Philosophy Discussion Forums

No, my answer to your question was already in the quote you snipped. It was your error and your response was downright Trumpish in its defensiveness and belligerence.

It appears that you have never suddenly noticed in adulthood that you had operated with unconscious beliefs all your life. I had wrongly assumed that such realisations were universal. Have you ever doubted yourself or your ideas, or have you always been convinced of your correctness in all things?

Greta wrote: ↑April 17th, 2020, 11:42 pm No, my answer to your question was already in the quote you snipped.

No it wasn't. Writing "Remember the Jesuit claim1 'give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man'. Conditioning of the young mind to hold automatic beliefs in maturity" isn't evidence of unconscious beliefs!

LOL

That's simply a further claim that there are unconscious beliefs. I'm asking for EVIDENCE of unconscious beliefs, or at least good reasons to buy that there are unconscious beliefs.

It appears that you have never suddenly noticed in adulthood that you had operated with unconscious beliefs all your life.

Again this is simply a claim that there are such things. I'm asking for evidence that there are such things.

I had wrongly assumed that such realisations were universal. Have you ever doubted yourself or your ideas,

Of course. But what is that supposed to have to do with there being evidence of unconscious beliefs?

I am unconsciously racist, despite my conscious abhorrence of it, because I unconsciously absorbed those attitudes from the toxic (UK) culture I grew up in. Is that an 'unconscious belief'?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 11:00 am I am unconsciously racist, despite my conscious abhorrence of it, because I unconsciously absorbed those attitudes from the toxic (UK) culture I grew up in. Is that an 'unconscious belief'?

Right. So what would be any evidence of you having unconscious racist beliefs?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 17th, 2020, 11:37 am

h_k_s wrote: ↑April 16th, 2020, 11:21 am Harvesting trees and plants is a right of the land owner under common, Federal/National, State/provincial, and local law.

h_k_s wrote: ↑April 16th, 2020, 11:25 am Plants are fodder for animals. That hardly suggests a notion of equality. Everything occupies a different level on the food chain.

The ownership of land, and the 'right' to harvest plants, are human inventions. Your responses seem to show an antipathy toward other living things, a belief that all of these other lives are there exclusively for humans to [ab]use as they see fit. Sadly this leads to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter if plants are alive or not, or if they are in any sense on a moral par with animals. All of them are there for you, and the many, many humans who share your view, to use as you see fit. To you, I suggest, this topic has neither use nor meaning. Is that about right? 😐

I love animals, and plants, and trees, and the Earth, and the sky, and the oceans and seas and lakes and rivers, and streams, actually.

I participate in feral rescue, and Earth cleanup day, and I pass out blankets to the homeless. So I put my money where my mouth is.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

h_k_s wrote: ↑April 16th, 2020, 9:00 pm

Sorry @Terrapin Station but I don't agree that one is a subset of the other, either way.

"Belief" is more of a notion somewhere on the scale or continuum of understanding:

- guess
- suspicion
- idea
- assumption
- belief
- knowledge
- understanding
- proof

Here, a "guess," "suspicion," "idea," "assumption," and "belief" are simply unfounded notions.

Whereas "knowledge," "understanding," and "proof" are certain and well founded.

You know you parked your car somewhere.

You guess it is still where you parked it.

You suspect that nobody has moved it or taken it away.

You have an idea of where you parked it.

You are assuming it is still there.

You have a belief that it is safe there and still there.

But you don't know and you have no proof at the moment.

You won't know until you go back and find it in the same place.

And even then you can only assume it has not moved since you parked it there.

Semantics, I know, but there are very subtle differences in the meanings and usages of these precise words.

Do you think it makes sense to say, "I know that 2+2=4, but I don't believe that 2+2=4"?

If you met someone in a bar, where you were having a casual conversation with them, and they said, "I don't believe that 2+2=4," you wouldn't think, "Wait a minute--you don't believe that 2+2=4?!?!? What do you think that 2+2 equals?"

Math is often overrated by humans especially those calling themselves or thinking they are philosophers.

And hopefully you know that 2 + 2 = 11 in the Base of 3.

You knew that I hope.

Or not?

