Cidat

If we had total free will, it would invalidate all scientific knowledge about human behavior since there would be nothing fixed in our behavior.

I'd say that if we have free will, it's very limited. Otherwise it would be an insult to those low-functioning autists and anorexics. It would mean th...

The solution is to accept the trilemma as unsolvable and instead work with knowledge in terms of conjecture and criticism.

Don't we experience change while we're asleep? Reality must keep track of all other organisms' state and location.

Free will is the ability to make choices not determined by determinism or randomness.

I don't know if there is free will or not, but I'm leaning towards it not existing. It logically doesn't make sense to try to explain how free will ca...

You can't prove anything without assumptions.

I think knowledge could be defined as "Beliefs based on highly-tested perception" or "The best explanation for sensory evidence."

Free will does not exist. Studies have shown that our brains make decisions before they reach our consciousness. If you had free will, you'd be aware ...

Karl Popper's suggestion was to throw away certainty from knowledge and work with knowledge in terms of probability. Basically, we are justified in be...

Perhaps we may define knowledge as "Beliefs based on rigorously tested sensory beliefs"?

Nihilists reject some general aspect of human existence, such as knowledge, meaning or morality.

I get it. Knowledge should be seen as a pragmatic tool to help us navigate.

What I wanted to do was find a solid way of forming knowledge. Pragmatism appears to be the answer.

This is a pragmatic approach to knowledge. But perhaps it's the only working epistemic theory.

Science is by definition falsifiable theories, so defining knowledge as "unfalsifiable information" leaves no room for science-based knowledge.

What about science though? If you define knowledge as unfalsifiable information, then science is out of the window.

The problem with determinism is that it cannot explain the beginning of everything.

I suppose common sense is necessary so there aren't too many questions. We need to move on / navigate smoothly enough.

Accept that certainty is impossible. Its' the same for everyone.

You can't ever be sure you won't do anything insane before you die. But being insane means doing things no one in their right mind would do. For examp...

In order to discuss God's existence you need to agree on some of its traits.

I'd define knowledge as "mental awareness of objective truth".

Yeah. You can't guarantee you won't do something extremely stupid.

Discussion requires agreement. Without agreement, nobody knows what anyone is talking about.

So there is no absolute, objective science for any sport? What about athletics, such as high jump and running?

Basically, that which you are forced to accept.

Bad.

If there is no such thing as objective good or bad, then anyone is free to procreate. But otherwise, I'd say yes, to prevent suffering and cruelty in ...

Mind-body dualism? But yeah thinking certainly has a physical presence/existence.

A fact is a socially accepted idea about others and right or wrong and our physical existences.

Every thought has a physiological reaction in the brain, and mental things such as mental stress and mental suffering can affect the body, leading me ...

Schadenfreude is sadism in English.

Yes, given how poorly mental healthcare works without state involvement.

Free will has nothing to do with meaning of life.

I appreciate your honesty, because humans tend to be defensive with regards to deep questions as though They’re significant. The only thing that makes...

Everything has an ultimate nature. The question is How predictable human behavior in the physical world is If you assume nothing about a particilar in...

Humans are very order-less :D

But you say we’re not completely random-oriented in nature.

I see. So there is no fixed way in Which all humans behave.

It's one thing for something to be true, but another to know it's true. I can believe I exist, and it may be objectively true, without actually consci...

Many probably have landed at absolute truths, but they probably either cannot communicate them or separate them from non-absolutely-true beliefs.

There is something called Agrippa’s (or Münchhausen’s) trilemma which states that any justification of truth is endless unless you accept the circular...

The sad thing is, nothing can be truly justified. All of our beliefs are essentially just a result of randomness. We may be objectively certain of our...

The solution is to accept the foundational argument: an assumption that is accepted as true without proof. Nobody has come up with a compelling way to...

Even if we make casuality-independent decisions, I feel we should not blame others for making bad decisions. Bad decisions happen, even though we have...

One can choose an evil path through life even though he/she possesses free will.

I believe we make decisions (not necessarily all ones) free from causation as well.

Just to confirm, you mean it influenced you partially, but not entirely? I.e. there are parts of your decision-making that are not a consequence of ea...

Was everything you’ve done in your life, up until now, a result of events that happened before it? Or is part of our decision-making free from the pas...