What standard could we possibly decided on other than desire. Any standard we decide on merely betrays the fact that we desire to be in line with that standard!

You say you've rebutted something, but wont say where, insist I haven't read the thread (it's 5 pages, I have, but I cannot recall every post on every page) and I wasn't about to re-read them all. I asked you where you allegedly rebutted my argument and you wont tell me, you finally do now, and then act as though I simply can never be pleased, you as though you plainly presented me your rebuttal and I ignored it, but that is simply not the case and you know it. Saying that you have multiple desires doesn't prove that you choose your desires. Simply because you want an apple, and you want an orange, doesn't mean that you chose either desire. You desire the orange more than the apple, and you're at the store and they cost a dollar and you only have $1 you decide to buy the orange. You've read Rothbard or Mises most likely, so you know how scales of preferences work. Just because you decide to try to obtain a higher order desire doesn't mean that you are making a choice. Additionally, you've claimed my argument's conclusions don't follow from the premises. But you haven't explained how at all. Can you give a single example of a time in which you choose to belief something you believed was false before. This isn't to say that someone changed your mind, that someone presented you with new evidence, or an argument, or some new info that made you change your mind. Can you give a single example of a time in which you choose your desires? For example if you cookies and hate broccoli and you wake up some day and desire broccoli rather than cookies, and you did so because you desire to be more healthy. This isn't choosing your desires. You desired health more than you desired cookies. An example where you decide to do something in contrast to a lower order desire in order to try to obtain a higher order desire does not demonstrate choice in desires. PS: there was another one of my posts that must have been swallowed by the FDR board, It said it required admin approval, and then it never appeared.

Ordained implies that something chose to order something. It implies a plan, a goal. etc. You are using words that have connotations of magical thinking, subtlety grouping my position in with them. I'm not going to imagine that this is intentional on your part. But lets look at what this would look like if you swapped ordained (as if by god or some ruler) with caused. "Let's boil it down to this: a particular critter is the result of trillions of molecular interactions that came previous to its existence. A particular choice is the result of trillions of molecular interactions (termed "stimuli") that came previous to its existence. Does that mean that a particular critter was caused by the universe? Does this mean that a particular result of a choice is caused in the universe? " See how this one word makes a world of difference in how it comes across? Also yes. It does mean that it was cased by the universe (or rather, the events preceding it, and the laws of physics and what not) A system may be deterministic and unpredictable, there is no contradiction there. Also I don't know if feeling that something is the case is really evidence that it is actually the case. This sort of logic seems kin with the sort of logic that some Christians might give to justify their belief that god exists. That they have a subjective internal experience of a personal relationship with 'our lord and savior' jesus christ. The mind is obviously capable of tricking itself in a number of ways. Do you have any reason to believe that choice is not just another one of these ways? Because thats not an argument that is an assertion. It doesn't require refutation. He is just saying that his definition of free will is "a true and accurate description of events" If that is an argument, then so is "NUH UH!". If that is an argument then so is "god exists is a true and accurate description of reality" Nobody would accept this as an argument, and yet you are here presenting this as an argument that needs to be rebutted? And again, it rests on a subjective experience of having rationality? How does this demonstrate that choice exists? How does it demonstrate anything other than simply that you FEEL as though choice exists? Because if simply feeling as though something is real is enough for you, then you are in the same sinking ship as the Christians are. And lastly I will also point out that you quoted my post, but didn't address anything I said in it. I pointed out that it is not self contradictory for a determinist to engage in an argument because a determinist can easily believe that arguments qualify as stimuli, and thus people who hear arguments have their decisions altered. You complain about how nothing ever changes in this debate, you assert that determinsts are arguing for determinism is self contradictory, and then when I explain why you act as though I didnt say anything about it. Could it be that you are partly responsible for the lack of change in this debate? Also I provided a unique argument from praxeology for determinism (Post #150), I believe it to be original to me, (by which I mean, I came up with it, I have never seen anyone else use it before, but that doesnt mean that nobody else has used it before and I simply haven't seen it), and what do you post AFTER that? That the debate is the same old thing over and over again.