If not, here is the base of 3:

0
1
2
10
11
etc.

h_k_s wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 5:22 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

Do you think it makes sense to say, "I know that 2+2=4, but I don't believe that 2+2=4"?

If you met someone in a bar, where you were having a casual conversation with them, and they said, "I don't believe that 2+2=4," you wouldn't think, "Wait a minute--you don't believe that 2+2=4?!?!? What do you think that 2+2 equals?"

Math is often overrated by humans especially those calling themselves or thinking they are philosophers.

And hopefully you know that 2 + 2 = 11 in the Base of 3.

You knew that I hope.

Or not?

If not, here is the base of 3:

0
1
2
10
11
etc.

What would have been interesting to me is if you'd taken a minute to think about an answer "Do you think it makes sense to say, 'I know that 2+2=4, but I don't believe that 2+2=4'?"

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 5:56 pm
What would have been interesting to me is if you'd taken a minute to think about an answer "Do you think it makes sense to say, 'I know that 2+2=4, but I don't believe that 2+2=4'?"

Yes it does make sense, as long as you realise that "I do not believe" is not the same as "I believe that 2+2 is not 4".

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 10:10 am

Greta wrote: ↑April 17th, 2020, 11:42 pm No, my answer to your question was already in the quote you snipped.

No it wasn't. Writing "Remember the Jesuit claim1 'give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man'. Conditioning of the young mind to hold automatic beliefs in maturity" isn't evidence of unconscious beliefs!

LOL

That's simply a further claim that there are unconscious beliefs. I'm asking for EVIDENCE of unconscious beliefs, or at least good reasons to buy that there are unconscious beliefs.

It appears that you have never suddenly noticed in adulthood that you had operated with unconscious beliefs all your life.

Again this is simply a claim that there are such things. I'm asking for evidence that there are such things.

I had wrongly assumed that such realisations were universal. Have you ever doubted yourself or your ideas,

Of course. But what is that supposed to have to do with there being evidence of unconscious beliefs?

Well played, shame there was no content.

Do you, or do you not, believe that it is possible to conditioning a young child's mind to hold unconscious beliefs in adulthood?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 5:56 pm

h_k_s wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 5:22 pm
Math is often overrated by humans especially those calling themselves or thinking they are philosophers.

And hopefully you know that 2 + 2 = 11 in the Base of 3.

You knew that I hope.

Or not?

If not, here is the base of 3:

0
1
2
10
11
etc.

What would have been interesting to me is if you'd taken a minute to think about an answer "Do you think it makes sense to say, 'I know that 2+2=4, but I don't believe that 2+2=4'?"

I have tried to illustrate to you how math is an irrelevant illustration/metaphor/simile/model for the principles of philosophy.

You're not getting it though. So then just take my word for it.

Try to frame your query another way however:

"I know that … but I don't believe it."

Think of something else. Something in the real world.

Math is simply imaginary within the minds of humans and does not really exist. It is solely based on definitions alone.

So try again Terrapin Station .

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 7:27 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 5:56 pm
What would have been interesting to me is if you'd taken a minute to think about an answer "Do you think it makes sense to say, 'I know that 2+2=4, but I don't believe that 2+2=4'?"

Yes it does make sense, as long as you realise that "I do not believe" is not the same as "I believe that 2+2 is not 4".

Right, and if you met someone in a bar, where you were having a casual conversation with them, and they said, "I don't believe that 2+2=4," you wouldn't think, "Wait a minute--you don't believe that 2+2=4?!?!? What do you think that 2+2 equals?"

(I expect you'll say "yes," but I also suspect that you'll be lying and/or you don't understand how to use English very well.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 19th, 2020, 9:05 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 18th, 2020, 7:27 pm

Yes it does make sense, as long as you realise that "I do not believe" is not the same as "I believe that 2+2 is not 4".

Right, and if you met someone in a bar, where you were having a casual conversation with them, and they said, "I don't believe that 2+2=4," you wouldn't think, "Wait a minute--you don't believe that 2+2=4?!?!? What do you think that 2+2 equals?"

(I expect you'll say "yes," but I also suspect that you'll be lying and/or you don't understand how to use English very well.)

