Watching The Dominion

[zurew]

@Marcel Again the way to do this in a reasonable way is by starting with laying out a clear definition for what you mean by justification and knowing and from that it will follow the answer to the "how do you know" question and then to the "how do you actually know" question. But until then because of the ambiguity in the question, you cant expect a quality answer.

The "how do you know" question can be unreasonable to ask, depending on what you mean by "know" because it can lead to a category error.

17 minutes ago, Marcel said:

I do suppose, assumptions often have to be made for sheer efficiency sake. Because how can you check every possible option and on top of that, how can we all agree on which methodology to use?

Again there is nothing wrong with questioning if its done in a good faith way. As long as you are honest about the entailments of being skeptical of certain things, you are good.

"How can we agree on things" Is one of the toughest questions philosophy deals with - but in general the following is enough to solve most problems:

 We need to clarify what our goal is and then that goal will outline a common ground  and a context we can work in. For example, if our goal is to check how to make the most money - once we share the semantics of what we mean by making money - we can develop a set of methods and then empirically check which method will lead to better results with respect to our shared goal.

[El Zapato]

I consider nature's first and foremost mistake was the need for predation. In fact, the scientific process describes microbial lifecycle as literally...predation.

[Marcel]

@zurew

Yes I agree. My whole point throughout this entire thread was, that the question of knowing and how to know is not easily achieved, a given or obvious, let alone agreed upon. 

Also. I expected exactly that of my previous discussion partner, to actually question what he wrote and why ( his approach ) but he just kept on calling me naive for doing so. 

I subsequently cut the discussion short. Since I saw no way to progress any further. 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Marcel

[Basman]

2 hours ago, El Zapato said:

I consider nature's first and foremost mistake was the need for predation. In fact, the scientific process describes microbial lifecycle as literally...predation.

Its not a mistake. Its how you survive and maintain form. Its not possible to maintain form without taking energy from somewhere else in this finite world we live in.

Predation is essentially just the transference of energy from one form to another. Even at the base of the food chain, the sun's energy is being drained by photosynthesizing organisms.

[Basman]

3 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Once lab meat is safe according to studies. I might move to that.

 

That would be nice but it would likely be more expensive than normal meat and stay that way as a niche alternative, just like soy meat.

Problem with lab meat is that you are doing everything manually that a cow does effortlessly just from eating feed. It will always be more expensive and complicated to produce than a regular ass cow.

[Scholar]

11 hours ago, Marcel said:

I never said that that there is a „connection“ between the two and I also never said they are the same. Even in my first response to you I said: „If such a thing as plant consciousness even exists …“ 

I said if. And not „it definitely exists and here are my arguments for it“

All I’m doing is actually questioning stuff, which you somehow twist into me being naive and now also mindless, unreflected and stupid. 

Seems any discussion with you is futile, if you are not going to take any inquiry seriously.

I hear all of your points and appreciate you taking the time to type them out. I just dig deeper and don’t just settle, because as you said to me in your very  first response:

 „It is obvious, when you think about it  for a few seconds“

Could you scream ignorance and intellectual laziness any louder?

Again. How can you definitively know?

What makes you so dead certain that your baseline theory is absolutely correct and has no flaws whatsoever?

You are completely unwilling to actually question it, which means you are acting on assumption and faith.

Not actual understanding. 

By the way. Assumption implies I made a point and postulated something, which I didn’t. I simply asked questions, which somehow triggered you, given that you haven’t mentioned a single assumption I presumably made and resorted to describing the mere act of questioning as unreflected and stupid.

You don’t even know which position I actually have, regarding the topics of plants feeling pain and them being conscious or not. 

Since you are evidently unserious, unkind and also uninterested in an actual inquiry. I will end this discussion with you here.

Im always glad to converse with people who are so free of any bias and openminded like you.

Best Regards. 
Marcel

I'm not going to repeat what I just said, you literally didn't respond to it and pretended like I never corrected you about your bad faith interpretation of what you think I claimed.