I think you've lost the plot.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 15th, 2020, 5:48 pm

arjand wrote: ↑April 13th, 2020, 5:11 am Recent scientific discoveries increasingly indicate that plants are intelligent creatures

Why stop at plants.
I've heard that Covid -19 is considered to the pretty smart too.
Surely it has a moral right to survive?
Why should not all Corona Viruses not get free school meals, and legal aid?

Of plants it is said that they are capable of meaningful interaction (talking) and that they are essentially slow animals with a 'self'. A virus may play a vital role in nature, and as such deserve moral consideration, however, I do not see an argument to consider viruses to deserve a moral status similar to that of an animal.

A user on this forum recently argued that it would be no problem to eradicate the mosquito from Earth, the reason being that it is the worlds deadliest animal for humans.

It is not the mosquito itself that is deadly but the microbes that it transfers.

Mosquitoes grow in swamps and are critical to the perpetuation of diverse microbes. Some (such as the agents of malaria, filariasis, and arboviruses as dengue) infect and burden human beings and other vertebrates but there are also many good microbes.

The word ‘microbe’ sounds scary — we associate them with the flu, ebola, flesh-eating disease, you name it. But microbiologist Dr. Jonathan Eisen has given an illuminating TEDTalk that will make you put down the hand sanitizer. As Eisen explains, “We are covered in a cloud of microbes and these microbes actually do us good much of the time rather than killing us.”

https://blog.ted.com/6-great-things-microbes-do-for-us/

Microbes outnumber human cells in individual humans. There are 10 times as many microbial cells in the human body as there are human cells. Without the microbes, the human could not live.

Recent studies show that viruses are a vital part of the human microbiome as well.

Viruses: You've heard the bad; here's the good
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 170750.htm

What is the purpose of a virus? Perhaps the question is important and a lack of answer today should not imply that an answer is not possible.

With regard to morality: at question is general morality (i.e. a base level of respect) and whether plants deserve a level of morality comparable with that of an animal in general.

Humanity is of the highest value to humanity. In its fight to survive humanity will value aspects of its environment in relation to itself, including animals, plants and viruses. As a result, tigers have been forced away from cities so that the human can prosper. Equally, humans will intend to force viruses away and maintain hygiene to prevent disease.

At question is: what methods should be used and are moral considerations applicable? Should the tiger or virus be eradicated from Earth? Or should there be a base level of respect by which the tiger and virus can fulfill their potentially vital purpose in nature?

Should the human wash their hands with antibacterial hand soap to clean their hands of all bacteria, with as a result the requirement for ever stronger antibacterial soap, or should it choose a different method?

There are different options for a cultural strategy. The individual human has fears, but the human can also be courageous in favor of humanity or derive strength (and happiness) out of struggle.

In my opinion, some of the vital purposes that an animal or microbe fulfills in Nature may be hidden for hundreds or thousands of years. The human perspective on its environment may be very limited.

When humans would choose to fight off bacteria and viruses with chemicals out of a scare for diseases that it has "seen", it essentially creates a chemical barrier behind which the human stays behind weak. The danger of its environment will grow in time. Evidence for the problem can be seen in drug-resistant "Super Bacteria" that pose a threat to human existence.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria could wipe out human race before climate change
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/a ... t-19034176

Perhaps there are other methods. There may be strategies in which bacteria and viruses may become part of the human microbiome and become "friends" for the future of the human. (together for a stronger human, a shared purpose).

At question is: do plants in general deserve a similar moral status as an animal in general if it is said that plants have a 'self' and are capable of meaningful interaction with animals?

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 7:01 am Of plants it is said that they are capable of meaningful interaction (talking) and that they are essentially slow animals with a 'self'.

It is said (presumably non-metaphorically, otherwise it would be irrelevant) by whom, and on what justificational basis?

What moral status does "animal" have?

Also, if human beings want to live, then they need to eat. So, they like every other species is going to kill and eat what they need to keep living anyway. No matter what supposed "moral status" a thing has been given by human beings.

Human beings have been given "moral status". But human beings are still going to eat human beings if they need to, and want to, keep living.